The following is a slightly shortened version of a BBC Portuguese-language report on a carefully conducted study published in 2020, which has been largely overlooked till now. The study shows that glyphosate contamination of water, driven by expanded GM soy production, leads to a large increase in infant mortality, as well as a higher probability of low birth weight and a higher probability of premature births.
Glyphosate is the most popular pesticide in Brazil. It represents 62% of the total herbicides used in the country and, in 2016, sales of this chemical in thousands of tons were higher than the sum of the seven other pesticides most commercialised in the national territory.
Used on GM glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, the herbicide contributed to Brazil becoming the largest producer of the grain in the world, surpassing the United States.
As a result, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of soy-producing states has grown far above the economy of the country as a whole in recent decades. And the income generated by agricultural activity has stimulated other economic sectors in the producing regions.
But the new study, carried out by researchers at the universities of Princeton, FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Insper, reveals that this generation of wealth has a high cost. According to the study, the spraying of glyphosate on soybean crops led to a 5% increase in infant mortality in southern and central-western municipalities that receive water from soybean regions.
This represents a total of 503 more infant deaths per year associated with the use of glyphosate in soy production.
“There is great concern about the effects of herbicides on populations that are not directly involved in agriculture, who are not directly exposed to pesticides,” Rodrigo Soares, full professor at the Lemann Foundation Chair at Insper and one of the authors of the study, alongside Mateus Dias (Princeton) and Rudi Rocha (FGV), told the BBC.
“Although these substances are present in the body of more than 50% of the western population, we do not know if this is harmful or not,” added the researcher.
“Our article is one of the first to credibly show that this should indeed be a concern, as it demonstrates contamination through watercourses in areas far from the areas of use, in a way that has never been done before.”
Bayer, owner of Monsanto since 2018 – the company that launched glyphosate on the market in 1974, under the trade name Roundup – assesses the study as “unreliable and poorly conducted” and says the safety of its products is the highest priority of the company.
Aprosoja (Brazilian Association of Soy Producers), in turn, states that “the conclusions pointed out in the study do not seem to be supported by the scientific facts and reality found in the practice of Brazilian agriculture”.
Finally, CropLife Brasil, which represents the pesticide sector in the country, said that “for more than 40 years, glyphosate has undergone extensive safety tests, including 15 studies to assess the potential toxicity to human development and 10 studies to assess potential reproductive toxicity”.
“Regulatory authorities in Brazil, Europe, the USA and around the world have reviewed these studies and concluded that glyphosate does not pose a risk to human development or human reproduction,” said the organisation.
The use of glyphosate in Brazil
The most widely used herbicide in the world today, glyphosate was discovered by Monsanto in 1970. The pesticide is used to eliminate weeds in agriculture, acting by blocking an enzyme that is part of the synthesis of essential amino acids for plant development.
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide – that is, it kills most plants. Because of this, it became widely used on crops genetically modified to resist the chemical, such as GM soybeans, marketed by Monsanto under the name Roundup Ready. Glyphosate herbicides were first sold by the company under the name Roundup. In 2000, however, the glyphosate patent expired, and the product is currently offered by several manufacturers under different trade names.
Genetically modified soy was first marketed by Monsanto in the United States in 1996.
In Brazil, a first authorization for use was granted in 1998, but was almost immediately suspended by the courts. In 2003, the government granted a temporary marketing authorization, which required the incineration of the remaining seeds to prevent their reuse in the following year.
In September of that year, a provisional measure allowed producers to reuse the seeds and, in October 2004, the temporary sale concession was renewed. Finally, in March 2005, the Biosafety Law permanently authorized the production and sale of transgenic soybean seeds.
The use of genetically modified soy has spread rapidly in Brazil since 2004, representing 93% of the grain-planted area in the mid-2010s, according to data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), cited by the study of researchers from Princeton, FGV and Insper.
Along with the productivity gain of the soybean crop, the use of glyphosate grew strongly in the country, more than tripling in volume between 2000 and 2010, from 39,500 tons to 127,600 tons.
Differences between Brazil and other countries
In the European Union, since 2015, there has been a wide debate about the possibility of banning the use of glyphosate, after a report by the International Cancer Research Agency (Iarc) that year classified the substance as “probable human carcinogen”, that is, as a possible cancer-causing agent.
In the United States, Bayer has already disbursed billions of dollars in deals to settle lawsuits over allegations that glyphosate causes cancer.
“In the European Union, unlike Brazil, the registration of pesticides is always for a finite time. Here, when a pesticide is registered, this registration is eternal, until it eventually comes to be questioned”, explains Alan Tygel, member of the coordination of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life.
In Europe, currently, the authorization for the use of glyphosate is valid until December 2022. Austria became the first country in the region to ban the product in 2019, while Germany plans to do without the herbicide from 2024.
Another important difference, according to the activist, concerns the maximum allowed value of concentration of the pesticide in water, so that it is considered suitable for human consumption.
“Brazilian water can be considered potable containing up to 500 micrograms of glyphosate per litre, while water in the European Union can have a maximum of 0.1 micrograms of glyphosate,” said Tygel. “So, the Brazilian limit is 5,000 times higher than the European Union limit.”
If these existing regulatory differences were not enough, Brazilian agribusiness has been pressing in recent years for the approval of the Bill of Law 6,299/2002, which eases the rules for inspection and application of pesticides.
In addition, within the federal government there has been a change in the correlation between forces opposed to and in favour of the use of pesticides.
“Until 2016, there was within the government a certain balance of forces between agribusiness, family farming and public policies to encourage agroecology,” said Tygel.
“From that year on, one of the first actions of the Michel Temer government [MDB] was to end the Ministry of Agrarian Development, which developed these organic agriculture policies. Since then, we have seen an exponential increase in the number of pesticide registrations,” he said.
In 2020 alone, Brazil approved the registration of 493 pesticides, the largest number ever documented by the Ministry of Agriculture, which has compiled this data since 2000.
Glyphosate and infant mortality
The authors of the study “Down the River: Glyphosate Use in Agriculture and Birth Outcomes of Surrounding Populations” say that they decided to study the relationship between pesticide and infant mortality due to the heated debate over the use of genetically modified seeds and their combination with herbicides.
“We thought the debate was very passionate and very uninformed,” says Rodrigo Soares, from Insper. “Then we realized that the expansion of GM soy in Brazil, mainly in the Midwest and the South, as it was very fast and very marked after the introduction of the GM seeds, could be an interesting context for analysis.”
The regulatory change that allowed the use of transgenic soybean seeds in Brazil has generated what is called in economics a “natural experiment” – an event brought about by external causes, which changes the environment in which individuals, families, companies or cities operate, and that makes it possible to compare groups affected and not affected by this event.
“One concern that existed is that there could be water contamination, since toxicological studies in the United States, Argentina and Brazil detected the presence of glyphosate in rivers, but in a one-off, non-systematic way,” says Soares.
“To evaluate this, we used information about the hydrographic basins in the country and the relative position of the municipalities – above or below areas of intensive use of glyphosate,” explained the researcher.
“It was a way of understanding how the expansion of the use of transgenic soy and glyphosate in a given municipality could affect the municipalities that receive water that passes through that region where pesticides are used.”
What the researchers did then was to analyze, for the period between 2004 and 2010, when the greatest expansion of transgenic soybean production occurred in Brazil and the use of glyphosate tripled, the birth statistics of these municipalities “downstream” from areas of use intensive herbicide.
“What we have shown is that there is a deterioration in health conditions at birth in these municipalities downstream from the municipalities that expanded soy production,” said the professor at Insper.
Within this deterioration in health conditions at birth are: a higher probability of low birth weight, a higher probability of premature births and – the most serious – an increase in infant mortality.
“We have also produced a series of other empirical analyzes to show that this was in fact associated with water and that this in fact appears to be associated with the expansion of soy.”
Isolating the effect of glyphosate
For example, comparing data from municipalities “downstream” with municipalities “upstream” – which therefore do not receive water that has passed through areas of use of glyphosate – the researchers find that municipalities “upstream” are not affected by this worsening of birth statistics.
The researchers also demonstrate that the negative effects on health outcomes at birth are particularly strong for pregnancies most exposed to the period of application of glyphosate, which in Brazil typically occurs between October and March, since soybeans are planted in the country between October and January.
The worsening of birth data is also greater when it rains more in the glyphosate application season, which the researchers showed by crossing health statistics with rainfall data. This finding is in line with the idea that more of the product reaches the rivers when soil erosion by rain is most significant.
Mateus Dias, a doctoral student at Princeton University and coauthor of Soares in the study, explained the researchers’ decision to analyse municipalities downstream and upstream, instead of the municipalities that apply the glyphosate itself.
“Glyphosate use has an impact on soybean productivity, and this may end up affecting child mortality in that municipality in other ways – for example, higher productivity can generate higher income and this will reduce child mortality,” he said.
The researchers also assessed whether the expansion of soybeans affected soil erodibility due to the advancement of agriculture over forested areas.
“We showed that this did not happen, because these areas that started to plant soy seem to have been pastures before, so there was no radical change in vegetation and consequently, there was no significant change in soil erodibility,” says Dias.
Study results may contribute to better regulation
According to the researchers, the objective of the study is not to “demonise” glyphosate, but to contribute to an improvement in public policies to regulate the use of pesticides in the country.
“We know what the use of agricultural substances in general has meant throughout human history – fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. They have indeed enabled a revolution in terms of agricultural production and, in the net result, I believe that the effect was very positive,” said Soares, from Insper.
“We only have the production we have today, with its impact on the price of food and on the populations involved in agriculture that benefit from productivity gains, because of these substances,” he adds.
“This does not mean that we should not be aware of the potential negative effects,” he saod, defending changes in the regulations for the use and management of pesticides and the protection of water courses and water tables.
Alan Tygel, of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life – created in 2011 and composed of more than a hundred social movements, trade unions and class entities, NGOs, cooperatives, universities and research institutions, has a more radical opinion.
“We believe that the central objective is in fact to end the use of these substances, especially since today there is no doubt about the technical capacity to produce food without the use of chemical and synthetic pesticides,” the activist said.
According to him, the campaign’s proposals are contained in a bill (PL 6670/2016), which institutes a National Pesticide Reduction Policy, with measures that range from the ban on aerial spraying, through state support for agroecology, to the ban on pesticides banned in their countries of origin and the end of tax exemptions for pesticides.
“We will fight for every small gain that we may have, because we know that each percentage less of pesticides used results in lives saved,” says Tygel.
“But we know that there is no possible coexistence between organic production and the massive use of pesticides. The path that we envision is a production model that can be adopted nationally and is totally free of pesticides and transgenics.”
— The study:
Down the river: Glyphosate use in agriculture and birth outcomes of surrounding populations
Mateus Dias, Rudi Rocha, Rodrigo R. Soares
Latin American and the Caribbean Economic Association
Dec 2020 http://vox.lacea.org/files/Working_Papers/lacea_wps_0024_dias_rocha_soares.pdf
You may be wondering what’s been happening to I.G. Farbensanto lately. It’s been a while since we’ve heard from, or about, them, so it may be worthwhile to newer readers to apprise them of whom we’re talking about. I.G. Farbensanto is our nickname for Big Agribusiness, and we used to call it Mon(ster)santo, until the big German chemical firm Bayer – a former component of I.G. Farben, the notorious German chemicals cartel that included not only Bayer, but BASR (also a still existing company, Badische Anilin und Soda-Fabrik) and some other companies – Bayer bought Monsanto (and Monsanto’s legal problems) a few years ago. Accordingly, we changed our nickname for Big Agribusiness to IG Farbensanto. Our other reason for the monikers was the dubious history of Big Agribusiness and its practices regarding GMOs, which I assume most readers here are familiar with.
The federal judge overseeing nationwide Roundup litigation on Wednesday denied Bayer’s latest attempt to limit its legal liability from future cancer claims associated with its glyphosate-based herbicides, citing numerous “glaring flaws” in a settlement proposed to apply to Roundup users who have not yet sued the company but may want to do so in the future.
Saying parts of the plan were “clearly unreasonable” and unfair to cancer sufferers who would be part of the class settlement, U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria castigated Bayer and the small group of lawyers who put the plan together in conjunction with Bayer.
He pointed out that the company has been “losing trials left and right” in claims brought by people suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides were the cause.
Bayer has owned Monsanto since 2018 and has been struggling to defend the cancer claims ever since. Cancer victims have won three trials held to date, and tens of thousands of other plaintiffs have filed lawsuits alleging exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused them to develop NHL while Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.
…
Judge Chhabria said in his decision that the company’s desire to set up a “science panel” to determine whether or not the herbicides actually cause cancer rather than leave that question to future juries is because of the trial losses the company has so far suffered.
The “reason Monsanto wants a science panel so badly is that the company has lost the ‘battle of the experts’ in three trials, the judge wrote in his order. “At present, the playing field on the issue of expert testimony related to causation is slanted heavily in favor of plaintiffs.”
Gee… fancy that. A multinational corporation which was formerly a part of I.G. Farben seeks to avoid legal liability for its products? Color me not surprised.
The article goes on to mention various other plans I.G. Farbensanto has for avoiding its mounting legal problems.
Here I have a suggestion for the I.G. Farbensanto board: why not take a page out of Big Pharma’s playbook, and invest heavily (and covertly) in gain-of-GMO-function research? This could easily be tied to quackcine research ala the suggestion of some scientific papers a few years ago where this very thing was being proposed: GMOs doubling as quackcines. With a few donations into the right pockets, one might be able to get the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization on board. At this point, you could hire a couple of Harvard chemistry professors, and locate your research facility in – oh, I don’t know, say, in Wuhan, China – and perhaps even be able to create a quackcine which is the “only” cure for a new kind of virus (that you could also support gain-of-function research into). Then you could use all of your influence on the propotainment media networks (which get lots of advertising revenue from you to begin with) to “fudge the numbers” a bit, and create a worldwide campaign of fear, while simultaneously getting your newly installed puppet in the White House to approve a slap-dash emergency GMO-quackcine approval plan (you could maybe call it Operation Warp Speed), bypassing the normal long-term trials, and, for good measure, exempting your firm from any liability for any “adverse GMO consumption reactions” because your new plants were rushed into production because the world was facing a crisis. On the way to achieving all this, you could also persuade your rubber glove company to support a campaign of food distancing, and wearing rubber gloves at all times, especially while dining. You could also persuade social media platforms to hire “fact checkers” in return for some carefully laundered donations, and censor any contrarian views. This way you won’t have to worry about any pesky lawsuits from whatever long-term effects of your products as might pop up in a few years.
In the meantime, one way to implement this would be to set up liaison committees with with various Big Pharma companies, to learn their techniques for avoiding legal liabilities for dubious products. While doing this, you could also donate heavily to the campaigns of Congressmen and Senators, and get special legislation passed to limit your liability, and establish “GMO courts” resembling “vaccine courts” to ensure that your liability is strictly limited.
Two years ago, in May 2019, I wrote an article titled Planetary Emergency, in which I explained what was about to happen to our world, listed the board members, chief officers and principal investors in SpaceX and OneWeb, and asked for help in reaching out to them. I wrote:
“Please contact me if you know any of the gentlemen or ladies I have listed, or if you know someone who can get us an audience with one of them. All we need is one. An opening into that community of billionaires, to begin a dialogue that will save this planet…
“All these people have families and children and have a stake in the future of the Earth. Some — for example, Kimbal Musk and his wife, Christiana — are long-time advocates for the environment and investors in environmental causes.”
In two years not a single person has answered that plea, and we are now only months away from global catastrophe. Below I will update you on the extraordinary escalation of the assault on the Earth’s life-giving envelope that is in progress, and I will renew my call for help.
March 24, 2021 and Beyond
Last month’s newsletter (Survey Results) contained a summary of about 1,000 emails I received from subscribers reporting sudden illness in themselves and their spouses, children, parents, neighbors, friends, coworkers, clients, cats, dogs, chickens, goats, and cows that I received from all over the world. On March 24-25, the first time that SpaceX and OneWeb both launched satellites on the same day, most people that I spoke with or heard from experienced similar, dramatic illness that came out of nowhere. Pain and itching all over their bodies, especially their legs, feet and head. Sudden increase in the ringing in their ears. Profound exhaustion and complete inability to sleep. Muscle spasms. Skin rashes. Stomach aches and diarrhea. Nosebleeds. Heart palpitations. Inflamed eyes. Ill temper, depression or suicidal thoughts.
In the following weeks it became clear that something extraordinary had happened, and is continuing to happen, not only to my friends and subscribers, and not only to people and their pets and farm animals.
In my newsletter of May 5, 2020 (The Evidence Mounts), I reported the sudden illness and deaths of thousands of blue tits and other small birds in Germany, in the Mosel River Valley and other areas with poor cell phone reception. They were described as “apathetic birds with breathing problems.” This occurred during March and April 2020, while Vodafone was upgrading its cell phone service in these regions from 2G to 4G LTE and building hundreds of new cell towers.
The German environmental organization NABU has been monitoring the health of these birds ever since and, like illnesses in the humans I heard from, blue tit deaths spiked in Germany beginning on March 25, 2021:
And lest anyone think that there aren’t animals that know what is going on, consider this report from a subscriber in Ireland:
“One of our cats now sometimes howls during the night, then takes my daughter upstairs, stands by the WiFi box demanding it’s turned off, then settles down to sleep.”
As I reported in my last newsletter, March 25 registered the second highest number of COVID-19 cases worldwide this year, and the fifth highest since the pandemic began.
There was a sudden spate of mass shootings in the U.S. in the news in March and April. A colleague asked me if that, too, had spiked on March 24 or 25. It had. The number of mass shootings rose suddenly on March 25 and remained high for three weeks. An average of 6 shootings involving 4 or more victims occurred every day between March 25 and April 13.
There were strange natural anomalies reported as well, that I cannot explain but neither can anyone else. A woman in Hoboken, New Jersey took this picture of worms arranging themselves in a great spiral on the sidewalk. It was on March 25, 2021:
And photographs of hundreds of unusually silent sheep, also arranged in a perfect spiral, were taken by by Christopher Hogg, a lecturer at Royal Holloway University, London on March 26, 2021:
SpaceX to Begin Commercial Service This Summer OneWeb to Begin Service by End of Year
Both SpaceX and OneWeb have announced that they plan to begin commercial service this year. They are both racing to convert the most beautiful place in the world, whose unchanging vista has given a sense of peace and belonging to millions of generations of people, animals and birds — the heavens — into the world’s largest garbage dump, streaking with moving lights and the refuse of burned up and exploded satellites.
With its launches of April 28, May 4 and May 9, 60 more satellites per launch, SpaceX now has 1,554 operating Starlink satellites in low orbit around the Earth. For command and control of these satellites it has already built 61 ground stations in the U.S., 1 in Canada , 6 in New Zealand, 9 in Australia, 2 in Germany, 2 in France, 3 in the UK, and 7 in Chile, and many more are under construction. More than 10,000 customers are now beta testing the satellite network, and 500,000 people worldwide have pre-ordered user terminals. SpaceX expects to fill all their orders and begin commercial service of high-speed Internet from space this summer. At that time, users will still only be able to receive stationary service in a single location. By the
end of 2021, SpaceX expects to also be able to provide mobile service anywhere in the world with user terminals that can be mounted on ships, planes, RVs and trucks.
With its launch of 36 more satellites on April 25, OneWeb now has 182 satellites in low polar orbit. It has announced that by June of this year, after two more launches, it will be able to provide connectivity to the UK, Alaska, northern Europe, Greenland, Iceland, the Arctic Seas and Canada, that it will begin commercial service to those northern regions before the end of this year, and that it will provide global service in 2022.
SpaceX states in its application to the FCC for approval of its mobile user terminals that it is responding to consumer demand. It states that by 2022 approximately 4,800 billion gigabytes of data will be exchanged worldwide per year. “No longer are users willing to forego connectivity while on the move,” writes SpaceX.
And that is exactly the problem. People are treating data, which didn’t even exist as a commodity until the 1990s, as their God-given right. They do not understand that “data” is not something abstract but has its source in a finite and increasingly scarce natural world. That when you manipulate “data” you are manipulating forests, oceans and wildlife. People do not understand that the more data you shoot all over the world, the quicker you scramble this planet’s ecosystems until there is nothing left of them.
Meanwhile, building and launching rockets is becoming quicker, easier and cheaper all the time. A company called Relativity Space is now able to produce rockets using the world’s largest 3-D printer, dubbed “Stargate.” It already has contracts with Lockheed Martin, Telesat, Iridium and other companies and plans to begin launching its disposable rockets this fall. It advertises on its website that its rockets have “100 times fewer parts” and that it can go “from raw material to flight in 60 days.”
Now, virtually anyone can destroy the Earth.
Second Call for Help
The list of board members, officers and investors in SpaceX and OneWeb in PlanetaryEmergency is still accurate. I remain convinced that Kimbal Musk, who is both an environmentalist and a board member of SpaceX, as well as being the younger
brother of Elon Musk, is the most likely person to begin a dialogue with us. If you would like to help me contact him, please get in touch with me.
The last 18 newsletters, including this one, are available for downloading and sharing on the Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force. Some of the newsletters are also available there in German, Spanish, Italian and French.
cover image credit of blue tit bird: Mopsgesicht / pixabay
“No 5G” Political Party Demands Moratorium Until 5G is Proven Safe to Human Health, Flora, Fauna and Property (Australia)
Opposition to 5G is worldwide due to economic, environmental, health, and safety risks. The majority of scientists worldwide oppose deployment. Cities AND entire countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit 5G installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums. Since 2017, doctors and scientists have asked for 5G moratoriums on Earth and in space (see 1, 2). Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G was installed (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
5G opposition in Australia has been ongoing and gaining strength.
The No 5G Political Party is Official in Australia
The No 5G Political Party is now official in Australia.
Our mission is to protect life and freedom by regulating wireless 5G and associated technologies, and to establish a moratorium until such technologies are proven safe to health, the environment, privacy and security.
Watch the group’s video above and read the press release below.
MEDIA RELEASE
17 MARCH 2021 Edited: 29/4/21
Announcing the history-making formation of the No5G Party. Finally,
OUR VOICES WILL BE HEARD !!
Destined to become the largest single political party in Australia, your voice will once again matter.
Please join our ground-breaking political movement. Become a Registered Member today and help support our objectives:
1) To promote legislative schemes, laws and policies to regulate 5G and associated technologies.
2) To establish a moratorium on 5G until such technologies are proven safe to human health, flora, fauna and property.
3) Encouraging and supporting the development of safe wired and wireless electromagnetic radiation emitting technologies.
4) Initiating the design and evaluation of the Australian Government’s agency ‘Infrastructure Australia’, and utilising this infrastructure plan to advise governments, industry and the Australian community on the investments and reforms needed to deliver an environmentally sustainable national fibre optic cable telecommunications infrastructure to service all Australians.
5) To call for a parliamentary enquiry or Royal Commission investigating the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research as to, among other listed concerns, why they fail to heed medical advice as to the risk of harm to the health of the Australian public.
For a complete list of extensive policies and objectives of the No5G Party please go to:
www.no5gparty.org.au
The No5G Party will be nominating and endorsing candidates for elected public office in Commonwealth, State and Territory parliaments and Local government bodies in all Australian jurisdictions.
Growing our membership is key to having our voices heard. Millions of people have already become educated about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation being emitted from unsafe technology. Until now, we have had little or no say in how this technology is being foisted upon us.
Yes, No5G is a single issue party, for now. But with your support, once the No5G Party becomes a force for promoting safe technology and restricting that which is unsafe, we will – unlike other parties – adapt and change our name in order to promote other policies outside of the electromagnetic radiation issue.
We invite you to become a member of the No5G Party today so that we can become a force for good, in all of our communities.
The COVID vaccine is a gene treatment. RNA is injected into the body, for the purpose of forcing cells to manufacture a protein. The promise? Protection against a purported virus.
The first generation of Monsanto crops followed the same pattern. Genes were injected into plants. Like a vaccine, its purpose was protection; in this case, against Monsanto’s own herbicide poison, Roundup.
The overall health of the crops and the human body were reduced. The nutritive value of the crops diminished; super-weeds on the GMO farms flourished. The huge number of adverse effects from the vaccine testify to expanding human damage.
The Monsanto genes in the plants drifted. They were found in non-GMO plants, in soil bacteria, and human gut bacteria.
The RNA in the vaccine and/or its products appear to have shed and drifted from person to person, given the large numbers of reports from unvaccinated women who, after coming into contact with vaccinated persons, experienced interrupted patterns of menstruation, bleeding, and miscarriages.
As I wrote the other day, Pfizer’s own warnings about its COVID vaccine include pregnant women coming into the proximity of vaccinated persons (“inhalation, skin contact” mentioned).
Both GMO crops and the GMO vaccine are imposed, top-down, on the population, from corporate giants who are reaping massive profits. Continuing propaganda campaigns are designed to convince famers and the general population to accept and celebrate the dangerous GMO crops and the GMO vaccine.
Governments protect and run interference for the companies who produce the GMO crops and the vaccine.
Bill Gates is an ardent supporter, publicist, and funder of GMO crops and GMO vaccines. He keeps asserting, like a psychotic baron living in a castle on top of a mountain, that the crops and the vaccine will save the world.
Many critics of the GMO vaccine are unaware of (or have forgotten about) the dangers of GMO crops. And many critics of GMO crops fail to realize (or are afraid to criticize) the dangers of the COVID GMO vaccine.
Huge numbers of people in the general public blithely accept the (fake) science surrounding GMO crops and the GMO vaccine. “The experts must know what they’re talking about.”
The patents on both GMO crops and the GMO vaccine are jealously guarded by the corporations who control them. In both cases, ignorant people are calling for these patents to be made into open-source information—unaware that both technologies are highly dangerous and destructive.
The general field of genetics research—of which these crops and vaccines are products—is filled with liars, who claim their experimental work is safe and foolproof, when in fact the literature is rife with examples of ripple effects. The introduction of genes into organisms creates many unpredictable changes in genomes. “We have everything under control”—the battle cry of vaccine and crop researchers.
Agriculture and the human body are both viewed, from the ivory tower, as deficient and diseased, in need of genetic alteration.
Overall, genetic tinkering is a disaster already happening.
Ethical scientists who want to put moratoria on this research are being sidelined and ignored.
Manic technocrats see genetic modification as the massive gateway into a Brave New World, where humans are divided into gen-rich and gen-poor classes, from birth. From before birth.
Here are two mind-bending quotes from admired experts:
Lee Silver, Princeton University molecular biologist, predicts our future:
“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…”
“Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.”
“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.”
“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”
As shocking as Lee Silver’s assessment is, it’s mild when put up against the pronouncement of Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:
“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”
But don’t worry, be happy. Anthony Fauci, who has a direct pipeline to God, tells us the COVID vaccine is extraordinarily safe and effective. That’s all we need to know. I’ll take the Pfizer, the Moderna, and two AstraZeneca to go. Gift wrap? No, they’re for me. Just put the vials and syringes in a brown bag. I’ll shoot up while I watch the news on CNN. Their experts are reassuring…
RFK, Jr. and Black Warrior Riverkeeper Nelson Brooke on Holding Corporate Polluters Accountable
RFK, Jr. and Black Warrior Riverkeeper Nelson Brooke on Holding Corporate Polluters Accountable
Listen as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interviews Riverkeeper Nelson Brooke, spokesman and patrolman for the Black Warrior River watershed in Alabama, on how he is fighting back against powerful, entrenched interests.
The Black Warrior Riverkeeper organization is the muscle that help keep Alabama’s watershed clean by standing up to major polluters, holding them accountable when state and federal agencies fail to act.
Riverkeeper Nelson Brooke, spokesman and patrolman for the Black Warrior River watershed in Alabama, told Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the “RFK Jr The Defender Podcast” that in the south, elected officials and politicians have handed the keys to polluters and allowed them to get rich by polluting the state and sickening its citizens.
Brooke said:
“A lot of us don’t even realize that we’re unfortunately being exposed to all of this stuff. So we’re having to fight really hard to educate the public about all these problems and fight these really entrenched, powerful interests who are used to getting their way. And unfortunately, that comes with fighting the elected officials and the regulatory agencies that are also essentially bought and paid for. They’re captured as a part of this fossil fuel pollution-generating wealth machine.”
The Black Warrior Riverkeeper uses the Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes to hold corporate polluters accountable in federal court. They often build their cases by collecting water samples from pipes that discharge pollution, and have the samples analyzed in a lab.
One of the biggest polluters in Alabama is the coal industry. The coal ash generated by power plants is incredibly toxic, said Brooke. And it’s not just a local issue — it’s a global problem, as the coal ash is shipped all over the world.
The organization works with folks from all backgrounds, connecting around the common belief that we all have a right to clean water, and we shouldn’t have to fight for it. They are looking to the future and fighting for a better one. Their goal is to leave the state better than they found it for future generations, Brooke said.
Glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, including DNA damage – and these effects occur at doses assumed by regulators to have no adverse effects, a new study shows. The DNA damage was caused by oxidative stress, a destructive imbalance in the body that can cause a long list of diseases, GMWatch reported Tuesday.
The study also found that the isolated active ingredient of Roundup – glyphosate alone – damaged DNA. This finding, according to the EU’s pesticide law, should result in a ban on glyphosate and all its formulations. In addition, the results obtained in the study could strengthen the legal cases of the cancer sufferers in the US who are suing Bayer/Monsanto because they believe that exposure to Roundup caused their disease. Three such cases have already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
The new study is currently published on the pre-print website bioRxiv and has not yet been peer reviewed.
How the study was done
The new study, led by Dr Michael Antoniou and Dr Robin Mesnage at King’s College London, builds on the findings of a previous study by the same authors. In the previous study, the researchers compared the effects in rats of a Roundup formulation, MON 52276, with those of its “active ingredient”, glyphosate, tested alone. The findings showed that glyphosate and Roundup herbicide, given at doses that regulators say are safe, resulted in the animals suffering gut microbiome disturbances and oxidative stress, with indications that the liver was affected and possibly damaged.
In the followup study, the researchers analysed the liver tissue from the same rats to see if indeed damage had occurred.
The researchers carried out some of the standard tests that regulators require the pesticide industry to conduct to gain market authorisation for their products – namely blood biochemistry and kidney and liver histopathology (microscopic examination of tissue).
They also carried out in-depth tests (molecular profiling) that are not demanded by regulators or typically carried out by the industry. One type of test looked for adverse effects at a profound molecular level of biological functioning through analysis of gene expression (transcriptomics) and epigenetics (DNA methylation) in the liver and kidneys. Another type of test, using specialised genetically engineered cell lines, was intended to highlight changes in function linked with cancer formation.
In addition, the researchers carried out tests that can detect direct damage to DNA.
Roundup causes fatty liver disease – confirmed
The standard tests, histopathology and blood biochemistry analysis, found adverse effects from the Roundup treatment, namely a dose-dependent and statistically significant increase in fatty liver disease and liver cell death.
The finding of fatty liver disease from exposure to the MON 52276 formulation of Roundup confirmed the same researchers’ previous observation that an ultra-low dose of another Roundup formulation, Roundup Grand Travaux Plus, administered to the same strain of Sprague-Dawley rats over a 2-year period, caused non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
An increase in liver and kidney lesions was also detected in animals treated with glyphosate, although this did not reach statistical significance. However, the authors commented that an experiment of longer duration using more animals may have resulted in statistical significance.
Non-standard tests most revealing
Worryingly for public health, it was the non-standard molecular profiling tests that are not required by pesticide regulators that were most revealing.
First, Roundup was found to alter the expression of 96 genes in the liver specifically linked to DNA damage and oxidative stress, as well as disruption of circadian rhythms or “body clocks”. The most affected genes in liver also had their expression similarly altered in kidneys. Crucially, a core set of genes whose expression was altered by Roundup was similarly changed in the glyphosate-treated animals. This strongly suggests that the key changes in gene function reflective of oxidative stress and DNA damage was due to glyphosate and not the additional substances (adjuvants) present in the Roundup formulation.
Second, direct DNA damage to the liver was found to increase with glyphosate exposure.
These findings potentially constitute a bombshell that could end the authorization of glyphosate in the EU. That’s because the EU pesticide regulation (1107/2009) has what’s known as hazard-based cut-off criteria. This means that if a pesticide active ingredient is shown to cause a certain type of harm to health at whatever dose, it must be banned. One of the named types of harm is damage to DNA. The discovery that glyphosate alone damages DNA in a living animal should, if regulators follow the law, result in a ban on glyphosate.
Third, both glyphosate and Roundup were found to cause epigenetic changes known as DNA methylation. Epigenetics describes consists of layers of molecular structures associated with DNA that control the underlying function of genes. The defining feature of epigenetic changes is that they can alter how genes work but do not involve changes to the actual DNA sequence. These types of changes were found at over 5,000 genomic sites for glyphosate and over 4,000 for Roundup. This is a concern because such alterations are typically found at high frequency in cancer tissues.
Cancer
The researchers performed further laboratory tests in mouse cell lines, which are designed to highlight effects that can lead to cancer formation. Glyphosate and three Roundup formulations were assessed in these tester cell lines. It was found that two formulations of Roundup herbicide, but not glyphosate, activated oxidative stress and misfolded protein responses, both clear markers of carcinogenicity.
Ending animal testing not yet feasible
Interestingly, glyphosate was shown to damage DNA in living animals but not in the cell culture system. This shows that in vitro tests (lab tests not performed in living organisms) cannot fully substitute for tests in a living animal because certain effects will be missed. This is because animals (including humans) are whole organisms whose complexity cannot be replicated in a flask, petri dish, or test tube. While many people (GMWatch included) would like to see an end to animal testing, as long as pesticides and other chemicals are allowed to be released into the environment, such a move would put public health at risk.
Roundup more toxic than glyphosate
In summary, in general Roundup was found to be more toxic than glyphosate, confirming and building on previous observations. However, taken together, the results from the various assays conducted show that both glyphosate and Roundup herbicides activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, causing gene expression changes reflecting oxidative stress and DNA damage. Also, glyphosate alone was clearly able to induce DNA damage.
These findings directly challenge the global regulatory practice of only assessing the isolated declared active ingredient (glyphosate) and not the complete commercial formulations (Roundup) as sold and used.
The study further highlights the power of in-depth molecular profiling “omics” methods to detect changes that are missed by relying solely on conventional biochemical and histopathological measurements conducted in standardised industry tests on pesticide active ingredients. The study paves the way for future investigations by identifying gene expression changes and altered DNA methylation sites, which can serve as biomarkers and potential predictors of negative health outcomes resulting from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.
Investigating Roundup health effects in people
Commenting on the implications of the results, study lead Dr Michael Antoniou said, “The biomarkers we identified can be tested for in people, but we don’t know if this particular pattern of biomarkers is unique to glyphosate-based herbicide exposure. Thus the biomarkers would need to be correlated with a history of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and measurements of glyphosate in urine.
“If high levels of glyphosate were found in the urine, and this correlated with the biomarkers identified in the new study and the person’s history of glyphosate herbicide exposure, this would indicate that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides might be responsible for any health effects that are both indicated by our findings and found in the person. These findings should be tested first by investigations of herbicide applicators, as their exposure can be high and details of the particular herbicides used are often recorded, which would enable clearer results to be obtained.”
“Safe” and “no effect” doses shown to be harmful
In the 90-day rat feeding study, different groups of animals were fed three different doses of glyphosate and the glyphosate-equivalent dose of Roundup MON 52276. The lowest dose was the concentration that regulators assume to be safe to ingest on a daily basis over a lifetime (the EU acceptable daily intake or ADI: 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The middle dose was the dose that EU regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect (the “no observable adverse effect” level or NOAEL) in industry-sponsored rat feeding studies (50 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The highest dose was 175 mg, the dose that US regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect.
Adverse effects were found from Roundup exposure at all dose levels in a dose-dependent fashion. These findings show that the glyphosate ADI for the EU is not safe to ingest if it comes as part of a formulated herbicide – as is the case with public exposures to herbicides. Likewise, it shows that the EU and US regulators were only able to conclude that glyphosate had “no observable adverse effect” at the levels mentioned above because the tests that they require industry to carry out are inadequate and insufficiently sensitive.
Implications for Roundup/cancer litigation
Summarising the implications of the new study, Dr Antoniou commented, “Our results are the first to simultaneously show glyphosate and Roundup toxicity in a whole mammalian model system and provide a mechanism – oxidative stress – by which DNA damage has been observed in other systems, such as mammalian tissue culture cells.
“These findings have implications for the Roundup/cancer litigation in the US. They show that glyphosate and Roundup score positive in various tests of carcinogenicity (transcriptome/epigenome changes, oxidative stress, protein misfolding, and DNA damage) in a living animal (rat) that is accepted as a surrogate for human health effects. In my view, this strengthens the case that exposure to Roundup herbicides can lead to the type of cancer suffered by many plaintiffs, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
—
The new study:
In-depth comparative toxicogenomics of glyphosate and Roundup herbicides: histopathology, transcriptome and epigenome signatures, and DNA damage.
Robin Mesnage, Mariam Ibragim, Daniele Mandrioli, Laura Falcioni, Fiorella Belpoggi, Inger Brandsma, Emma Bourne, Emanuel Savage, Charles A Mein, Michael N Antoniou.
bioRxiv, doi: doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.12.439463
Posted April 13, 2021. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.12.439463v1
Abstract
Background Health effects from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides is an intense matter of debate. Toxicity including genotoxicity of glyphosate alone has been repeatedly tested over the last 40 years. Contrastingly, few studies have conducted comparative investigations between glyphosate and its commercial herbicide formulations, such as Roundup. We thus performed the first in-depth comparative toxicogenomic evaluation of glyphosate and a typical European Union Roundup formulation by determining alterations in transcriptome and epigenome profiles.
Methods
Glyphosate and the European Union reference commercial formulation Roundup MON 52276 (both at 0.5, 50, 175 mg/kg bw/day glyphosate equivalent concentration) were administered to rats in a subchronic 90-day toxicity study. Standard clinical biochemistry and kidney and liver histopathology was performed. In addition, transcriptomics and DNA methylation profiling of liver and selective gene expression analysis of kidneys was conducted. Furthermore, a panel of six mouse embryonic reporter stem cell lines validated to identify carcinogenic outcomes (DNA damage, oxidative stress, and protein misfolding) were used to provide insight into the mechanisms underlying the toxicity of glyphosate and 3 Roundup formulations.
Results
Histopathology and serum biochemistry analysis showed that MON 52276 but not glyphosate treatment was associated with a statistically significant increase in hepatic steatosis and necrosis. Similar lesions were also present in the liver of glyphosate-treated groups but not in the control group. MON 52276 altered the expression of 96 genes in liver, with the most affected biological functions being TP53 activation by DNA damage and oxidative stress as well as the regulation of circadian rhythms. The most affected genes in liver also had their expression similarly altered in kidneys. DNA methylation profiling of liver revealed 5,727 and 4,496 differentially methylated CpG sites between the control group and the group of rats exposed to glyphosate and MON 52276, respectively. Direct DNA damage measurement by apurinic/apyrimidinic lesion formation in liver was increased with glyphosate exposure. Mechanistic evaluations showed that two Roundup herbicides but not glyphosate activated oxidative stress and misfolded protein responses.
Conclusions
Taken together, the results of our study show that Roundup herbicides are more toxic than glyphosate, activating mechanisms involved in cellular carcinogenesis and causing gene expression changes reflecting DNA damage. This further highlights the power of high-throughput ‘omics’ methods to detect metabolic changes, which would be missed by relying solely on conventional biochemical and histopathological measurements. Our study paves the way for future investigations by reporting a panel of gene expression changes and DNA methylation sites, which can serve as biomarkers and potential predictors of negative health outcomes resulting from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.
[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: When David Icke speaks about “the cult” he is referring to the global manipulators who are driving the agenda to enslave humanity.]
Australia’s Telco Watchdog Holds a Behind Closed Doors Auction to Sell the Untested 5G Millimetre (26GHZ) Wave Spectrum, Up for Grabs to the Highest Bidder
Today (12 April 2021) is an extremely concerning day in Australia for the advancement of the Fifth Generation (5G) roll-out.
The Australian Government’s agency Australian Media and Communications Authority (ACMA) is set to profit enormously from the sale of 5G millimetre wave spectrum licences (on top of the billions of dollars already made from previous spectrum license sales).
As we speak, there is a private auction being held behind closed doors.
Why did you not hear about this? Well, simply because ACMA and Big Telco want this to “slip under the radar” and subsequently our mainstream media have little interest in reporting on it.
What the mainstream media ought to be reporting on is the fact that Big Telco are moving ahead with experimental millimetre wave technology against the will of the people!
What we know is that over 100,000 people in Australia have come forward in social media communities objecting to the 5G upgrade due to lack of scientific research and safety!
What we know is that the Telco “watchdog” ACMA are now set to give even more power to the self-regulated Telco industry.
What we know is that we don’t just have land-based companies (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, Nokia, NBN etc) vying for 5G in this auction. Satellite firms such as billionaire Elon Musk’s Starlink are also bidding to secure this untested spectrum, and beam millimetre waves at the earth from thousands of new communication satellites. This 26Ghz spectrum is 7.5 times more powerful (and this is just the start) than the 5G network we are already being exposed to.
Check out this blatant free-for-all flexibility from a so-called ‘watchdog’:
“The 26 GHz band spectrum license has inherent flexibility that allows winning bidders to choose how they deploy service in the spectrum they win. Licensees are able to determine the services they deliver and the technology they employ.
Bidders should take account of the spectrum available and bandwidth needed for the performance of the equipment the bidder desires to operate. The spectrum lots are not pre-designed to accommodate any particular equipment standard. However, they may accommodate the operation of a particular standard (or even non-standard equipment) at a particular location and frequency, depending on the total bandwidth and area of the spectrum licence that a bidder has acquired.”
(6.7.1 Flexibility of a spectrum licence pg.79)
What we know currently is that the 5G upgrades all over Australia are not yet operating in the millimetre wave spectrum.
But it’s only a matter of time.
There is no better time than NOW to oppose the further deployment of this experimental 5G infrastructure.
We are calling on you to take off your rose-coloured glasses and truly see the marketing propaganda that has been dished up by Big Telco.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Step 1. Boycott 5G phone. Simply don’t buy them. This one powerful action will disable the networks ability to communicate with the 5G technology!
Step 2. Know your stuff – stay informed! Sign up for the We Are Not SAM News and keep an eye out on our Instagram for truth bombs and the latest information. Learn more from We Are Not SAM and ORSAA.
Step 3. Find out where 5G is being rolled out in Australia.
Step 4. Talk with friends, family, neighbours, schools – spread the word!
We literally hold the remote control in our hands and it’s time to put a stop to this madness.
If we want to have a world with Safe Technology we must have proper safety testing and put a halt to any further deployment of Fifth Generation infrastructure.
France had a total of 22,857 5G authorized sites as of April 1, of which 12,213 were declared technically operational by the local mobile operators, according to the latest information provided by France’s spectrum agency ANFR.
The agency said that all of the 5G sites have been authorized on existing cellular sites, already used by 2G, 3G or 4G technologies.
ANFR also said that the total number of authorized 5G sites during March increased 5.3% compared to the previous month.
In France, mobile operators are currently providing 5G services through three frequency bands: 700 MHz, 2.1 GHz and 3.5 GHz.
A total of 15,985 sites are authorized in the 700 MHz band (Free Mobile), of which 8,084 are already technically operational. Also, ANFR said that 6,981 sites are authorized in the 2.1 GHz band (Bouygues Telecom, Orange and SFR), but 3,261 are technically operational.
Meanwhile, 6,679 sites are authorized in the 3.5 GHz band (Bouygues Telecom, Free Mobile, Orange and SFR), of which 2,271 are declared technically operational.
Some of the authorized sites are shared by the mobile operators, ANFR said.
In addition, 53,033 4G sites were authorized in mainland France as of April 1, of which 48,466 are in service.
French mobile operators are rapidly deploying 5G coverage across the country after they had launched the technology during 2020.
Since 2017, doctors and scientists have asked for moratoriums on Earth and in space (see 1, 2). Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after installation (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Of course adverse effects from exposure ARE NOT isolated to 5G. In 2019 The World Health Organization warned that high levels of Electromagnetic Fields (aka “Electrosmog”) could cause health issues in a significant percentage of the population.
In his latest book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates lays out a plan to stop global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero. A fact that seems a little ironic coming from one of the world’s largest emitters[1], whose “guilty pleasure” is flying on private jets and who just joined a bid to acquire the world’s largest private jet services company[2]. But this sort of contradiction, of placating a severe root problem with a superficial solution, is nothing strange for Gates, as a closer look into his million-dollar investments, billionaire and private company partnerships, and his political agenda show little alignment with the goal of truly curving climate change, helping alleviate world hunger, or lifting the poor out of poverty.
Gates’ unparalleled influence marks not only the extraordinary power of his wealth, but also a convergence of philanthropy, private corporations, and international institutions to shape policy and development landscapes to their own interests. But this shaping, while seemingly justified by a noble humanitarian and environmental cause, instead pushes a failed paradigm of industrialization and corporate concentration under the guise of necessary technological innovation.
While there is little doubt that we are living in moments of compounding crises, the push for new technological innovations as the path to solving the world’s problems is now quickly becoming the only mechanism. Creating a blind-spot for both the root causes of the crises we face, and how continually going down this path will only serve to exacerbate the crises further. But this avoidance of true systemic solutions is not an accidental overlook by a well-meaning technological innovations sector. Instead, it is resulting in the same giant corporations and power structures that created our current crises to sell us back their own proposed ‘solutions’.
This technological solutionism mentality is apparent in all of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s (BMGF) initiatives which, by their nature, end up denying real solutions to the climate crisis. These initiatives, grants, and development programs cover a vast area – such as food, agriculture, seed, health, climate change, education, media, infrastructure, and energy as shown in Navdanya International’s Gates to a Global Empire report[3] – and weave a complicated web of international power and influence to ensure specific interests. With the weight of investment capital held by both the Gates Foundation Trust and their personal wealth, in conjunction with their bought public media platform, Bill and Melinda Gates set the agenda across these different sectors with very little to no accountability. In the end, this works to align public opinion with private company investments, and international and state policy, to open up new markets through policy alignment and state co-investment in the name of ‘development’.
A principal example is how he spreads his agenda authority over global health by investing in international health institutions, like the World Health Organization (WHO), for whom the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides nearly 20% of the institution’s funds[4]. He aims to control education and the media, for instance, by funding scientific research establishments like Cornell University[5] and John Hopkins University, as well as providing generous grants to prominent newspapers[6] like the Guardian, BBC, and Al Jazeera to name a few, to publish stories aligned with his narratives.
Despite his pronouncement to help fight climate change, Gates also directly invests in the fossil fuel industry[7]. He is the largest shareholder[8] in one of Canada’s largest oil and gas companies, Canadian National Railway, while Microsoft also has direct ties to the oil and gas industries. As explained by ETC in “The Sugar Daddy of Geoengineering”[9], Gates has been one of the major supporters for extreme geoengineering (“miracle technologies”), Carbon dioxide Removal Techniques (CDR), Solar Geoengineering, and other such techniques alongside the fossil fuel industry for more than a decade. Techniques that could potentially lead to disastrous damage to the planet’s weather systems and natural cycles.
The Imposition of a Failed Agriculture Model
One of the major sectors where Gates’ private market and power interests are more apparent is in his push for agricultural transformation. The Gates Foundation has been pushing new technologies and an industrial agricultural model for decades, under the guise of putting an end to hunger and climate change.
In 2008, Gates attempted to revive the failed model of the 1960s Green Revolution in Africa by launching the AGRA[10] (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) program, encouraging farmers to move toward large-scale, commercial monocultures and promoting synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and high-yield or GMO seeds. Timothy Wise’s research explained in the Gates to a Global Empire report[11], shows how 15 years later, there is no evidence that the objectives set out by AGRA have resulted in significant productivity improvements and have instead triggered a 30% increase of people suffering from extreme poverty in AGRA countries. Demonstrating direct evidence of this initiative’s failure.
Source: AGRA
While many have come out to critique the failure of AGRA, it is not the only example of Bill Gates’ attempts to control what goes on in farmer’s fields. In January 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation launched Ag One[12], a new research institute that aims “to empower smallholder farmers with the affordable, high-quality tools, technologies, and resources they need to lift themselves out of poverty”. The goal is to promote Green Revolution techniques alongside new technological innovations, like data and sensor technology, precision agriculture, gene drives, GMOs, artificial intelligence predictive models, and so on, to increase crop productivity in Africa, Asia, and in Latin America as Ag Tech[13]. With the launch of Ag Tech, partnerships were also announced with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), Microsoft, Bayer, Corteva, and Syngenta, in addition to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, giving rise to a dangerous alliance in Latin America of industrial agriculture firms and biotechnology.
Source: Gates Notes
The BMGF clearly and proudly focuses on these partnerships and the perpetual pushing of the industrial agriculture paradigm. For instance, Gates’ enthusiasm for chemical fertilizers is well known, According to him, fertilizers are a “magical invention that can help lift millions of people out of poverty”[14], even though scientists say they emit dangerous amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) [15], and are known environmental pollutants. Gates also sees GMO seeds as a “necessary technical solution” to agricultural development that could “end starvation in Africa”[16] regardless of their known failures, as well as their devastating environmental, social, health consequences. He has also publicly expressed his full-fledged support for highly problematic[17] gene editing methods like CRISPR-Cas9, which he has invested millions in[18]. His foundation also heavily funds the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centers, which receive over 70%[19] of BMGF agricultural research investments, making Gates the second largest donor of CGIAR. These investments give Gates a considerable amount of influence, allowing him to shape the global agriculture and development policy agenda and serve as a convenient way to open up new markets for agribusiness and biotech in previously unprofitable or hard-to-reach markets. Policy alignment in these countries and these sectors then ensures a return on Gates’ investments.
Global Commission on Adaptation
One of the ways Gates silently pushes his vision and agenda is through the Global Commission on Adaptation[20], an international commission co-founded by Gates that pushes technological solutions to climate change adaptation and mitigation, through such things as filling in the ‘data gap’ of the global south through digital agriculture[21]. For example, the policy recommendations and position papers of the Commission triggered in 2018 a report co-authored by IICA and CGIAR[22] which bluntly stated that “climate change adaptation in agriculture is contingent on increased investment to modernize agricultural systems.” The report was actively endorsed by the heads of the Global Commission at the time.
The Global Commission on Adaptation, co- founded by Gates, pushes technological solutions to climate change – Source: GCA
Founders of the commission also include Kristalina Georgieva, the current managing director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and former Chief Executive Officer of the World Bank; and the former 8th secretary-general of the UN, Ban-Ki Moon. The commission has 22 convening countries and is supported by a range of foreign ministers and ministries, policymakers, heads of development banks and development corporations, heads of the UN, and heads or former heads of governments. Since the end of its 2020 mandate, the board of directors no longer directly includes Gates, but still includes actors who remain close to the Gates agenda. These include Rodger Voorhies, the President of Global Growth & Opportunity Division of the BMGF and head of Ag One. As well as, Feike Sijbesma – current CEO[23] and honorary chairman of DSM, a synthetic biology and fake food company funded by Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
Breakthrough Energy Ventures: The Revolving Door for “Super Emitters”
While the political pushing of the industrial paradigm happens through development initiatives and policy lobby, where this game of billionaire profit-making and corporate partnerships is most clear is in one of Gates’ most prominent personal investment funds: Breakthrough Energy Ventures. Now being thrown into the spotlight as a symbol of Gates’ commitment to solving climate change, this investment fund is supported by other philanthrocapitalists[24] and billionaires such as Jeff Bezos, Mukesh Ambani, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson of Virgin Group, Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn, Jack Ma of Alibaba, former Enron trader and hedge fund manager turned philanthropist John Arnold, among other prominent names.
Breakthrough Energy Ventures is supported by several billionaires and philanthrocapitalists, including (from left): Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Jeff Bezos – Source: Great Game India
Out of the multiple startups funded by Breakthrough, seven are involved in the areas of food and agriculture, particularly through the development and marketing of synthetic biology and biotechnology products. While these startup companies use the greenwashed rhetoric of promoting ‘sustainable climate solutions’, a closer look reveals the company’s leadership teams to be riddled with ex DuPont, Monsanto, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, PepsiCo, and Microsoft executives. Raising the question, how can people involved in the very companies which created our health, ecological, and climate crisis, be in any way qualified to sell us back the ‘solution’?
A direct example of the overlap between industrial food and agriculture and the new tech-companies is, Motif Foodworks[25] a synthetic biotech company that works to create and market “plant-based alternatives” to meat and dairy products, as well as creating finished food products and ingredients. The startup makes its claim to sustainability by referencing its lack of need for land, agricultural inputs, and intensive external resources while providing enhanced nutrition. They have an exclusive partnership with prominent, and also Gates-funded, synthetic biotech firm Ginkgo Bioworks[26], which creates products for pharmaceutical companies, such as Moderna, industrial chemicals, and industrial food ingredients, such as for Motif Foodworks. Ginkgo Bioworks was also involved in a $100M partnership with Bayer to develop synbio microbe fertilizers. But this isn’t the only tie Motif Foodworks has to large industrial food and agriculture firms. All of their top leadership[27] – from their CEO, the Chief Commercial Officer (CCO), and the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) had previous tenures at DuPont and PepsiCo. Their head of Regulatory, Government and Industrial Affairs also spent eight years as the Director of Global Advocacy at Monsanto, another nine as Dupont’s Director of Corporate Regulatory affairs and four at CropLife as the VP of Science and Regulatory Affairs. Their top advisor is the ex-CEO of PepsiCo Indra Nooyi. The same applies to Breakthrough funded startups Nature’s Fynd[28] or Biomilq[29] where the Product Management & Business development executive, Rachel Lee was a former Strategy Officer at BMGF and co-founder of Biomilq underwent an internship at BMGF the year her company was founded.
This pattern repeats itself with another Breakthrough Energy Ventures company Pivot Bio, which looks to replace synthetic nitrogen fertilizers for corn monocultures, with synbio engineered nitrogen-fixing microbes. The company received a $70 million investment from Breakthrough in 2017, and then another $100 million investment[30] in the summer of 2020. Here all of the top executives are former DuPont or Monsanto executives: From the CTO who spent 30 years at DuPont and DuPont Pioneer developing industrial seed oils; the VP of Regulatory and Government Affairs who spent 27 years at DuPont as the former head of Government Affairs and leader of trade negotiations; the VP of Product Development spent 37 years at Monsanto; the VP of Communications led the global communications team for DuPont Pioneer, and the VP of Commercial Operations promoted the adoption of biotech while working for the marketing department of DuPont and DuPont Pioneer. Not to mention that Cooper Rinzler is both Director of Pivot Bio and a Member of the Breakthrough Energy Ventures Board of Directors.
Apart from the multiple problems with the development and application of these synthetic biology products in food and agriculture, the flight of ex-industrial agriculture company executives to new biotech startups signals the next iteration of industrial agriculture concentration and market expansion, not sustainable “climate-smart” solutions. Especially as members of the same companies that have continually denied the detrimental effects of their food and agricultural ‘innovations’, are now selling us back equally risky, myopic, and untested solutions to problems their companies created in the first place. Not to mention the obvious a repeated pattern of obviouse conflicts of interests present in this incestuous sector. This is why it is no surprise that Breakthrough Energy Ventures, also has an active policy toolkit[31]. Breakthrough does not just see itself as a private investment firm but is also involved in policy advocacy to make sure their innovations have a market. And in alignment with Gates’ strategy of shaping public opinion through media, a new journalism program, headed by former Wall Street Journal journalist Amy Harder, is also under development. But while these factors are purposefully obscured, the industry around “plant-based diets”, justified as “climate-smart”, a “sustainable diet” is starting to boom.
The False Promise of Fake Food
One of Gates’ most recent promotions is his prescriptions of synthetic foods for developed countries as a means to combat climate change. In a recent interview with MIT Technology Review[32], Gates says he thinks “all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef.” Fake food replaces animal products with highly processed food grown in labs, like fake meat, fake dairy products, or fake eggs. It is made possible by technical innovations such as synthetic biology, which involves reconfiguring the DNA of an organism to create something entirely new. For instance, plant-based meat companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use a DNA coding sequence from soybeans or peas to create a product that looks and tastes like real meat. Some companies are also investing in cell-based meat[33], grown from real animal cells, but it has yet to reach the market.
Source: Impossible Foods
More and more firms are getting involved in this fast-growing market, like Motif Foodworks (plant-based meat and dairy alternatives), Ginkgo Bioworks (custom-built microbes), BioMilq (lab-grown breast milk), Nature’s Fynd (fungi-grown meat and dairy alternatives), Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products) or NotCo (plant-based animal products made through AI), to name but a few. The industrial meat-industry giants are also profiting from this blossoming market. Meat producers like Tyson Foods (which has invested in Memphis Meats and Future Meat Technologies which both create lab-grown meat replacements), Nestle, Cargill, Maple Leaf Foods, or Perdue Farms are thriving on this trend, selling products like sausages, burgers, and ground beef largely made from pea or soy protein. All these companies are backed up by high-ranked billionaires and Big Tech investors. Bill Gates alone has invested 50 million dollars in Impossible Foods and actively finances Beyond Meat, Ginkgo Bioworks, and BioMilq, as described above.
The perpetuation of ecologically damaging practices
Fake food advocates claim it is a real solution to climate change and solves environmental degradation, while also ironing out animal welfare concerns. For instance, Impossible Foods[34] declare their plant-based meat needs 96% less land, 87% less water and emits 89% fewer greenhouse gases than conventional animal-based products.
However, fake food has a larger carbon footprint than less-processed plant proteins[35]. Plant-based substitutes are up to seven times more GHG-intensive than whole pulses. Cell-based meat also emits more GHG than animal products, like pork or poultry. Recent research even suggests that over the long-term, the environmental impact of lab-grown meat[36] could be higher than that of livestock.
Moreover, fake food is advertised as “eco-friendly”, and yet it is made with proteins from pea, soy, or corn which are being grown on a large, industrial scale, relying on tillage, monocultures, toxic pesticides, and often, GMOs. The Impossible Burger is made with GMO Roundup-sprayed soya, leading to massive ecological devastation[37]. Total levels of glyphosate detected in the Impossible Burger by Health Research Institute Laboratories were 11.3ppb, making its consumption highly dangerous[38] as only 0.1ppb of glyphosate can destroy gut bacteria, damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, cause reproductive abnormalities, or even tumors, as glyphosate is also a “probable human carcinogen”. More broadly, the reliance on pesticides is directly linked with long-term chronic health problems, for consumers and farmers.
Other companies like Beyond Meat[39], who market their products as “cleaner” since they are free from genetically modified ingredients, still admit to not being organic[40], and still rely heavily on monocultures and pesticides. Ironically, these plant-based meat alternatives, which claim to save animals, water, and the environment, are instead directly contributing to the food system that is threatening global biodiversity[41], destroying wildlife, altering the soils, and polluting groundwater supplies[42]. Moreover, the fake food companies’ supply chains require excessive fossil fuel transport[43], like most industrial food.
The health impacts of hyper-processed fake foods
Not only is fake food harmful to the environment, but it also can be detrimental to human health. Plant-based substitutes are likely to have a range of adverse long-term health outcomes[44], due to them being highly processed and containing ingredients like isolated pea proteins and canola oil.
New additives also made through synthetic biology are being added to these products. For example, to make the Impossible Burger appear to “bleed” like real meat, a“heme” molecule is added which comes from soy leghemoglobin, a colorant produced in genetically engineered yeast. According to the Center for Food Safety, the FDA didn’t conduct adequate long-term testing[45] before approving the color additive in 2019, and after a short-term rat trial[46] several potential adverse effects were detected like changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate inflammation or kidney disease, disruptions in the reproductive cycle and possible signs of anemia. Despite the lack of evidence that the additive is safe, Impossible Foods’ products containing genetically engineered heme are now being sold in supermarkets across the United States, exemplifying a deregulatory environment that prefers corporate profit and influence over public health.
The entire process of isolating plant-based proteins can also have dangerous consequences[47] for human health. Many anti-nutrients are found within soy that can produce harmful health effects, such as digestive disorders, hormone imbalances, autoimmune diseases, obesity, digestive disorders, neurological conditions, or immunologic reactions. Especially as the soy and pea protein primarily used in most plant-based meats is heavily processed through high heating, chemical extractions and isolations of proteins, and now genetic altering, generating compounds that are not naturally found in foods.
Finally, artificially created animal products sometimes lack several natural nutrients or benefits. For instance, lab-grown milk such as BioMilq’s can’t change in response to the child’s need, as real breast milk can. It contains no hormones or bacteria from the mother’s biome and, more importantly, it does not have antibodies[48], which are vital to babies.
Plant-based meats, on the other hand, do not meet the nutritional requirements that are fulfilled by real animal foods. Simply adding isolated proteins, vitamins, and minerals to diets does not confer the same health benefits[49] as when these nutrients are ingested as whole foods, which contain thousands of compounds acting in synergy. Plant-based burgers aren’t healthier than animal products[50], including red meat.
Patenting: making profit from life
Far from ending climate change or world hunger, the patenting of artificial fake food growing techniques becomes yet another instrument of profit-making by corporations and billionaires. Especially as 20 patents[51] are now assigned to Impossible Foods, with over 100 additional patents pending[52] for other fake meat proxies, from chicken to fish.
It’s no wonder that big plant-breeding companies like Bayer see a great opportunity in the plant-based industry boom[53]. In a 2019 investor event in Missouri, Bob Reiter, Bayer’s head of research and development at the company’s crop science division, said that plant-based meat companies “are sourcing different types of crops and that could also create opportunity for us, being a company that is a plant-breeding company”.
This patenting logic also reduces animals and nature to an “improvable technology”, in the words of Pat Brown, CEO, and founder of Impossible Foods. According to him[54], “animals have just been the technology we have used up until now to produce meat”. This means they can simply be replaced by more efficient technologies like artificial food. Fake food separates humans from nature and food from life. But we need to think beyond our strictly human needs and understand the needs of the ecological systems in which we are embedded. We cannot address the pressing environmental crisis without transforming our relationship with nature.
Missing the point of regenerative agriculture
Fake food shifts political power away from organic farmers and local markets toward biotech companies. It disregards local and indigenous knowledge and diverse food cultures that have evolved alongside diverse ecosystems. Moreover, it completely ignores the solutions offered by the growing regenerative agriculture movement. While concerns about industrial meat production are legitimate, regenerative animal grazing practices[55] can actually improve biodiversity, soil health and actively sequester carbon into the soil[56] by grooming and fertilizing vegetation and soil. Such models have the potential to substantially help mitigate climate change[57], or at least not exacerbate it further, and to repair damaged soils and slow desertification processes. This means that, in some cases, meat from grass-fed animals can have a lower ecological footprint than plant-based burgers. Studies by Quantis International demonstrated a +3.5 CO2-eq emissions/per kg[58] product in the life cycle analysis of the Impossible Burger, versus −3.5 CO2-eq/per kg[59] for beef produced using regenerative grazing practices, meaning that over the lifecycle of the animal more carbon was sequestrated than emitted.
Fake food investors and advocates fail to see how the real problems lie in the industrial agriculture model, rather than in meat production alone. Pointing toward the need to implement agroecological practices and agricultural diversity[60] to ensure a healthier environment and food sovereignty on a global scale.
Fake food is a fake solution, that aims to replace meat without challenging the profit-driven capitalist food and farming industry. This mindset explains why we will soon see Beyond Meat burgers in McDonald’s plant-based menus[61] when we should instead focus on the necessity for real regenerative agriculture and systemic change to protect nature and people’s health.
Biodiversity and Agroecology are True Solutions to Climate Change
Climate change and its very real consequences cannot be fully addressed without recognizing the central role of the industrialized and globalized food system in creating the climate crisis by contributing 44% to 57% of all greenhouse gas emissions through deforestation, animals in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), plastics and aluminum packaging, long-distance transport, and food waste.[62] Further industrialization, globalization, and now digitalization as promoted by the BMGF would mean further promotion of commercial seeds, toxic chemical use, high water usage, giant gas-guzzling farm equipment, and a massive fossil fuel-based global transport and production system, which would directly risk the rise of this GHG contribution. Not to mention, as has been shown during the initial Coronavirus lockdowns in 2020, these globalized and industrialized food systems are also significantly more vulnerable to disruptions, something climate change is already accelerating. Therefore, the way we produce our food should play an important role in how we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and directly adapt to climate change.
We have a choice to not go further down the path that has already destroyed biodiversity, farmers’ lives, and rural economies and is now threatening to fully close off the future by destroying our planet. Especially as there are other paths that farmers across the world have walked for nearly 10,000 years, which have been continually rejuvenated through diverse agroecological systems. An agroecological path that can now show the way toward a more ecological future and is now being walked by local, diverse food communities across the world as a way to bring in a new paradigm of living in harmony with nature.
Agroecology is based on a broad set of principles and includes diverse ways of farming with nature and rejuvenating biodiversity through living seed, soil, and local food communities, without the use of chemicals. From seed to table, a diversity of movements is formed by a variety of actors including small farmers, gardeners, civil society organizations, citizens, policymakers, researchers, and international organizations. Movements can also take many forms including, organic farming, permaculture, biodynamic, regenerative farming, Matsunuoba Fukukua’s vision of natural farming[63], local/ zero kilometer food chains, cooperative models of production and consumption, community-supported agriculture (CSAs), farmers markets, biodistricts[64], community and school gardens, urban farms, community seed banks,[65] slow food movements and revival of traditional[66] and forgotten foods, as well as hundreds of thousands of local farming traditions which have evolved over millennia. All of these approaches adapt agroecological methods to local contexts, to fit local needs, traditions, and knowledge systems. These traditions and approaches all put care for people and the land first, and place food sovereignty at the center of their local circular, cyclical, biodiverse, healthy, and sustainable food economies. Through these diverse methods, small farmers are feeding their local communities[67] healthy, nutritious food while simultaneously preserving ecosystemic health.
Agroecological food systems are a proven way to decrease CO2 emissions through actively sequestering greenhouse gases.[68] This is done through reorienting food supply chains to local food economies that eliminate fossil fuel-intensive methods and global supply chains, replacing them with resource recycling, low-intensity inputs which mimic nature’s nutrition, and hydrologic cycles to heal the soil and biodiversity.[69] It is also done through strengthening soils by increasing soil biodiversity, contributing both to fix carbon dioxide back into soils while reducing the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Healthy soils also help sustain increased biodiversity, reducing pest and disease pressures.[70] To be specific, it has been estimated that through widespread agroecological and organic farming conversions 40 percent of the world’s agriculture greenhouse gas emissions could be mitigated in a minimum implementation scenario and up to 65 percent in a maximum carbon sequestration scenario.[71]
Along with providing a long-lasting solution to climate change, the transition to agroecological food and farming systems would also ensure the livelihoods of more than 1.5 billion smallholder farmers globally, along with working to ensure food sovereignty in the world’s most vulnerable populations. All over the world, these food communities are already transitioning to this ecological and democratic path, thus sowing the seeds of a food system in the hands of communities, women, farmers, and consumers free of corporate control, poisons, food miles, plastics, and patents. They are creating resilience in the face of deepening ecological and economic vulnerabilities through reclaiming seed, food, and knowledge as commons.
Agroecological solutions to climate change are based on a systemic approach that acknowledges the root cause of our crises, a deep understanding of living processing, and therefore, embodying a different vision of what food systems transformation could look like at the political, social, and economic levels. This true, agroecological transformation is incompatible with the industrial agriculture paradigm, as it requires a complete shift away from the hyper-centralized, corporate-controlled industrial food system.
So in reality, the Gates’ strategies have nothing to do with lifting poor people out of poverty or fighting climate change. There is nothing altruistic, coy, or ‘optimistic’ about Gates and his foundation. Instead, it is a blatant attempt for the accumulation of power through the stubborn imposition of a failed paradigm. The level of influence accumulated by Gates, a billionaire who actively admits his limited knowledge of the problems he is attempting to solve, stands to take power away from democratic governance, and calls for climate and ecological justice by replacing democratic decisions through enforcing policies that adhere to his whims. All the while usurping much needed attention, funds, and policy away from a diverse agroecological transformation.
In other words, Bill Gates and his fellow private business partners will continue to produce exponentially worse problems than the ones they propose to ‘solve’, while simultaneously working to concentrate ever more power into private hands through the dogma of technology. These described technologies are used as methods of direct imposition, without any democratic, ethical, social, or ecological assessment. All the while substituting complex, diverse, self-organized, autopoietic systems, creating a new level of illusion that is propelling us faster toward collapse.
In the end, two distinct futures of food and farming are emerging – one leads to the regeneration of our planet, our soils, our biodiversity, our water, our rural economies and farmers’ livelihoods, our health, and our democracy. The second road leads to the collapse of the planet’s ecosystems and of socioeconomic systems that sustain society. The future of diverse species, our common human future, and our daily bread depends on which road we take.
Authors: Ruchi Shroff, Carla Ramos Cortés, Marion Bessol
The so-called philanthropists, Bill Gates in particular, are taking more and more power over our governments.
Vandana Shiva warns us on how this is bringing new and more dangerous threats to our agriculture, food, seed sovereignty, and to the biodiversity of our planet.
Together with “surveillance capitalism” all this is putting at risk the rights to our health, our freedom and our future.
Interview by Berenice Galli.
“Bad Reception” Film (2003) about the Wireless Revolution and Opposition to Cell Towers in San Francisco (Free Online)
American opposition to cell tower installation started long before 5G due to concerns about reduced property value, public safety risks, as well as health and environmental effects from radiation emissions. For many years now American firefighter unions have also opposed the use of their stations for cell tower and antenna installation due to exposure risks.
Of course, where there has been opposition – there has been more of an effort to strategically camouflage telecommunications infrastructure. This has only increased due to the controversial “Race to 5G” (see 1, 2).
Environmental Health Trust has recommended several documentaries and films about risks associated with cell towers and other sources of wireless radiation. Recently, one produced in 2003 became available to watch for free online.
The Wireless Revolution in San Francisco: Film “Bad Reception” Streaming Free Online
Bad Reception: The Wireless Revolution in San Francisco
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, preempted local governments in the U.S. from considering the environmental effects of wireless facilities if they met F.C.C. exposure guidelines. These guidelines were designed to be protective solely of thermal (i.e., heating) effects of radiofrequency radiation, not all potential biological and health effects.
Armed with this federal preemption, the wireless industry in the late 1990s-early 2000s began the rollout of so-called 3G (i.e., digital voice and data) cellular phone technology and the infrastructure to run it. Across the country, local communities were faced with the sudden appearance of cellular phone towers and antennas mounted to buildings and other structures, oftentimes in close proximity to where people lived, worked and played.
Bad Reception: The Wireless Revolutionin San Francisco, which premiered in January 2003 at local venues in San Francisco, California and was subsequently broadcast nationwide on Free Speech TV, focuses on San Francisco as a case study of one of many of these communities where concerns were raised about the potential health and environmental consequences of this revolution in wireless communications. Bad Reception tells the compelling story of residents from backgrounds as diverse as the city itself as they take on one of the most powerful corporate entities in the world.
Produced and Directed by Doug Loranger. Co-Produced by Gordon Winiemko. USA. Running time: 55:23 minutes
Lawsuits have been filed against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failing to protect Americans from unsafe levels of cell phone and WiFi radiation as well as 5G on Earth (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and in space (see 1, 2). A petition has also been launched asking the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish more protective universal EMF and RF exposure limits.
Hundreds of farmers and human rights groups are boycotting the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit because they believe it favors agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems
The controversy began when Agnes Kalibata was appointed as the event’s head; Kalibata is the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Gates is promoting an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control
Planning documents for the Summit also reveal plans for a “radical transformation shift” in Africa, away from traditional farming practices and toward industrial farming — even describing the potential as the “new oil”
Hundreds of farmers and human rights groups are boycotting the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit because they believe it favors agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems.1
The Summit claims it is convening to “launch bold new actions to transform the way the world produces and consumes food,”2 but critics say it is biased toward industrial, corporate farming while leaving out those in regenerative agriculture and the knowledge of indigenous people.3
The controversy began right from the start, when U.N. secretary general António Guterres appointed Agnes Kalibata as the event’s head. Kalibata is the former Rwandan agriculture minister who is now the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.4
AGRA is essentially a Gates Foundation subsidiary, and while some of its projects appear to be beneficial, most of its goals are centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers.
Corporate Interests Dominating Food Summit
After Kalibata was appointed special envoy to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit in December 2019, 176 civil society organizations and farmer groups from 83 countries urged Guterres to withdraw the appointment due to Kalibata’s clear conflicts of interest with corporate interests.
A second statement, signed by more than 500 academics and organizations, also opposed Kalibata’s appointment to, and her organization of, the Summit.5 AGRA is known to promote the interests of agribusiness, leading civil society organizations to argue that Kalibata’s appointment was a clear conflict of interest.
“This concern over Kalibata’s nomination has been largely borne-out by Kalibata’s top-down approach to organizing the Summit and her exclusion of those most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition in the planning process,” according to an August 2020 report by AGRA Watch.6
A dozen individuals representing development banks, academic institutions and the private sector came forward in support of Kalibata, but “11 had past or current connections to the Gates Foundation,” AGRA Watch reported, adding:7
“These findings illustrate the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) on global food and agricultural policy. AGRA Watch has continually documented the role of the BMGF in influencing agricultural development, which has grown immensely in recent years.
That Gates Foundation seeks to exercise influence not only through its funding of projects and shaping of expertise, but also in funding the governance platforms that determine food and agricultural policy. This role of the BMGF in driving policy decisions based on its proprietary and technological model of agricultural development is often overlooked.”
Precision Agriculture, Genetic Engineering Take Center Stage
Concerns that the Summit was dominated by corporate industry heightened when its concept paper included precision agriculture, data collection and genetic engineering as pillars for addressing food security while leaving out regenerative agriculture.
As reported by The Guardian, Michael Fakhri, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, wrote to Kalibata stating that the Summit was focused on “science and technology, money and markets” while leaving fundamental questions about inequality, accountability and governance unaddressed:8
“It [appears] heavily skewed in favor of one type of approach to food systems, namely market-based solutions … it leaves out experimental/traditional knowledge that has the acute effect of excluding indigenous peoples and their knowledge. The business sector has been part of the problem of food systems and has not been held accountable.”
The 300 million-member Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism announced plans to boycott the Summit and set up a meeting of their own, while others, including Sofía Monsalve Suárez, head of nutrition rights group Fian International, questioned the Summit’s legitimacy:9
“We cannot jump on a train that is heading in the wrong direction … We sent a letter last year to the secretary general about our concerns. It was not answered. We sent another last month, which has also not been answered. The summit appears extremely biased in favor of the same actors who have been responsible for the food crisis.”
Other nutrition experts also expressed the need for the Summit to be more inclusive of initiatives such as agro-ecology and food sovereignty.
Food Group Calls on UN to Sever Ties With WEF
A group of 148 organizations from 28 countries also called on the U.N. to revoke their 2019 strategic partnership formed with the World Economic Forum (WEF). WEF’s involvement with the Summit has been called a form of “corporate hijacking” that would infringe on people’s rights to food and food production. According to the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty:10
“The WEF will exploit the Summit to streamline neoliberal globalization, which it has espoused for the past 50 years. It is the perfect venue to push for the role of ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies’ to transform food systems, which the WEF has been championing since 2017.
A corporate-led FSS [Food Systems Summit] would be a great advantage to the political elites and corporate billionaires, enabling them to pose hypocritically as responsible entities that promote healthier diets and climate action.
… The sidelined and marginalized sectors in society — the poor farmers, workers, Indigenous Peoples, herders, pastoralists, fisherfolks, urban poor, women, Dalits, and youth — should replace these corporate moguls in shaping the Summit’s proceedings and reforms.”
Beyond the Summit, WEF’s takeover of the U.N. has been denounced by more than 400 civil society organizations and 40 international networks, which claim it will only accelerate the move toward a privatized, undemocratic global takeover. Monsalve Suárez stated:11
“Corporations in the global industrial food chain alone destroy 75 billion tons of topsoil annually and are responsible for the annual loss of 7.5 million hectares of forest. This destruction, along with other factors, leaves 3.9 billion underfed or malnourished people. The WEF represents the interests of those who destroy the environment and abuse our human rights. It cannot be considered a strategic partner in solving the world’s crises.”
Africa’s Traditional Food Systems Under Attack
Planning documents for the Summit also reveal plans for a “radical transformation shift” in Africa, away from traditional farming practices and toward industrial farming — even describing the potential as the “new oil.”12 The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), which released the documents, said the plans recycle the “same false solutions … with the same narrow benefits accruing to a limited number of actors.”13
For instance, one section of the documents is titled “the promise of digital and biotechnologies and the transformation of food systems,” and describes “the significant potential for capturing large economic, social and environmental payoffs from the use of biotechnology products … In West Africa, for instance, farmers can benefit significantly from the adoption of Bt cotton.”14
Technology and development take center stage, along with “strengthening the use of big data” for decisions on things like fertilizer use, genetically engineered crops and “accessing markets.” As noted by U.S. Right to Know:15
“This agenda aligns perfectly with the plans of the agrichemical industry, the Gates Foundation and its main agricultural development program, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, which encourages African countries to pass business-friendly policies and scale up markets for patented seeds, fossil-fuel based fertilizers and other industrial inputs they say are necessary to boost food production.”
“The main problem with AGRA,” Global Justice Now explains, “is that it is laying the groundwork for the deeper penetration of African agriculture by agribusiness corporations,” and:
“The BMGF, through AGRA, is one of the world’s largest promoters of chemical fertiliser. Some grants given by the BMGF to AGRA have been specifically intended to ‘help AGRA build the fertiliser supply chain’ in Africa. One of the largest of AGRA’s own grants, worth $25 million, was to help establish the African Fertiliser Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) in 2012 whose very goal is to ‘at least double total fertiliser use’ in Africa.”16
Bill Gates Is the Biggest Owner of US Farmland
The BMGF’s involvement in the Summit is also self-serving, as Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased a total of 242,000 acres — much of it considered some of the richest soil in the U.S. — at a frenzied pace over the past few years.17
Gates, however, isn’t interested in regenerative agriculture but instead is furthering an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control — interests that undermine regenerative, sustainable, small-scale farming. One of the key players in this agenda is the widespread adoption of synthetic meat.
Gates has made it clear that he believes switching to synthetic beef is the solution to reducing methane emissions that come from animals raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).18
The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 2021.19 In an interview with MIT Technology Review, he goes so far as to say that people’s behaviors should be changed to learn to like fake meat and, if that doesn’t work, regulations could do the trick.20
What many aren’t aware of, however, is that Gates is either personally invested in, or invested in via Breakthrough Energy Ventures, fake meat companies like Beyond Meats, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and other companies he actively promotes.21
When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could “be the full solution to the protein problem globally,” he says that, in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used to it.”22
Small Farmers, Regenerative Agriculture Are the Answer
The U.N. Food Summit is poised to bow down to corporate ideology instead of embracing the small farmers and regenerative practices that have true potential to feed the world and heal the planet. If you’re new to this discussion, you can find the top six reasons to support regenerative agriculture here. As Timothy Wise, senior adviser at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told The Guardian:23
“A growing number of farmers, scientists and development experts now advocate a shift from high-input chemical-intensive agriculture to low-input ecological farming. They are supported by an array of new research documenting both the risks of continuing to follow our current practices and the potential benefits of a transition to more sustainable farming.”
For years already, credible individuals, agencies, and organizations have warned against launching more vehicles into space. For one thing, there’s too much space junk out there already and it’s creating dangerous and potentially catastrophic situations.
Launching more vehicles is ill-advised for that reason and various others that are equally scary (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) including explosions (see 1, 2, 3). Recently, a 5G satellite moratorium was issued in South Africa due to interference issues as well.
Unfortunately, none of this has stopped Elon Musk or other tech billionaires from launching satellites or pursuing other business ventures in space. Of course, they are getting funding for some of this from the U.S. to provide high-speed internet.
Last month actor/comedian/activist Russell Brand produced a 13-minute video about his concerns regarding tech billionaires’ space endeavors:
Regarding internet satellites – protests are scheduled for March 19 and 20 (see 1, 2). Visit Stop 5G International to learn if there is an event scheduled near you.
GeoeongineeringWatch.org is excited to announce the release of our groundbreaking documentary that conclusively exposes the existence of global climate engineering operations.
Global climate engineering operations are a reality. Atmospheric particle testing conducted by GeoengineeringWatch.org has now proven that the lingering, spreading jet aircraft trails, so commonly visible in our skies, are not just condensation as we have officially been told. Over 75 years ago global powers committed the planet and populations to a climate engineering experiment from which there is no return. The intentional dimming of direct sunlight by aircraft dispersed particles, a form of global warming mitigation known as “Solar Radiation Management”, has and is causing catastrophic damage to the planet’s life support systems. The highly toxic fallout from the ongoing geoengineering operations is also inflicting unquantifiable damage to human health. Why aren’t scientists or official sources disclosing the ongoing climate engineering operations? Who is responsible for carrying out these programs? What will the consequences be if geoengineering / solar radiation management operations are allowed to continue? The Dimming documentary will provide answers to these questions and many more. Thank you for viewing and for notifying others of The Dimming film release.
Children’s Health Defense is one of several groups planning a March 19 protest at SpaceX headquarters to demand the company end its planned deployment of 42,000 low-orbit satellites.
Safe technology advocates, environmentalists and astronomers from California and beyond will gather March 19, 10 a.m. – 2 p.m. PT at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif., to demand the company end its planned deployment of 42,000 low-orbit satellites.
The groups are gathering signatures worldwide on an open letter to Elon Musk and SpaceX, urging Musk to sit down with scientists, astronomers and all stakeholders to discuss the dangers of satellite programs. A group of children will hand-deliver the letter at the March 19 rally.
The SpaceX low-orbit satellites, using 5G technology, would bathe the world with microwave radiation including the mid-ocean, Antarctic and wildlife preserves and protected natural areas. Other companies such as One Web and Amazon have plans to launch up to 40,000 additional satellites.
The SpaceX Starlink program calls for 8,400 satellites, each with a lifespan of only 5 years, to be built, launched, deorbited and burned up each year. This will add to ozone depletion, space debris and collisions, the conversion of deorbited satellites to toxic dust and smoke as they burn up in the atmosphere, and the proliferation of spaceports on pristine land and ground and water pollution around them.
Of particular concern is the global increase in microwave radiation from the satellites, ground stations and millions of “user terminals” which are, in effect, cell antennas all over the planet, one for each subscriber.
On Feb. 26 Children’s Health Defense filed a case against the Federal Communication Commission challenging an amendment to the “Over the Air Reception Devices” rule (OTARD). Among other things, the amended rule enables the deployment of at least 1,000,000 antennas which will provide the ground infrastructure for the SpaceX satellites. The amended rule goes into effect March 29.
“We are literally guinea pigs for this technological experiment about which we have not been consulted, and for which we have not given our consent,” said David Goldberg, an event organizer. “This is the same technology used in the microwave attacks on diplomats, currently under federal investigation. Safer and more energy-efficient wired technologies are available and should be implemented, instead of thousands of satellites and millions of cell antennas that will increase wireless radiation and harm the environment.”
Participants are being asked to please abide by all California COVID-19 public health laws and mandates. For more information on the planned protest, click here.
Watch this video on the planned protest:
Dr. Vernon Coleman: Is Your Drinking Water Contaminated with Vaccines?
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute and Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Dr. Vandana Shiva, the Founder and President of Navdanya, Technology and Natural Resource Policy who was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’ explains how the World Bank is waging a war against Indian farmers.
She discusses the recent avalanche in Uttarakhand which has left hundreds missing and the causes behind it, how the World Bank’s actions in the 1991 was arguably the start of the war between Indian farmers and global capitalism, why India’s farmers are organising en masse to oppose India’s neoliberal farming laws, 1 in 4 farmers on Earth being Indian, multinational farming corporations and their war on India’s independent farmers, the history of the spread of GMO technology such as ‘Roundup’, why a transition away from industrial farming back to small-scale farming is needed to fight climate change and much more!
Weather modification and manipulation don’t exist.
Weather modification is a crazy conspiracy theory.
Weather modification is not scientifically possible.
All of these are phrases that have been repeated ad nauseam by mainstream media for years. Suddenly, however, now mainstream media outlets can (and do) openly discuss ongoing weather modification programs from both corporations and foreign governments.
It looks like weather modification is one of those “crazy conspiracy theories” that isn’t so crazy after all.
Let’s talk about China’s weather modification program.
China’s program sounds suspiciously like the “conspiracy theories” the MSM told us were false.
A recent story from Business Insider regarding China’s weather modification projects revealed that China is “massively expanding” its publicly admitted weather control projects. China aims to be able to cover half of the country in artificial rain and snow by 2025. The project is a rudimentary and now arcane method of “cloud seeding,” which General Electric claimed the discovery of in the United States in 1946. China launched its program in the 1960s.
Dozens of other countries have similar programs. However, China now has the world’s largest, and it employs around 35,000 people. Keep in mind this is the publicly acknowledged wing of the program, not secret research or facilities.
In a statement, the Chinese State Council said that the country’s cloud seeding project would expand five times over to cover an area of 2.1 million square miles. China is 3.7 million square miles, which means that the project would cover 56% of its land surface area.
China’s weather manipulation is set to be worldwide by 2034
The State Council said that the project would be at a “worldwide advanced level” by 2034 and that it will help alleviate “disasters such as drought and hail,” and that it will facilitate emergency responses “to forest or grassland fires.”
China’s current publicly admitted program uses artificial cloud seeding, spraying chemicals like silver iodide or liquid nitrogen into clouds which can make water droplets condense, then fall as rain or snow.
In 2008, China launched a cloud seeding project in Beijing right before the Olympics that caused rain to fall before the event started. In 2016, China devoted $30 million to cloud seeding and began firing bullets filled with salt and minerals into the sky.
In 2017, it spent $168 million on a massive supply of equipment to facilitate the project, including four aircraft and “897 rocket launchers.” Business Insider previously reported that China’s Ministry of Finance wanted to use cloud seeding to create at least 60 billion cubic meters of additional rain every year by 2020.
Chinese media reported in 2019 that cloud seeding tactics in Xinjiang prevented 70% of crops from anticipated hail damage.
One must wonder if a government has the scientific ability to manipulate the weather on such a grand scale, have they considered weaponizing it as well as using it for benevolent purposes? Some people might ask if the engineering is such that a once-in-a-century storm could be created, or some other ecological anomaly.
No, that’s just crazy talk.
For more information on the weaponization of weather, check out Steve Quayle’s book, Weather Wars.
The United States and the United Arab Emirates also have publicly acknowledged weather modification programs.
China is not the only country utilizing weather modification technology.
In 2015, for instance, the United Arab Emirates launched a $5 million research program for “rain enhancement science.”
From the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, the United States’ NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) actively pursued Project STORMFURY, a program designed to modify hurricanes. The US also used cloud seeding in the Great Plains and the Western States to “combat drought.”
Wyoming has dumped $15 million into a ten-year study that concluded cloud seeding could add 10 percent more snow to an existing storm.
Idaho even funded a National Science Foundation research project to test cloud seeding to increase snowfall.
“Idaho Power is interested in putting more snow on the ground in the mountains, which leads to more water in rivers from snowmelt,” said atmospheric scientist Jeff French of the University of Wyoming in a statement. “In turn, that leads to more power generation capability throughout the year.”
(Read a New Scientist article about Project SNOWIE here.)
The New Feudal Overlords are getting in on the act as well
Bill Gates is funding weather modification projects. (Big surprise.) One of those projects sounds eerily like the “chemtrails” that no one can talk about without mockery or accusations of insanity.
Gates’ project is called Solar Geoengineering, and it is meant to replicate the effects of a giant volcanic eruption. Thousands of planes would be flown at high altitudes and spray millions of tons of particles around the planet to create a massive chemical cloud that would cool the earth’s surface.
However, one problem with mimicking a giant volcanic eruption is that it doesn’t merely cool the earth. It can create an ice age, which leads to famine, which leads to starvation, chaos, war, and death. But that doesn’t matter to Gates. It doesn’t seem to matter to any of the national governments dead set on upending the earth’s natural balance and equilibrium humans must have with nature to survive on it either.
Many people would suggest that is the whole point.
The extremely anomalous surface cool-down in Texas and other parts of the world are not just random acts of Nature. Global climate engineering operations are not just a proposal, they have been an ongoing reality for over 70 years. Erratic and unprecedented weather is radically increasing everywhere. Though there are countless forms of human activity affecting the equation, the global climate engineering programs are by far the single greatest and most destructive factor. The geoengineers are manufacturing winter weather scenarios on a scale that can scarcely be comprehended, such operations are nothing short of winter weather warfare. Ecosystems are being decimated by the climate engineering onslaught. No habitat, no humans. What will it take to bring the geoengineering issue to light, once and for all?
The photos below were just captured near Kerrville, Texas. The images clearly reveal the results and consequences of chemical ice nucleation operations. Patented processes of chemical ice nucleation for weather modification are a primary component of the climate engineering programs.
Georgia and Tennessee are first states to gain approval to diffuse a chemical known to trigger asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses throughout schools, healthcare and food processing facilities and intrastate transportation.
In mid-January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved requests from two southern states (Georgia and Tennessee) asking for an emergency exemption that would allow them to aerosolize selected indoor spaces with an antiviral “air treatment” called Grignard Pure.
Grignard Pure is a nanoparticle-based product. Its active ingredient is a substance called triethylene glycol (TEG).
The EPA’s approval slid in under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which allows the agency to green-light pesticides for unregistered uses in defined geographic areas for up to a year during public health emergencies deemed “urgent” and “non-routine.”
Grignard Pure contains TEG as a standalone chemical compound, but TEG is also a component of some polyethylene glycol (PEG) compounds (those of low molecular weight).
An estimated 72% of the general population has anti-PEG antibodies (including elevated levels in 8% of Americans) that can set those individuals up for adverse reactions when later exposed to PEG-containing substances.
Pharmaceutical and biotech companies, acutely aware of the correlation between anti-drug antibodies and increased adverse effects, acknowledge that the phenomenon poses a “vexing” and “serious” clinical problem — one that has come into sharp relief as recipients of COVID mRNA injections experience severe allergic reactions.
In light of the interrelationship between PEG and TEG, the planned diffusion of nanoparticle-based TEG in public spaces — including through building heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems — introduces important new questions: Could individuals already sensitized to PEG go into anaphylaxis when they inhale TEG? Or conversely, might people who are exposed to aerosolized TEG then become sensitized to PEG — and run the risk of an adverse reaction when they subsequently encounter a PEG-containing mRNA injection or another “PEGylated” drug?
The newest kid on the block: ‘atmospheric viricides’
The Grignard company describes itself as “an innovative leader in specialty chemical solutions for every industry need,” ranging from precision cleaners and wastewater treatments to “atmospheric effects” for the entertainment industry. In fact, the company’s Grignard FX branch is North America’s “largest producer of theatrical fog and haze fluids” for movies, stadium concerts and theater, as well as being the manufacturer of stage blood promoted as “so realistic they will freak out.”
The company now intends to parlay its extensive theatrical experience into the realm of atmospheric viricides, promising “a light atmospheric haze throughout an indoor space that inactivates enveloped viruses such as the novel coronavirus on non-porous hard surfaces and in the air.”
According to the EPA, the Grignard Pure product has the ability to “permeate and kill. . . over 98 percent of COVID-19 [virus] particles.” Dispersal of Grignard Pure is proposed “via a building’s HVAC system, or using conventional haze/fog machines typically deployed in entertainment venues and in fire training.”
In an example of the revolving regulator-industry door, a four-decade veteran of EPA pesticide regulation is now a leading consultant for Grignard, helping the company market the anti-COVID fluid as the solution to a “critical challenge.”
Meanwhile, outgoing EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler touted Grignard Pure as a “first-of-its kind” tool to “help fight the spread of the novel coronavirus,” vowing in the agency’s press release that “There is no higher priority for EPA than protecting the health and safety of Americans.”
Respiratory irritant
EPA’s emergency go-ahead permits Georgia and Tennessee to diffuse Grignard Pure continuously in “breakrooms, locker rooms, bathrooms, lobbies, elevators, eating areas and food preparation areas” in government, health care and food processing facilities as well as intrastate transportation — anywhere “where people are conducting activity deemed essential by the state.”
The EPA endorsed the product’s emergency use in food preparation and eating areas despite warnings in the triethylene glycol safety data sheet not to store TEG “near food, foodstuffs or potable water supplies.”
Did the EPA conduct an objective assessment of benefits versus risks? The agency’s press release does not say, nor does it include any warnings other than a one-sentence statement that “TEG may be an irritant for sensitive populations.” (Canadian fog and smoke safety guidelines for the live performance industry, on the other hand, specify that high-risk individuals — such as children, pregnant women and people with asthma or serious illnesses — should avoid exposure).
But if the EPA is unconcerned about the known short-term effects of exposure to glycol-containing fluids (including symptoms that sound a lot like COVID) or the potential for longer-term harm, the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) is much more up front about the risks. Addressing glycol-reliant fog machines, the ACAAI states:
“In people with asthma and airways hyper-reactivity, the irritant effect of short-term exposure to water-based fog machines — particularly when the chemical glycol is used — could trigger acute asthma symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness and shortness of breath. Even in a person without asthma, short term exposure to glycol-containing fog machines can be associated with headaches, dizziness, drowsiness, and eye irritation. Prolonged exposure to this substance in a person with asthma could trigger even more severe respiratory difficulty and could cause bronchitic symptoms even in those without asthma. Long term exposure to smoke and fog can result in upper airway and voice symptoms as well, while extended (multi-year) exposure … has been associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory health problems.”
Confusingly, the TEG safety data sheet warns that “repeated excessive aerosol exposures may cause respiratory tract irritation and even death” but reports “no relevant information found” pertaining to respiratory toxicity. This may be because most TEG toxicity studies have focused on oral or dermal exposures, rather than inhalation, and primarily have studied reproductive endpoints or carcinogenicity.
The EPA undoubtedly is aware that inhalation exposures can produce different results than oral or dermal routes of administration. A 2007 study of TEG toxicology — though premised on the now obsolete assumptions that “aerosol exposure is not a usual exposure mode” and that TEG exposure is “mainly occupational” — concluded that “repeated exposures to a TEG aerosol may result in respiratory tract irritation, with cough, shortness of breath and tightness of the chest.”
Another study conducted in 2019 reported that rats exposed to an aerosol combination of TEG and a disinfectant (benzalkonium chloride) for two weeks exhibited severe respiratory symptoms as well as “significant ulceration and degenerative necrosis … in the nasal cavities.”
A mouse study found that mice exposed to “respirable aerosols” of TEG also manifested a number of “nonspecific indications of toxicity,” including irritation, fluid imbalance, liver dysfunction and decreased body weight, along with “unexplained mortality” in female mice two to three days after exposure to the highest concentration of TEG.
What about the nanoparticles?
In September 2020, Brazilian researchers published an extensive discussion of nanotechnology “for COVID-19 virus management.” Although eager to play up nanotechnology’s current and potential anti-COVID applications — including in disinfectants, personal protective equipment, nano-based sensors, “enhanced activity” drugs and nano-based vaccines — the authors also acknowledged some “bottlenecks,” one of the major ones being to ensure nanomaterials’ safe use!
A key observation by the Brazilian authors is that most studies only evaluate nanoparticle biocompatibility in vitro (that is, in a petri dish), rather than in vivo (in actual animals or humans). They state that without high-quality in-vivo studies, it is impossible to fully understand “the toxicokinetic behaviour of the nanoparticles in the body, especially for long-term exposure.”
Elaborating, the Brazilian researchers said: “Due to the multifaceted interactions between nanomaterials and biological systems (in vivo), it is very challenging to foresee the behaviour of these materials under physiological conditions,” particularly given that “[t]he fate and behaviour of nanomaterials in the body can … change when they reach blood circulation”
These interactions — critical to the production of adverse events — are, as yet, poorly understood.
As far as scientists in the burgeoning field of nanotechnology are concerned, the sky’s the limit for nanotech applications. However, these same experts also freely admit that nanoparticles have toxic effects that are “a strong limiting factor” hindering their wider use:
“The small size of NPs [nanoparticles] allows them … to be carried by the bloodstream and lymph stream to different organs and tissues, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow, and nervous system … Experiments modeling the toxic effects of NPs on the body have shown that NPs cause thrombosis … , inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tracts, neurodegenerative disorders, stroke, myocardial infarction, and other disorders. Note that NPs may enter not only organs, tissues, and cells, but also. . . mitochondria and nuclei; this may drastically alter cell metabolism and cause DNA lesions, mutations, and cell death.”
Unanswered questions
TEG is not a new substance. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, for example, doctors working on infant hospital wards explored the use of triethylene glycol vapors as “a method of disinfecting air in closed and heavily contaminated spaces.”
Reporting on one study’s disappointing results, which deemed TEG ineffective in preventing airborne transmission, the clinicians concluded that glycol vaporization in public buildings was “not yet ready for general use.”
Thanks to 21st-century developments in polymer chemistry and nanotechnology, TEG has now circled back around in the form of Grignard Pure — although the latter likely bears scant resemblance to the TEG vapors used in the 1950s.
Unfortunately for the Georgia and Tennessee residents who are about to be continuously exposed to Grignard Pure (with Nevada possibly being next in line due to heavy lobbying by Las Vegas entrepreneurs), neither Grignard nor the EPA are addressing the thorny safety issues of potential TEG-PEG cross-reactivity, toxic buildup of nanoparticles in the body or synergistic toxicity from TEG-nanoparticle interactions.
It is unclear whether the EPA provided an opportunity for public comment before rushing to approve Grignard Pure. Regardless, concerned citizens may wish to ask the agency some pointed questions about which safety data did — or did not — factor into its decision and how it plans to protect the health and safety of Americans.
RFK, Jr. w/ Vandana Shiva: Farmers Standing in Fearlessness & Truth “Fighting for the Soil & Soul of India”
[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: RFK, Jr. and Dr. Vandana Shiva share a powerful overview of how Big Food & Big Pharma billionaires are attempting to crash the global economy & colonize the entire planet. These courageous farmers in India are standing in truth on behalf of all humanity.]
“I think that is the clash we are living through. You know, the billionaires wanting
to turn everything into their portfolio. And the ordinary people saying ‘no, we
want to protect our land’.” ~ Vandana Shiva
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
With a new epilogue about Bill Gates’s global agenda and how we can resist the billionaires’ war on life
Widespread poverty and malnutrition, an alarming refugee crisis, social unrest, and economic polarization have become our lived reality as the top 1% of the world’s seven-billion-plus population pushes the planet―and all its people―to the social and ecological brink.
In Oneness vs. the 1%, Vandana Shiva takes on the Billionaires Club of Gates, Buffet, and Zuckerberg, as well as other modern empires whose blindness to the rights of people, and to the destructive impact of their construct of linear progress, have wrought havoc across the world. Their single-minded pursuit of profit has undemocratically enforced uniformity and monocultures, division and separation, monopolies and external control―over finance, food, energy, information, healthcare, and even relationships.
Basing her analysis on explosive, little-known facts, Shiva exposes the 1%’s model of philanthrocapitalism, which is about deploying unaccountable money to bypass democratic structures, derail diversity, and impose totalitarian ideas based on One Science, One Agriculture, and One History. She calls for the “resurgence of real knowledge, real intelligence, real wealth, real work, real well-being,” so that people can reclaim their right to: Live Free. Think Free. Breathe Free. Eat Free.
A Death, Another Settlement and Thousands of Claims Pending as Bayer Tries to End Roundup Litigation
Seven months after Bayer AG announced plans for a sweeping settlement of U.S. Roundup cancer litigation, the German owner of Monsanto Co. continues to work to settle tens of thousands of claims brought by people suffering from cancer they say was caused by Monsanto’s weed killing products. On Wednesday, one more case appeared to find closure, though the plaintiff did not live to see it.
Lawyers for Jaime Alvarez Calderon, agreed earlier this week to a settlement offered by Bayer after U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria on Monday denied summary judgment in favor of Monsanto, allowing the case to move closer to a trial.
The settlement will go to Alvarez’s four sons because their 65-year-old father, a longtime winery worker in Napa County, California, died just over a year ago from non-Hodgkin lymphoma he blamed on his work spraying Roundup around winery property for years.
In a hearing held in federal court Wednesday, Alvarez family lawyer David Diamond told Judge Chhabria that the settlement would close out the case.
After the hearing, Diamond said Alvarez had worked in the wineries for 33 years, using a backpack sprayer to apply Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides to sprawling acreage for the Sutter Home group of wineries. He would often go home in the evenings with clothing wet with herbicide due to leaks in the equipment and weed killer that drifted in the wind. He was diagnosed in 2014 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, undergoing multiple rounds of chemotherapy and other treatments before dying in December 2019.
Diamond said he was happy to settle the case but has “400 plus” more Roundup cases still unresolved.
He is not alone. At least half a dozen other U.S. law firms have Roundup plaintiffs they are seeking trial settings for in 2021 and beyond.
Since buying Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has been struggling to figure out how to put an end to the litigation that includes more than 100,000 plaintiffs in the United States. The company lost all three trials held to date and has lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses. Juries in each of the trials found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides do cause cancer and that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.
In addition to efforts to resolve claims currently pending, Bayer also hopes to create a mechanism for resolving potential claims that it could face from Roundup users who develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the future. Its initial plan for handling future litigation was rejected by Judge Chhabria and the company has yet to announce a new plan.
Bill Gates is the biggest owner of US farmland, having amassed 240,000 acres. His influence in the world food systems is astounding. What can we expect he will do with this inconceivable amount of control over the world’s food supply? Christian takes a deep look at the investments, motivations and goals of the new #1 owner of our farms on this Ice Age Farmer broadcast.
The long-anticipated draft biological evaluation released by the EPA found that 1,676 endangered species are likely to be harmed by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, the world’s most-used pesticide.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft biological evaluation last week finding that glyphosate is likely to injure or kill 93% of the plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The long-anticipated draft biological evaluation released by the agency’s pesticide office found that 1,676 endangered species are likely to be harmed by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the world’s most-used pesticide.
The draft biological opinion also found that glyphosate adversely modifies critical habitat for 759 endangered species, or 96% of all species for which critical habitat has been designated.
“The hideous impacts of glyphosate on the nation’s most endangered species are impossible to ignore now,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Glyphosate use is so widespread that even the EPA’s notoriously industry-friendly pesticide office had to conclude that there are hardly any endangered species that can manage to evade its toxic impacts.
Hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate are used each year in the U.S., mostly in agriculture but also on lawns, gardens, landscaping, roadsides, schoolyards, national forests, rangelands, power lines and more.
According to the EPA, 280 million pounds of glyphosate are used just in agriculture, and glyphosate is sprayed on 298 million acres of crop land each year. 84% of glyphosate pounds applied in agriculture are applied to soy, corn and cotton, commodity crops that are genetically engineered to tolerate being drenched with quantities of glyphosate that would normally kill a plant.
Glyphosate is also widely used in fruit and vegetable production.
“As we prepare to feast on our favorite Thanksgiving dishes, the ugly truth of how harmful industrial-scale agriculture has become in the U.S. has never been so apparent,” said Burd. “If we want to stop the extinction of amazing creatures like monarch butterflies, we need the EPA to take action to stop the out-of-control spraying of deadly poisons.”
The EPA has, for decades, steadfastly refused to comply with its obligation under the Endangered Species Act to assess the harms of pesticides to protected plants and animals. But it was finally forced to do this evaluation under the terms of a 2016 legal agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity.
Emails obtained in litigation brought against Monsanto/Bayer by cancer victims and their families have uncovered a disturbingly cozy relationship between the agency and the company on matters involving the glyphosate risk assessment.
In one example, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it would be reviewing glyphosate’s safety, an EPA official assured Monsanto he would work to thwart the review, saying, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The Health and Human Services review was delayed for three years.
Monsanto/Bayer has also enjoyed broad support from the Trump White House. A domestic policy advisor in the Trump administration stated, “We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation.”
Earlier this year, relying on confidential industry research, the EPA reapproved glyphosate. The EPA’s assessment contradicts a 2015 World Health Organization analysis of published research that determined glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.
President-elect Joe Biden has already tapped Michael McCabe, a former consultant to chemical giant DuPont, to join his Environmental Protection Agency transition board, drawing broad outrage, including from Erin Brockovich.
High-Altitude Sampling of Highly-Toxic, Sprayed Particulate Dispersions | Proof of Ongoing Climate Engineering/Weather Warfare Operations
After substantial difficulty and expense, Geoengineering Watch has utilized two types of aircraft to complete multiple atmospheric particulate sampling flights up to and exceeding 40,000 feet.
One of the aircraft we conducted our testing missions in is also used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for their atmospheric testing operations.
The Geoengineering Watch team carried out multiple sample gathering flights in the high altitude haze layer being emitted by large jet carriers.
The lingering, spreading and sun blocking jet aircraft trails are not just condensation as we have been told by government sources.
The dimming of direct sunlight by aircraft dispersed particles, a form of global warming mitigation known as “Solar Radiation Management”, is ongoing. These global climate engineering operations are causing unquantifiable damage to the planet’s life support systems and human health.
This twelve minute video is an insight segment from the under production ground breaking climate engineering exposé documentary titled “The Dimming”. All are needed in the critical battle to wake populations to what is coming, we must make every day count. Share credible data from a credible source, make your voice heard. Dane Wigington
The horseshoe crab is thought to be 300 million years old; that’s 200 million years older than dinosaurs. They don’t sting, don’t bite and don’t harm us in any way. The annual spring congregation of egg-laden horseshoe crabs on the east coast provides a vital food source for annual migrations of millions of shorebirds.
But even this harmless sea creature may be annihilated by pharma’s insatiable drive to make a universal coronavirus vaccine. In 1990, biologists estimated 1.24 million crabs spawned in Delaware Bay, a main egg-laying nursery grounds and prime collection point for the companies. By 2019, that number had dropped to 335,211. Conservation groups feel that the planned harvest by vaccine manufacturers may lead to the species’ extinction.
Horseshoe crabs are known for their unique blue blood. But it’s not the blood’s color that is the attraction. A unique chemical found in its blood, called coagulogen, is used by the drug companies to detect as little as a few parts per billion of dangerous endotoxin bacterial contamination in any medication, medical devise or vaccine. According to Associates of Cape Cod, Inc, one of a handful of horseshoe crab blood processors, that’s like “finding a grain of sand in an Olympic swimming pool.”
First licensed in the 1970’s, coagulogen has become the gold standard of pharmaceutical purity testing. This simple test, referred to as a limulus amebocyte lysate test, or LAL for short, is named after the white blood cells (amebocytes) from which the chemical is harvested. The extract is so powerful that if even a trace of endotoxin is present, coagulogen will neutralize it into a gel. If no gel is formed, the product is considered to be free of bacteria. The FDA mandates that all injectable or indwelling materials to be certified as endotoxin-free using the LAL test before a product can be manufactured and sold into the market.
Harvesting the Crab: Big Business
The American LAL industry has been around a long time. The first commercial LAL production facility was established in Chincoteague, VA in 1971. Currently, several production facilities are located from Massachusetts to South Carolina. After the FDA granted approval for the commercial use of the LAL test in 1987, demand for testing reagents soared through the 1990s. Currently, drug companies require at least 80 million test units each year for drug and device testing. With the specter of using the LAL test to certify more than 15 billion COVID vaccines – two shots for every human on planet – the demand for horseshoe crab blood and LAL testing reagents may soom be stratospheric.
The crabs are harvested by local fisherman and taken to collection facilities which then return them to water within 24 to 72 hours of harvesting their blood. The crabs are returned to the ocean a great distance from where they were initially picked up to avoid recurrent rebleeding from the same crab. The process is rather straight forward: the animals are strapped into collection devices and a catheter is inserted into the sinuses where their blood is removed. Pharma claims it is a harmless procedure, similar to a human giving blood.
But how harmless is exsanguinating 30 percent of the animals’ blood?
Nearly 500,000 sea creatures are caught and then bled each year. This number is about to explode. The value of the commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs grew from about $400,000 in 2004 to more than $1.8 million in 2014. In 2018, a teaspoon of LAL was worth about $75 and the market value had ballooned to $112 million.
“The problem is that the companies need a large supply of the blood from live crabs,” a 2014 article in The Atlantic noted. “Horseshoe crabs live on the seafloor, near the shore. When they want to mate, they swim into very shallow water, and horseshoe crab collectors wade along, snatching the crabs out of their habitat.
Synthetic Alternatives
Because the demand for the LAL agent is about to explode as global vaccine demand is ramped up, alternatives for coagulogen are being explored. It appears a replacement for the blood harvesting may have been found.
Numerous articles have been published about the development of a recombinant Factor C (rFC) test, a recombinate, synthetic alternative to the LAL test. Comparative testing of samples tested with both the LAL and recombinant rFC suggests that the new test may even be superior for identifying bacterial endotoxins.
The results of a six-year study was published in the journal, Microorganisms, in March 2020. The study, which compared endotoxin sensitivity of LAL assay and two different rFC-based assays, demonstrated that both rFC-based assays were comparable to LAL. In fact, the rFC-based methods generated even better endotoxin recovery rates than traditional LAL testing. The researchers concluded:
“The rFC-based tests were found to represent reliable methods, as equivalent or even superior to LAL assays and suitable for routine bacterial endotoxin testing.”
A similar study, released in July 2020, concluded:
“rFC assays offer a number of benefits, including compliance with the principles of the 3Rs, i.e., replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal testing by safeguarding animal welfare and promoting more ethical and sustainable use of animals for testing… In summary, we demonstrated that both LAL and rFC assays are adequate for testing and releasing four vaccine products.”
Conservationists fear that the demand for horseshoe crab blood for COVID-19 vaccines may exterminate the crabs and greatly impact the shorebird population that depends on them. A synthetic substitution would be good news for the horseshoe crab population and for the entire environmental and marine ecosystem. And better for humans too.
If it becomes impossible for people to refuse the hydrogel-contaminated COVID19 vaccine, at least the vaccine will not decimate the horseshoe crab population for its manufacturing process.
High-speed internet is achievable, safer and more secure with a wired internet connection (see 1, 2, 3) NOT 5G or WiFi.
The majority of scientists worldwide oppose 5G. Cities worldwide AND entire countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums.
In July, Bermuda residents submitted a petition asking for a moratorium on deployment. In August, legislators issued a temporary moratorium. They have now made it permanent and are investigating FCC RadioFrequency (RF) Radiation safety limits.
From Environmental Health Trust:
Bermuda has halted 5G and launched a consultation in the safety of Federal Communications Commission human exposure limits, millimeter waves and 5G technology
The consultation document of the Regulatory Authority of Bermuda regards the general concerns about alleged health impacts from the use of radiofrequency radiation, the adequacy of Federal Communications limits, the use of millimeter wave spectrum and whether there should be a restriction on the number of networks that may be deployed.
The Consultation Requests answers to these 5 questions:
1.Do you agree that the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable within the United States, RF Exposure standards1 are appropriate for Bermuda? If not, what is a suitable alternative and why?
2. Do you agree that all antennae used by licensed sectoral providers should be registered with the RA? If not, what if anything should be registered with the RA e.g. location, direction (if applicable) and power level?
3. Do you agree that the Moratorium established by the EGD should be removed? If not, should it be modified and how should it be modified and why?
4. Do you agree that a real-time, publicly accessible Radiofrequency field intensity monitoring network should be deployed and a dedicated fee be levied on relevant sectoral providers and end-users that use Radiofrequency spectrum to cover the cost of the deployment and ongoing maintenance?
5. Should mmWave networks and small-cell technologies be restricted or prohibited in Bermuda? If so, why and what alternatives should be used?
In the United States, the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology just released its final report to the Governor summarizing its findings that safety assurances for 5G have “come into question because of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies documenting deleterious health effects associated with cellphone radiation exposure.” The majority of the New Hampshire Commission voted to support 15 recommendations to the New Hampshire Governor. Recommendations include: support an independent study of 5G health effects; reduce public exposure to cell phones, wireless devices and Wi-Fi in schools and libraries; ensure cell network infrastructure antenna setbacks from schools and homes; measure levels of cell network radiation; establish wireless radiation limits to protect trees and insects; establish more sophisticated measurement protocols to include high data rates; require software changes to reduce radiation exposure into the body; establish wireless radiation-free zones; and call on the US Federal Communications Commission to do an environmental assessment on the impact of 5G and wireless infrastructure expansion. The report has been sent to the New Hampshire Governor, House Speaker and Senate President.
Over 600 cities in Italy have passed resolutions to halt 5G, as have cities throughout Europe, such as Trafford, United Kingdom, Lille, France,Ormidia, Cyprus, Balchik, Bulgaria. The Pancyprian Medical Association and Cyprus National Committee on the Environment and Child Health sent Parliament their position paper “The Risks to Public Health from the Use of the 5G Network.” Bermuda has halted 5G pending a report on safety. Switzerland’s report on 5G health effects resulted in the Parliament’s refusal to loosen their radiation limits despite heavy industry lobbying efforts. The Netherlands issued a 5G report that recommended measuring radiation levels and also recommended against using the 26 GHz frequency band for 5G “for as long as the potential health risks have not been investigated.”
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry. They were corrupt before Trump was elected and have become much worse since. Lawsuits have been filed against them for NOT protecting the public from unsafe levels of radiation as well as 5G on Earth (see 1, 2, 3, 4) and in space. The agency refuses to update 24-year-old federal RF (wireless) radiation exposure guidelines. Doctors and scientists have asked MANY TIMES and again recently that health and environmental risks from from 5G, cell towers and other wireless sources be evaluated by experts with no conflicts of interest (see also 1, 2, 3). Nope.
Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses where it’s been installed (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Of course, other sources of wireless emit harmful radiation too. Last year, the World Health Organization predicted that high levels of Electromagnetic Radiation exposure (aka “Electrosmog”) could lead to health issues in a significant portion of the population.
For the second time in under a month, parents of a brain-injured child have sued the maker of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, claiming the company not only caused their child’s injuries, but did so despite knowing its product could cause brain damage in children, including unborn children whose mothers had come in contact with the chemical.
On Tuesday, Carmela Zamora Avila and Reymundo Arciniega Herrara sued Corteva, Inc. (formerly Dow) in California Superior Court. In the complaint, the parents, both farmworkers, allege their daughter Britney, now 13, was exposed to chlorpyrifos in utero and that as a result, she now has autism, obesity and vision problems.
Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate linked to neurological damage in children and fetuses, is widely used on common fruits and vegetables.
Last year, California banned the chemical. In February 2020, Corteva said it would no longer sell the pesticide — citing financial, not safety reasons. Other manufacturers however, including Gharda Chemicals, continue to make and sell chlorpyrifos-based pesticides.
According to the lawsuit filed by Avila and Herrara, six years before their daughter Britney was conceived, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a thorough review of data submitted by Dow and determined that chlorpyrifos is toxic to the developing nervous system and brain of mammals and children and that, “therefore, an additional safety factor was required for uses that might expose children to chlorpyrifos.”
The EPA subsequently banned chlorpyrifos for residential use, but continued to allow its use for commercial agriculture. That’s how Britney’s mother was exposed — she picked grapes and cleaned grapefruit fields as an agricultural field worker and as a packing house worker during her pregnancy, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that for decades, Dow knew that chlorpyrifos could harm children:
“Beginning in the 1980s and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s, Dow engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to hide the dangers of chlorpyrifos from its customers and the general public. At best, this conduct could be characterized as the negligent failure to test for certain specific harms or to appreciate and take appropriate measures to protect from those harms associated with chlorpyrifos. At worst, it amounted to selfish, greedy, malicious, and willful manipulation of the scientific data and the public’s perception of the harms of Lorsban—that is, chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon.”
“For years, the EPA and state and federal lawmakers have chosen to protect Big Chemical’s profits over the health of our children,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense. “This leaves parents no choice but to pursue justice through the legal system for children whose lives have been devastated by Dow’s chlorpyrifos, a known neurotoxin.”
In September, parents of another child, also in California, sued Corteva alleging their son suffered “severe neurological injuries … as a result of his in utero, infant and ongoing exposure to the pesticide chlorpyrifos and its more toxic oxygen analog, chlorpyrifos oxon.”
Environmental activists have for years fought for a federal ban on chlorpyrifos. Near the end of the Obama administration, they won a legal battle that resulted in a decision forcing the EPA to ban the chemical. But in the first year of the Trump administration, newly appointed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt revoked the ban, despite the lack of any new scientific assessment to justify his decision, according to an article in the National Law Review.
In 2019, EU countries banned chlorpyrifos. In the U.S., Hawaii passed a ban that will take effect in 2022. As the Washington Post reported earlier this year, New York lawmakers also approved legislation to ban the pesticide by late 2021. Gov. Andrew Cuomo vetoed that legislation late last year, but directed the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation to phase in a ban in coming months through a public rulemaking.
Dr. Mercola w/ Dr. Vandana Shiva, PhD: Oneness vs the 1%
In this interview, social justice and anti-GMO advocate Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., discusses her book, “Oneness Vs. the 1%: Shattering Illusions, Seeding Freedom,” which she co-wrote with her son, in which she argues that the ultra-wealthy elite are responsible for a majority of the environmental, financial and health crises currently facing us.
• In “Oneness Vs. the 1%: Shattering Illusions, Seeding Freedom,” Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., argues that the ultra-wealthy elite are responsible for a majority of the environmental, financial and health crises currently facing us
• Bill Gates’ wealth and “philanthropic” efforts, for example, have allowed him to gain unprecedented influence over agriculture and global health policies that threaten food security and human health
• The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed a massive transfer of wealth to the rich
• While global lockdowns have decimated small businesses and left many to struggle financially, wealthy globalists have amassed immense profits, and lockdowns have prevented public mobilization against tech and retail giants
• To facilitate the transfer of wealth, the elite lobby for the elimination of labor and environmental laws, as well as human and farmer’s rights
With a new epilogue about Bill Gates’s global agenda and how we can resist the billionaires’ war on life
Widespread poverty and malnutrition, an alarming refugee crisis, social unrest, and economic polarization have become our lived reality as the top 1% of the world’s seven-billion-plus population pushes the planet―and all its people―to the social and ecological brink.
In Oneness vs. the 1%, Vandana Shiva takes on the Billionaires Club of Gates, Buffet, and Zuckerberg, as well as other modern empires whose blindness to the rights of people, and to the destructive impact of their construct of linear progress, have wrought havoc across the world. Their single-minded pursuit of profit has undemocratically enforced uniformity and monocultures, division and separation, monopolies and external control―over finance, food, energy, information, healthcare, and even relationships.
Basing her analysis on explosive, little-known facts, Shiva exposes the 1%’s model of philanthrocapitalism, which is about deploying unaccountable money to bypass democratic structures, derail diversity, and impose totalitarian ideas based on One Science, One Agriculture, and One History. She calls for the “resurgence of real knowledge, real intelligence, real wealth, real work, real well-being,” so that people can reclaim their right to: Live Free. Think Free. Breathe Free. Eat Free.
“Gates to a Global Empire” — Bill Gates’ Web of Power Threatens All Life on Earth
Philanthrocapitalism — epitomized by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — has emerged over the last 30 years as a major force with the potential to “push the future of our planet towards extinction and ecological collapse,” according to a report launched Wednesday by Navdanya International.
“Gates to a Global Empire” sheds light on how philanthrocapitalism accelerates the corporate takeover of our seed, agriculture, food, knowledge and global health systems, and how it manipulates information and erodes democracies — all in the name of corporate profits.
The report explores how the Gates Foundation, powered by an “unholy alliance” between big capital, science and technology institutions and states, has established a global empire over life, through monocultures, patents and monopolies designed to destroy the natural world of diversity, self-organization and freedom.
In her introduction to the report, Navdanya International’s founder, Vandana Shiva, said:
“The European Court of Justice has ruled that gene-edited organisms are GMOs. However, Gates is hastily pushing for deregulation with no regard for caution or potentially dangerous consequences. His ‘Gates AgOne’ … initiative is a clear declaration of his intent to create an Empire over life and biodiversity, over food and farming, and over our daily bread.”
With a net worth of nearly $117 billion, Gates is now the most powerful philanthropist in modern history, according to a synthesis of the report. After making technology available to the masses through his popularization of the at-home personal computer, the founder of Microsoft has “taken to reinventing himself as a benevolent philanthropist who uses his technologic influence and private market savvy to solve the world’s most pressing problems through his and his wife’s foundation: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Through its various initiatives, sub-organizations, development schemes and funding mechanisms, Gates weaves, according to the report, “an intricate web of wide-ranging power and influence.”
“Gates to a Global Empire” Report Launch and Online Conferenceby Seed Freedom
Original video available at Seed Freedom YouTube channel.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Lbry, Odysee & Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video.]
Available at The HighWire with Del Bigtree BitChute and Brighteon channels.
A hundred years after dentists started using mercury in dental fillings, the FDA has finally decided “certain high-risk groups” should avoid the dental amalgam because of “harmful health effects.”
Some are even calling for a complete abolishment of the archaic practice, which is missing proper safety science, while thousands of peer-reviewed articles support ending its use.
Quotes from the announcement on Sept 16, 2020 … China and Russia — fires at a distance — killer satellites — Directed Energy Weapons in space.
Video from Dept. of Defense here:
Original text post below:
Either someone at the National Weather Service is trolling the world and putting out fake information across the whole world somehow…. or we have something serious going on with our plate shifting and releasing heat along the New Madrid Seismic Zone.
Add in the DEW about 9 minutes into the video as I find it…. as we know those types of beam returns previously showed up in OTHER clusters of fires (on the west coast a few weeks ago see here): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRPKPJR1k5Q
In addition to the strange beams showing up going down into the New Madrid Seismic Zone of Southern Missouri Northern Arkansas .. at the same time frame (or shortly after) a series of extreme hot spots at 900K (1,100F) began flaring off in clusters from New Madrid Missouri, up into the Wabash Valley seismic zone (Indiana , Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky). Additionally hot spots in the 800K+ temp spectrum showing in clusters across Pennsylvania, New York, and Maine.
People around the world are watching as U.K. Judge Vanessa Baraitser hears arguments and decides whether or not to extradite Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange to the U.S.
While the Obama administration chose not to charge Assange, wary of the precedent it might set in criminalizing journalism, the Trump administration indicted him with 18 criminal charges that may land Assange in one of the U.S.’s most notorious prisons for 175 years.
Assange’s Wikileaks has won numerous journalism awards and has never had to retract a single publication despite releasing more than 10 million documents exposing, among other things, U.S. war crimes. Former CIA Director Leon Panetta recently indicated that the ongoingpersecution of Assange is meant to “send a message to others not to do the same thing.”
As the world debates whether Assange is a hero or a traitor, Children’s Health Defense takes a step back to examine some of the things his organization has revealed for those fighting for health and environmental justice.
1. U.S. diplomatic efforts to overturn resistance to GMOs at the behest of Monsanto
Wikileaks published hundreds of diplomatic cables exhibiting attempts by the U.S. to quell opposition to genetically modified organisms or GMOs. As reported by The Guardian, “the cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto.”
In a 2007 cable, Craig Stapleton, then U.S. Ambassador to France, advised the U.S. to prepare for economic war with countries unwilling to introduce Monsanto’s GM corn seeds. He recommended the U.S. “calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the E.U.”
Another dispatch, this one from 2009, demonstrated that the U.S. funded a GMO workshop in Mozambique that, according to the authors, helped advance biotech-friendly policies in the country.
In another cable from 2009, a U.S. diplomat stationed in Germany relayed intelligence on Bavarian political parties to several U.S. federal agencies and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, telling them which parties opposed Monsanto’s M810 corn seed and tactics that the U.S. could impose to resolve the opposition.
One cable from Hong Kong shows a State Department employee requesting $92,000 in U.S. public funds for “media education kits” to combat a growing popular movement calling for the labeling of GMO foods in Hong Kong. The cable indicates a desire to “make it much more difficult for mandatory labelling advocates to prevail.” The State Department’s Anita Katial, who wrote the cable, also recalled a time when her office facilitated the sending of pro-biotech and bio-agriculture DVDs to every highschool in Hong Kong.
According to Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, the trove of cables “really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”
2. Multinational commodities trader dumping toxic waste in West Africa
In 2006, Trafigura, the world’s second largest oil trader, illegally discharged more than 500 tons of highly toxic oil waste near the Port of Abidjan in the Ivory Coast. Some of the dump sites were near agriculture fields or water supplies, and the UN estimates that more than 100,000 people sought medical treatment due to the incident. Wikileaks would later call this incident “possibly the most culpable mass contamination incident since Bhopal.”
Trafigura’s lawyer commissioned a confidential study that listed what the environmental and health impacts of the dumping incident would be after people living near the port started flooding hospitals.
The report explained that contact with the offloaded compounds could lead to eye damage, lung damage, skin burns, headaches, breathing difficulty, permanent skin ulceration, coma and death. The report also states that the chemical compounds would have a “severe and negative effect” on the environment.
As recently as 2016, residents were complaining about the smell of the waste, headaches, breathing problems and skin problems.
Wikileaks published the classified report in 2009, the first time the public could see the company’s true negligence.
3. Gates Foundation sees environmental activists as a threat
In 2008, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation hired an intelligence firm called Stratfor to put together a “threat assessment report” and determine current and future threats to the foundation.
Stratfor’s report saw environmental activists, indigenous farming groups, and peasant political parties in Asia and South America, as “potential threats” to the foundation.
“Threats to the foundation are likely to be directly related to the public association between the foundation and a controversial issue such as GMOs, animal testing, clinical trials and reproductive rights,” the report reads.
Stating that the primary threat to the foundation’s agriculture program comes from its work promoting GMOs, the report notes the rise of anti-GMO campaigning in developing countries, including a “staunch opposition to GMOs in India.” It even names specific activists, such as the U.S.-based anti-GMO campaigner Jeffrey Smith.
The report also mentions the work of large organizations like Greenpeace and PETA as well as alternative media outlets like the Center for Public Integrity, Mother Jones, AlterNet and the LA Times, which had just published a seriesaccusing the foundation of “reap[ing] vast financial gains from investments in companies that contribute to the human suffering in health, housing and social welfare.”
Wikileaks published the threat assessment as part of its release of more than 5 million Stratfor emails in 2012.
4. Pharma intel and espionage operation
In 1996, Pfizer, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, conducted clinical trials in Nigeria for an antibiotic called Trovan. The results were devastating, as Nigerian officials reported more than 50 children died in the experiment and dozens became disabled.
In 2006, a Nigerian government panel concluded that Pfizer violated international law and called the experiment “an illegal trial of an unregistered drug.” In 2007, Nigerian state and federal authorities sued Pfizer for $7 billion, alleging the company did not have proper consent from the children’s parents.
A 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks revealed that while the case was in federal court, Pfizer had hired a private intelligence firm to get blackmail on Nigerian Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa.
According to the cable, “Pfizer’s investigators were passing this information to local media,” who published articles on the attorney general’s “alleged” corruption. “Aondoakaa’s cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles,” it reads.
A few months after the negative articles, the Nigerian ministry of justice signed a settlement with Pfizer.
5. U.S. is a climate bully
Cables disclosed by Wikileaks in 2010 present the U.S. using what The Guardian called “spying, threats and promises of aid” to get international support for the 2009 Copenhagen Accord — an industry-friendly international climate deal with non-binding agreements to lower emissions. (Climate activist Naomi Klein described, at the time, the accord as “nothing more than a grubby pact between the world’s biggest emitters”.)
The State Department sent a secret cable to foreign embassies seeking human intelligence, or “dirt,” on UN diplomats regarding climate policy. And, as reported by Democracy Now!, the cables also indicated that the U.S. cut funding to Bolivia and Ecuador after both governments opposed the accord.
Bill McKibben, founder of the climate organization 350.org, said the cables exposed that “the U.S. was both bullying and buying countries into endorsing their do-little position on climate.”
6. International organizations consulting with Big Pharma
In 2009, Wikileaks revealed documents that the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) gave its members a report by the UN’s World Health Organization(WHO)’s Expert Working Group on research and development financing.
IFPMA members include pharmaceutical giants like Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi, and the organization represents these entities when dealing with the UN. What makes the Wikileaks document dump significant is that the working group gave IFPMA access to these documents months before their scheduled public release, suggesting that the UN’s health expert group was more accountable to the pharmaceutical industry than to its own member states.
“The compilation of documents shows the influence of ‘Big Pharma’ on the policy making decisions of the WHO,” Wikileaks commented when publishing the files.
Dane Wigington: Into the Wild #2 — The Planet’s Frogs Are Dying | Warning Signs From Nature Are Everywhere
How dire are conditions in our last remaining wilderness areas? What primary factors are fueling the record wildfires that are incinerating formerly thriving forests? What aren’t official agencies telling us? Geoengineering Watch will produce a series of short videos to reveal the true state of the forests in Northern California.
Frogs are a harbinger species, “the canary in the coal mine”, and they are dying. The warning signs from nature are everywhere, yet few seem to notice. Have we become the proverbial frogs in boiling water?
Will the fate of the frogs soon become our own? The second installment of “Into The Wild” is below.
Flora and fauna are dying and burning all over the world, covert climate engineering operations are a core causal factor.
This article is one to ponder carefully for a number of reasons, which we’ll get to. But the basic story is – surprise surprise! – scientists in the US Rocky Mountains region have been finding microscopic plastic filaments and globules in the rain (say it isn’t so!!!), according to this story shared by S.D.:
What’s interesting about the article isn’t so much its statement of the obvious – that “there’s plastic in that thar rain!” – but how it got there:
Plastic was the furthest thing from Gregory Wetherbee’s mind when he began analyzing rainwater samples collected from the Rocky Mountains. “I guess I expected to see mostly soil and mineral particles,” said the US Geological Survey researcher. Instead, he found multicolored microscopic plastic fibers.
The discovery, published in a recent study (pdf) titled “It is raining plastic”, raises new questions about the amount of plastic waste permeating the air, water, and soil virtually everywhere on Earth.
“I think the most important result that we can share with the American public is that there’s more plastic out there than meets the eye,” said Wetherbee. “It’s in the rain, it’s in the snow. It’s a part of our environment now.”
…
“My results are purely accidental,” he said, though they are consistent with another recent study that found microplastics in the Pyrenees, suggesting plastic particles could travel with the wind for hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers. Other studies have turned up microplastics in the deepest reaches of the ocean, in UK lakes and rivers and in US groundwater.
A major contributor is trash, said Sherri Mason, a microplastics researcher and sustainability coordinator at Penn State Behrend. More than 90% of plastic waste is not recycled, and as it slowly degrades it breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. “Plastic fibers also break off your clothes every time you wash them,” Mason said, and plastic particles are byproducts of a variety of industrial processes.
It’s impossible to trace the tiny pieces back to their sources, Mason said, but almost anything that’s made of plastic could be shedding particles into the atmosphere. “And then those particles get incorporated into water droplets when it rains,” she added, then wash into rivers, lakes, bays and oceans and filter into groundwater sources. (Emphasis added)
There you have it: it’s all the plastic waste we’re producing, which breaks down into small particles, then combines in the atmosphere in water droplets, to fall to earth again in the rain. Case closed, message received: we’ve got to curb human activity to save the planet. (This is, after all, The Guardian we’re dealing with.)
Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no difficulty that this is true, but not nearly to the extent that is being carefully alleged here. What disturbs me about the article is its blatant material omission, i.e., the complete absence of any mention of the chemtrail-spraying phenomenon, and this after Bill Gates and Harvard were recently caught “red handed” (pun intended) talking about how to spray stuff into the atmosphere to “dim the sun.” For those of us who’ve been following the geoengineering phenomenon, or for that matter, the strange case of Morgellon’s disease and its plastic fibers growing in the lesions of its sufferers, it is this spraying itself, not the normal human activity and use of plastics, that is the real culprit: spray a bunch of gunk into the atmosphere, and it’s going to fall to the earth and cause environmental problems.
Which brings me, not to my speculation of the day, but to my rant of the day: until these so-called environmentalists show genuine concern about the geoengineering phenomenon and its environmental effects, then I turn a jaundiced and cynical eye on their so-called concern for the environment. I’m back to the basic proposition: if you are unwilling to acknowledge and discuss the very plans of the “sprayers and spewers” like Mr. Gates and its effects on the environment, then you’re simply not to be taken seriously.
Or to put it country simple: it is the geoengineers who are behind the bulk of the problem, not us.
And sadly, in the interim, the plastic rains down on the Colorado Rockies…
Are some folks, especially those in the media, starting to wake up about what’s happening with the weather? In the SE part of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and surrounding counties, in particular, the Spring and Summer of 2018 have been nothing short of thinking about building an ark, as we have had torrential floods weekly, if not many times daily!
The wet weather here is so bad, no one can disregard it anymore. Some folks now have taken to making snide remarks such as, “Can Google send us some sunshine.”
The all-news radio station in this area is KYW 1060 and their reporter Lynne Adkins featured a story about the weather and how it is affecting people. Here in the metro Philadelphia area, we have nothing but rain, more rain and torrential rains on a daily basis. Flash flooding is the normal daily routine for drivers’ commutes, with many water rescues having to take place. Rivers and streams flood all over the area! It’s gotten so bad that radio announcers are now making snide remarks about the weather and verbally ‘taking on’ weather forecasters about a lack of sunshine.
It’s NOT the normal weather patterns locals remember for most of their lives!
Lynne Adkins KYW News 9-25-18 Rain article featured a comment from a healthcare professional, which is extremely “right on” and probably will be responsible for people waking up to who’s messing with the weather because this just isn’t normal.
According to part of Ms. Adkins’ report,
“Lowered energy, low motivation, just overall way more sluggish than their typical baseline, more irritable. And then when you combine that with the fact that sometimes people don’t physically feel well, the weather can aggravate pain or medical ailments,” said Kim Morrison, clinical supervisor at Main Line Health Women’s Emotional Wellness Center.
“Morrison says we’re getting more miserable each day.”
My Comment About That
Daily flooding rains result from scalar clouds parked overhead for days at a time in order to drop all that rain. Those clouds have tremendous Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMFs) and probably Radiofrequencies (RFs) in them possibly created and held in place by HAARP. Here’s a map of global HAARP facilities known to date.
Those facilities are capable of sending billions of microwatt energy into the ionosphere to heat it up and create weather patterns – drought, flooding rains or nucleated ice and snow– anywhere on the planet! There is some speculation HAARP also can produce and/or activate earthquakes! What a weather-making machine!
Can weather geoengineering be responsible for California’s ongoing six-year weather problems and much of the earth’s forests burning, plus the “Noah-like weather” in Pennsylvania and surrounding areas?
The process by which “man-made weather,” aka Solar Radiation Management (SRM), is deployed is through the use of retrofitted airplanes for aerosol spraying “chemtrails” that rain down on earth, plant life and wildlife, all sorts of nanoparticles, toxins, and other horrendous chemicals. Some assays have found
One of the “ingredients” indicated to be a mix in the spray, proven by scientific assays, is toxic coal power plant ash waste.
There are many ‘partner’ components and operations involved in weather geoengineering, one being man-made clouds called “scalar” clouds that help make the new weather patterns possible (here and here).
Here are some of the more popular scalar clouds appearing over Pennsylvania:
or another type, which I call “blanket clouds”: one continuous dark gray cloud that extends for miles forming a blanket in the sky over the entire area for days on end preventing sunlight from reaching earth.
Because of these man-made clouds, between 25 and 30 percent less sunlight hits the earth. How does that affect people with Seasonal Affective Disorder [1] and the growing of food crops?
This website explains something you probably don’t know: U.S. Air Force to own the weather!
If you want to know more about weather geoengineering, you can access my Archives at Activist Post and scroll through hundreds of articles to find what you may want to know.
Finally, Dane Wigington, the chief researcher at Geoengineering Watch.org is planning a free “Climate Engineering Awareness” event the evening of October 20, 2018 in Redding, California. If you would like to attend, please see the following information.
Catherine J Frompovich was a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice, plus Paralegal Studies. Her career in holistic healthcare began in the early 1970s when she had to save, and restructure, her life resulting from having “fallen through the allopathic medical paradigm cracks.”
Yet again forests in the Western US are incinerating as the US east coast is anomalously wet and cool. All official sources are blaming the rapidly increasing extreme and deadly wildfire behavior on global warming alone, but is that the full truth? What factors are “official sources” not informing us of in regard to the increasingly destructive wildfires?
The NASA satellite image above reveals massive climate engineering operations being carried out over vast expanses the Pacific ocean off of the US west coast. The geoengineering / solar radiation management operations completely disrupt the hydrological cycle and thus fuel drought and fires (a scenario which has been ongoing). The image was captured on Saturday, July 28th, 2018. This happened to be the day that a long planned climate engineering awareness and call to action event had to be canceled in Redding, California, due to the Carr fire. Smoke from the Carr fire is clearly visible on the NASA satellite image.
The Carr Fire in Redding, California, my hometown, is one of the latest catastrophic infernos to erupt.
A fully engulfed structure along HWY 299 near Redding California. Photo credit: AP/Noah Berger
Other recent western infernos also confirm the impact of climate intervention operations. The satellite animation below was recorded on October 11th, 2017, it is important to examine carefully. Anomalous, counter-directional and extreme wind patterns over the core wildfire region was a major contributing factor in the firestorm cataclysm that occurred in the Santa Rosa region of California . All official sources continue to ignore and omit any discussion of the ongoing illegal climate engineering operations.
Forest fire, US West Coast. Photo credit: Rebecca Boatman
All around the world forests are incinerating at an ever more rapid rate, if the current trajectory of biosphere collapse continues, these forests are not coming back.
All of us must work together in the effort to fully expose and halt the ongoing climate engineering / weather warfare assault. How? By circulating credible data from a credible source. Make your voice heard in this all important battle. DW
[TCTL editor’s note: The commentary below was added to this “Geoengineering Is Fueling Firestorm Catastrophes” post in response to many sensationalized narratives and conclusions that are being circulated about the creation and / or causes of the recent and ongoing catastrophic California firestorms.]
How do we expose and halt the catastrophic global climate engineering assault? We need to stand on solid verifiable ground in regard to the data and conclusions we share, or we will lose all credibility in this most important battle for the greater good. We must not give in to and indulge in implausible speculation that by its very nature provokes disbelief which can only weaken our strategic position as we expose the very real and terrible crimes being perpetrated against our dying planet. Are recent and current California fires behaving in unprecedented ways and burning at exceptionally high temperatures? Yes. Are there reasons to believe the public is not being informed of key core issues that are directly related to the exponential increase in global forest fires? Yes. Does available data make clear that climate engineering in countless ways set the stage for the firestorm nightmares? Without question.
All this being said, in regard to the recent and ongoing California firestorms there are a great many baseless claims circulating on the internet that should cause us all to take immediate pause. These narratives include the suggestion that everything from laser beams to military incendiary bombs were used to cause/create recent and ongoing catastrophic fires. Though laser and directed energy weapons do exist in some forms (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2016/06/25/air-force-has-directed-energy-weapons-now-comes-the-hard-part/) ,there is no documentation whatsoever to confirm any sky to ground laser / directed energy platform is even remotely capable of causing massive and instant vaporization of countless structures over vast expanses. If such instant and extreme destruction were to occur (from massive laser / energy beams, spiraling down from the sky in the middle of the night), wouldn’t they have been seen by many? If such instant destruction technology does exist, and was used, why is there so much film footage of extreme wind and heat driven flames during the fires? Even if “directed energy” weapons of this caliber existed, and were used, CAL FIRE and thousands of residents would also have to be a part of such a coverup (which is completely implausible). Again,” laser / directed energy beams” (if a technology for such sky to ground decimation even exists) would be extremely visible.
Again, though some have referred to technology (that does exist) for extremely powerful laser and plasma beams, emission can only be produced from a ground bases source with access to extreme levels of power. Any such powerful emission could not be produced from an overflying aircraft or a satellite. Even a flying full scale massive electrical power plant could not even begin to produce such an emission. And consider this, the most powerful laser beams (that have been created under test conditions in ground facilities) only existed for a trillionth of a second, and was only 2 millimeters wide, thats it. We must remember and consider that the California wind driven firestorms raged for days over extensive areas.
We must also stop to consider all the converging factors that are fueling the firestorm cataclysms. Record low fuel moisture contents (directly connected to climate engineering). Extreme and unpredictable wind conditions which can be directly connected to convection manipulation via jet aircraft dispersions of atmospheric aerosols (that are a core part of climate engineering operations). Accumulated incendiary dust (from climate engineering fallout) not only laying on the surface of forest foliage, but blowing in the winds around and above the fires. About the trees that are still standing in many photos of fire burn areas, green living trees are not prone to burning beyond the folliage and thinner branches. Green living trees WILL NOT fully incinerate (unlike dwellings that contain no imbedded fuel moisture. In the case of the Santa Rosa firestorms many of the trees were Redwoods which are extremely fire resistant. All should take the time to look up more information on this, here is one sample link, FYI http://forestschoolsbapet.blogspot.com/2013/04/redwoods-and-why-are-they-fireproof.html
Redwood trees have very thick bark which has a lot of water inside it. They also DO NOT have any pitch inside the trunks which is a very flammable substance found in many other trees. Another factor that helps to make the redwood trees fireproof is the fact that they do not have any of the resins that other trees like pine and the sap that the tree contains is made up of a majority of water also adding to the fireproofing ability.
As already stated, other species of living and green trees would also not completely burn in the same manner as dried and fully cured building materials, not at all. Any that have ever tried to burn a completely green log in a fire will know this. Such a piece of “fuel” will not burn, the moisture is too impregnated in it. Ever put a paper cup filled with water in a fire? It, also, will not burn until the water boils out. The top of the cup burns down in pace with the water boiling out. Though the crowns of many pine species are, of course, highly combustible, the trunks and heavy branches are not (assuming the tree was alive when exposed to fire).
Back to the extreme heat and wind in these fires, like a bellows (or blower) for a forge, such extreme conditions can rapidly increase combustion and thus temperatures. Such extreme conditions and winds also scatter embers at unimaginable speed onto landscapes, into attics, eaves, etc, where the embers are fanned by the high winds into further combustion. Many older homes are built with extremely flammable materials, and many even with wood sub-floors which provide even more fuel at the critical base of dwelling fires. Once subfloors have been burnt away, it could provide a cavity for some larger incombustible materials to fall into (such as porcelain sinks and toilets which extreme heat can also shatter).
As homes in close proximity ignite, all of the natural gas and / or propane supplied to homes adds further fuel to the wind blown furnace flames. Once fully ablaze, one home can ignite those immediately adjacent to it from the radiant heat alone. Homes across a street could be far enough away to be spared. Also, in scenarios where one home was in ashes next to another that did not burn, fire crews may have been present and actively watering down homes that had not yet ignited. Again, some next to other homes that were fully ablaze. In regard to the many badly burned vehicles, none of those making the “directed energy weapons” claims have bothered to mention the obvious, vehicles all have fuel tanks that radically accelerate and heat fires once the vehicle is fully ablaze. Those that have ever seen the remains of a vehicle that has fully incinerated along the side of a highway know that such vehicles look exactly like those in the firestorms.
I viewed a number of videos that show trees burning from the inside out, with some claiming this was proof of a laser weapon. This, also, is verifiably false. I have personally witnessed this exact scenario dozens of times over years of controlled burns on my own habitat reserve land, and fighting on the front line of wildfires that have occurred with staggering frequency on and near my acreage on the east side of Lake Shasta.. Any ember that settles into a hollowed out and decaying tree trunk will start such a fire as those featured in videos claiming directed energy weapons were used. In several instances I have witnessed trees that had a rotted hollow at the base of the trunk which allowed air in, and embers. Once the rotted core ignited and burned up through the rotted center of the trees (completely rotted cores are now common in still living trees due to epidemic fungal infections in the forest), the trees literally looked like a blow torch with flames shooting out from the top. Please, don’t believe me about trees with rotting cores burning from embers being common, ask any wild land firefighter how many times they have witnessed this phenomenon, it is extremely common. About the extreme heat and wind blown fire scenarios, again, if and when the heat plum from a fire is blowing along at ground level, combustibles one side or another may not be very effected from the directional flow of flames and heat that is being pushed in a particular direction due to the powerful winds. I am speaking from personal experience, not from speculation.
Some videos claimed brick or rock walls on some sides of some homes had disappeared, all of the “before and after” photos I have seen of this showed veneer walls of brick or rock, not walls that were actually constructed of these materials. Some of the same circulating videos claim that glass or aluminum could not melt in a wildfire, also false. Anyone that has ever put bottle into a hot camp fire and left it in the core of the coals all night knows better. The same with an aluminum can. And, again, to be clear, all the factors I mentioned in this report must be remembered. Yes, these fires are unprecedented, the heat and behavior is unprecedented, geoengineering is inarguably a major factor that set the stage. Fires are increasingly ignited in the worse possible locations at the worst possible times. Do these fires serve many agendas of those in power? Yes, absolutely, but we must still stand on solid ground with the data and conclusions we share with any breaking news story if we are to retain credibility.
I know many people who are now claiming no one died (and no one was injured) in Las Vegas, claiming that it was all staged. This narrative is also very harmful to the cause of credibility, insisting on the truth. I have a long term friendship with a former Green Beret who just lost two close colleagues in Las Vegas. Though the Las Vegas event also has countless unanswered questions, and appears to be anything but what official sources are telling us, people were injured and died. The notion that thousands of people, including emergency workers and hospitals, could all be in on some grand conspiracy theater, is not rational. Are we to believe that 9/11 was only a staged slaughter? That people did not die there? Let’s all remember that those in power do not care how many they kill (collateral damage) to accomplish their agenda. Are we to believe the power structure would go to unimaginable lengths to avoid killing anyone in the Las Vegas event? Such a conclusion is also not rational given what we know about the demeanor of those in power. Many of the sites and sources pushing the ” laser beams / directed energy beams” created the fires” false narrative are also propagating the “Flat Earth” and “global warming is a hoax” false and highly discrediting narratives.
William Thomas, a former member of the U.S. Navy Reserves, author of Chemtrails Confirmed, and the reporter who broke the “chemtrails” story for Environment News Service in 1998, observes that smoke is the bane of atmospheric lasers.
Directed-energy beams from military lasers are scattered and diffused by curtains of smoke, as well as water vapor (clouds) and rain.
And sandstorms. “Just look what happened during the U.S. invasion of Iraq when directed-energy sensors on aircraft, gunships and armor were shut down by blowing sand,” this author of Bringing The War Home wrote to geoengineeringwatch.
“There is no way (unverified) space-based lasers could penetrate the smoke over the vast U.S. wildfires with enough focused energy remaining to light a campfire.”
In the case of the “global warming is a hoax” disinformation, this is in fact exactly the false narrative that the power structure and the geoengineers want. Why would anyone who claims to be fighting climate engineering / geoengineering push this kind of disinformation?
Credibility is so very critical in the fight for the greater good. Logic, reason, and due diligence investigation must be a part of the equation, or hard earned credibility is completely sacrificed. The truth is more than alarming enough, we must make every effort to stand on solid and factual ground. Credibility is extremely difficult to earn, and so very easy to lose. DW
Occasionally, I reprint this article. I wrote it some years ago, during research on toxic chemicals pervading the landscape. I used to send the piece to mainstream reporters, but I eventually gave that up as a bad bet.
They’re dedicated to fake news…and now they’re losing control over public consciousness. Losing badly. Independent media are in the ascendance, and rightly so.
In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.
The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.
Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on websites, sometimes with distortions, deletions, or additions. I spoke with Griffiths, and he told me to be careful I was reading a correct copy of his piece. (You can find it—“Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” at fluoridealert.org.)
Griffiths also told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: studying the water is not enough; toxic fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide).
I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.
Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, launched to build the first A-bomb.
Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”
The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.
Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”
A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.
The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.
Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.
Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.
Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”
Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.
But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the [uranium] is the causative factor.”
The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.
But records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.
Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.
Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.
Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.
Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.
Getting the idea here? Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic fluoride consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies.
More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the DuPont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies. Tomato crops (normally sold to the Campbell Company for soups) were contaminated with fluorides.
The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.
Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.
The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.
The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.
Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”
Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”
This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”
Now you know why promoting toxic fluorides as a dental treatment was so important to government officials.
Footnote: In Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, General Ripper is fleshed out as a crazy right-wing fanatic. He’s ready and willing to start a nuclear war. How odd. Apparently unknown to the Strangelove script writers, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the program that created atomic bombs in the first place.
