GM Golden Rice in the Philippines Stopped: The Deception of Development and the Politics of Progress

GM Golden Rice in the Philippines Stopped: The Deception of Development and the Politics of Progress

by Colin Todhunter, Asia-Pacific Research
April 29, 2024

 

On 19 April 2024, the Philippines Supreme Court issued a cease-and-desist order on the commercial propagation of genetically modified (GM) Golden Rice and GM eggplant in the country.  

The Stop Golden Rice Network says that the court decision is a victory for farmers and consumers everywhere as the decision goes beyond Golden Rice and insecticidal eggplant and covers “any application for contained use, field testing, direct use as food or feed or processing, commercial propagation, and importation of GMOs.”

The court recognised that government agencies and other proponents of GM Golden Rice and GM eggplant “failed to submit proof of safety and compliance with all legal requirements.” The order remains indefinite until GMO proponents can fulfil all the mandated steps and provide concrete evidence that these GMOs are indeed safe.

A network of farmers, consumers and civil society organisations, Stop Golden Rice emphasises the need to address hunger and malnutrition through securing small farmers’ control over resources such as seed, appropriate technologies, water and land.

The campaign group says:

“We believe that GM crops are primarily pushed by global monopoly capitalists in food and agriculture… there is already irrevocable evidence of the failure of GM crops and how it has contributed to further indebtedness, crop failures, hunger and loss of biodiversity.”

It states that the court’s decision shows that ordinary people can prevail in the face of corporate power.

The Story of Golden Rice 

Vitamin A deficiency is a problem in many poor countries in the Global South and leaves millions at high risk of infection, diseases and other maladies, such as blindness.

The agritech industry has long argued that Golden Rice is a practical way to provide poor farmers in remote areas with a subsistence crop capable of adding much-needed vitamin A to local diets. Lobbyists say that Golden Rice, developed with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, could help save the lives of around 670,000 children who die each year from Vitamin A deficiency and another 350,000 who go blind.

Such claims, however, are based more on spin than reality, and, over the years, the interests behind Golden Rice have wasted no time in attacking anyone who questioned it.

As Britain’s Environment Secretary in 2013, the now disgraced Owen Paterson claimed that opponents of GM were “casting a dark shadow over attempts to feed the world”. He called for the rapid roll-out of vitamin A-enhanced rice to help prevent the cause of up to a third of the world’s child deaths. He claimed:

“It’s just disgusting that little children are allowed to go blind and die because of a hang-up by a small number of people about this technology. I feel really strongly about it. I think what they do is absolutely wicked.”

On Twitter, The Observer’s Nick Cohen chimed in with his support by tweeting:

“There is no greater example of ignorant Western privilege causing needless misery than the campaign against genetically modified golden rice.”

The rhetoric took the well-worn cynically devised PR line that anti-GM activists and environmentalists are little more than privileged, affluent people residing in rich countries and are denying the poor the supposed benefits of GM crops.

Despite these smears and emotional blackmail, in a 2016 article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values Glenn Stone and Dominic Glover found little evidence that activists were to blame for Golden Rice’s unfulfilled promises.

Researchers still had problems developing beta carotene-enriched strains that yield as well as non-GM strains already being grown by farmers. It was questionable whether the beta carotene in Golden Rice could even be converted to vitamin A in the bodies of badly undernourished children. There had also been little research on how well the beta carotene in Golden Rice would hold up when stored for long periods between harvest seasons or when cooked using traditional methods common in remote rural locations.

In the meantime, Glenn Stone noted that that, as the development of Golden Rice crept along, the Philippines had managed to slash the incidence of Vitamin A deficiency by non-GM methods.

So, whose interests were really being served in the push for Golden Rice?

In 2011, Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, a senior scientist with a background in insect ecology and pest management, answered this question:

“An elite, so-called Humanitarian Board where Syngenta sits – along with the inventors of Golden Rice, Rockefeller Foundation, USAID and public relations and marketing experts, among a handful of others. Not a single farmer, indigenous person or even an ecologist or sociologist to assess the huge political, social and ecological implications of this massive experiment. And the leader of IRRI’s Golden Rice project is none other than Gerald Barry, previously Director of Research at Monsanto.”

Sarojeni V Rengam, executive director of Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific, called on the donors and scientists involved to wake up and do the right thing:

“Golden Rice is really a ‘Trojan horse’; a public relations stunt pulled by the agribusiness corporations to garner acceptance of genetically engineered (GE) crops and food… money and efforts would be better spent on restoring natural and agricultural biodiversity rather than destroying it by promoting monoculture plantations and GE food crops.”

To tackle disease, malnutrition and poverty, you have to first understand the underlying causes – or indeed want to understand them.

Renowned academic Walden Bello notes that the complex of policies that pushed the Philippines into an economic quagmire over the past few decades is due to ‘structural adjustment’ that included the restructuring of agriculture and export-oriented production.

And that restructuring of the agrarian economy is something touched on by Claire Robinson of GMWatch who notes that leafy green vegetables used to be grown in backyards as well as in rice (paddy) fields on the banks between the flooded ditches in which the rice grew.

Ditches also contained fish, which ate pests. People thus had access to rice, green leafy veg and fish – a balanced diet that gave them a healthy mix of nutrients, including plenty of beta-carotene.

But indigenous crops and farming systems have been replaced by monocultures dependent on chemical inputs. Green leafy veg were killed off with pesticides, artificial fertilisers were introduced, and the fish could not live in the resulting chemically contaminated water. Moreover, decreased access to land meant that many people no longer had backyards containing leafy green veg.

Blindness in developing countries could have been eradicated years ago if only the money, research and publicity put into Golden Rice over the last 20 years had gone into proven ways of addressing Vitamin A deficiency. However, instead of pursuing genuine solutions, what we have seen is pro-GM spin in an attempt to close down debate.

Technology and Development 

If the discussion so far tells us anything, it is that technology is not neutral. It is developed and promoted by people who want to cement their control over a sector and stand to financially gain from its rollout.

All too often, politicians, corporations and the media equate new technology with ‘progress’. And those who question it, as we see with GMOs, are called Luddites or anti-science in order to prevent proper debate over the social, economic and ethical concerns of rolling out a given technology.

Take the Green Revolution, for instance. There was nothing progressive, inevitable or neutral about its seed, chemical and related infrastructure technology.

Despite it being rolled out under the banner of ‘progress’, it underperformed, was exploitative and has had devastating social, ecological and environmental impacts (see the writings of Prof. Glenn StoneVandana Shiva and Bhaskar Save). It served US geopolitical, financial and agribusiness interests and prioritised urban-industrial expansion at the expense of rural communities and a more diverse, healthy and nutrient-sufficient agriculture.

But the Green Revolution became integral to the ‘development’ agenda.

In a recent article on the Winter Oak website, Paul Cudenec says that ‘development’:

“… is the destruction of nature, now seen as a mere resource to be used for development or as an empty undeveloped space in which development could, should and, ultimately, must take place. It is the destruction of natural human communities, whose self-sufficiency gets in the way of the advance of development, and of authentic human culture and traditional values, which are incompatible with the dogma and domination of development.”

Cudenec argues that those behind ‘development’ have been destroying everything of real value in our natural world and our human societies in the pursuit of personal wealth and power. Moreover, they have concealed this crime behind all the positive-sounding rhetoric associated with development on every level.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in India.

The World Bank, the World Trade Organization, global agribusiness and financial capital are working to corporatise India’s agriculture sector. This ‘structural adjustment’ policy and process involves displacing the current food production system with contract farming and an industrial model of agriculture and food retail that serves the above interests.

The plan is to displace the peasantry, create a land market and amalgamate landholdings to form larger farms that are more suited to international land investors and export-oriented industrial farming.

The demand is that India sacrifice its farmers and its own food security for the benefit of a handful of billionaires. This is all passed off as ‘development’.

It involves the state facilitating the enrichment of a wealthy elite and privileging a certain model of social and economic development based on urban sprawl, centralised power and dependency on global finance, corporations, markets and supply chains. All legitimised under the banners of innovation, technological progress and ‘development’.

There are other pathways that humanity can take. Anthropologist Felix Padel and researcher Malvika Gupta offer some insights (based on their work with India’s Adivasi communities) into what the solutions or alternatives to ‘development’ might look like:

“Democracy as consensus politics rather than the Western model of liberal democracy that perpetuates division and corruption behind the scenes; exchange labour rather than the ruthless, anti-life logic of ‘the market’; law as reconciliation rather than judgements that depend on exorbitant legal fees and divide people into winners and losers… and learning as something to be shared, not competed over.”

However, we see more ‘development’ being proposed: more rural population displacement and human dislocation, more mining, port and other big infrastructure developments and the further entrenchment of corporate interests and their projects.

While many have a different vision for the future, self-interest and consumerism underpinned by economic neoliberal dogma continue to seduce the masses into accepting the prevailing ‘development’ agenda.

Corporate industrial agriculture is integral to that agenda. A model that took hold half a century ago in the Western nations and which has resulted in nutrient-deficient food, narrower diets, the massive use of agrochemicals, food contaminated by hormones, steroids, antibiotics and a wide range of chemical additives, the eradication of many smallholder farmers, spiralling rates of ill health, degraded soil and contaminated and depleted water supplies.

That’s ‘progress’? Well, agribusiness interests aside, perhaps so for the many private health clinics that have sprung up in India in recent years.

The introduction of GMOs represents a further entrenchment of the prevailing ‘development’ agenda.

The decision by the Philippines Supreme Court called out government agencies and those behind the Golden Rice agenda for key failures. This is important for India, whose Supreme Court is about to decide on whether to sanction the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. It would be India’s first GM food crop (of which there are many more in the pipeline).

Will India’s Supreme Court come down on the side of reason and stop GM mustard on the basis of there being no need for GMOs in Indian agriculture and the well-documented fraud and regulatory delinquency that has surrounded this issue for many years?

That remains to be seen.

 

Many of the issues presented above are discussed in the author’s free e-book Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order.

 

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  

 

Connect with Colin Todhunter

Cover image credit: consolesafari




Environmental Health Trust Reveals Concealed FCC Cell Phone Tests Showing Human Radiation ‘Exposure Limits Were Exceeded’

Environmental Health Trust Reveals Concealed FCC Cell Phone Tests Showing Human Radiation ‘Exposure Limits Were Exceeded’

by Environmental Health Trust
April 22, 2024

 

 Press Release

WASHINGTON, DC, April 22, 2024 — The Environmental Health Trust (EHT) revealed today that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hid test results showing that radiation exceeded federal limits when smartphones were in close proximity to the human body, such as in a pants pocket. The FCC apparently failed to disclose this information to the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In 2019 the agency tested several Apple, Samsung, Blu and Motorola smartphone models for cell phone radiation SAR levels.

The FCC test results for phones in the pocket (2 mm) were not public until September 29, 2023, when they were released to EHT as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The FCC FOIA letter states that for certain phones: “We observed that at a 2 mm separation distance, the FCC radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits were exceeded.”

EHT also has filed an appeal to the FCC as seven records were withheld from the FOIA response. The appeal has not been addressed.

In 2019, when the FCC conducted the tests, it also had an open rule-making regarding its 1996-era limits concerning human exposure to wireless radiation. The FCC’s rule-making was followed by a federal court challenge, which resulted in the FCC and the Food and Drug Administration being subject to a court- ordered remand in August 2021.

“The FCC and FDA did not reveal these cell phone tests during the court case, and have yet to respond to the court-ordered remand, which is a matter of grave concern,” said Kent Chamberlin, incoming president of EHT.

Theodora Scarato, EHT vice president for policy and education stated: “Why did the FCC perform these tests and then decide to not release the results to the public while it was conducting a rule-making on this very subject? Why did the FCC refuse to release all the records on this issue? It is outrageous that the U.S. allows phones to be tested with whatever separation distance the companies want. Phones should be tested the way they are used. Children and adults use and carry phones pressed to their body for hours every day. We need a strong oversight and compliance program, including post-market RF emission and health effect surveillance. It is time for a new approach to cell phone testing, one that reflects the way people use phones today.”

The FOIA appeal and entire FCC FOIA response are available on EHT’s website here: https://ehtrust.org/environmental-health-trust-foia-project/


Environmental Health Trust is a 501(c)3 nonprofit scientific think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education and policy. EHT conducts cutting edge research on environmental health hazards and works with communities, health, education professionals and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards.

The Environmental Health Trust had a favorable U.S. Court of Appeals judgment in their case against the FCC. EHT scientists testified in 2009 Senate hearings and 2008 congressional hearing on cell phone radiation- the last ever held. EHT scientists have continued to publish studies on the health effects of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation and organized numerous national and international scientific conferences on the issue. EHT’s scientific publications have been submitted to the FCC record as critical evidence. Visit www.ehtrust.org for more information.

 

Connect with Environmental Health Trust

Cover image credit: OleksandrPidvalnyi




Frequency Technology (HAARP), Strange Cloud Formations & the Intentional Blocking of Our Sun

Frequency Technology (HAARP), Strange Cloud Formations & the Intentional Blocking of Our Sun

 

Gov Using Frequency to BLOCK THE SUN! 2024 ARCTIC FREEZE was MAN-MADE! Undeniable PROOF

Are chemtrails becoming a thing of the past? Have they found a better way to steal the sun? I say “YES!”…

by Agent131711, Agent131711’s Substack
April 3, 2024

 

They tell us these are normal clouds that have been around forever and we are just too stupid to remember them:

 

Yeeeah, ok…

 

It’s utterly idiotic. For those of us who have old school photo albums, you know, the kind with actual photographs and polaroid’s in a binder, these clouds are nowhere to be seen.

 

There is no photo of grandpa on his wedding day in 1940 with this in the background:

 

There’s no giant d*ck in the sky pics:

 

What causes clouds to make shapes and patterns is blasting them with frequency:

 

“Agent, how do you know the clouds are changing from frequency?”, you ask. To which I reply, “Great question! The answer is, because we see the exact same thing when water is blasted with frequency”. Here’s a little 1-minute video. There’s thousands of these videos on the internet, but I picked the shortest one: (1 minute 13 second video)

 

Throughout the video we see the water forming the identical shapes as the clouds:

 

closeup for people reading this on their cell phone:

 

 

closeup:

 

Unless you have a severe learning disability or are a shill, working for the government (redundant wording?), it’s not hard to tell that this:

 

Is the exact same f*cking thing as this:

 

Read the full article here, including additional videos and images: Where are the frequencies coming from? How and why are they covering the sun?

 

Connect with Agent131711

Cover images credit: Sharon James

 


See related photos by Sharon James. All were taken in Iowa farm country.

 

April 3, 2024:

 

February 26, 2024:

 

November 26, 2023

 

November 1, 2023:

 

 




Fluoride — The Poisoned Chalice

Fluoride — The Poisoned Chalice

by UK Column
March 21, 2024

 

 

Fluoride—The Poisoned Chalice: In Plain Sight 

How safe is our drinking water? Do you even know what is in it? What would you say if you were told you were being medicated with a very dangerous chemical, without consent, through your drinking water? No doubt the majority of us would be up in arms, but in 2024 this is exactly what the UK Government is planning on doing. Already in the UK, six million people drink fluoridated water, but the addition of fluoride at source is about to be expanded throughout the whole of England.

Debi Evans is joined by Joy Warren, National Coordinator of Fluoride Free Alliance UK. She has been active against water fluoridation since soon after gaining a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Science in 2002. Her catalyst for action was attending a Friends of the Earth meeting in early 2003 at which a medical doctor gave an account of her long struggle against hypothyroidism after moving to fluoridated Coventry. After researching the issue of fluoride’s negative effect on the endocrine system and much else, Joy became convinced that the practice of adding a medicine to drinking water was a thoroughly unethical medical practice. Part of her journey has involved excluding fluoride from her environment—which was no mean feat, living as she does in a fluoridated city.

Joy joined the National Pure Water Association in 2005 and soon became an Executive Director. In 2010, she left NPWA to start West Midlands Against Fluoridation and ran a very successful website and fluoride analysis service. During this time, she gained a Certificate in Health and Nutrition. In 2018, encouraged by friends, she set up the Fluoride Free Alliance UK (FFAUK), which became the national organisation campaigning on the issue, NPWA having been wound up a few years earlier.

There have been several attempts to add fluoride to English drinking water since 2003 and Joy Warren has been actively involved in ensuring that each attempt failed. The current climate is more challenging, with the Conservative government and advisors since 2022 trying to get England and Wales fluoridated, and this has meant Joy exercising her coordination and IT skills to the full.She has been involved against all attempts since 2004 to fluoridate a population and has a 100% success record.

This interview covers what fluoride is and how dangerous it is. What is a neurotoxin? Can you stop your area from being fluoridated? Joy Warren reveals the extent of the Government’s plan to medicate us with fluoride through our drinking water, without our consent. Why has the Government taken this potentially disastrous decision, and how will it affect you and future generations?

Fluoride is also present in many medicines and foods; are you aware of how much fluoride your body is ingesting? Do you know the dangers to children and babies? Dental vans will be visiting primary schools to paint children’s teeth with fluoride varnish. Do you consent?

Joy Warren discusses what the public can do to object to the fluoridation of water. Fluoride is invisible, and the Government would like it remain that way. It is up to every one of us to inform others of the dangers of fluoride.

 

Contact Details:

Joy Warren, National Coordinator, Fluoride Free Alliance UK

Website: www.ukfffa.org.uk

 

Connect with UK Column 

Cover image credit: 165106/pixabay




Pretending to be Alternative: Toxic Pharmaceuticals With “Intelligent Surfaces”

Pretending to be Alternative: Toxic Pharmaceuticals With “Intelligent Surfaces”

 

Pretending to be Alternative

by Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath, Nature of Healing
March 9, 2024

 

Since the onset of the Covidan Era in 2019, the “alternative media” and its alternative media celebrities, have occupied a greater percentage of center stage.  They didn’t have to push their way into the spotlight since they own part of it, a section further upstage.

The “alternative media” has upstaged the mainstream media in the promotion, and selling, of “alternative remedies ” for COVID-19. Among the many options is Ivermectin.

In 2020, I wrote an article on the dangers of Ivermectin in the article, The Rise of Ivermectin, found here. Additional information was published by Vaccine Impact here. Why bring up yesterday’s news?

Old news is new again when new information becomes available. What the many “alternative” faces did not reveal about their “alternative” products is that they were not alternative at all. They contain the same materials as the standard issue EUA injectables and pills. They only come packaged with a less inflammatory script.

Pretending to be Alternative

Beware of “off label” drugs, such as Ivermectin, pretending to be alternative. They are pharmaceuticals. Today, they are built with intelligent surfaces designed to work with 6G systems for wide-scale global deployment. In 2024, 5G has become yesterday’s news. The new narrative boasts  7G to succeed 5G and 6G.

While we already know these products are prescription drugs, we should know that they work with nanotechnology and are activated by electromagnetic frequencies as part of digital surveillance systems.

This has been true since 2003, when president George Bush signed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Since then, over thirty Federal departments, independent agencies, and commissions work together toward a brave new world of cybernetics, cognitive technology, and digital surveillance systems.

But what about the stories of people Ivermectin has helped?

Pharmaceuticals may help the body, before they hurt it. Ivermectin is a known anti-parasitic. If it helps people, then they have parasites. And these days, who doesn’t have parasites? Especially when there are parasites among us, parasites in high places. However, Ivermectin studied in randomized, controlled trials showed no clinical benefit in the prevention or treatment of Covid-19. Toxic effects include: severe confusion, ataxia, seizures, and hypotension.

New oral antibodies are the next “alternative” product being marketed. Yet. alternative science, in 2012, claimed that antibodies, alone, are not enough to mount a natural and true immune response.  The activation of T cells comprise a primary “cell-mediated” immune response to an antigen stimulus.

How much help “alternative” products offer depends upon the individual ingredients, and whether they are injected (vaccine), ingested (pill), or inhaled (airborne).  The most immediate and potentially dangerous delivery system is by injection, since the materials bypass the body’s innate immune system to be delivered directly into the bloodstream.  From the blood, electromagnetic nanomaterials (lipdnanoparticles, graphene, and hydrogels), are carried to organs, tissues and cells, where they take up residence and become embedded into tissue.

Nanobots are self-assembling and self-replicating. They have artificial intelligence (A.I.). They take orders and commands, military-style. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has been around for 25 years. NNI is the new supplement to the president’s 2024 budget called for under the provisions of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 USC §7501). If the president is supplementing with A.I. as a budget item, then Americans should be aware of the updated national diet.

The “Alternative” Pharma Products

Choosing an “alternative” medication is still a medication. Thus, it is important to read the labels and do the research.

The REAL McCoy

With definitions ever-changing under a NanoNarrative, we need to return to “REAL.”  “Real” is eating clean with organic, grass fed meat and milk, pastured eggs, locally-grown vegetables and fruits, eating with the seasons. “Real” is connecting to Nature and the world of plants and herbs as medicine. “Real” does not require a label.

Food is the main fuel of the body. Still, in today’s world, food as fuel is not enough due to our many toxic exposures.

It is important to supplement with “real” ingredients, not “alternatives.” Supplementing foods should be food-based, such as fruit freshly harvested, nutrient-rich broths, and herbal preparations, such as teas and tinctures.  For example, when sourcing vitamin C, choose food-based C over ascorbic acid.

Real foods resemble body parts. Citrus fruits have a similar appearance to female mammals’ mammary glands. These fruits support breast health and lymphatic flow into and out of the breasts.

In a world of nanotech, it takes an effort to be natural. Get to know your local ‘small farmer’ as someone not small in stature, but small in commercial operation. The Weston A. Price Foundation connects people to local small farmers to source real foods. Find a local chapter here.

The farther from nature, the closer to synthetic A.I., the door to Cyborgs, and the realm of Transhumanism.

 

Related articles:

 

Rosanne Lindsay is a Traditional Naturopath, Herbalist, Writer, and Author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally. Find her on Facebook at facebook.com/Natureofhealing. Consult with her remotely at www.natureofhealing.org.

 

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath

Cover image credit: qimono




Pandora’s Polymer: Synthetic Blood and the Cross Domain Bacteria (CDB)

Pandora’s Polymer: Synthetic Blood and the Cross Domain Bacteria (CDB)

by Clifford E Carnicom
February 29, 2024

 

A second polymer form that originates from the Cross Domain Bacteria (CDB) has been isolated and assessed.  The CDB is a xenobiotic, genetically engineered synthetic biology that represents a threat to human existence.  It has been under study for several decades and is known to degrade human health in a myriad of ways, with foremost visible damage to the blood.

The research at Carnicom Institute (CI) over the past couple of years is directed toward an increased understanding of the relationship between the CDB and the interaction from the “Covid Era” that has additionally been imposed. This research establishes that this synthetic biology is the primary source of blood damage, including that of blood coagulation.  There is strong evidence that the purported “vaccines” from the Covid Era have added another complex layer of harm that increases the rate of and visibility of blood clots and coagulation.

Blood, biology, chemistry and polymer research at CI is at the core of understanding this relationship.  A series of research papers by CI over this same period disclose many of the mechanisms of harm that are now known to exist.  Numerous other researchers are now involved because of the assaults from the Covid Era, but it is hoped that an immediate awareness of the broader history of the decades old grand assault from synthetic biology will unfold. For your sake, and our sake, it needs to. No time for debates as to Who’s On First at this point…

Here is the assessment of this polymer that can be provided at this time:

The material remains consistent with a genetically engineered, bacteria produced biopolymer likely composed primarily of proteins with potential incorporation of carbohydrates and lipids. The confirmed presence of hemoglobin and the culture solution properties suggest a genetically engineered product designed to mimic specific functionalities of blood components.”

Once again, keep in mind that this culture product derives solely from the existence of the CDB (nomenclature, 2014).  No purported “vaccine” is introduced or required to produce this material.

The existence of synthetic blood, xenobiotic filaments, vinyl polymer functional groups, and proteins within this same culture product will be confronted at some point in comprehending the impact of the CDB upon human biology.

The makings of blood clots, in more than one way, are fully in place from the existence of the CDB alone.  As mentioned, the Covid Era appears to add another significant layer of complexity to the blood clotting issue, but original sources for the problems, now amplified, will need to be acknowledged.

And yes, this polymer form also has “biomedical” (in this case, aka known as synthetic biology) applications.

Second polymer isolation from CDB culture. All evidence points to that of a biopolymer polymer, i.e., composed in part of the biomolecules of life (protein, carbohydrates, lipid, nucleic acids). Magnifcation 2x.

One distinction that seems to exist between the two polymers recently isolated is that the previous form appears to act as a significant hydrogel.  The dominant characteristics of this polymer seem to center on biological interaction.

Additional image of biopolymer isolated from the CDB. Magnification 2x.

 

Image of synthetic erythrocytes contained within CDB isolated biopolymer. Multiple tests for hemoglobin present remain positive. Original magnification 8000x.

______________________________________
End of Short Version

 

In like fashion to the previous polymer isolated, the following additional information is provided:

The assessment derives from the following testing methods:

1. Measured or observed properties of a particular and specific material that are produced solely by the CDB in culture form.
2. Ultraviolet Spectroscopy (UV)
3. Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIR)
4. Qualitative Chemistry
5. Conductivity
6. pH
7. Thermodynamics
8. Solubility
9. Reasonably sophisticated chemometric analysis that attempts to synthesize the chemical nature of the material in a combined sense, dependent upon measured properties.
10. Spectroscopy and chemical reference sources.

The measured or observed properties of the substance are:

1. Microscopic view at 3200x reveals significant presence of cells that match erythrocyte geometry and size
2. Thermodynamic properties:
a) Browns at 200 deg C
b) Charred at 410
c) Combustion point, if it exists, is greater than 510 deg C
d) Releases detectable volatile organic compounds during heating
3. Near infrared absorbance indicates probable functional groups present:
a) Methyl
b) Amide/protein
c) Vinyl
d) Alkyl alcohol.
4. Solubility test information:
a) Slightly soluble in water
b) Slightly soluble in Acetone
c) Insoluble in Mineral Oil
d) Moderately soluble in approx 1M sulfuric acid
e) Insoluble in NaOH-KOH
5. Color is pure white
6. It is created by genetically engineered bacteria
8. Ultraviolet absorbance at 258 nanometers (nm) and at less than 198 nm.
9. Soft Plastic polymer appearance and texture
10. The material has been confirmed to contain hemoglobin.
11. pH of the generating culture is 3.9
12. Electrical conductivity of the generating culture is 10.6 millisiemens (mS)

Clifford E Carnicom
Feb 29 2024

Born Clifford Bruce Stewart, Jan 19 1953

 

Connect with Carnicom Institute website | substack

Cover image credit: kropekk_pl


See Related:

Clifford Carnicom on the Link Between GeoEngineering & Unusual Filaments Within Blood Samples, Blood Clots, and (Purported) “Vaccine” Studies

The Danger in the Air – Rainwater Analysis Research by Dr. Geanina Hagimă From Romania Shows Magnetic Nanoparticles and Filaments. Comparison to Clifford Carnicom’s Rainwater Analysis

Dr. Ana Mihalcea & Clifford Carnicom: What Is Happening to Humanity’s Blood? — On the Loss of Electrical Blood Conductivity in the Post C19 Era

Unvaccinated Blood Unrecognizable After Application of Low Level Electrical Current and Structures Rapidly Grow – Clifford Carnicom’s Findings Confirmed




Pesticide Exposure Linked to Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes, and Metabolic Disease in Seniors

Pesticide Exposure Linked to Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes, and Metabolic Disease in Seniors

by Beyond Pesticides
February 27, 2024

 

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2024) Popular culture and official policy continue to ignore a blatant source of the rise in obesity: chemical exposures, including pesticides. A study, “Associations of chronic exposure to a mixture of pesticides and type 2 diabetes mellitus in a Chinese elderly population,” contributes to the now-massive trove of evidence linking pesticides to diseases and shows that by the time people reach retirement age they are suffering from a heavy burden of contamination that raises their risk of complex disease.

Since the 1960s, obesity in both adults and children has nearly tripled. More than half of U.S. adults were either obese or severely obese by 2018, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study. The 55-year trend line is decidedly upward. More women than men are obese, and black women suffer the most, but men are racing to catch up. Between 1999 and 2018, Mexican American men shot up from the lowest percentage of obesity to nearly the highest.

Obesity is a milestone on the road to Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney failure, joint replacement, and more. The causes of obesity are severely misunderstood. Most people believe that discipline and willpower are what keep a person from being fat, even if they have “fat genes.” The medical opinion is “calories in, calories out” — obesity, genetic or not, can be staved off with diet and exercise. But despite decades of advice, sweat, tears, and billions of dollars spent on ineffective diet pills and menus, obesity is a global emergency. If popular attitudes and medical theories were correct, obesity would be far less common and more easily controlled. It is not. Therefore, beliefs and advice are incorrect—or at least incomplete.

The researchers from the Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention identified 39 pesticides in the study population. Women had slightly higher levels and a stronger correlation between obesity, pesticide burden and type 2 diabetes than men. The most significant contributors were β-Hexachlorocyclohexane (β-BHC) and oxadiazon.

β-BHC is a byproduct of technical grade lindane production and common near lindane factories. For example, in 2005 an Italian biomonitoring program found β-BHC levels 20 times higher than the legal limit in cows’ milk. The subject cows’ water came from a river which had been polluted by waste from a lindane facility. Lindane is available in the U.S. only as a treatment for head lice and not for any agricultural uses. It has been listed as a Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention since 2009. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a possible human carcinogen; it has been linked to aplastic anemia and breast cancer and is an endocrine disruptorOxadiazon is a herbicide and likely human carcinogen used in the U.S. on golf courses, parks, athletic fields, playgrounds, cemeteries and some horticultural contexts but which is not registered for any food uses.

The β-BHC and oxadiazon associations with type 2 diabetes in the Chinese senior study are “pronounced among elderly women,” according to the authors. They are also linear, meaning that for each increment of pesticide body burden, the risk of diabetes rises a comparable amount. These data, the authors write indicate “that it is an urgent need to take practical measures to control these harmful pesticides.”

Although β-BHC and oxadiazon now have limited uses in the U.S., the study found levels in the Chinese seniors of many pesticides that are still used in the U.S. in agricultural, horticultural, residential, and other applications. These include atrazine, acetochlor, metolachlor, and permethrin, to name a few, all of which have been reported to disturb lipid functions. A 2020 review of agrochemicals affecting obesity discusses more obesogenic pesticides registered in the U.S.

A concurrent publication by most of the same authors as the 2024 Chinese pesticide study reviewed evidence for environmental obesogens’ disruption of lipid metabolism. This review notes that, “Currently, more than 50 types of chemicals with high human exposure levels have been identified as environmental obesogens that can interfere with lipid metabolism and induce obesity. Experimental studies have shown that the lipid metabolism interference effects of obesogens have multiple targets, including nuclear receptors [thyroid, steroid, vitamin D3, and retinoid receptors], transcription factors [wide number of proteins that initiate and regulate the transcription of genes], cytokines [proteins important to cell signaling], and hormones. The interfering factors of environmental obesogen-induced obesity include transgenerational effects, susceptibility [developmental] windows, gender differences…and diet habits…”

Lipids are fat-soluble compounds that are essential for cells’ structural integrity along with numerous other functions in organisms from bacteria to humans. But when fat consumption exceeds the body’s need for lipids, humans make more fat cells or expand existing cells. When these storage options are full, lipids begin leaking into other tissues such as the kidneys and pancreas, contributing to a wide variety of serious diseases.

Research on environmental contributions to obesity was pioneered by Bruce Blumberg, who recounts how he discovered the effects of tributyltin (TBT) in his 2018 book with Kristin Loberg, The Obesogen Effect: Why We Eat Less and Exercise More but Still Struggle to Lose WeightTBT refers to a family of tin compounds used to keep marine snails off ship hulls (a use now banned), to prevent fungal growth in wood and textile production, as a stabilizer in polyvinyl chloride products, and other uses. It bioaccumulates and can take 30 years to break down. Blumberg’s presentation at Beyond Pesticides’ 2018 36th National Pesticide Forum, is available on YouTube.

Dr. Blumberg, a professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California Irvine and a molecular biologist by training, was curious about Japanese research showing that TBT could change fish from female to male, so he looked for cellular receptors that TBT could bind to. He found that TBT did not activate sex hormone receptors as expected; instead, it activated the process that leads to fat cell development. He showed that frog embryos exposed to TBT converted their testes to fat, that mice exposed to TBT in the womb had larger fat deposits as adults, and that this predisposition affected later generations. Subsequent research into the term Blumberg coined, obesogens, has expanded knowledge of these phenomena.

One of the widely-studied culprits is the notorious organophosphate chlorpyrifos. It has a painful and ragged history of regulation by EPA, which itself has repeatedly opined that it is toxic to human health. Currently, as BP reported last November, chlorpyrifos residues are still permitted in food owing to a shoddy and biased court-ordered instruction by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos does its damage in varied ways. Beyond Pesticides covered a 2019 study finding that it promotes obesity development even at low doses. The study found that chlorpyrifos prevented “diet-induced thermogenesis” in brown adipose tissue at concentrations “as low as 1 part per million.” Brown fat is considered better than white fat, and it burns calories to keep the body at an even temperature in cold conditions.

An earlier study by some of the same authors of the 2024 pesticide-diabetes research showed that chlorpyrifos also contributes to obesity by causing leaky gut and inflammation; when they transferred chlorpyrifos-altered microbes to unexposed mice, those mice added fat and lost insulin sensitivity –major factors in type 2 diabetes induction.

Despite reduced usage, TBT keeps on giving – and demonstrating that even at individually low doses, and even when a chemical has been banned or restricted, it can remain in the environment and combine with other toxic chemicals to cause harm. A 2019 study showed that “Combined exposure [to TBT and the “forever chemical” perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)] significantly promoted the fat accumulation in newly hatched [fish] larvae, even when the doses of TBT and PFOS were both at the levels that did not show obesogenic effect. The interactive effect of TBT and PFOS could aggravate the total obesogenic effect of their mixtures, indicating a synergistic interaction.”

There are ways to fight back against the onslaught:

The body of research now available also supports the very recent admission by some health professionals that obesity is not caused by poor character, laziness or lack of willpower. The review of environmental obesogens and their role in metabolic diseases cites approximately 50 studies reporting specific obesogenic effects of more than 50 chemicals. Obesity has multiple determinants, but absent willpower is not one of them. Unfortunately, the medical establishment is still focused on mechanisms, such as brain activity, that cause people to eat too much, and suggest that high-calorie food is too easily available. These are probably factors, but the message that environmental obesogens are a dire emergency has not yet been received. The prevailing concept is that too much food is the problem, when it’s perhaps not the amount of food, but the pesticide load of the food, that is an essential cause of the slow-motion global pandemic of obesity and diabetes.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides

Sources:

Associations of chronic exposure to a mixture of pesticides and type 2 diabetes mellitus in a Chinese elderly population. Tian Chen, Xiaohua Liu, Jianghua Zhang, Lulu Wang, Jin Su, Tao Jing, Ping XiaoChemosphere, Volume 351, March 2024,  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653524000870?via%3Dihub [Open Access]

Environmental Obesogens and Their Perturbations in Lipid Metabolism. Xiaoyun Wang, Zhendong Sun, Qian S. Liu, Qunfang Zhou, and Guibin Jiang Environ. Health, February 13, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1021/envhealth.3c00202 [Open Access]

Agrochemicals and obesity, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, Volume 515, 15 September 2020, Xiao-Min Ren, Yun Kuo, Bruce Blumberg, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303720720302264?via%3Dihub [Open Access]

Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Diabetes. https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-induced-diseases-database/diabetes; “a wealth of additional research on the link between toxic pesticide exposure and the development of diabetes. Replacing conventional food products with organic consistently leads to reduced levels of pesticide in one’s body.”

Food For Thought: Eating Organic Reduces Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2020/11/food-for-thought-eating-organic-reduces-risk-of-type-2-diabetes/

Study Finds Recently Banned, Common Insecticide Promotes Obesity Development, and Related Illnesses, https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/09/study-finds-recently-banned-common-u-s-insecticide-promotes-obesity-development-and-related-illnesses/

Grandmother’s Exposure to DDT Increases Granddaughters’ Breast Cancer and Cardiometabolic Disorder Risk, https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/04/grandmothers-exposure-to-banned-pesticide-ddt-increases-breast-cancer-and-cardiometabolic-disorder-risk-in-granddaughters/

Childhood Development Hurt By Preconception Exposure to Environmental Stressors, https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/08/childhood-development-hurt-by-preconception-exposure-to-environmental-stressors/

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/en.2015-1350

http://www.endocrine.org/news-room/current-press-releases/parents-preconception-exposure-to-environmental-stressors-can-disrupt-early-developmental-processes

 

Connect with Beyond Pesticides

Cover image credit: hpgruesen




The Military Routinely Disperses Aluminum-Coated Fiberglass Into the Air 

The Military Routinely Disperses Aluminum-Coated Fiberglass Into the Air 

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
February 8, 2024

 

Story-at-a-Glance

  • Militaries around the world routinely disperse tiny bits of aluminum-coated fiberglass and plastic — known as “chaff” — into the air column, to shield aircraft and ships from enemy radar
  • Chaff has been used for decades, without clear evidence that it’s safe for humans and the environment
  • In response to a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued in August 2021, the U.N. announced it’s considering spraying sulfate aerosols into the Earth’s stratosphere to modify climate. The tiny reflective particles would act as reflectors, bouncing sunlight back into space instead of onto the Earth’s surface
  • The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is using “climate science” as a vehicle to promote socialist ideology
  • According to Dane Wigington, founder of Geoengineeringwatch.org, the risks of geoengineering are so immense, it poses an extinction-level threat to humanity, and the window of opportunity to save ourselves is rapidly closing

In addition to the weather modification1 going on around the world, militaries around the world are also routinely dispersing tiny bits of aluminum-coated fiberglass and plastic — known as “chaff” — into the air column, to shield aircraft and ships from enemy radar.2 Not surprisingly, this has been done for decades, without clear evidence that it’s safe for humans and the environment.

According to a 1998 General Accounting Office report3 and a 1999 follow-up report4 by the Naval Research Laboratory, the environmental, human and agricultural impacts of chaff used in military training scenarios at the time were “negligible and far less than those from other man-made emissions,” but does that really mean it’s safe? As explained in a 2001 Navy Medicine paper:5

“Radiofrequency (RF) chaff is an electronic countermeasure designed to reflect radar waves and obscure planes, ships, and other assets from radar tracking sources.

Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers (also referred to as dipoles) ranging in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm. Chaff is released or dispensed from military vehicles in cartridges or projectiles that contain millions of dipoles.

When deployed, a diffuse cloud of dipoles is formed that is undetectable to the human eye. Chaff is a very light material that can remain suspended in air anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from its release point, depending on prevailing atmospheric conditions.

Training for military personnel, particularly aircraft pilots, in the use of chaff is necessary to deploy this electronic countermeasure effectively. As with most acquired skills, the deployment of chaff must be maintained by practicing in-flight release during training.

It is estimated that the U.S. Armed Forces dispense about 500 tons of chaff per year, with most chaff being released during training exercises within the continental United States.”

Is Chaff Safe?

According to the Naval Medicine investigation, inhalation of whole, intact chaff fibers pose “no risk” to humans due to their larger size. “If inhaled, dipoles are predicted to deposit in the nose, mouth, or trachea and are either swallowed or expelled,” the paper states.6

Note the use of the word “predicted,” however. Predictions are not evidence. They’re basically guessing. Open questions also remain about what happens when the fibers degrade.

“Several investigations have demonstrated that Al-coated dipoles are resistant to weathering and breakdown under desert conditions,” the paper states.7

“A 1977 US Navy-sponsored a study found no evidence to indicate that chaff degrades significantly or quickly in water from the Chesapeake Bay nor did this material leach significant amounts of aluminum into the Bay.

A recent study by our group found no evidence that 25 years of chaff operations at the Naval Research Laboratory detachment at Chesapeake Beach, MD resulted in a significant increase in sediment or soil aluminum concentrations (Wilson et al 2000).

However, additional studies are needed to determine the half-life of chaff dipoles in various soils and environmental conditions and whether dipoles breakdown to respirable particles …

Although there is no definitive evidence from the epidemiological literature that chaff exposure is not harmful, there is epidemiological information available on workers involved in the glass fiber manufacturing industry. Data from these studies suggests that exposure to fibrous glass is not associated with increased risk of death from respiratory disease.”

The problem with that is that fiberglass workers are equipped with protective gear, including respirators, Tyvek suits and safety goggles8 — gear that normal people don’t wear when they’re out and about. All this tells us is that chaff is unlikely to cause harm to public health, provided people are wearing respirators, which they don’t.

Remarkably, not much beyond these three reports exist. While all admitted the need for continued research, none appears to have been published, so there’s really no telling what the real-world impact might be. That said, common sense tells us that air dispersed aluminum and fiberglass is highly likely to have some sort of impact on the environment and human health.

Geoengineering Has Been Going on for Decades

Aluminum and fiberglass are not the only toxins being sprayed across our skies. As detailed by Dane Wigington, founder of Geoengineeringwatch.org, weather modification, also known as geoengineering, in which various toxic metals and chemicals are dispersed at high altitude, has been going on for more than 70 years, and is increasing rather than declining.

In response to a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued in August 2021,9,10 which called for radical measures to prevent further global warming, the Biden Administration launched a research effort in 2022 to determine the most effective way to dim the sun.11

One proposal involves injecting sulfur dioxide aerosols into the Earth’s stratosphere. The tiny reflective particles would bounce sunlight back into space instead of onto the Earth’s surface.12 According to Harvard researchers,13 this strategy is not only “technically possible” but also “remarkably inexpensive,” having a price tag that is “well within the reach of several nations.”

Earth’s climate is largely controlled by how much solar radiation reaches the Earth and how much is absorbed by its surface or reradiated to space. Cloud coverage and greenhouse gasses are examples of factors that influence the reflectance of solar radiation.14

“If geoengineering proposals are to influence global climate in any meaningful way, they must intentionally alter the relative influence of one of these controlling mechanisms,” Britannica explains.15

The U.N. report mentions solar radiation management and greenhouse gas removal as forms of geoengineering.16 Sulfate aerosols fall into the solar radiation management category. By reflecting more solar radiation back into space, the aerosols lower global temperatures but also have a serious “side effect” — they lower average precipitation.

As a result, additional geoengineering techniques — such as thinning out cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere — would be necessary to counteract the decrease in precipitation. What could possibly go wrong?

Supercomputers have run models to predict how solar radiation management may affect different parts of the Earth, not only in terms of temperature but also rainfall and snowfall. Report author Govindasamy Bala, from the Indian Institute of Science, said “the science is there,”17 but it’s far from an exact one.

“I think the next big question,” Bala told Reuters, “is, do you want to do it? … That involves uncertainty, moral issues, ethical issues and governance.” As Reuters reported, “That’s because every region would be affected differently. While some regions could gain in an artificially cooler world, others could suffer by, for example, no longer having conditions to grow crops.”18

‘Catastrophic Risks’

Three months after the IPCC published its panic-inciting report, Australian and British researchers published an original research article warning that stratospheric aerosol injection carries “catastrophic risks” that may well lead us into “a fate worse than [global] warming”:19

“Injecting particles into atmosphere to reflect sunlight, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), represents a potential technological solution to the threat of climate change. But could the cure be worse than the disease? …

SAI plausibly interacts with other catastrophic calamities, most notably by potentially exacerbating the impacts of nuclear war or an extreme space weather event. SAI could contribute to systemic risk by introducing stressors into critical systems such as agriculture.

SAI’s systemic stressors, and risks of systemic cascades and synchronous failures, are highly understudied. SAI deployment more tightly couples different ecological, economic, and political systems. This creates a precarious condition of latent risk, the largest cause for concern …

A well-coordinated use of a small amount of SAI would incur negligible risks, but this is an optimistic scenario. Conversely, larger use of SAI used in an uncoordinated manner poses many potential dangers. We cannot equivocally determine whether SAI will be worse than warming. For now, a heavy reliance on SAI seems an imprudent policy response.”

In June 2023, the European Commission put out a call for “international talks on the dangers and governance of geoengineering,” warning that geoengineering schemes aimed at altering the global climate pose “unacceptable” risks. During a news conference, EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans stated:

“Nobody should be conducting experiments alone with our shared planet. This should be discussed in the right forum, at the highest international level.”

Time will tell whether such talks ever take place. In September 2023, the Climate Overshoot Commission, chaired by Pascal Lamy, a former World Trade Organization chief, called for a worldwide moratorium on solar radiation modification experiments “that would carry risk of significant transboundary harm,” and to focus instead on strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.20,21 But, as of yet, no such moratorium has been agreed upon.

Socialist Ideology, Not Climate Science

Zuzana Janosova Den Boer experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before moving to Canada. In her article, “I Survived Communism — Are You Ready for Your Turn?” she detailed the “all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda” starting to permeate her adopted country.22

In relation to geoengineering, she points out that communism has been subverting the environmentalist movement since the 1970s, when then-chairman of the Communist Party USA, Gus Hall, published a book called “Ecology,” in which he stated:23

“Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements.”

Den Boer writes:24

“This idea was incorporated into the U.S. Green Party program in 1989 … in which the fictitious threats of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used to scare the public into believing humanity must ‘save the planet’:

‘This urgency, along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time …

First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.’”

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Den Boer suggests, is promoting not climate science but socialist ideology, citing as evidence comments made by Ottmar Georg Edenhofer, former co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, who in a 2010 interview stated that climate issues are about economics, and that:25

“We must free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy … We must state clearly that we use climate policy de facto to redistribute the world’s wealth.”

Geoengineering Poses Extinction-Level Threat to Humanity

Even without factoring in social control, the practical risks of geoengineering are impossible to ignore. According to scientific studies, the particulates dispersed during these geoengineering events “shred” the ozone layer. They also disrupt the hydrological (rain) cycle, which leads to another host of downstream effects, and this is in addition to spreading toxins across the entire planet surface.

So, while some of the planet might benefit from these programs, other parts could be decimated by droughts, raging forest fires, flooding or storms. Moreover, while global cooling is the stated aim of most of these geoengineering programs, as the planet warms, the laws of physics state you need more precipitation to cool it, not less, because the atmosphere carries more moisture as the temperature rises.

To cool the planet, you need to create more rain, but these programs have resulted in less rain, and the reason for the reduction in rain fall is due to the particulates in the atmosphere. In addition to deflecting heat from the outside, these particles also trap heat down below, making the overall heating of the planet massively worse.

The risks are so immense, Wigington warns geoengineering already poses an extinction-level threat to humanity. The window of opportunity to save ourselves is rapidly closing.

Unfortunately, if people really understood the totality of the situation — not just that the climate is being manipulated, but that as a result, the global climate systems have deteriorated to the point that the entire Earth is in serious trouble; in short, that these programs may have created a runaway extinction event — the emotional impact might be too great to bear for many. Wigington addressed this in an interview I did with him back in 2016:

“Our situation is far more severe than most people have any understanding of,” he said. “Climate engineering is making the situation worse, not better.

So [they must] try to keep the population from panicking because of the severity and immediacy of the climate implosion, and keep the population in the dark because the climate intervention programs have helped to accelerate this process and toxified every single one of us in the process.

Every single human subject we test is packed full of aluminum, barium — all the heavy metals we know are associated with these programs. It doesn’t matter where they live.

And we know it’s coming down in the precipitation in unimaginable quantities — quantities enough to change soil pH values in the Pacific Northwest 10 to 12 times total alkaline — that’s an unimaginable amount of metal coming down in the rain.

If populations understood, truly, what’s been done to them, what’s been done to the planet … they’d be taking to the streets with pitchforks and torches all over the globe.”

California Aquatic and Terrestrial Insect Life Has Been Decimated

Geoengineeringwatch.org lists a number of lab tests that have been performed on rain water, air sample and more, and their results. You can find them under the Tests section.

“In regard to the effect in the environment, in Northern California alone … what we’ve seen in the last decade … is a 90% decline in aquatic and terrestrial insect life — a virtual crash,” Wigington told me in 2016.

“There’s so much aluminum coming down the precipitation, affecting the soil pH, and — this is very important — the UV radiation level is off the charts, and that we can link directly to climate engineering … We’re seeing UVB levels about 1,000% higher than we’re being told. It’s burning the bark off of trees. It’s killing plankton. It’s affecting insect life …

[It increases UVB radiation] because it shreds the natural protection for the planet. When you put a particle in the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter whether it’s from a back of a jet or a volcano; it causes a chemical reaction in the atmosphere that destroys ozone. Period. So the more of these particles you put in the atmosphere, the more rapid the ozone destruction is.”

With all of that in mind, it’s highly unlikely that military chaff dispersements have no negative impact. An argument could be made that chaff is too important of a defense system to get rid of, and that may be true. But the climate-specific engineering is another matter altogether.

In years past, it was kept hush-hush, and dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Since then, however, governments around the world, and international bodies like the U.N. have become quite open about the use of geoengineering for climate control, and if the global public does not push back against these efforts, we might not survive to regret it.

Geoengineeringwatch.org has a list of action items you can review if you want to get involved and get the word out. I also recommend watching Wigington’s documentary “The Dimming,” below, to learn more.

 



 

 

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: U.S. Air Force photo/ Master Sgt. Kevin J. Gruenwald. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image or file is in the public domain in the United States.




Clifford Carnicom on the Link Between GeoEngineering & Unusual Filaments Within Blood Samples, Blood Clots, and (Purported) “Vaccine” Studies

Clifford Carnicom on the Link Between GeoEngineering & Unusual Filaments Within Blood Samples, Blood Clots, and (Purported) “Vaccine” Studies
“These Filaments, Actually a Product of Synthetic Biology, Have Altered Human Biology in Untold Ways for Decades”

 

TCTL editor’s commentary:

During these past years, as more and more humans are awakening to the global assault that is in the process of transforming or terraforming the planet (including humans and all biological life) there is extensive research related to the so-called “covid mRNA vaccines” and all the deaths related to these poisonous injections. Yet, this assault is not a new agenda and has been going on for a very long time. Geoengineering, tampering with food and water supplies, EMF radiation & wireless technology, poisonous farming practices, and all vaccines (for both humans and animals, all of which have always been toxic and sometimes deadly) have all been part of this global anti-life agenda.

In his article below, Clifford Carnicom, challenges some of the research related to “covid vaccines”. Here he shares links to many articles from his past research related to geoengineering and the highly-toxic substances that fall from our skies. His extensive work in the uncovering of the cause of morgellons, a strange “disease” suffered by so many globally, clearly points to geoengineering as a probable cause. Of interest are the number of military and government agencies who visit his website (see The Visitors), while at the same time the EPA refuses to analyze and identify the fibrous substance sample that Carnicom provided. Of course, one is reminded here of the U.S. Department of Defense’s role in the rollout of mandated “covid vaccines” (see the work of Katherine Watt),

For those new to the work of The Carnicom Institute, please take a look at the many links to previous work that Clifford provides at the end of his article.

As an example, here is an excerpt from an article titled “The New Biology” written in June of 2014:

“It is generally perceived that the so-called “Morgellons” issue is primarily, if not exclusively, a human condition. It is not. It will be found that this condition actually represents a fundamental change in the state and nature of biology as it is known on this earth. The evidence now indicates and demonstrates that there is, at the heart of the “condition”, a new growth form that transcends, as a minimum, the plant and animal boundaries.

The precedent for this argument was made some time past in the paper entitled “Morgellons: A New Classification” (Feb 2010); the central theme of that paper remains valid at this time. The very classification of the domains of life is central to that paper. Readers may also wish to refer to the papers entitled, “Animal Blood” (Jan 2010) and “And Now Our Children” (Jan 2008), where additional precedents were established. The August 2011 video presentation, “Geo-Engineering & Bio-Engineering: The Unmistakable Link” is also relevant here.”

We owe a lot of gratitude to Clifford Carnicom and so many others who are working to uncover the truth about this horrific transhuman & anti-life agenda that is a daily assault on us all.

~ Kathleen Stilwell 1/12/2024

 

 

A “Filaments” Perspective: 25 Years and Counting…

by Clifford E. Carnicom, Carnicom Institute
January 11, 2024

 

For the past several years, there has been some attention given to the presence of unusual filaments within blood samples, blood clots, and (purported) “vaccine” studies. If studied adequately, it will be determined that these filaments have a complex internal biology within them, down to the sub-micron level (minimum).  Various names and chemical identities have been assigned to these filaments, such as “ribbons”, “threads”, “graphene oxide”(i.e., elementary chemistry) and the like.  There are numerous implications from various researchers that these filaments originate from the advent of the “Covid Era”.

The characterization of these filaments as a product only of recent years, i.e., from purported “vaccines”, is mistaken.  Any characterization of the filaments as being of relatively simple or uniform chemistry is mistaken.  Any characterization of the filaments as being an unknown and mysterious entity (with no effort expended to remedy that ignorance) is equally inadequate and mistaken.

It is a disservice to simplify their nature, origin, constitution, and capabilities.  These filaments, actually a product of synthetic biology, have altered human biology in untold ways for decades and they are NOT a mystery as to their origin or general nature.  Any perpetuation of that myth is either from ignorance or with motive.

These unusual and remarkable filaments:

1. Have a known and documented existence of approximately 25 years.
2. Are of an extremely complex biological nature, internally down to the sub-micron level (at a minimum).
3. Have been intensively studied by Carnicom Institute (CI) and others for this same time period.
4. Are directly a physical aspect of the health condition known as “Morgellons”.
5. Have been shown to have a direct role in blood clotting and blood changes that appear to occur more frequently and visibly within the Covid Era.
6. Are ultimately of a synthetic, engineered, xenobiotic nature.
7. Were first identified to originate from an environmental source (geoengineering, bioengineering research).
8. Were given to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the year 2000 with a request for identification on behalf of the public welfare; this request was refused via a “policy” decision.
9. Are a direct metabolic development of the Cross Domain Bacteria (CDB) under study at CI over these same decades.
10. Have some variation in form (a degree of pleomorphism) and size (although all are primarily microscopic) and all have an existence that can be shown to directly originate from the CDB.
11. Can be shown to be a source of synthetic blood production under appropriate culture conditions.
12. The filaments can be demonstrated to be distributed throughout human biology, not just blood.
13. Can be cultured successfully from these same CDB.

These conclusions are justified with the research available at CI beginning in 1999 and they carry forward to the present day.

As the available research is too lengthy to present, a sampling of representative images and titles from the ~450 paper research set will be given for a sense of the state of affairs:

EPA Refuses to Identify, Returns Sample After 18 Month Delay (July 5, 2001)

Biological Components Identified (May 11, 2000)

Aerosol Ground Sample: Microscopic Views (Nov 4, 1999)

Visitors to WWW.CARNICOM.COM (Aug 26, 1999)

Morgellons: An Environmental Source (Dec 14, 2009)

Morgellons: Airborne, Skin & Blood – a Match (Dec 10, 2007)

Cross-Domain Bacteria Isolation (May 17, 2014)

CDB: Growth Progressions (Jun 13, 2014)

The New Biology (Jun 18, 2014)

Morgellons: An International Presence (Aug 10, 2016)

Global Validation (Nov 26, 2017)

Bean Growth Report (Oct 3, 2017)

Morgellons : Unique Protein Isolated & Characterized (Oct 1, 2017)

 Blood Alterations: A Six Part Series (Aug 2022 – Oct 2022)

 

Connect with Clifford E. Carnicom website | substack

Cover image credit: pixundfertig 




Elevated, Chronic Exposure to Glyphosate Increases Risk of Loss of Chromosome Y in Male Farmers

Elevated, Chronic Exposure to Glyphosate Increases Risk of Loss of Chromosome Y in Male Farmers
Loss of Chromosome Y in Male Farmers Genotoxic Implications for Cancer 

by Beyond Pesticides
January 3, 2023

 

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2024) A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds elevated, chronic exposure to glyphosate throughout one’s lifetime increases the risk of mosaic loss of chromosome Y (loss of chromosome Y occurs to many men in some cells due to aging [mLOY]) that impacts a noticeable fraction of cells. Although the loss of this sex chromosome does not cause cell death, like the loss of autosomal chromosomes, the risk of mLOY is a biomarker for genotoxicity (the damage of genetic information within a cell causing mutations from chemical exposure, which may lead to cancer) and expansion of cellular response to glyphosate, resulting in the precursor for hematological (blood) cancers. This study is one of the first to identify sex-specific chromosome degradation, with stark evidence demonstrating links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the glyphosate as a probable carcinogen or cancer-causing chemical. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) allowance of widespread use of glyphosate allows for adverse impacts, especially among vulnerable individuals, like pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly. Glyphosate exposure levels and resulting residues in urine has been documented with recent data showing that four out of five (81.6%) U.S. residents have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. Despite these concerning data, evidence of widespread exposure to a carcinogen has so far failed to influence regulators at EPA, which puts increasing responsibility on local elected officials and consumers, according to advocates, to stop glyphosate use in their community’s land management.

The study notes, “Although future studies are needed to confirm the observed associations, our findings for glyphosate add to the limited literature on occupational and environmental exposures as contributors to mLOY, the most common acquired chromosomal alteration in men, and provide novel mechanistic evidence supporting the potential carcinogenicity of this widely used herbicide.”

The study analyzes blood-derived DNA from 1,606 farmers to detect mLOY using genotype assessments of the sex chromosomes in the cells. Researchers gathered self-reported pesticide exposure from the farmers and estimated the association between mLOY and glyphosate use, employing a multivariable logistic regression. The results find that mLOY is detectable in 21.4 percent of farmers, with mLOY expanding throughout most cells in 9.8 percent of farmers. Most farmers with mLOY expanding throughout most cells are older in age, with a greater lifetime exposure and intensity of exposure to glyphosate. However, these individuals are non-smokers and non-obese, which are other risk factors for mLOY.

Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, including Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup®. The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet it has been shown to have detrimental impacts on humans and the environment. The toxic herbicide readily contaminates the ecosystem, with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, decades of accumulated scientific literature commonly associates glyphosate with human, biotic, and ecosystem harm. Additionally, glyphosate’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosionloss of services, and trophic cascades). Moreover, chemical use has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate. Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health and ecological effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. Thus, glyphosate has been extensively controversial about its safety for humans, nonhuman organisms, and ecosystems. For instance, the presence of glyphosate in human bodies has risen dramatically during the past three decades. Research at the University of California San Diego found that, between two data collection periods (1993–1996 and 2014–2016), the percentage of people testing positive for the presence of glyphosate (or its metabolites) in urine rose by an average of 500 percent, peaking at 1,208 percent.

Although the EPA classifies glyphosate herbicides as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, glyphosate exposure has implications for the development of various health anomalies, including the distortion of DNA function, leading to several chronic diseases like cancerParkinson’s diseasemetabolic disordersgut dysbiosisnervous system disorders, and neurodevelopment disorders like autism. In recent years, numerous lawsuits have targeted Monsanto (now Bayer), which contains glyphosate, alleging that the herbicide contributes to the plaintiffs’ cancers. Beyond Pesticides has reported on EPA’s ongoing failures to protect people and the environment from glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) compounds. Therefore, advocates say it is crucial to comprehend the full spectrum of glyphosate’s effects on human health from its potential carcinogenicity.

This study is one of the first to investigate mLOY as a biomarker for genomic instability (loss of sex chromosome), providing new insight into the biological mechanism involved in carcinogenicity beyond general genotoxicity (i.e., DNA damage) and oxidative stress. However, considering the co-occurring effects of glyphosate exposure, including the chemical’s breakdown product AMPA, is essential. Since glyphosate and its formulations have long been associated with oxidative stress and strong evidence of genotoxicity, multiple biological mechanisms can work synergically (together) to increase the risk, time of onset, or disease severity.

It is essential to understand the effects of widely used pesticides and their breakdown products on the health of current and future generations. Beyond Pesticides challenges the EPA registration of chemicals like glyphosate in court due to their impacts on soil, air, water, and health. However, emphasis on converting to regenerative-organic systems and using least-toxic pest control can mitigate harmful exposure concerns. Public policy must advance this shift rather than allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Considering glyphosate levels in the human body can decrease by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and adverse health effects. Learn more about pesticides’ impacts on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. Moreover, Beyond Pesticides provides tools, information, and support to take local action: check out our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup and our report, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Contact us for help with local efforts and stay informed of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You. Additionally, check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption on glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

 

Connect with Beyond Pesticides

Cover image credit: artellliii72




The Danger in the Air – Rainwater Analysis Research by Dr. Geanina Hagimă From Romania Shows Magnetic Nanoparticles and Filaments. Comparison to Clifford Carnicom’s Rainwater Analysis

The Danger in the Air – Rainwater Analysis Research by Dr. Geanina Hagimă From Romania Shows Magnetic Nanoparticles and Filaments. Comparison to Clifford Carnicom’s Rainwater Analysis

by Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD
August 21, 2023

 

A few weeks ago, my Romanian colleague Dr. Geanina Hagimă emailed me regarding her findings of magnetic nanoparticles in rainwater. She published her findings in the Romanian news EXCLUSIV ActiveNews: CE SE AFLĂ ÎN APA DE PLOAIE? PERICOLUL DIN AER. Dr. Geanina Hagimă

In this video she showed how she captured rainwater and showed that the particulate matter is magnetic: Magnetic particles in rainwater. This needs to be considered as we know that many people after C19 bioweapon injection have become magnetic. This may also be accelerated by inhaling magnetic smart dust.

The laboratory analysis of the rainwater sediment showed Barium, Strontium, Aluminum, Iron, Copper, Zinc, Calcium, Nickel and Arsenic.

Dr. Hagima knew that Graphene Oxide was magnetic and she wanted to see if this was in the rainwater. She then had electron microscopy and Energy-dispersive X ray spectroscopy (EDS) done. This showed fibers which contained Carbon, Silicon, Aluminum and Iron.

Here is the entire PDF:

 

Pericolul Din Aer
7.76MB ∙ PDF file

 

She deducted that these are Carbon Silicon Nanotubes as described in these articles:

Silicon Carbon Nanotubes
53.4KB ∙ PDF file

 

This is for the assembly of Smart dust: Self-assembling, self-orienting photonic crystals of porous Si

This research shows the self assembly to millimeter size technologies:

Dr. Hagima explains that these Silicon Carbon fibers contribute to sickening the population causing respiratory problems and cancers.

Subsequently she included documentation declassified from the United States and their depopulation agenda from 1977:

 

CIA Population Control
472KB ∙ PDF file

 

I sent Dr. Hagima’s research to Clifford Carnicom, since he also has done work on rainwater analysis. He found her results entirely consistent with his research since 1998.

Clifford shared these thoughts with me:

Metals are not supposed to be in rainwater in any significant amounts. But our rain is now polluted so that they are there. None of these metals should theoretically be there, but theory is another matter nowadays. There are some expectations of differences between rural and urban locations, this is an important factor. Cambridge University published books on atmospheric chemistry of rainwater, rural areas should be pretty much clean as a whistle. Urban areas will have some expected pollution, but never anything justified with these metals, such as aluminum, iron, calcium, silicon(metalloid), magnesium, etc. However, none of these findings are any surprise to me. I have found them in my own work years ago.

Here are some of Clifford’s findings:

The Demise of Rainwater, 2016 This analyzed metals content.

Secondary Rainwater Analysis, 2015 This analysis looked at organic and inorganic components

He also discussed possible toxic compounds:

Tertiary Rainwater Analysis, 2015

He found much higher Aluminum levels than recommended by EPA:

Preliminary Rainwater Analysis : Aluminum Concentration, 2015

He also did the environmental filament metal analysis which showed that the filaments contain all the metals that were identified previously.

Metals Testing Report on the “environmental filaments” sample:

Here are the metals found:

Summary:

Geoengineering is a crime against humanity and our biosphere. The spraying of millions of tons of nano particulate matter that is key to weather warfare – and other nefarious objectives like dimming the sun – needs to stop. Under the cover of sham climate change agenda these people cause the destruction of our biosphere. High Aluminum contents have been shown to ignite trees to massive wildfires. A global effort must come underway to ban all geoengineering operations.

 

Connect with Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD

Cover image credit: AnagoCreativa1




Glyphosate: Cancer and Other Health Concerns

Glyphosate: Cancer and Other Health Concerns

by Stacy Malkan, U.S. Right to Know
July 21, 2023

 

Glyphosate, a synthetic herbicide patented in 1974 by the Monsanto Company and now manufactured and sold by many companies in hundreds of products, has been associated with cancer and many other health concerns discussed in this fact sheet. Glyphosate is best known as the active ingredient in Roundup-branded herbicides, and the herbicide used with “Roundup Ready” genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Herbicide tolerance is the most prevalent GMO trait engineered into food crops, with some 90% of corn and 94% of soybeans in the U.S. genetically engineered to tolerate herbicides, according to USDA data. A 2017 study found that Americans’ exposure to glyphosate grew by about 500 percent since Roundup Ready GMO crops were introduced in the U.S in 1996.

Why is Bayer taking glyphosate off the U.S. consumer market?

In July 2021, Monsanto owner Bayer AG said it would remove glyphosate-based herbicides from the U.S. consumer market by 2023 due to litigation. More than 100,000 people are suing Bayer alleging they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to the company’s glyphosate herbicides, such as Roundup. We are posting documents released via discovery on our Monsanto Papers page.

Glyphosate will still be used in large quantities in agriculture in the U.S. Reformulated versions of Roundup brand herbicides without glyphosate will also remain on the market, but may contain other chemicals of concern. For example, one of the active ingredients in “Roundup for Lawns” is dicamba, a chemical that can damage non-target plants and crops.

How much glyphosate is used around the world?

According to a February 2016 study, glyphosate is the most widely used agricultural chemical: “In the U.S., no pesticide has come remotely close to such intensive and widespread use.” Findings include:

  • Americans applied 1.8 million tons of glyphosate (or 1.6 billion kilograms) from its introduction in 1974 to 2014.
  • Worldwide, 9.5 million tons (or 8.6 billion kilograms) of the chemical has been sprayed on fields —enough to spray nearly half a pound of Roundup on every cultivated acre of land in the world.
  • Glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since Roundup Ready GMO crops (genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate) were introduced in the mid 1990s.

In the U.S., approximately 281 million pounds of glyphosate were applied to 298 million acres annually, on average, from 2012 to 2016, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The most glyphosate was applied to soybean (117.4 million pounds annually), corn (94.9 million pounds annually), and cotton (20 million pounds annually). Many citrus fruits, including grapefruit, oranges and lemons, and field crops such as soybeans, corn and cotton have high percentages of their acres treated with glyphosate.

What do scientists and health care providers say about glyphosate?

Many scientists, health care professionals and public interest groups have raised concern about the health impacts of glyphosate. Here are some key statements:

Monsanto owner Bayer AG maintains that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides are safe when used as directed and do not cause cancer. “Glyphosate is one of the most studied herbicides in the world – and, like all crop protection products, it is subject to rigorous testing and oversight by regulatory authorities,” Bayer states on its website. “There is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides… that confirm that glyphosate and our glyphosate-based formulated products can be used safely and do not cause cancer.”

Internal Monsanto documents, investigative journalism and independent research have established that Monsanto used many tactics over decades to manipulate the scientific record on glyphosate and that regulatory agencies relied on poorly conducted studies and insufficient data.

How much glyphosate is in our bodies?

More than 80% of urine samples drawn from children and adults in a U.S. health study contained glyphosate, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Out of 2,310 urine samples taken from Americans intended to be representative of the population, CDC found that 1,885 contained detectable levels of glyphosate. Scientists described this finding as “disturbing” and “concerning.”

2017 study in JAMA found that Americans’ exposure to glyphosate increased approximately 500 percent since Roundup Ready GMO crops were introduced in 1996.

While it is clear that most Americans are being exposed to glyphosate, the literature on glyphosate exposure levels, especially in children, remains limited, according to a 2020 paper in Environmental Health. “Without more data collected in a standardized way, parsing out the potential relationship between glyphosate exposure and disease will not be possible,” the researchers concluded.

Why are corporate studies a problem?

Regulators in Europe and the United States, Canada and elsewhere have repeatedly affirmed the corporate assertions of glyphosate safety. In making determinations about safety, these regulators have relied in part on tests that are conducted by or for the companies that have not been published or peer reviewed.

The corporate studies have long been kept secret, even by regulators. But in Europe, litigation by a group of European Parliament lawmakers led to the release of dozens of such studies. More than 50 of those corporate studies were analyzed in 2021 by independent scientists from the Institute of Cancer Research, Department of Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, Armen Nersesyan and Siegfried Knasmueller.

Their goal was to determine if the industry studies comply with current international guidelines for chemical testing.  The researchers concluded that the bulk of the industry studies were outdated and did not meet current guidelines. An array of shortcomings and flaws were found in the studies, rendering most of them unreliable. Of the 53 studies submitted to regulators by the companies, only two were acceptable under current internationally recognized scientific standards, Knasmueller said.

Glyphosate and cancer: What do scientific and regulatory agencies say?

The scientific literature and regulatory conclusions regarding cancer links to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides show a mix of findings, making the safety of the herbicide a hotly debated subject.

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified  glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” after reviewing years of published and peer-reviewed scientific studies. The team of international scientists found there was a particular association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

U.S. agencies: At the time of the IARC classification, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was conducting a registration review. The EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) issued a report in 2016 concluding that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses relevant to human health. In December 2016, the EPA convened a Scientific Advisory Panel to review the report; members were divided in their assessment of EPA’s work, with some finding the EPA erred in how it evaluated certain research. Additionally, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development determined that EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs had not followed proper protocols in its evaluation of glyphosate, and said the evidence could be deemed to support a “likely” carcinogenic or “suggestive” evidence of carcinogenicity classification. Nevertheless the EPA issued a draft report on glyphosate in December 2017 continuing to hold that the chemical is not likely to be carcinogenic. In April 2019, the EPA reaffirmed its position that glyphosate poses no risk to public health. But earlier that same month, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reported links between glyphosate and cancer: “numerous studies reported risk ratios greater than one for associations between glyphosate exposure and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma,” the report said.

The EPA issued an Interim Registration Review Decision in January 2020 with updated information about its position on glyphosate, continuing to hold the position that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s decision. EPA withdrew its interim decision in September 2022 and the agency will start over in its review.

European Union: The European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency have said glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. A March 2017 report by environmental and consumer groups argued that regulators relied improperly on research that was directed and manipulated by the chemical industry. A 2019 study found that Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment report on glyphosate, which found no cancer risk, included sections of text that had been plagiarized from Monsanto studies. In February 2020, reports surfaced that 24 scientific studies submitted to the German regulators to prove the safety of glyphosate came from a large German laboratory that has been accused of fraud and other wrongdoing.

In June 2021, the European Union’s (EU) Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG) issued an 11,000-page draft report concluding that glyphosate is safe when used as directed and does not cause cancer. The finding is based in part on a dossier of roughly 1,500 studies submitted to European regulators by the “Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG),” a collection of companies that includes Monsanto owner Bayer AG. The companies are seeking the renewal of the EU authorization of glyphosate. Current authorization in Europe expires in 2023.

WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues  determined in 2016 that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet, but this finding was tarnished by conflict of interest concerns after it came to light that the chair and co-chair of the group also held leadership positions with the International Life Sciences Institute, a group funded in part by Monsanto and one of its lobbying organizations.

California OEHHA: In March 2017, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment confirmed it would add glyphosate to California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. Monsanto sued to block the action but the case was dismissed. In a separate case, the court found that California could not require cancer warnings for products containing glyphosate. On June 12, 2018, a U.S. District Court denied the California Attorney General’s request for the court to reconsider the decision. The court found that California could only require commercial speech that disclosed “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” and the science surrounding glyphosate carcinogenicity was not proven.

Agricultural Health Study: A long-running U.S. government-backed prospective cohort study of farm families in Iowa and North Carolina has not found any connections between glyphosate use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the researchers reported that “among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users…” The most recent published update to the study was made public in late 2017.

What health problems are linked to glyphosate exposure?
Cancer

July 2023 study in Chemosphere: Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic review of mechanistic studies on glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations to evaluate them for the 10 key characteristics of cancer hazard identification. Data analysis revealed “strong evidence” for five of the key characteristics of carcinogenicity. An in-depth analyses of genotoxicity and endocrine disruption revealed “strong and consistent positive findings.” The researchers wrote, “Our findings strengthen the mechanistic evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and provide biological plausibility for previously reported cancer associations in humans, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

March 2023 Leukemia and Lymphoma journal: Pooled study of three case-control studies found statistically significant increased risk and confirmed an association between Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), including sub type hairy cell leukemia, and exposure to certain herbicides including glyphosate.

A February 2020 paper in Environmental Health presents a comprehensive review of chronic exposure animal carcinogenicity studies of glyphosate. It reports toxicologically plausible pathways for why glyphosate may cause various cancers in rodents.

In April 2019, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued its draft toxicological profile for  glyphosate, reporting an increased cancer risk from glyphosate exposures. Emails released via court proceedings show officials at EPA and Monsanto tried to hinder the ATSDR report. (The ATSDR profile is now final, and raises concerns about cancer.)

March 2019 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology analyzed data from more than 30,000 farmers and agricultural workers from studies done in France, Norway and the U.S., and reported links between glyphosate and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

February 2019 meta analysis in Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research reports a “compelling link” between glyphosate-based herbicides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Three of the study authors were members of the EPA’s scientific advisory panel on glyphosate who have stated publicly that the EPA failed to follow proper scientific practices in its glyphosate assessment.

A January 2019 analysis in Environmental Sciences Europe argues that the U.S. EPA’s classification of glyphosate disregarded substantial scientific evidence of genotoxicity the negative impact on a cell’s genetic material) associated with weed killing products such as Roundup.

For an analysis released in July 2021, researchers from the University of Vienna analyzed 53 glyphosate studies submitted to regulators by pesticide companies found that most of the studies do not comply with modern international standards for scientific rigor, and lack the types of tests most able to detect cancer risks. The same researchers reported in November 2021 that only two of the 11 studies Monsanto submitted to EU regulators were deemed “reliable.”

In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s decision that glyphosate likely poses no “unreasonable risk” to the environment and human health. In September 2022 the U.S. EPA withdrew its interim decision on glyphosate.

Endocrine disruption, fertility and reproductive concerns

July 2023 study in Environmental Pollution investigated the potential effects of low levels of glyphosate exposure from weaning to adult life in male Wistar rats on hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis function. Various changes suggest that glyphosate “may affect several steps of HPT axis regulation at the transcriptional level in an age-dependent manner and alter the morphometric parameters of the thyroid gland and TH synthesis, with potential repercussions in the TH-target organs.”

November 2022 paper in the Review of Economic Studies discusses glyphosate exposure and birth outcomes of populations surrounding GMO soy growing regions in Brazil. “We document a significant deterioration in birth outcomes for populations downstream from locations that are likely to have increased relatively more the use of glyphosate … average increase in glyphosate use in the sample during the 2000-2010 period led to an increase of 5% of the average in the infant mortality rate.”

October 2022 study in Environmental Health found glyphosate in 99% of pregnant women in a Midwestern cohort. Higher maternal levels in the first trimester were associated with lower birth weight, higher NICU admission risk. See also Indiana University School of Medicine news release.

In a March 2021 paper in Frontiers in Endocrinology, researchers that glyphosate is detected in the urine of residents of rural and urban environments and there is a correlation between “farmers’ exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and altered thyroid hormone levels or incidence of thyroid pathologies.”

October 2020 paper in Chemosphere journal is the first comprehensive review consolidating the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC). The paper concludes that the world’s most widely used herbicide meets at least eight of the 10 key characteristics of EDCs, as proposed in an expert consensus statement published in 2020. See also article by USRTK.

July 2020 paper published in Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, Are glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides endocrine disruptors that alter female fertility?” summarizes the endocrine-disrupting effects of exposure to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides at low or “environmentally relevant” doses in the female reproductive tissues. Data suggesting that, at low doses, glyphosate-based herbicides may have adverse effects on the female reproductive tract fertility are discussed.

June 2020 paper in Veterinary and Animal Science concludes that some ingredients of glyphosate-based herbicides appear to act as reproductive toxicants, having a wide range of effects on both the male and female reproductive systems, including endocrine disruption, tissue damage and dysfunction of gametogenesis.

June 2020 paper in Environmental Pollution finds that neonatal exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides decreased cell proliferation and altered the expression of molecules that control proliferation and development in the uterus, potentially affecting the female reproductive health of sheep.

July 2020 study in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology found indications that “chronic low-level exposure to glyphosate alters the ovarian proteome and may ultimately impact ovarian function.”

September 2020 study in Food and Chemical Toxicology reports that perinatal exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide or glyphosate “disrupted critical hormonal and uterine molecular targets during the receptive state, possibly associated with the implantation failures.”

A 2018 ecological and population study conducted in Argentina found high concentrations of glyphosate in the soil and dust in agricultural areas that also reported higher rates of spontaneous abortion and congenital abnormalities in children, suggesting a link between environmental exposure to glyphosate and reproductive problems. No other relevant sources of pollution were identified.

A 2018 rat study by Argentinian researchers linked low-level perinatal glyphosate exposures to impaired female reproductive performance and congenital anomalies in the next generation of offspring.

A birth cohort study in Indiana published in 2017 – the first study of glyphosate exposure in US pregnant women using urine specimens as a direct measure of exposure – found detectable levels of glyphosate in more than 90% of the pregnant women tested and found the levels were significantly correlated with shortened pregnancy lengths.

2011 study in Reproductive Toxicology reported that glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development by disrupting gonadotropin expression.

2009 study in Toxicology found that glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.

Liver disease

A 2023 prospective cohort study using data from the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) reports a strong association between glyphosate and AMPA levels in the urine of 4-year-old and 14-year-old Hispanic children and markers of damage in the liver indicative of future non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome. See also reporting in Inside Climate News.

A 2019 study based on urinary analysis for glyphosate reported that glyphosate excretion is significantly higher in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) who are considered to be at a higher risk of fibrosis progression and development to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.

A 2017 study associated chronic, very low-level glyphosate exposures to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats. According to the researchers, the results “imply that chronic consumption of extremely low levels of a GBH formulation (Roundup), at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations, are associated with marked alterations of the liver proteome and metabolome,” the biomarkers for NAFLD

Kidney disease

The American Association for the Advancement of Science awarded two Sri Lankan scientists, Drs. Channa Jayasumana and Sarath Gunatilake, the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility for their work to “investigate a possible connection between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease under challenging circumstances.” The scientists reported that glyphosate plays a key role in transporting heavy metals to the kidneys of those drinking contaminated water, leading to high rates of chronic kidney disease in farming communities. See papers in SpringerPlus (2015), BMC Nephrology (2015), Environmental Health (2015), International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2014).

The AAAS award to the scientists was suspended amidst a fierce opposition campaign by pesticide industry allies to undermine the work of the scientists. After a review, the AAAS reinstated the award.

Microbiome disruption

November 2020 paper in the Journal of Hazardous Materials reports that approximately 54 percent of species in the core of the human gut microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate. With a “large proportion” of bacteria in the gut microbiome susceptible to glyphosate, the intake of glyphosate “may severely affect the composition of the human gut microbiome,” the authors said in their paper. See also reporting by USRTK.

A 2020 literature review of glyphosate’s effects on the gut microbiome concludes that, “glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria.” The paper continues, “Glyphosate may be a critical environmental trigger in the etiology of several disease states associated with dysbiosis, including celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Glyphosate exposure may also have consequences for mental health, including anxiety and depression, through alterations in the gut microbiome.”

A 2018 rat study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute reported that low-dose exposures to Roundup at levels considered safe significantly altered the gut microbiota in some of the rat pups.

Another 2018 study reported that higher levels of glyphosate administered to mice disrupted the gut microbiota and caused anxiety and depression-like behaviors.

Neurotoxicity

A large nationwide study published in the journal NeuroToxicology (December 2021) reports that “several neurotoxic pesticide exposures estimated using residential location were associated with statistically significant increased risk of ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). These include the herbicides 2, 4-D and glyphosate, and the insecticides carbaryl and chlorpyrifos.” ALS is a progressive nervous system disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, causing loss of muscle control.

Anemia

A July 2023 study in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Taiwanese researchers analyzed data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 1466 adults to explore the relationship between glyphosate exposure and erythrocyte profiles. The study found a “significant negative association between urinary glyphosate levels and hemoglobin and hematocrit … and provides “preliminary evidence of a plausible association between glyphosate exposure and anemia in a subset of the adult population in the United States.”

What are the environmental impacts of glyphosate?
Harm to bees and monarch butterflies

A 2023 study reports that glyphosate impairs learning in bumblebees. See news coverage in Phys.org.

A 2018 study reported that glyphosate damaged the beneficial gut bacteria in honeybees and made them more prone to deadly infections.

Research from China suggests that honeybee larvae grew more slowly and died more often when exposed to glyphosate.

A 2015 study that found field-levels of exposure impaired the cognitive capacities of honeybees.

Research from 2017 correlated glyphosate use with reduced populations of monarch butterflies, possibly due to reductions in milkweed, the main food source for monarch butterflies.

Why are people suing Bayer over glyphosate?

More than 100,000 people have filed suit against Monsanto Company (now Bayer) alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and that Monsanto covered up the risks. As part of the discovery process, Monsanto has had to turn over millions of pages of internal records. See our Monsanto Papers page for documents released during the trials. The first three trials ended in large awards to plaintiffs for liability and damages, with juries ruling that Monsanto’s weed killer was a substantial contributing factor in causing them to develop NHL. Bayer is appealing the rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court has so far upheld the rulings against Bayer.

Monsanto influence over research

In March 2017, the federal court judge unsealed some internal Monsanto documents that raised new questions about Monsanto’s influence on the EPA process and about the research regulators rely on. The documents suggest that Monsanto’s long-standing claims about the safety of glyphosate and Roundup do not necessarily rely on sound science as the company asserts, but on efforts to manipulate the science.

More information about scientific interference
Why is desiccation of wheat and other crops a problem?

Some farmers use glyphosate on non-GMO crops such as wheat, barley, oats, and lentils to dry down the crop ahead of harvest in order to accelerate the harvest. This practice, known as desiccation, may be a significant source of dietary exposure to glyphosate.

How much glyphosate is in our food?

Despite having annual pesticide residue testing programs for more than 30 years, the USDA U.S. FDA mostly skipped testing food for glyphosate until after criticism from the Government Accountability Office in 2014. The USDA said it would start testing but then dropped the plan in 2017. Internal government documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know show USDA had planned to start testing over 300 samples of corn syrup for glyphosate in April 2017; but the agency killed the project before it started. FDA began a limited testing program in 2016, but the effort was fraught with controversy and internal difficulties and the program was suspended in September 2016. The FDA did later resume limited testing.

One FDA chemist found alarming levels of glyphosate in many samples of U.S. honey, levels that were technically illegal because there have been no allowable levels established for honey by the EPA. Here is a recap of news about glyphosate found in food:

What mixtures of glyphosate and other pesticides are in our food?

USDA data from 2016 shows detectable pesticide levels in 85% of more than 10,000 foods sampled, everything from mushrooms to grapes to green beans. The government says there are little to no health risks, but some scientists say there is little to no data to back up that claim. See Chemicals on our food: When ‘safe’ may not really be safe.

In 2020, a group of FDA scientists published a research paper examining pesticide residue data collected from 2009-2017. The scientists said: “In this study, results for over 56,000 human food samples collected and analyzed under the FDA pesticide residue monitoring program between fiscal years (FY) 2009 to 2017 were reviewed to identify trends not apparent in annual reports. The overwhelming majority of these samples, 98.0% of domestic and 90.9% of import human foods, were compliant with federal standards. Although herbicides may be more widely used, the 10 most frequently detected residues were insecticides and fungicides. On a yearly basis, the violation rate for imported samples is 3-5 times higher than the rate for domestic samples. The import violation rate increased over time, as did the number of residues detected. Targeted sampling of foods with higher commodity-specific violation rates appears to be a major contributor to the increased violation rate. Mismatches between US tolerances and international MRLs can lead to violations; this was especially marked for rice. Overall, the majority of violations are due to residues of pesticides not authorized for use in the US (lack of tolerances). While DDT continues to persist in the environment and was found in 2.2% of domestic samples and 0.6% of imported samples, 42.3% of DDT-positive samples were below the limit of quantitation. The trends and analyses identified in this paper may help FDA plan future sampling and continue to protect the food supply.”

Monsanto owner Bayer AG maintains that residues of glyphosate in food are not harmful at levels approved by the EPA. A 2021 paper written by longtime Bayer (former Monsanto) scientist John Vicini and published in Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety states that “dietary exposures to glyphosate are within established safe limits.”

For a complete history of the use of glyphosate, including regulatory action and inaction, scientific controversies, human and environmental impact data, read Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science, winner of the 2018 Rachel Carson Book Award from the Society of Environmental Journalists. See also USRTK’s report on what internal corporate documents reveal about the tactics Monsanto and Bayer used to defend glyphosate. Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticides by Stacy Malkan, with Anna Lappe and Kendra Klein, PhD.

This fact sheet was originally written by Carey Gillam and is regularly updated by USRTK staff

 

Connect with U.S. Right to Know

Cover image credit: maxmann




Josh Mitteldorf: CO2 Is the Least of Our Worries | Yes, Ecosystems Are Collapsing. No, It Has Nothing to Do With CO2.

Josh Mitteldorf: CO2 Is the Least of Our Worries | Yes, Ecosystems Are Collapsing. No, It Has Nothing to Do With CO2.

 

“So, it’s true that we are at the warmest point in the last 100,000 years, but that has little to do with human activity. The 100,000 year cycle has a range of about 10o C, and human activity in the last 200 years is responsible for only about one 1o C. Compared to local effects in America and Europe during the Little Ice Age of the 18th century, the effect of all our burning of fossil fuels is lost in the noise. Global warming is a worldwide average, while the Little Ice Age was regional; but the point is that even in the last few hundred years, ecosystems have had to adapt to much larger changes than those that human activity has imposed.”

 

CO2 Is the Least of Our Worries
Yes, ecosystems are collapsing. No, it has nothing to do with CO2.

by Josh Mitteldorf, Unauthorized Science
August 4, 2023

 

Last week, Nobel physicist John Clauser came out of the Clausit to speak his own inconvenient truth about global warming and CONo good deed goes unpunished. Another physicist who was a personal hero of mine has expressed similar views. This is a big subject, and I don’t feel engaged enough with the issue to write a book, But I will say a few things about which I feel pretty certain, but to which Right Thinking People may take exception.

  1. Global ecosystems are indeed in crisis, and this is the result of human activity.
  2. But greenhouse gasses, CO2 and climate change are peripheral to this story. The net effect of CO2 emission is likely to be beneficial, if at all relevant.
  3. Environmental activism may be the most important movement on the planet today, and its diversion into a narrow focus on carbon is dangerous.
  4. Weather manipulation is a well-developed, sophisticated science being practiced on a global scale, without open scientific backing and without democratic consent. This, too, is a crime and a major danger.
1.  Ecosystem collapse

We know just enough to realize that ecosystems are complex and interdependent in more ways than we can understand. Ecosystems are robust, and the loss or replacement of a few species triggers adaptations so that the ecosystem continues in a new equilibrium. But ecosystems can also collapse if a keystone species is lost, or if it is sufficiently disrupted.

Some large fraction of the species on earth is either extinct or rapidly disappearing. It is impossible to offer a more quantitative estimate because most of the macroscopic species have not yet even been catalogued, and of the microscopic species, including bacteria and fungi, our understanding has barely scratched the surface.

At some point, ecosystems collapse and species disappear because other species on which they depend are disappearing. This is happening in large stretches of the world. Ocean life is seeking a new equilibrium after the pollution, overfishing, and the killing spree of the last 50 years in particular. Forests and wetlands the world over no longer support the diversity of life that they once harbored, and the collapse of biodiversity has a momentum that continues over decades.

Major reasons for this collapse include
  • habitat loss
  • deforestation
  • every war is an environmental disaster
  • widespread poisoning of insects, which are at the base of the animal food chain
  • insects are also pollinators, and plant life becomes fragile when insects disappear
  • draining of wetlands, mining of fossil water, and damming of rivers
  • deliberate targeting of apex predators, including lions, wolves, and whales
  • washing of topsoil into the rivers and oceans
  • wasteful practices in mining, agriculture, and industry
  • global travel, bringing invasive species that tend to homogenize ecosystems worldwide

Many people, consciously or otherwise, imagine a transhuman future in which the earth is paved over and food is grown hydroponically. We’ll eat lab-grown meat and live in a virtual paradise, even after we kill the ecosphere. This is a dangerous delusion! All life is interdependent. No species can survive outside an ecosystem. Bacteria manufacture chemicals crucial for life. Insects pollinate. Fungi recycle waste, make atmospheric nitrogen biologically useful, and connect trees underground. No species can exist without a rich ecosystem, and we don’t begin to understand all the connections that create a functional ecosystem. Mankind’s one attempt to create an artificial ecosystem, dubbed Biosphere 2, fell flat on its face within weeks.

In murdering nature, we are destroying the foundation for human life as well.

2.  Carbon dioxide has little to do with this
Anthropogenic global warming is a tiny fraction of the natural variations in earth’s temperature.

There are great natural cycles in the earth’s temperature. One of the best-documented is a cycle of about 100,000 years. The reasons are not well understood, but the present warm period in which human civilization has developed is not typical. Ice ages are typical. As recently as 12,000 years ago, the part of Pennsylvania where I live was under a glacier two miles thick. When these conditions inevitably return, it will create a far greater disruption to animal life and to human activity than anthropogenic warming. “We’re overdue for the next ice age,” and it may be that “global warming” is helping to stave off that destiny, at least temporarily.

So, it’s true that we are at the warmest point in the last 100,000 years, but that has little to do with human activity. The 100,000 year cycle has a range of about 10o C, and human activity in the last 200 years is responsible for only about one 1o C. Compared to local effects in America and Europe during the Little Ice Age of the 18th century, the effect of all our burning of fossil fuels is lost in the noise. Global warming is a worldwide average, while the Little Ice Age was regional; but the point is that even in the last few hundred years, ecosystems have had to adapt to much larger changes than those that human activity has imposed.

All the hype about a climate catastrophe based on carbon emissions is based on computer models that are woefully inadequate. These models have been wrong about the changes in the last 40 years since modeling began. They are no reliable guide to future climate response, though they are are continually being cited as authority. In the last 7 years in particular, CO2 emissions have continued and accelerated, atmospheric concentration has increased steadily, but temperatures have gone up and down.

Freeman Dyson makes the point that plants grow faster when there is more CO2 in the air, and when temperatures are warmer. Plants are the productive basis for all ecosystems, so ecosystems are enriched by higher CO2 levels. John Clauser makes the point that there is no evidence that a pattern of extreme weather events can be related to more CO2 in the air.

3.  The environmental movement has been derailed by the carbon narrative

Many people of good will are passionate about reducing their CO2 footprint. Many companies and organizations are profiting from scaring the public about climate change and selling solutions to enrich themselves such as carbon credits, or pushing nuclear power as a friendlier form of energy than burning wood, coal or petroleum products. (It is not.)

Government policies regarding energy could certainly be improved. The most effective thing we can do is to adopt technologies that use energy much more efficiently than we now do. Cars that get 200 miles per gallon of gasoline already exist, and public transit can be much more efficient.  Buildings can be designed so that they remain comfortable with much less energy input. Rocky Mountain Institute has been creatively documenting the necessarily policy changes for decades.

There is an urgent need for all of us to get back to advocating the diverse policy changes that are required to preserve and restore ecosystems, to slow and mitigate the Sixth Extinction. Reducing carbon emissions is dauntingly difficult, both technically and politically. Technically, because so much of what we do depends on fossil fuel energy, politically because the economic benefits of burning fossil fuels accrue locally, while the costs, if any, are spread across the globe.

Burning oil is associated with spills that devastate ocean life for decades; burning coal is associated with mountaintop removal; fracking causes earthquakes and pollutes groundwater. Cars cause smog and coal-burning power plants put mercury in the air. I’m not saying that fossil fuels are environmentally benign or that our dependence on carbon-based fuels is sustainable; only that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the locus of the principal harms.

Focus on carbon emissions is the least effective kind of environmental advocacy, and it is probably counter-productive.

4.  Weather manipulation is everywhere, and it’s unacknowledged

Chemtrails are real, though the motivation for this vast, multi-billion dollar project is unclear. My best guess is that HAARP and similar large antennas are being used to push air masses around the globe with electrostatics and stratospheric heating, and that seeding the stratosphere with aluminum is part of a coordinated effort to send that radio energy to desired locations.

Dane Wigington has done more than anyone to document this. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the phenomena, but I don’t believe he understands the motivation for weather manipulation. This is his introductory video.


Droughts and cold snaps are being weaponized to reduce agriculture output. Hurricanes are being steered toward inhabited areas. It may be that weather manipulation could be applied in a productive and broadly beneficial program, but evidence is that the opposite is being pursued.

I believe that the long drought in California, floods in Texas, and the recent transport of smoke from Quebec to blanket the densely populated Eastern US are all examples of weather manipulation. I believe that these engineered weather anomalies are being put forward as evidence that CO2 is deranging the weather. I realize that it is difficult to prove that any particular weather anomaly is engineered, but Wigington’s evidence convinces me.

But there is no doubt that the technology of weather manipulation has been under development for many decades, and present capabilities are unacknowledged. Who is manipulating the weather and what is motivating them? I think these are important, open questions.

The bottom line

Please redouble your advocacy for environmental protection in all its forms. Please educate yourself about chemtrails and geoengineering. And don’t worry about CO2.

 

Connect with Josh Mitteldorf

Cover image credit: Hans


See related:

Weather As A Force Multiplier:Owning The Weather In 2025 by USAF Air University, Air Command and Staff College 

Related articles found at Truth Comes to Light:

So-called ‘Climate Change’ as Seen by the Public Is Not the Problem; But Weather Geoengineering Is Destroying Everything on Earth?

Is The Sky Falling Or Is Just Weather Geoengineering “Killing Us Lightly”?

Magnetic Rain? [Short Video]: Documenting the Toxic Geoengineering of Our Skies

Geoengineering: Romanian General Emil Strainu on the Terrifying Possibilities of Geo-Warfare

Dane Wigington: Geoengineering Is Fueling Firestorm Catastrophes

Geoengineering, Toxic Skies & Plastic Rain in the US Rockies

Controlling Hurricane Ian? — The GeoEngineering Connection

Geoengineering: Fire And Ice

The Dimming, Full Length Climate Engineering Documentary




“Remembering Nearfield” Awarded Best Health Film at Cannes World Film Festival, July 2023

“Remembering Nearfield” Awarded Best Health Film at Cannes World Film Festival, July 2023

 

Remembering Nearfield from SC on Vimeo.

 

by Patricia Burke, Safe Tech International
sourced from Activist Post
July 31, 2023

 

It’s a winner.

In just over three months, Remembering Nearfield, has become an internationally acclaimed animated short film. Its aim is to break down taboos around the subject of electromagnetic harm in our society and catalyze global conversations about electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a disability which brings an uncertain future for those highly sensitized and intolerant of the radiation from man-made electromagnetic fields.

The health impacts of EMF radiation exposure on society have remained subject to relentless scientific scrutiny. EHS is constantly being flagged up by scientists in their appeals to address a host of shortcomings in existing globally-adopted EMF radiation exposure guidelines to raise questions about public safety and draw attention to the most vulnerable, like children and those with EHS (who are not considered in the one-size-fits-all attitude of these industry-friendly guidelines).

Remembering Nearfield is eloquently narrated by Corriëlle van Vuuren. She’s an entrepreneur stricken by electromagnetic hypersensitivity compelled to speak out about her disability. Comfortable in the belief that technologies are safe, society prefers to remain naive. Her testimony challenges this blind trust.

No-one Should Be Excluded

As Corriëlle’s revelatory testimony reveals, people with EHS become so overwhelmed and ill, as their health declines, they can eventually lose everything: property, possessions, status, family and social relationships, and income. No-one in society should be excluded because of the nature of their disability. Education matters.

Professor Olle Johansson formerly of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, has this to say about Remembering Nearfield: “For an academic scientist like myself, it is always very impressive to see skilled movie makers, artists, and performers, summarize in less than 10 minutes a staggering 45 years of research!”

Educational, original, and often moving, this animated film’s wide and enthusiastic reception indicates that the world is ready to learn about EHS. Remembering Nearfield has been awarded Best Health Film at the prestigious Cannes World Film Festival in July 2023.

As well as being selected and nominated by many other festivals of note, it has won ten awards since entering an array of over 235 film festivals since April 2023.

The recognition of film festivals and prospective screenings throughout the year are wonderful affirmations about the mission of the film to raise awareness and educate. The film underscores the value of EMF awareness and safety that concerns all of society. It also exposes the discrimination that has stood in the way of progress in this regard. Remembering Nearfield stands for social change, to drive equality for people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, to bring equal recognition, accommodation, and support on par with other disabilities.

Remembering Nearfield opens our eyes anew to a neglected and misunderstood disability in a world of virtually unavoidable EMF pollution and guides us towards practical, easy-to-achieve solutions so society can reduce EMF radiation. People with EHS may no longer live in exclusion or isolation when society realizes that lowering environmental EMF not only leads to a better place for people with EHS to live and work but can have boundless potential for improving health for all.

 

Connect with Safe Tech International

Cover image credit: geralt




Dane Wigington With RFK Jr.: Is Climate Engineering Real?

Dane Wigington With RFK Jr.: Is Climate Engineering Real?

 



Video available at Dane Wigington Rumble & YouTube channels.

 

Is Climate Engineering Real?

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
July 19, 2023

 

Story-at-a-Glance
  • U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently interviewed Dane Wigington, founder of GeoengineeringWatch.org, about climate engineering and its hidden role in climate change
  • The White House is considering a plan to block sunlight from hitting the surface of the earth in a bid to halt global warming, a process known as solar radiation modification (SRM)
  • A supercomputer called Derecho is analyzing the effects of solar geoengineering to help climate scientists decide whether SRM will be a good idea
  • According to Dane Wigington, founder of GeoengineeringWatch.org, geoengineering projects of various kinds are already having severe impacts on weather patterns, our ability to grow food, biodiversity and human health
  • Intentional geoengineering — including solar dimming — has been going on for more than 70 years

In the video above, U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. interviews Dane Wigington, founder of GeoengineeringWatch.org, about climate engineering and its hidden role in climate change. Wigington also produced the documentary “The Dimming.”

While Wigington has tried to raise awareness about the reality of climate engineering for the last two decades, his work is now gaining traction after the White House announced it’s backing a plan to block sunlight in a climate engineering effort.

White House Considers Measure to Block Sunlight

As reported by the Daily Mail, July 1, 2023:1

“The White House has opened the door to an audacious plan to block sunlight from hitting the surface of the Earth in a bid to halt global warming.

Despite some scientists warning the effort could have untold side effects from altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, President Joe Biden’s administration has admitted they’re open to the idea, which has never been attempted before.

In a report2 released Friday by the White House, officials suggested limiting sunlight to rapidly cool the planet, a process known as solar radiation modification (SRM) …

The report noted several ways authorities could look to achieve SRM, all of which come with potentially devastating consequences if they backfire … undertaking the mammoth task could have severe ramifications weather patterns and food supplies, which would in turn impact biodiversity, geopolitics, and health.”

Policymakers in the European Union recently called for an international assessment of geoengineering risks, noting that:3

“These technologies introduce new risks to people and ecosystems, while they could also increase power imbalances between nations, spark conflicts and raises a myriad of ethical, legal, governance and political issues.”

Supercomputer to Determine Effects

According to Scientific American, a supercomputer called Derecho will help climate scientists decide whether to block the sun:4

“A new supercomputer for climate research will help scientists study the effects of solar geoengineering, a controversial idea for cooling the planet by redirecting the sun’s rays.

The machine, named Derecho, began operating this month at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and will allow scientists to run more detailed weather models for research on solar geoengineering, said Kristen Rasmussen, a climate scientist at Colorado State University who is studying how human-made aerosols, which can be used to deflect sunlight, could affect rainfall patterns.

Because Derecho is three and a half times faster than the previous NCAR supercomputer, her team can run more detailed models to show how regional changes to rainfall can be caused by the release of aerosols, adding to scientists’ understanding of the risks from solar geoengineering … The machine will also be used to study other issues related to climate change.”

Geoengineering Is the Biggest Contributor to Climate Change

According to Wigington, there’s plenty of evidence showing that geoengineering projects of various kinds are already having severe impacts on weather patterns, our ability to grow food, biodiversity and human health.

Intentional geoengineering — including solar dimming — has been going on for more than 70 years and has exponentially expanded in more recent years. A geoengineering map,5 created by the ETC Group and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, shows how geoengineering projects have expanded from some 300 in 2012, to more than 1,700 in 2023.

This includes carbon capture/removal, solar radiation reduction and a variety of weather modification projects worldwide. Not surprisingly, Bill Gates has been funding geoengineering for a long time. Broadly, geoengineering programs were initially implemented after World War II, starting in the polar regions.

For years, anyone who said that geoengineering and weather modification was being used was labeled a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist. As it turns out, it was true all along, and with the White House report just released, mainstream naysayers are suddenly admitting it as well.

What they’re not readily admitting, however, is that a) geoengineering is as dangerous as climate change itself, and b) that geoengineering is responsible for the most catastrophic changes in our climate.

As noted by Wigington, the globalist power structures that now claim we need to use geoengineering to solve climate change were the ones responsible for creating that climate change in the first place with their geoengineering. According to Wigington, the state of our global climate is “even worse than we’re being told,” and climate engineering is “fueling that process.”

In other words, the globalist cabal is trying to convince us that the cause of the problem is the solution, all while pinning the blame for climate change on regular people who drive cars to work and eat meat.

Are Chemtrails Real?

One geoengineering technique used across the world involves the dispersion of chemicals and metals into the atmosphere, a practice colloquially referred to as chemtrailing.

A key difference between regular condensation trails from aircraft and particulate trails (chemtrails) is that condensation trails evaporate rather quickly. They will not block 80% to 90% of solar uptake and create global dimming like chemtrails do.

The persistent lines you see in the sky that very slowly disperse, creating a muddy, hazy “film” across the entire sky are NOT condensation trails. They are particulate trails, or “chemtrails.” The particles dispersed in the air column are further manipulated via radio frequency transmissions.

The Alaskan installation known as HAARP6 is but one facility involved. There are dozens of other large, ground-based facilities just like it around the globe. Smaller networks and NEXRAD radar stations located in urban areas around the world are also employed. All these networks are used to manipulate the particles dispersed via “chemtrails” in the atmosphere.

What Are They Spraying Into the Atmosphere?

One of the key ingredients in these particulate trails is nanosized aluminum, which is neurotoxic to animals and humans. Aluminum also kills the root systems of plants and trees, as well as the soil microbiome. It also alters soil pH, which makes it harder for some crops to grow. One of the reasons aluminum is used is because it has high reflectivity, so sunlight bounces off it.

According to Wigington, climate engineers have stated they’re depositing tens of millions of tons of aluminum nanoparticles into the atmosphere annually as part of ongoing solar radiation management programs — “with no consideration for the consequences whatsoever.”

Lab tests conducted by GeoengineeringWatch also shows the presence of barium, strontium, titanium, manganese, polymer fibers, surfactant chemicals, and graphene in these particulate trails, as well as in rain.

While all these ingredients are studied for their effectiveness in geoengineering, no research is being done to ascertain what the health effects might be on populations, vegetation and wildlife below.

Wigington also warns that these aerosol sprays can be used to disperse bioweapons and may have been used for this purpose already. He cites a Washington Post article that noted the U.S. Army conducted 239 open-air germ warfare tests on the U.S. population between 1949 and 1969 alone.7

Where Are the Whistleblowers?

According to Wigington, we have evidence that commercial airlines began to be used for particulate release operations in 2002, when restrictions on passenger luggage were implemented. That’s not to say that pilots or airline employees know what’s going on, but some airliners are equipped with nozzles and tanks for this purpose.

Kennedy points out that thousands of people must have been read into programs of this magnitude, so how come there are so few whistleblowers? According to Wigington, those in the know are all under gag order.8 This includes weathermen. Secrecy is also upheld through massive compartmentalization.

Still, we know weather modification and geoengineering is real. Not only can we see it in the sky and measure the toxic particles in the aerosol and on the ground, but we also have patents describing these processes.

According to Wigington, the U.S. government owns many of the primary ones. Others are held by defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, which also do all the weather modeling for the U.S. national weather service.9

He suggests the reason weathermen can predict an area will have partial sun seven days in advance is because we don’t have natural weather anymore. We have programmed weather. And the reason Raytheon and Lockheed oversee weather modeling is because they’re also neck-deep in weather modification and need to maintain control of the narrative.

We Face Abrupt Climate Collapse

According to Wigington, what we face is far worse than climate change. Due to the geoengineering already conducted, what we’re facing is an abrupt climate collapse,10,11 due to the many feedback mechanisms triggered. The particulates dispersed during these geoengineering events “shred” the ozone layer. As a result, UV-C rays are now hitting the surface of the planet.

Other ramifications of geoengineering that are currently observable also include global dimming (chemtrails reduce solar radiation by 80% to 90%), global stilling (reduced wind flow), a reduction in precipitation and protracted droughts, a 90% reduction in plankton, and toxic geoengineering elements being found on the ground and in rainwater.

Moreover, while global cooling is the stated aim of most of these geoengineering programs, as the planet warms, the laws of physics state you need more precipitation to cool it, not less, because the atmosphere carries more moisture as the temperature rises.

To cool the planet, you need to create more rain, but these programs have resulted in less rain, and the reason for the reduction in rainfall is due to the particulates in the atmosphere. In addition to deflecting heat from the outside, these particles also trap heat down below, making the overall heating of the planet massively worse.

Is combating global warming really the endgame, or is that just a convenient cover story for a far more reckless goal? And if so, what might that goal be?

One might be that they’re trying to hide the severity of the damage that their geoengineering has already done. Another might be to control populations and governments, using weather as a weapon. It might also be for communication enhancement purposes, as the atmosphere is being made more electrically conductive by these particles.

Signs and Symptoms of Geoengineering

At the end of the interview, Kennedy asks Wigington what kinds of things in everyday life that people should look for if they’re looking for evidence of geoengineering. One major one is the destruction of forests, as root systems die off due to aluminum loading.

Home gardeners, especially if you’ve been doing it for a decade or longer, may notice that fruits and vegetables don’t grow nearly as well as they used to. Not only are soil microbiomes being decimated and soil pH altered, but the air is also being altered.

The particles in the atmosphere create vapor pressure deficit (VPD), they lower the rH of the air, which is like the pH of soil. If there’s not enough humidity, trees and plants shut down their respiratory system (stomata).

Stomata are involved in the exchange of carbon dioxide and water between plants and the atmosphere. So, when VPD happens, the plants and trees stop taking up carbon dioxide and they no longer release oxygen.

As a result, forests cease being carbon sinks and become carbon sources. Eventually, without respiration, the plants and trees die off. Increased UV radiation also damages plants, causing leaf scorch.

Geoengineering Won’t Fix the Climate Crisis

At the end of March 2023, a new study came out debunking the idea that short-term solar dimming might be a viable way to for world governments to meet their climate targets. Scientific American reported on the study, noting:12

“A controversial idea for cooling the earth’s climate through artificial means would likely require a much longer global commitment than policymakers and the public understand, according to a recent study13 that raises new questions about the potential for using solar geoengineering.

If world leaders decide to use solar geoengineering to meet international climate goals, they could be locked into it for a century or more …

Geoengineering is ‘often communicated as temporary, a stopgap measure — so it implies being relatively short, and short in the sense of a couple of decades,’ said lead study author Susanne Baur, a doctoral candidate at the European Centre for Research and Advanced Training in Scientific Computation in France.

‘And so when we started looking at these pathways, and we extrapolated them a bit longer, we saw that in many cases, it’s actually not that short.’

The public may not realize the scope of a commitment solar geoengineering — or its risks, including the need for long-term international cooperation. ‘If we have to keep up a system like this for such a long time, that just increases the possibility of something bad happening,’ Baur said.”

In a nutshell, the study argues that once you begin solar geoengineering, you can’t stop until or unless enough carbon has been eliminated from the atmosphere to lower the earth’s temperature below a certain threshold.

If there’s too much carbon left, then a sudden halt to the geoengineering could skyrocket, resulting in “termination shock,” a concept that describes a sudden, drastic elevation in global temperatures that life on earth doesn’t have time to adapt to. In other words, it could result in a global extinction event.

Resources

To learn more about weather modification and geoengineering, check out GeoengineeringWatch.org. It has a wealth of information, shareable resources, patents and documents relating to geoengineering programs. Also check out Wigington’s full-length documentary, “The Dimming,” embedded above for your convenience.

Sources and References:

 

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: b52_Tresa




Dane Wigington With Greg Hunter: On the Ongoing Blocking of the Sun & Destruction of the Earth

Dane Wigington With Greg Hunter: On the Ongoing Blocking of the Sun & Destruction of the Earth

 

 Video Source

 

Biden Blocking Sun & Destroying Earth – Dane Wigington 

by Greg Hunter, USAWatchdog
July 4, 2023

Climate engineering researcher Dane Wigington has dedicated his life to warning about the increasing dangers to the planet of climate engineering.  So, when the Biden Administration came out this week and said it was considering “blocking the sun to limit global warming,” it was a total lie to cover up the fact blocking the sun has been going on for decades because of the well-established science called geoengineering.

The technology used to block the sun is, in fact, destroying the Earth.

The signs include increasingly weird weather events such as oversized hail to toxic wildfires you are seeing in the news right now.

So, why is the Biden Administration wanting to get geoengineering in the news when the Lying Legacy Media (LLM) lied about this climate destroyer by omission for years?

Wigington explains,

“Certainly this elephant in the sky is becoming all but impossible to hide.  Perhaps in their mind they can paint some picture that this is a benevolent planetary saving act.  Perhaps they think they can program populations into accepting it.  I don’t think that is going to happen.

“I think populations are finally starting to realize that those in power are not here to help them. . . .  We have forever chemicals in every single drop of rain that falls anywhere on the planet at this point, and that is peer-reviewed science.  There is an additional 40 million to 60 million tons of known highly toxic particles being sprayed in the skies all over the world for various agendas and objectives and it’s not being disclosed by anyone.  There is an illegal federal gag order for all National Weather Service and NOAA employees.

“There is an unbelievably massive elephant in this equation that nobody is willing to acknowledge. . . . All of us have extremely high levels of contaminates in us that Geoengineeringwatch.org has done with hair, blood and urine and that are packed with these metals they are spraying in the sky.

“This is a fight for life right here and right now.  All other concerns and problems are mute if we don’t deal with this.

“The elite have been saying they want the global population cut down to 500 million people.  That means 7.5 billion have to go away.

“It should be very clear that what is happening in our skies is NOT benevolent.  It’s malevolent—period.”

In closing, Wigington says,

“The unfolding damage that climate engineering is a huge part of . . . climate engineering has derailed the planet’s ability to respond to the damage done. . . . Climate engineering destroys the ozone layer . . .  That single component is an extinction level event.  If there is no ozone layer, there is no terrestrial life on earth.

“We are perilously close to that right now. . . . If we can stop geoengineering, we can buy time for the planet. . . . The atmosphere is being used as a physics lab with no consideration for the consequences.”

There is much more in the 37-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with climate researcher Dane Wigington, founder of GeoEngineeringWatch.org, with an update on the calamity geoengineering is causing for 7.4.23.

 

Connect with Greg Hunter

Connect with Dane Wigington

Cover image credit: AndyFaeth


See related:

The Dimming, Full Length Climate Engineering Documentary

Wildfires As a Weapon: US Military Exposed

https://truthcomestolight.com/dane-wigington-the-dimming-climate-engineering-weather-warfare-is-killing-us-all/




Killing Us Softly

Killing Us Softly

 

“Is this intentional? Are we subjected to this slow genocide as part of the global eugenic effort to rid the world of useless eaters?—or even more horrifying, to rid the world of all humans who are made in the image of God along with nature herself? An agenda chillingly made clear in C.S. Lewis’ tome That Hideous Strength seen as well in the works of numerous others such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.

“Probably not everything I have mentioned here has come about as part of this nefarious evil intention. But I would be willing to bet a lot of it has (see the work of David Icke). It may just have become the nature of the beast to create a culture in its atheistic hubris that ignores the subtleties of life and living.”

Killing Us Softly 

by Todd Hayen, OffGuardian
June 17, 2023

 

We have, for quite some time, been exposed to a myriad of silent killers. These are the subtle murderers of both the physical body as well as the spirit.

I used to think most of these killers were unintentional and merely the result of ignorance or a non-existent understanding of the non-material world of spirit. I also felt that science was rather inept in detecting subtle shifts of emotion, such as depression or “just not feeling well.” All such “measurements” were simply too nuanced to show up in their metrics.

Now I believe a lot of what I am speaking of is intentional. We are intentionally being eliminated or, at the very least, intentionally being made ill. Humanity is purposefully being murdered.

That’s a rather radical assumption, eh? Well, let’s just put it aside for the moment if this bothers you. I can make a good argument even if you are unwilling to accept that extreme notion. And, as the eminent Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung used to often say to his patients, “Well, I could be wrong.”

There are many obvious things out in the world that are killing us softly…and not all of them so softly. Pollution is a big one; the air we breathe and the water we drink are toxic—probably more toxic than we are led to believe (that’s the “softly” part). Then on the toxic list we’ve got most of what we eat, the obvious being fast food, the not so obvious being processed food, and the really soft culprit being GMO. There are more “obvious killers” out there as well, I just don’t have the space to include all of them.

Some of the more “not so obvious” things, which some of you may have issue with, are things like 5G, and really any EMF pollution, which even includes radio waves. Most medicine is toxic, doctors themselves can be quite toxic and guilty of killing us softly, although I still would bet most of them do this unintentionally (how many times have you read statistics that “deaths due to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals” rank in the top five of global killers?) There are so many things on this list it would take volumes to present them all.

Actually, I would not be surprised if every single thing we encounter every day is chemically toxic in some way (meaning it is responsible for destroying the tissue of our physical body). Fun stuff.

I think a lot of people out there are not really aware of most of these things, or think the damage they may inflict is so minimal it really doesn’t amount to much. Well, as they say, things add up.

Again, this is all stuff that most people at least have heard of possibly being bad news. Most of those people, again, probably figure that the powers that be would not allow things out there that could really hurt us. I mean, really, there are so many government agencies that regulate this stuff, and do whatever they can to keep us from being harmed. Cough, cough. Really? Like I’ve said before, if you believe that, I’ve got beachfront property in Nevada I’ll sell you cheap. Or is it Kansas?

We’ve all seen movies like Erin Brockovich (2000) and Dark Waters (2019) that show the heroics of individuals fighting the big bad polluting evil ones and winning millions of bucks for their victims. That’s great, more power to them. But the bad guys in these movies are for the most part a few levels down from the real culprits. Sure, there are evil corporations and CEOs who run them. They are indeed part of the agenda. But again, I won’t get into that here.

Some of the biggest soft killers out there are mental health killers, as well as the drugs that accompany them. I would also put the aforementioned EMF killers in this group, and maybe even some of the pollutants that attack our minds rather than our bodies—nobody pays much attention to that—to subtle effects of personality, cognition, etc. For example most of the talk about the Covid vaccines hurting us is how it hurts us physically. You hear little about the effects they may have on the brain (other than physical), the personality, or the spirit. Oh God no, none of that woo woo stuff please, it just isn’t important.

Human beings are pretty subtle bio systems, and that is just the physical part of us. The mental/emotional part is pretty subtle too, and the spiritual part is so subtle it is ignored entirely. Even the first two of these, physical and mental, are largely ignored. The only part of them that is given much attention at all is the tip of the iceberg part. The majority of these systems lie below the level of gross awareness, yet this hidden level(s) has more influence on the well being of the person than the relatively small portion of the iceberg that is given all of the attention.

Let me be a bit clearer here.

Modern medicine is mostly a science of statistics. The majority rules here, the middle of the bell curve is what is given consideration. Nearly every medical “statement” is given as a percentage. What percent will survive a particular cancer, disease, or treatment modality, what percentage will still be alive in 5 years, what percentage will suffer side effects—on and on. Very little thought is given to the outliers. In fact, certain side effects fall so far below a relevant statistic, that these side effects are completely ignored; yet these ignored side effects could have a huge impact on quality of life.

Here is an example: I have dozens of clients who come to me with the common complaint of depression. Most of them are not suicidal; they simply have what they define as a crappy life. Their life just isn’t the life they envisioned. Maybe they don’t even know they are depressed, but after further evaluation, it seems clear they are just not capable of being fully happy, motivated, curious about life, or even interested in life.

These patients don’t really possess any of the typical traumas in their experience that can bring on such complaints. What is it then? The environment (I don’t mean climate change)? Yes. The culture? Yes. The societal decadence and immorality? Yes. The food they eat? Yes. The over the counter drugs they take? Yes. The prescription drugs they take? Most definitely yes.

All these things are killing them—some obviously, but the real dangers are the things killing them softly—the things we are told are unimportant.

None of these things are considered by modern medicine to have a significant enough influence on the body, the mind, or the spirit (which of course no medical practitioner pays any attention to) to be dangerous. If we, as humans, fall above a certain line with our complaints and ailments, we are considered “normal” and the complaints and ailments that fall below that are not statistically relevant. But they add up.

We then die younger than we should, we become weaker earlier than we should, and even if our body can stay physically functioning through modern medical miracles, we are dead inside with a poisoned soul as well as with a body and brain that is barely functioning to par, but functioning enough that most people think is good enough.

Living a life that has meaning and purpose is actually more important than living a life with a fully healthy body—and we are getting neither in this current world setting. Our souls are slowly being killed by a meaningless, materially focused culture where consumerism is the name of the life game. I need not list the problems present in this soul killing culture, but at the head of slow death is the movement toward transhumanism and the deliberate creation of a world without a moral foundation.

The physical body is being killed softly as well with all of the aforementioned toxic killers we are exposed to day in and day out. Most of them are slow and soft, and operate unhindered below the radar of most people—and certainly below the radar of those who should be monitoring such things.

Is this intentional? Are we subjected to this slow genocide as part of the global eugenic effort to rid the world of useless eaters?—or even more horrifying, to rid the world of all humans who are made in the image of God along with nature herself? An agenda chillingly made clear in C.S. Lewis’ tome That Hideous Strength seen as well in the works of numerous others such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.

Probably not everything I have mentioned here has come about as part of this nefarious evil intention. But I would be willing to bet a lot of it has (see the work of David Icke). It may just have become the nature of the beast to create a culture in its atheistic hubris that ignores the subtleties of life and living.

Most of these toxic examples I have presented here have come about through omission—e.g., by omitting any sort of diligence to avoid their toxic effects, or by entirely doing away with things that fall into the lower material resolutions of our experience, making them statistically irrelevant—if you can’t clearly see it then just ignore it. Obviously anything “unseen,” such as love, beauty, art, God, unity, and the essence of life, is completely and almost savagely ignored. Such is our world—a humanity that is quietly, and softly, dying.

 

Connect with OffGuardian

Cover image credit: pixundfertig




After Being Fitted With Cell Phones, Horses at Churchill Downs Began to Die During Races

After Being Fitted With Cell Phones, Horses at Churchill Downs Began to Die During Races

 

Horse named Lost in Limbo dies at Churchill Downs

 

Racehorses at Churchhill Downs

by Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Taskforce
June 8, 2023

 

Racehorses are among the most finely tuned, exquisitely sensitive creatures on earth. So what happens when you give them all cell phones to wear during a race? They start dropping like… well, horses.

That is exactly what started happening this spring at Churchill Downs in Louisville, home of the world-famous Kentucky Derby. Churchill Downs hosts three “meets” every year during which there are horse races four to five days a week — a spring meet lasting all of May and June; a September meet; and a fall meet throughout November. The spring meet this year at the Downs began on April 29 and was to continue until July 3. And beginning on April 29, and in every race on every day thereafter, every horse was fitted with a device they had never worn before. It is a wireless device, shaped like an iPhone, that fits into the cloth underneath the saddle on the horse’s back. Horses also began wearing these devices this spring during morning workouts.

This STRIDESafe device monitors the horse’s movements 2,400 times per second throughout the race, sending 2,400 pulses of radio frequency (RF) radiation every second through the body of the horse. It also contains a GPS component that communicates with global positioning satellites. It also communicates with the RFID chip implanted in the left side of every horse’s neck, ensuring that the chip also emits radiation throughout the race. And because every racehorse wears horseshoes made of aluminum, which is one of the best conductors, the frequencies that are conducted from both the STRIDESafe device and the RFID chip throughout the horse’s body are absorbed and reradiated by its four shoes. Each horse, then, carries not one but six continuously radiating antennas throughout each race at Churchill Downs. So with 14 horses normally competing in each race, there are 84 antennas among animals in close proximity to one another running around the track.

And on April 29, 2023, horses racing at Churchill Downs began to die during races or suffer such severe injuries during races that they were euthanized. So many horses have died this spring that on June 2 it was announced that the spring meet at the Downs would be suspended as of June 10. Officials at Churchill Downs are panicked because horses racing there have died in much larger numbers this spring than ever before. In 2022, nationwide, about 1.25 deaths occurred for every 1,000 horses starting at the gate. But since April 29, 2023, 12 deaths have occurred among just 1,600 starts at Churchill Downs, a sudden and unprecedented 8-fold increase in racehorse mortality.

Officials have carefully inspected the track and every part of the racing grounds and have found no change in any part of it from previous meets, and no reason for horses to be more prone to injury or collapse. But they have the same blind spot as the rest of society: they treat wireless devices, and the radiation they emit, as if they do not exist.

The horse named Parents Pride simply collapsed and died for no apparent reason during a race on April 29. No drugs were found in her system, and no poisons. She was running normally before the race. No abnormalities were found in her heart, brain or lungs.

Code of Kings “flipped” and broke his neck in the paddock just prior to a race and was euthanized, also on April 29. The paddock, also called the parade ring, is where horses are paraded before a race so the racegoers can get a good look at them.

Take Charge Briana suffered catastrophic damage to her right foreleg during a race on May 2 and was euthanized.

Chasing Artie completed his race on May 2 and then collapsed and died on his way to the unsaddling area, for no apparent reason.

Chloe’s Dream suffered a “catastrophic injury” to his right knee during a race on Derby Day, May 6, and was euthanized.

Freezing Point fractured his left forelimb during a race on Derby Day, May 6, and was euthanized. His jockey said that he was not bumped during the race and that the track was in good condition.

Bosque Redondo finished his race on May 13 but was taken away in a horse ambulance and was euthanized due to unspecified injuries.

Rio Moon was at the finish line of a race on May 14 when he suffered a “catastrophic injury” to his left foreleg and then was euthanized.

Swanson Lake finished his race on May 20 but was immediately taken to a veterinarian where he was euthanized because of a “significant injury” to his left hind leg.

Lost in Limbo, the horse pictured at the top of this newsletter, was removed from the track near the finish of a race on May 26. He had crashed nose-first on the track and lay heaving in the dirt. He was so jittery even before the race that he threw his jockey before it started and bolted. After the race a veterinarian found a “significant injury” to his left front leg and he was euthanized.

Kimberley Dream ruptured a ligament in her left front leg during a race on May 27 and was euthanized.

And two days before the spring meet began, while training on the racetrack on April 27, Wild on Ice broke his left hind leg and was euthanized.

We have known for decades that horses’ lives are shattered by radio waves. Hearings were held in Christchurch, New Zealand, and racehorse trainer Penny Hargreaves spoke out in an interview published in 1998. An FM radio tower in Ouruhia had had such devastating effects on her 90 horses that she was forced to relocate them to a different part of Canterbury. All her horses were affected, some more than others, and two died.

“They were very nervous and jumpy,” she said. “They all seemed to have sore feet. Horses who had travelled by trailer for years were losing balance while travelling. We have several hot spots around our yard where the horses become very volatile and hurt themselves and us. 

“Our very valuable colt had serious health problems and walked as if his feet hurt. He could not bear to be shod. We had many vets look at him to try and solve his problems, but without any satisfactory answers. We finally turned him out in a paddock which has a large hay barn and trees between him and the tower. Within a month he had no problems at all. Back in his old yard, the problem returned.

“The blacksmith gave evidence at our hearing on the effect of the radio waves on our horses’ feet. The aluminum conducts electricity and their feet had changed shape, had huge cracks where the nails went and were very sensitive inside. 

“We had weekly problems with infections we have never had before, our vet bills were horrendous.”

Nervous and jumpy racehorses with sore feet and lack of coordination. Exactly what has been happening at Churchill Downs during the spring meet this year.

When I learned what was happening at Churchill Downs this spring I sent an email to Dr. Jennifer Durenberger, suggesting to her that the STRIDESafe devices, which have been deployed at Churchill Downs for the safety of the horses, are instead killing them. She has not responded. Dr. Durenberger, a veterinarian, is the Director of Equine Safety & Welfare at the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA). She has been leading a review of the records of the horses that died.

If you are a veterinarian or have experience with horses and would like to help, please send me an email to arthur@cellphonetaskforce.orgThis is an opportunity, if we can get Churchill Downs, HISA, and the owners of the racehorses that run in the Kentucky Derby to acknowledge what is happening and get rid of these new wireless devices — an opportunity to educate the rest of the world as well and catalyze a change of direction for us all.

 

Arthur Firstenberg
Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
Administrator, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space
Caretaker, ECHOEarth (End Cellphones Here On Earth)

Connect with Arthur Firstenberg

Cover image credit: Candiix




Chemtrails Exposed: The Coal Fly Ash / Fluoride Connection

Chemtrails Exposed: The Coal Fly Ash / Fluoride Connection

 

 [Video available at The Abstract Rumble channel.]

 

Chemtrails Exposed: The Coal Fly Ash / Fluoride Connection 

by Peter A. Kirby, Activist Post
May 30, 2023

 

The author’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project provides compelling evidence indicating that the chemtrails so often seen in today’s skies most commonly consist of coal fly ash. For many reasons, the injection of fluoride into local drinking water supplies is a similar phenomenon. Although there are prima facie similarities, we find deeper and darker connections, once again going back to the original WWII Manhattan Project.

The injection of fluoride into our drinking water is analogous to the injection of coal fly ash into our atmosphere in that both of these substances are toxic waste byproducts of heavy industry. These wastes would be expensive to dispose of properly, but global corporations can apparently sell both of these wastes for use in water fluoridation as well as for the spraying of chemtrails. That’s their idea of turning lemons into lemonade. It all mass murders populations and devastates our environment, but it’s apparently good for big business.

The other piece of prima facie evidence linking chemtrails to fluoride is Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) whistleblower Craig Davis noting that fluoride in our drinking water works synergistically with other environmental toxins to become much more deadly inside our bodies. Christopher Bryson, the author of The Fluoride Deception (the book upon which most of this article is based) also notes this effect. But Davis has gone further and noted that fluoridated water in combination with chemtrails produces this synergistic effect.

All this begs the question: How did water fluoridation come about? And: Are there any more connections between chemtrails and fluoride? The answers to these questions are found, once again, in the original Manhattan Project.

Fluoride and the original Manhattan Project

The production of the world’s first atomic bombs (the Manhattan Project) required massive amounts of fluorine. Do you see where this is going? One of the methods of refining the necessary uranium was known as the “gaseous diffusion” method. Using this method, hundreds of tons of fluorine were required for the production of one atomic bomb. Bryson writes:

“Manhattan Project scientists were planning to use a ‘gaseous diffusion’ technology to refine uranium. In that process uranium is mixed with elemental fluorine, forming a volatile gas called uranium hexafluoride, which is then ‘enriched’ by diffusing that gas through a fine barrier, or membrane. The lighter molecules containing fissionable uranium needed for a nuclear explosion pass through the membrane more quickly and are captured on the other side. But because only a handful of the lighter molecules make it through the membrane each time, many hundreds of tons of fluorine, and thousands of stages of progressive enrichment, would be needed to produce enough uranium for a single atomic bomb.”

Fluoride was a toxic waste byproduct of this process. But the question about what to do with all this toxic waste was not the only issue.

The workers at the atomic bomb plants where the gaseous diffusion method was practiced were falling ill and dying due to fluoride poisoning. There were some legal challenges during the war relating to workers’ exposure to fluoride, but a temporary fix for this potentially massive legal liability was found in 1946 when testing responsibilities were transferred from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the Army’s Chemical Warfare Service. Once that transfer occurred, the problem seemed to magically disappear, but not really.

Compounding the issue, atomic bomb plant workers were not the only ones being harmed by fluoride exposure. Not only were workers inside the factories becoming sick and dying, but people living in communities near the factories were being poisoned too. This highlighted an even bigger problem: environmental fluoride pollution.

Fluoride is a toxic waste byproduct of not only the production of atomic bombs. Fluoride gasses are produced during the production of: petroleum, bricks, leather, steel, glass, and plastics. And being that fluoride is a constituent of coal fly ash, American citizens have historically inhaled fluoride from the emissions of nearby steel and aluminum plants as well as those from coal-fired power plants. The workers inside these factories have been most severely affected.

After the war, the Manhattan Project morphed into the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the AEC went about greatly expanding America’s atomic bomb production programs. This was the Cold War, after all. This expansion produced exponentially more fluoride toxic waste from the production of atomic bombs. And let’s not forget the fissile material needed for the nascent nuclear power industry. All this added up to fluoride pollution becoming, as Bryson writes, “The biggest single legal worry facing the atomic bomb program following WWII.”

In consideration of all the resultant lawsuits, Bryson writes, “Fluoride has been the nation’s most damaging air pollutant, and almost certainly its most expensive.” But don’t expect the feds to help. In 1957, after a court ruled in favor of people harmed by fluoride emissions, the federal government abruptly stopped monitoring ambient fluoride.

Enter water fluoridation
Funded by the large corporations that stood the most to gain, it was the Mellon Institute that, in the mid to late 1930s, began the promotion of fluoridated drinking water. Corporations like Monsanto, U.S. Steel, Alcoa and DuPont funded scientific studies at the Mellon Institute that served to legitimize and promote the idea. The Mellon Institute and their funders continued their promotions of water fluoridation up to and all throughout WWII. In his book and in published articles, your author has already established some interesting connections between Monsanto and DuPont and the spraying of chemtrails.

As America emerged from WWII, advocates for water fluoridation gained a leader in the person of Dr. Harold Hodge (1904-1990). Dr. Hodge was a professor at the University of Rochester, NY and the former chief toxicologist of the original Manhattan Project. Concurrently, the University of Rochester became the hub for drinking water fluoridation in America and the world. Hodge went on to train a generation of dental school deans in the 1950s and 1960s who unanimously advocated for the practice.

Dr. Hodge was well aware of the extreme toxicity of fluoride. During the war, Hodge had investigated the fluoride poisoning of atomic bomb factory workers as well as the poisoning of people living nearby. But did Hodge inform people about such things? No he didn’t. To the contrary, he hid this information from his colleagues. So much for the scientific method.

Hodge and the University of Rochester were backed by many of the same corporations behind the pioneering work on water fluoridation done earlier at the Mellon Institute. Before the war, Hodge was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Evidence in the author’s book strongly correlates the Rockefeller Foundation with the spraying of chemtrails.

Consistent with his work in fluoride, there are other examples of Hodge exhibiting extremely low ethical standards. Hodge helped choreograph wartime experiments in which hospital patients were injected with plutonium and uranium without their knowledge or consent. Hodge also participated in a series of post-war experiments involving the injection of uranium and plutonium into unsuspecting and uninformed patients. In 1969 Hodge became professor emeritus at the UCSF Medical School.

Hodge and Rochester’s work served to inoculate their funders from legal liabilities. As Hodge, Rochester and the corporations that funded them caused water fluoridation to become an accepted practice, this served to provide legal cover against lawsuits claiming that people had been poisoned by fluoride. How could it be bad for you (the reasoning goes) if the government is putting it in the water? The support of state and local governments for water fluoridation conveniently lessened any and all legal liabilities for the big fluoride producers. Now we know the real story of how fluoride came to be in our drinking water.

Bryson writes,

“Medical professionals critical of fluoride were regularly mauled in the press, while doctors and dentists were expelled from their professional organizations for antifluoride heresy.” The ‘Father of Public Relations’ Edward Bernays (1891-1995) promoted water fluoridation. Bryson continues, “While millions of … taxpayer dollars were spent promoting fluoridation, little money was given to study the potentially harmful effects from fluoride.”

Conclusions
So now we are aware of two examples of big industry deceitfully sluffing their toxic waste off onto the general population and apparently getting paid to do so. Big Science (which began with the original Manhattan Project) is behind both of them. Beyond these connections between chemtrails and fluoride, we are seeing a larger pattern of behavior. We see large corporations, with the help of Big Science (mad science) and government, acting in a highly irresponsible and, in fact, psychopathic manner. This unholy trinity is wrecking us and our world. If it is allowed to continue, the future will be very dark indeed.

 

References

Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project a book by Peter A. Kirby, self-published 2020

The Fluoride Deception a book by Christopher Bryson, published by Seven Stories Press 2004

The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep It There a book by Paul Connett, James Beck and H.S. Micklem, published by Chelsea Green Publishing 2010

 

Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, author, and activist. His book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project is available now exclusively at Amazon. Join his email list at his website PeterAKirby.com.

 

Connect with Peter Kirby

Cover image credit: alvpics


See related:

Interview: EPA Scientist Sounds The Alarm On Geoengineering Contamination

US EPA Scientist Fired For Trying To Tell The Truth About Climate Engineering And Fluoridated Water

Chemtrails Exposed: Biological Impacts

Chemtrails Exposed: The Deep State and the New Manhattan Project

Chemtrails Exposed: The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Origins of the New Manhattan Project

The Vatican and the New Manhattan Project

Chemtrails: The Root Cause of the California Wildfires

 




Childhood Exposure to Glyphosate Linked to Liver Inflammation and Metabolic Disorder

Childhood Exposure to Glyphosate Linked to Liver Inflammation and Metabolic Disorder

by Sustainable Pulse
May 12, 2023

 

New research from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health in the U.S. shows that childhood exposure to the world’s most widely used weed killer, glyphosate, is linked to liver inflammation and metabolic disorder in early adulthood, which could lead to liver cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease later in life.

The study of 480 mother-child duos from the Salinas Valley, California—a rich agricultural region that locals call “The World’s Salad bowl”—was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The researchers, led by Brenda Eskenazi, director of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health’s Center for Environmental Research and Community Health (CERCH), examined the agricultural use of glyphosate near the homes of the mothers during pregnancy and in the children up to age 5 years; and also measured glyphosate and AMPA, a degradation product of glyphosate and amino-polyphosphonates, in their urine (collected from mothers during pregnancy and from children at ages 5, 14, and 18 years). They assessed liver and metabolic health in the children when they were 18 years old.

The authors reported that higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in urine in childhood and adolescence were associated with higher risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood. In addition, the investigators found that agricultural glyphosate use near participants’ homes from birth and up through age five was associated with metabolic disorders at age 18. They reported that diet was likely a major source of glyphosate and AMPA exposure among study participants, as indicated by higher urinary glyphosate or AMPA concentrations among those adolescents who ate more cereal, fruits, vegetables, bread, and in general, carbohydrates.

Glyphosate Box

Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here

Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here

Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure

Glyphosate is used routinely on genetically modified crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat, as well as oats, legumes and other produce. It is also present in many lawn care products for home and commercial use.

The debate over the impact of glyphosate and AMPA on human health has been contentious. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports no evidence of human health risk. However, most previous glyphosate research has focused on glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity. This is the first time that researchers have examined the potential connection between early life exposure to glyphosate—whose use has markedly increased over the past two decades—and metabolic and liver disease, both of which are increasing among children and young adults.

The impetus for this study came from Salinas physician Charles Limbach, who was alarmed by the growing number of local youths with liver and metabolic diseases. Dr. Limbach wondered if the increasing public exposure to glyphosate might be a factor. He teamed up with Paul J. Mills, a UC San Diego professor and author of a previous study showing an association between higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in adults and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The two men then approached Professor Eskenazi, who is also the founder of the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), the longest running longitudinal birth cohort investigation on the health effects of pesticides and other environmental exposures among children in a farmworker community. The CHAMACOS researchers reached back into their “library” of frozen biological samples from mother and child dyads, along with more than 20 years of exposure data and health records.

“The study’s implications are troubling,” said Dr. Ana Maria Mora, a CERCH investigator and coauthor, “as the levels of the chemicals found in our study participants are within the range reported for the general U.S. population.”

Professor Eskenazi recommends that the use of glyphosate should be limited to essential use while further studies are conducted. “There’s no reason why anyone should be using glyphosate on their lawn,” she said. “It shouldn’t be sold over the counter in a nursery.”

The study published in Environmental Health Perspectives was funded by NIH, NIEHS, NIDA, and the EPA. Additional support came from The Solomon Dutka Fund in the New York Community Trust and The Westreich Foundation.

 

Connect with Sustainable Pulse

Cover image credit: hpgruesen




Bill Gates’ Synthetic Fruit Coating: Even Organic Fruit Is Being Coated With This Stuff

Bill Gates’ Synthetic Fruit Coating: Even Organic Fruit Is Being Coated With This Stuff

 

Bill Gates Owns Synthetic Fruit Coating — What’s in It?

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 10, 2023

 



Story-at-a-Glance
  • Apeel is a plant-based protective coating that “helps the produce you love stay fresh for longer.” It retains moisture within the produce and keeps oxygen out, thereby slowing the spoilage rate
  • Apeel Sciences was founded with a $100,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Other investors include the Rockefeller Foundation; the World Bank Group; Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe; and Susan Wojcicki, former CEO of YouTube
  • Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF). He’s hailed COVID lockdowns as a model for future action on climate change. In other words, climate lockdowns. Rogers is also a WEF Young Global Leader
  • Avocados, cucumbers, lemons and limes, mandarins, oranges, organic apples, grapefruit and mangos are listed as produce that are currently being treated with this coating. Apeel-treated produce can be identified by looking for the “Apeel Protected” produce sticker
  • The coating, which cannot be washed off, likely contains toxic contaminants, including heavy metals and carcinogens, as well as trans fats and, potentially, harmful linoleic acid

Do you know what Apeel is? In an April 24, 2023, Twitter thread,1 Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director at the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), lists the many patents associated with this mysterious synthetic fruit coating, which is even approved for use on produce certified as USDA Organic.

According to Apeel Sciences’ website,2 Apeel is a plant-based protective coating that “helps the produce you love stay fresh for longer.” It retains moisture within the produce and keeps oxygen out, thereby slowing the spoilage rate.

Avocados, cucumbers, lemons and limes, mandarins, oranges, organic apples, grapefruit and mangos are listed as produce that are currently being treated with this coating.

Apeel-treated produce can be found in several large grocery chains in the U.S., including Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, Harps Food and many others,3,4 as well as stores in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland5 and Canada.6 As of October 2020, the company had also received regulatory approval in Kenya, Uganda, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Ecuador.7 Apeel-treated produce can be identified by looking for the following produce stickers.

Red Flags

One of the warning flags that makes me question the safety of this product is the fact that Apeel Sciences (a DBA or “doing business as” of aPEEL Technology Inc.) was founded with a $100,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.8 That’s never a good sign. I can’t think of a single harmless product Gates has ever willingly poured his money into.

Other investors include the Rockefeller Foundation;9 the World Bank Group; Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe; and Susan Wojcicki, former CEO of YouTube10 (she stepped down in mid-February 202311). By May 2021, Apeel Sciences was valued at $1.1 billion.12

Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF). He’s also a WEF Young Global Leader. In 2018, Rogers stated his company would transition to using synthetic biology rather than extracting its ingredients from real food.

What’s more, Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum13 (WEF). Among the articles he has written for the WEF is one in which he hailed COVID lockdowns as a model for future action on climate change.14 In other words, climate lockdowns.

Rogers is also a WEF Young Global Leader15 — yet another red flag. And I’m not the only one questioning the motives behind this product. “Is [Apeel] another Gates/WEF plot to destroy our health? Or a distraction from worse plots?” Baden-Mayer asks.16

Is Apeel Part of President Biden’s GMO Agenda?

One of the first things that came to mind when I heard of Apeel is that it fits right into President Biden’s recently launched agenda to turn the U.S. food supply over to the biotechnology industry. I reviewed this agenda in “Executive Order Lays Foundation for Lab-Created Foods.”

In summary, Biden’s September 2022 “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy”17 makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report.18 One of the specific goals listed in this report is “Reducing food waste by 50% by 2030.” Reducing food waste to combat climate change19 is also the premise upon which Apeel Sciences was founded, according to its website.20

Further evidence that Apeel Sciences fits into Biden’s biotech-driven food agenda is its acquisition of ImpactVision, “a software company that uses AI and machine learning to track the chemical composition of food throughout its shelf life.”21 The company has also promised to “double down on technology” through other tech acquisitions.

While reducing food waste and making fresh produce last longer are certainly sane and worthy goals, the question is, how is this being done? Seeing how Apeel’s emergence broadly coincides with Biden’s official transition into biotech-led foods, can we trust that it’s a food-based product? Or is it biotech in disguise?

What Does Apeel’s GRAS Notice Tell Us?

According to Apeel Sciences:

“Apeel adds a little extra peel on produce to slow the rate of water loss and oxidation … That extra peel is completely edible, tasteless and safe to eat. A variety of plant feedstocks can be used to create our formulations, and luckily these ingredients exist in the peels, seeds and pulp of all fruits an vegetables …

We think of these materials as building blocks, restructuring them in a way that allows us to iterate on what nature created, making our solution into a coating that can be applied to produce. So while nature is our foundation and inspiration, innovation and technology are how we apply these ingredients …”

Apeel Sciences’ Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notice22 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, submitted in October 2019, gives us a little more. The primary component of the coating is said to be a mixture of monoacylglycerides derived from grapeseed.

An earlier GRAS Notice,23 filed in April 2016, further specifies that the two primary components of Apeel is 2,3-dihydroxypropyl palmitate and 1,3-dihydroxypropan-2-yl palmitate. (In this notice, the product is called “Edipeel,” but the website now refers to it as “Apeel,” like the company name.) According to the 2016 GRAS Notice No. 648:

“Monoacylglycerol derivatives are components of dietary fats commonly found in food and are also endogenously formed in the human body … It is well established and recognized that monoacylglycerides, the subject of the present GRAS assessment, are formed in the gastrointestinal tract from the generally accepted metabolic pathway for the breakdown of triglycerides (i.e., lipolysis).

The hydrolysis of triglycerides by lipases proceeds through the formation of monoacylglycerides (i.e., monoglycerides). The free fatty acids released can be further used for triglyceride synthesis.

Given the metabolic sequel described above, and by applying scientific procedures, it can be concluded that a mixture of monoacylglycerides would not pose any health hazards different from commonly consumed dietary oils derived from plants or animals.”

Toxic Residues

However, just because something is made from all-natural ingredients doesn’t mean the final product is perfectly safe. It depends on what you’ve done to those ingredients.

In this case, in Part 3 of the 2019 GRAS notice,24 under Maximum Limit of Residues, we find that the grape seed oil that makes up the basis of this product contains residues of ethyl acetate, heptane and palladium, which are processing aids, as well as the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.

According to Apeel, the levels of these toxic residues are either below levels deemed safe by the FDA, the EU and/or the Joint FAO/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). The following table lists the maximum daily exposure limits based on a maximum daily (90th percentile) intake of 218 milligrams per person per day.

While the levels indeed appear to be very low, I would argue that any exposure to toxic chemicals and metals is an unnecessary risk. To me, intentionally coating fresh, unadulterated foods with something that contains toxins, even if in minute amounts, only adds to the toxic burden. We’re already dealing with pesticide residues on conventional fruits and vegetables. This coating will simply lock those toxins in and add additional ones on top.

One of the biggest question marks is whether this coating can penetrate the peel, as the coating cannot be washed off. Can toxic risks be eliminated by peeling the produce, or is the flesh of the fruit or vegetable also contaminated with residues? We do not have the answer to that question, even though it’s one of the most important ones.

According to Apeel Sciences, the coating is “not expected” to penetrate beyond the peel into the fruit.25 Not expected? That means they have no idea. They’re simply guessing.

More Open Questions

In Apeel Sciences’ 2019 GRAS notice, they referenced a 2017 EFSA review26 of E471 (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids) but didn’t mention that this review warned about the possible presence of epichlorohydrin,27 a carcinogen, in E471 manufactured using glycerol or glycidol as a starting material. Apeel uses monoglycerides of glycerol.

According to this review, “The panel considered that the presence of epichlorohydrin and/or glycidol in mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) would need further assessment as their presence could raise a safety concern.” Palladium, cadmium and arsenic are also carcinogenic, so there are at least four different carcinogenic contaminants in this coating.

What’s more, a 2021 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) re-review28 of monoacylglycerides found that “the potential exposure to toxic elements resulting from the consumption of E 471 could be substantial.” As a result, the review panel suggests it may be necessary to lower existing limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.

Apeel Plans to Switch to Synthetic Biology

Baden-Mayer also wonders whether Apeel’s coating is made with synthetic biology. Why else is Apeel Sciences listed as one of the best-funded synbio companies?29 Don’t you have to produce synthetic biology products to be considered a synbio company?

In 2018, the Apeel founder himself also told Food Navigator that his company would soon transition to using synthetic biology rather than extracting its ingredients from real food.30 So, even if they haven’t made that transition yet, this certainly suggests they intend to, eventually.

Apeel’s GRAS notice also leaves this door open, stating that “monoacylglycerides can be created by breaking down a triglyceride by removing two of its fatty acids or they can be manufactured synthetically.”

Finally, Apeel Sciences’ board of directors includes Vijay Pande,31,32 an adjunct professor of bioengineering at Stanford, who also serves on the board of Scribe Therapeutics, a company specializing in CRISPR technology and protein engineering. Pande is also the founder of Globavir Biosciences, an infectious disease start-up.

So, it certainly appears as though Apeel Sciences is geared up to move into genetically engineered synthetic biology, if they haven’t made that leap already. The company is even directly connected to a company specializing in infectious disease therapeutics, and we now know there are efforts underway to turn foods into vaccine vectors.

Invisipeel — Another Type of Coating

As mentioned earlier, aPEEL Technology Inc. is producing the Apeel coating for fresh produce under the business name Apeel Sciences. But that’s not aPEEL’s only product.

In August 2015 — three years after the Gates Foundation launched Apeel Sciences with a $100,000 grant — the Gates Foundation committed nearly 10 times that amount, $985,161, to aPEEL Technology Inc., not Apeel Sciences, to develop a crop coating:33

“… to extend the shelf-life of crops without refrigeration and protect them from being eaten by pests by developing a molecular camouflage that uses cutin from plant extracts to create an edible, ultrathin barrier on the crop surfaces.”

Cutin is a waxy polymer and a primary component of the plant cuticle. It covers all aerial surfaces of all plants. It’s insoluble and therefore has a waterproof quality. The Apeel product described in the GRAS applications filed by Apeel Sciences do not mention anything about cutin, so this is a different product.

According to Weston A. Price,34 this product is called Invisipeel, and is applied by growers while the crop is still in the field. Apeel is applied after harvest once the produce is ripe. In short, we may be eating food that has been coated not just once but twice.

Is Apeel Just Another Trans Fat Alternative?

Aside from potentially toxic contaminants, others who have investigated Apeel have highlighted other problems and warn that monoglycerides and diglycerides are a “go-to replacement for deadly trans fats.”35

In 2016, the FDA withdrew the GRAS status of trans fat as it was strongly linked to fatal heart attacks. Yet here we are again. Out with one toxic fat and in with another. The FDA ban doesn’t apply to mono- and diglycerides, even though they contain trans fat, because they’re classified as emulsifiers rather than lipids.

Mono- and diglycerides are byproducts from the processing of oil. In the case of Apeel, the monoacylglycerides are derived from grapeseed oil, which is loaded with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), including the highly problematic linoleic acid, which I’m convinced is one of the primary drivers of chronic disease. You can learn more about this in “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.”

So, basically, what we’re looking at here is a way to turn fruits and vegetables, known for their beneficial impacts on heart health, into a source of harmful emulsifiers that increase your risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke. This starts to feel even more diabolical when you consider that the Great Resetters of the world are pushing to replace meat and animal products with plant foods, which they are simultaneously making more toxic and less healthy.

Commonsense Ways to Make Produce Last Longer

As noted by Moms Across America, there are far safer, natural ways to extend the shelf life of your fruits and vegetables. Below are a few of their tips.36 Additional suggestions can be found in Almanac.com’s fruit and vegetable storage guide.37

“Take avocados for example … Once you bring them home and they get to their ‘sweet spot,’ you can store them in the refrigerator for up to two weeks. You can also freeze them whole, sliced, in chunks, or mashed. They will keep for three to six months.

Heavenly, succulent strawberries can be briefly soaked in a vinegar and water solution to be cleaned thoroughly. Let them dry completely, and store in a mason jar (with a paper towel at the bottom) in the refrigerator for three weeks or more. Sweet, colorful apples can be stored in a cool, humid place such as a basement, garage, or refrigerator for up to five months.”

I have also found that if you purchase avocados on sale you can select rock hard fruits and store them in the fridge for around one month. You only need to take them out of the fridge for around three days before they ripen.

It’s worth mentioning, in closing, that the best way to gauge the freshness of a fruit or vegetable is to inspect it visually. If it’s been sealed shut with a coating that delays the decay process, you can’t tell how long that produce has been sitting around.

What’s more, if the produce is coated before it’s ripe, will it ever fully ripen? Many fruits and vegetables are picked and shipped before they’re fully ripened. They ripen en route. This is one of the reasons why so many fruits are tasteless and don’t have the right texture. Will Apeel make this situation better or worse? Personally, I won’t be buying Apeel-treated produce, and if enough of us refuse to buy it, they’ll stop using it.

Modern industrial farming has created a food production model that is not only unhealthy, but unsustainable as well. The reliance on GMO-derived products and the toxic chemicals used alongside them are destroying the environment and the public’s health.

To combat the encroaching influence of big GMO companies, I encourage you to support farmers and businesses that practice organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming. This food production model benefits both humans and the environment because it:

  • Rebuilds topsoil by sequestering atmospheric carbon above ground and below ground
  • Protects water sources, runoff, and reduces water demand by increasing moisture in the soil
  • Promotes nutrition and health through nutrient-dense, organic food
  • Minimizes the risk of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant disease by avoiding the use of industrial chemicals
  • Restores damaged ecosystems through regenerative methods
  • Helps local farmers by giving them larger profits compared to industrial counterparts

How can you play your part? The solution is actually quite simple — buy healthy, organic food. One of the best things you can do is to purchase your food from small-business farmers. To help you in your search, I recommend visiting these websites that point you to non-GMO food producers in your area:

Regenerative Farm Map

Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)

Farm Match (United States)

Local Harvest (United States)

Weston A. Price Foundation (United States)

The Cornucopia Institute

Demeter USA

American Grassfed Association

I also urge you to support and donate to organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as they are leading the way to promoting regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. By advocating the innovative campaigns of these organizations, you are contributing to the future of regenerative agriculture.

 

Sources and References

 

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: Anelka




Magnetic Rain? [Short Video]: Documenting the Toxic Geoengineering of Our Skies

Magnetic Rain? [Short Video]: Documenting the Toxic Geoengineering of Our Skies

by Dane Wigington, Geoengineering Watch
May 4, 2023

 



Is there more in the rain than just rain? Check this 4 minute video.

GeoengineeringWatch.org sincerely thanks Joseph and Patrick for sharing their film footage observations regarding magnetic testing of precipitation particle fallout. Geoengineering Watch also wishes to express our deepest gratitude to each and every activist and individual that is doing their best to expose and halt the ongoing climate intervention operations in our skies.

All are needed in the critical battle to wake populations to what is occurring, we must make every day count.

 

Connect with Geoengineering Watch

Cover image credit: ELG21


See Related:

Will the Mass Poisoning of Our Skies Cause a Killing Field Effect?

The Dimming, Full Length Climate Engineering Documentary




Will the Mass Poisoning of Our Skies Cause a Killing Field Effect?

Will the Mass Poisoning of Our Skies Cause a Killing Field Effect?

by Gary D. Barnett
May 3, 2023

 

“When people look up into the sky and see white trails paralleling and crisscrossing high in the sky, little do they know that they are not seeing ‘condensation’, but instead are witnessing a man-made ‘climate engineering CRISIS’ facing all air-breathing humans and animals on planet earth. These white aircraft spray-trails are the result of scientifically verifiable spraying of aluminum particles and other toxic heavy metals, polymers and chemicals. These toxic atmospheric aerosols are used to alter the weather patterns creating droughts in some regions, and deluges and floods in other locations. Even extreme cold can be created by climate engineering under other conditions. Unfortunately, these unfolding catastrophes are not capturing the attention of America’s citizen nor politicians. Weather warfare has already almost reached beyond possibility of devastation of all mankind and animals. It is that serious, and it is time-limiting.”

Signed: General Charles Jones, Brigadier General, U.S. Air Force.

 

The term Chemtrails, while accurate, is a common term that has been widely mis-used by the general population and media, certainly by design, in order to discredit all efforts against weather and climate geoengineering, cloud-seeding, and the manufacturing and spraying of chemically-based artificial clouds meant to reflect sunlight, by spraying the atmosphere with chemicals, deadly metals, and toxins. This is, and has been done, for a long time in the false name of ‘protecting us’ from the farcical and fraudulent ‘threat’ of manmade ‘climate change.’ Those who expose this fraud are of course, generally called “conspiracy theorists.” This is most always an unwarranted and rhetorical ad hominem attack on character instead of examining substance; all in order to avoid any discussion of what is a valid subject matter concerning the top-down manipulation of weather, and the poisoning of all living things. There is actually manmade weather engineering, and toxic spraying of metals and chemicals, but that has not occurred due to one driving a car, or taking a trip on a plane, but has been affected by government and military operations. In other words, global warming, global cooling, or the benign term, ‘climate change,’ are intentional acts, and not due simply to human existence and the basic daily functions of life.

I will preface the rest of my comments with an anecdotal experience that I personally witnessed over the past two days in the Rocky Mountains here in Montana. What I saw, is almost a daily occurrence here, and most everywhere else as well, but I spent the entirety of both days watching the unfolding of fake chemical cloud seeding, and the resulting atmospheric changes. We had a rare period of total blue skies, although not as blue as in the past. On both days I watched from 9AM until late evening, as jet after jet continued to spray metals and chemicals across the horizon. The patterns were crossing, and at different altitudes, moving from section to section of sky, likely dependent on wind currents. Both days were forecast to be clear, but by afternoon on both days, the unnatural cloud cover was enough to block the sun entirely; at least from partial to heavy.

What began as completely clear skies, changed to a manmade and broad-based cloud cover that hung in the air until I could no longer see the skies. This was obviously the purposeful spraying of toxins in order to block vital sunlight, but much more is going on than just simply blocking the sun, as all these metals and chemicals eventually disperse and fall to earth, harming every single living thing. This very adversely affects all plants and animals, including humans. Given what has been proven to be in these payloads, the risk of agriculture devastation, changing weather patterns, killing bug life and pollinators, weather manipulation, geoengineered weather systems, and cancer-causing toxins made up of nano-particle metals and chemicals, are all threats to all of nature, including to water, soil, insects, animals, birds, fish, and humans.

This has been going on for decades, but at this point in time, it is inundating airspace everywhere in this country and the world. Some of this is being done by commercial aircraft, but most it seems is being done by the military, mainly the Air Force, by and with approval of this government, by NASA, and by others. This is a deliberate and planned attack against mankind and the earth. This is a weaponized form of war against all life domestically and globally. These tactics can be used as war weaponry, for food and agricultural destruction, and for depopulation through bodily system devastation.

Weather phenomena recently have been extreme. While proving without question that these are not normal, but designed events, is certainly difficult, but these anomalies are happening so often and are so far beyond reason, that one cannot ignore that these events are likely engineered. Well above average temperatures in mid-spring have been changing to very cold and heavy snow, and then back to high temperatures in many areas across the country.  Even in my area in just the past two weeks, I saw record temperatures, then very cold and record snow, two feet or more, and now temperatures of close to 80 degrees. This is happening everywhere, and is not due to what is called ‘climate change,’ but in my opinion, it is due to manmade manufactured systems. There are masses of tornadoes, 90 degrees and then snow, unreal flooding, as happened in Florida recently, and many weather events that belie imagination, in that a vast reversal of normalcy is present in most every area at once.

But this is not the only threat concerning the toxic chemical and metals spraying that is continuous across the country and the world. We are literally being poisoned, sickness is expanding greatly, and cancer is advancing in numbers and severity. This is certainly due to this heinous spraying, but it is also evident due to deadly ‘covid’ bioweapon injections, poisoning of food, including plants and animals, destruction of farming and ranching, and land and water poisoning due to very toxic chemicals and metals. This population and others are being attacked from every angle in what appears to be a mass depopulation effort by the State, its controllers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, the CIA and military, NASA, HAARP, the so-called scientific community, and the technological giants. This war against humanity is now seemingly never ending.

Geoengineering, weather engineering, and bogus ‘climate change’ policies, are not meant to help humanity or the earth, they are purposely being used only to harm and control. In addition to what I have mentioned here, there have been an inordinate number of chemical spills, massive explosions and fires of not only toxic materials, but in food production facilities nationwide. At this point, no mass food distribution can be trusted, as it is impossible to know what is being put into our food supply.

Solar geoengineering, high-energy waves, and toxic poisoning of the skies and earth, are causing increased storm activity, droughts, floods, tornados, fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and extreme volcanic activity. In addition, the health of humanity is being systematically destroyed. As I noted last year: “The most major tenet of this grand assault on humanity at the hands of the manipulative state, is advancing the ‘climate change’ agenda, so that total control over all of humanity and all property, can be solidified with very little resistance. It is all based on false fear, as always, but the state players in their haste to complete this takeover coup, have actually through climate and weather manipulation, also placed themselves in harm’s way. The plot was allowed to continue because multiple state agendas were being sought, and it is still in place today, even with the risks to all due to this horrendous plan. Oh, what a tangled web they weave.”

“What’s coming will make post-apocalyptic movies look like a Disney world vacation.”

~ Dane Wigington

 

Reference and source links:

Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth

Geoengineering Watch

Geoengineering Parts I, II, and III–Congressional Hearings 2009 and 2010

Elana Freeland: Geoengineering Transhumanism

“The Dimming: Exposing the Global Geo-Engineering Cover-Up”

Weather Modification History Timeline

HAARP and the Sky Heaters

Spain Allows Geoengineering as do over 50 Other Countries

Spain Admits to Spraying Chemtrails in Secret U.N. Program

Chemtrail Poisons Are ruining Your Health From Above

 

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: Sharon James, contributing writer at TCTL


More photos taken by Sharon James, contributing writer at Truth Comes to Light. All photos were taken during October of 2022 as she drove through American midwest farm land where she lives and farms.




The SARS Epidemic: Are Viruses Taking the Rap for Industrial Poisons? [Article First Published in 2003]

The SARS Epidemic: Are Viruses Taking the Rap for Industrial Poisons? [Article First Published in 2003]

by Jim West, Weston A. Price Foundation
originally published December 7, 2003
as found referenced at Medic Debate

 

On March 15, 2003 the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a global alert warning of a new virus spreading through Asia and causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), a potentially fatal disease, similar to pneumonia. Photos from China depicting ballet dancers and bridal parties wearing white masks appeared in western newspapers while health departments across the country issued notices to hospitals detailing the symptoms of the new virus and asking for immediate notification of suspect cases. Until the global alert, reports referred to an “unknown virus” first striking in Guangdong Province, China, although some reports place the origin in the Philippines. With the March 15 WHO report, the SARS virus became official and reports of new cases came flooding in.

By late May, officials had reported over 8,000 cases worldwide, with almost 700 deaths.1 Of the 65 suspected SARS victims in the US, all but a few had traveled by airplane to areas where the outbreak has been most severe, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. The Chinese economy has taken a hit and some Chinese airline routes were virtually empty due to SARS fear.2

Serious Drama

The SARS outbreak has revived discussion of forced quarantine. According to a study by the American Public Health Laboratory Association and quoted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, few cities have enough hospital space to quarantine patients in the event of a large-scale outbreak of an infectious disease like SARS. According to Lawrence O. Gostin, director of the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown University’s Law Center, public health laws date back to the 19th century and are “wholly inadequate to deal with an emergency.”

“The need for public health law reform is urgent,” said Mr. Gostin. “It should have provisions for surveillance, vaccination, treatment, isolation and quarantine in a way that gives decisive powers to health authorities while respecting the Constitution.” So far, all but one of the SARS victims has submitted to voluntary isolation. The one exception, a New York man, was involuntarily contained until his symptoms passed. Federal quarantine law now includes SARS among its disease guidelines.

Mr. Gostin was the author of the draconian Emergency State Health Powers Act, which has been adopted (fortunately in softened form) by 22 states. According to Gostin, “The need for effective state compulsory power is beyond doubt. But that’s not a given in our country, which is now so tied to the rhetoric of individual rights. It seems we’ve lost the tradition of the common good.”3

Kill the Carrier

In China, a country where the “rhetoric of individual rights” is lacking, the government has announced it would kill SARS carriers who refused quarantine.4 Malaysian officials threatened imprisonment.5 In Hong Kong, officials motivated by the “tradition of common good” have suggested that “families of SARS patients be rounded up, and sent to quarantine camps.”6 In Nanjing, China, 10,000 have been quarantined, and in Beijing 16,000 as of May 6, 2003.7

Official Disease Definition

SARS means “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.” This wide-open definition encompasses many diseases common in the affected regions. Symptoms range from flu-like to pneumonia.8 Dr. Frank Plummer, director of the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada stated, “Of course, the case definition of SARS is a little loose.”9

The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined SARS in the following way: a) a person presenting after 1 November 2002 with history of high fever (greater than 100.4° F) and cough or breathing difficulty; or b) a person who was not autopsied but with acute respiratory disease and who has been in close contact within 10 days of someone who had SARS.10

This definition alone should give thoughtful readers cause to question the SARS phenomenon. Firstly, is a temperature of 1.8 degrees F over normal really a “high fever”? The CDC used “mild fever” in their case definition. Secondly, should WHO install a historical bias before the history of SARS is even written? WHO has made it impossible to place the discovery of SARS before November 2002, or even think of it as preceding that date, thus guaranteeing its status as an “emerging epidemic.”

In the US, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) defines SARS differently: a) Illness of unknown aetiology [cause not already ascertained] and onset after February 1, 2003, AND, b) Temperature over 100.5 degrees F, AND, c) respiratory illness, AND, d) Recent contact with a SARS patient or travel to epidemic region.

This defines the new epidemic as an arrival from southeast Asia, China or Toronto. This definition obviates any need to test for the SARS virus in patients who contracted pneumonia before February 2003, AND, who had not traveled to the Orient or met such a traveler. With this definition, the diagnosis of any SARS-like case, determined previously to be of non-viral origin, would be secured from contradictions. The usual one-disease, one-cause theme for epidemics is thereby maintained.

SARS Virology

Due to the wide-ranging definition, the only unique quality of SARS is the associated virus. But association is not enough and a single association is not a rigorous, convincing proof.

On April 16, 2003, WHO announced that SARS virus, a member of the coronavirus family, was definitely causative for the disease. The report referred to a study carried out by a team led by Dr. Albert Osterhaus, the director of virology at Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam. Media reports used the terms “unequivocal,” “definite,” and “beyond a doubt” to describe the work at Erasmus.

Osterhaus reported that his team infected one group of monkeys with SARS virus, a second group with the metapneumonvirus (also found in some SARS patients), and a third group with SARS virus and then the metapneumovirus. The monkeys infected with the metapneumonvirus alone developed mild symptoms, compared to the “full-blown disease” seen in the first group. The third group “did not develop a more serious version of SARS.” From this Osterhaus concluded, “the coronavirus alone is capable of causing the typical symptoms…”11

Virology in Doubt

Press releases about the “definitive” Erasmus study, distributed by AP, WHO, Nature Magazine and others, cannot be taken seriously without further details. Here are a few unanswered questions:

a) Since laboratory virus stocks are poisoned with antibiotics, or are derived by a process that utilizes poisons, then which poisons were present in Erasmus University virus stocks?

b) Were the toxicities of virus stocks included in the assessment of the study results?

c) How was the virus stock obtained?

d) Was a comprehensive test for other viruses performed on the experimental stock?

e) Are the laboratory-produced viruses chimeric viruses, that is, synthetic viruses?

f) What quantity of virus medium was applied to each monkey; that is, what multiple of real-world conditions?

g) What concentration of viruses were applied; that is, what multiple of real-world conditions?

h) How was the medium applied; would the application method be possible in real-world conditions?

i) Which chemicals were added to the medium in addition to antibiotics? Do these interact or promote the toxicity of other chemicals in the virus stock?

j) How many monkeys were in each group? Were there enough for a valid assessment?

k) What was the condition of each monkey prior, during and at the conclusion of the experiment? Monkeys have been regarded as poor experimental subjects because of their intelligent sensitivity, and maltreatment received from handlers and distributors. Stress alone, incurred by the monkeys due to cruelty, cage conditions and poor nutrition, can cause illness or susceptibility.

l) Was the virus used in the experiment actually “isolated”? The word, when used by virologists, means something entirely different from the meaning assumed by non-virologists (including doctors), and this word serves as the basis for misinformation regarding virus proof. The details of “isolation of the virus” need to be explained.

m) Were any of the experimental animals, or tests, rerun after unexpected results occurred? What were the circumstances?

At this writing, one further detail of the Erasmus study has been obtained, “Osterhaus and colleagues completed the final ones [Koch Postulates] when they infected two macaque monkeys with the virus from a SARS patient and isolated it from the animals.”12

So, the “definite” proof is based on two monkeys injected with the supposed SARS virus. What happened to independent confirmation, randomized controls, and probability analysis that determine the possibility that a test on two monkeys is valid? The hyped language, the major institutions and funding sources involved, juxtaposed against the meager number of monkeys in the experiment, point to extreme bias in the search for a microbial demon. I look forward to more details of the Erasmus study.

As of late May, tests for the virus in Toronto “failed to spot a targeted virus in 30% to 50% of infected patients.”13 This was attributed to inaccurate testing methods, not the absence of the virus. Nevertheless, no matter how often SARS virus is found, the virus is present only in trace amounts and not in quantities large enough to cause disease, leaving infection and pathology in doubt.14

Convenient Scapegoats

In spite of the nagging inconsistencies in the viral theory for SARS, scientists and the press have gone one step further with reports that SARS originated in a live meat market in China’s Guangdong province in November, 2002. Researchers in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, China found a virus that is “almost identical” to the human SARS coronavirus in six masked palm civets (cat-sized animals) and a raccoon dog sold in these open air markets,15 a convenient discovery that will bring official pressure on China’s traditional farmers and food-sellers, now in competition with new, “sanitary” western-style supermarkets.

Viral demons are fair game for the media. Dramatic realities merge with scenes from class B sci-fi movies, as doctors and nurses scream through hospital wards, airports are closed and police round up infected carriers. In China, such dreadful acts are all too real. In addition to the proposed human executions, millions of cats, dogs, farm animals and wildlife may be slaughtered to stop the deadly viral plague. Precedent is found in Britain’s Mad Cow and Hoof and Mouth epidemics, and supposed viral epidemics in Malaysia and Taiwan during 1997-1998. In this scenario, medical workers come to the rescue like soldiers, heroically primed to save lives with deadly force.

The pharmaceutical companies, of course, are playing a leading role. Roche, “the global leader in the $22-billion-a-year clinical-diagnostics market” is developing a test that should be able to “flag SARS in the first days of an infection, possibly even when the virus isn’t causing symptoms.” This will allow officials “to identify superspreaders (patients whose SARS infections are highly transmissible) before they become superspreaders,” says a Roche executive.16 As all diagnostic tests generate false positives, anyone suffering from a fever and a cough risks being branded as a modern Typhoid Mary should he or she submit to such a procedure.

SARS Critics

In spite of the fearful headlines, the SARS paradigm has met widespread criticism.

An insider, Dr. Frank Plummer, spilled the beans: “The director… told The Scientist yesterday (April 10) that the new coronavirus implicated as the cause of the disease is certainly around in the environment but is unlikely to be the causative agent. Frank Plummer is director of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.”17

Plummer stated, “we are finding some of the best-characterized [SARS disease] cases are negative [for the SARS virus]. So it’s puzzling. As is the fact the amounts of virus we are finding, when we find it, are very small–only detectable by very sensitive PCR.

“That’s what the majority of labs [nasopharyngeal swabs] around the world are testing, it’s where you find most respiratory viruses. It’s strange [that there’s so little virus there] because it seems to be transmitted by close contact.”

After the announcement of the Erasmus study, Plummer stated, “Once you conclude that this coronavirus is the sole cause of SARS then you move into a different phase and you move to test only for it. . . to the exclusion of other things. And I think. . . at least based on what we’re seeing in Canada. . . it’s a little early to do that. We are in many ways behaving as if this is the cause.”18

According to a CBC news report, “No classic respiratory or bacterial respiratory pathogen was consistently identified. Scientists have not definitively shown the new coronavirus causes SARS. To do that, they need to see the virus in infected lung samples from all patients and show the virus causes SARS in an animal model.”19 Implicit in this statement is the fact that SARS symptoms are not unique to the disease, or that tests were finding other (non-SARS) pathogens in the victims, or tests were not consistently performed for other pathogens.

Jon Rappoport, an independent journalist who has written for CBS Healthwatch, writes, “This [SARS] insanity is multiplied beyond all sense when you consider that, in Canada, they are now finding the [SARS] coronavirus in ZERO PERCENT of diagnosed SARS cases.”20

Nicholas Regush, veteran journalist of ABC News, admits no contact with Rappoport, yet writes, “We’re in very deep trouble… the COMING OF SARS. Having been a member of the reporting classes for many years, I can’t say that I’m surprised. More like disappointed. Disgusted. Outraged.”21

Fintan Dunne, who edits a website entitled www.SickOfDoctors.com, is also critical: “More of the hype machine and further global economic damage, over a spurious syndrome which is a drop in the disease ocean.”22

Dr. Donald Low, one of Canada’s leading infectious disease experts and a key member of the SARS containment team, described WHO’s policies for Toronto as “a bunch of bullshit” and “inappropriate.”23

According to Peter Duesberg, the well-known microbiologist at the University of California at Berkeley, the list of badly diagnosed, yet strongly hyped epidemics is lengthy: Ebola, Hepatitis C, AIDS, SMON, and others.24 According to the German virologist Stefan Lanka, the list of pseudo-epidemics is nearly endless.25

Toxicology

The orthodox SARS paradigm completely omits and avoids toxicology for good reason: SARS disease symptoms are identical to pesticide and air pollution disease symptoms. And these poisons correlate in time and place with SARS epidemics.

Only virology holds SARS together, and by including toxicology, the virus theory of SARS can be entirely rebutted.

Airline Pesticides

As the SARS syndrome “appears to be spreading via air travel, the CDC advised travelers to postpone any non-essential travel to affected areas, which include China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, according to WHO.”26

What most travelers don’t realize is that airlines routinely apply pesticides to airplanes, especially those on Asian routes. Airlines call their pesticide application “disinsection.” A US Department of Transportation memo describes two methods of application: “Either spray the aircraft cabin, with an aerosolized insecticide, while passengers are on board or treat the aircraft’s interior surfaces with a residual insecticide.” 27

On August 2, 2001, CNN reported on a lawsuit filed by United Airlines stewardesses for damages caused by pesticides sprayed in United Airlines planes on Australian and New Zealand routes.28 No further mention of the lawsuit has appeared in the press.

However, on March 17, 2003, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) announced: “An airline flight to the tropics may involve greater health risks. . . pesticides are routinely sprayed in aircraft cabins by US airlines, sometimes over the heads of passengers during flight.”29

Details on airline pesticide protocols for southeast Asian airline flights emerge from the US Department of Transportation memo: “Guam requires disinsection, but permits the residual method, of all flights from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Thailand, Philippines, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands and, during certain months, of flights from Taiwan, Korea and Japan.”30

The pesticides used in airlines are synthetic pyrethrin pesticides (pyrethroids), which in some countries have been banned from agricultural use.31 SARS symptoms are nearly identical to those of pyrethrin pesticides, as shown in the table on Page 19.

There are other chemical risks found in aircraft. Diana Fairechild, who worked decades for the airline industry and spent years litigating against that industry over issues related to pesticide protocols, describes the liabilities of airline travel on her website.46

Airport Pollution

Airports are notoriously air polluted. A single airliner at take-off emits tremendous volumes of pollutants.47 JFK airport in New York City, has its own oil refinery on the airport grounds, nearly two football fields in area. How common is that practice? Oil refinery emissions correlate exceedingly well with recent so-called viral disease epidemics. The West Nile virus epidemic was first noticed in the neighborhoods beneath one of the busiest take-off lanes in the US, La Guardia Airport, New York City.48

Industrial Emissions

The greatest SARS epidemic region in the world is the Guangdong province of China. That heavily populated province also vies for position as the most highly polluted region on earth, due to the presence of oil refineries, metal smelters and other chemical industries in a country with lower environmental standards.

Writing for The Atlantic Monthly, Mark Hertsgaard describes Guangdong province as “A fiendish laboratory experiment that was mushrooming beyond control. . . . Shanxi, a day’s journey west of Beijing. . . the land. . . scalped, the water poisoned, the air made toxic and dark. . . . At least five of the cities with the worst air pollution in the world are in China. Sixty to 90 percent of the rainfall in Guangdong. . . is acid rain. . . people’s lungs and nervous systems are bombarded by an extraordinary volume and variety of deadly poisons. One of every four deaths in China is caused by lung disease.”49 Hertsgaard found that total suspended particulates (an air pollution index) can be, in some cities in China, 12 times higher than in New York City. Obviously, non-viral forms of SARS exist in Guangdong. SARS is far from atypical.

Deforestation by fire can also cause the respiratory problems associated with SARS. Huge fires are set or occur accidentally in Singapore, Malaysia and China. Major fires ravaged southeast Asia in September 2002, just two months before officials announced the SARS epidemic.50

Tan Ee Lyn (Reuters) describes the air environment in Hong Kong and southern China, the major SARS epicenters: “[Title:] CHINA: September 9, 2002, Thick smog shrouds Hong Kong, health warning issued. [Text:]Hong Kong–Thick smog blanketed Hong Kong last week, a clear sign that the territory and southern China are still a long way from cleaning up their bad air. The government urged people with respiratory problems to avoid heavily congested traffic areas and cut back on outdoor physical activity.”

Toxicology = Virology

Even if a perfect (according to the rules of virology) laboratory proof for virus causation existed, such proofs still involve high use of artifice, far from the reality of everyday life. Even if SARS virology could have isolated and properly identified a real virus, questions still remain. A SARS virus may be a natural endogenous virus (from within) serving a normal adaptive function. It might not be the infectious, exogenous virus (from without) as described by media hype.

Not well known, but well established, is the fact that virus-like genetic material (RNA) is often expressed from poisoned cellular tissue as an adaptive and defensive response to poisoning.51 Expressing virus-like genes is part of the cellular “SOS response” of cells engaged in accelerated genetic recombination.52 The so-called SARS virus can be interpreted as such a genetic expression occurring in humans, as well as the exotic animals, palm civet cats and raccoon dogs sold in Guangdong live animal markets and recently found positive for SARS.

Virus Is Us

The cutting-edge biochemist, Howard Urnovitz, views SARS virus as human genes rearranged by pollution stress: “I do not see a virus.  I see a unique and complete rearrangement of genomic elements. For example, when I look at what is believed to be the gene sequence coding for the spike protein of this coronavirus, I see a complicated gene rearrangement of a region of human chromosome. As I did in our studies of Gulf War Syndrome, when I see gene rearrangements like this, I immediately search for an associated catastrophic environmental event that could have caused such genomic rearrangement.”53 (Emphasis added.)

SARS epidemics correspond strongly with such “catastrophic environmental events.”

SARS Redefined

SARS is not a unique disease, since its symptoms coincide with pyrethrin poisoning and air pollution diseases.

Orthodox science damns itself by beginning with a virus hypothesis when toxicological evidence is plentiful. Orthodox journalism promotes the discovery of the “SARS virus” with little criticism of the virology and a deafening silence regarding toxicology.

Apparently the virus paradigm is a necessary cover for industrial pollution. WHO’s promotion of the virus disease paradigm is a tremendous boon for industry, which requires free disposal of industrial wastes into the lungs. . . correction. . . the atmosphere.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that SARS is the direct result of regional industrial pollution, airport pollution, with an optional coup de grace from pyrethroid pesticides applied directly upon the passengers or as a residue vapor. Essentially, airlines are enclosed, fabric-filled containers where air is circulated several times before it is vented to the outside. They are not the kind of chamber that environmentalists would prefer to enter following “disinsection.” SARS, like St. Louis virus (SLE), West Nile Virus (WNV) and non-toxicological asthma definitions guarantee spin control for emerging epidemics.

Neenyah Ostrom discusses the general relationship between pollution in China and the SARS virus– and the relation between poisoning and cellular RNA: “But Guangdong and Hong Kong share another distinction: They are in perhaps the most polluted area on the planet. Should we be asking questions like, what new types of pollutants have been introduced into this gene-swapping microenvironment? So, the question becomes: Is pollution a causative agent in SARS?”

If SARS disease is another semantic flag for industrial pollution, then SARS functions by punishing the economy of polluting regions without specifically placing blame on powerful industries. Military groups have long employed such a method–where the group is punished to correct individual behavior. Within industry, SARS will bring about a reassessment of economic priorities (industrial need versus human worth) without the complications of public blame games.

Sidebars


West Nile Virus

West Nile Virus (WNV) arrived in New York City in 1999 and soon grew into an “epidemic” characterized by a sea of contradictions.54 Medical press agencies proclaimed the “first arrival of the West Nile virus to the Western Hemisphere”55 but a more accurate description of the situation would be the “first testing of the West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphere.”

Mayor Giuliani personally announced the epidemic. He also announced the immediate commencement of a six-week pesticide spray campaign over the city, dispensed by helicopters. Meanwhile, the TV and newspaper headlines chanted, “The Deadly Virus.” The disease was at first attributed to the St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLE) but a few weeks later blame shifted to West Nile virus.

The United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) issued a press release one year later “confirming” the pathological effect of WNV on crows. This was hyped and widely distributed. Having read many other virological studies, I found the USGS results incredibly odd. The crows were injected intramuscularly with a virus extract and a few days later all met death. The filter used to separate the virus from tissue extract was nearly six times the diameter of the virus.56 Nearly all non-injected crows in the same cage also died. The success of the experiment was too convincing to be true, especially for a study that did not employ the common, harsh, intracranial injection method. The study outcome was also odd because WNV had been considered a mild virus and not especially dangerous to birds. The USGS laboratory ignored my repeated inquiries for the published details. After going through another scientist, who contacted the USGS, I received an emailed response from the USGS indicating low confidence for their study. The agency indicated their study would not be published or discussed and they expressed an intention to perform a better experiment in the future. I doubt they would want to take a chance on another such experiment.

SLE and WNV epidemics occur annually in air-polluted petrochemical regions (such as eastern New Jersey and St. Louis) during the warm spring and summer months, with an apex in July and August. The incidence correlates daily with air pollution brought to ground level by warm air and loss of convection efficiency for exhaust sources.  SLE epidemics have a long history in the US (in petrochemical regions) and these epidemics don’t spread infectiously to other regions. The two great epicenters for WNV/SLE disease are the two great petrochemical industrial regions in the US–southern Louisiana and New Jersey.

During the summers of 1999 and 2000, air pollution levels reached record levels, correlating with the incidence of “West Nile virus” cases, both human and avian. The gasoline additive MTBE represents perhaps the greatest production volume for any industrial poison in the US, yet it has received little publicity. The public became aware of its dangers only when the EPA suggested that MTBE be phased out on July 27,1999. That date also represents the apex of the West Nile virus avian epidemic for 1999.63

Like so many widely dispensed industrial poisons, the physiological effects of MTBE have only become known through usage on the public. However, Dr. Peter Joseph correlated MTBE with neurological disease in his 1997 study, “Changes in Disease Rates Following the Introduction of Oxygenated Fuels.” Neurological symptoms also characterize West Nile virus disease. Avian mortality further distinguishes this “viral” disease. Yet, avian mortality is an early warning system for human air pollution disease, as evidenced by the traditional air assay test, the “miners’ canary.”


Legionnaires’ Disease

Another acute respiratory disease is Legionnaires’ disease, also characterized by sloppy science. The disease was claimed causative for 182 casualties and 29 deaths within a few days in 1976 at the bicentennial celebration of the American Legion at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia.

After several months of study, CDC scientists announced the discovery of Legionella bacteriumas as the cause for Legionnaires’ disease. Virologists Peter Duesberg and Brian Ellison relate the story.57 “One month before the CDC isolated the bacterium, a US House of Representatives Investigative Committee held hearings excoriating the CDC for not having looked for toxic chemicals as a possible cause of the 1976 epidemic. Chairman John Murphy of New York sharply attacked the investigation because ‘The CDC, for example, did not have a toxicologist present in their initial team of investigators sent to deal with the epidemic. No apparent precautions were taken to deal with the possibility, however remote at the time, that something else might have been the cause.’”

According to Duesberg, “The evidence indicates Legionella is actually quite harmless. Since 1976, CDC and public health investigators have found the bacteria all over the country, in water cooling towers, condensers, shower heads, faucets, humidifiers, whirlpools, swimming pools and even hot-water tanks, assorted plumbing, mud, and lakes. The bacterium is so universal that between 20 percent and 30 percent of the American population has already been infected, yet virtually no one ever develops Legionnaires’ disease symptoms.” Calling the organism Aguanella–indicating it is simply water-borne–wouldn’t serve the CDC’s purpose. Quite by chance, the CDC’s interpretation happens to protect the chemical industry, which sells poisonous deodorants, pesticides, antibiotics, carpets, paints, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and beverages to hotels–and airlines.


Two SARS Disease Paradigms:
Comparison of Symptoms
Symptom As SARS Virus32-35 As Airline Pesticide Poisoning
(mostly Pyrethrin formulations)36-45
Coughing Yes Yes
Malaise Yes Yes
Fever Yes Yes
Headaches Yes Yes
Nausea Yes Yes
Vomiting Yes Yes
Rash Yes Yes
Respiratory distress Yes Yes
Respiratory failure Yes Yes
Neurological dysfunction Yes Yes
Cardiac dysfunction Yes Yes
Irritability Yes Yes
Diarrhea Yes Yes
Pneumonia Yes Yes
Lung damage (as measles symptoms, see below) Yes Yes
Dyspnoea (breathing difficulty related to hypoxemia) Yes Yes
Hypoxemia (low oxygen level) Yes Yes
Proteinaceous pulmonary edema Yes Yes
Leukocyte inhibition Yes Yes
Increases sodium ion permeability in tissue Not Listed Yes
Affects nasal, windpipe and lung surfaces Yes Yes
Shock Not Listed Yes
Seizures Not listed Yes
Salivation Yes Yes
Neurological damage Yes Yes
Muscular stiffness Yes Not listed
Like measles (Syncytial lung) Yes Yes*
Like flu Yes Yes
Like common cold Yes Yes
Like mumps Yes Yes*

*In terms of listed symptoms


SARS – Other Theories

Len Horowitz, PhD, author of Emerging Viruses: SARS is simply the flu, which kills 36,000 people annually in the US. Death comes to those whose immunity has been compromised by drugs and vaccines.58 The media has created great fear among the public by grossly overstating mortality rates and exaggerating the danger to healthy individuals.

Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, president of the London-based Institute of Science in Society: SARS is a highly infectious disease caused by a new bacterium of the Chlamydia family that was created accidentally through genetic engineering. Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of genetic engineering. The artificial constructs created by genetic engineering are designed to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes, creating the possibility of new, highly virulent micro-organisms.59

Marshall Smith, Editor, BroJon GazetteThe SARS virus, like all flu viruses, is a variant caused by the rural Chinese custom of raising flocks of geese side-by-side with herds of swine. If a pig is ill with a porcine flu and then eats droppings from an avian-virus-infected goose, the result is a new cross-species flu virus with the outer lining of a pig and the inner viral core of a goose. Whether or not this theory is correct, Smith’s advice is sound: Do not suppress a fever. Fever is the body’s way of preventing the invading virus from reproducing and spreading massively throughout the body. Unfortunately, most cold and flu medications reduce fever, setting the stage for massive viral proliferation. Unfortunately, the current definition of SARS may cause many people to take drugs to suppress fever, in order to avoid quarantine.

Linda Saif, professor of food animal health at Ohio State University: Coronavirus causes cough and pneumonia, so-called shipping fever, in animals packed together in cattle cars. The stresses of air travel–large numbers of people together in small spaces, being away from home, being close to other strangers, moving across time zones, rushing to catch flights–are conditions that make the coronavirus dangerous to humans as well.60 (Saif does not explain why airline travel, which has been a fact of life for millions of people for the last 40 years, has not caused SARS until recently.)

Richard Fisher, senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington-based think tank: “. . . there are compelling reasons. . . to at least ask whether there might be any linkage between SARS and China’s biological-warfare efforts.”61

Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University: The SARS virus comes from outer space, hitched a ride on a comet and then drifted down to earth.62


References:

  1. Washington Post, May 24, 2003
  2. AP, May 15, 2003. “SARS has caused more damage to the global airline industry than the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq combined, the world’s airline association said Thursday.”
  3. NY Times 5/5/03
  4. “China has threatened to execute or jail for life anyone who breaks SARS quarantine orders and spreads the deadly virus intentionally.” Beijing (Reuters), May 15, 2003
  5. “Malaysia ordered a quarantine for 203 citizens, mostly low waged earners, who had visited a SARS-infected produce market in Singapore and warned that it would imprison those who would break the orders.” www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/24sars1.htm
  6. “Devastating Epidemic In Hong Kong”, CBS NEWS, 4/15/03, www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/15/eveningnews/main549528.shtml
  7. “10,000 quarantined in Nanjing, China”, CBC News, www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/06/sars_china030506
  8. Maggie Fox, “Scientists Identify Virus Behind Deadly SARS”, Reuters 4/10/2003
  9. Robert Walgate, “Cause of SARS disputed. Head of Canadian lab not convinced that coronavirus causes SARS,” www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030411/04
  10. W.H.O. case definitions for SARS: www.who.int/csr/sars/casedefinition/en
  11. “Rotterdam-led scientists confirm virus as cause of SARS”, Bio Aspects Newsletter, Vol 6, April 24, 2003, www.geneyous.nl/docs/BioASPects20030424.html#article-marktontwikkeling1
  12. “Tests Confirm Coronavirus Is Sars Source”, Patricia Reaney, May 15, 2003, NIH/Reuters, MedlinePlus
  13. Fortune Magazine, 5/26/03
  14. www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030411/04
  15. Washington Times, February 24, 2003
  16. Fortune Magazine, May 25, 2003
  17. Walgate 4/11/03, Ibid
  18. “Containment Controversy”, Global Sunday, 4/25/03, an interview by Troy Reeb with Dr. Frank Plummer, Global Sunday, www.canada.com/national/globalsunday
  19. “Scientists make small steps in identifying cause of SARS”, CBC NEWS, April 10, 2003, www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/10/sars_sci030410
  20. Jon Rappoport, “More SARS Madness”, 5/52003, www.nomorefakenews.com
  21. Nicholas Regush, www.redflagsweekly.com
  22. Fintan Dunne, www.sarstravel.com
  23. Helen Branswell,  “Irate officials blast SARS warning”, Canadian Press, April 21, 2003 www.thestar.com
  24. Peter Duesberg, and Bryan Ellison, Inventing The AIDS Virus, 1996, p3-129
  25. Stefan Lanka’s work may be found on www.virusmyth.com
  26. Neenyah Ostrom, “Why is SARS Such a Mystery? Virus, Bacteria, Fungus, Parasite – Why Can’t Researchers ID the Bug?”, March 20, 2003, www.chronicillnet.org
  27. Aviation Policy, U.S. Dept. of Trans., http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/safety/disin.htm
  28. “United Sued Over Pesticide In Planes”, August 2, 2001, CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) — Flight attendants are being sickened by exposure to pesticides that are sprayed on airplanes serving Australia and New Zealand, a lawsuit filed against United Airlines claims,” www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/02/unitedairlines.pesticides.ap/index.html
  29. “Airline Passengers Are Sprayed for Bugs”, March 17, 2003: “An airline flight to the tropics may involve greater health risks… pesticides are routinely sprayed in aircraft cabins by U.S. airlines sometimes over the heads of passengers during flight.” PANNA mentions Asian routes as specifically at risk for this procedure.
  30. “Aviation Policy”, U.S. Dept. of Trans., http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/safety/
  31. Cynthia Olsen, “A Safe Alternative Treatment for Head Lice”, Alive Magazine, October 2000, “Pyrethrins have been banned from agricultural use as a pesticide.”
  32. CDC Case Definition for SARS (March 22, 2003): Measured temperature > 100.5F; cough; hypoxia; shortness of breath; pneumonia; acute respiratory distress.
  33. Gavin Joynt and Charles Gomersall, “Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)”,
  34. Tamer Fouad, M.D., SARS Symptoms: “headache, muscular stiffness, loss of appetite, malaise, confusion, rash, and diarrhea. Early laboratory findings include low platelet and white blood cell counts. In some cases, those symptoms are followed by pneumonia in both lungs, sometimes requiring use of a respirator.” The Doctor’s Lounge.NET. http://thedoctorslounge.net/medlounge/articles/sars
  35. Maggie Fox, April 10, 2003 (Ibid). Early SARS symptoms: like flu, measles, mumps.
  36. Olsen, 2000, Ibid. Symptoms listed for permethrin (a type of synthetic pyrethrin used on airlines): “Side effects include vomiting, respiratory failure, pneumonia and asthma.”
  37. Becky Riley, “Flyers Beware: Pesticide Use on International and U.S. Domestic Aircraft and Flights”, Northwest Coaltion Against Pesticides (NCAMP), 1998, “… “in-flight spraying, Airosol Aircraft Insecticide, says that acute health hazards of exposure to the product include dizziness, skin irritation, and frostbite, and that overexposure due to inhalation may cause temporary central nervous system effects: dizziness, headache, confusion, stupor with the exclusion of oxygen and with grossly excessive overexposure. Additional warnings state that individuals with preexisting diseases of the cardiovascular system may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures, and to heart irregularities (Airosol Company, 1992).”
  38. Ibid, “Two other U.S.-registered permethrin-containing products with labeled aircraft uses, but theoretically not for use in passenger cabins (though this is far from clear from reading the product labels), are Dragnet FT Termiticide/Insecticide and Flea Insecticide. According to information provided by the FMC Corporation, manufacturer of the above products, symptoms of overexposure to both of the products include hypersensitivity to touch and sound, tremors, and convulsions. Overexposure of animals via inhalation has also produced symptoms such as squinting eyes, irregular and rattling breathing, and ataxia (loss of muscular coordination). Inhalation of stoddard solvent vapors [present in both of the above products] may cause dizziness, disturbances in vision, drowsiness, respiratory irritation, and eye and skin and mucous membrane irritation (FMC, 1998; FMC, 1993).
  39. Ibid. Airline pesticides: “Organophosphates are efficiently absorbed by inhalation, ingestion, and skin penetration. Symptoms of acute exposure to organophosphates include: headache, nausea, dizziness and anxiety, followed by muscle twitching, weakness, tremor, incoordination, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, tightness in the chest, and coughing. Severe organophosphate poisonings can lead to incontinence, paralysis, unconsciousness, convulsions, and life-threatening respiratory failure (US EPA, 1989).”
  40. Ibid. “Bendicarb: Highly toxic carbamate nerve poison (US EPA, 1989). Causes eye irritation. Exposure (poisoning) symptoms include tightness in chest, sweating, stomach pains, vomiting, and diarrhea (US EPA, 1979).”
  41. Ibid. Piperonyl butoxide (used on aircraft): “Classified by EPA as a possible human carcinogen (US EPA, 1998-3). In animal tests, causes liver tumors and lung damage, hemorrhages, and anemia (Takahashi, 1994).”
  42. “MSDS: Permethrin,” Universal Crop Protection Alliance LLC, “…moderate eye and skin irritation… Eye:  There may be moderate stinging, tearing and redness… mild skin irritation… Disturbances in vision, drowsiness, respiratory irritation… High oral doses can result in damage to the liver and kidneys… Long term feeding studies in animals resulted in increased liver and kidney weights, induction of the liver microsomal drug metabolizing enzyme system, and histopathological changes in the lungs and liver.”
  43. Shirley A. Briggs and Rachel Carson Council, Inc., “Excerpts From Basic Guide To Pesticides”, Pyrethroid symptoms: “tremors; exaggerated startle response; hyperthermia [fever]”
  44. Lance C. Villers, MA, NREMTP, “Managing organophosphate exposures”, Texas Dept. of Health, EMS Management, OP Symptoms: “respiratory depression, bronchospasm, bronchial secretions, pulmonary edema, muscular weakness, resulting in hypoxemia.” www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems/MJCEPesticideExp.htm
  45. INCHEM, “Pyrethrin”, Symptoms: “cough, wheeze, dyspnoea, bronchospasm or pulmonary oedema.”, Chemical Safety Information From Intergovernmental Organizations. www.inchem.org
  46. Diana Fairechild, Flyana.com
  47. “Airports create smog; a single 747 arriving and departing… produces as much smog as a car driven more that 5,600 miles, and as much NOx as a car driven almost 26,500 miles (source: Natural Resources Defense Council).” Queens College School of Earth and Environmental Science www.qc.edu/EES/ENSCI111/Air/air.html
  48. Jim West, “The Dangers of MTBE-Gasoline Additive: Its Connection to the West Nile Virus”, Townsend Letter For Doctors And Patients, July 2002, v228, p64-76.
  49. Mark Hertzgaard, “Our Real China Problem”, The Atlantic Monthly, November 1997.
  50. “South East Asia: Regular Fire and Weather Update”, March 2003.Sources: NASA/EO and OSEI/NOAA. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/summit-2003/introduction.htm
  51. Ralph Scobey, M.D., “Is Human Poliomyelitis Caused By An Exogenous
    Virus?”, Archive Of Pediatrics (April/May,1954) v71, p111. From Jim West’s
    analysis of Scobey, www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm
  52. Mark Ptashne, A Genetic Switch (1992), p62. Cell Press and Blackwell Scientific Publications, 50 Church St., Cambridge, MA 02138
  53. “Dr. Urnovitz rejects the theory of a coronavirus as being the cause of SARS”, May 14, 2003. www.chronixbiomedical.com/Research/press_release3.html
  54. Jim West, “The Epidemiology Of Air Pollution”, www.geocities.com/noxot
  55. Eric Ammerman , Senior Public Health Sanitarian, Monroe County Department of Health. “Experts agree that WNV most likely arrived in the Western Hemisphere as some ‘accidental tourist’ aboard a ship or in an airplane.”
  56. David Crowe, “West Nile Virus — Does It Exist?”, 2001 www.mercola.com/2001/oct/3west_nile_virus.htm
  57. Peter Duesberg, 1996 ( Ibid), p56
  58. http://www.tetrahedron.org
  59. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BioTerrorismAndSARS.php
  60. Reuters, May 20, 2003
  61. Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2003
  62. Ibid.
  63. “A panel appointed by the EPA is set to report on Tuesday that use of the much-debated ingredient M.T.B.E. . . should be ‘reduced substantially’. .. ” The New York Times, July 27, 1999.

 

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2003.

 

Connect with Weston A. Price Foundation

Cover image credit: SD-Pictures




Report Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Made Public After CDC, HHS Tried to Block It

Report Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Made Public After CDC, HHS Tried to Block It
The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday Released a Draft Report Linking Prenatal and Childhood Fluoride Exposure to Reduced IQ in Children, After Public Health Officials Tried for Almost a Year to Block Its Publication.

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., The Defender
March 16, 2023

 

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initially blocked the NTP from releasing the report, according to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

But a court order stemming from a lawsuit filed by Food and Water Watch against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forced the report’s release this week.

The NTP, an interagency program run by HHS that researches and reports on environmental toxins, conducted a six-year systematic review to assess scientific studies on fluoride exposure and potential neurodevelopmental and cognitive health effects in humans.

The report, containing a monograph and a meta-analysis, went through two rounds of peer review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Comments from reviewers and HHS and NTP’s responses also were included in the report released Wednesday.

According to its website, the NTP “removed the hazardous classification of fluoride” in response to comments in the peer-review process. Yet, the report states:

“Our meta-analysis confirms results of previous meta-analyses and extends them by including newer, more precise studies with individual-level exposure measures.

“The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ …

“The results were robust to stratifications by risk of bias, gender, age group, outcome assessment, study location, exposure timing, and exposure type (including both drinking water and urinary fluoride).”

“These findings fly in the face of the empty, unscientific claims U.S. health officials have propagated for years, namely that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief litigation counsel. “It’s past time to eliminate this neurotoxin from our water supply.”

The controversial report will play a key role in determining the outcome of a lawsuit brought in 2017 by several nonprofits against the EPA to end fluoridation of drinking water, plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Connett told The Defender.

“We had to fight hard to have this report even made public,” Connett said. “They [CDC and HHS] buried this. If they had gotten their way, this report would have never even seen the light of day,” Connett said.

Since the trial began in 2020, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has been waiting for the NTP to complete a systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity before ruling on the case.

Groups like the American Dental Association publicly pressured the NTP to “exclude any neurotoxin claims” from the reports.

Connett said during the trial, the EPA repeatedly claimed that the plaintiffs’ allegations about toxicity could not be verified because there was no “systematic review.”

The documents released Wednesday fill that gap.

Connett said:

“So now what do we have? We have a systematic review by one of the pioneering, leading, most authoritative research groups on toxicology in the world.

“They just completed a systematic review that took them six years to complete, so if that’s not enough to demonstrate a hazard under the toxic substances control act, then how would any citizen group ever be able to meet the standard?”

The findings: fluoride and lowered IQ in children

According to the NTP report:

“The current bodies of experimental animal studies and human mechanistic evidence do not provide clarity on the association between fluoride exposure and cognitive or neurodevelopmental human health effects.”

Yet, the report’s summary contradicts this statement by summarizing the evidence informing this conclusion, stating that nearly all studies examined for this literature review found evidence of cognitive or developmental issues associated with fluoride.

According to the report, 8 of the 9 “high-quality studies examining cognitive or neurodevelopmental outcomes reported associations with fluoride exposure.”

Of the 19 high-quality studies assessing the association between fluoride and IQ in children, 18 reported an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. Forty-six of the 53 low-quality studies also found evidence of that association.

The meta-analysis also states:

“The body of evidence from studies on adults is also limited and provides low confidence that fluoride exposure is associated with adverse effects on adult cognition. There is, however, a large body of evidence on IQ effects in children.”

The monograph and meta-analysis found that fluoride exposure at levels equivalent to 1.5 mg/L is associated with lower IQ in children. The abstract concludes:

“This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure (e.g., represented by populations whose total fluoride exposure approximates or exceeds the World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride) is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”

Levels of fluoride found in drinking water in the U.S. are typically 0.7 mg/L, which is lower than the 1.5 mg/L levels found to be neurotoxic by the reports.

On that basis, HHS’ review of the reports recommended the NTP revise its assessment such that, “all conclusory statements in this document should be explicit that any findings from the included studies only apply to water fluoride concentrations above 1.5 mg/L.”

The NTP responded:

“We do not agree with this comment. Our assessment considers fluoride exposures from all sources, not just water.

As discussed in the pre-publication 2022 NTP Monograph, because fluoride is also found in certain foods, dental products, some pharmaceuticals, and other sources, individual behaviors are likely an important determinant of actual exposures.”

Rick North, former CEO of the American Cancer Society’s Oregon division and Fluoride Action Network board member told The Defender that “people consume large amounts of fluoride through tea and other drinks and processed foods made with fluoridated water, not to mention pesticide ingestion and fluoride from air pollution.”

He also said that people’s fluoride exposure can depend on how much water they drink.

“Think about it,” North said. “Your level of risk depends upon, incredibly, how thirsty you are. That’s how absurd the entire premise of water fluoridation is,” he said.

The NTP confirmed that people exposed to levels of fluoride lower than 1.5 mg/L in the water system could have high levels of fluoride in their systems. It stated:

“Even in the optimally fluoridated cities [fluoridated at 0.7 mg/L] in Canada studied by Green et al. (2019), individual exposure levels, as documented by repeated urinary measurements, suggest widely varying total exposures from water combined with fluoride from other sources.”

It added, “our moderate confidence conclusion is primarily based on studies with total fluoride exposure that approximates or exceeds what is generally associated with consumption of optimally fluoridated water [0.7 mg/L] in the United States.”

“We have stressed in our monograph that our conclusions apply to total fluoride exposures rather than to exposures exclusively through drinking water.”

“What the NTP is pointing to here is that in some communities, where the dose of fluoride in the water is 0.7 mg/L, the NTP has found levels of fluoride found to be associated with lower IQ,” Connett told The Defender.

Also, different people have different risk levels, he said. Pregnant women and bottle-fed babies, for example, are some of the populations at highest risk.

On this point, the NTP responded to a different HHS critique, writing, “We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant people in the United States.”

“The margin of safety here just doesn’t exist — it is precariously small,” Connett said. He added that the lawsuit is “basically a risk assessment of fluoride.”

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which is the law at stake in the lawsuit, the EPA carries out risk assessments for potential toxins.

To do a risk assessment, the EPA first identifies a hazard and determines at what dose — what level of human exposure — that hazard harms human health.

Then the agency determines in a given case whether the margin between the existing hazard levels and the human exposure levels is unacceptably close, which would make a toxin pose a risk to human health.

Connett said that in EPA’s previous risk assessments for other chemicals, such as methylene chloride or bromopropane, evaluated according to the 2020 risk evaluation method that guides this case, the agency found the hazard level exceeds the human exposure level by much higher margins — “usually in a range of ten to 20 times higher,” yet it has deemed those chemicals to present an unreasonable risk to human health.

In other words, the substances were found to be toxic to humans at levels significantly lower than what people may be exposed to in regular use, yet the EPA determined them to be risks.

When it makes that determination, the EPA must then take steps to mitigate the risk.

That can also be the finding in this case. According to a pre-trial document, both sides in the case agreed to the “undisputed fact” that the “EPA does not require that human exposure levels exceed a known adverse effect level to make an unreasonable risk determination under TSCA.”

The NTP documents also raised flags about the implications of seemingly small neurotoxic effects:

“Research on other neurotoxicants has shown that subtle shifts in IQ at the population level can have a profound impact on the number of people who fall within the high and low ranges of the population’s IQ distribution.

“For example, a 5-point decrease in a population’s IQ would nearly double the number of people classified as intellectually disabled.”

Top HHS and CDC officials tried to ‘water down’ and block the report

In 2016, a group of six nonprofit organizations and several individuals petitioned the EPA to end fluoridation of drinking water in the U.S. based on evidence of health risks associated with fluoride, namely neurotoxicity.

The EPA rejected the petition.

In response, Food and Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network and others sued the EPA in 2017, seeking an end to water fluoridation.

The plaintiffs argued that water fluoridation violates the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act and that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ.

They based their initial claims on dozens of studies and reviews demonstrating fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Studies have also linked fluoride to a variety of other health risks in both children and adults, and evidence shows it to be an endocrine disruptor.

The EPA denied water fluoridation causes harm.

A seven-day trial took place in federal court in San Francisco in June 2020, but Judge Chen put the proceedings on hold pending the release of NTP’s systematic review of research available on the neurotoxic effects of fluoride.

The report, slated for release in May 2022, was delayed several times and sent for several rounds of peer review.

“The people on the [NTP] committee were experts in their fields who put years into this study, going back and forth with one external review after another,” North said. “You couldn’t ask for more peer review than what it already had. There were constant attempts to delay it, to water it down.”

In late October 2022, Judge Chen ended the stay on the NTP review, ruling that the parties involved could view the NTP review in its unpublished form to better inform his final decision.

However, due to concerns from the EPA, he also ruled the report could not be made public unless the NTP released it.

In December 2022, the plaintiffs filed several exhibits with Judge Chen, including a redacted version of the NTP’s assessment of fluoride’s neurotoxicity and internal emails between the CDC and the NTP obtained through FOIA demonstrating that HHS blocked the release of the long-delayed review, the plaintiffs argued.

The documents showed that on May 11, NTP notified the agencies that it was going to release the report on May 18, but the CDC opposed the release.

Emails also indicated that HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine was going to “get involved,” and, “the May 18 release date for [the monograph] is almost certainly not going to happen,” the Defender reported.

Connett said:

“It was only because we were tipped off by someone with knowledge on the inside that something was amiss that we went and did extensive FOIA requests and we were able to get documents showing that the NTP scientists considered this report to be complete and ready for publication last May, May of 2022.”

North said it was clear the agencies were blocking the release of the report, which was ready for publication.

“This was a clear case of stonewalling,” North said. “The National Toxicology Program, after over six years of research and numerous outside peer reviews, had completed its state-of-the-science report.”

Connett added:

“We have emails showing that Levine is the one who put it on hold. Rachel Levine said not to publish this report at this time. Then we got the FOIA emails showing that and NTP said they may not publish this [the report] at all. They may not publish it in final form but we did get them to agree to at least post a draft report. They will consider it a draft report.”

On January 20, Judge Chen denied the EPA’s request to add another six-month period to the stay he lifted in his October ruling.

The monograph and meta-analysis released yesterday on the NTP’s website are both labeled “draft.”

“Unfortunately, fluoridation promoters and high-level government officials have continued to label it a draft,” North said. “It wasn’t.”

Experts associated with the lawsuit against the EPA will now analyze and interpret the report in future hearings and then Judge Chen will rule.

The next hearing date is scheduled for April 11, 2023. At that time, the judge will set a date for the next phase of the trial.

 

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense

Connect with Children’s Health Defense




UN Supervillains Threaten to Dim the Sun

UN Supervillains Threaten to Dim the Sun

by James Corbett & James Evan Pilato, The Corbett Report
March 3, 2023

 

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news.

This week:



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4

 

Story #1: Solar Geoengineering Should Be Regulated, U.N. Report Says

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-geoengineering-should-be-regulated-u-n-report-says/

An Open Letter Regarding Research On Reflecting Sunlight to Reduce the Risks of Climate Change

https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/

PDF: “One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment”

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/41903/one_atmosphere.pdf

The Magic Words – #SolutionsWatch

https://www.corbettreport.com/solutionswatch-magicwords/

Mexico Becomes First Nation to Admit Harms of Geoengineering, Halts Future Experiments

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/mexico-bans-geoengineering/

Geoengineering Startup’s Claim It Got ‘OKs to Launch’ From FAA Doesn’t Stand Up to Scrutiny

https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/24/23613293/solar-geoengineering-mexico-us-reno-nevada-faa-make-sunsets

UN Says Censoring “Disinformation” and “Hate Speech” Will Protect “Free Speech”

https://reclaimthenet.org/un-says-that-censoring-disinformation-will-protect-free-speech

Serbia Warns ‘Everyone Is Preparing For War’

https://www.rt.com/news/571864-serbia-weapons-nato-ukraine/

US Sending Up to 200 More Troops to Taiwan As China Tensions Grow

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-sending-more-troops-taiwan-china-tensions-grow

Taiwan to Criminalize Spreading Rumors During Wartime

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/27/taiwan-to-criminalize-spreading-rumors-during-wartime/

Story #2: US Claims Iran Can Make Fissile Material for a Bomb ‘In About 12 Days’

https://archive.is/cWRqH

Colin Kahl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Kahl

UN Report: Uranium Particles Enriched to 83.7% Found In Iran

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-germany-israel-c9b3669a7721bd8929d465117c81b70f

Episode 337 – The REAL Middle East Nuclear Threat

https://www.corbettreport.com/israelinukes/

Video: Karine Jean-Pierre Mistakenly Says “President Obama” Is Making Announcements

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1628829210394640386

Story #3: US Legislators Introduce Bill To Prohibit Creation Of American CBDC

https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/us-legislators-introduce-bill-would-prohibit-creation-american-cbdc

Episode 433 – CBDCs: Beyond the Basics

https://www.corbettreport.com/cbdc/

Episode 317 – The Truth About Glass-Steagall

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-317-the-truth-about-glass-steagall/

 

Become a member of Corbett Report (https://corbettreport.com/members) and Media Monarchy (https://mediamonarchy.com/join) to help support independent media.

 

Connect with James Corbett




East Palestine Launched a Digital ID Program Days Before Disaster

East Palestine Launched a Digital ID Program Days Before Disaster

by Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge
submitted to ZeroHedge by ‘BlueApples’
February 20, 2023

 

As Klaus Schwab recently opined, the future of global hegemony will be dependent on the mastery of avant garde technologies which were once relegated to the realm of science fiction. With that power in mind, technologies advancing artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, and other pillars of the World Economic Forum’s so-called fourth industrial revolution have begun to permeate into our everyday lives. Perhaps no greater example of the imperative of the technocratic elite to harness these technologies is the digital ID. The premise of an over arching digital identity as a mechanism for vast government surveillance was one of the cornerstones of the authoritarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Apparently, that crisis wasn’t the only instance of an opportunity to beta test the tools of dystopian oppression.

The town of East Palestine, Ohio shows how deeply embedded this agenda is in the plans of the elite. Before the town entered into the public discourse by becoming the scene of one of the worst environmental disasters in US history, the biggest piece of news to come out of it appears to be another iteration of the ongoing initiative to implement digital surveillance tools into public infrastructure. In late January, East Palestine officially launched its MyID program in order to equip residents of the town and neighboring Unity Township with digital IDs. The premise was purportedly to equip emergency responders with digital health profiles of those who they would be treating. East Palestine’s digital ID initiative was first announced in October 2022.

The rollout of the MyID program was vested in the East Palestine Fire Department.

“It’s kind of like the old Medical Alert bracelet or old Vials of Life Program, however this is with new technology. It’s a QR code that we’re able to scan and it will bring up your pertinent information medically related. There is no information that anybody can take and steal your ID with. It’s just for us to be able to take care of patients who aren’t able to communicate with us,” East Palestine Fire Chief Keith Drabick said.

The East Palestine Fire Department held a sign-up event at the town’s community center this January in an effort to drive enrollment into the cloud based information system. They were was able to collect $5,000 in donation to aid in the roll out of the program to make the first 250 wearable devices available to enrollees for free. The QR codes can be affixed to a wristband or a key faub but depend on digital ID software storing a person’s health information in a cloud-hosted database in either instance.

During the event, Drabick emphasized that the MyID pilot program was intended to have a limited scope narrowly pertaining to sensitive medical information of those enrolled, tacitly alluding to underlying concerns about privacy that has skeptics of digital IDs reticent about the technology. Drabick would go on to compel skeptics to explore the program despite their reservations. “Anybody that skeptical? Please come on down. Sit down, talk to us. We’ll be happy to show you everything that goes on with it. We’ll be happy to show you how secure it is.”



Despite the initiative to implement the MyID program, even the fire department officials tasked will its roll out likely could not have foreseen the devastation East Palestine would incur following a botched controlled burn of a chemical spill that has turned the small town into North America’s own version of Chernobyl. However, the impetus to start a digital ID initiative preceding what would have been an unforeseen crisis is a pattern that supposed “conspiracy theorists” know all too well.

Before the hysteria surrounding COVD-19 gripped the world, an event held in collaboration between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins University foreshadowing the eventual pandemic. Event 201 created a simulation to gauge the global response to a coronavirus epidemic as a means of pushing forward the very technologies at the center of the World Economic Forum’s vision of the future which were also implemented in East Palestine before the watershed crisis that would alter the landscape of the town forever. One of the partners for Event 201 was ID2020, a digital ID initiative that Bill Gates was heavily invested in that served as an archetype for the vaccine passports that global NGOs and sovereign governments alike have been steadfast in attempting to implement.

The devastation in East Palestine rightfully puts an emphasis on an effective emergency response to save the 5,000 or so residents of the town from the peril they face as they are engulfed in a carcinogenic miasma which threatens their short term and long term health. While that is the understandable priority, the underlying currents of patterns which have preceded previous manufactured emergencies are putting the chemical catastrophe into a new light. First, there was the re-emergence of the 2022 film White Noise which seemingly served as a piece of predictive programming as its plot centered around the aftermath of a chemical explosion affecting a small town in Ohio. Now, the roll out of a digital ID program like that which was showcased during Event 201 raises even more questions than answers about what is really going on in East Palestine.

 

Connect with ZeroHedge

Cover image credit: mohamed_hassan




Barrie Trower With Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: 5G/Microwave as a Weapon (Pt. 2)

Barrie Trower With Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: 5G/Microwave as a Weapon (Pt. 2)

by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, International Crimes Investigative Committee (ICIC)
February 19, 2023

 



In the second episode of ICIC titled “5G – Microwaves as a Weapon”, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich continues the revealing conversation with Barrie Trower, former career soldier in the Royal Navy and intelligence officer with MI5 and MI6 and one of the best known experts in the field of microwave radiation and frequencies. They delve into deeper areas of the uses of microwaves, frequencies, 5G, and biological and chemical weapons hidden from the gullible and unsuspecting public.

Scientist Barrie Trower, who also worked as a university lecturer, uses documents and collected data to reveal a dark and disturbing world behind global government facades, where mind-control, heinous human experimentation, geoengineering, weather manipulation, and the dangerous misuse of HAARP have played a major role in world affairs for decades, and have continued to do so even after World War II through projects such as “Operation Paperclip.”

Barrie Trower uses examples to explain how easy it can be for profit-driven and irresponsible individuals in positions of power to take over and control entire countries and their populations via the destruction of agriculture, expropriation, abusive migration, and the use of microwave frequencies, 5G, or HAARP.

These perfidious and dangerous machinations must be made known and aware to the people in order to protect and defend themselves against them. This is the mission of the courageous whistleblower Barrie Trower. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich would like to do his part with ICIC to bring those responsible to justice through a neutral jurisdiction.

https://video.icic-net.com/c/english/videos

https://www.youtube.com/@iciclaw

https://rumble.com/c/c-2316350

 

Connect with Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Cover image credit: tegawi


Addiction and Harm From Cellphones by Barrie Trower
Download PDF

(Alternate PDF Location)


See Part 1:

Barrie Trower With Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: 5G/Microwave as a Weapon (Pt. 1)




‘Ohio Chernobyl’: East Palestine Town Hall Scrapped After Residents Report Health Problems

‘Ohio Chernobyl’: East Palestine Town Hall Scrapped After Residents Report Health Problems

by Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge
February 15, 2023

 

Nearly two weeks after a Norfolk Southern Railway freight train with 150 cars (20 of which were carrying hazardous materials) derailed in the small town of East Palestine, Ohio, resulting in a chemical disaster, the extent of the damage to the town and surrounding communities remains unclear.

On Tuesday, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine held a press conference for the Feb. 3 derailment. He said Norfolk Southern did not classify the train as a “high hazardous material train” despite multiple cars containing toxic chemical vinyl chloride.

“This is absurd … Congress needs to take a look at how these things are handled,” DeWine said. 

There’s already an effort by lawmakers on Capitol Hill and federal agencies to investigate the derailment. Epoch Times noted:

Key committees in the Republican-controlled House are holding their peace as investigations of the derailment and its environmental impact proceed.

A spokesperson for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, led by Chairman Sam Graves (R-Mo.), said the committee was talking with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration, and the railroad involved, Norfolk Southern.

“We will continue to monitor the situation and NTSB’s ongoing investigation,” the spokesperson told The Epoch Times in a Feb. 14 email.

Investigators have uncovered security camera footage 20 miles before East Palestine of the suspected railcar that caused the derailment. Footage shows one of the cars was on fire well before the small town.

“NTSB investigators have identified and examined the rail car that initiated the derailment. Surveillance video from a residence showed what appears to be a wheel bearing in the final stage of overheat failure moments before the derailment,” NTSB wrote on its website.

Michael Graham, a member of the NTSB, told reporters one day after the derailment:

“We’re also looking at a lot of different footage that has been provided to the investigators out there to determine if there’s some data on footage that we have from videos and cameras that might tell us something more that what might have happened to cause this accident.” 

At a follow-on briefing on Feb. 5, Graham said investigators were analyzing locomotive footage. He said the focus was one of the rail car’s axles.

“We have obtained two videos which show preliminary indications of mechanical issues on one of the rail car axles,” Graham said. 

Graham added engineers on the train were alerted by a “wayside defect detector shortly before the derailment, indicating a mechanical issue.”

“Then an emergency brake application initiated,” he continued, adding that a preliminary investigative report was expected within several weeks, though a full probe could take as long as 24 months.

As investigators pinpoint the likely cause of the derailment, the environmental impact of the controlled burn of 20 railcars that contained toxic chemicals, including vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate, and isobutylene, has released what some described as a ‘chemical nuclear bomb’ that has contaminated the town and other surrounding communities.

Following the burn, there have been numerous reports of wildlife dying, including fish and frogs in nearby streams.

https://twitter.com/2_Acre_Living/status/1625610406994518032

People have reported that their chickens, dogs, and horses were either sick or died.

People in East Palestine and surrounding communities have reported various symptoms they can’t explain since the burn, according to News 5 Cleveland.

Therese Vigliotti said she hasn’t felt right since the controlled release and burn after train cars derailed more than a week ago.

She sent us a picture of her tongue.

“I noticed my lips were numb, the soft palate of my mouth was numb, my tongue was burning and my throat was burning,” Vigliotti said.

We asked what her biggest concern was.

“That I’m going to get cancer and die,” Vigliotti said.

Vigliotti doesn’t live in East Palestine but rather 15 miles north of the derailment site in Poland, Ohio.

Jim does call the village home.

You can hear train horns from his front porch.

“It used to not bother me hearing, now it does,” Jim said.

He too is worried about what he is experiencing.

“I’ve had a migraine. I’ve been dizzy, all my mucus membranes irritated. I haven’t felt very well since then,” Jim said.

And on a long enough timeline. People exposed to vinyl chloride might have an increased risk of developing a rare form of liver cancer (hepatic angiosarcoma), liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma), brain and lung cancers, lymphoma, and leukemia.

https://twitter.com/WaverlyWakeUp/status/1625938204263125011

And these toxic chemicals have also been identified in the Ohio river, which supplies more than 5 million people with drinking water, according to local news station WLWT.

About 60 miles south, the city of Steubenville detected butyl acrylate in their water intake, the same toxic chemical found in East Palestine, according to local news WTRF.

Recall the Biden administration and other federal officials were silent about the derailment for more than a week. This week, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg finally spoke about the incident.

And on Feb. 8 press conference in East Palestine, a NewsNation reporter covering DeWine was arrested. DeWine said this week that the reporter should “never have occurred in the first place.” The reporter was merely just trying to report the news.

There’s been a massive lack of transparency since the derailment happened by the government and mainstream media. And we wonder why?

Look at an alleged aerial picture (posted on Reddit) overtop East Palestine during the controlled burn. Maybe this is why?

Meanwhile, environmentalist advocate Erin Brockovich called out the Biden administration to do more for residents of East Palestine:

“The Biden Administration needs to get more involved in this train derailment now. We are counting on you to break the chain of administration after administration to turn a blind eye.”

As for Norfolk Southern, they’re expected to rack up tens of millions of dollars in costs associated with cleanup and lawsuits.

“I’ve had discussions with some people who live right near ground zero who are hesitant to come back.”

 “There are people with young children, and they don’t know what effects it’s going to have,” James Wise, a local attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit against the railroad on behalf of some residents, told Bloomberg. 

And you would never guess who is one of the largest shareholders of Norfolk Southern… It’s ESG-pusher BlackRock.

Things that make you go, hmm…

And by the way, East Palestine scrapped a town hall for tonight as the toxic chemicals are causing illness among residents, according to the Independent.

 

Connect with ZeroHedge

Cover image credit: lxfd64




Arthur Firstenberg: Ecocide From Space

Ecocide From Space

by Arthur FirstenbergCellular Phone Task Force
sourced from Cellular Phone Task Force December 14, 2022 newsletter
December 14, 2022

 

 

Number of Operating Satellites Passes 7,000

On the evening of Thursday, December 8, 2022, OneWeb launched 40 satellites from Cape Canaveral, Florida, bringing the total number of active satellites in orbit around the Earth to more than 7,000. These cell towers in space are altering the electromagnetic environment of the entire planet and are debilitating and exterminating all life on it.

Even the first fleet of 28 military satellites launched by the United States caused a worldwide pandemic of influenza when they became operational on June 13, 1968.

The Hong Kong flu began in June 1968, lasted through April 1970, and killed up to four million people worldwide. To understand why requires a proper understanding of our connection to the universe and what it is that really gives us life and health, and makes our bodies move.

In a sense, we are all puppets on invisible strings that connect us to heaven and earth, strings that resonate at the age-old frequencies of the biosphere in which we live, the space between Earth and Sky, whose dimensions never change. And when we modulate and pulsate those strings at random from thousands of locations in space, we change the beautiful music of the earthly orchestra into a discordant chaos that scatters bodies all over the world, helpless before it.

On March 24-25, 2021, the chaos was brought to a new level, that the world now accepts as normal. In that 24-hour period, a record 96 satellites were launched into space on a single day—60 by SpaceX and 36 by OneWeb—and on the same day SpaceX dramatically increased the speed of its satellite internet connections.

On that day, people all over the world suddenly could not sleep, were weak and exhausted, had muscle spasms, and hurt and itched all over, especially in their feet and legs. They had skin rashes, were dizzy and nauseous, and had stomach aches and diarrhea. The ringing in their ears was suddenly amplified. Their eyes were inflamed, and their vision suddenly worsened. They had heart arrhythmias, and their blood pressure went out of control. Some had nosebleeds, or coughed up blood. They were anxious, depressed or suicidal, and irritable. Their cats, dogs, chickens, goats and cows were sick at the same time.

My newsletter of April 15, 2021, Survey Results, quoted from some of the thousand letters I received from people young and old, from people who called themselves electrosensitive and from people who did not, from people who had no wireless technology and from people who had smart meters and 5G antennas outside their homes and who emailed me from their cell phones, all reporting the same experiences, commonly reporting that not only they, but their spouse, children, parents, neighbors, friends, coworkers, clients, and everyone else they knew were sick, exhausted and irritable on March 24 or 25 and had trouble sleeping. The reports came from 42 states and 50 countries.

Deaths of blue titmice spiked in Germany beginning on March 25, 2021. March 25 registered the second highest number of COVID-19 deaths in 2021, and the fifth highest since the pandemic began. The number of mass shootings in the US 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. Photographs of hundreds of worms, and of hundreds of sheep, moving silently in perfect spirals, were taken on March 25 and March 26.

Long-term pain, sickness, and debility has become so common that it is now accepted as a normal part of life that the world thinks it can address with endless vaccinations, mask-wearing, and the wiping of all hands and surfaces with toxic disinfectants.

Last week, on December 8, 2022, on the day OneWeb launched satellites that will expand its coverage across the US, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, I experienced within my body, and heard from some other people both locally and far away that the pains and debilities from which we have been suffering at some level for the past 20 months suddenly intensified. I was almost crippled for three days. As on March 24-25, 2021, I would like to find out how widespread this is. Please reply to this email if you have experienced something similar.

Although SpaceX and OneWeb are (so far) building the largest fleets of Earth-destroying satellites, they are far from the only entities launching them.

The 7,000 satellites presently operating were launched by governments or private companies of the following countries:

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, European Space Agency, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Multinational, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam

And they were launched from the following spaceports:

Baikonur Cosmodrome (Kazakhstan)
Cape Canaveral (Florida, USA)
Dombarovsky Air Base (Russia)
Guiana Space Center (French Guiana)
Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center (Inner Mongolia, China)
Kodiak Launch Complex (Alaska, USA)
Kwajalein Island (Marshall Islands)
Naro Space Center (South Korea)
Palmachim Launch Complex (Israel)
Plesetsk Cosmodrome (Russia)
Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 (New Zealand)
Satish Dhawan Space Centre (India)
Pacific Ocean (from Odyssey Sea Launch vessel)
Shahroud Missile Range (Iran)
Svobodny Cosmodrome (Russia)
Taiyuan Launch Center (China)
Tanegashima Space Center (Japan)
Uchinoura Space Center (Japan)
Vandenberg Air Force Base (California, USA)
Vostochny Cosmodrome (Russia)
Wallops Island Flight Facility (Virginia, USA)
Wenchang Satellite Launch Center (China)
Xichang Satellite Launch Center (China)
Yellow Sea (from a mobile sea platform)

Other Satellite News

European IRIS Satellites

The European Union just got into the act with its own program to provide high-speed broadband from space to all of Europe and Africa. On December 5, 2022, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement to launch 170 new satellites called Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnection and Security (IRIS). “This new component of the EU Space Programme will put an end to dead zones in Europe as well as the whole of Africa using the constellation’s North-South orbits through a resilient and ultra-secure space and ground-based system,” says the EU’s Space Program (EUSPA) website.

AST SpaceMobile

On September 10, 2022, AST SpaceMobile launched the largest, and probably the most powerful, commercial communications array ever put into space. It is the first of a planned fleet of 243 Bluebird satellites designed to connect directly with people’s existing mobile phones, no matter where on Earth they may be located. The size of its solar array — 64 square meters — is causing alarm among astronomers because it is as bright as the brightest stars during the hours after sunset and before sunrise.

So far AST SpaceMobile is working with Rakuten Mobile, AT&T, Bell Canada, Telecom Argentina, Africell, Liberty Latin America and Orange, for a potential customer base of 1.8 billion mobile phone subscribers.

The immensely powerful signals from the Bluebird satellites are also worrying radio astronomers, as well as human beings who are concerned for their well-being. The effective radiated power of each satellite, according to AST’s filings with the FCC, will be up to 83 million watts, and the exposure level at the surface of the earth from such beams, according to my calculations, will be up to 3 nanowatts per square centimeter, which is 100 times more radiation than what I am exposed to in my house in Santa Fe from the nearest cell towers.

“Every person should have the right to access cellular broadband, regardless of where they live or work. Our goal is to close the connectivity gaps that negatively impact billions of lives around the world,” said Abel Avellan, CEO of AST SpaceMobile.

We beg to differ, Mr. Avellan. Every person, every animal, and every plant should have the right to drink from the Earth’s natural frequencies, and not to be bombarded with artificial radiation from space.

 

Arthur Firstenberg

President, Cellular Phone Task Force
Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
Administrator, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space
Caretaker, ECHOEarch.org (End Cellphones Here On Earth)
P.O. Box 6216, Santa Fe, NM 87502 USA

The last 51 newsletters, including this one, are available for viewing on the Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force. To subscribe, go to www.cellphonetaskforce.org/subscribe.

 

Connect with Arthur Firstenberg

Cover image credit: pixabay




A Big “We Told You So” Moment: Spain Admits to Chemtrail …

A Big “We Told You So” Moment: Spain Admits to Chemtrail …

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star
September 28, 2022

 

This story is a big “we told you so moment,” because a major world government, in this case, Spain has apparently admitted to spraying the atmosphere in its airspace with aerosolized heavy metals.  What’s also interesting here is that this article, which was shared by T.M. includes a document or bulletin of Spain’s Ministry of the Interior from 2020, which in turn cites Royal Decrees from the same year:

The Spanish Meteorological Agency has confessed that Spain is being sprayed with lead dioxide, silver iodide and diatomite.

Now in a world where scientismists along with Baal Gates have gone so far as to want to blot out the Sun – what could possibly go wrong? – mere chemtrails seem a bit like yesterday’s apocalypse.  We’ve like so like totally like moved on, like ya know?

Seriously though, there’s something that caught my eye in this article, and I rather suspect it caught T.M.’s eye as well which is possibly why he sent it to me. It’s this:

Spain was the first Western government to officially include ‘chemtrail’ in its Official Gazette. The Spanish Ministry of Health authorized the NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) units of the Armed Forces and also the UME to use biocides from the air. A month after the state of alarm was imposed, the Executive justified in the BOE that this technique is one of the “most effective” against the coronavirus since with “nebulization, thermonebulization and micronebulization techniques, all surfaces are reached with speed”.

The Executive also justified that the aforementioned units “have the personal means, materials, procedures and sufficient training to carry out aerial disinfection, since they are operations that they carry out regularly, with the exception that instead of using biocidal products they do so with other decontaminating chemicals.

On May 19, 2015, MEP Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) announced in the European Parliament that four workers from the State Meteorological Agency had confessed that Spain is being sprayed entirely from planes that spread lead dioxide into the atmosphere. , silver iodide and diatomite. The objective, according to the same MEP, would be to keep the rains away and allow temperatures to rise, which creates a summer climate for tourism and, at the same time, helps corporations in the agricultural sector. This, in turn, is producing cold droplets of great intensity. (Emphasis added)

And just to make sure the point is not missed, the article actually cites the Bulletin of the Interior Ministry which in turn cites a Royal Decree:

Order SND/351/2020, of April 16, authorizing the NBC Units of the Armed Forces and the Military Emergency Unit to use biocides authorized by the Ministry of Health in disinfection tasks to carry out in the face of the health crisis caused by COVID-19.
Royal Decree 463/2020, of March 14, declaring a state of alarm for the management of the health crisis situation caused by COVID-19, contemplates a series of measures aimed at protecting well-being, health and safety of citizens and the containment of the progression of the disease and strengthen the public health system.
Article 4.2.d) of the aforementioned Royal Decree 463/2020, of March 14, determines that, for the exercise of the functions provided for therein and under the superior direction of the President of the Government, the Minister of Health will have the status of delegated competent authority, both in its own area of ​​responsibility and in other areas that do not fall within the specific sphere of competence of the other heads of the departments designated as delegated competent authorities for the purposes of the aforementioned Royal Decree.
Specifically, in accordance with the provisions of article 4.3 of Royal Decree 463/2020, of March 14, the Minister of Health is empowered to issue the orders, resolutions, provisions and interpretive instructions that, within its scope of action as delegated authority, are necessary to guarantee the provision of all services, ordinary or extraordinary, in order to protect people, goods and places, through the adoption of any of the measures provided for in article eleven of Organic Law 4/1981 , of June 1, of the states of alarm, exception and siege.
For the effective fulfillment of these measures, the delegated competent authorities may require the action of the Armed Forces, in accordance with the provisions of article 15.3 of Organic Law 5/2005, of November 17, on National Defense.
In the field of containing the expansion of the coronavirus, special attention is required for disinfection actions in facilities such as residential social centers, hospitals and other health centers, prisons, traffic management centers and transport hubs, tasks that Armed Forces are performing as one of their priority tasks.
The Ministry of Health has been publishing and updating the list of biocides
to be used against the new coronavirus, authorized and registered in Spain in accordance with the UNE-EN 14476 standard, which evaluates the virucidal capacity of chemical antiseptics and disinfectants. In particular, due to their special effectiveness, some biocides established in main group 1 of article 1.1 of Royal Decree 830/2010, of June 25, which establishes the regulations governing training to carry out treatments with biocides, are specified.

And so on.

One has to admire the cleverness of Mr. Globaloney in “stacking functions,” in this case, his manufactured climate hysteria and his manufactured planscamdemic: chemtrails are now an accepted means of disinfecting a population with “biocides”, and there’s nothing a population can do about it. Next step: aerosolize the quackcines, and dump them en masse on people.

And what a relief, too! Spraying lead dioxide and silver iodide would seem to be the perfect antidote to be spraying to inoculate the population of Spain against Russia=Bad Mr. Putin’s nuclear war threats. Just start spraying some iodine in the atmosphere along with some aerosolize thyroid pills and we’re all set, guys.

There’s another very obvious thing to note as well, though it’s one of those obvious things that one doesn’t notice until it’s pointed out. In the quotation above, the phrase “Royal Decree” is mentioned five times by my count, and that should give everyone pause, because decisions about many people are being made by few people, in this case, bureaucrats and a monarch.

Why… if this sort of thing continues, you’d think Spain was a monarchy or something, and that King Felipe VI was a member of the House of Windsor and Charles’ brother or something…

See you on the flip side…

 

Connect with Joseph P. Farrell

cover image credit: Schueler-Design




USDA Air Dropping Vaccines From Helicopters Across 13 States, Using Vaccine “Bait” Deemed Hazardous if Ingested

USDA Air Dropping Vaccines From Helicopters Across 13 States, Using Vaccine “Bait” Deemed Hazardous if Ingested

by Mike Adams, Natural News
September 21, 2022

 

[Natural News] The USDA, like many federal agencies, is deeply invested in the business of extermination. For example, most people don’t realize that the USDA mass murders millions of birds every year through deliberate poisoning campaigns. Natural News has published the USDA’s list of bird extermination from 2009 (PDF), showing how the agency murdered over four million birds in 2009 alone.

That program is called “Bye Bye Blackbird,” and it’s just one of many mass extermination programs run by the USDA. Another program involves the USDA mass murdering foxes, coyotes, bears, mountain lions, bobcats and river otters. As Natural News reported in 2018:

According to the latest report, the federal program last year killed 357 gray wolves; 69,041 adult coyotes, plus an unknown number of coyote pups in 393 destroyed dens; 624,845 red-winged blackbirds; 552 black bears; 319 mountain lions; 1,001 bobcats; 675 river otters, including 587 killed “unintentionally”; 3,827 foxes, plus an unknown number of fox pups in 128 dens; and 23,646 beavers.

Also in 2018, the USDA was caught murdering hundreds of kittens in incineration ovens as part of a medical experimentation operation. As NaturalNews reported in 2018:

…[T]he USDA has been experimenting on kittens by feeding them parasite-riddled raw meat for two or three weeks so their feces can be collected. Then they are killed via incineration. And at the end of the “study,” Bishops says, the USDA admitted that the baby animals were healthy.

Congressman Mike Bishop sounded off on the USDA’s kitten murder practice, saying:

I’m shocked and disturbed that for decades the USDA — the very organization charged with enforcing animal welfare laws — has been unnecessarily killing hundreds of kittens in expensive and inefficient lab experiments. Any government research program like this one that’s been funded since the Nixon administration needs to be put under the microscope, especially when it involves using kittens as disposable test tubes in harmful tests that most taxpayers oppose.

The USDA, in other words, slaughters millions of animals a year and runs cruel medical experiments on kittens (among other animals). This is the same USDA that conspires with pesticide manufacturers to poison the human food supply with synthetic chemicals, including herbicides like atrazine that are known “chemical castrators” that alter human hormone expression.

Now, this same agency is air-dropping edible “vaccines” across 13 states, claiming to be controlling raccoons and rabies. But the bait is so dangerous, it’s never supposed to be ingested (keep reading).

USDA uses a fleet of helicopters to mass poison the landscape with “rabies vaccines” disguised as food

According to the Associated Press via DailyPress.com, the USDA is now air-dropping “millions of packets of oral rabies vaccines” across 13 US states. Those states include:

  • Alabama
  • Maine
  • Pennsylvania
  • West Virginia
  • Virginia
  • Tennessee

The USDA claims these “rabies vaccines” are embedded in food bits that are currently flavored with fishmeal. This will, of course, encourage all sorts of wildlife to eat the vaccine traps, causing unknown consequences in wildlife animals that will obviously ingest the tainted treats. Domestic dogs and cats can also stumble upon the tainted food bits and ingest them, causing involuntary “vaccination” against rabies, which can kill pets. (Although rare, death is one of the side effects of rabies vaccination.)

Note carefully that the USDA is in the business of exterminating animals, so when they drop “bait” from helicopters, laced with potentially harmful or even deadly rabies vaccine ingredients, it’s not difficult to realize the real motivation of this program.

Read full article here

 

Connect with Natural News

cover image credit: h-egon




Smart Meters: An Intensely Personal Form of Surveillance

Smart Meters: An Intensely Personal Form of Surveillance

 



 

The Theft of Your Wealth and Freedom Is Accelerating

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
September 7, 2022

 

Story At-a-Glance
  • Smart meters measure and record electricity usage at least every hour, if not more, and provide the data to the utility company and consumer at least once a day
  • The data from smart meters reveal far more than you might think — and could even be used against you to control your individual energy use or, one day, to help ensure “net zero” compliance
  • Smart meters do more than measure your energy usage; they’re also capable of distinguishing what type of energy you’re using, such as doing laundry or watching TV
  • It’s an intensely personal form of surveillance — one that could easily be used against you, including to scrutinize your energy usage and even ration your energy
  • Smart meters should also be avoided because they’re yet another source of electromagnetic fields, which include radio frequencies from smart meters, cellphones and Wi-Fi, and dirty electricity
  • If you can, opt out of receiving a smart meter; be aware that you will likely be charged an extortion fee, in the form of one-time and monthly charges, to do so

 

Many people have embraced the convenience of wireless devices in their homes, but these devices come at a price — your privacy and your health. With each smart device that you welcome to your home — such as connected alarm clocks, vehicles, refrigerators and doorbells — another layer of your personal life is revealed and your health is sabotaged by the EMFs.

This is certainly true of smart meters, which are officially known in the U.S. as advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) installations. In 2020, 102.9 million such smart meters were installed by U.S. electric utilities, about 88% of them in personal residences.1 AMI meters measure and record electricity usage at least every hour, if not more, and provide the data to the utility company and consumer at least once a day.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “AMI installations range from basic hourly interval meters to real-time meters with built-in two-way communication that is capable of recording and transmitting instantaneous data.”2

What could be wrong with transmitting every last detail about your real-time energy usage to an energy company? Those data reveal far more than you might think — and could even be used against you to control your individual energy use or, one day, to help ensure “net zero” compliance.

Smart Meters Aren’t There for Your Benefit

Before smart meters were widely available, your electricity usage was recorded by a meter reader, who would visit your property once a month and manually record your energy usage. Now, this data is tracked at hourly or half-hour intervals, which energy companies are billing as a way to save you, the customer, money. The U.K.’s Shell Energy, which describes smart meters as “the future of energy,” notes:3

“Smart meters bring a whole host of benefits: they’ll tell you how much you’re spending in real time, which means there are no nasty surprises when your bill turns up … But, perhaps best of all, smart meters give you real-time information on your energy use.

They let you know exactly how much it’s costing you to boil that kettle or charge your phone. Armed with this knowledge, you can make a more informed decision about whether to turn up the heating, or put another load in the tumble dryer.

… Smart meters are set to revolutionize the way we use electricity. They make it easier for suppliers like us to offer cheaper, off-peak rates for, say, charging your electric car. They tell us more about how you use your energy, which means we can offer you more suitable tariffs. It may be that, one day, you’re offered cheaper electricity on sunny or windy days, when clean energy is easier to come by.”

Smart Energy International also describes Comarch’s smart metering systems as a solution for “remote and automatic measurement of media consumption.” Note that their smart meters once only measured electricity and now are available for other utilities, including water, gas and heat, “the consumption of which should be constantly monitored.”4

Using the tactic of manufacturing fear, they spin smart meters as a necessity so that energy companies can keep close tabs on consumption and step in when needed:5

“A whole new era of readings has come. Smart metering systems provide companies in the utilities sector with the ability to monitor media supply networks and efficiently respond to current events. Data can be obtained even from meters that are difficult to access and those located at long distances from each other. They are sent periodically, informing the end-user about the reading, transmission data, and possible failures and errors.

This makes it possible to send teams almost immediately where they are needed at any given time. All this is to respond as quickly as possible if a problem arises.”

If They Control the Energy, They Control You

The technocratic elite, including both BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Bill Gates, are pushing for “net zero” carbon emissions.6 While BlackRock is busy buying up houses, Gates is hard at work amassing farmland and is now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S.7

Gates is pushing for drastic, fundamental changes by 2030, including widespread consumption of fake meat, adoption of next generation nuclear energy and growing a fungus as a new type of nutritional protein.8 The deadline Gates has given to reach net zero emissions is 2050,9 and smart meters are already being positioned as an essential part of this plan. According to Shell Energy:10

“Indeed, the government considers smart meters key to the UK cutting its emissions and reaching net-zero by 2050. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has worked out that, if we all switch to smart meters, the UK can knock 45 million tonnes off its carbon emissions — the equivalent of taking 26 million cars off the road for a year.”

But according to many experts, including Vandana Shiva, new conditionalities are being created through net zero “nature-based” solutions in order to force the world to accept a new food and agricultural system, along with a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability. Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All,” explains:11

“… ‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers … through the burden of fake carbon accounting. Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.”

In other words, the elite will continue to consume resources as always, including indulgences like polluting private jets, but will be able to purchase carbon credits to offset the emissions they create.12 Meanwhile, the average person will face increasing scrutiny of their energy usage, to the point that it may one day be rationed in the name of “climate compliance.”

Will Smart Meters Be Used to Ration Energy Use?

Smart meters do more than measure your energy usage. They’re also capable of distinguishing what type of energy you’re using. So they know if you’re doing a load of laundry, watching TV or have left your home for the day. While this might not sound nefarious on the surface, it’s an intensely personal form of surveillance — one that could easily be used against you, including to ration your energy. Journalist Abby Martin explains:13

“If the notion about what you are doing and when you are doing isn’t disturbing enough — it’s worse. These devices are capable of regulating, controlling and even rationing your energy use. Take this example, you are running your fans in the hot summer months and the power company decides you are using too much power, they will take it upon themselves to lower it regardless of the consumer willing to pay for the extra usage.

A point to consider is what these companies will do with this information. Once this is shared with law enforcement, it can and it will be used against you. Cops will be able to know what you are doing in the privacy of your own home.

Secondly these companies can sell this information of our daily lives for data mining and advertising. It is disturbing at so many levels but these little surveillance units are being implemented across the country without the public’s consent and in many cases without their knowledge of being installed.”

It’s Time to ‘Think the Unthinkable’

It’s unthinkable that the powers that be could be intent on increasing surveillance and control, to the point that even your energy usage is under their thumb, but as GBNews host Neil Oliver put it in the video above, it’s time to “think the unthinkable”:14

“People raised to trust the powers that be, who have assumed, like I once did, that the state, regardless of its political flavor at any given moment, is essentially benevolent and well meaning, will naturally try to keep that assumption of benevolence in mind to make sense of what’s going on around them.

People like us, you and me, raised in the understanding that we are free, that we have inalienable rights and that the institutions of this country have our best interests at heart will tend to tie ourselves in knots rather than contemplate the idea those authorities may actually be working against us now.

… We are no longer being treated as individuals entitled to make the most of our lives, but as a barn full of battery hens — just another product to be bought and sold, sold down the river … treat yourself to the gift of understanding that the powers that be fully intend we should have less heat and less fuel, and that in the planned future only the rich will have cars anyway. The plan is not to fix it. The plan is to break it and leave it broken.

… If net zero and the rest was about the good of the planet and not about clearing the beaches and skies of scum like us, don’t you think those sainted politicians and A-listers would be lighting the way for us by their own example?”

Another Problem With Smart Meters — EMFs

Even if you put aside the surveillance and privacy issues and their potential for abuse, smart meters should be avoided because they’re yet another source of electromagnetic fields, which include radio frequencies from smart meters, cellphones and Wi-Fi. Smart meters also have the additional challenge of emitting dirty electricity which consists of transient voltage spikes as a result of switching mode power supplies. Adverse health effects linked to these EMF exposures include:15

  • Excess oxidative stress
  • Opening your blood-brain barrier, allowing toxins to enter your brain
  • DNA damage and altered microbiome
  • Impaired proton flow and ATP production
  • Altered cellular function due to excessive charge

One way to reduce your exposure is to refuse smart meters as long as you can. Note that some states already prohibit opt-outs while others allow them but will charge you an extortion fee, in the form of one-time and monthly charges, to do so. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures:16

“In almost every case, customers who elect to opt-out of smart meter installation are charged to do so — often through a one-time “set-up fee,” followed by monthly fees associated with the cost of sending out meter-readers. The fees can vary considerably. A utility in Rhode Island charges a one-time fee of $27, while a Texas utility’s one-time fee is $171. The monthly fees range from around $9 to $32.”

If you can afford to do so, opting out will protect both your privacy and your health from this unnecessary intrusion. Alternatively, you can shield the meters with kits available online but those will not reduce the dirty electricity produced by the meters.

 

Sources and References

 

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

cover image:  Smart Meter photoCellnet UtiliNet – Smart Utility Meter in Minneapolis, Minnesota




Against All Odds, Survivors in a Dying Forest

Against All Odds, Survivors in a Dying Forest

by Dane Wigington, GeoEngineering Watch
August 28, 2022

 

The climate engineers are contaminating and cutting off the life giving flow of rain to forests all over the world. Trees are dying and incinerating, wildlife is disappearing. I knew I had to do something to turn the tide for my forest friends.

Now, against all odds, and in spite of the ever worsening weather warfare over the region, a miraculous outcome is taking place. This installment of “Into The Wild” provides an uplifting chapter in an ever darkening world.



[Original video available at Dane Wigington YouTube channel.]

For the previous episodes, click here: Into The Wild, With Dane Wigington

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. Awareness raising efforts can be carried out from your own home computer.
DW

Must view, THE DIMMING, GeoEngineering Watch’s most comprehensive climate engineering documentary.

 

Connect with GeoEngineering Watch




Radio Wave Packet: What You Need to Know About Wireless Technology

Radio Wave Packet
What You Need to Know About Wireless Technology

by Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force
first published September 2001, revised August 2022

 

Read and Download PDF

 

Contents

1. Some Biological Effects of Radio Waves
2. Morbidity and Mortality from Wireless Technology
3. Radio Wave Sickness
4. References

The following chart was published in 2001 and has been updated to comport with current technology.

 

Morbidity and Mortality From Cell Phones and Wireless Technology

I. FLORA AND FAUNA

Aspens

In a backyard laboratory in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, where trembling aspens were declining and refusing to display their colors in the fall, Katie Haggerty decided to find out what would happen if she shielded some of them from radio waves. After just two months, her shielded seedlings were 74 percent longer, and their leaves 60 percent larger than either her unshielded seedlings or her mock-shielded seedlings. And in the fall, only her shielded seedlings displayed the bright colors for which aspens are famous. (Haggerty 2010)

Songbirds

At Germany’s University of Oldenburg, scientists who were shocked to find that the migratory songbirds they were studying were no longer able to orient toward the north in spring and toward the southwest in autumn, decided to find out what would happen if they shielded an aviary from radio waves. Suddenly the birds were able face north in spring for migration. (Engels et al. 2014)

Amphibians

On a fifth floor apartment’s terrace in Barcelona, a block away from a cell tower, Alfonso Balmori decided to test his conjecture that radio waves might be responsible for the worldwide decline and extinction of so many species of amphibians. For two months he cared for two identical tanks of tadpoles, one of which was shielded from radio waves by a thin layer of fabric. The mortality in the unshielded tank was 90%, and in the shielded tank only 4%. (Balmori 2006)

Honey Bees

A professor at Panjab University in India decided to test her conjecture that wireless technology might be responsible for colony collapse disorder in honey bees. She put cell phones in two of four hives and turned them on twice a day for 15 minutes at a time. After three months there was neither honey, nor pollen, nor brood, nor bees in the two colonies with cell phones. (Sharma and Kumar 2010)

She then decided to find out what was happening in the bees’ hemolymph, which is what their blood is called. And she found that cellular respiration was brought almost to a standstill. After just ten minutes of exposure to a cell phone, the bees practically could not metabolize sugars, fats, or proteins. (Kumar et al. 2011)

Mice

In the Greek village of Chortiatis, on the third floor of the Public Primary School, six pairs of mice were mated and observed through five pregnancies. The first three pregnancies produced an average of five offspring per female. After that all the mice were sterile, giving birth to no more offspring. Visible from the schoolroom window, about one mile away, was an antenna farm atop Chortiatis Mountain, broadcasting, in total, about 300 kW of power.

Six more pairs of mice were bred in a wildlife preserve, Refuge of Hypaithrios Life, located on the mountain. These mice averaged only one newborn per pregnancy from the beginning, and were sterile by the third pregnancy. The sterility was proven to be permanent and irreversible. (Magras and Xenos 1997)

Ants

Marie-Claire Cammaerts, at the Free University of Belgium, brought thousands of ants into her laboratory, placed an older model flip phone under their colonies and watched them walk. When the phone contained no battery it affected them not at all. Nor did the battery alone. But as soon as the battery was placed in the phone—even though the phone was still turned off—the ants darted back and forth with vigor, as if trying to escape an enemy they could not see. When she put the phone into standby mode, the ants’ frenzy increased even more. When she finally turned the phone on, they all slowed down.

Cammaerts next exposed a fresh ant colony to a smartphone and then a cordless phone. In each case their rate of changing directions doubled or tripled within one or two seconds while their actual walking speed drastically slowed. After they were exposed for three minutes, they required two to four hours before they appeared normal again. Other ants, after being exposed to a WiFi router for thirty minutes, took six to eight hours to recover, and some were found dead a few days later. When she placed a flip phone in standby mode under the ants’ nest instead instead of their foraging area, the ants all immediately left their nest, taking their eggs, larvae, and nymphs with them. (Cammaerts and Johansson 2014)

Rats

Neurosurgeon Leif Salford’s team at the University of Lund in Sweden exposed rats to an ordinary cell phone, just once for two hours, and sacrificed them 50 days later. The exposed rats had permanent brain damage from that single exposure—even when the power level of the phone was reduced a hundredfold. (Salford et al. 2003)

Cows

When cell towers were raised all across America in 1996, reports came in from farmers of farm animals suddenly sick and dying, and their offspring born with webbed necks and legs on backwards. (Hawk 1996). Wolfgang Löscher and Günter Käs, receiving similar reports in Germany, visited such farms and examined such cows. Cows were dying from acute heart and circulatory collapse with bleeding from several organs. When sick cows were removed to a distant location they recovered their health. (Löscher and Käs 1998)

Fruit Flies

For a science fair experiment, fifteen-year-old Alexander Chan, at Benjamin Cardozo High School in Queens, New York exposed fruit fly larvae daily to a loudspeaker, a computer monitor, or a cell phone and observe their development. The flies that were exposed to the cell phone failed to develop wings. (Serant 2004)

Cress Seeds

For another science fair experiment, a team of five ninth grade girls in Hjallerup, Denmark filled twelve trays with 400 cress seeds each. They placed six trays in a window next to three laptop computers and two WiFi routers, and six trays in a similar window but without computers or routers. After 6 days, none of the irradiated seeds had sprouted, and many of them never did.

After 12 days, the control sprouts were twice as large as those next to the laptops and routers. (Nielsen et al. 2013)

Pepper Plants

Scientists at the University of Gaza grew 100 pepper seedlings under identical conditions, except that half of them were watered daily with tap water that had sat in a glass flask for one hour next to a WiFi router, and the other half with tap water that had sat in an identical glass flask but not next to a router. The plants grown with irradiated water were pale and stunted. After 200 days, the control plants were 25% longer, their stems 5% thicker, and their roots 40% longer than the plants grown with irradiated water. They also weighed 90% more, had 74% more leaves, were 12% more moist, flowered and fruited earlier, and produced 38% larger fruit. (Alattar and Radwan 2020)

Radio Collared Animals

Radio collared mammals, including rabbits, voles, lemmings, badgers, foxes, deer, moose, armadillos, river otters, and sea otters have suffered increased mortality, impaired digging ability, weight loss, reduced activity levels, increased self-grooming, altered social interactions, and reproductive failure. (Mech and Barber 2002)

In a study of moose, calves without any ear tags and calves with plain ear tags had 10% mortality, while calves with ear tags that contained transmitters had 68% mortality. The only difference was the radio waves. (Swenson et al. 1999)

In another study, water vole colonies that contained radio-tagged females gave birth to four times as many males as females. The researchers concluded that likely none of the radio-tagged female voles gave birth to any female offspring. (Moorhouse and Macdonald 2005)

II. HUMANS

Radio Wave Sickness

During the 1950s clinics were established in Moscow, Leningrad, and other cities in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to study and treat thousands of workers suffering from a new occupational disease—a disease which was also reported in the United States but which was neither studied nor treated there. The new disease was named radio wave sickness. These patients manufactured, inspected, repaired or operated microwave equipment. Some worked at radar facilities, others for radio or TV stations, or telephone companies. Still others operated radio frequency heaters and sealers being used in an expanding number of industries using technology developed during World War II.

These workers were exposed to microwave radiation only during working hours. And they were exposed to levels of radiation that were less than what the general public is exposed to now for hours per day, or even all the time, from their cell phones and other wireless devices.

The patients at these clinics suffered from headaches, fatigue, weakness, sleep disturbance, irritability, dizziness, memory difficulty, sexual dysfunction, skin rash, hair loss, decreased appetite, indigestion, and occasionally sensitivity to sunlight. Some had heart palpitations, stabbing pains in the region of the heart, and shortness of breath after exertion. Many developed emotional instability, anxiety or depression, and a few had mania or paranoia.

On physical exam they had acrocyanosis (blue fingers and toes), impaired sense of smell, sweating, tremors, altered reflexes, unequal pupil size, heart arrhythmias, and unstable pulse and blood pressure. They had abnormal EEGs and EKGs and, in advanced stages, signs of oxygen deprivation to the heart and brain. Some developed cataracts. Blood work showed hyperactive thyroid, elevated histamine, elevated blood sugar, elevated cholesterol and triglycerides, an increase in blood proteins, a decrease in the albumin-globulin ratio, decreased platelets and red blood cells, and abnormally high or low white blood cell count.

Although only about 15% of microwave workers complained of their illness, and only 2% ceased working (Sadchikova 1960, Klimková-Deutschová 1974), laboratory work revealed abnormalities in the majority of workers. Blood cholesterol was elevated in 40% of microwave workers (Klimkova-Deutschova 1974), triglycerides were elevated in 63% (Sadchikova et al. 1980), fasting blood sugar was increased in 74% (Klimkova-Deutschova 1974), and 70% had abnormal thyroid activity. (Smirnova and Sadchikova 1960; Drogichina 1960). Objective cardiac changes were found in 18% to 35% of microwave workers, depending on the length of time worked.

Because of the large number of publications about radio wave sickness coming out of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, a US/USSR scientific exchange on microwave radiation research was begun in the mid-1970s. And the US government commissioned Dr. Zorach Glaser to catalogue the world’s scientific literature—journal articles, books, conference proceedings—on reported biological and health effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation. By the end of the 1970s, Glaser’s bibliography included 5,083 documents (Glaser 1984).

During the 1960s and 1970s, ophthalmologist Milton Zaret, under contract with the US Army and US Air Force, examined the eyes of thousands of military and civilian personnel working at radar installations in the US and Greenland. Large numbers of them, he found, were developing cataracts. Most of these cataracts were caused by chronic exposure of the eye to radiation at power densities around one milliwatt per square centimeter—a level which is regularly exceeded by each of the 15 billion cell phones in use today (Birenbaum et al. 1969; Zaret 1973).

During those years American biologist Allan Frey discovered that microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier (Frey et al. 1975), and he proved that humans and animals can hear microwaves (Frey 1961). One of the most active American researchers during the 1960s and 1970s, Frey caused rats to become docile by irradiating them at a power density of 50 microwatts per square centimeter (Frey and Spector 1976). He altered specific behaviors at 8 microwatts per square centimeter (Frey and Wesler 1979). He altered the heart rate of live frogs at 3 microwatts per square centimeter (Frey and Eichert 1986). At only 0.6 microwatts per square centimeter, 15 times less than levels commonly encountered today at a normal operating distance from a wireless laptop, he caused frogs’ hearts to develop arrhythmias, and sometimes caused the hearts to stop beating, by timing the microwave pulses at a precise point during the heart’s rhythm (Frey and Seifert 1968). Frey’s work was funded by the US Navy.

In 1977 Paul Brodeur, in his book, The Zapping of America, warned that proliferating microwave towers and radar facilities were endangering public health. But compared to today, microwave and radio facilities were still very rare indeed.

When in 1977 Apple sold its first (wired) personal computers, exposure to high levels of electromagnetic radiation spread to the general population, and electromagnetic illness ceased being only an occupational disease. In that year deaths from asthma in the US, which had been declining steadily for decades, began to rise for the first time.

In 1981, Representative Al Gore chaired the first of a number of US Congressional hearings on the health effects of (wired) video display terminals (VDTs). These were held because two editors at The New York Times, young men in their 20s and 30s, had developed cataracts; half of all surveyed UPI and AP employees were complaining of visual problems or headaches; an unusual number of babies with birth defects had been born to employees at The Toronto Star; and clusters of miscarriages were occurring among female VDT operators all over the US and Canada.

The newspaper industry had been the earliest industry to be transformed by computer technol- ogy. During the 1981 hearings by the House Committee on Science and Technology, Charles A. Perlik, Jr., president of the Newspaper Guild, testified that had his membership known that VDTs were capable of dangerous emissions, “We would not have quietly permitted the transformation of an essentially benign workplace into a hazardous one.” In 1985 Canadian author Bob DeMatteo published a popular book titled Terminal Shock: The Health Hazards of Video Display Terminals.

In the mid-1980s Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, discovered a new skin disease. Since only people who worked in front of computer screens got it, he named it screen dermatitis. Such patients often complained also of neurological symptoms such as memory loss, fatigue, insomnia, dizziness, nausea, headache and heart palpitations—the same neurological symptoms written about three decades earlier by Soviet doctors—but since Johansson’s specialty was skin diseases, he studied the skin of computer operators. His subjects ranged from those with only redness and itching, to those with severe, disfiguring skin lesions.

In the mid-1990s the telecommunications industry embarked on a project that was to result in the exposure of the entire world to microwave radiation on a previously unimagined scale. They planned to place a cell phone and a wireless computer in the hands of every man, woman and child on Earth—and to dot our world with so many broadcast antennas that those phones and computers would work in every home and every office, on every street, in every country, on the highest mountain and in the deepest valley, on every lake, and in every national park, wilderness area and wildlife refuge, without exception. And so during the next decades every human being has become a source of microwave radiation wherever he or she goes. And ambient levels of radiation have increased a thousandfold or more, everywhere on Earth.

Researchers began correlating symptoms such as sleep disturbance, fatigue, memory loss, headaches, depression, dizziness and tremors—the same symptoms reported to both Soviet and American doctors half a century previously—with both cell phone use and proximity to communication towers. By 2007, teams of scientists in 14 countries concluded that the health of as much as three quarters of the population of the Earth was significantly affected by wireless technology (Haugsdal 1998, Hocking 1998, Cao 2000, Oftedahl 2000, Chia 2000, Sandström 2001, Santini 2002, Navarro 2003, Santini 2003, Zwamborn 2003, Wilén 2003, Oberfeld 2004, Bortkiewicz 2004, Al-Khlaiwi 2004, Salama 2004, Meo 2005, Preece 2005, Waldmann-Selsam 2005, Szykjowska 2005, Balikci 2005, Balik 2005, Hutter 2006, Abdel-Rassoul 2007).

Other scientists have reported that cell phones cause eczema (Kimata 2002), blindness (Ye et al. 2001), childhood asthma (Li et al. 2001), Alzheimer’s disease (Salford et al. 2003, Şahin et al. 2015), deafness (Oktay and Dasdag 2006, Panda et al. 2011, Velayutham et al. 2014, Mishra 2010, Mishra 2011), and multiple sclerosis (İkinci et al. 2015).

The term “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (“EHS”) was invented because no health authority in any Western country admits that electromagnetic radiation has any effect on the health of any normal person. EHS, therefore, refers to those people who have happened accidentally to find out what is making them sick, and who have bought into the fiction that they are abnormal and different from everyone else.

Signs and Symptoms

Neurological: headaches, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, irritability, depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, weakness, tremors, muscle spasms, numbness, tingling, altered reflexes, muscle and joint pain, leg/foot pain, “flu-like” symptoms, fever. More severe effects include seizures, paralysis, psychosis and stroke.

Cardiac: palpitations, arrhythmias, pain or pressure in the chest, low or high blood pressure, slow or fast heart rate, shortness of breath, and heart attacks.

Respiratory: sinusitis, bronchitis, asthma, and pneumonia.

Dermatological: skin rash, extreme sensitivity to touch, itching, burning, facial flushing.

Ophthalmologic: pain or burning in the eyes, pressure in or behind the eyes, deteriorating vision, floaters, cataracts.

Auditory: Chirping, buzzing, ringing in the ears, and hearing loss.

Reproductive: Decreased sperm count and motility; abnormal menstruation; infertility; miscarriage; birth defects.

Hematological: Anemia, elevated blood sugar, low platelets, low or high white cells, elevated cholesterol.

Other: digestive problems; abdominal pain; sweating; enlarged thyroid; adrenal exhaustion; testicular/ovarian pain; sexual dysfunction; dryness of lips, tongue, mouth, eyes; puffy lips; swollen throat; great thirst; dehydration; frequent urination; nosebleeds; internal bleeding; immune system abnormalities; redistribution of metals within the body; hair loss; brittle fingernails; pain in the teeth; deteriorating fillings; impaired sense of smell; light sensitivity.

Impaired Metabolism and Resulting Obesity, Diabetes, Heart Disease and Cancer

Radio waves interfere with electron transport in the mitochondria of every cell. This starves the cells of oxygen and impairs their ability to metabolize sugars, fats, and proteins, just like Kumar et al. (2011) demonstrated in honey bees (see above). The result is the modern pandemics of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. These diseases are also aspects of radio wave sickness. See Arthur Firstenberg’s The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, chapters 11, 12 and 13.

Power Level Is Irrelevant

As the chart at the beginning of this document shows, exposure levels are irrelevant where it concerns radio waves. Biological effects are found at 10 W/cm2, at 0.01 W/cm2, at 0.00001 W/cm2, at 0.00000001 W/cm2, and at 0.0000000000001 W/cm2.

As Allan Frey wrote, living organisms use electromagnetic fields (EMFs) for everything from cellular communication to nervous system function. “Electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance to living beings like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances, the greater the dose, the greater the effect—a dose-response relationship.” Instead, he said, a living being is like a radio receiver. “The EMF signal the radio detects and transduces into the sound of music is almost immeasurably weak.” Similarly, even an immeasurably weak radio signal can interfere with biological functions. (Frey 1990, 1993)

Dr. Ross Adey, at Loma Linda University School of Medicine, wrote that our cells “whisper” to each other with electromagnetic signals. He said that EMFs act at the atomic level and that “a threshold might not exist” for the effects of radio waves. (Adey 1993)

Biophysicist Neil Cherry, at Lincoln University in New Zealand, wrote that radio signals “can interfere with hearts, brains and cells at extremely low intensities, approaching zero exposure” (Cherry 2000). He later presented “conclusive evidence” that “the safe level of exposure is zero.” (Cherry 2001)

For some effects, there is even an inverse dose-response, i.e. the lower the exposure level, the greater the harm. In other words, the more the external signal approaches the infinitesimal strength of our bodies’ own internal signals, the more it is recognized by the body, and the more it interferes with life.

Thus, Leif Salford’s team at Lund University found that the greatest damage to the blood-brain barrier occurred at the lowest dose of radiation (reduced ten thousand-fold), not the highest dose. (Persson 1997).

Numerous researchers, including Carl Blackman at the US Environmental Protection Agency, have found that microwave radiation causes calcium to flow out of brain cells. For this effect, these researchers have found power windows of maximal effect, i.e. the effect decreases at both lower and higher levels (Blackman 1980, 1986; Bawin 1977; Dutta 1986; Kunjilwar and Behari 1993). And it is the lowest power windows, not the highest, that have the greatest effect: the effect at an SAR of 0.0007 W/kg was quadruple the effect at an SAR of 2.0 W/kg (Dutta 1986).

Maria Sadchikova and her Soviet colleagues consistently reported in the 1960s and 1970s that among people occupationally exposed to microwave radiation, the sickest were those exposed to the lowest, not the highest levels. (Sadchikova 1960, 1974).

Igor Belyaev, at Stockholm University, found a genetic effect that occurred at specific frequencies. The magnitude of the effect did not change with power level over 14 orders of magnitude, all the way down to 0.00000000001 microwatts per square centimeter. (Belyaev 1996)

Nikolai Kositksy and his colleagues in Kiev, Ukraine reiterated that external radio signals interfere with our bodies’ own internal signaling, and that it is the informational content of radio waves, and not their power level, that causes harm. They reviewed 40 years of research in the Soviet Union and concluded: “Biological effects associated with these interactions depend not on the strength of the energy carried into one or another system, but on the information carried into it.” (Kositsky 2001)

Thus most of the effects of radio waves on our bodies are caused not by their power levels but by their frequencies, bandwidths, pulsations, waveforms, and all the other attributes that enable them to carry information and make them useful to cell phones and computers. It is the coherent nature of the radiation and the information that it carries that kills. And therefore light (LiFi) and any other carrier of the same information is just as harmful, as are lasers. A laser is coherent light.

We evolved without microwaves and without coherent radiation. The microwave radiation from the Sun is not coherent, is not centered at any particular frequency, varies in total from .0000001 W/cm2 to .0001 W/cm2 when the Sun is most active, and we are only exposed to it during the day; at night, only the far weaker microwaves from the stars reach Earth.

Living beings should not ever contact, or be near, any source of coherent radiation, or any source of microwave radiation. Not WiFi, not Bluetooth, not baby monitors, not microwave ovens, and not cell phones. Not even for a few seconds. Cell phones, because of their ubiquity and their proximity to the body, are causing by far the most harm to health, society, and planet.

Number of People With: Headache disorders: 4 billion (Stovner 2022)
Chronic pain: 2 billion (Antunes 2021)
Brain diseases: 1.3 billion (American Brain Foundation 2022)

 

REFERENCES

Abdel-Rassoul, G. et al. 2007. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. NeuroToxicology 28(2): 434-40.

Adey, W. R. 1993. Whispering between cells: Electromagnetic fields and regulatory mechanisms in tissue. Frontier Perspectives 3(2):21-25.

Al-Khlaiwi, T. and S. A. Meo 2004. Association of mobile phone radiation with fatigue, headache, dizziness, tension and sleep disturbance in Saudi population. Saudi Medical Journal 25(6): 732-736.

Alattar, E. and E. Radwan 2020. Investigation of the effects of radio frequency water treatment on some characteristics of growth in pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants. Advances in Bioscience and Technology 11:22-48.

Altpeter, E.-S. et al. 1995. Study on health effects of the shortwave transmitter station of Schwarzenburg, Berne, Switzerland. Study No. 55, Swiss Federal Office of Energy.

Altpeter, E.-S. et al. 1997. Do radiofrequency electromagnetic fields cause sleep disorders? European Regional Meeting of the International Epidemiological Association, Münster, Germany, September. Abstract no. 351.

American Brain Foundation 2022. Brain Diseases from A to Z. https://www.americanbrainfoundation.org/diseases/

Antunes, F. et al. 2021. Prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain among patients in Portuguese primary care units. Pain and Therapy 10:1427-1437.

Balik, H. H. et al. 2005. Some ocular symptoms and sensations experienced by long term users of mobile phones. Pathologie Biologie 53(2): 88-91.

Balikci K. et al. 2005. A survey study on some neurological symptoms and sensations experienced by long term users of mobile phones. Pathologie Biologie 53(1): 30-34.

Balmori, A. 2006. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 88(2):287-89.

Balodis, V. et al. 1996. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? The Science of the Total Environment 180:81-85.

Bawin, S. M., A. Sheppard and W. R. Adey 1977. Possible mechanisms of weak electromagnetic field coupling in brain tissue. In The Physical Basis of Electromagnetic Interactions with Biological Systems, Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, June 15-17, 1977, pp. 75-90.

Belokrinitskiy, V. S. 1982. Hygienic evaluation of biological effects of nonionizing microwaves.
Gigiyena i Sanitariya 6:32-34, JPRS 81865, pp. 1-5.

Belokrinitskiy, V. S. 1982a. Destructive and reparative processes in hippocampus with long-term exposure to nonionizing microwave radiation. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine 93(3):89-92.

Belyaev, I. Y. et al. 1996. Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10–19 to 3 x 10–3 W/cm2 on Escherichia coli cells at different concentrations. Bioelectromagnetics
17:312-321.

Birenbaum, L. et al. 1969. Effect of microwaves on the eye. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 16(1):7-14.

Bise, W. 1978. Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human electroencephalogram and behavior. Physiological Chemistry and Physics 10(5):387-398.

Blackman, C. F. et al. 1980. Induction of calcium-ion efflux from brain tissue by radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 1:35-43.

Blackman, C. 1986. Radiobiological approaches to electropollution. In Biological Effects of Electropollution, S. Dutta and R. Millis, eds., Information Ventures, Phila., pp. 39-46.

Bortkiewicz, A. et al. 2004. Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations. Medycyna Pracy 55(4): 345-351, in Polish.

Brauer, I. 1950. Experimenta1 studies on the effect of meter waves of various field intensities on the growth of plants by division. Chromosoma 3:483-509.

Brodeur, P. 1977. The Zapping of America. NY: W.W. Norton.

Bundyuk, L. S. et al. 1994. Corrective action of millimeter waves on systems of various levels of hierarchy. Physics of the Alive 2(1):12-25.

Cammaerts, M.-C. and O. Johansson 2014. Ants can be used as bio-indicators to reveal biological effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 33(4):282-88.

Cao Z. et al. 2000. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from cellular telephone handsets on symptoms of neurasthenia. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 29(6): 366-368, in Chinese.

Cherry, N. 2000. Safe Exposure Levels. Lincoln University, April 25, 2000.

Cherry, N. 2001. Evidence of brain cancer from occupational exposure to pulsed microwaves from a police radar. Lincoln University, August 15, 2001.

Chia, S.-I. et al. 2000. Prevalence of headache among hand-held cellular telephone users in Singapore: a community study. Environmental Health Perspectives 108(11): 1059-1062.

Chiang, H. et al. 1989. Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. Journal of Bioelectricity 8(1):127-131.

DeMatteo, B. 1985. Terminal Shock: The Health Hazards of Video Display Terminals. Toronto: NC Press.

Dolk, H. et al. 1997. Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain, I. Sutton Coldfield transmitter. American Journal of Epidemiology 145(1):1-9.

Drogichina, E. A. 1960. The clinic of chronic UHF influence on the human organism. In The Biological Action of Ultrahigh Frequencies, A. A. Letavet and Z. V. Gordon, eds., Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow. JPRS 12471, pp. 22-24.

Dumanskij, J. D., and M. G. Shandala 1974. The biologic action and hygienic significance of electromagnetic fields of super-high and ultrahigh frequencies in densely populated areas. In Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 October 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds, pp. 289-293.

Dutta, S. K. et al. 1986. Microwave radiation-induced calcium ion flux from human neuroblastoma cells: dependence on depth of amplitude modulation and exposure time. In Biological Effects of Electropollution, S. K. Dutta and R. M. Millis, eds., pp. 63-69.
Philadelphia, PA: Information Ventures.

Eberhardt, J. L. et al. 2008. Blood-brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 27:215-229.

Engels, S. et al. 2014. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature 509:353-56.

Federal Communications Commission 2018. FCC SAR Test Report. Report No. SA180725W003-1. August 14, 2018.

Firstenberg, A. 1997. Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution. NY: Cellular Phone Task Force.

Firstenberg, A. 2020. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Frey, A. H. 1961. Auditory system response to radio frequency energy. Aerospace Medicine 32: 1140-1142.

Frey, A. H. 1963. Human response to very-low-frequency electromagnetic energy. Nav. Res. Rev. 1968:1-4.

Frey, A. H., and E. Seifert 1968. Pulse modulated UHF energy illumination of the heart associated with change in heart rate. Life Sciences 7(Part II):505-512.

Frey, A. H. 1970. Effects of microwave and radio frequency energy on the central nervous system. In Biological Effects and Health Implications of Microwave Radiation, Symposium Proceedings, Richmond, Virginia, September 17-19, 1969, S. F. Cleary, ed., pp. 134-139.

Frey, A. H. 1971. Biological function as influenced by low power modulated RF energy. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, MTT-19(2):153-164.

Frey, A. H., and R. Messenger 1973. Human perception of illumination with pulsed ultrahigh- frequency electromagnetic energy. Science 181:356-358.

Frey, A. H. et al. 1975. Neural function and behavior: defining the relationship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247:433-439.

Frey, A. H. and J. Spector 1976. Irritability and aggression in mammals as affected by exposure to electromagnetic energy. Proceedings of the 1976 Annual Meeting of the International Union of Radio Science, October 15-19, 1976, Amherst, Mass., p. 93.

Frey, A. H. and L. Wesler 1979. Modification of tail pinch consummatory behavior in microwave energy exposure. In Program and Abstracts, National Radio Science Meeting, June 18-22, 1979, Seattle, Washington, p. 456.

Frey, A. H. and E. S. Eichert 1986. “Modification of Heart Function with Low Intensity Electromagnetic Energy.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 5(2):201-210.

Frey, A. H. 1988. Evolution and results of biological research with low-intensity nonionizing radiation. In Modern Bioelectricity, A. A. Marino, ed., pp. 785-837. New York, NY: Dekker.

Frey, A. H. 1990. Is a toxicology model appropriate as a guide for biological research with electromagnetic fields? Journal of Bioelectricity 9(2):233-234.

Frey, A. H. 1993. On the nature of electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems.
FASEB Journal 7(2):272-281.

Glaser, Z. 1984. Cumulated index to the Bibliography of reported biological phenomena
(“effects”) and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation: report, supplements (no. 1-9), BEMS newsletter (B-1 through B-464), 1971-1981. Indexed by Julie Moore. Riverside, CA: Julie Moore & Associates.

Grundler, W. and F. Kaiser 1992. Experimental evidence for coherent excitations correlated with cell growth. Nanobiology 1:163-176.

Haggerty, K. 2010. Adverse influence of radio frequency background on trembling aspen seedlings: Preliminary observations. International Journal of Forestry Research, article ID 836278.

Haugsdal, B. et al. 1998. Comparison of symptoms experienced by users of analogue and digital mobile phones: a Swedish-Norwegian epidemiological study. Arbetslivsrapport 23, National Institute for Working Life, Umeå, Sweden.

Hawk, K. 1996. Case Study in the Heartland. Butler, PA.

Hocking, B. and I. Gordon 1996. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers.
Medical Journal of Australia 165(11-12):601-605.

Hocking, B. 1998. Symptoms associated with mobile phone use. Occupationa1 Medicine
48(6):357-360, and letter, vol. 48(7):472.

Hutter, H.-P. et al. 2006. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 63:307–13.

İkinci, A. et al. 2013. The effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 megahertz electromagnetic field on hippocampus morphology and learning behavior in rat pups. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine 30:278. Abstract.

Justeson, D. R. 1979. Behavioral and psychological effects of microwave radiation. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 55(11):1058-1078.

Kimata, H. 2002. Enhancement of allergic skin wheal responses by microwave radiation from mobile phones in patients with atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 129(4):348-50.

Klimkova-Deutschova, E. 1974. Neurologic findings in persons exposed to microwaves. In Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 October 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds., pp. 268-272.

Kolodynski, A. A. and V. V. Kolodynska 1996. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. The Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93.

Kondra, P. A. et al. 1970. Growth and reproduction of chickens subjected to microwave radiation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50:639-644.

Kositsky, N. N. et al. 2001. Influence of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal intensities on the human body (a review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers). No Place To Hide 3(1) Supplement.

Kumar, N. R. et al. 2011. Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicology International 18(1):70-72.

Kunjilwar, K. K. and J. Behari 1993. Effect of amplitude-modulated RF radiation on cholinergic system of developing rats. Brain Research 601:321-324.

Kwee, S. and P. Raskmark 1997. Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and cell proliferation. In Proceedings of the Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, June 8-12, 1997, Bologna, Italy, F. Bersani, ed.

Li, D.-K. et al. 2011. Maternal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy in relation to the risk of asthma in offspring. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 16(10):945-50.

Lilienfeld, A. M. 1978. Evaluation of Health Status of Foreign Service and Other Employees from Selected Eastern European Posts. National Technical Information Service, PB288-163.

Lin, J. C., 1978. Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Löscher, W. and G. Käs 1998. Auffällige Verhaltensstörungen bei Rindern im Bereich von Sendeanlagen. Der praktische Tierarzt 79(5):437-444.

Magone, I., 1996. The effect of electromagnetic radiation from the Skrunda Radio Location Station on Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden cultures. The Science of the Total Environment 180:75-80.

Magras, I. N. and T. D. Xenos 1997. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18:455-461.

McRee, D. I. 1980. Soviet and Eastern European research on biological effects of microwave radiation. Proceedings of the IEEE 68(1):84-91.

Mech, L. D. and S. M. Barber 2002. A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking and Its Use in National Parks. Jamestown, ND: U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.

Meo, S. A. and A. M. Al-Drees 2005. Mobile phone related-hazards and subjective hearing and vision symptoms in the Saudi population. International Jouranl of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 18(1):53-57.

Mishra, L. 2011. Heard this? Talking on the phone makes you deaf. Mumbai Mirror, October 26.

Mishra, S. K. 2010. Otoacoustic emission (OAE)-based measurement of the functioning of the human cochlea and the efferent auditory system. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton.

Moorhouse, T. P. and D. W. Macdonald 2005. Indirect negative impacts of radio-collaring: Sex ratio variation in water voles. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:91-98.

Navarro, A. E. et al. 2003. The microwave syndrome: A preliminary study in Spain.
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22(2):161–169.

Nielsen, L. et al. 2013. Undersøgelse af non-termiske effecter af mobilstråling. 9.B Hjallerup skole 28-02-2013.

Nittby, H. et al. 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29:219-232.

Oberfeld, G. et al. 2004. The microwave syndrome: further aspects of a Spanish study. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 4-8 October, 2004, Kos, Greece.

Oftedal, G. et al. 2000. Symptoms experienced in connection with mobile phone use.
Occupational Medicine (London) 50:237-245.

Oktay, M. F. and S. Dasdag 2006. Effects of intensive and moderate cellular phone use on hearing function. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25:13-21.

Olsen, R. G. 1980. Evidence for microwave-induced acoustic resonances in biological material.
Bioelectromagnetics 1:219.

Panda, N. K. et al. 2011. Auditory changes in mobile users: is evidence forthcoming?
Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 144(4):581-85.

Persson, B. R. R. et al. 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3:455-461.

Perlik, C. 1981. Testimony in Potential Health Effects of Video Display Terminals and Radio Frequency Heaters and Sealers. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety- seventh Congress, first session, May 12, 13, 1981, p. 7.

Preece, A. W. et al. 2005. The Akrotiri Military Antennae Health Survey. Department of Medical Physics and Oncology, University of Bristol, Final Report, June 2, 2005.

Racini, S. M. et al. 2015. Simulation of psSAR associated with the use of laptop computers as a function of position in relation to the adult body. BioEM2015, June 14-19, 2015, Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. Poster.

Sadchikova, M. N. 1960. State of the nervous system under the influence of UHF. In The Biological Action of Ultrahigh Frequencies, A. A. Letavet and Z. V. Gordon, eds., Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow, pp. 25-29.

Sadchikova, M. N. 1974. Clinical manifestations of reactions to microwave irradiation in various occupational groups. In Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 October, 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds., pp. 261-267.

Sadchikova, M. N. et al. 1980. Significance of blood lipid and electrolyte disturbances in the development of some reactions to microwaves. Gigiyena Truda i Professional’nyye Zabolevaniya, no. 2, 1980, pp. 38-39, JPRS 77393, pp. 37-39.

Salama, O. E. and R. M. Abou El Naga 2004. Cellular phones : Are they detrimental? Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association 79(3-4):197-223.

Şahin, A. et al. 2015. Deleterious impacts of a 900-MHz electromagnetic field on hippocampal pyramidal neurons of 8-week-old Sprague Dawley male rats. Brain Research 1624:232-38.

Salford, L. G. et al. 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environmental Health Perspectives 111(7):881-83.

Sandström, M. et al. 2001. Mobile phone use and subjective symptoms. Comparison of symptoms reported by users of analogue and digital mobile phones. Occupational Medicine (London) 51:25–35.

Santini, R. et al. 2002. Symptoms experienced by users of digital cellular phones: A study of a French engineering school. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 21:81-88.

Santini, R. et al. 2003. Survey study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22:41-49.

Selga, T. and M. Selga 1996. Response of Pinus sylvestris L. needles to electromagnetic fields. Cytological and ultrastructural aspects. The Science of the Total Environment 180:65-73.

Serant, C. 2004. A human science experiment. New York Newsday, May 10.

Shandala, M. G., and G. I. Vinogradov 1978. Immunological effects of microwave action.
Gigiyena I Sanitariya, no. 10, 1978, pp. 34-38, JPRS 72956, pp. 16-21.

Sharma, V. P. and N. R. Kumar 2010. Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations. Current Science 98(10):1376-78.

Shutenko, O. I. et al. 1981. Effects of superhigh frequency electromagnetic fields on animals of different ages. Gigiyena i Sanitariya, no. 10, 1981, pp. 35-38, JPRS 84221, pp. 85-90.

Simonenko, V. B. et al. 1998. Influence of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency range on the health condition of an organized collective. Voenno-meditsinskiy zhurnal 319(5):64-68.

Smirnova, M. I. and M. N. Sadchikova 1960. Determination of the functional activity of the thyroid gland by means of radioactive iodine in works with UHF generators. In The Biological Action of Ultrahigh Frequencies, A. A. Letavet and Z. V. Gordon, eds., Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow. JPRS 12471, pp. 47-49.

Stark, K. et al. 1997. Absence of chronic effect of exposure to short-wave radio broadcast signal on salivary melatonin concentrations in dairy cattle. Journal of Pineal Research 22:171-76.

Stovner, L. J. et al. 2022. The global prevalence of headache: an update, with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates. The Journal of Headache and Pain 23, Article No 34.

Swenson, J. E. et al. 1999. Effects of ear-tagging with radiotransmitters on survival of moose calves. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1):354-58.

Szyjkowska, A. et al. 2005. Subjective symptoms related to mobile phone use – a pilot study.
Polski Merkuriusz Lekarski 19(112):529-532, in Polish.

Velayutham, P. et al. 2014. High-frequency hearing loss among mobile phone users. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery 66:S169-S172.

Waldmann-Selsam, C. 2005. The Bamberg Report. Bamberg, Germany.

Wieske, C. W. 1963. Human sensitivity to electric fields. In Proceedings of the First National Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation Symposium, Los Angeles, July 14-17, 1962.

Wilén J. et al. 2003. Subjective symptoms among mobile phone users – A consequence of absorption of radiofrequency fields? Bioelectromagnetics 24(3):152-59.

Ye, J. et al. 2001. Low power density microwave radiation induced early changes in rabbit lens epithelial cells. Chinese Medical Journal 114(12):1290-94.

Zaret, M. M. 1973. Microwave cataracts. Medical Trial Technique Quarterly 19(3):246-52.

Zwamborn, A. P. M. et al. 2003. Effects of Global Communications System Radiofrequency Fields on Well Being and Cognitive Functions of Human Subjects with and without Subjective Complaints. TNO report, FEL-03-C148. The Hague.

 

Connect with Arthur Firstenberg

cover image credit: hpgruesen / pixabay




Victory for Flower Hill, New York in Stopping Placement of 18 Small Cell Antennas in Their Village

Victory for Flower Hill, New York in Stopping Placement of 18 Small Cell Antennas in Their Village

 

Flower Hill Village Hall, Flower Hill, NY. Image credit: LINYperson615

 

Victory in Flower Hill, NY!
Judge says village’s denial of small cell applications was legal and reasonable.

by Americans for Responsible Technology
sourced from Americans for Responsible Technology newsletter
August 21, 2022

 

In a landmark legal decision, Judge Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, found that the Village of Flower Hill, NY, was justified in denying the application of ExteNet (acting as an agent for Verizon Wireless) to place 18 small cell antennas in the Village.

The Judge quoted from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, citing the provision that “nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of persona wireless service facilities”.

He noted that other courts have found the Act to be “in many important respects a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction”. Nevertheless, he reasoned, a plain reading of the text supports the claim by the Village that it has acted legally.

Most importantly, the Judge ruled that the provisions of the 1996 Act do not necessarily apply to the new uses of wireless to provide broadband and other services. “Improved capacity and speed are desirable (and, no doubt, profitable) goals in the age of smartphones,” he wrote, “but they are not protected by the Act.”

This is a Hallelujah moment for all those working to limit the reckless deployment of wireless technology into our neighborhoods and homes.

A copy of the judge’s decision can be found here.

To view our Municipal Code Checklist and Smart Planning Provisions for Cities and Towns, please visit our Tool Kit.

 

Connect with Americans for Responsible Technology

cover image credit: LINYperson615  / Wikimedia Commons




So-called ‘Climate Change’ as Seen by the Public Is Not the Problem; But Weather Geoengineering Is Destroying Everything on Earth?

So-called ‘Climate Change’ as Seen by the Public Is Not the Problem; But Weather Geoengineering Is Destroying Everything on Earth?

by Gary D. Barnett
August 19, 2022

 

“We are all inmates in a global asylum; the bars that enclose us are visible to any who choose to see.”
Dane Wigington—Creator and lead researcher for Geoengineering Watch

 

I will preface my comments here by accepting the fact that this subject matter is foreign to many, while being ignored by most. Those in the past who entered into this conversation were exposed to extreme criticism, name calling, scathing reproach, and viewed as insane conspiracy nuts. I have experienced this myself on many occasions. This subject is complicated, and geoengineering can be used in any number of ways to cause great harm, such as weather manipulation, a myriad of extreme health problems, sickness, and death. It can also be used as a bioweapon, and can be used against those exposed to these toxic concoctions of nanoparticles through controlling psychological and physiological means. This initial essay is an overview, but I hope to offer more concentrated and in-depth analysis in a later writing.

Weather geoengineering is considered very controversial, but it is not controversial in any regard; it is a fact, and has been happening for decades. Some claim, and I think correctly, that this is the biggest threat to life on this planet. It is not that normal human activity is destroying the health of the earth due to the common misunderstanding of ‘man-made global warming’ believers, but weather geoengineering is most definitely and aggressively harming every lifeform on this planet. All plants and animals, including of course humans, have been, and are being, devastated by massive amounts of metals, toxic chemicals, and nanoparticles being let lose in the skies and atmosphere of this country and the world; this not even considering all the other poisons in our food, daily use products, and massive spraying of poisons for weeds, yards, highways, and agriculture.

Look around and consider the new era of constant droughts, wildfires, floods, soil destruction, root system collapse, unnatural tree and forest devastation, eradication of bees and insects, loss of vital plankton in our oceans, destruction of many waterways and reservoirs, and many other unnatural catastrophic events. This is not an endorsement or acceptance of any fraudulent ‘climate change’ agenda levied against the population by the state, it is simply the reality of purposeful geoengineering policies by the state meant to achieve multiple totalitarian agendas, and in the process, great harm to all has been the result. This was not necessarily what was initially sought by the ruling ‘elites’ in my opinion, but the very adverse consequences have been accepted in order to continue the drive toward global tyranny in the form of creating a one world government.

For once and for all, let us accept and understand the difference between a harmless contrail and a chemical trail of nanoparticles made up of metals, toxins, plastics, and any number of other harmful elements, purposely sprayed into the atmosphere in order to block sunlight and change the natural order of things.

Contrails are simply condensation or vapor trails (ice crystals) formed in rare circumstances under very particular conditions where high moisture is evident in jet exhaust, and cold and humid conditions are present.

With very few exceptions, we should not see anything behind the jets in our skies that are fitted with high bypass turbofan jet engines. High Bypass turbofan jet engines are fitted on all commercial aircraft and all military tankers. High bypass jet engines are nearly incapable of producing a “condensation trail” except for the most extreme conditions, and even then, any visible trail should not be more than a few seconds at most.”

Chemical trails (Chemtrails) contain aluminum, barium, and strontium, among many other chemicals, plastics, and other toxic elements, many in the form of harmful nanoparticles. As retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Charles Jones stated concerning the sprayed trails in the sky:

“When people look up into the blue and see white trails paralleling and crisscrossing high in the sky, little do they know that they are not seeing aircraft engine contrails, but instead they are witnessing a manmade climate engineering crisis facing all air breathing humans and animals on planet Earth… Toxic atmospheric aerosols are used to alter weather patterns, creating droughts in some regions, deluges and floods in other locations and even extreme cold under other conditions.”

This is of course, only the tip of the iceberg. Besides all the harm caused to humans, animals, trees, and all plant life, including the foods grown in the now tainted soil, the death and extermination of insects, birds, bats, and vital oxygen-generating plankton, the earth itself is being decimated. In other words, this is a most active threat, and it is real. This is not the ‘climate change’ discussed by politicized ‘environmental ‘organizations, most all of whom are largely state funded, counterfeit, and bogus entities. This is a real threat that is lied about and purposely hidden by all those pretending to care for the earth. By ignoring, whether intentional or not, the real risk that is right before their eyes, they continue to propagandize about the common people in general being at fault, hoping to place false blame in order to advance nefarious agendas.

Global weather geo-engineering projects are a war against all of humanity, and one of the biggest coverups of all time in my view. The danger to us all is astronomical, and much harm and destruction has already occurred. If this was common knowledge, as it should be, maybe this collective group of fools called the masses, would actually stand up and do something to stop this insanity. It is not like this just happened recently, as weather modification has been pursued and implemented for at least 60 years and beyond. Our skies and the skies of the world are choking due to constant spraying of sun-blocking elements meant to change weather patterns so as to justify total control of all human activities, to fatally harm the natural growing and production of food sources, to cause sickness and death to large swaths of humanity to affect depopulation, and to implement an exhaustive system of total control based on the political lie of what is commonly called ‘climate change.’

Climate manipulation, climate warfare, and environmental destruction are taking place, but this is being done in the name of globalism and a one world governing system. It is not due to driving cars, taking trips, or turning on an air conditioner, it is due to the master class of rulers and their pawns in government, all government bureaucracies, and the mainstream media owned and controlled by this same evil ruling class and its partnered organizations. Once again, most everything considered real by the masses, is completely backward and the opposite of anything honest and sane.

Recently, Spain admitted to spraying chemtrails under a secret U.N. program. The Spanish government authorized biocide spraying for ‘disinfection’ purposes, all hidden, and without notifying the citizenry. This was secret experimentation on the public, without any knowledge or caring as to how the Spanish people would be affected. The Spanish weather agency, the AEMET, said that over 50 countries were spraying to modify the weather, but in truth, this spraying is happening worldwide.

The most major tenet of this grand assault on humanity at the hands of the manipulative state, is advancing the ‘climate change’ agenda, so that total control over all of humanity and all property, can be solidified with very little resistance. It is all based on false fear, as always, but the state players in their haste to complete this takeover coup, have actually through climate and weather manipulation, also placed themselves in harm’s way. The plot was allowed to continue because multiple state agendas were being sought, and it is still in place today, even with the risks to all due to this horrendous plan. Oh, what a tangled web they weave.

When these weather geo-engineering tactics were used during the Vietnam War against a people that did nothing to warrant any attack by the evil U.S. empire, hell was unleashed on that country. They are still dealing with the effects of the heinous atrocities inflicted upon them by American forces. Weather manipulation was used to bring much more rain during the monsoon period so as stop movement. Spraying all the foliage with Agent Orange to kill all plants and undergrowth so that the Vietnamese would have nowhere to hide, which also destroyed most efforts to grow food, and caused horror for all in that country and others. In addition, some of these same chemicals were used to burn, maim, and kill civilians and military alike, which also included their animals meant for work and food. Of course, cancer, immune system destruction, birth defects, and many other health maladies, were obvious results of this inhuman chemical warfare.

With continued spraying and weather geo-engineering here by ‘your’ government and those controlling ‘your’ government, you can look forward to the same fate as was exacted against the innocent people of Vietnam. The truth you see, is that this is a war against all of you, and by ‘your’ own country’s government that you voluntarily allow to exist and rule over you. Stop it now, and abolish this system of governmental control, or settle in for a life of slavery and death at the hands of this ruling cabal.

 

“Historically, modern warfare, waged by and between readily identifiable nation-states or assemblages of nation-states, results in environmental damage. Today, however, large segments of humanity and other biota are at risk from global environmental warfare, undertaken through deception and deceit by undisclosed globalist-type factions who remain in the shadows.”
J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D. and Mark Whiteside, M.D., M.P.H. (2021) “Nature as a Weapon of Global War: The Deliberate Destruction of Life on Earth”

 

Reference links:

“The Dimming: Exposing the Global Geo-Engineering Cover-Up”

Weather Modification History Timeline

HAARP and the Sky Heaters

Spain Allows Geoengineering as do over 50 Other Countries

Spain Admits to Spraying Chemtrails in Secret U.N. Program

Answers for Common Questions About  Geoengineering

GeoEngineering Watch

Chemtrail Poisons Are ruining Your Health From Above

Secret weather manipulation during the Vietnam War

The horrible effects of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War meant to destroy crops and forest canopy

 

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

cover image credit: goelie / pixabay




Notified! Letters Have Been Sent to Education and Health Officials in All 50 States About Emf/RF Radiation Exposure Risks to Kids

Notified! Letters Have Been Sent to Education and Health Officials in All 50 States About Emf/RF Radiation Exposure Risks to Kids

by B.N. Frank, Activist Post
August 18, 2022

 

According to poll results published last month, half of parents don’t know how much screen time damages kids’ vision.  Of course, numerous studies have already determined that exposure to blue light from screens and energy-saving light bulbs is biologically harmful and in more ways than how it affects vision (see 1234567891011).  Other warnings about kids’ screen use (addiction, etc.) have been cited by various experts over the years as well.

Additionally, research has determined that exposure to electromagnetic radiation being emitted by screens and other wireless sources is also especially harmful to children (see 1234).  This has already led to schools worldwide replacing Wi-Fi with hardwired internet connections.  Nevertheless, so many American school districts (see 1234) and organizations seem to still be encouraging kids to spend more time using and/or being exposed to wireless radiation-emitting technology including increasingly controversial virtual reality (VR) headsets.

Thanks to Environmental Health Trust for writing and sending out letters to officials, etc. in all 50 states about kids’ vulnerability to exposure to common EMF/RF radiation-emitting sources used in schools.  Of course, these letters may be shared with other officials and groups in all 50 states as well.

Letters to State Officials of Health, Education and PTAs

May 3, 2022

https://ehtrust.org/letters-to-state-officials-of-health-education-and-ptas/

ALABAMA
– Secretary of Health John H. Merrill
– Secretary of Education Barbara Cooper

ALASKA
– Commissioner of Education Michael Johnson
– Commissioner of Health Adam Crum

ARIZONA
– Chief of Health Don Herrington
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman

ARKANSAS
– Commissioner of the Department of Education Johnny Key
– Secretary of the Department of Health Jose Romero

CALIFORNIA
– Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency Mark Ghaly
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurman

COLORADO
– Executive Director of the Department of Public Health And Environment Jill Hunsaker
– Commissioner of Education Katy Anthes

CONNECTICUT
– Commissioner of the Department of Public Health Manisha Juthani
– Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona

DELAWARE
– Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Services Kara Odom
– Secretary of Education Mark Holodick

FLORIDA
– Secretary of Education James Kvaal
– State Surgeon General  Joseph Lapado

GEORGIA
– Superintendent of Schools Richard Woods
– Commissioner of the Department of Public Health Kathy Toomey

HAWAII
– Superintendent of the Dpeartment of Education Keith Hayashi
– Director of Health Elizabeth Char

IDAHO
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Sherry Ybarra
– Secretary of State Lawerence Denney

ILLINOIS
– Superintendent of Education Carmen Ayala
– Director of the Department of Public Health

INDIANA
– Secretary of Education Katie Jenner
– State Health Commissioner Kristina Box

IOWA
– Director of Education Ann Lebo
– Director of the Department of Health Kelly Garcia

KANSAS
– Secretary of the Department of Education Peggy Hill
– Secretary of the Department of Health and Environment Janet Stanek

KENTUCKY
– Commissioner of the Department of Education Jason Glass
– Secretary of Health Eric Friedlander

LOUISIANA
– Superintendent of Education Cade Brumley
– Secretary of the Department of Health Dr. Courtney Phillips

MAINE
– Commissioner of the Department of Education Pender Makin
– Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services Jeanne Lambrew

MARYLAND
– Superintendent of Schools Mohammed Choudhury
– Secretary of the Department of Health Dennis Schrader

MASSACHUSETTS
– Secretary of Education James Peyser
– Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Marylou Sudders

MICHIGAN
– Superintendent of the Department of Education Michael Rice
– Director of the Department of Health and Human Services Elizabeth Hertel

MINNESOTA
– Commissioner of Education Heather Mueller
– Commissioner of the Department of Health Jan Malcolm

MISSISSIPPI
– Superintendent of Education Carey Wright
– Chair and Professor of Health Elayne Anthony

MISSOURI
– Director of the Department of Health Paula Nickelson
– Commissioner of the Department of Education Margie Vandeven

MONTANA
– Superintendent of Public Education Elsie Arntzen
– Director of Public Health Adam Meier

NEBRASKA
– Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health and Human Services Dannette Smith
– Commissioner of Education Matthew Blomstedt

NEVADA

– Director of the Department of Health and Human Services Richard Whitley
– Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona

NEW HAMPSHIRE
– Commissioner of the Department of Education Frank Edelblut
– Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Dunn

NEW JERSEY
– Commissioner of Education Angelica Allen-McMillan
– Commissioner of the Department of Health Judith Persichilli

NEW MEXICO
– Secretary of Education Kurt Steinhaus
– Cabinet Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services David Scarse

NEW YORK
– Commissioner of Education & President of the University of the State of New York Mary Ellen Elia
– Commissioner of Health Mary Bassett

NORTH CAROLINA
– Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Dr. Mandy Cohen
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Catherine Truitt

NORTH DAKOTA
– Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction Kirsten Baesler
– Secretary of the Department of Health Mark Strand

OHIO
– Director of the Department of Health Bruce Vanderhoff
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Stephanie Siddens

OKLAHOMA
– Superintendent of the Department of Education Ryan Walters
– Chief Executive Officer of the Health Care Authority Kevin Corbett

OREGON
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Colt Gill
– Director of the Health Authority Pat Allen

PENNSYLVANIA
– Secretary of the Department of Health Keara Klinepeter
– Secretary of the Department of Education Noe Ortega

RHODE ISLAND
– Commissioner of Education Angelica Infante-Green
– Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services Womazetta Jones

SOUTH CAROLINA
– Director of the Department of Health and Human Services Robert Kerr
– Superintendent of Education Molly Spearman

SOUTH DAKOTA
– Secretary of Education Tiffany Sanderson
– Secretary of Health Jon Adam

TENNESSEE
– Commissioner of the Department of Health Lisa Piercey
– Commissioner of the Department of Education Penny Schwinn

TEXAS
– Commissioner of Health and Public Services Erwin Young
– Commissioner of Education Mike Morath

UTAH
– Executive Director of the Department of Health Nathan Checketts
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Sydnee Dickson

VERMONT
– Secretary of Vermont’s Department of Education Dan French
– Commissioner of Health Mark Levine

VIRGINIA
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Balow
– Secretary of Health and Human Resources John Little

WASHINGTON
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal
– Secretary of Health Umair Shah

WEST VIRGINIA
– President of the Board of Education Miller Hall
– Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources Bill Crouch

WISCONSIN
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Jill Underly
– Secretary to the Department of Health Services Karen Timberlake

WYOMING
– Superintendent of Public Instruction Brian Schroeder
– Director of the Department of Health Stefan Johansson

 

 Connect with Activist Post

cover image credit: OpenClipart-Vectors / pixabay

 




The Truth About the Dutch Farmer’s Protest — Vandana Shiva in Conversation With Russell Brand

The Truth About the Dutch Farmer’s Protest — Vandana Shiva in Conversation With Russell Brand

by Russell Brand & Vandana Shiva
July 13, 2022

 

NEW TRUCKERS PROTEST?? This Is Impossible To Ignore

Activist Vandana Shiva about the Dutch farmers and how the mainstream media have framed their protests over new ecological regulations.



 

Connect with Vandana Shiva

Connect with Russell Brand




University of Idaho Researchers Find Correlation Between Pesticides and Cancer

University of Idaho Researchers Find Correlation Between Pesticides and Cancer

by Sustainable Pulse
July 11, 2022

 

A correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in western states has been found by University of Idaho and Northern Arizona University researchers. Two studies were conducted, one that examined correlating data in 11 Western states and one that took a closer look at data in Idaho specifically.

Source: Iowa Capital Dispatch

The studies found a possible relationship between agricultural pesticides, particularly fumigants such as metam, and cancer incidences through analyzing data. For the larger study, pesticide data was pulled from the U.S. Geological Survey Pesticide National Synthesis Project database and cancer data was gathered from National Cancer Institute State Cancer Profiles, according to the study.

The other study examined Idaho specifically, and found similar trends in data as the first study saw across the West of the lower 48.

Alan Kolok, a UI professor and director of the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, led both studies and said the correlation between the sets of data on multiple population scales gives him a reason to want to look into the matter further.

“We’re not trying to be alarmist, and we’re not trying to say, ‘Oh, look, there’s a direct relationship between (the data),’” Kolok said. “That’s not at all what they’re saying. But at the same time, it would be disingenuous of us to not recognize that in a darkened room, we keep seeing a shiny object. It really is a call to action of let’s do more research and let’s elaborate on what’s going on relative to that shiny object.”

Kolok and fellow UI researcher Naveen Joseph said there have been many studies examining correlations between socioeconomic factors, like poverty, and cancer incidents, but theirs takes a step further by looking for an initiating factor. In this case, the data suggested a higher usage of fumigants like metam is correlated with higher cancer incidence rates.

Idaho is the only state Kolok has taken a close look at, and his colleague and co-author at Northern Arizona University, Cathy Propper, said she didn’t know if the right data was available in other states like it was in Idaho.

“If we wanted to look just within states, like Alan did within Idaho, it might be possible to extract similar kinds of information,” Propper said. “But as you can see when you take a look at the statewide analysis within the joint paper, every state’s different. As you go into each individual state, you start getting different kinds of scaling issues. So unless the data are fine grained enough to be able to extract that kind of information, it becomes difficult to interpret within states.”

The team of researchers was also concerned about breaching people’s privacy when it came to looking at specific data too closely. Rural areas, where agricultural practices and low populations dominate, could pose issues with privacy when the sample size becomes too small. To avoid this, the research was conducted by looking at all incidences of cancer in adults and children across the 11 states compared to pesticide use.

Kolok said the next steps they hope to take include expanding their data research to a nationwide scale and further examining whether there is a cause behind the correlation between pesticides and cancer. While neither UI or NAU have the laboratory capabilities to prove or disprove the correlation, Kolok is hoping to eventually find a lab to collaborate with and get funding to continue the research.

“It is absolutely striking how different states are from each other and counties are from each other,” Kolok said. “Which begs the question of if the pesticide load is different that’s being used in the state, does that cascade to a potential exposure to people? And the answer, from our two papers, is that there is suggested information that argues that it very well may. It’s a first step down that road, but it’s a significant first step.”

 

Connect with Sustainable Pulse

 

See related:

Glyphosate Causes Fatal Damage to Bumblebee Colonies

US Appeals Court Forces EPA to Reassess Glyphosate on Health and Environmental Impact

US Supreme Court Declines Bayer Bid to Challenge Glyphosate Cancer Rulings

 

cover image credit: wuzefe / pixabay




Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle

Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle

 

TCTL editor’s note:

Brief excerpt from the interview:

Dr. David Rasnick:

The prevalence of cancer, the increase of cancer worldwide is due to the increase in carcinogens in our environment…

Jerm (Jeremy Nell):

Hold on, Dave. So, are you saying that, for example, during the time of the Roman Empire, cancer would have been… cancer prevalence would have been very low?

David:

Yeah. Pretty close to zero.

Jerm:

Wow. Okay. That’s interesting.

David:

Even before the industrial revolution it was pretty close to zero,

The industrial revolution increased carcinogens, pollutions in the environment. Almost all cancer, almost all cancer, is due to environmental carcinogens — poisons that we put in the environment.

Jerm:

And could those poisons also be perhaps childhood vaccinations?

David:

Oh, Lord, yes… My goodness yes. Our environment includes what we breathe, what we eat, what we’re exposed to, what we inject in ourselves…


 

David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
The causes of cancer are not what we’re told they are

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
July 11, 2022

 

David Rasnick is a biochemist with decades of research in AIDS and cancer, and returned to my podcast to discuss cancer and why most of what we’re told is wrong.

Cancer is an extremely complex subject, so I’d recommend reading his summary article in which he outlines, in fairly layman language, the foundation of his argument.

Basically, it’s known as Aneuploidy Theory, and it is in stark contrast to the current Big Pharma model of cancer. Obviously, Aneuploidy Theory is “discredited” and dismissed, as a result. But, as pharmaceutical scientist Mike Donio said, the pharmaceutical industry is untrustworthy and thrives on sick people and unscientific methodology.

David’s conversation is worth watching because he used slides, but it’s possible to get by with audio only.

View and Dowload PDF of David Rasnick’s paper “The aneuploidy theory of cancer and the barriers to its acceptance”



 

Connect with Jerm Warfare




Argentina: GMO Wheat Banned in the Province of Buenos Aires

Argentina: GMO Wheat Banned in the Province of Buenos Aires
Judge says GMO wheat could cause “serious and irreversible damage” to human health and the environment 

by Tierra Viva (in Spanish)
English version sourced from
GM Watch
July 11, 2022

 

Bioceres – the “Argentine Monsanto” – is racing to get its GMO HB4 wheat accepted by regulators around the world. It has already got food approval in Australia and partial approval in the US – from the FDA but not yet the USDA. And, according to the Argentine journalist Patricio Eleisegui, Bioceres is also heavily targeting the countries of Latin America, where it has already obtained partial approvals in Colombia and Brazil.

But while Bioceres is rushing to create markets for its GMO wheat abroad, within Argentina itself its commercialisation is facing widespread resistance. And it appears to have received a major setback in the province of Buenos Aires, the very heart of agribusiness in Argentina.

A judge in Mar del Plata has issued a precautionary ruling that suspends the use and release of GMO HB4 wheat in Buenos Aires until a commission is formed to evaluate its effects, reports the news agency Tierra Viva. The ruling responds to a collective suit brought by farmers, social and environmental organisations and Indigenous peoples. They emphasise that the action could be replicated in other provinces where this GMO wheat is already being grown.

The temporary measure is in place until an Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety Commission is formed, which will be responsible for preparing a report on the introduction and release of the GMO crop and its effects on natural resources, health, production and marketing. The precautionary measure was issued by the Juvenile Criminal Responsibility Court No. 2 of Mar del Plata.

The decision of the Buenos Aires judge Néstor Adrián Salas is relevant because it confirms that although the national State has the authority to approve the commercialisation of GMOs and agrochemicals, it is the provinces that retain the authority for their effective release in the territories because they have control over natural resources.

For Judge Salas, the release of the first GMO wheat approved in the world could cause “serious and irreversible damage” to human health and the environment. He refers to both the crop itself and the associated agrochemicals; in this case, glufosinate ammonium, a herbicide that is more toxic than glyphosate.

“If the material is released in Buenos Aires territory, this being the first GMO event to be applied to wheat seed, the crossbreeding of the material with non-GMO wheat can be irreversibly introduced,” Salas warned. To support his decision, he cited – among others – a document from the National Biotechnology Commission (Conabia) that details “the potential horizontal transfer or exchange of genes” between GMO wheat and other seeds.

The precautionary measure is based on the precautionary principle present in the General Law of the Environment, which establishes that in the face of danger of serious or irreversible damage, measures to avoid it should not be delayed on the grounds of lack of information or scientific certainty.

The Commission for Biotechnology and Agricultural Biosafety of the Province, which the judge ruled must be put into operation, should have been formed more than 20 years ago, when Law 12.822 was approved. However, no provincial administration implemented the law and formed the commission.

Lawyer Lucas Landivar, who represents the group of organisations, producers and Indigenous peoples who brought the suit, stressed the importance of complying with article 124 of the National Constitution. This establishes that the provinces are responsible for the natural resources in their territory. “The provinces cannot allow their cultural heritage and biodiversity to be affected,” he noted. In this sense, he stressed that the seeds used in agriculture are a cultural heritage of the people, which the provinces must preserve.

Fernando Cabaleiro, a lawyer for the organisation Nature of Rights, which is also involved in the suit, stressed that this same action can be replicated in different provinces. “There is the General Environmental Law and at the same time, each province has its legislation on this matter. This is environmental pollution and it is the duty of the provinces to protect their natural assets,” he said.

Provincial law 12.822 of 2001 ordered the creation – 90 days after it came into effect – of the Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety Commission. The objective of this body is to prepare a report with its recommendations regarding the introduction and release of GMOs and their effects on natural resources, health, production and marketing.

In writing this law, the legislators at that time considered, “Given the vertiginous increase in the use of GMO seeds, we believe it is necessary that there should be a provincial body that has the function of controlling their use.”

Likewise, they understood that this commission had to answer a series of questions that Judge Salas transcribed verbatim in his resolution:

* Have enough tests been done with these organisms so that we will not have to repent in the near future?

* What are the mechanisms that different countries have to assess their danger to the ecosystem and to human health?

* Why do some countries accept GMOs and others do not?

* Has the Ministry of Health or another official body certified the harmlessness of GMOs to human beings? Has the risk to human or animal health been assessed, such as the danger of antibiotic resistance?

* Should the release of GMOs undergo a mandatory environmental impact study?

* Is the introduction of GMOs in Argentina assimilated from a public debate, or is it a simple concept of genetic innovation to reap greater profits through patents in some countries?

* Does the new technology commonly called terminator affect traditional crops and biodiversity in general? [GMW: Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to be sterile after first harvest. Thus far this GMO technology has not been commercialised due to overwhelming public and scientific opposition. More information is here.]

Lawyer Landivar argued that it is very striking and worrying that the Provincial Executive has spent so many years without enforcing a decision of the Legislative Power. “This omission violates the precautionary preventive regime and deepens a practice that has generated adverse consequences and negative effects on health and the environment for 20 years,” he warned.

The marketing of HB4 wheat, from Bioceres – owned by Hugo Sigman and Gustavo Grobocopatel, among other businessmen – was authorised on May 12 by the National Ministry of Agriculture. The decision ignored the claims of hundreds of social and peasant organisations and thousands of scientists who denounced the lack of transparency in the approval procedure for HB4 wheat, the contamination it will produce on other non-GMO wheats and the increased use of agrochemicals that it will entail. its cultivation.

On May 19, federal prosecutor Fabián Canda reiterated before federal judge Santiago Carrillo the request to urgently suspend the authorisation of HB4 GMO wheat due to “the irreparable damage” it could cause to the environment and the health of the population.

Connect with GM Watch

Connect with Tierra Viva

cover image credit: Peggy_Marco / pixabay




5G Assault on Health and Environment Without Informed Consent: Use This Letter as a Template to Challenge Digitization of Your Community

5G Assault on Health and Environment Without Informed Consent: Use This Letter as a Template to Challenge Digitization of Your Community

 

Digitalising Wilmslow: 5G Assault on Health and Environment without Informed Consent

by Safe Tech International
May 31, 2022

 

The following blog is taken from Brian McGavin’s communication to the Wilmslow Town Council in the UK when they announced plans to “Digitalize Wilmslow.” Brian’s concise and clear explanation of the multi-faceted harms such an “upgrade” would pose, is offered below as a template for others similarly trying to awaken their often uninformed town officials.

Initiative proposed by the town of Wilmslow: 

The Town Council is committed to working alongside local businesses, community groups and retailers to enhance the digital and online presence of the Town Core and its offer, in order to increase shoppers and visitors into the town to enhance its vibrancy. This will include exploring the following projects:

  1. Developing a mobile ‘app’ for the town, including shops and special offers, leisure activities and events 
  2. Developing a new Town Core website to showcase events and activities and offer visitor information 
  3. Exploring the introduction of free Wi-Fi service throughout the Town Core, including charging stations and interactive screens in partnership with cafes, bars and restaurants 
  4. Promoting and exploring the introduction of interactive public art, lighting and music within the Town Core 
  5. Promoting and championing the delivery of high-speed broadband throughout the town.

Brian McGavin’s response:

So far not much has moved forward but is this what people in our town are bursting to have?  There are huge health and safety downsides. At a time when the world is trying to cut climate emissions and reduce our energy consumption people are simply not being given the big picture.

The tech lobby envisages every facet of our lives dominated by 5G networks. Instead of 2,000 satellites orbiting the Earth, permission has been granted for 100,000 low orbit, short lifespan 5G satellites launched by highly polluting rockets.

The government is orchestrating a legal framework to enable telecom companies to use private land and property for commercial profit without consent.

5G is being rolled out without independent Health or Environmental Impact assessments and without informed consent, enshrined in UN Law. Many people object strongly to the proliferation of electromagnetic radiation from wireless technology.

As billions of internet-connected ‘smart’ devices grow exponentially, it is estimated the ICT industry could consume 20% of global electricity production by 2025, feeding incessant demand from phone screen addiction.

We have to challenge urgently the stranglehold of tech fantasy lobbyists promoting 5G on the marketing ploy of ‘dragging us out of the digital dark ages’ promoting potentially dangerous driverless vehicles insurance companies won’t insure.

Claims that ‘we need 5G because 4G can’t cope’ conflicts with the millions spent looking for things to do with it. New ‘microcomb’ cable fiber technologies are safer, 10 times more efficient than 5G and could be in wide use within two years says Monash University in Melbourne.

The Stop 5G movement bases its concerns on evidence-based science. Over 1,600 scientific papers are linked here: https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp

The media needs to engage in serious debate rather than labelling people ‘cranks peddling conspiracy narratives’. It is a monumental bias to promote tech lobby investment. Similar to the playbook used by tobacco, asbestos and Teflon toxin industries, the telecom industry is flying blind on health and environmental impacts, putting profit before people.

There is a media conspiracy to deny this, driven by industry lobbyists.

Legal challenges to the safety of 5G are succeeding in court with judges asked to intercede.

Many economists believe that if we just harness the productivity and skills of people with the 5G digital automation revolution we can deliver a smarter, greener future. They fail to understand that 5G has huge environmental, health and energy costs and assume that a mass move to electric vehicles resolves our climate crisis when it does not. Electric cars come with their own considerable Carbon, Ecological and Ethical Blueprint with resources for batteries mined in remote places, often with the help of child slave labour. We need to deploy every lever we can to reduce our energy consumption, and use declining resources wisely.

Local environmental concern groups urgently need to look into these important issues, as they are directly linked to climate change, bio-diversity collapse and energy consumption. However, they often limit the scope of their interests. People can’t be ‘a la carte’ environmentalists if we are to overcome our immense environmental challenges.

 

Connect with Safe Tech International

cover image credit: geralt 




Arthur Firstenberg: Saving the Planet — Next Step

Arthur Firstenberg: Saving the Planet — Next Step

by Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force
May 3, 2022

 

The Earth is dying before our eyes. Most insects — bees, butterflies, crickets, spiders — have already disappeared, even from rainforests and protected nature areas. Titmice, sparrows, and other small birds no longer grace our yards and bird feeders. Our lakes and ponds starve for frogs and salamanders. Our forests are no longer net producers of oxygen. Our oceans may soon contain more plastics than fish.

The most surprising thing about the responses to my request for an administrative assistant was not that 154 people applied for the job, but that almost all of them called me from a cell phone. That revealed not only how much ground we have lost in the past 26 years, but the enormous obstacles looming before us in our quest for real change — change that must happen fast enough and be widespread enough to ensure that babies born today will still have a planet to live on when they turn ten.

Of the many assaults on the atmosphere, oceans, forests, wildlife, and human life, the cell phone is unique. It is unique because it is destroying the Earth faster than any other threat — faster than fossil fuels, pesticides, radioactivity, plastics, or any other assault. And because the pollution it emits — radio frequency (RF) radiation — is the only pollutant that is being spread everywhere deliberately and not inadvertently: in order for a cell phone to work when you want it to, every square inch of the Earth must be heavily irradiated at all times.

The manufacture of cell phones relies on:

  • child slavery in the Democratic Republic of Congo
  • genocide against the indigenous people of the Ituri forest
  • extermination of the lowland gorilla

Cell phones contain:

  • dozens of toxic metals, and
  • hundreds of toxic chemicals

Cell phone manufacture, wherever it occurs, produces:

  • massive groundwater pollution

Cell phone radiation today is the cause of most:

  • heart disease,
  • diabetes, and
  • cancer

The 15 billion cell phones in the world, together with the 7 million cell towers, are the biggest cause of:

  • the disappearance of insects
  • the decimation of bird populations
  • the extinction of amphibian species
  • the dying of forests

These facts must become known — known to the public, to mainstream medicine, and to mainstream environmental organizations campaigning to save insects, birds, wildlife, forests, oceans, and atmosphere. And getting rid of one’s cell phone must quickly change from “impossible” to routine and widespread. The reasons for it are more compelling than the reasons so many lifestyle changes that once seemed “impossible” became routine and widespread, worldwide, during the pandemic.

Kathleen Burke, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, is our new executive assistant. I extend my appreciation to the many applicants with excellent qualifications whom I have interviewed, and I hope you will all be part of the worldwide team that we will begin to assemble in the coming weeks. To begin with, we will reach out to the approximately 1,000 people who have contacted us over the past couple of years from many countries offering various kinds of help.

Our campaign is not primarily about “5G” or “electrosensitivity” and it is not only about RF radiation. Kathleen and I will work together to catalyze cooperation among organizations addressing many different environmental assaults, with the goal of

transforming knowledge into choices among the general public. We will reach out to, and work with, mainstream organizations addressing climate change, land use, ocean pollution, deforestation, pesticides, plastics, nuclear weapons, etc. And we will bring to all those organizations an awareness of the magnitude and urgency of the global assault by wireless technology in all its forms.

Transform knowledge into choices: Knowledge of microplastics — in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and in our bodies — must turn into unwillingness by the public to buy and use plastic. Knowledge of RF radiation must turn into rejection of cell phones by the public. These are simple choices that can make more difficult choices — for example, choices necessary to stop climate change — possible.

This campaign will not be easy, and I do not know if it can succeed. But it is necessary. The whole world is pretending that their children will grow up even though it is obvious that the planet we expect them to grow up on is being destroyed before their eyes — and it is being destroyed not by conspirators or the “Deep State” but by lifestyle choices by you and me and everyone else.

Here is the newsletter I sent out on March 1, 2022 (“Supreme Court to Consider Our Case This Friday”), two days after I broke my arm: https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Supreme-Court- to-consider-our-case-this-Friday.pdf. It also contained a link to a European petition that needs one million signatures and that began collecting signatures that day. Many of you did not receive it because our email marketing service suspended delivery for no reason after it was sent to only one-third of our subscribers. They have apologized and given us credit for the unsent emails.

Loss in the U.S. Supreme Court: On March 4, 2022, the Supreme Court voted not to hear our case. In the coming months we will be lifting our campaign to the next level, so that when this issue is next brought to our legislators and judges, it will already be an issue of great importance to the general public, and both lawmakers and courts will be pressured by constituents who insist that the radiation cease, and who refuse any longer to use their handheld instruments of destruction.

 

Your donations in any amount will help fund the expansion of our critical environmental work. The Cellular Phone Task Force is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, and donations from U.S. residents are tax-deductible.

The last 38 newsletters, including this one, are available for viewing on the Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force. Some of the newsletters are also available there in German, Spanish, Italian, French, Norwegian, and Dutch. To subscribe, go to www.cellphonetaskforce.org/subscribe.

 

Connect with Arthur Firstenberg

cover image credit: LIAN30 / pixabay




Court Revokes License to Launch Satellites; Starlink “Should Have Carried Out Public Hearings” (France)

Court Revokes License to Launch Satellites; Starlink “Should Have Carried Out Public Hearings” (France)

by B.N. Frank, Activist Post
April 9, 2022

 

Over the years there has been opposition and warnings worldwide about various catastrophic issues associated with SpaceX’s Starlink as well as other companies’ satellites (see 12345678910.)  In fact, insurance companies have become less willing to insure satellites.  Additionally, earlier this year, 40 Starlink satellites fell from orbit and burned.  More recently a court ruled in favor of environmental groups who opposed the company being approved to launch satellites in France.

From News18:


Elon Musk’s Starlink Blocked In France Over Legal Battle Against Environmental Groups

Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service has effectively lost its frequencies in France following a legal battle waged by environmental groups. The decision was published by the Conseil d’Etat, France’s Supreme Court for administrative justice, reports Teslarati. According to the court, the recent Starlink ruling negated a decision by Arcep, France’s telecoms regulator, back in February 2021.

Arcep had granted Starlink two bands of frequencies that would link the company’s satellite constellation to France-based customers, the report said. Since the decision to grant licenses to SpaceX‘s Starlink can “impact the market of access to high-bandwidth internet and affect the interests of end-users” as per the Conseil d’Etat, the satellite internet system should have carried out public hearings before its license was granted.

ALSO READ: SpaceX Launches 48 New Starlink Satellites Successfully Into Orbit

This was something that Arcep did not do. Stephen Kerckhove, who heads Act for the Environment, one of the environmental groups that took legal action against Starlink, stated that the ruling is a way for the State Council to “send a signal to those who confuse speed with haste”.

Kerckhove also noted that he is hoping Arcep would not just go through a public consultation now for sheer compliance but “truly carry out an economic and environmental evaluation” of the satellite internet service.



Connect with Activist Post




“Covid” and Chemtrails

“Covid” and Chemtrails

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
April 9, 2022

 

Airplane leaving jet contrails with COVID-19 word inside. Symbolizing the global spread of the coronavirus through global air traffic.

A few months ago, I wrote an article exploring the connection between the symptoms of disease known as “Covid-19” and air pollution. While air pollution is not the only factor currently causing disease, I laid out why I believe that this is the most likely explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory symptoms of disease. I provided a general overview on the problem of air pollution and how it can impact our health and environment. Within the article, I touched upon the issue of persistent contrails, a.k.a. chemtrails, and provided information directly from Government sources admitting the impact that these trails have on our health and environment. Even though this information is readily available to anyone willing to look, there are many out there who still seem to believe that these trails are harmless. They claim that I am promoting nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory.

The fact of the matter is that these trails are admitted to be harmful to our health and environment by both sides of the “chemtrail” debate. There is no conspiracy theory here. This is a FACT. We can speculate as to who is doing this and why but that is ultimately irrelevant. While pollution from automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, etc. all contribute to this air pollution health crisis, the harmful effects from the aviation industry are regularly glossed over and/or omitted when this issue is discussed. However, if you dig deep enough and actually search for the information, what can be found to be admitted by official Government sources regarding the health consequences from these trails is very telling and disturbing.

To start with, I want to provide a quick breakdown of the negative health impact of just one component that is admitted to be found within these persistent trails left in the wake of aircrafts. This is known as particulate matter, the most dangerous of which is PM2.5. From the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you will see that PM2.5 is a known toxin potentially made up of hundreds of different chemicals that is so small that it can collect deep within the lungs and even enter the bloodstream. It has been associated with cardiovascular and respiratory disease, irritation of the eyes, throat, and lungs, and premature death:

Particulate Matter (PM) Basics
What is PM, and how does it get into the air?

“PM stands for particulate matter (also called particle pollution): the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye. Others are so small they can only be detected using an electron microscope.

Particle pollution includes:

PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller; and

PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller.

    • How small is 2.5 micrometers? Think about a single hair from your head. The average human hair is about 70 micrometers in diameter – making it 30 times larger than the largest fine particle.

Sources of PM

These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals.

Some are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires.

Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles.

What are the Harmful Effects of PM?

Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.

Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas.”

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics

Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM)
Health Effects

The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream.

Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:

      • premature death in people with heart or lung disease
      • nonfatal heart attacks
      • irregular heartbeat
      • aggravated asthma
      • decreased lung function
      • increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing.

People with heart or lung diseases, children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure.

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm

PM2.5 and other particulate matter is only part of the dangerous substances found in these persistent contrails. Other admitted substances include carbon dioxide (CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), black carbon soot, and other trace metals. It is simply beyond logic and reasoning to believe that the inhalation of these substances on a daily basis is not harmful to one’s health.

Recently, some members of Congress were interested in addressing the health and environmental problems associated with aviation. On February 8th, 2022, the Congressional Research Service released a report describing the problem and how to address it. A few highlights showcase that aviation pollution is the fastest-growing pollutant over the past decade and that there are numerous toxic substances found within these trails:
Aviation, Air Pollution, and Climate Change

Emissions from Aircraft

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that transportation—including passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, trains, ships, and aircraft—accounted for 35% of carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal GHG) emissions in 2018. While CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light trucks exceed those from aircraft in the United States, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth. All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018. Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions. These estimates include emissions from U.S. domestic flights and emissions from international flights departing the United States, referred to as “international bunkering.”

In the United States, aggregate CO2 emissions from aircraft have fluctuated due to changes in technology, the economy, travel frequency, and military activity, among other reasons. However, since the global financial crisis in 2009,aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018. This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade. This trend is likely to be affected, at least temporarily, by reduced air travel in 2020 and 2021 due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions. Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation. These factors include the contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production; the formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds; the emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion; and the high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions. In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone.

Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur, unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), particulates, and other trace compounds. A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants.”

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11696

In case you wanted a visual representation of how this pollution is said to form and impact our health.

As can be seen, the pollution coming from the aviation industry is a fast-growing problem that is impacting our health and environment in numerous ways. While this has been known for decades and solutions have been presented to try and reverse the impact, nothing is ever implemented to fix the problem. Solutions are only useful if they are enacted upon. While Congress gathers reports, there is little action taken in regards to those reports. It is one thing to acknowledge the negative health and environmental impact yet it is another thing entirely to actually shake up the industry by doing something about it. This seems not to be a major concern as these trails have become worse over time, increasingly contributing to erratic weather, disease, and premature death.

For further evidence of the impact that these trails have on our health and environment, we can turn once again to the EPA to provide more detail. In a document from January 11th, 2021, the EPA enacted standards that are supposed to combat greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation industry. In this document are findings from reports they had compiled in 2016 which call out the dangers these trails have on the public health and welfare:

Control of Air Pollution From Airplanes and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission Standards and Test Procedures

“In August 2016, the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines (the 2016 Findings).[7] First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Additional details of the 2016 Findings are described in Section III. As a result of the 2016 Findings, CAA sections 231(a)(2)(A) and (3) obligate the EPA to propose and adopt, respectively, GHG standards for these covered aircraft engines.”

III. Summary of the 2016 Findings

“On August 15, 2016,[46] the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines. First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2 O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding [47] under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change. Second, the EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft [48] cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).”

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/11/2020-28882/control-of-air-pollution-from-airplanes-and-airplane-engines-ghg-emission-standards-and-test

Contrail Cirrus Clouds

In February of 2022, the EPA proposed standards that would reflect the importance of the control of PM emissions in aviation. They were looking to secure the highest practicable degree of uniformity in aviation regulations and standards. Within this proposal, the EPA provided plenty of insight into the potential health impacts of PM2.5 on human health such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, neurological disorders, asthma, cancer, ferility/reproductive problems, and premature death. They also outlined the impact the chemicals in the trails have on the environment such as affecting the metabolic processes of plant foliage, altering the soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, disrupting plant and animal growth and reproduction, and the corrosion of metals and soil. They even provided more detail on the make-up of the composition of the dangerous toxins inside these trails with the addition of carcinogens such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals such as chromium, manganese, and nickel. Judging by this information alone, it should be rather clear that these trails are negatively impacting our health and environment in numerous ways:

Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft Engines: Emission Standards and Test Procedures

III. Particulate Matter Impacts on Air Quality and Health

A. Background on Particulate Matter

“Particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from those smaller than 1 nanometer (10−9 meter) to over 100 micrometers (μm, or 10−6 meter) in diameter (for reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 μm in diameter and a grain of salt is about 100 μm). Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes. Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine particles (UFPs, generally considered as particulates with a diameter less than or equal to 0.1 μm (typically based on physical size, thermal diffusivity or electrical mobility)), “fine” particles (PM2.5; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and “thoracic” particles (PM10; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm). Particles that fall within the size range between PM2.5 and PM10, are referred to as “thoracic coarse particles” (PM10-2.5, particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm and greater than 2.5 μm).

Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions between PM precursors; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” particles. Particle concentration and composition varies by time of year and location, and, in addition to differences in source emissions, is affected by several weather-related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. Ambient levels of PM are also impacted by particles’ ability to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration, meteorology, and especially temperature.

Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions ( e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region, meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds. These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers.

Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM. PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM.[35] Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM.

B. Health Effects of Particulate Matter

Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA), which was finalized in December 2019.[36] The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.).[37] The PM ISA additionally notes that stratified analyses ( i.e., analyses that directly compare PM-related health effects across groups) provide strong evidence for racial and ethnic differences in PM2.5 exposures and in PM2.5 -related health risk. As described in Section III.D, concentrations of PM increase with proximity to an airport. Further, studies described in Section III.G report that many communities in close proximity to airports are disproportionately represented by people of color and low-income populations.

EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects.[38] Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship.”

More detailed information on the health effects of PM can be found in a memorandum to the docket.[39]

C. Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter

Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include visibility degradation, plant and ecosystem effects, deposition effects, and materials damage and soiling. These effects are briefly summarized here and discussed in more detail in the memo to the docket cited above.

PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility.[40] In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized visibility’s value to society by establishing a national goal to protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment caused by manmade pollution.[41] In 1999, EPA finalized the regional haze program (64 FR 35714) to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal areas. There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas (62 FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997). These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. EPA has also concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility in other areas that are not targeted by the Regional Haze Rule, such as urban areas, depending on PM2.5 concentrations and other factors such as dry chemical composition and relative humidity ( i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the particles). EPA established the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997 and has retained the standard in subsequent reviews.[42] This standard is expected to provide protection against visibility effects through attainment of the existing secondary standards for PM2.5 . EPA is reconsidering the 2020 decision, as announced on June 10, 2021.[43]

1. Deposition of Metallic and Organic Constituents of PM

Several significant ecological effects are associated with deposition of chemical constituents of ambient PM such as metals and organics.[44] Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emit trace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear. Ecological effects of PM include direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage; contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction; and contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification.

2. Materials Damage and Soiling

Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble.[45]

D. Near-Source Impacts on Air Quality and Public Health

Airport activity can adversely impact air quality in the vicinity of airports. Furthermore, these adverse impacts may disproportionately impact sensitive subpopulations. A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales.[46] The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5 . The study concludes that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport. Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft.[47] While there are considerable uncertainties associated with such estimates, these results suggest that in addition to the contributions of PM2.5 emissions to regional air quality, impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern.

A significant body of research has addressed pollutant levels and potential health effects in the vicinity of airports. Much of this research was synthesized in a 2015 report published by the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), conducted by the Transportation Research Board.[48] The report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.” [49]

Furthermore, the report states (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m). Finally, the report concludes that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions. Moreover, one recently published study concluded that emissions from aircraft play an etiologic role in pre-term births, independent of noise and traffic-related air pollution exposures.[50]

Since the publication of the 2015 ACRP literature review, a number of studies conducted in the U. S. have been published which concluded that ultrafine particle number concentrations were elevated downwind of commercial airports, and that proximity to an airport also increased particle number concentrations within residences. Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area. They found elevated outdoor PNC within several kilometers of the airport. They also found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC.[51] In another study in the vicinity of Logan airport, Hudda et al. analyzed PNC impacts of aviation activities.[52] They found that, at sites 4.0 and 7.3 km from the airport, average PNCs were 2 and 1.33-fold higher, respectively, when winds were from the direction of the airport compared to other directions, indicating that aviation impacts on PNC extend many kilometers downwind of Logan airport. Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles.[53] Similar findings have been published from European studies.[54 55 56 57 58 59 ] Results of a monitoring study of communities near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport also found higher levels of ultrafine PM near the airport, and an impacted area larger than at near-roadway sites.[60] The PM associated with aircraft landing activity was also smaller in size, with lower black carbon concentrations than near-roadway samples. As discussed above, PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects. Further, the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts.[61 62] For example, He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells.

Because of these potential impacts, a systematic literature review was recently conducted to identify peer-reviewed literature on air quality near commercial airports and assess the quality of the studies.[63] The systematic review identified seventy studies for evaluation. These studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports. Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well. Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia. More research is needed linking particle size distributions to specific airport activities, and proximity to airports, characterizing relationships between different pollutants, evaluating long-term impacts, and improving our understanding of health effects.

A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports was also recently published.[64] This study concluded that literature on health effects was sparse, but jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions. A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality.[65]”

 

F. Other Pollutants Emitted by Aircraft

“In addition to particulate matter, a number of other criteria pollutants are emitted by the aircraft which are the subject of this proposed rule. These pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include nitrogen oxides (NOX), including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. These compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals. Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions.[70]

The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include chromium, manganese, and nickel. Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk.[71] In addition, as mentioned previously, deposition of metallic compounds can have ecological effects. Impacts of POM and metals are further discussed in the memorandum to the docket referenced above.”

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/03/2022-01150/control-of-air-pollution-from-aircraft-engines-emission-standards-and-test-procedures

In Summary:
  • PM stands for particulate matter – the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air
  • Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye while others are too small to be seen
  • PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller
  • PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller
  • These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals
  • Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
  • Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems
  • Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream
  • Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States
  • The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems
  • Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart
  • Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
    1. Premature death in people with heart or lung disease
    2. Nonfatal heart attacks
    3. Irregular heartbeat
    4. Aggravated asthma
    5. Decreased lung function
    6. Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing
  • People with heart or lung diseases, children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure
  • According to a Congressional Research Service report from February 8th, 2022, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth than other sources
  • All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018
  • Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions
  • Since the global financial crisis in 2009, aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018
  • This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade
  • The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions
  • Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation which include:
    1. The contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production
    2. The formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds
    3. The emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion
    4. The high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions
  • In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone
  • Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including:
    1. Nitrogen oxides
    2. Carbon monoxide
    3. Oxides of sulfur
    4. Unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])
    5. Particulates
    6. Other trace compounds
  • A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants
  • According to a 2021 report by the EPA, they found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
  • Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
  • The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change
  • The EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
  • Another report by the EPA from February 2022 states that particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases
  • Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals
  • Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere
  • PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds
  • These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers
  • Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM
  • PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM
  • Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM
  • In other words, there are no standards proposed by the EPA for the transformation these chemicals go through after leaving the engine when they become lingering trails
  • Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM is associated with a broad range of health effects
  • The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.)
  • EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects
  • Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer
  • In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship”
  • Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include:
    1. Visibility degradation
    2. Plant and ecosystem effects
    3. Deposition effects
    4. Materials damage and soiling
  • PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility
  • Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emit trace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear
  • Ecological effects of PM include:
    1. Direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage
    2. Contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction
    3. Contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification
  • Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects)
  • Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble
  • A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales
  • The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5
  • The study concluded that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport
  • Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft
  • Impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern
  • A 2015 report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.”
  • Furthermore, the report stated (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m)
  • Finally, the report concluded that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions
  • Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area and found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC
  • Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles
  • PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects and the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts
  • He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells
  • A systematic review of 70 studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports
  • Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well
  • Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia
  • A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports found that jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions
  • A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality
  • Besides PM2.5, other harmful pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include:
    • Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
    • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
    • Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
    • Carbon monoxide (CO)
    • Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
  • Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects
  • These compounds include, but are not limited to:
    1. Benzene,
    2. 1,3-butadiene
    3. Formaldehyde
    4. Acetaldehyde
    5. Acrolein
    6. Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
    7. Certain metals
  • Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions
  • The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs)
  • Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include:
    1. Chromium
    2. Manganese
    3. Nickel
  • Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk

When dealing with a potential health threat, we tend to jump to the conclusion that we are facing a new “virus” as this well-orchestrated lie has been drilled into our collective consciousness since birth. It is second nature to blame the new invisible boogeyman while overlooking the old visible threats that have been plaguing us for years with no end in sight. It seems too easy to admit to ourselves that any perceived increase in respiratory disease could be attributable to the continued increase in air pollution.

Yet from the start, “Covid-19” has been linked to air pollution. The areas hit the hardest were those with the highest levels of these harmful toxins in the air. As travel died down during the lockdowns, cases fell along with subsiding smog. As travel and pollution rose up again, so too did the “Covid” cases. Even small increases in air pollution has been shown to have an impact on “Covid” case numbers and deaths.

We know for a fact that air pollution is harmful to our health and environment. We know that every single symptom of disease associated with “Covid-19” can be linked to the PM2.5 particles which make up the majority of the dirty air we breathe. We know for a fact that automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. all contribute to the harmful levels of toxins in the air. However, the one thing we have been told not to question as a contributor to our current problems are the lingering trails in the sky which form artificial clouds blocking out the beneficial rays of the sun. We are told that these are just regular old contrails from commercial airliners made up of ice crystals which eventually dissipate into a completely safe and harmless nothingness. Anyone questioning the trails is immediately labelled a conspiracy theorist.

It should be clear now, whether you call them chemtrails or not, that these persistent streaks in the sky are full of dangerous substances that attack the cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological systems. Thanks to government sources such as the EPA and the Congressional Research Service, we know that these trails are the fastest growing pollutant in the air and that they are contributing to even greater levels of smog and haze. The trails and the artificial cirrus clouds they form are a near constant sight in the sky these days and the problem is only growing worse with time. The damaging effects that these lines in the sky have on our health and environment is not even debatable. It is agreed upon by both sides of the debate. That these “persistent contrails” are harmful to our health and environment is a FACT. That the chemicals and toxins found within the vapors cause the exact same symptoms of disease as “Covid-19” is not a coincidence.

Thus we are left with two choices. We can either believe the official narrative that a new “virus” of unknown origin magically leapt from animal to man or somehow escaped from a lab and infected millions of people with a disease that causes the exact same symptoms associated with allergies, the common cold, the flu, and pneumonia. And with it’s rise, it has eliminated the majority of the cases of those previous ailments and can also constantly mutate (over 10 million versions now according to GISAID.org) in order to slip by every possible measure to contain it including masks, social distancing, lockdowns, quarantines, vaccines, etc.

Or we can believe that the ever-increasing and constant daily exposure to air pollution has taken a toll on the populace damaging the health and environment of everyone living within these dangerous levels of toxic fumes. While this is not the only explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory and other diseases, it is the most logical one over an invisible “virus.” According to Occam’s Razor, the simplest of competing theories should be preferred over those that are more complex and that explanations of unknown phenomena should be sought first in terms of known quantities. We know air pollution is harmful. We know that these trails are increasing at a faster rate than any other pollutant. We know that the chemicals residing within them are associated with the exact same symptoms of disease that are ascribed to “Covid.” Unlike a “virus,” we can see this boogeyman with our own two eyes.

All we have to do is look up.

From their own sources, the trails are a threat to our health and our environment. Contrary to what they want you to believe about “persistent contrails,” a.k.a. chemtrails, this is NOT a conspiracy.

You can see more of the slides from Government sources that were presented within this article here.

 

Connect with Mike Stone at Viroliegy

cover image credit: pixundfertig / pixabay




The Coming Collapse & Our Geoengineered Skies — Highly Toxic Graphene & Aluminum in Every Breath We Take: “If We Don’t Deal With This We’re Done.”

The Coming Collapse & Our Geoengineered Skies — Highly Toxic Graphene & Aluminum in Every Breath We Take: “If We Don’t Deal With This We’re Done.”

 

Note from Truth Comes to Light editor:

GeoEngineeringWatch.org is the most visited website in the world on the subject of covert climate engineering operations.

Dane Wigington begins this Q&A with his question for the day:

“If the human race remains on the current course of all-out planetary decimation, how much time do we have until the extinction of our species? And will we bring the entire web of life down with us? We’re getting close to that now and few even realize it.”

Dane and his callers cover many topics, including the link between HAARP and other ground-based, radio frequency transmitters, microwave transmission networks and other silent weapons for quiet wars.

A few quotes from Dane:

“So again, they’re using the atmosphere for a physics lab.”

“What’s happening in our skies will very soon determine our collective futures if it’s not stopped. At any point time, if those in power choose to, if they feel they’re losing control, they can put something much more lethal in this mix and put us all on our backs. Overnight. Literally.”

“We have a common thread of the various forms of mental deficiency with those in power — the common thread is this — a near total lack of comprehension as to the consequences of their actions even to themselves. Would they do this to themselves? Yes, they have and they continue to.”

“Those in power don’t care how toxic these elements are. And for those that don’t know what graphene is — look it up… Graphene toxilogical effects — it reads like a horror story. It’s a vascular machete, destroying parts of our bodies’ vascular system and countless other downstream elements. And it can be used for biological carrier, can be used to carry some sort of biological agent from the clouds to the ground.”

Those who follow this site will easily see the link between the toxic ingredients in the so-called covid vaccines and similar toxic nanoparticles that have, for decades, been pumped into our skies, continue to kill off forests and vegetation, and are being breathed in by all humans and all animal life on the planet. 

Follow and support the work of Dane Wigington at geoengineeringwatch.org.


 

Coming Collapse Q & A, April 7, 2022

by Dane Wigington, GeoEngineering Watch
April 7, 2022

 

On this Coming Collapse Q and A session, a highly credentialed scientist from a top 10 science testing facility joins us for a shocking front line report.

Recent testing has now confirmed that the highly toxic element graphene is in our precipitation, along with an already long list of toxins including aluminum nanoparticles.

Surfactants have also been confirmed in recent precipitation testing. Climate intervention operations are ubiquitously contaminating the entire planet and every breath we take.

How long do we have if the human race remains on the current course?

Please join us for this front line report on the most dire and immediate threats we collectively face.



[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

As mentioned in the video above, read:

Angels Don’t Play This HAARP — Advances in Tesla Technology    Download PDF
by Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, 1997

And watch:

Holes In Heaven? HAARP and Advances in Tesla Technology 1998 – Documentary

 

See also:

The Dimming, Full Length Climate Engineering Documentary ( Geoengineering Watch )



 




Millions of Pounds of Pesticides Sprayed on Crops to Feed Animals in Factory Farms

Millions of Pounds of Pesticides Sprayed on Crops to Feed Animals in Factory Farms
Millions of pounds of toxic pesticides sprayed on feed crops for factory farm animals in the U.S. are threatening human health and wildlife and plants by destroying their native habitats, according to a new report by World Animal Protection and the Center for Biological Diversity.

by The Defender Staff
March 14, 2022

 

Millions of pounds of toxic pesticides sprayed on feed crops for factory farm animals in the U.S. are threatening human health and wildlife and plants by destroying their native habitats, according to a new report by World Animal Protection and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The report, “Collateral Damage: How Factory Farming Drives Up the Use of Toxic Agricultural Pesticides,” exposes factory farm meat as a “major driver of pesticide use.”

An estimated 99% of animals raised for food in the U.S. come from factory farms, including about 70% of cows, 98% of pigs, 99% of turkeys, 98% of chickens raised for eggs and more than 99.9% of chicken raised for meat.

This expansion of industrial factory farms is not only “perpetuating enormous cruelty and suffering” for the billions of animals confined in them, the report stated, but it’s also pushing key ecosystems to the brink of collapse.

More factory farms mean more land converted to large, industrial corn and soy monocultures, researchers said. The majority of these crops don’t go to feeding humans, but instead are grown to feed animals in confinement, propping up Big Ag’s industrial livestock production model.

Researchers found from 2018 to 2019, an estimated 2.6 million acres of American grasslands were plowed to grow just a handful of crops: corn, soy and wheat.

According to “Collateral Damage”:

“An enormous portion of our agricultural lands, roughly one-third, are used for mass-producing corn and soy, the vast majority of which is not for human consumption. Globally, roughly 67–77% of soy produced is used as feed for livestock, and 36–45% of the corn produced in the U.S. is used as feed.

“Not only are our existing agricultural lands heavily used to produce just these two crops, but worse, wildlands are continuing to be converted to cropland in order to grow more.”

Using data from 2018, the most recent year it was available, researchers found that an “estimated 235,976,274 — ¼ billion — pounds of herbicides and insecticides were applied in the U.S. just to the corn and soybeans grown for farmed animal feed.”

These pesticides include paraquatglyphosate, atrazine, chlorpyrifos and bifenthrin — all of which are being applied in massive amounts to corn and soy in the U.S., Latin America and Asia.

The result is a “global pesticide market [that] continues to grow in tandem with the industrial factory farming industry,” researchers said.

Dumping massive amounts of toxic pesticides into the environment threatens delicate ecosystems, often killing beneficial insects, aquatic life and other species, many of which are already endangered.

“Foxes and bats, migratory birds, bumblebees, and prairie butterflies, are all imperiled by grassland conversion and industrial agriculture,” the report noted.

No species are spared when toxic pesticides are continually dumped into the environment, researchers said, citing a 2005 study that estimated 72 million birds are killed each year by pesticides.

According to the authors of the new report, agricultural pesticides affect humans, too, as they often pollute surface and groundwater which can lead to contaminated drinking water.

Science shows preserving wildlife and biodiversity is key to the planet’s health, the researchers said, noting that biodiversity promotes clean air, fresh water, healthy soil and crop pollination.

Eating less meat and dairy, and more plants, helps protect biodiversity, the authors said, but it’s also important that when people do eat animal products, they choose products made from animals raised outdoors and on pasture.

In addition to making dietary changes, researchers also called for holding large corporations accountable, particularly those that are perpetuating biodiversity loss by profiting off industrial agricultural systems that harm human health and the planet.

“Protecting biodiversity and wild animal habitats requires reimagining how we are producing and consuming protein, including by ending the factory farming of animals for meat and dairy,” the report concluded.

 

©March 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Connect with The Defender

cover image credit: hpgruesen / pixabay




How to Avoid Toxic Roundup and Other Glyphosate-Based Herbicides That Are Poisoning Our Food, Soil, Air, Groundwater, Surface Waters, Rainwater

How to Avoid Toxic Roundup and Other Glyphosate-Based Herbicides That Are Poisoning Our Food, Soil, Air, Groundwater, Surface Waters, Rainwater
Glyphosate, explained
Questions swirl about the health effects of this common herbicide. We’ve got answers.

by Autumn Spanne, Environmental Health News
March 1, 2022

 

Since it first went on the market in 1974, glyphosate has been used for weed control, as an exfoliant to eradicate unwanted vegetation and illegal crops, and as a crop desiccant—a chemical applied to crops to dry them out more quickly before harvest.

What is glyphosate?

As a non-selective herbicide, it kills most plants. Scientists now link glyphosate to a number of human health problems, from cancer and neurological diseases to endocrine disruption and birth defects. But the full range of glyphosate’s health effects remains unknown.

What is glyphosate used for?

Various formulations of glyphosate-based herbicides, like Monsanto’s Roundup, are used in agriculture and forestry. Since the mid-1990s, global use has risen dramatically, thanks to the introduction of genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops like corn, soybeans, cotton, and alfalfa that resist damage from the herbicide. Today, Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides are also frequently used on lawns, gardens, parks, and school grounds for weed control.

Where is glyphosate?

Glyphosate not only enters our bodies when we come in direct contact with it, but when we breathe, eat, and drink.(Credit: summerbl4ck/flickr)

The widespread use of glyphosate makes it ubiquitous in the environment. Researchers have found it in our food, soil, air, groundwater, surface waters like lakes and rivers, and even in rainwater. That means glyphosate not only enters our bodies when we come in direct contact with it, but when we breathe, eat, and drink.

As worldwide use of glyphosate has increased during the past 25 years or so, human exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides have also risen significantly. A 2017 study found that human glyphosate exposure increased more than 500% in two decades.

Why is glyphosate a health concern?

Emerging research suggest glyphosate could be associated with shorter pregnancies, which can be detrimental to maternal health and increase the risk of infant mortality and learning problems in children. (Credit: Anna Carolina Vieira Santos/flickr)

Recent health studies are prompting calls for more scrutiny of glyphosate toxicity. Research now links glyphosate to health problems including cancer, reproductive problems, neurological diseases like ALS, endocrine disruption, and birth defects. Researchers are also beginning to explore potential impacts of glyphosate on pregnancy. Emerging findings suggest glyphosate could be associated with shorter pregnancies. Shorter pregnancies can be detrimental to maternal health and increase the risk of infant mortality and learning problems as children develop.

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has long maintained that glyphosate poses no risk for human health when used according to the manufacturer’s instructions—a finding criticized by many scientists.

While most health research on glyphosate to date focuses on cancer, there is much that science doesn’t yet know about its other potential impacts on human health. Much more research is needed to understand the full range of effects, how they may differ in children and adults, and the extent of glyphosate’s environmental impacts. Leading environmental health researchers, including EHN’s chief scientist Pete Myers, have called for more investigation and better monitoring of glyphosate in water, food, and human bodies.

In addition, scientists have raised concerns about the other ingredients in glyphosate-based herbicides. While glyphosate is the active ingredient, companies don’t have to publicly disclose other proprietary chemicals in these herbicide formulations. Consequently, regulators and researchers can’t fully study these “inert” chemicals to determine their health effects—alone and in combination with each other. Some scientists and activists want to reform the regulatory system so that companies can’t keep these chemicals secret.

Why are there so many glyphosate lawsuits right now?

Tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed by people claiming that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides caused their cancer. (Credit: Mike Mozart/flickr)

The World Health Organization’s 2015 declaration that glyphosate probably causes cancer opened the floodgates to litigation. The German company Bayer A.G. bought Monsanto in 2018, and tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed against the company by people claiming that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides caused their cancer, especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Most claimants in these lawsuits worked in jobs like agriculture, maintenance, landscaping, and other professions with significant exposure risk, or used the products long-term on their lawns and gardens. They say the companies failed to adequately warn the public about health risks.

In 2021, Bayer announced it would replace glyphosate in all lawn and garden products sold in the United States by 2023. The company said the removal of glyphosate from these products is “exclusively to manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns,” and indicated it has no plans to remove glyphosate from professional and agricultural market products in the U.S.

One group that’s been largely excluded from glyphosate lawsuits is migrant farmworkers, who are on the front lines when it comes to glyphosate exposure. EHN found that fear of retaliation, and a lack of legal resources and legal immigration status, has diminished migrant farmworkers’ ability to seek justice and compensation.

Where is glyphosate used most?

Glyphosate is the most used pesticide on agricultural crops in the U.S., according to a 2019 analysis by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. The Midwest, California, and Texas represent about three-quarters of agricultural glyphosate use in the U.S., with the Midwest alone comprising a full two-thirds of total use.

Glyphosate’s popularity comes in part from the fact that it is effective and relatively cheap. Low-cost versions from China and other countries with relatively lax environmental and health regulations flooded the market as glyphosate patents expired in the 1990s, making it even cheaper. This helps explain why its use has increased so dramatically in the past two decades. But some local, state, and national governments are bucking that trend.

Where is glyphosate banned?

Glyphosate has been or will soon be banned in at least 10 countries, including Mexico, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, and at least 15 others have restricted its use, according to Human Rights Watch. Individual cities and counties, including Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami, Baltimore, Austin, and Portland, have taken action to restrict or ban glyphosate, as have some states.

Can glyphosate exposure be avoided?

Choosing organic foods is one way to limit glyphosate exposure. (Credit: Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine/flickr)

Unfortunately, glyphosate is hard to avoid. We can’t stop breathing, eating, or drinking water.

However, avoiding GMO foods and eating more organic foods when possible can help. Choosing non-toxic methods of weed control for your lawn and garden also limits exposure. Joining with others to ban glyphosate-based products (and other pesticides) in schools, parks, and your community at large are other effective ways to reduce local exposures.

Ways to take action on glyphosate

Farmers from the Ecuador-Colombia border region voice concerns about economic and health impacts of aerial glyphosate spraying. (Credit: Cancillería del Ecuador)

  • EHN has been reporting on glyphosate since we started 20 years ago. Monitoring our coverage of glyphosate legislation, litigation, and health research is a great way to stay informed on the latest developments. Check out our extensive story archive: You’ll find dozens of glyphosate stories by EHN as well as other leading news organizations. All of EHN’s stories are free to read, share, and republish with attribution.
  • Link up with other concerned residents in your community to share information and take action.
  • Here are a few links to organizations keeping track of the latest science on glyphosate and working to hold regulators, politicians, corporations, and employers accountable for protecting human health:

Environmental Working Group

Pesticide Action Network

Center for Food Safety

Non Toxic Communities

Beyond Pesticides

Herbicide-Free Campus

Herbicide Awareness and Research Project (University of California, San Diego)

En español:

Ecologistas en Acción

Greenpeace Mexico

International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN)

Red Universitaria de Ambiente y Salud

Campaña Internacional Sin Maíz No Hay País

El Poder del Consumidor

 

Connect with Environmental Health News

cover image credit:  Chafer Machinery/flickr




Pentagon Biolaboratories – Investigative Documentary (2018)

Pentagon Biolaboratories – Investigative Documentary (2018)

by Al Mayadeen TV
sourced from TruthVault Odysee
commentary by Dilyana Gaytandzhieva
September 21, 2018

 



The US Embassy to Tbilisi is involved in the trafficking of frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo for a secret military program. Internal documents, leaked to Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva by Georgian insiders, implicate US scientists in the transportation of and experimenting on pathogens under diplomatic cover.

According to these documents, Pentagon scientists have been deployed to the Republic of Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly diseases and biting insects at the Lugar Center – the Pentagon biolaboratory in Georgia’s capital Tbilisi.

The military facility is just one of the many Pentagon biolaboratories in 25 countries across the world.

This investigative documentary was originally broadcast by Al Mayadeen TV.

 

Connect with journalist Dilvana Gaytandzhieva




Lawsuit Filed Against “Fact Checkers” Who Silence the Truth About the Severe Damaging Effects  of  Climate Engineering & Weather Modification

Lawsuit Filed Against “Fact Checkers” Who Silence the Truth About the Severe Damaging Effects  of  Climate Engineering & Weather Modification

 

Geoengineering Watch Vs. The “Fact Checker”, Lawsuit Filed

by Dane Wigington, GeoEngineering Watch
February 18, 2022

 

The so called “fact checkers” are shutting down legitimate science debate regarding climate intervention operations and countless other critically important issues. Our right to free speech is in the balance, it’s time to hold the fact checkers legally accountable for their actions. The 15 minute video report below outlines the context of the legal action being taken against the sole scientist responsible for Facebook’s censorship of GeoengineeringWatch.org and The Dimming documentary.



 

The two page press release for the legal action filed against Dr. Douglas MacMartin can be viewed in the PDF below.

Download PDF

Lone Scientist Triggers Facebook Censorship of Climate Science Data

Shasta, CA Should an individual scientist have the right to censor scientific data from the public? What if that data had disastrous implications for both human health and the longevity of Earth’s ecosystems? What if the conclusions don’t conform to official narratives, but are backed up with scientific testing, recorded testimony from former Federal and State scientists, high ranking military members, physicians, pilots, industry insiders and other experts with key insights into the subject matter at hand?

A recent lawsuit filing in the Superior Court of Shasta County, California by Dane Wigington, lead researcher at Geoengineeringwatch.org, may answer these questions with international implications.

Dane Wigington is seeking damages against Dr. Douglas MacMartin (aka Douglas MacMynowski), professor at Cal-Tech and Cornell University, alleging MacMartin’s actions as an “independent fact checker,” triggered Facebook’s censorship of the Geoengineering Watch 2021 documentary film The Dimming and subsequently all other forms of affiliated data posted on Facebook. (View the full film of The Dimming)

“Dr. MacMartin’s actions have not only done very real and verifiable damage to many years of research and publication efforts,” stated Wigington on his weekly national radio broadcast Global Alert News, “but more importantly, his attempt to stifle legitimate scientific discussion, to suppress results from methodically collected data on an issue of such dire importance, has deprived much of the public access to this critical information. They have a right to know about the ongoing global climate intervention operations.”

As chronicled in Wigington’s film The Dimming, Geoengineering Watch conducted high altitude atmospheric particulate testing in a NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) flying laboratory. Air samples were collected from visible trails being emitted by large jet aircraft and then analyzed by scientists using electron microscopy at a world-renowned US laboratory. The scientists were able to identify primary climate engineering elements, as named in climate engineering proposals and weather modification patents, including aluminum and barium nanoparticles.

“The title of the documentary is in reference to the climate science community’s stated objective of geoengineering, or solar radiation management operations, to reflect or ‘dim’ a percentage of the sun’s incoming thermal radiation in a desperate, dangerous and unimaginably destructive attempt to slow the advance of global warming,” Wigington reports.

According to the lawsuit, within weeks of being released in early 2021, The Dimming documentary was flagged as “false information” by Facebook because of MacMartin’s sole claims. The suit notes that MacMartin did not present any data corroborating his accusations or refuting the data presented by Wigington, leaving one asking, should any single scientist be able to censor data from the public that they feel is false without providing counter evidence to back their assertion?

What was once a discipline driven by data and discovery, some areas of science are becoming both politicized and personal. Confrontational communications from MacMartin are detailed in the lawsuit, including a 2018 WBAI radio program featuring an on-air debate between MacMartin and Wigington (listen to the full radio broadcast here). “[MacMartin’s] demeanor toward me was very evident during this exchange. Is it even remotely reasonable to consider Dr. Douglas MacMartin as an unbiased fact checker?” asked Wigington.

“It appears that I am the only individual ever targeted by MacMartin on this subject before or since Facebook’s censorship of The Dimming,” Wigington shared with his listeners, “Perhaps it has something to do with the million dollar grant he’s been awarded to study geoengineering?” As part of his work at Cornell and Cal-Tech, MacMartin’s studies include the geoengineering arena and he recently received a one million dollar grant to study sunshine deflection to reduce the impacts of climate change. (See full grant listing here)

MacMartin’s grant is one of many projects in the climate science community purporting to research potential options for offsetting the Earth’s warming climate, but Wigington insists they are not just proposals. “Climate engineering projects have been funded, studied and implemented world-wide for decades. We have documented patents, Federal budgets, high ranking military testimony… so to pretend these programs are in the initial phases of study is simply not backed up by the evidence,” reports Wigington.

When differing conclusions are reached regarding scientific data, shouldn’t the scientific method, and not censorship, be utilized to find clarity and separate fact from fiction? Should one person, regardless of their resume, be able to decide what is credible and worthy of concern for the general public?

With trust in scientists and authorities at an all-time low, and the word “science” being used to silence those whose claims run counter to the prevailing narrative, this lawsuit may have implications and impacts well-beyond its initial judicial sphere.

The full legal complaint has been filed in the Superior court of Shasta County, California. MacMartin and his attorneys have since filed to remove the legal action from Shasta County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (in Sacramento), Case No 2:21-cv-02355- KJM-DMC.


 

A full copy of the initial legal warning sent to Dr. Douglas MacMartin is posted below.

Download PDF

 

The attached PDF below contains the full 29 page legal proceeding filed against Dr. Douglas MacMartin for triggering Facebook’s censoring of “The Dimming” documentary and all Geoengineering Watch research data.

Download PDF

 

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. Awareness raising efforts can be carried out from your own home computer.

 



 

Must view, THE DIMMING, our most comprehensive climate engineering documentary:​



 

Connect with GeoEngineering Watch

cover image credit: MabelAmber / pixabay




Pittsfield, MA Board of Health Unanimously Votes to Issue Cease and Desist for Verizon Cell Tower

Pittsfield, MA Board of Health Unanimously Votes to Issue Cease and Desist for Verizon Cell Tower

by Environmental Health Trust
February 2, 2022

 



First known cease and desist for cell tower due to injuries in United States of America will be effective in 7 days
if Verizon does not come to the table. 

 

On February 2, 2022, the Pittsfield, MA Board of Health unanimously voted to issue a cease and desist order to Verizon to shut down its tower located at 877 South Street. Families living in the neighborhood near the tower reported wireless radiation-related health issues soon after the tower became operational in 2020 and since then, have been working tirelessly to turn the transmissions off. This action is the first known cease and desist by a Board of Health in the United States.

The cease and desist order to Verizon would become effective in seven calendar days if Verizon fails to notify the Board that they are willing to come to a discussion and demonstrate significant commitment that they will do something “to resolve the issue to the board’s satisfaction.”

iBerkshires quoted Board Member Steve Smith who stated, “As a member of the Board of Health, I’m here to safeguard the health of residents of the city of Pittsfield…”So on some level for me, win or lose this long battle with a company that’s going to look at this on a global scale, at some point, I’m going to have to sit back 20 years later and say, did I do everything I could to safeguard the residents in Pittsfield when I was in that position or did I not? I guess that’s the way I have to think about it.”



This courageous success story would not have been possible without the sustained efforts of Pittsfield residents who worked tirelessly for months to address the issue.

The community was supported with expertise from Dr. David Carpenter, Dr. Kent Chamberlain, Dr. Sharon Goldberg, Dr. Cindy Russell, Dr. Martha Herbert, Dr. Magda Havas, Cecelia Doucette, Sheena Symington, Robert Berg and numerous other medical practitioners, scientists, and electromagnetic radiation experts. EHT was thankful to have played a role in this potentially precedent-setting moment by presenting some of the peer-reviewed, independent science on wireless radiation health risks and policy issues to the Pittsfield City Council. We express our sincere gratitude to the Board of Health and to the City Council for advocating for the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.

Click here to watch the entire Board of Health Meeting 

News Articles From the Vote
Background

Almost immediately thereafter the cell tower became operational in August of 2020, residents in the adjacent neighborhood began experiencing serious medical conditions, including nausea, vomiting, tinnitus (ringing of the ears), dizziness, insomnia, and more. Residents reported the symptoms to the City authorities and to the Board of Health for over two years requesting relief. Residents presented medical experts, scientists, testimonials of their own illnesses to no avail. Several residents sold their homes and left the community because they found the area virtually uninhabitable. Other residents have been living in their cars or are staying with relatives.

Resident Courtney Gilardi testified to New Hampshire lawmakers on a proposed bill to set a 1640 foot setback from cell towers to homes. In her testimony she shared the story of Pittsfield and the 17 neighbors.



Over the past few months, the Board of Health held two meetings with Verizon Wireless to discuss the possibility of having Verizon relocate the tower away from the neighborhood to an alternative, less intrusive site. In the last meeting, Verizon stated that it would not move the tower and it would not power it down. At the Board of Health meeting last night, the Board reviewed the issue and determined that it has the duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Pittsfield. According to the Board, the tower has caused at least one medically-documented case of electromagnetic sensitivity, with two additional likely cases in the same household.

Throughout the year, Verizon has contended that the tower radiation emissions were  “compliant with FCC cell tower radiation limits.” However community advocates and experts repeatedly presented evidence that compliance with FCC limits did not mean safety was assured.  In August 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the FCC had violated the Administrative Procedures Act when the agency decided not to update its 1996 wireless radiation limits. Specifically the Court found the FCC had ignored submitted evidence of people injured by wireless radiation, health effects from long term exposure and children’s unique vulnerability.

Click here to watch the entire Board of Health Meeting 

 News Articles
Additional Resources 
Pittsfield Massachusetts Cell Tower Community Links 





 

Connect with Environmental Health Trust




Bathed in Pesticides: the Narrative of Deception

Bathed in Pesticides: the Narrative of Deception

by Rosemary Mason & Colin Todhunter, OffGuardian
January 27, 2022

 

The volume of pesticide use and exposure is occurring on a scale that is without precedent and world-historical in nature. Agrichemicals are now pervasive as they cycle through bodies and environments. The herbicide glyphosate has been a major factor in driving this increase in use.

These statements appear in a 2021 paper ‘Growing Agrichemical Ubiquity: New Questions for Environments and Health’ (Community of Excellence in Global Health Equity).

The authors state that when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen” in 2015, the fragile consensus about its safety was upended.

They note that in 2020 the US Environmental Protection Agency affirmed that glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) pose no risk to human health, apparently disregarding new evidence about the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as well as its non-cancer impacts on the liver, kidney and gastrointestinal system.

The multi-authored paper notes:

In just under 20 years, much of the Earth has been coated with glyphosate, in many places layering on already chemical-laden human bodies, other organisms and environments.”

However, the authors add that glyphosate is not the only pesticide to achieve broad-scale pervasiveness:

The insecticide imidacloprid, for example, coats the majority of US maize seed, making it the most widely used insecticide in US history. Between just 2003 and 2009, sales of imidacloprid products rose 245% (Simon-Delso et al. 2015). The scale of such use, and its overlapping effects on bodies and environments, have yet to be fully reckoned with, especially outside of countries with relatively strong regulatory and monitoring capacities.”

According to Phillips McDougall’s Annual Agriservice Reports, herbicides made up 43% of the global pesticide market in 2019 by value. Much of the increase in glyphosate use is due to the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil and Argentina.

The global pesticide industry is valued at over $50 billion (Phillips McDougal 2018).

Eating Poison

In December 2021, a piece appeared in the prominent Danish newspaper Weekendavisen. Written by Niels Bjerre, agricultural affairs manager at Bayer CropScience in Copenhagen, ‘Thank goodness for pesticides’ set out to convince readers that sustainable modern agriculture cannot be done without using pesticides.

Denmark-based environmental campaigner Rosemary Mason has responded with the document ‘Open Letter to Bayer: Monsanto concealed the toxicity of Roundup to human health and the environment’ which mentions but goes beyond the now well-documented duplicity of Monsanto (which Bayer bought in 2018) – see the ‘Monsanto Papers’ – to highlight the ongoing damage being done by pesticides like glyphosate.

Mason lists many pertinent studies. For instance, a French team has found heavy metals in chemical formulants of GBHs in people’s diets. As with other pesticides, 10–20% of GBHs consist of chemical formulants. Families of petroleum-based oxidized molecules and other contaminants have been identified as well as the heavy metals arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead and nickel, which are known to be toxic and endocrine disruptors.

In 1988, Ridley and Mirly (commissioned by Monsanto) found bioaccumulation of glyphosate in rat tissues. Residues were present in bone, marrow, blood and glands including the thyroid, testes and ovaries, as well as major organs, including the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, spleen and stomach. Glyphosate was also associated with ophthalmic degenerative lens changes.

A Stout and Rueker (1990) study (also commissioned by Monsanto) provided concerning evidence with regard to cataracts following glyphosate exposure in rats. It is interesting to note that the rate of cataract surgery in England “increased very substantially” between 1989 and 2004: from 173 (1989) to 637 (2004) episodes per 100,000 population.

A 2016 study by the WHO also confirmed that the incidence of cataracts had greatly increased: ‘A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks’ says that cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Globally, cataracts are responsible for 51% of blindness. In the US, between 2000 and 2010 the number of cases of cataract rose by 20% from 20.5 million to 24.4 million. It is projected that by 2050, the number of people with cataracts will have doubled to 50 million.

The authors of ‘Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology’ (Scientific Reports, 2019) noted that ancestral environmental exposures to a variety of factors and toxicants promoted the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult-onset disease.

They proposed that glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (for example, sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.

In a 2017 study, Carlos Javier Baier and colleagues documented behavioural impairments following repeated intranasal glyphosate-based herbicide administration in mice. Intranasal GBH caused behavioural disorders, decreased locomotor activity, induced an anxiogenic behaviour and produced memory deficit.

The paper contains references to many studies from around the world that confirm GBHs are damaging to the development of the foetal brain and that repeated exposure is toxic to the adult human brain and may result in alterations in locomotor activity, feelings of anxiety and memory impairment.

Highlights of a 2018 study on neurotransmitter changes in rat brain regions following glyphosate exposure include neurotoxicity in rats. And in a 2014 study which examined mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in the immature rat hippocampus, it was found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup induces various neurotoxic processes.

In the paper ‘Glyphosate damages blood-testis barrier via NOX1-triggered oxidative stress in rats: Long-term exposure as a potential risk for male reproductive health’ (Environment International, 2022) it was noted that glyphosate causes blood-testis barrier (BTB) damage and low-quality sperm and that glyphosate-induced BTB injury contributes to sperm quality decrease.

The study Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide (2017), revealed non-fatty acid liver disease (NFALD) in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide. NFALD currently affects 25% of the US population and similar numbers of Europeans.

The 2020 paper ‘Glyphosate exposure exacerbates the dopaminergic neurotoxicity in the mouse brain after repeated of MPTP’ suggests that glyphosate may be an environmental risk factor for Parkinson’s.

In the 2019 Ramazzini Institute’s 13-week pilot study that looked into the effects of GBHs on development and the endocrine system, it was demonstrated that GBHs exposure, from prenatal period to adulthood, induced endocrine effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female rats.

Aside from glyphosate, Mason also notes that in 1991 Bayer CropScience introduced a new type of insecticide into the US: imidacloprid, the first member of a group now known as neonicotinoids.

Imidacloprid was licensed for use in Europe in 1994. In July of that year, beekeepers in France noticed something unexpected. Just after the sunflowers had bloomed, a substantial number of their hives would collapse, as the worker bees flew off and never returned, leaving the queen and immature workers to die. The French beekeepers soon believed they knew the reason: a brand new insecticide called Gaucho with imidacloprid as active ingredient was being applied to sunflowers for the first time.

In the 2022 paper ‘Neonicotinoid insecticides found in children treated for leukaemias and lymphomas’ (Environmental Health), the authors stated that multiple neonicotinoids were found in children’s cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), plasma and urine. As the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, they are ubiquitously found in the environment, wildlife and foods. The data revealed multiple neonicotinoids and/or their metabolites in children’s CSF, plasma and urine.

Bottom Line

If the ‘Monsanto Papers’ told us anything, it is that a corporation’s top priority is the bottom line (at all costs, by all means necessary) and not public health. A CEO’s obligation is to maximise profit, capture markets and – ideally – regulatory and policy-making bodies as well.

Corporations must also secure viable year-on-year growth which often means expanding into hitherto untapped markets. Indeed, in the previously mentioned paper ‘Growing Agrichemical Ubiquity’, the authors note that while countries like the US are still reporting higher pesticide use, most of this growth is taking place in the Global South:

For example, pesticide use in California grew 10% from 2005 to 2015, while use by Bolivian farmers, though starting from a low base, increased 300% in the same period. Pesticide use is growing steeply in countries as diverse as China, Mali, South Africa, Nepal, Laos, Ghana, Argentina, Brazil and Bangladesh. Most countries with high levels of growth have weak regulatory enforcement, environmental monitoring and health surveillance infrastructure.”

And much of this growth is driven by increased demand for herbicides:

India saw a 250% increase since 2005 (Das Gupta et al. 2017) while herbicide use jumped by 2500% in China (Huang, Wang, and Xiao 2017) and 2000% in Ethiopia (Tamru et al. 2017). The introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil, and Argentina is clearly driving much of the demand, but herbicide use is also expanding dramatically in countries that have not approved nor adopted such crops and where smallholder farming is still dominant.”

In response to the increasing use of GBHs in India, the influential Swadeshi Jagaran Manch recently demanded a complete ban on the use of glyphosate in the country. A petition with more than 201,000 signatories favouring a complete ban on glyphosate was submitted to the minister for agriculture.

The minister was also informed that the herbicide is blatantly being used for illegally grown genetically engineered herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton. He was told that “miscreant seed companies” are trying to illegally spread HT Bt cotton on hundreds of thousands of acres of land to promote the use of glyphosate.

In a 2017 paper, academics Glenn Stone and Andrew Flachs describe how cotton farmers in India have been encouraged to change their ploughing practices, leading to more weeds. The outcome in terms of yields (or farmer profit) is arguably no better but the change (conveniently) coincided with the appearance of an increasing supply of these illegal HT cotton seeds. Farmers are being pushed onto herbicide-intensive treadmills.

Industry figures like Niels Bjerre claim pesticide use is necessary in ‘modern agriculture’. But this is not the case: there is now sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. It is simply not necessary to have our bodies contaminated with toxic agrochemicals, regardless of how much the industry tries to reassure us that they are present in ‘safe’ levels.

There is also the industry-promoted narrative that if you question the need for synthetic pesticides in ‘modern agriculture’, you are somehow ignorant or even ‘anti-science’. This is simply not true. What does ‘modern agriculture’ even mean? It means a system adapted to meet the demands of global agrocapital and its international markets and supply chains.

As writer and academic Benjamin R Cohen recently stated:

“Meeting the needs of modern agriculture – growing produce that can be shipped long distances and hold up in the store and at home for more than a few days – can result in tomatoes that taste like cardboard or strawberries that aren’t as sweet as they used to be. Those are not the needs of modern agriculture. They are the needs of global markets.”

What is really being questioned is a policy paradigm that privileges a certain model of social and economic development and a certain type of agriculture: urbanisation, giant supermarkets, global markets, long supply chains, external proprietary inputs (seeds, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, machinery, etc), chemical-dependent monocropping, highly processed food and market (corporate) dependency at the expense of rural communities, small independent enterprises and smallholder farms, local markets, short supply chains, on-farm resources, diverse agroecological cropping, nutrient dense diets and food sovereignty.

The effects of this paradigm has had devastating ecological, environmental, social, economic and agronomic consequences on highly productive traditional agrarian systems (see Bhaskar Save’s 2006 open letter to Indian officials).

Furthermore, despite claims to the contrary, it is not as though the chemical-intensive Green Revolution actually led to increased food production per capita in the first place (see Glenn Stone’s paper ‘New Histories of the Green Revolution’).

Nevertheless, predatory agri-food conglomerates have been driving this policy paradigm. In doing so, they have actively consolidated their position throughout the entire global food system while promoting the false narrative that they and their inputs are necessary for feeding the world.

 

Connect with OffGuardian

cover image credit: Ras67 / Wikimedia Commons




America’s Food Supply Fertilized With Human Remains and Coated With Nanoparticles

America’s Food Supply Fertilized With Human Remains and Coated With Nanoparticles

by Greg Reese, The Reese Report
January 15, 2022

 

Video available at Reese Report Rumble channel.

 

Connect with Greg Reese

cover image credit: Antonio_Cansino / pixabay