Farmer and Eco Groups Sue EPA over Re-Approval of Glyphosate Herbicides

by Sustainable Pulse
March 20, 2020

On Friday, Center for Food Safety (CFS) on behalf of a broad coalition of farmworkers, farmers, and conservationists, filed a federal lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its January 2020 re-approval of the herbicide glyphosate, best known as the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The suing organizations are CFS, Beyond Pesticides, the Rural Coalition, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, and the Farmworker Association of Florida.

While EPA defends glyphosate, juries in several cases have found it to cause cancer, ruling in favor of those impacted by exposure. Glyphosate formulations like Roundup are also well-established as having numerous damaging environmental impacts. After a registration review process spanning over a decade, EPA allowed the continued marketing of the pesticide despite the agency’s failure to fully assess glyphosate’s hormone-disrupting potential or its effects on threatened and endangered species. The review began in 2009, has already taken 11 years, without a full assessment of the widespread harmful impacts on people and the environment in that time period.

“EPA’s half-completed, biased, and unlawful approval sacrifices the health of farmworkers and endangered species at the altar of Monsanto profits,” said George Kimbrell, legal director for CFS and counsel for the coalition. “The reckoning for Roundup is coming.”

While EPA has declared that glyphosate does not cause cancer, the world’s foremost cancer authorities with the World Health Organization declared glyphosate to be ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ in 2015. Over 40,000 lawsuits have been filed against the Monsanto (recently acquired by Bayer) by cancer victims asserting that exposure to Roundup caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including many farmworkers. Plaintiffs have prevailed in the three cases decided thus far, with victims awarded roughly $80 million in each case.

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 Out Your Long-Term Exposure

“Contrary to the Trump EPA’s claims, both regulatory and independent scientific studies demonstrate that glyphosate herbicides are carcinogenic and have adverse effects on internal organs,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at CFS. “Far from consulting the ‘best available science,’ as EPA claims, the agency has relied almost entirely on Monsanto studies, cherry-picking the data that suits its purpose and dismissing the rest,” added Freese. “EPA’s glyphosate decision shows the same hostility to science that we’ve come to expect from this administration, whether the issue is climate change or environmental health.”

EPA judged glyphosate far more critically in the 1980s, when the agency designated it a possible carcinogen and identified harmful effects on the liver, kidney, and reproductive systems. Thanks to pressure from Monsanto/Bayer, EPA has since dismissed these harms and illegitimately raised the safety threshold – the daily amount of glyphosate regarded as safe over a lifetime – by 20 times.

“The farmworkers and farmers we serve are the backbone of our food system. Their families are the first – but are not the last – to bear the huge costs of EPA’s irresponsible decision, while corporate shareholders of Monsanto-Bayer benefit,” said Lorette Picciano, executive director of the Rural Coalition.

EPA has also failed to collect basic data on how much glyphosate is taken into human bodies via skin contact or inhalation of spray droplets. These exposure routes are particularly significant for farmworkers and others who work around and/or use Roundup, the very people who are at greatest risk of cancer and other health harms.

“How many more farmworkers have to suffer health impacts to themselves and their families before EPA “sees” them – the “invisible people” – and takes action?” said Jeannie Economos of the Farmworker Association of Florida. “EPA must protect human health before one more person suffers acute or chronic illness from exposure.”

“Farmworkers are on the front lines of the pesticide exposure crisis providing vital food for American families,” said Suguet Lopez of the Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas. “They deserve a duty of care from the government which it has failed to provide.”

Glyphosate herbicides also threaten numerous species, including fish, amphibians, and aquatic as well as terrestrial plants. EPA discounts these risks by low-balling exposure estimates and ignoring critical studies showing glyphosate’s potency, and by relying on ineffective and toothless changes to the language on glyphosate herbicide product labels to “mitigate” risks. Even worse, despite again registering the pesticide, EPA failed to complete any assessment of its impacts on thousands of potentially harmed endangered species, delaying it until a future decision.

“EPA failed to consider if Roundup disrupts the balance of nature and ecosystem health, critical to the survival of a vast number of organisms on which life depends – from beneficial insects, such as parasitoid wasps, lacewings, ladybugs, and endangered bumblebees, monarch butterflies, to fish, small mammals, and amphibians,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

To give just one example, the massive use of glyphosate has nearly eradicated milkweed, the monarch butterfly’s host plant, from Midwest farmers’ fields, a major factor in the catastrophic decline in monarchs over the past two decades. Even though monarchs are under consideration for protection under the Endangered Species Act, EPA’s registration decision contains no effective measures to protect milkweed and monarchs from still more glyphosate damage.

GM Watch
February 16, 2020

Dicamba herbicide drifted onto the farm from other farms planting GM dicamba-tolerant crops

A jury on Saturday awarded $265 million in punitive damages against Bayer and BASF to a southeastern Missouri peach farmer who argued that weedkiller dicamba that had drifted onto his orchards from other farms had severely damaged his trees.

The punitive damages awarded to farmer Bill Bader came a day after the jury awarded him $15 million in actual damages, agreeing with his argument that dicamba had drifted over from other farms and severely damaged Bader Farms, which is one of the largest peach farms in Missouri. Bader’s attorneys argued that his trees likely wouldn’t survive the dicamba exposure.

The owners of Bader Farms alleged the companies conspired to create an “ecological disaster” that would induce farmers to buy dicamba-tolerant seeds.

Attorneys for Bayer said they will appeal.

The awards in Bader’s lawsuit could bode well for other similar lawsuits filed against Bayer and BASF, which invented the pesticide. The lawsuits blame dicamba for of acres of crops across the country.

Farmers have been using dicamba for more than 50 years, but after Monsanto — which was bought by Bayer in 2018 — released genetically modified dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybeans, the weedkiller’s use became more widespread, leading to more complaints from neighboring farms whose non-dicamba-resistant crops were getting killed off by dicamba drift.

Dicamba has been used by farmers since the 1960s but with limits that took into account the chemical’s propensity to drift far from where it was sprayed. When Monsanto’s popular glyphosate weedkilling products, such as Roundup, started losing effectiveness due to widespread weed resistance, Monsanto decided to launch a dicamba cropping system similar to its popular Roundup Ready system, which paired glyphosate-tolerant seeds with glyphosate herbicides. Farmers buying the new genetically modified dicamba-tolerant seeds could more easily treat weeds by spraying entire fields with dicamba, even during warm growing months, without harming their crops. Monsanto announced a collaboration with BASF in 2011. The companies said their new dicamba herbicides would be less volatile and less prone to drift than old formulations of dicamba.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved the use of Monsanto’s dicamba herbicide “XtendiMax” in 2016. BASF developed its own dicamba herbicide that it calls Engenia. Both XtendiMax and Engenia were first sold in the United States in 2017.

Linda Wells, Pesticide Action Network organizing director, commented on the ruling: “This verdict is just the tip of the iceberg — there is a long queue of farmers who have been impacted by dicamba drift and deserve their day in court. The internal Monsanto (now Bayer) documents uncovered in this case show that the company released a highly destructive and intentionally untested product onto the market, and used its influence to cheat the regulatory system.

“While farmers who don’t use the Xtend system are hit with crop damage and yield loss from dicamba drift, Bayer and BASF are reaping the financial gains of an increase in acreage planted to dicamba resistant soybeans, and an increase in use of dicamba formulations. Bader Farms’ victory in this case signals a turning tide, and opens opportunities for farmers to hold Bayer and BASF legally accountable for the dicamba drift crisis more broadly.”

More details of the case are reported by US Right to Know.

by the Children’s Health Defense Team
February 18, 2020
Source

Over the past several decades, the experience of childhood has changed fundamentally for many American children. Impairing their ability to climb trees and run races, over a third are encumbered—at even the youngest ages—with runaway weight and associated sequelae like high blood pressure. As of 2015-16, about 13.7 million U.S. children and adolescents—roughly one in five (18.5%)—were obese, and another 17% were overweight. Even worse, a third of those classified as obese fell into the category of “extreme obesity.”

In the adolescent age group (12- to 19-year-olds), obesity prevalence—at 21%—has quadrupled since the 1980s, generating $14 billion in annual direct health expenses. Researchers are even more concerned, however, by the worsening picture in 2- to 5-year-olds. Studies show that early-onset weight gain has long-term risks; when children start kindergarten overweight, they are four times more likely to become obese by eighth grade as normal-weight kindergartners. In less than a decade (from 2007-08 to 2015-16), the prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in the 2- to 5-year age group rose from 10% to 14%. In the most recent two-year cycle, this sharp increase in preschool-age children—particularly boys, African Americans and Hispanics—prompted researchers to fret about the obesity epidemic having become “endemic.” At a societal level, experts warn that “The obesity epidemic threatens to shorten life expectancy . . . and bankrupt the health care system.”

The dramatic surge in childhood obesity began in earnest in the late 1980s. Given the growing evidence that environmental chemicals are key obesity triggers, it makes sense to consider what exposures may have increased over the same time period. Vaccines and glyphosate are two culprits that readily come to mind—and published evidence supports a link.

The epidemic of obesity in US children has a statistically significant positive correlation with the number of vaccine doses recommended, with similar trends evident for hypertension and metabolic syndrome.

Vaccine-induced immune overload and obesity

In multiple papers published over the last decade and a half, immunologist JB Classen has been making the case that “vaccine induced immune overload”—which he also refers to as “iatrogenic immune stimulation”—is a primary cause of the obesity epidemic and other inflammatory disease epidemics. Arguing that a “huge increase” in inflammation-associated disorders has followed on the heels of the “massive increase” in the childhood vaccine schedule, Classen points out that “The epidemic of obesity in US children has a statistically significant positive correlation with the number of vaccine doses recommended,” with similar trends evident for hypertension and metabolic syndrome.

From Classen’s perspective, a “major problem with vaccines is the one dose fits all approach.” In his papers, he points out the following:

In order to induce protection to infection in the 1% of the population with the weakest immune system, vaccines are over stimulating the immune system of the remaining 99% of the population and this is leading to epidemics of inflammatory diseases.

According to Classen, the theory of vaccine-induced immune overload is far more biologically plausible than competing hypotheses such as (in the case of obesity) “nutrition overload” or lack of exercise. The immunology expert notes that, contrary to popular belief, inflammation precedes (rather than follows) the development of obesity, and it also boosts the activity of natural steroids that can cause obesity. In addition, specific vaccines are known to cause elevations in proinflammatory proteins that are associated with and predictive of overweight and obesity.

Other researchers have linked in utero exposure to mercury to a higher risk of childhood overweight or obesity. The influenza vaccines routinely administered to pregnant women contain the mercury-based preservative thimerosal.

… link glyphosate to three key biological disruptions … all of which can explain the epidemics of obesity as well as numerous other chronic conditions.

Glyphosate and obesity

Increasingly, obesity researchers agree with Classen that excess calories and inadequate exercise are “insufficient to account for the observed changes in [obesity and metabolic syndrome] disease trends.” They propose that in utero and early life exposure to synthetic chemicals such as glyphosate and other pesticides may be playing a major role.

As one of the most widely used chemicals in the world, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) deserves particular attention. MIT researcher Stephanie Seneff and coauthor Anthony Samsel acknowledge the likely contribution of other environmental toxins but argue that glyphosate is the most significant “because it is pervasive and it is often handled carelessly due to its perceived nontoxicity.” Seneff and Samsel link glyphosate to three key biological disruptions—gut dysbiosis, impaired sulfate transport and suppression of a biologically important family of enzymes—all of which can explain the epidemics of obesity as well as numerous other chronic conditions. Insidiously, glyphosate also disrupts the body’s ability to detoxify other environmental toxins, leading to “synergistic enhancement of toxicity.” In addition, Seneff has pointed out elsewhere that glyphosate “has made its way into several widely used vaccines,” and especially the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

One of the key mechanisms whereby glyphosate may carve out a “path to obesity,” say Seneff and Samsel, is through glyphosate’s impairment of tryptophan synthesis. Tryptophan is an essential amino acid that, when depleted, leads to inadequate serotonin and melatonin in the brain. Ordinarily, serotonin regulates appetite, so “it follows that serotonin deficiency would lead to overeating and obesity.”

As with vaccines, temporal trends in glyphosate use correlate with obesity trends, not just in the U.S. but around the world. Seneff and Samsel state:

The obesity epidemic began in the United States in 1975, simultaneous with the introduction of glyphosate into the food chain, and it has steadily escalated in step with increased usage of glyphosate in agriculture. While it is common knowledge that Americans are continuing to grow more and more obese with each passing year, there may be less awareness that obesity aligns with glyphosate usage elsewhere in the world. For example, South Africa arguably has the highest obesity rates in all of Africa, and it is also the African country that has most heavily embraced glyphosate usage since the 1970’s and has freely adopted genetically modified crops with little regulation.

… proposes that vaccine-induced immune overload may lead to different outcomes in different individuals—explaining the many parallel childhood epidemics we are observing.

Pervasive risks, many outcomes

Classen’s numerous publications focus not just on obesity but also on other immune-mediated conditions such as diabetes (types 1 and 2) and metabolic syndrome. As a result of his analyses, he makes the crucial observation that the “clinical manifestation of disease depends on one’s physiologic response to inflammation.” Stated another way, he proposes that vaccine-induced immune overload may lead to different outcomes in different individuals—explaining the many parallel childhood epidemics we are observing.

Seneff and Samsel make a similar point about glyphosate and its influence on a long list of chronic diseases, including “autism, . . . inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn’s disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, among others.” They state, “While genetics surely play a role in susceptibility, genetics may rather influence which of these conditions develops in the context of glyphosate exposure, rather than whether any of these conditions develops.”

Overall, Classen asserts that “vaccines are much more dangerous than the public is lead [sic] to believe,” adding that “The medical industry must take ownership for causing of the epidemics through the inappropriate recommendations and gross over utilization of vaccines.” Seneff and Samsel make a similar critique of glyphosate, postulating that it may be “the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment” and advocating for immediate action to “drastically curtail” its use.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has continued its glyphosate cover-up by announcing Thursday that they have finished and published their regulatory review and found that glyphosate is ‘not a carcinogen’.

In a statement released Thursday the agency said; “EPA has concluded that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used according to the label and that it is not a carcinogen.”

The EPA’s findings contradict the findings of a working group of 17 experts from 11 countries from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who in 2015 classified glyphosate as a ‘Probable Human Carcinogen’.

Also in 2015 Sustainable Pulse uncovered a 30 year cover up by Monsanto and the EPA, related to the probable carcinogenicty of glyphosate, the World’s most used herbicide and according to Sustainable Pulse Director, Henry Rowlands, “as expected the cover-up simply continues.”

Rowlands continued “One thing that helps the EPA continue to assist companies such as Bayer/Monsanto to harm public health, is the fact that there are a lack of independent comprehensive studies out there on the harm being caused globally by glyphosate-based herbicides, due to a lack of available funding. This is something that the Global Glyphosate Study is trying to put right.”

Bayer / Monsanto, which produces the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, is currently facing more than 75,000 court cases in the U.S., some of which have already proven that Roundup is carcinogenic and specifically that it causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dr. Charles Benbrook, Project Coordinator of the Heartland Study, reacted to the EPA’s announcement; “I am flabbergasted at this decision. There is NOTHING — ZERO — in the EPA decision to reduce worker exposures and risks.

How can the EPA ignore the thousands of comments highlighting the need for EPA to recover its spine and require Bayer/Monsanto and other registrants to take out the high-risk surfactants in glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), so the GBHs sold in the US are as safe as the reformulated products now sold in Europe?

And why did the EPA not require registrants to add onto labels a requirement for mixer-loaders and applicators to wear gloves, long sleeve pants, chemical-resistant shoes (aka  rubber boots), especially for applicators using hand-held equipment and spraying a GBH for several hours per day, over many days per year, as part of their job, or in keeping up with weeds on their rural property, homestead, or farm?

This irresponsible action by the EPA sets the stage for a concerted campaign by activists and public health advocates to ban all uses of GBHs. For obvious reasons, their prime target won’t be this EPA, and will instead focus on major food companies.”

Food companies are already reacting in the U.S. and elsewhere around the globe by signing up to The Detox Project’s Glyphosate Residue Free certification for their products, which is now one of the fastest growing certifications in North America.

“It is time for consumers to show our industry-supporting government regulators that it really doesn’t matter if they try to hide the truth, we can all make a difference by forcing change at the check-out,” Rowlands concluded.

by Jefferey Jaxen
January 12, 2020
Source

The World Health Organization (WHO) often finds itself at the center of controversy. It is also considered the “go to” source for authoritative health information. The organization toggles between parroting industry talking points and propaganda, while also producing information that purportedly assists public health awareness.

Yet the WHO has a history of ignoring reality and warnings while shaping their policy. Here are a few examples

1 – Ignoring Vaccine Safety and Risk Concerns

Vaccinations have been a central focus of WHO for many years. Until recently, they’ve been enthusiastic about vaccine uptake, but in 2019, WHO went “all in” on the manufactured talking point regarding “vaccine hesitancy.”

When WHO declared vaccine hesitancy one of their top ten threats to global health, corporate news headlines and government bureaucrats around the world echoed the WHO’s proclamation, despite limited safety testing from a notoriously unscrupulous industry.

Unanswered questions surrounding vaccine safety are consistently listed in polls, surveys and research around the world as a reason many people are ‘hesitant’ about vaccination.

But what’s there to be hesitant about if vaccines are “safe and effective”? Heck, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) labels vaccines one of the top ten public health achievements in the twentieth century – along with water fluoridation.

Yet here’s Prof. Heidi Larson, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project discussing the biggest issue surrounding growing vaccine hesitancy worldwide. Spoiler alert – it’s safety.

https://youtu.be/b_jNMWwjS7Q

Larson later added,

“There’s a lot of safety science that’s needed. You can’t repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don’t have the science that’s relevant to the new problems.”

Doesn’t sound like a lot of “confidence” from the Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, does it?

Vaccine safety doesn’t just rest on the so-called “settled science” of missing double-blind, placebo controlled studies [which all other drugs and medications must adhere to] and the complete absence of total health outcome comparisons in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.

Product safety is also justified by robust surveillance and monitoring systems – you know, the same ones enacted to track the vaccine wariness of you and your family.

Now let’s listen in on Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at the WHO She’s caught flatfooted, contradicting herself when talking about her (own waning) confidence in vaccine surveillance, behind closed doors at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva, Switzerland, last December.

https://youtu.be/sPSpyEi01VI

That same day, Marion Gruber of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publicly acknowledged it was only now beginning to organize the components needed for planning the creation of proper vaccine surveillance systems.

https://youtu.be/Er3aX__loWU

2 – Ignoring America’s Opioid Epidemic To Expand Problems Globally

In hindsight, there have been some pretty shocking headlines about opioids over the past few years.

The 2016 Los Angeles Times investigative piece “OxyContin goes global – “We’re only just getting started” exposed a global opioid marketing push by Mundipharma International – a network of pharmaceutical companies owned by the Sackler family.

The LA Times piece prompted a letter from 12 members of Congress to WHO’s then Director-General Margaret Chan. The letter urged Chan and the WHO to “…do everything in its power to avoid allowing [Purdue Pharma] to begin a worldwide opioid epidemic.”

Citing irrefutable examples and internal documents, the members of Congress wrote:

“We urge the WHO to learn from our experience and rein in this reckless and dangerous behavior while there is still time.”

But it was already too late. Little did Congress know at the time, the WHO’s guidelines and policy on opioids had already been updated in 2011 to reflect deep industry talking points.

In 2019 a Congressional report detailing WHO’s infiltration by the opioid industry was released through the offices of Clark and Rogers: Exposing Dangerous Opioid Manufacturer Influence at the World Health Organization.

The document unequivocally states,

“We are disturbed that the WHO, a trusted international agency, appears to be lending the opioid industry its voice and credibility.”

The Congressional report goes on to warn, “Based on the course of events that has taken place in the U.S. over the past 20 years, if the recommendations in these WHO guidelines are followed, there is a significant risk of sparking a worldwide public health crisis.”

3 – Ignoring Alarming Death Rates of Vaccine Campaigns in Third World Countries

In Dr. Peter Aaby’s recent presentation WHO is the brain in the system? A case study of how public health vaccinology deals with fundamental contradictions of current policy he recounted his studies in Africa with a newly approved measles vaccine.

After finding that girls given the measles vaccine had a two-fold higher mortality rate, Dr. Abby alerted the WHO. After WHO initially discounted his findings, Dr. Aaby worked to convince the WHO to hold an expert panel to discuss his data and discoveries.

According to Dr. Aaby, the panel concluded his findings weren’t plausible because there was no biological explanation. Additionally, the WHO panel claimed that since the study and deaths weren’t planned, they should simply be discounted.

You might want to read that previous paragraph a couple times, just to let it sink in.

Later, after similar findings were found in Haiti and Sudan by other researchers, the WHO withdrew the new measles vaccine as quietly as they could “with no real explanation” and making “no attempt to understand what has happened,” Dr. Aaby explains.

Dr. Aaby continued to look at the introductions and combinations of other vaccines given to children in Guinea-Bissau over his career. In 2018 he published Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?

Dr. Aaby and his team concluded the following:

“…6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.”

He also found in a separate study that DTP vaccination was associated with increased mortality and that oral polio vaccination may modify the effect of DTP.

In late 2017, The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sent a legal notice letter to UNICEF and 150 other underdeveloped nations. The letter demanded UNICEF “cease distribution of the DTP vaccine or at least confirm that parents of children receiving this vaccine are advised of Dr. Aaby’s findings…”

After two months UNICEF replied to ICAN’s notice with a canned response completely ignoring Aaby’s study and refusing to address the concerning results of their DTP vaccination campaign.

4 – Ignoring Safety Issues About the HPV Vaccine

In 2016, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan received an open letter from Dr. Sin Hang Lee, regarding safety issues with the aluminum adjuvant contained within the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, along with evidence several individuals and organizations had deliberately mislead Japanese authorities regarding the safety of Gardasil® and Cervarix®.

The WHO ignored Dr. Lee’s warnings, along with a decade of international research showing aluminum adjuvants are harmful.

Instead, a year later WHO published its position paper, which it stands by to this day, stating, “Data from all sources continue to be reassuring regarding the safety profile of all 3 vaccines…All 3 licensed HPV vaccines – bivalent, quadrivalent and nonavalent – have excellent safety, efficacy and effectiveness profiles.”

Ummmmmm…No. Studies and information are continuously being produced that warn of the dangers and toxicity from injected aluminum.

In closing, one must give credit where credit is due even if the information arrives late to the party. The WHO’s International Agency For Research on Cancer now labels glyphosate as a Group 2A probably carcinogenic to humans product, banging Bayer-Monsanto’s so-called settled herbicidal science.

That 2015 finding teed up the company for record cancer lawsuits against its flagship Roundup product, which are still ongoing today. Let’s hope currently-protected-from-litigation Big Pharma will soon find itself in similar straits.

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

by Peter A. Kirby, Activist Post
November 24, 2019

Recently uncovered evidence indicates that the New Manhattan Project – otherwise known as ‘geoengineering’ – goes back further than previously thought.

As the name ‘New Manhattan Project’ implies, the author was previously under the impression that this ultra-massive, super-secret scientific project (the biggest of all time, in fact) only went back to the mid-1940s; directly after the end of the original Manhattan Project. Your intrepid author has recently found evidence suggesting that the New Manhattan Project should be called the Old Manhattan Project because it now looks like its roots actually go back about 35 years earlier.

The findings presented here have everything to do with an organization called The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the origins of The Research Corporation for Science Advancement (Research Corporation) have everything to do with the life and work of one Frederick Gardner Cottrell (1877-1948).

Today the Research Corporation for Science Advancement has a website, a Twitter feed, and a Facebook page.

If you don’t know what the New Manhattan Project is, please refer to the author’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project available exclusively at Amazon.

Frederick Gardner Cottrell

In the early 1900s Frederick Gardner Cottrell pioneered the field of large-scale, electrostatic removal of coal fly ash from the emissions of coal-fired electrical power plants. This is relevant to the New Manhattan Project for a few reasons.

It is relevant because it has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt by Dr. Marvin Herndon and his peer-reviewers all over the world that the substance with which we are being routinely sprayed today is coal fly ash. You see, coal fly ash is the smoke that rises from burning coal. It’s a toxic waste by-product of the electrical power industry. There’s a big, cheap supply of it all over the world and if they don’t spray it into our atmosphere, it costs the electrical power companies big money to properly dispose of it. The low cost and ready availability of coal fly ash makes it suitable for geoengineering purposes because geoengineers are talking about spraying tens of thousands of megatons of toxic substances such as this from airplanes ANNUALLY. For more about coal fly ash, please refer to the author’s 2017 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Coal Fly Ash and the New Manhattan Project.”

Not only that, but electrical power companies have a long history in weather modification, and the New Manhattan Project is a global, second generation weather modification project. Specifically, electrical power companies have for many decades openly sprayed silver iodide from ground-based generators in order to make it snow. The runoff from this artificially nucleated snowpack then fills up their mountain reservoirs and is subsequently used to generate hydroelectric power. How much does the Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation love you?

Furthermore, when coal fly ash is electrostatically removed from the exhaust system of a coal-fired power plant, a mini-New Manhattan Project takes place. This is what originally inspired the author’s investigation here. You see, today’s coal fly ash is removed from a power plant’s exhaust system using something called an electrostatic precipitator. These electrostatic precipitators collect fly ash by first electrically charging the airborne ash particles, then attracting them to oppositely charged plates where the ash is then taken away. This is analogous to how, in the course of today’s New Manhattan Project, atmospheric particles are electromagnetically ionized (charged) and then manipulated. This use of electromagnetic energy is the defining aspect of the project and, strangely enough, we see it replicated in this NMP sub-operation of fly ash sequestration. Frederick Cottrell was the American pioneer in the field of electrostatic precipitation.

So, let us learn more about this intriguing Frederick Cottrell character, whose life’s work was so inextricably intertwined with air pollution and, most pertinently, coal fly ash air pollution. Like your author, Cottrell was born in the San Francisco Bay Area. This is his story.

Frederick Gardner Cottrell was born in Oakland, CA in 1877. As a boy, Cottrell marveled at the swift proliferation of applied electrical power. At the age of 19 he received a Bachelors degree in chemistry from the University of California and subsequently became a chemistry teacher at Oakland High School. He then traveled abroad to the Mecca of science, Germany. During this time he also traveled extensively throughout Europe as well as throughout the eastern half of America, visiting just about all of the big scientific universities while meeting and studying under many famous European and American scientists. Upon his return to America, from 1902 to 1911 Cottrell taught physical chemistry at UC Berkeley. Cottrell was gregarious, universally well-liked, and an extraordinarily sharp scientist.

In America, Cottrell traveled to many universities which have since been implicated in the production of the New Manhattan Project such as: The University of Chicago, Cornell, Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Most notably, though, on his return journey Cottrell also visited Schenectady, New York; the home of W.R. Whitney’s General Electric Laboratories which was just beginning its long and storied history in the realm of industrial scientific discoveries. In fact, General Electric and Whitney would go on for many years trying unsuccessfully to sign Cottrell as an employee. As readers of this work already know, General Electric appears to be central to the production of the New Manhattan Project.

In 1906 Cottrell first successfully collected and removed unwanted airborne particles with electrical precipitation as part of an industrial process at a DuPont plant engaged in the manufacture of acids and explosives in Pinole, CA. It was not to improve the quality of the breathable air, though. For DuPont, Cottrell found a way to eliminate certain arsenic mists which were a by-product of their industrial processes that were causing production difficulties. Elimination of the arsenic mists during the production of sulphuric acid allowed the DuPont plant to produce their goods much more efficiently. It was during this time that Cottrell drew up his first two successful U.S. patents pertaining to electrical precipitation and a new industry was born.

Once Cottrell had successfully demonstrated his new and improved methods of electrical precipitation, one of Cottrell’s friends, a man by the name of Harry East Miller was sure that Cottrell ‘had something’ and promptly incorporated and became the primary funder of something called the Western Precipitation Company.

The parent corporation of the Western Precipitation Company was something called the International Precipitation Company. The International Precipitation Company held the patents while the Western Precipitation Company was the operating unit. Miller, Cottrell, E.S. Heller, a well-known San Francisco attorney, and Berkeley professor Edmund O’Neill were the original shareholders with seed money investment coming from all except Cottrell. An additional early loan was secured from the Wells Fargo Nevada National Bank.

After returning to Pinole to perfect and definitively demonstrate their improved methods, Western Precipitation’s first real job came in 1907 at the Selby Smelting and Lead Company in Selby, California. This job was all about cleaning up the ambient air.

The troubles at the Selby Smelting and Lead Company were not uncommon. Ever since the Industrial Revolution and all throughout the 19th century, much of the industrialized world (especially Europe and the industrialized centers of America) struggled with poor air quality due to the emissions coming from local factories. At Selby, the downwind residents of Solano County were reporting foul odors, reduced agricultural production, corroded metals, and other significant environmental problems due to the pollution coming from the Selby plant. It got so bad that the residents of Solano County had banded together back in 1905 to petition for an injunction against the Selby plant’s offending emissions.

When officials at the Selby plant heard about Western Precipitation’s successful demonstration of their improved methods at nearby Pinole, they immediately looked to Western Precipitation for a solution to their problems. Western Precipitation’s efforts at Selby were ultimately successful, the air quality in Solano County was restored, and the Selby Smelting and Lead Company continued operations there. It was a win win.

In the years following the successes at Pinole and Selby, Western Precipitation solved emissions problems at industrial facilities such as large copper smelters and cement factories.

In July of 1910, at the first annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Francisco, Cottrell held his first major public discussion of his work in the field of electrical precipitation and his speech was well received both domestically and abroad. A variety of air pollution-producing industries as well as civic organizations gave inquiries. Cottrell’s International Precipitation Company was well on its way to prosperity.

In 1911 Cottrell resigned from his position at the University of California at Berkeley and took a job as a physical chemist with the U.S. Bureau of Mines. He took the job because the then director of the Bureau, a man by the name of Joseph A. Holmes, was cultivating an expanded role for the newly created Bureau. One of Holmes’ initiatives was that of organizing efforts related to ameliorating the problem of pollution caused by the burning of coal. Holmes saw air pollution from the burning of coal as an issue for the Bureau of Mines because coal is a mined substance and the organizations burning said coal had intimate business relationships with the miners. Cottrell’s experience in electrical precipitation made him a natural fit.

The Research Corporation for Science Advancement

It was not long after his arrival in Washington, D.C. for his job with the Bureau of Mines in June of 1911, when Cottrell started taking steps towards forming the Research Corporation, as it was originally called. With help from Holmes, the Director of the Bureau of Mines, as part of this process, Cottrell began negotiations with the Smithsonian Institution to let them take over ownership of his patents pertaining to electrical precipitation. It was suggested that the Smithsonian Institution could use funding from the royalties generated by the business development of International Precipitation Company’s patents to fund scientific efforts which had the potential to improve Americans’ daily quality of life.

You see, unlike Bill Gates, George Soros, or so many others, Cottrell was a real philanthropist. He actually wanted to use his patents to foster development of the greater good. He may have been naïve, but his intentions were good.

Cottrell soon returned to the San Francisco Bay Area where he went about organizing a Bureau of Mines office and laboratory in San Francisco. Also at this time, he and his business associates (Miller, Heller, and O’Neill), as a preliminary step to handing their patents over to the Smithsonian, signed over both the Western Precipitation Company and the International Precipitation Company (without patents) to one of Cottrell’s former pupils named Walter A. Schmidt, who became the manager of both the International Precipitation Company and the Western Precipitation Company.

By this time, there was huge interest and activity associated with the Cottrell group’s new technologies and the job offers were coming in from all over the world. With the signing over of the companies, Cottrell and his associates received only modest compensation. With the disposition of his businesses, Cottrell plunged into his work at the Bureau.

In December of 1911, the Regents of the Smithsonian decided to accept Cottrell and associates’ offer with a caveat. The Regents of the Smithsonian advised that a stock corporation be organized which was to take title of the patents. The Regents advised that the Smithsonian Institution be directly represented in this new corporation by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution – at the time, a man by the name of Charles D. Walcott (1850-1927). From this arrangement and from the royalties generated by the International Precipitation Company patents, the Smithsonian Institution, they suggested, would stand to benefit financially. This suggested corporation would later be formed as the Research Corporation.

At the time of the Smithsonian’s decision, Cottrell happened to be back east again in Washington D.C. attending an important meeting. Being that the Smithsonian’s Executive Committee was ready to act, Cottrell extended his stay.

After attending the executive session of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents where they announced their decision pertaining to Cottrell’s patents, Walcott (Secretary of the Smithsonian) and Cottrell adjourned to a restaurant across the street where they ran into Arthur Dehon Little (1863-1935). The presence of Arthur D. Little is important to our discussion because his eponymous corporation (a research organization, no less) was later to do lots of serious work in the vein of the New Manhattan Project. From little acorns mighty oaks grow. Little was a staunch supporter of Cottrell’s efforts to establish this new corporation – he even suggested the name Research Corporation. Little offered lots of other advice and volunteered to steer Cottrell towards the ‘right’ people. It was Little who put Cottrell in touch with T. Coleman DuPont (1863-1930) who enthusiastically took a seat on the nascent Research Corporation’s board of directors. Little took a seat on the first board as well. Du Pont stayed on the Research Corporation board of directors from 1912 to 1930 while Arthur D. Little remained as a Research Corporation board member from 1912 to 1921.

The newly christened Research Corporation needed more members of the board to oversee their important work. For upwards of two months following the Smithsonian’s decision, Cottrell and Bureau of Mines chief Holmes communicated with about one hundred men from many different vocations in order to find directors for the new Research Corporation. They eventually decided upon 14 well-known men from academia, government, and industry, including a man named Elihu Thompson (1853-1937) who was the founder of something called the Thompson-Houston Company. The Thompson-Houston Company was one of the precursors of the General Electric Company which has only the most serious implications for the New Manhattan Project. Thomson was also the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1920 to 1923. Another original board member was one Charles A. Stone (1867-1941) who was a trustee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is significant because the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is another organization highly implicated in the science history of the New Manhattan Project. Smithsonian Secretary Walcott took a seat on the Research Corporation board as well. By early February of 1912, the Research Corporation’s original board of directors had been chosen and its Articles of Incorporation were ready to be filed.

Although years later the Research Corporation bought back all of its stock, members of its original board initially paid for founder’s stock which filled the nascent Research Corporation’s coffers and gave the corporation its seed money needed for starting operations.

Over the years, many other luminaries of the New Manhattan Project have served on the Research Corporation’s board of directors including: Karl T. Compton (1887-1954), James R. Killian Jr. (1904-1988), Alfred Lee Loomis (1887-1975), and Vannevar Bush (1890-1974). All four of these men have strong implications for the New Manhattan Project with Loomis and Bush possessing only the strongest. Alfred Lee Loomis was a Research Corporation board member from 1930 to 1933, then again from 1948 to 1959. In 1938 the Research Corporation awarded a grant to Vannevar Bush. Vannevar Bush was a Research Corporation board member from 1939 to 1946.

On February 16 of 1912 the Research Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, a one-room office was leased at 63 Wall St., and a manager by the name of Linn Bradley was hired. Cottrell returned to his office work for the Bureau of Mines in San Francisco. A prospectus was printed up and, in order to increase revenue, Bradley went about finding new contract opportunities.

Back in the San Francisco Bay Area once again, Cottrell applied the principals of electrical precipitation to weather modification. This is significant because, as noted earlier, the topic of our study, the New Manhattan Project is, largely and in its essence, a global weather modification project. Specifically, Cottrell experimented with the electrical dissipation of low-lying fogs. Here Cottrell was following in the footsteps of Sir Oliver Lodge (1878-1955) who had successfully performed similar experiments in London many years earlier. This type of weather modification activity, utilizing a charged wire to cause the coalescence of fog, is duly noted in the historical weather modification literature.

Cottrell and his wife moved to Washington D.C. in November of 1916, where they then lived for the next 28 years.

The International Precipitation Company and its subsidiary the Western Precipitation Company flourished under Walter Schmidt’s management. Immediately following the end of hostilities in Europe, Schmidt returned to rejuvenate International Precipitation’s business there. In the course of doing so, he joined forces with Sir Oliver Lodge’s Fume Deposit Company to form the British firm Lodge Cottrell Ltd. To this day Lodge Cottrell Ltd produces and services industrial electrostatic precipitators, mostly outside of America.

In the first two years of its existence, the Research Corporation got its revenue almost entirely from the fees associated with their engineering consultancy work pertaining to the design, installation, and maintenance of electrostatic precipitators. In the first few years of its existence, the Research Corporation mostly went about building up cash reserves.

During this time there were large precipitators being built around the country. By January 1915, about three years after its creation, the Research Corporation had $65K in cash and $100K in secured notes, subsequently, the previously issued founders’ stock was bought back in that same year.

In 1920 Cottrell briefly served as the chief of the Bureau of Mines for 8 months. Beginning in 1921 Cottrell also served as the chairman of the National Research Council’s Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology. The National Research Council was funded by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations, among others. This put him in touch with Rockefellers and Carnegies – two family names highly correlated with the New Manhattan Project.

With the exception of an early grant to Cottrell as part of a company promotion, the Research Corporation didn’t really start giving out money for the advancement of science until 1923. In 1923 the Research Corporation made their first real grant when they paid $5K toward the atmospheric sounding rocket experiments of the American rocketry pioneer Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945). This was an investment in the atmospheric sciences as sounding rockets are used to gather atmospheric data. From the beginning, the Research Corporation was funding projects highly relevant to the New Manhattan Project. As we will soon see, many others were funded later.

At the Research Corporation, the way it worked was that Howard Poillon ran day-to-day operations while Cottrell was largely responsible for developing new inventions and ideas, accepting new patents, and the granting of funds. Cottrell’s official status was that of a paid consultant.

Another early recipient of Research Corporation money was Ernest Orlando Lawrence (1901-1958): Manhattan Project scientist and the father of the cyclotron. In 1931 the Research Corporation made the first of many grants to Ernest Lawrence for the development of his cyclotron.

In late July of 1931, after Lawrence had successfully produced a million-volt proton with an eleven inch accelerator, Fred Cottrell encouraged his friend from UC Berkeley to ask the Research Corporation for funding. Before the end of the month, Lawrence was in New York, asking the Research Corporation for $10-$15K. Cottrell came along to personally introduce Lawrence and plead his case before the board of directors. The Research Corporation was impressed with Lawrence and they decided to make a $5K grant, even though they had to go to the bank and borrow the funds because they were in the throes of the Great Depression. William Buffum of the Chemical Foundation followed up with a promise of another $2.5K.

On different occasions between 1931 and 1940, the Research Corporation gave to Lawrence’s work at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory: $5K, $1.8K, $2K, $2K, $3K, $1K, $5K, $1.7K, $7.5K, $5K, and $50K. That’s a grand total of $84K, or, conservatively, about $1.5M in today’s dollars.

The Research Corporation, as the assignee, also applied for one of Lawrence’s patents for him. Their collaborative patent “Method and Apparatus for the Acceleration of Ions” covers methods of the cyclotronic production of radioactive substances discovered by Lawrence.

Cottrell’s biographer Cameron writes, “In the thirties, when the period of intensive study of atomic energy began, the earliest diversified support and encouragement of the development of the techniques of nuclear physics in America came from Research Corporation.” He also writes, “The Lawrence patent had, by 1949, been licensed free of royalties to twenty-eight universities and scientific institutions to build cyclotrons. More than that, it was income from the precipitation patents that helped in several instances to build or operate these cyclotrons which the corporation licensed.”

Along with funding Lawrence, the Research Corporation funded other early cyclotron work at: Columbia University, the University of Rochester, the University of Chicago, and Cornell University.

The Research Corporation also funded Robert Van de Graaff’s (1901-1967) electrostatic generator, also known as a Van de Graaff-Trump accelerator after the Donald’s uncle, John G. Trump (1907-1985). Van de Graaff’s work was conducted at MIT. Cameron writes, “[The Van de Graaff group of patents on the electrostatic generator] were assigned to Research Corporation under a general agreement with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in turn were ultimately licensed back to the High Voltage Engineering Corporation formed by Van de Graaff and his associates.” Van de Graaff’s associates included John Trump. As readers of this work already know, John Trump was the MIT professor who looked over Nikola Tesla’s posthumously confiscated documents.

In 1938 it was reported that the Research Corporation had donated funds to Columbia University in order to support their program of supplying, “artificial radioactive materials for use as tracers in biochemical processes.” Today the New Manhattan Project uses atmospheric radioactive tracers along with satellites to actively map atmospheric activity.

At some point during this time, the Research Corporation moved out of its original offices on Wall St. and moved into offices in the steeple of the Chrysler Building in Manhattan.

In the early thirties, the Smithsonian had established a laboratory for Cottrell’s use. In this laboratory Cottrell installed a man by the name of Chester Gilbert who was formerly the president of the American Coal Corporation. At the Smithsonian laboratory, after receiving an anonymous donation of $6K, Gilbert initially investigated the production of lime-gypsum plaster based on some Research Corporation patents. Gilbert’s lime-gypsum work led him to work pertaining to the use of coal fly ash. This work put Gilbert and Cottrell among the pioneers in the field of coal fly ash utilization, a field that continues to this day. Gilbert and Cottrell figured that coal fly ash could be processed and then used as a filler in cements and plasters. They also went about processing coal fly ash for use as a household cleaning powder.

The author of Cottrell’s biography, Frank Cameron describes the Research Corporation’s Smithsonian laboratory in a very interesting way. Cameron describes the Smithsonian laboratory as analogous to a phenomenon germane to weather modification and the atmospheric sciences: nucleation. Curiously, when referring to the laboratory where Gilbert and Cottrell performed pioneering work in the field of coal fly ash utilization, Cameron writes, “They [Gilbert and Cottrell] did not foresee it as the mote, the speck of dust around which Cottrell’s ideas and those of his protégés, like so many particles of moisture, would begin to coalesce to form the drop of rain.”

It may have been during this time that Gilbert, Cottrell, or other pioneers in the field of coal fly ash utilization noticed or figured that the smoke from coal-fired, electrical power plants causes precipitation. It had been noted for many years previously that explosions and smoke from burning fires cause precipitation. Maybe the Research Corporation and their Smithsonian laboratory attempted to determine the validity of these claims by doing a study about whether or not, under the appropriate atmospheric conditions, the smoke from coal-fired electrical power plants can be scientifically proven to cause precipitation. It is known today that if coal is finely pulverized before combustion, then many of the resultant fly ash particles will be the optimum size for atmospheric nucleation (.1 micron). Maybe they even collected some of this coal fly ash from one of their electrostatic precipitators and dumped it out of an airplane to see if it caused atmospheric precipitation. Just sayin’. And if the reader is aware of just how many of the author’s speculations have turned out to be directly over the target, then the reader should be just listenin’.

As the years went on, the Research Corporation’s electrostatic precipitator business grew and grew. In 1928 Research Corporation had 43 contracts in hand to build and install electrostatic precipitators. In 1941 Research Corporation had 95 contracts to build and install electrostatic precipitators. In 1942 Research Corporation had 130 contracts.

During WWII something called the Research Construction Company, which was formed by the Research Corporation, served as a ‘model shop’ for MIT’s Radiation Laboratory. Under contract to MIT, the Research Construction Company produced over $12M worth of radar apparatus. In their book commemorating their centennial anniversary, the Research Corporation for Science Advancement tells us, “Research Construction Company made small production runs for immediate military needs. Successful prototypes were turned over to government contractors for mass production.” This is significant because the wartime MIT Radiation Laboratory has serious implications for the New Manhattan Project. For more information about the MIT Rad Lab, please refer to the author’s 2017 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project.”

Cottrell eventually returned to Berkeley and died in his chair during a morning meeting of the National Academy of Sciences on the campus of UC Berkeley in November of 1948. Cameron writes, “About nine-thirty he slumped in his chair, his head back, an audible rattle in his throat.

“He died among friends. Hildebrand, of the university’s chemistry department, helped Farrington Daniels lay him on the floor, and it was thought that death had come instantly. A doctor arrived and after the body had been removed it was the sentiment of those attending that Cottrell would have wished the meeting to go on.

“The session continued.”

The Research Corporation for Science Advancement writes of significant developments in the post-war era, “In 1954, as a result of [a] change in the tax law, Research Corporation reorganized its precipitator business as Research-Cottrell, a wholly-owned but taxable subsidiary.” The authors continue, “From 1957 to 1967 Research Corporation was supported mainly by the earnings of its commercial precipitation subsidiary, Research-Cottrell, and royalties from inventions in its patent portfolios.” “By the mid-1960s, further federal efforts to limit nonprofit control over commercial activities prompted Research Corporation to lower the percentage of its ownership in the precipitator business, and Research-Cottrell became a publicly held company in 1967.

“The [Research Corporation] Foundation’s endowment was established during the second half of the twentieth century, coming primarily from the Research-Cottrell stock offering. Research Corporation finally divested itself of all of the precipitator firm’s stock in the 1980s.” “The Foundation’s precipitator business, Research-Cottrell, survives as Hamon-Research Cottrell, a public corporation headquartered in New Jersey that is a major provider of air-pollution control technology.”

The Research Corporation has historically given many grants to scientific studies conducted in areas relevant to the New Manhattan Project. The Research Corporation has consistently funded work in the areas of: plasma physics, astrophysics, microwave spectroscopy, radioactive tracers, atmospheric physics, electromagnetic fields, particle physics, meteorology, ionospheric research, nucleation, biology, and more.

Famous scientists implicated in the New Manhattan Project such as Merle Tuve (1901-1982), Isidor Rabi (1898-1988), and CalTech’s Lee DuBridge (1901-1994) have all been Research Corporation grantees.

In 1965 Alfred Y.F. Wong of the University of California at Los Angeles’ Plasma Physics Lab received $6K for work in, “Experimental studies of fundamental plasma physics.” Again in 1972 Wong received $10K from the Research Corporation. The following year Barrett H. Ripin, Reiner L. Stenzel, and the aforementioned Alfred Wong of UCLA got $10,200 to study ion beam-plasma wave interactions.

This is the same Alfred Y.F. Wong who went on, in the 1980s, to found and direct the High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS) ionospheric heater in Alaska. The HIPAS ionospheric heater was a precursor to the infamous High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) antenna. Further, my science advisor tells me that weather modification work prominently mentioned by Vice Admiral William F. Raborn, Jr. was conducted at the HIPAS facility.

This is the same Alfred Y.F. Wong that got busted for fraudulently producing phony invoices pertaining to U.S. government contract work. He pled guilty, was sentenced to 5 days behind bars, as well as six months home detention, and was ordered to pay nearly $1.7M in restitution.

Wong is currently listed on UCLA’s website as a Professor Emeritus of ‘Exp. Plasma & Environmental Physics.’

For more about Vice Admiral Raborn and his implications for the New Manhattan Project, please see the author’s previous article “William Raborn and the New Manhattan Chemtrail Project.”

Oddly enough, the cover of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement’s 2008 annual report features a question mark made of clouds high above the Earth, appearing as though it has been written in the sky by aircraft. In this same report they reveal that the so-called Scialog program, which they originally disclosed in the previous year’s annual report, is all about tackling ‘global climate change.’ Oddly enough as well, so is the New Manhattan Project.

In their 2009 report they refer to global climate change as a ‘looming challenge.’

In their 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports, they note that Cherry A. Murray served on their Presidential Advisory Committee. For the fact that Cherry A. Murray is the former Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the author has identified her as a person of interest in the New Manhattan Project. You know that the original Manhattan Project became the Atomic Energy Commission, which, in turn, became the Department of Energy, right? Murray also was the principal associate director for science and technology at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) from 2004-2009. LLNL is the author’s number one choice for a New Manhattan Project command center location. Murray got her B.S. and Ph.D. in physics from MIT.

In their 2010 and 2011 reports, their then president and CEO James M. Gentile identified himself as a climate zealot as he characterized climate change as a daunting challenge to be overcome.

A managing director of Brown Brothers Harriman, G. Scott Clemons sits on the Research Corporation for Science Advancement’s board of directors. This is significant because of Brown Brothers Harriman’s affiliation with the Bush family as well as the fact that Brown Brothers Harriman acquired another producer of electrostatic precipitators known as Dresser Industries in 1928. For more about Brown Brothers Harriman, the Bush family, and Dresser Industries, please refer to the author’s 2018 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Dresser Industries and the New Manhattan Project.”

Other interesting individuals from organizations such as: The Chase Manhattan Bank, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., the Aeronautic Division of the Ford Motor Company, the Carnegie institute of Technology, MIT’s Radiation Laboratory, CalTech, and something called Energy Global all have sat or currently sit on the Research Corporation’s board of directors.

Conclusions

The Research Corporation has always funded what we call ‘basic science.’ These are the small, highly specific studies that produce results which are often in turn used as the building blocks of much larger scientific efforts. Over the years, the Research Corporation has funded thousands of basic science studies.

Furthermore, we know that one of the 3 ways that the Research Corporation has funded itself over the years is from corporate stock dividends – the other two being patent royalties and electrostatic precipitator engineering services fees. For many decades now, the Research Corporation has maintained an investment portfolio consisting mostly of the dividend-paying stocks of large, American companies.

Doesn’t it make sense, then that the Research Corporation would fund basic science studies which might produce new discoveries helpful to the corporations that fund the Research Corporation? This is probably what has been taking place.

Given this, doesn’t it also make sense, then that, over the years, the Research Corporation may have funded basic science studies which produced new discoveries which were then used as building blocks of the New Manhattan Project? The Research Corporation has owned the dividend-paying stocks of companies like General Electric, Boeing, and Standard Oil which all have strong implications for the NMP. As noted earlier, one of the Research Corporation’s founding members, Elihu Thomson was also a founding member of General Electric and General Electric appears to be the most instrumental corporation in the NMP’s history. Furthermore, we have seen many people strongly connected to the NMP also working for the Research Corporation such as Alfred Lee Loomis, Vannevar Bush, and Arthur D. Little.

For the production of the New Manhattan Project, use of an operation like the Research Corporation would be very advantageous. The New Manhattan Project, being that it is the biggest scientific project in history, has necessarily required gargantuan boatloads of basic scientific studies. And here is a self-sustaining organization that, for over 100 years and to this day, due to the efforts of Frederick Cottrell, produces an endless amount of this stuff. It’s even better than making the taxpayer pay for it!

It is hoped that this article provides more clarity about the biggest scientific effort in Human history and that our continuing investigations of coal fly ash air pollution will illuminate us and contribute to relieving us of our burdens. As these investigations have repeatedly found, when one investigates coal fly ash air pollution, one finds the New Manhattan Project. It’s funny how that works, isn’t it? Let’s keep moving in this direction. Thank you, Dr. Herndon.

The greatly revised and expanded second edition of my book “Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project” is coming! It’s looking like spring 2020. There’s just so much here! For one, the new Chemtrail Fleet chapter is going to be a real BARN BURNER. Have I ever disappointed you? Stay tuned. To be among the first to be notified of the second edition’s publication, please join my email list at my website peterakirby.com

Bibliography (in order of first appearance)

“Chemtrails Exposed: Coal Fly Ash and the New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, July 24, 2017

Cottrell: Samaritan of Science a book by Frank Cameron, published by Doubleday, 1952

“Frederick Gardner Cottrell 1877-1948” a National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoir by Vannevar Bush, published by the National Academy of Sciences, 1952

100 Years of Supporting Science Innovation: Research Corporation for Science Advancement: 1912-2012 a book by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, published by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, 2012

US patent #1,948,384 “Method and Apparatus for the Acceleration of Ions” by Ernest O. Lawrence

An American Genius: The Life of Ernest Orlando Lawrence, Father of the Cyclotron a book by Herbert Childs, published by E.P. Dutton & Co., 1968

“Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, March 13, 2017

Research Corporation annual reports 1950-2018

“Former UCLA Physics Professor Agrees To Plead Guilty In Federal Contract Fraud Case And Pay Nearly $1.7 Million In Damages” a press release by the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California, published by the United States Department of Justice, May 9, 2013

“William Raborn and the New Manhattan Chemtrail Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, May 24, 2017

The Research Corporation (1912-1952): Dedicated to Progress in Education and Science a booklet containing a transcript of a speech by Dr. Joseph Warren Barker, published by the Newcomen Society, 1952

Links

PeterAKirby.com
My Minds page
My Steemit page
My GoodReads page
My YouTube channel

Websites

ClimateViewer.com
ChemSky.org
NuclearPlanet.com
GlobalSkyWatch.com
ChemtrailsProject.com
ChemtrailsProjectUK.com
ChemtrailSafety.com
GeoengineeringWatch.org

Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, author, and activist. Buy his book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project available now exclusively at Amazon.

by Zach Bush, MD
April 9, 2019

Dr. Zach Bush shares the harsh reality of what farming families across the country are feeling today, desperate for a better way of doing things. The stakes are so high and the damage is so enormous yet there is still hope and a chance for a different future. This monologue serves as a reminder that we all have an opportunity to choose healing and regeneration.

https://zachbushmd.com https://farmersfootprint.us

“I cannot turn the tide in my clinics. I can’t shift the momentum by working with one cancer patient at a time. It’s far too slow and it’s not at the root of the cause. And so I look to these farmers to realize this salvation of human health.” ~ Zach Bush, MD

“Between 1996 and 2007 there was a complete reversal of our cancer map in the United States. To see an entire population respond in a single decade to a sudden explosion of cancer suggests that we did something similar to Chernobyl.

We did some massive environmental injury that led to this explosive rise in cancer.  And so we started, you know, looking into this understanding of glyphosate as an antibiotic.

Glyphosate became a commodity in farming in 1996.  Before that it was used as a weed killer by homeowners and farmers alike. You know, had to be used sparingly because it kills everything it touches.

That was the history of this glyphosate Roundup chemical until 1996. And suddenly it became a crop treatment that actually functioned as an antibiotic, killing the bacteria and the fungi.” ~ Zach Bush, MD

The film below features the trials, learnings and victories of the four generation Breitkreutz family from Stoney Creek Farm transitioning from conventional farming to regenerative agriculture in Redwood Falls, Minnesota. Using conventional methods they saw their soils degrade and their input costs rise every year. Transitioning to regenerative practices has helped their row cropping operation and significantly reduced the input cost for their cattle.

This film tells the story of how they did it.

Farmer’s Footprint | Regeneration : The Beginning from Farmer’s Footprint on Vimeo.

View film on YouTube

by Katherine Paul
October 31, 2019
Source

“I’d say Roundup is our public enemy number one probably, but that’s one of 260 chemicals that are now prevalent in our food system. So, we have completely chemicalized the human experience and the planet itself, and so the level of toxicity has superseded the planet’s capacity for life.” – Dr. Zach Bush, October 14, 2019, interview published in Salon.

Two important articles about pesticides, food and health were published this week.

One highlights the insanity of allowing the unleashing of billions of pounds of glyphosate into our environment and food systems every year.

The other raises this question: Who’s the real Public Enemy No. 1?

Is it Monsanto (now owned by Bayer)?

Or is it the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which defends the use of Roundup weedkiller and other toxic chemicals on our food?

In an interview with Salon, Dr. Zach Bush outlines the, literally, gut-wrenching impact of Monsanto’s Roundup on human health.

And in an article by Carey Gillam, Gillam reveals the extent to which our food is contaminated by not just Roundup, but also by a host of other dangerous toxins, including chlorpyrifos and DDT.

Gillam also reveals the lengths to which the FDA goes to protect the agri-chemical industry by insisting that all these chemicals on our food are nothing to worry about.

All roads lead to Monsanto’s weedkiller

Dr. Zach Bush used to research and develop chemotherapy treatments. But he told Salon that at some point he realized he was “missing the point” because he was doing nothing to prevent cancer.

So Bush started to focus on nutrition. That led him down the path toward chemical agriculture, its impact on the soil, and the relationship between soil health and human health.

Bush told Salon:

“So, I was studying soil, found some carbon molecules made by bacteria and fungi in soil, and therefore, in our gut, as well, that had medicinal qualities similar to the chemotherapy [drugs] I used to make. And that was the sudden “Aha!” moment that closed the question of, “How come, when we’re missing some bacteria, we get cancer?”

Eventually, all roads led Bush to glyphosate.

According to Bush, glyphosate acts as an antibiotic in the soil, and in the human gut. We think that our exposure to glyphosate is limited to the residue that remains on our foods.But glyphosate is actually taken up by the plants that become our food. Bush says:

 . . . it’s not something you can wash off. It’s actually in the flesh of the tomato, corn, soybean, whatever it hits. And so, it’s integrated in that water structure, and as it hits your gut microbiome [it] acts as an antibiotic to kill the microbial diversity in your intestines. We now know [this] is the beginning of chronic disease, many chronic diseases are now being mapped back to injuries in the microbiome. And so, as we wipe out the bacteria and fungi with this broad spectrum antibiotic in our food, we are killing the health of our animals, the livestock we consume, beef, poultry, pork, and everything else.

Bush blames today’s epidemic of chronic disease on the collapse of the microbiome—a condition commonly referred to as “leaky gut,” and for which consumers are now bombarded with remedies they can buy to solve the problem.

Bush thinks we should focus instead on preventing the problem. That means getting rid of pesticides, and going back to farming using methods that restore biodiversity and soil health.

FDA: so many pesticides, so little concern

Roundup is “probably public enemy no. 1,” according to Bush, but it’s only one of 260 chemicals now prevalent in our food system.

And that brings us to the article Carey Gillam wrote this week, on the FDA’s latest analysis of pesticide residues in the U.S. food system.

According to Gillam’s account, “pesticides were found in 84 percent of domestic samples of fruits, and 53 percent of vegetables, as well as 42 percent of grains and 73 percent of food samples simply listed as ‘other.’ The samples were drawn from around the country, including from California, Texas, Kansas, New York and Wisconsin.”

In other words, good luck finding any non-organic fruits, veggies or grains that aren’t contaminated with pesticides.

The volume of pesticide residues on our food is staggering. But it’s not even the worst news. The worst news is that the FDA found significant traces of some of the worst chemicals for human health. The list includes DDT, banned more than 40 years ago for causing cancer, infertility and nervous system damage, and chlorpyrifos, banned (finally) in the U.S., only to have the Trump administration overturn the ban.

Does any of this concern the FDA? Not really, according to Gillam, who writes:

The regulators echo the words of Monsanto executives and others in the chemical industry by insisting that pesticide residues pose no threat to human health as long as the levels of each type of residue falls under a “tolerance” level set by the EPA.

In fact, the FDA—under increasing pressure from agribusiness and agrichemical industry lobbyists—continues to raise the allowed “legal” limits for pesticides on food. This despite the fact that no test exists than can prove without a doubt that any of these chemicals are “safe,” at any level, according to Andre Leu, author of “The Myth of Safe Pesticides.” Leu makes that same article in another of his books, “Poisoning Our Children.”

Meanwhile, as Gillam notes, the $215-billion agrichemical industry continues to ignore the evidence and defend its right to poison our food. Gillam reports that this month, a group of three researchers with “long-standing close ties to the companies that sell agricultural pesticides” released a report “seeking to soothe consumer worries and discount the scientific research.” Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, the report claims that there’s “no direct scientific or medical evidence indicating that typical exposure of consumers to pesticide residues poses any health risk.”

That leaves consumers to try to minimize their risk by choosing certified organic whenever possible, and by relentlessly hounding our lawmakers to ban chemicals like glyphosate (sign here) and chlorpyrifos (sign here).

Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). To keep up with OCA news and alerts, sign up for our newsletter.

by Jefferey Jaxen
October 6, 2019
Source

Two new studies add to the body of science, showing glyphosate— a key ingredient in Bayer AG-Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup—is harmful to living systems. The studies point to convincing evidence the chemical can alter DNA by actively working at the epigenetic level.

These alarming studies strongly suggest glyphosate is affecting human chemistry at the genetic level to turn on negative, disease-causing traits – even into future generations. These study results indicate glyphosate progressively weakens the genome of living systems exposed to the chemical. It increases susceptibility to health problems and increased infertility.

These discoveries come from a collaboration of scientists from Purdue University and the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)/Institut de Cancérologie de L’Ouest (ICO) in Nantes, France. Together, they found glyphosate can lead to mammary cancer when combined with another risk factor. Their work was published in Frontiers in Genetics and shows that glyphosate primes mammary cells for tumor growth by reprogramming epigenomes.

“This is a major result and nobody has ever shown this before,” says Sophie Lelièvre, a professor of cancer pharmacology at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine. “Showing that glyphosate can trigger tumor growth, when combined with another frequently observed risk, is an important missing link when it comes to determining what causes cancer.”

What other frequently observed risks propelled breast cancer growth?

It is assumed that only 5–10% of cancers are directly caused by inherited genetic abnormalities. The remaining 90% of cancers are linked to environmental factors that directly or indirectly affect DNA.

The researchers discuss environmental and lifestyle factors as other “oncogenic hits,” including diet, tobacco, infections, obesity, alcohol, radiation, stress, physical activity, exposure to heavy metals, and other pollutants.

Therefore, glyphosate is one “oncogenic hit” that, combined with another oncogenic hit, promotes the development of mammary tumors. A+B=C(ancer)

For the study, scientists exposed noncancerous human mammary epithelial cells to glyphosate in vitro over a course of 21 days. The cells were placed in mice to assess tumor formation. Although cells exposed to glyphosate alone did not induce tumor growth, cancerous tumors did develop after glyphosate was combined with molecules that were linked to oxidative stress.

Oxidative stress is a chemical reaction that occurs as a result of aging, diet, alcohol consumption, smoking, or other stressors. It alters the organization and integrity of the genome of the breast, aiding cancer development.

“What was particularly alarming about the tumor growth was that it wasn’t the usual type of breast cancer we see in older women,” Lelièvre said. “It was the more aggressive form found in younger women, also known as luminal B cancer.“

Another first-of-its-kind study from Washington State University exposed pregnant rats to just half the rate of the commonly used herbicide Roundup that is considered safe for exposure. Researchers found that roughly 90 percent of the next two generations developed health problems by the time they were one year old, including kidney disease, obesity, or issues with their ovaries, testicles, or prostate.

The most dramatic finding, says WSU professor of biological sciences Michael Skinner, showed about one-third of the future generations had miscarriages and/or died during pregnancy.

“It’s not just a decision of our own right now to say, ‘I don’t mind being exposed to this,‘” Skinner says. “If those have effects generations down the line, we have a responsibility to our future generations.“

The WSU study builds on findings of a 2018 study that looked at glyphosate exposure in U.S. pregnant women, using urine samples as the measure of exposure. Published in the journal Environmental Health, the authors concluded, “We found that > 90% of pregnant women had detectable glyphosate levels and that these levels correlated significantly with shortened pregnancy lengths.“

Termed “Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Adult-Onset Disease,” the findings add yet another layer of evidence why countries like the U.S., who haven’t announced outright bans on the product, should reconsider their policy.

Currently, 17 countries have issued outright bans on glyphosate as global favor rapidly turns against the product and its manufacturer Bayer AG-Monsanto.

With the Environmental Protection Agency unwilling to budge on setting stricter limits or considering a ban on glyphosate in the U.S., people must take individual action to avoid exposure. Costco has pulled Roundup from its shelves due to public pressure (and perhaps sensing that future lawsuits may involve retailers). Lowes and Walmart are now named in legal action due to their unwillingness to drop the product from their stores.

Meanwhile, Bayer AG has lost three high-profile cases against its Roundup product, causing the company to lose investor confidence, stock price, and public favor. The highly anticipated, upcoming ‘Winston lawsuit’ held in Monsanto’s backyard of St. Louis is set for October 15 as Bayer AG-Monsanto desperately attempts to delay and block the trial’s start.

The Winston lawsuit, filed in March of 2018, would be the first trial to take place in the St. Louis area. Two trials that had been set to start in St. Louis in August and September have been delayed, as reported by food industry watchdog, U.S. Right To Know.

USRTK.org writes, “The plaintiffs in the Winston case are among more than 18,000 people in the United States suing Monsanto claiming that exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto hid the risks associated with its weed killers.”

Judge Vince Chhabria presided over the San Francisco federal court case in which a civil jury awarded California’s Edwin Hardeman $80 million on evidence that Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin’s lymphona. In that case, Judge Chhabria wrote the following conclusion:

“There is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.”

by Bill Sardi
October 4, 2019
Source

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 1, 2019
Source

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Data Gaps in Phosphate Fertilizer Supply Chain

According to estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, reported in its “World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2020” report,¹ the global demand for phosphate fertilizer is expected to exceed 45.8 million tons by 2020.And, as noted by Science Daily,² food demand is expected to increase by 60% by 2050, which means that unless changes are made, even greater amounts of phosphate will be required in coming decades.

A major problem with conventional agriculture is the use of toxic fertilizers. Phosphorous (an element) is mined from phosphate rock (which contains phosphorous), and much of it ends up being lost in the process, ending up as water pollution.³

In water, phosphorous triggers toxic algae overgrowth and deoxygenation, which has led to massive dead zones where no marine life can survive. The nitrogen portion of fertilizer has also been identified as a leading cause of air pollution.

In a September 4, 2019, paper,⁴ “Opening Access to the Black Box: The Need for Reporting on the Global Phosphorous Supply Chain,” researchers in Sweden and Iceland warn that lack of information about the global supply chain could trigger a phosphate supply crisis and lead to social, political and environmental upheaval.

Lead author Eduard Nedelciu, a researcher at the Department of Physical Geography at Stockholm University, told Science Daily:⁵

“Cradle-to-grave reporting along the phosphorus supply chain can reveal the untold story about the social, environmental, ethical and economic price we pay for the food we see on our supermarket shelves. It can also help countries — most of which are dependent on phosphate imports — tailor better policies to decrease the vulnerability of their agricultural sector.”

Majority of Phosphorous Is Wasted

The researchers present four primary problems relating to the reporting of phosphorous and phosphate fertilizers:^6,7

1. Terminologies and methodologies used when reporting data on phosphate deposits lack transparency and harmonization, making estimations of reserves unreliable
2. Up to 90% of the phosphorous is lost through the supply chain, and the losses are poorly documented, making it difficult to improve efficiency and prevent losses — which ultimately end up as pollution
3. Societal and environmental consequences that occur along the supply chain remain unaddressed
4. Access to data along the supply chain is lacking, which prevents assessment of sustainability goals

Co-author Marie Katharine Schellens told Science Daily:⁸

“Phosphorus information is power. Reliable and regular data gathering can leverage corporate social responsibility as well as political action. Both are needed to tackle many of the issues identified along the supply chain. Transparency can foster a sustainable and socially just supply chain for decades to come.”

Must We Use Phosphate Fertilizers?

While the general consensus is that phosphate is a prerequisite for food production, we now know that this isn’t entirely true. The only reason it’s required is because the agricultural system is not currently set up to take advantage of natural ecosystems.

As farmers transitioned over to monocropping and chemical-based agriculture, those ecosystems were lost, and with them, everything that makes growing food without chemicals possible. There is in fact compelling evidence showing we do not need synthetic fertilizers to grow food, provided the soil is nurtured properly, as it is in biodynamic and regenerative farming systems.

There’s also plenty of evidence showing fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals are a leading source of environmental pollution, thereby threatening all life on earth. The idea that food production is a primary destroyer of the environment is inexcusable and intolerable. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Hidden Health Hazards Associated With Phosphate Fertilizers

Aside from polluting waterways, phosphate fertilizers may pose a more direct risk to human health by way of food. Being a fertilizer, the phosphorous is taken up by the plants, of course, but it’s not the nutrient itself that is the problem. No, the problem is the fact that phosphate contains a radioactive element, which may be taken up by the plant as well.The concern is an outgrowth of tobacco science^{9,10,11,12,13} showing one of the reasons cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is due to polonium-210 — a decay product of natural uranium and a highly radioactive element.¹⁴ It’s also chemically toxic.¹⁵

While naturally present in small amounts in the environment, one of the primary sources of exposure is via calcium phosphate fertilizers, used on nonorganic tobacco fields and food crops respectively. As noted in a 2009 study:¹⁶

“… in a person smoking one and a half packs of cigarettes (i.e., 30 cigarettes) per day, the radiation dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is … (8000 mrem) — the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300 x-ray films of the chest per year.”

Similarly, a 2011 paper¹⁷ in the Journal of Oncology, “Polonium and Lung Cancer,” explains:

“The alpha-radioactive polonium 210 (Po-210) is one of the most powerful carcinogenic agents of tobacco smoke and is responsible for the histotype shift of lung cancer from squamous cell type to adenocarcinoma. According to several studies, the principal source of Po-210 is the fertilizers used in tobacco plants …

Tobacco leaves accumulate Pb-210 and Po-210 through their trichomes, and Pb-210 decays into Po-210 over time. With the combustion of the cigarette smoke becomes radioactive and Pb-210 and Po-210 reach the bronchopulmonary apparatus …”

As has become typical, investigation¹⁸ revealed the tobacco industry was aware of this as early as 1959. What’s worse, they opted to not use an acid wash, which has been shown to effectively remove polonium-210 from the tobacco leaves, because the wash made the nicotine less absorbable, and hence less addictive.

Could Nonorganic Food Be Radioactive and We Don’t Know It?

Now, if radioactive polonium-210 makes tobacco leaves carcinogenic, what is it doing to our food? In the 1988 document, “Release of Radium and Other Decay-Series Isotopes From Florida Phosphate Rock,” the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research concedes:¹⁹

“It has been known for many years that phosphate ore contains 50 to 150 parts per million (ppm) of natural uranium, and hence its radioactive decay products … most other soils and rocks … average 1 or 2 ppm …

A fundamental question arises as to the nature of population exposure to natural radiation … and how that exposure is influenced by the presence and extraction of deposits of phosphate.”

While that 1988 report does not address polonium exposure through food, another, even earlier document does.

Remarkably, according to a long-forgotten 1983 report²⁰ by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Polonium-210 and Lead-210 in Food and Tobacco Products: A Review of Parameters and an Estimate of Potential Exposure and Dose,” meat and dairy products may expose consumers to radiation doses equivalent to that received by smokers from cigarette smoke. As noted in this paper:²¹

“Tobacco smoking appears to provide a dose equal to or greater than that provided by dietary ingestion for both Pb-210 and Po-210 in bone tissues, liver and kidneys; and for Po-210 in the spleen for the three Western-style diets … The smoking dose estimates are most comparable to those obtained for dietary intake by Arctic dwellers.”

Fluoridated Water May Also Contain Polonium-210

Yet another route of polonium-210 exposure is consumption of fluoridated water, courtesy of the fluorosilicic acid used. This chemical byproduct, created during the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process, is what is typically used to fluoridate municipal water supplies.

In 2015, Mosaic Fertilizer, one of the largest phosphate mining and fertilizer companies in the world, was fined $2 billion by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over improper storage and disposal of waste, which was found to pose a hazard to groundwater resources.

A cruel irony is that fluorosilicic acid, another toxic waste product, is suddenly proclaimed “healthy” when purposely added to drinking water. Uranium and radium are two known carcinogens found in fluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation, and polonium-210 is one of two decay products of uranium.

Furthermore, polonium decays into stable lead-206, which also has significant health risks — especially in children — and research has indeed shown that drinking fluoridated water increases lead absorption in your body.

Toxic Glyphosate Found in Most Foods and Water Supplies

Another chemical that is turning our food toxic is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate was identified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)^22,23 in 2015.

More recently, a meta-analysis^{24,25,26,27,28} of six epidemiological studies published between 2001 and 2018 concluded glyphosate increases the risk of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) — a group of blood cancers — by 41% in highly exposed subjects.

Even if you’re not exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides via application (which is the case with most who claim glyphosate exposure caused their NHL), your health is still at risk, as testing^{29,30,31,32,33,34} reveals most foods (processed foods in particular) are contaminated with this chemical, and more than 70% of Americans have detectable levels of glyphosate in their body.^35,36

Glyphosate kills weeds by inhibiting the shikimate pathway in the plant, and Monsanto has long defended the chemical’s safety, saying it cannot affect humans because we do not have this pathway. However, the shikimate pathway is found in human gut bacteria, which we now know play a vital role in human health. Glyphosate has also been shown to:

• Trigger DNA damage³⁷
• Cause pineal gland pathology, which in turn was linked to gut dysbiosis and neurological diseases such as autism, depression, dementia, anxiety disorder and Parkinson’s disease³⁸
• Inhibit pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism³⁹
• Act as a substitute for glycine in your body, thereby causing damaged proteins to be produced.⁴⁰ Glycine also plays a role in quenching inflammation, as explained in “Glycine Quells Oxidative Damage by Inhibiting NOX Superoxide Production and Boosting NADPH,” and is used up in the detoxification process. As a result of glyphosate toxicity, many of us may not have enough glycine for efficient detoxification.
• Chelate important minerals, including iron, cobalt and manganese. Manganese deficiency, in turn, impairs mitochondrial function and can lead to glutamate toxicity in the brain⁴¹
• Impair serotonin transport and kill beneficial gut bacteria, thereby contributing to a wide range of mood disorders, including major depression⁴²
• Interfere with cytochrome P450 enzymes, thereby inhibiting vitamin D activation and the creation of both nitric oxide and cholesterol sulfate, the latter of which is needed for red blood cell integrity⁴³

Glyphosate Adds to Phosphorous Saturation

In related news, research⁴⁴ published in December 2018 shows glyphosate is now so widely used that it’s contributing to the phosphorous load in agricultural land, and thus to the phosphorous loading in watersheds. As reported by Phys.org:⁴⁵

“In many agricultural areas, decades of phosphorus-based fertilizer use have led to a saturation of the soil’s capacity to hold the nutrient. This increases the likelihood that any additional phosphorus applied to the land will run off into waterways, where it is a known cause of harmful algal blooms …

Until now, regulations to limit phosphorus pollution have focused on the use of fertilizers, which remain the largest artificial source of phosphorus. But as the use of glyphosate increases — the past two decades alone have seen global use increase 15-fold — the herbicide’s relatively small phosphorus content starts to add up …

‘Our study argues that the recent and rapid rise in glyphosate use has magnified its relative importance as a source of anthropogenic phosphorus, especially in areas of intensive corn, soybean and cotton cultivation,’ [lead author Marie-Pier] Hébert says.”

Biosolids — A Most Toxic Fertilizer

Last but certainly not least, we have biosolids, more accurately referred to as toxic sewage sludge. Not only is it notorious for containing industrial waste, loaded with heavy metals, as noted in a September 12, 2019, AP News article,⁴⁶ concerns over the use of this toxic fertilizer is now growing because it’s also been found to be a source of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals.

“The concern is that certain PFAS chemicals, which studies have associated with increased risk of cancer and damage to organs such as the liver and thyroid, could be absorbed by crops grown in soils treated with polluted sludge and wind up in foods.

The Food and Drug Administration this year reported finding substantial levels of the chemicals in random samples of grocery store meats, dairy products, seafood and even off-the-shelf chocolate cake …” AP states.⁴⁷

In my 2015 interview with David L. Lewis, Ph.D., a microbiologist who spent three decades working as an Environmental Protection Agency scientist, he reveals the history of biosolids, why it’s a complete scam, and how the truth about this toxic fertilizer has been swept under the rug for years.

How to Safeguard Your Diet

As I mentioned at the beginning, phosphate fertilizers, biosolids and glyphosate are just three of many different sources of toxins in our diet. Once you begin to survey the field and realize just how many different toxic sources there are and the types of questionable chemicals involved, you start to get an idea of why organic food is growing in popularity.

Many are now starting to realize the many problems associated with conventional foods, which include both health and environmental issues, and are taking proactive measures. The most logical step is to transition to an organic or biodynamic diet, to the degree that you’re able. This goes not just for produce but also for meat and dairy products.

The reason for this is because most conventional cattle are fed an unnatural diet of grains rather than grass, and most of the grain is also genetically modified. So, animal products can actually be even more contaminated than fruits and vegetables. So, remember to buy organic, grass fed beef, poultry and dairy, as well. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

• Demeter USA — Demeter-USA.org provides a directory of certified Biodynamic farms and brands.
• American Grassfed Association (AGA) — The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100% forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; and born and raised on American family farms.
• EatWild.com — EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.
• Weston A. Price Foundation — Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
• Grassfed Exchange — The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.
• Local Harvest — This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.
• Farmers Markets — A national listing of farmers markets.
• Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
• Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
• The Cornucopia Institute — The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.
• RealMilk.com — If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund⁴⁸ also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.⁴⁹ California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

Plastic Rain in the US Rockies

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star
August 16, 2019

This article is one to ponder carefully for a number of reasons, which we’ll get to. But the basic story is – surprise surprise! – scientists in the US Rocky Mountains region have been finding microscopic plastic filaments and globules in the rain (say it isn’t so!!!), according to this story shared by S.D.:

It’s raining plastic: microscopic fibers fall from the sky in Rocky Mountains

What’s interesting about the article isn’t so much its statement of the obvious – that “there’s plastic in that thar rain!” – but how it got there:

Plastic was the furthest thing from Gregory Wetherbee’s mind when he began analyzing rainwater samples collected from the Rocky Mountains. “I guess I expected to see mostly soil and mineral particles,” said the US Geological Survey researcher. Instead, he found multicolored microscopic plastic fibers.

The discovery, published in a recent study (pdf) titled “It is raining plastic”, raises new questions about the amount of plastic waste permeating the air, water, and soil virtually everywhere on Earth.

“I think the most important result that we can share with the American public is that there’s more plastic out there than meets the eye,” said Wetherbee. “It’s in the rain, it’s in the snow. It’s a part of our environment now.”

…

“My results are purely accidental,” he said, though they are consistent with another recent study that found microplastics in the Pyrenees, suggesting plastic particles could travel with the wind for hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers. Other studies have turned up microplastics in the deepest reaches of the ocean, in UK lakes and rivers and in US groundwater.

A major contributor is trash, said Sherri Mason, a microplastics researcher and sustainability coordinator at Penn State Behrend. More than 90% of plastic waste is not recycled, and as it slowly degrades it breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. “Plastic fibers also break off your clothes every time you wash them,” Mason said, and plastic particles are byproducts of a variety of industrial processes.

It’s impossible to trace the tiny pieces back to their sources, Mason said, but almost anything that’s made of plastic could be shedding particles into the atmosphere. “And then those particles get incorporated into water droplets when it rains,” she added, then wash into rivers, lakes, bays and oceans and filter into groundwater sources. (Emphasis added)

There you have it: it’s all the plastic waste we’re producing, which breaks down into small particles, then combines in the atmosphere in water droplets, to fall to earth again in the rain. Case closed, message received: we’ve got to curb human activity to save the planet. (This is, after all, The Guardian we’re dealing with.)

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no difficulty that this is true, but not nearly to the extent that is being carefully alleged here. What disturbs me about the article is its blatant material omission, i.e., the complete absence of any mention of the chemtrail-spraying phenomenon, and this after Bill Gates and Harvard were recently caught “red handed” (pun intended) talking about how to spray stuff into the atmosphere to “dim the sun.” For those of us who’ve been following the geoengineering phenomenon, or for that matter, the strange case of Morgellon’s disease and its plastic fibers growing in the lesions of its sufferers, it is this spraying itself, not the normal human activity and use of plastics, that is the real culprit: spray a bunch of gunk into the atmosphere, and it’s going to fall to the earth and cause environmental problems.

Which brings me, not to my speculation of the day, but to my rant of the day: until these so-called environmentalists show genuine concern about the geoengineering phenomenon and its environmental effects, then I turn a jaundiced and cynical eye on their so-called concern for the environment. I’m back to the basic proposition: if you are unwilling to acknowledge and discuss the very plans of the “sprayers and spewers” like Mr. Gates and its effects on the environment, then you’re simply not to be taken seriously.

Or to put it country simple: it is the geoengineers who are behind the bulk of the problem, not us.

And sadly, in the interim, the plastic rains down on the Colorado Rockies…

Connect with Joseph P. Farrell

Source: Jon Rappoport’s Blog

by Jon Rappoport
April 29, 2019

As most of you know, Bayer now owns Monsanto. To make it happen, it forked out $66 billion in 2018. Among the new parent’s problems? Lawsuits against Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, Roundup.

Catch this, from fiercepharma.com: “Recently, in a key bellwether trial, a U.S. federal jury in San Francisco found Bayer liable for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma [caused by Monsanto’s Roundup] and awarded him $80 million in damages. Bayer said it plans to appeal, as it is doing with a [similar] California state suit that awarded the plaintiff $78 million. Still, there are more than 11,200 other similar suits [against Roundup], according to Bayer’s last tally.”

Therefore, key Bayer shareholders are angry at Bayer’s board for greenlighting the 2018 buyout of Monsanto. Bayer intends to eradicate the name “Monsanto,” and do business under a fully merged single name, its own. But for now, that hasn’t stopped the flood of lawsuits against Bayer aimed at its adopted child, Monsanto/Roundup.

What about sales of Roundup? As early as 2016, for several reasons, a sharp decline had already set in. One reason: in 2015, the World Health Organization had declared glyphosate, the prime ingredient in Roundup “a probably carcinogen.” Monsanto moved to cut 16% of its work force.

Bayer appears to be “taking one for the team.” It certainly bought Monsanto knowing full well that Roundup was going to be a big problem. It knew Monsanto had garnered a horrendous reputation from one end of the planet to the other—owing in part to Roundup, and also the disastrous pioneering of GMO crops. But big daddy Bayer didn’t flinch. After all, it has territory to defend—it’s in the same basic business as Monsanto was: genetic manipulation. To protect and sanitize that Brave New World territory, long-term, Bayer aims to swallow Monsanto whole, no matter how much penalty-money that costs, thus making Monsanto disappear for future generations.

“Monsanto? Oh yes. Wasn’t that some kind of farming company? Or a music group?”

That’s the game here. A handful of giant biotech companies (and their shadowy backers) intend to OWN the future, via various forms of radical gene-alteration, in plants, animals, and humans. They want nothing to hinder that agenda. Monsanto was a stain. It brought down heavy attacks on the whole “genetic community.” Therefore, it had to go. The only question was: who would come up with the huge buyout cash and make the sacrifice?

Bayer.

Once the core of the infamous Nazi cartel, IG Farben, Bayer had a history of re-writing history. Long term, it would know how to make Monsanto vanish, as if it had never existed.

That operation is now underway.

by F. William Engdahl
April 14, 2019
Source

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage. A second US court jury case just ruled that Monsanto, now a part of the German Bayer AG, must pay $ 81 million in damages to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman who contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The ruling and a line-up of another 11,000 pending cases in US courts going after the effects of glyphosate, have hit Bayer AG hard with the company announcing several thousand layoffs as its stock price plunges.

In a trial in San Francisco the jury was unanimous in their verdict that Monsanto Roundup weed-killer, based on glyphosate, had been responsible for Hardeman’s cancer. His attorneys stated, “It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.” It is the second defeat for the lawyers of Monsanto after another jury ruled in 2018 that Glyphosate-based Roundup was responsible for the cancer illness of a California school grounds-keeper who contracted the same form of cancer after daily spraying school grounds with Roundup over years, unprotected. There a jury found Monsanto guilty of “malice and oppression” in that company executives, based on internal email discovery, knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

New independent study shows that those with highest exposure to glyphosate have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer. A meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immune-suppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations. The authors found “the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).” Further, they stated that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” and that that could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.” Glyphosate also ”may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore.

Killing Soils too

While most attention is understandably drawn to the human effects of exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used agriculture chemical in the world today, independent scientists are beginning to look at another alarming effect of the agrochemical– its effect on essential soil nutrients. In a study of the health of soils in the EU, the online journal Politico.eu found that the effects of spraying of glyphosate on the major crops in European agriculture is having disastrous consequences on soil health in addition to killing weeds.

Scientists at Austria’s University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna showed that casting activity of earthworms had nearly disappeared from the surface of farmland within three weeks of glyphosate application. Casting is the process of the worm pushing fertile soils to the surface as they burrow, essential for healthy soil and plant nutrition. A study at Holland’s Wageningen University of topsoil samples from more than 300 soil sites across the EU found that 83% of the soils contained 1 or more pesticide residues. Not surprisingly, “Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, DDTs (DDT and its metabolites) and broad-spectrum fungicides… were the compounds most frequently found in soil samples and at the highest concentrations.”

The use of various pesticides, above all glyphosate-based ones like Roundup, has exploded over the past four decades across the EU much as across the USA. The agribusiness industry claims that this has been the key to the dramatic rise in farm crop productivity. However if we look more closely at the data, while average yields of major grains such as rice, wheat and maize have more than doubled since 1960, the use of pesticides like glyphosate-based ones has risen by 15-20-fold. Oddly enough, while the EU requires monitoring of many things, monitoring of pesticide residues in soil is not required at the EU level. Until recently the effects of heavy use of pesticides such as Roundup have been ignored in scientific research.

Evidence of soil experts is beginning to reveal clear links between use of pesticides such as glyphosate and dramatic drops in soil fertility and the collapse of microbe systems essential to healthy soil. Worms are one of the most essential.

It’s well-established that earthworms play a vital role in healthy soil nutrients. Soils lacking such are soils that deprive us of the essentials we need for healthy diets, a pandemic problem of soil depletion emerging globally over the past four decades, notably the same time frame that use of pesticides has exploded worldwide. Earthworms are beneficial as they enhance soil nutrient cycling and enhance other beneficial soil micro-organisms, and the concentration of large quantities of nutrients easily assimilable by plants.

The EU puts no limits on how much glyphosate can be put on crops even though it is established that glyphosate can kill specific fungi and bacteria that plants need to suck up nutrients in addition to its effects on earthworms. That is a major blind spot.

Where now?

What is becoming clearer is the colossal and obviously deliberate official blind eye given to potential dangers of glyphosate-based pesticides by regulatory bodies not only in the EU and the USA, but also in China, which today produces more glyphosate than even Monsanto. Since the Monsanto Roundup patent expired, Chinese companies, including Syngenta, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company, SinoHarvest, and Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, have emerged as the world’s major producers of the chemical as well as largest consumers, a not good omen for the future of the legendary Chinese cuisine.

Glyphosate is the base chemical component for some 750 different brands of pesticides worldwide, in addition to Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, EU Commission bureaucrats and the USA EPA continue to ignore prudence in not banning the toxic chemical pending thorough independent investigation over longer time. If I were cynical, I would almost think this continued official support for glyphosate-based herbicides is about more than mere bureaucratic stupidity or ignorance, even more than simply corruption, though that for sure plays a role. The nutritional quality of our food chain is being systematically destroyed and it is about more than corporate agribusiness profit.

If you are being introduced to some of the topics covered in this article for the first time, it might come across as “conspiracy theories” or far-fetched sensationalism.

And while some of the predictions of how this technology can be used in the future might seem to be speculative at this point, it is based on hard evidence of what is really happening TODAY, in areas like geoengineering, nanotechnology, and the new proposed 5G networks.

None of these technologies are speculative. They are already being used. The only questions remaining are who will control these technologies, and to what extent will they be implemented?

What is written here by John P. Thomas is the result of years of research. To fully understand these topics, you will need to read the links to previous investigative reports, and follow the footnoted references as well to examine the evidence for yourself.

You will not read any of this in the corporate-sponsored “mainstream” media networks.

~ Brian Shilhavy

Will Nanotechnologies and the New 5G Network Become the Most Powerful Weapon System the World Has Ever Seen?

by John P. Thomas
April 17, 2019
Source

When the nanotechnology in human bodies is activated by special frequencies from the 5-G network, we could experience the most powerful weapon system that has ever been invented.

Unlike atomic weapons that kill everyone and create a toxic disaster for both the winners and the losers of war, the pairing of nanotechnology that is in our bodies with the high frequency radiation in the gigahertz and terahertz range will create weapons that can fulfill an incredible number of functions for those who control the technology.

Clean and Neat

This weapon system has the potential to individually identify and monitor the location of all people on the Earth.

This weapon system has the potential to monitor emotions and thoughts of individual people.

This weapon system has the potential to transmit instructions to individuals and to groups that will create thoughts and trigger emotional responses. It will even be able to restrict the ability to logically evaluate situations and create alternative solutions to problems.

This weapon system has the potential to target individuals who have been deemed as uncooperative and neutralize them for the greater good of society. This will be accomplished by disrupting neurological activity, weakening human immune systems, causing pain, creating life-threatening illnesses, and producing premature death.

I realize that this all sounds like rather far-fetched speculation and fantasy, but there is enough evidence to support these claims and enough evidence to begin taking proactive steps to protect ourselves from what is rapidly coming toward us.

Let’s look at some of the powerful evidence that has led me to draw these conclusions.

Former Catholic Nun Sister Keri Burnor Targeted for Death through Nanotechnology

Keri Burnor was a Roman Catholic nun when she was sexually assaulted by a priest. She filed criminal charges against the priest in 2001. He was found not guilty. [1]

She did not understand why the district attorney failed to adequately work to obtain a conviction. As she investigated the collusion between the attorney, the judge, the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican, and the members of St. Joseph’s Abbey in Massachusetts where the sexual assault occurred, she opened a Pandora’s box of systemic evil emerging from the deep state. The deep state refers to the financial power structure that controls governments around the world. [1]

Keri Burnor did not shrink back with her defeat in court, but began to position herself as a helper to others who had been abused by clergy.

Eventually her work with other victims of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church and the information she learned about the activities of the Jesuit order and their infiltration of the command structure of the U.S. military led to her being interviewed on several internet radio programs.

She documented her findings on her website and spoke openly about what she knew to be the truth. She then became a marked woman and her activities were monitored from that point forward. [1]

Eventually there would be more than ten attempts on her life using nanotechnology, high frequency energy transmission systems, radioactive substances, sound weapons, and various other weapons. [1]

See also:

The Catholic Church and Pedophilia: Trafficking Children as Sex Slaves

Whistleblowing Priests Killed to Prevent Exposing Pedophilia Problem in the Catholic Church?

There is much more Behind her Story than a Sexual Assault

Keri Burnor discovered that St. Joseph’s Abbey was built with funds donated in large part by a Knight of Malta and his wife. Their names are inscribed on the front of the Abbey’s main altar – J. Peter Grace and his wife Margaret. [1, 2]

Mr. Grace was the president of the giant chemical manufacturer called W. R. Grace and Co. Mr. Grace played an instrumental role in bringing Nazi SS officers and Nazi scientists to the United States after World War II. He did this through project Paper Clip, which wiped away evidence of their Nazi involvement and approved more than 900 German scientists to come to the United States. [2]

Mr. Grace then put many of the former Nazi scientists to work in his company. He also worked with the CIA to imbed many others in CIA mind control programs such as MK Ultra. [2]

As a high-ranking Knight of Malta, he occupied one of the highest non-ecclesiastical positions in the American Roman Catholic Church. It has been said that Knights of Malta are free to pick up the phone and chat with the Pope whenever they have the need or desire. [2]

Keri Burnor also had evidence that St. Joseph’s Abbey continued to be an undercover location for CIA operations. She believed that some monks (not all of them) in the abbey were actually CIA operatives engaged in clandestine activities. [1]

Keri Burnor became a Targeted Individual Marked for Death

In 2011, she had sinus surgery. After the recovery she knew that somehow things were not right. She eventually discovered that she had been implanted with weaponized military grade nanotechnology during the surgery. She went through highly specialized testing, which conclusively showed that her body was transmitting radio wave signals to an unknown receiver. [1, 3]

She had pain, bloody ears, noises in her head, and numerous other unexplained symptoms. She had to shield herself from frequency transmissions, take 75 pills a day, and sit in a sauna for an hour a day for 3 months in order to get the stuff to break up. [3]

Eventually highly sensitive scientific instruments confirmed that her body was no longer emitting frequencies. [1, 3]

Psychological Evaluation

Keri Burnor arranged for an extensive psychological evaluation. The evaluation confirmed that she was not delusional, paranoid, schizophrenic, or abnormal in any other way. [1, 3, 4]

Based on scientific evidence of having been exposed to military grade nanotechnology and having had that technology cleared from her body, the doctor concluded that her mental status was normal. [1, 3, 4]

These are Keri Burnor’s comments about why this happened to her. She stated:

I believe it was because I exposed St. Joseph’s Abbey as a CIA front. Not all the monks are bad or all the monks are CIA covers, but there is no question in my mind now that the monastery was erected for a specific purpose and it is related to national security.

The monastery was protecting those who were conducting mind control MK ultra experiments. They used children for this. [3]

 

Additional Attempts on Her Life

Keri Burnor then started being stalked by various men. She took a close-up photo of one of the men and gave it to the private investigator she hired to keep her safe. He discovered that the man was an international hired assassin. [3]

The private investigator was then picked up and chained to a chair and subjected to four hours of questioning. One of her attorneys was beaten close to the point of death and the lives of other attorneys were threatened. [3]

After all this, the private investigator advised Keri Burnor to assume an alias and go into hiding. He helped her do this and she spent more than five years on the run. [3]

There were numerous other attempts on her life. One of which involved the spraying of her car’s interior with nanotechnology. Laboratory tests confirmed that the nanotechnology was designed to promote the rapid onset of three kinds of cancer, which could have caused death in as soon as 30 days. [1, 3]

Keri Burnor now works with other targeted individuals who have been intentionally exposed to military grade nanotechnology to help them detoxify the technology from their bodies and to restore them to health. [5, 6]

How can Nanotechnology become a Weapon against the General Public?

It might be easy to assume that Keri Burnor’s story is unique, because she was specifically targeted for death because of what she knew. However, that would be a misguided assumption.

The truth is – we are all being exposed to nanotechnology every day through the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the pharmaceuticals and supplements we take, and of course through vaccines. This is not military grade nanotechnology, but it still can become a weapon against people.

Over time, nano exposure, when combined with radiation from the 5-G system, will become a mechanism of human control and even become a threat to our lives.

Smart Cities will be the Command Center for Human Control

I have previously written extensively about 5-G and its dangers. I have discussed various reasons for the international fervor about deploying the 5-G system as fast as possible to create “Smart Cities.” See:

20,000 Satellites for 5G to be Launched Sending Focused Beams of Intense Microwave Radiation Over Entire Earth

What Do Crowd Control, Burning Skin, and Superbugs Have in Common? 5G

Telecom Giants and Federal Government Forcing Local Governments to Radiate Your Home with 5G Microwaves

5G Technology is Coming – Linked to Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Death

Can New 5G Technology and Smart Meters be Used as Weapons?

Based on my recent investigations, I now see an even deeper plan behind the Smart Cities movement. It is about targeting us all for control, and when necessary, targeting us for elimination.

We are all being targeted, not because of what we know, but because that is the plan of the deep state to manage and control all human life. This is the ultimate aim of “Smart Cities.”

The real agenda behind Smart Cities is not fast internet downloads and self-driving cars! The real agenda of the Smart Cities movement is to control what we think and how we behave. It is about keeping tabs on our physical locations and to make sure we don’t do anything other than the jobs that we have been assigned.

Ultimately, the controllers of the worldwide network of Smart Cities will decide who lives and who dies. They will kill through targeted use of the 5-G Smart grid. They will stimulate accelerated disease progression – unexplained heart attacks, rapid onset cancer, untreatable flu, and trigger depression and suicide.

For those who need more evidence, I refer you to a page of U.S. patents describing some of the technology that has already been designed to monitor human activity from a distance and to influence human activity.

November 15, 2015 – Invasive Tech Patents

How is this Possible? – How will this be Accomplished?

To answer these questions, we need to begin by looking at the nature of nano substances.

Nano structures are built up from nano particles. They are assembled to form nano crystals, nano films, nano wires, nano tubes, etc.

Nano particles are very tiny. The measurement of the smallest dimension will be between 1 NM (nano-meter) and 100 NM. One nano meter is 1 billionth of an inch. A human hair is between 50,000 NM and 100,000 NM thick. [7]

Other components of nanotechnology are viral-like fragments, which contain XNA. The laboratory manufactured XNA components will insert themselves into human cells and take over the functioning of some of the DNA and RNA which are the building blocks of our genetic material. XNA is chemically very similar to DNA and can be easily incorporated into human cells and can reproduce itself. [9]

Nano Particles don’t Behave like Larger Particles

The nature of nano structures is to gather together. When conditions are just right, they will become self-assembling. [7, 8, 9]

In other words, they will join together in planned configurations to form technology that can be used for a variety of purposes. [7, 8, 9]

Nano materials are much more likely to be toxic to human life even though larger particles of the same materials may not be harmful. [10]

Three Phases of Development Leading to Smart City Control over Human Life

There are three phases to this program – expose, replace, and activate.

This entire process became possible when our immune systems were disarmed by glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world’s most widely used herbicide. This allowed nanotechnology to enter our bodies and our cells to reload new information into our genetic code. [11]

Once the information is fully loaded it can be activated by frequencies. Not the Gigahertz frequencies that will be used in 5-G, but by the next level up – Terahertz frequencies, though the same 5-G hardware may be used to beam terahertz frequencies at our bodies. [11]

When a person is targeted for activation he will experience symptoms such as: pain and aching, feeling like you are on fire, feeling like electric shocks are moving through your body, experiencing severe fatigue, feeling physically and emotionally drained, and feeling as if you have been beaten up and taken out of action.

You will be overwhelmed by thoughts that tell you it is impossible to resist or stop what is happening – so just give up. [11]

It is important to know that there are countermeasures that can be taken at the current time to reduce nano from the human body and if the point has been reached where activation is in process, it is still possible to resist and recover. The situation is not hopeless. [11]

Exposure to Nano – It cannot be Avoided

There are at least six sources of exposure to nano materials. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the pharmaceuticals and supplements we take, and of course vaccines.

Historically, the beginning point for a large portion of our exposure to nano substances came from aerial spraying programs. Various substances have been sprayed into the atmosphere for many decades some of which are nano size materials.

This geoengineering program (chemtrails) is supposedly designed to protect us and the Earth from the effects of the sun in an age of elevated atmospheric carbon. This propaganda campaign is designed to convince us that human use of fossil fuels is the cause of disruptions in the Earth’s climate.

Previous articles on geoengineering:

Controlling Weather for Profit: Geoengineering and World Dominance

Artificial Clouds and Geoengineering: Public Exposed to Toxic Chemicals

Covert Chemical Geoengineering Programs – A Real Threat to Public Health

The aerial spraying program consists of both high altitude and lower altitude particle releases.

The high-altitude spraying seems to be more about supplying material that benefits the HARP program, [11] which is a directed energy weapon system that is used by the U.S. government and the Canadian government [12] to prevent rain, or to create destructive storms, floods, earthquakes, and fires.

The lower altitude spraying appears to be releasing particles that are intended to infect or expose human beings to nano substances of various types.

These substances enter our bodies when we breathe. These substances also fall into the water we drink and are taken up by plants into their systems. These substances collect on our skin and are difficult to remove. They coat the leaves of plants and cannot be washed off. Nothing can escape this exposure. [12]

In addition, nano substances are intentionally added to thousands of manufactured foods and cosmetics as colorings, flavorings, preservatives, and stabilizers.

Products that contain glyphosate residue such as most grains produced in the United States (both organic and non-organic) also contain nano substances which are plant adjuvants. These nano plant adjuvants make the herbicide work more effectively and cannot be removed from the grain. [12]

Nano titanium dioxide is added to many pharmaceuticals and even supplements to facilitate absorption of other substances in the pills and capsules.

Most colloidal products such as colloidal silver, gold, zinc, and other metals now contain nano particles of these metals. They no longer contain moderately large particles of the metals, which the body can easily excrete. Nano-sized particles behave very differently in the body. Instead of providing health giving benefits, nano size metals act like toxins. [12]

Putting the Pieces Together

So, all human beings on the planet have been and are being exposed to the building blocks of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is slowly and systematically being built up in our bodies.

When the 5-G system gets fully implemented it will secretly use terahertz frequencies to turn on and utilize the nanotechnology that has been incorporated in our bodies.

The nanotechnology has the potential to receive and transmit data, influence our minds, and exert harmful effects depending on the will of those who control the system of Smart Cities.

Self-Repairing and Self-Reproducing Technology

Nanotechnology is not only self-assembling – it is also self-repairing and self-reproducing. [12]

This means that even if we could surround ourselves with a bubble and somehow only consume unadulterated nano-free food and water, we will still have to contend with existing nanotechnology in our bodies that will seek to keep expanding its presence.

Ultimately Everyone Could be Targeted for Activation

In the future when the systems of 5-G and nanotechnology are fully activated, we could all be targeted individuals. Not just a few dissenters and outspoken people, but all of us will be potential targets – to be used, influenced, abused, and destroyed based on the will of those who manage the activities of the deep state for the sake of the greater good.

New 5-G Documentary

I interviewed filmmaker Sacha Stone in January of 2019 when he was in the process of finishing his latest film. His name will probably be familiar to you if you read the Health Impact News article about the International Tribunal on Natural Law, which has been gathering evidence about child trafficking and child sacrifices during the last year. See:

800K Children in the U.S. Missing Each Year – International Tribunal Exposes Pedophilia Problem – Victims Testify of Child Sex Trafficking and Satanic Ritual Abuse

Former Catholic Nun Keri Burnor’s testimony that we referenced at the beginning of this article is part of this Tribunal’s efforts.

During my interview with Sacha Stone, we discussed a wide range of topics which included the position of the Vatican in world politics, the under-reporting of children who are being trafficked and sacrificed in satanic rituals, and his latest documentary on the topic of 5-G, which was in the process of being finished at that time.

His new documentary was released to the public at the beginning of April and is entitled: 5G APOCALYPSE – THE EXTINCTION EVENT – Monitoring the Planned Poisoning of Humanity.

Sacha Stone described the film. He stated:

I am about to release a film on the subject matter of 5-G. In the film I interviewed weapons development experts and world leading molecular biologists. The film speaks to the truth of what is going on with phased array antennas and interrogation technology.

Putting phased array antennas in orbit around the Earth is about the most godless and frankly wicked thing our governments could do. They have no idea of what they are doing, because they are comprised of a body of technocrats and bureaucrats – they are simply pen-pushing functionaries. The people who are driving the functions that those people undertake are vested and nested special interests.

Behind those vested and nested special interests are invariably occultic interests. Again, that takes us back to the Vatican complex and the Jesuitical complex of issues. [13]

 

Watch Sacha Stone’s Documentary:

Countermeasures Designed to Overcome the Newest Weapon System

It should not be assumed that our exposure to nanotechnology and the 5-G system represents a hopeless situation.

First of all, there is a small movement to reject 5-G. The city of Brussels has rejected the installation of the 5-G network. [14]

Perhaps this is a beginning point for a movement that other cities will follow.

As Keri Burnor learned, it is possible to excrete nanotechnology from the body. I found equipment for helping the body eliminate nanotechnology which can be built at home. Taking baths with certain ingredients can remove nano materials. There also are many ways that can be used to block gigahertz and terahertz electromagnetic frequencies from entering our homes and offices.

For those of us who value the clear functioning of our minds and want to protect ourselves from thought control, emotional lethargy, chronic disabling pain, paralysis of the will, and death from this system – we will need to take strong steps to protect ourselves and our families.

As the 5-G system is implemented around the world – including 5-G from satellites, we will no longer be able to go to remote locations with the hope of escaping EMF exposure.

We also can’t avoid nano contamination. We all have been infected with nano substances from numerous sources, including even organic food.

The good news is that it is possible to expel nanotechnology from the body and to prevent nano from reaching a level where it can be activated with terahertz frequencies.

Future articles will address some of the things that we can do to reduce our exposure to nano substances and our exposure to electromagnetic frequencies.

The future may be grim for humanity, but we don’t have to lay down, roll over, play dead, and wait until the newest weapon system takes control over our minds and brings us to an early grave. There are steps we can take to protect and preserve our lives and our freedoms.

The first step is awareness, and that is the main purpose of this article.

References

[1] “Testimony from Targeted Individual, Keri Burnor,” Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Human Trafficking and Child Sex Abuse, International Tribunal for Natural Justice, September 14, 2018.

[2] “Who is J. Peter Grace?” Christ the Wall Hermitages.

[3] “Weaponized Nano! Part 2 Ex Catholic Nun Sister Keri Burnor speaks with Erik Markham,” February 2019.

[4] “Targeted2Free Success Results by the grace of God,” Christ the Wall Hermitages.

[5] “History of Sister Keri Burnor,” Christ the Wall Hermitages.

[6] “Christ the Wall Hermitages.”

[7] “Nano Data,” Augment in Force.

[8] “Nano-Modifications,” Charlotte McCoy, Augment in Force, 2003.

[9] “XNA – Artificial Life-Artificial Intelligence or Alien Life-Alien Intelligence,” Augment in Force.

[10] “Engineered Nano Materials,” Augment in Force.

[11] “TIs activated w/Terahertz radiation,” Tony Pantalleresco, Augment in Force, 7/12/2018.

[12] “Tony Pantalleresco The Dangers Of Nano Particles To Your Health!,” 1/11/2016.

[13] I interviewed Sacha Stone by Skype at his home in Bali on 1/17/2019. His documentary can be viewed here.

[14] “Brussels: The First Major City To Halt 5G Due To Health Effects,” Worldhealth.net, Anti-Aging News, 4/5/2019.

Source:  Jon Rappoport’s Blog

by Jon Rappoport
April 10, 2019

There are 34,000 golf courses in the world. They make beautiful pictures. But what keeps the grass of the fairways and greens so uniform and undisturbed by weeds?

Chemical herbicides. One of the herbicide is Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto, the giant corporation owned by Bayer.

It’s now common knowledge that a link has been drawn between Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. “The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer…decided in 2015 that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.” (Mother Jones, March 14, 2019)

The research on the Monsanto pesticide Roundup is far from a finished product. Is it possible that Roundup causes other forms of cancer—brain, colon, and blood, for example? It will be hard to prove, in part because Monsanto can produced a hundred studies that contradict each lone study that says Yes.

But where are the golfers who have cancer? Nowhere, correct? Let’s find out.

“After the death of his [golf-playing] father, from the blood cancer Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, filmmaker Andrew Nisker starts hunting for answers to his many questions about why this particular cancer, and where it came from. His search, to his surprise, takes him into the manicured world of golf. In this world of pearl white bunkers, and putting greens that look and feel like velvet, Andrew discovers that these ‘greenspaces’ are anything but. There’s a lot more than nature at work creating these perfect carpets. At a golf industry trade show he sees the array of chemicals on offer to achieve that championship perfection. To his surprise, he hears at the show that golfers have consistently shown resistance to caring about any health or environmental impacts of their sport.”

“Andrew forms a bond with a sportscaster in Pittsburgh who is blaming golf course pesticides for the cancer death of his own father, a golf course superintendent.”

“As he follows up on his hunt to find out more about pesticide use on golf courses, Andrew asks can golfers themselves learn to kick the chemical habit? He’s convinced that if golfers knew what goes into maintaining the artificial beauty they play on, they’d learn to love dandelions a little more.” (Dad and the Dandelions, CBC TV, March 2, 2017)

A recent lawsuit involved Roundup as a cause of lymphoma: “The groundskeeper who won a massive civil suit against Bayer’s Monsanto claiming that the weedkiller Roundup caused his cancer has agreed to accept $78 million, after a judge substantially reduced the jury’s original $289 million award.”

“Dewayne ‘Lee’ Johnson, a Northern Californian groundskeeper and pest-control manager, was 42 when he developed a strange rash that would lead to a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in August 2014.”

“His groundskeeper duties included mixing and spraying hundreds of gallons of Roundup, the company’s glyphosate-containing weedkiller product, court records say.” (NPR, November 1, 2018)

Buckle up.

Australian professional golfer Jarrod Lyle has died after a long battle with cancer [leukemia], his wife announced Wednesday. He was 36…Last week, Lyle and his family announced that he had decided to end his treatment for acute myeloid leukemia and would undergo palliative care at his home.” (Fox News, 8/8/18)

“Fifty-one female professional golfers and 142 female amateur golfers were evaluated for skin cancer and skin cancer risk…Four of the professionals had already developed basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Their average age was 25.5 years. Eleven amateurs also developed BCC…” (Skin Cancer in Professional and Amateur Female Golfers, Phys Sportsmed. 1985 Aug) Was the cause sun exposure? Herbicides?

“In 2008, not long after playing in his first Champions Tour tournament, [Seve] Ballesteros fell ill in Spain. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and eventually underwent four surgeries to try to remove the cancer. Ballesteros died on May 7, 2011, at the age of 54.” (ThoughtCo, 9/18/18)

[Heather] Farr was a terrific amateur golfer who never really got the chance to become a great LPGA Tour player. She died of breast cancer (that widely metastasized) at the age of 28 in 1993.” (ThoughtCo, 9/18/18)

“Once dubbed one of the world’s sexiest men by People magazine, Adam Scott looked a bit more garish after a procedure in 2011 to remove a Basil Cell Carcinoma, a form of non-melanoma skin cancer, from his face…A number of players have had varying degrees of battles with skin cancer…Rory Sabbatini, Brian Davis, Aron Price, among others, have all battled the disease…” (PGATour.com, 6/17/14) Sun exposure? Herbicides?

“Professional golfer Tom Lehman understands the importance of detecting cancer early. At 35, he was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer…* (USA Today, 6/26/18)

“Bruce Lietzke, a pro golfer who won 13 Professional Golfer’s Association Tour events, died on Saturday after a year-long battle with brain cancer.” (AJC, 7/28/18)

“[Pro golfer Randy Jones’ 2011] punch biopsy turned out to be melanoma.” (mdanderson.org, 9/13/16)

“A former LPGA Tour member, Shelley Hamlin died on October 15 [2018] at the age of 69 after a long and courageous battle with [breast] cancer.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“Phil Rodgers, a five-time PGA Tour winner and noted golf instructor, died on June 26 age 80 after a 15-year battle with leukemia.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“Charismatic Australian golfer Ian Stanley, who was a prolific winner on his home tour before making his mark on the European seniors circuit, died in July at age 69. He had battled cancer for some time.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“…professional golfer Boo Weekley went public on Thursday in revealing the cause of his prolonged absence from the PGA Tour…discomfort in his right shoulder was revealed to be cancer…” (Pensacola News Journal, 2/15/19)

“Forrest Fezler’s career path in golf included 12 years on the PGA Tour…Fezler, a Californian by birth who settled in Tallahassee, died Friday after battling brain cancer. He was 69.” (Tallahassee Democrat, (12/21/18)

“[In July of 2006], it was discovered that famous pro golfer, Billy Mayfair, “had testicular cancer.” (Coping with Cancer, undated)

A PGA player [Joel Dahmen] who battled [testicular] cancer and lost his mom to the disease is moving into his dream home in Scottsdale…” (azfamily.com, 5/29/18)

Before you jump to the conclusion that exposure to the sun is responsible for the majority of golf-cancers, think about this statistic: “…the New York State Attorney General’s office published a report entitled Toxic Fairways, a widely cited study of pesticide use on 52 Long Island, New York golf courses. The report, which was particularly concerned with the potential for groundwater contamination, concluded that these golf courses applied about 50,000 pounds of pesticides in one year, or four to seven times the average amount of pesticides used in agriculture, on a pound per acre basis.” (beyondpesticides.org)

A variety of products are employed on golf courses. They create virtual lakes of chemical poison.

Or should I say rivers instead of lakes? Underground toxic rivers that affect bordering communities surrounding 34,000 golf courses across the world. If a groundskeeper with cancer can win $78 million in a lawsuit, how many billions of dollars should be awarded in a comprehensive legal action that correctly assigns criminal responsibility to giant chemical corporations?

Source:  Dr. Mercola

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 19, 2019

Source: Dr. Mercola

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 19, 2019

https://youtu.be/Au8dxFyyFIk

Source: RT.COM

February 7, 2019

© Reuters / Wolfgang Rattay

Source: Natural Blaze

by Catherine J. Frompovich
October 28, 2018

Tropical rainforests, in particular, often are called the “lungs of the planet” because they take in carbon dioxide—the consensus establishment’s supposed culprit causing climate change. 

Trees breathe out oxygen, their natural symbiotic relationship with humans.

Shouldn’t we plant more trees?

Where have the autumn tree colors of former years gone?

Here in SE Pennsylvania, most trees still have dark green leaves at the end of October 2018. In previous years, the sugar maples would have turned a golden yellow so vibrant that their warm color would reflect into the house brightening the inside with a golden glow.

Spring-blooming dogwoods no longer turn their vivid crimson red of past years. Oak leaves no longer turn a toasty brown. They turn black! Personally, I miss the fall tree leaf colors—what an ecological disaster and man-made crime!

The current tree leaf phenomenon has been occurring here the last two or so years in trees where I live within the watershed area to the Wissahickon Creek. I miss the rainbow of colors that every autumn of the previous nine years that I have lived here. Note, I’ve lived 80 years and remember the gorgeous fall leaf color spectacles of the past! No one can fool us old-timers about what’s going on and the obvious messing around with weather geoengineering.

At 7:24 minutes on the timeline of the video below, Dane Wigington of Geoengineering Watch.org, says, “Stay out of the rain!” and Dane offers a testimony from a well-qualified professional as to the reason why.

https://youtu.be/UvHt-APRmEQ?list=PLwfFtDFZDpwtijqkJiOyc-WJOaGWOfVGG

Aaron of SW Ohio explains that he was caught in the rain and has experienced sinus infections and respiratory problems since. He claims the trees seem to be sprayed with some sort of defoliant to encourage their leaves to die on the trees, which then hang on through the winter. A strange anomaly for sure!

Listen to the reasons for leaves on trees remaining fully green this late into the season, so close to year’s end! Dane talks about the problem of desiccants being sprayed and the highly toxic air we breathe through 16:08 on the timeline. Dane goes on further to explain the hazards of glyphosate being used in commercial farming and “environmental politics” of the same.

Regardless of what anyone may think about “climate change,” “chemtrails,” or “conspiracy theories,” we as a global community of living humans are in dire straits regarding the living conditions of the Planet, its ecosystem, the environment, the realistic state of Nature and the termination—“ecocide” of a once thriving, benevolent Planet, Mother Earth, which controllers now have decimated for apparent deliberate control reasons. There is definite climate change; it’s man-made developed by controllers with apparent sick minds who want to change the world into their upside down, inside out perverted idea of better living through science and technology using patents to effect that unnatural change!

Questions: How come humans and the Natural World evolved for millennia upon millennia perfectly well until now when we are confronted with:

• the horrors of nuclear fission—a man-made concept—that can destroy all life and the Planet;
• man-made ordnances capable of destroying previously viable cities and countries;
• man-made chemicals capable of altering and ruining life cycles and life forces;
• man-made electromagnetic frequencies and radiofrequencies that are disrupting brain function, breaking DNA strands, thereby contributing to all sorts of cancers;
• man-made geoengineered food crops that have the proven propensity to ruin the human body’s microbiome and immune system;
• man-made fallacious concepts for improving health by mandating and implementing humans eat, drink and have neurotoxic poisons injected into their bodies under the fictitious notion of improving life, health and the immune system;
• man-made propaganda to create memes, sell addictive products, and reverse common sense thinking to create a world so sick that humans, wildlife and food may not be able to survive?

This autumn, may I respectfully suggest your visiting a local garden nursery, which probably will have greatly-reduced-in-price trees, and purchasing a couple or more trees to plant on your property?

We need trees; they are our lifeline to clean, healthful air we need to live.

Source:  Giza Death Star

GMI’s for GMO’s

by Joseph P. Farrell
October 10, 2018

If you’ve been thumbing through your Primer of Biblical Apocalypses or browsing through Apocalypses for Dummies lately, you’ve probably noticed how oddly synchronous all those dire predictions from the past are and how much they resemble the “if-we-can-think-of-it-let’s-do-it” attitude of contemporary corporations, mad scientists, and insane government agencies like DARPA, which – thanks to a suggestion by Mr. J.B. – we respectfully refer to on this site as the Diabolically Apocalyptic Research Projects Agency. We’d almost expect the current Director’s name to be Lucy Furr. And for those of you who are unfamiliar with what synchronicities are, they’re somewhere on the spectrum between coincidence and ineluctable Calvinism.

And if you’ve been following the saga of GMOs and Mon(ster)santo (lately become I.G. Farbensanto after German chemicals giant Bayer bought the company), you’ll also be familiar with the fact that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., son of the murdered Senator, has been closely following or actually involved with recent lawsuits against against the company for glyphosate which some studies have identified as a carcinogen. And that’s just the beginning, because there are hundreds more lawsuits in the wings. And while we’re talking about synchronicities somewhere between coincidence and ineluctable Calvinism, don’t forget that strange Bayer-I.G. Farbensanto connection to 9/11 via Mohammad Atta, whose stint in Germany was sponsored by the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft, Duisberg being the lovely chap who headed Bayer during World War One, who helped found the notorious IG Farben cartel after said War to End All Wars, and who recommended during said War to End All Wars to bring 60,000 or so Belgians to Germany as slave labor. He was a veritable cauldron bubbling with ideas, including the idea of using poison gas and chemical warfare. That didn’t work out too well for Germany as France and England had chemists too (go figure), but all ended well as Bayer made lots of money, some of which doubtless helped to purchase Mon(ster)santo.

Well, the spirit of Carl Duisberg lives on, for Mr. B.B. spotted and shared this article about the latest “if-we-can-think-of-it-let’s-do-it” project going on at DARPA:

Scathing Report Accuses the Pentagon of Developing an Agricultural Bioweapon

Now, if you thought GMOs were bad enough, consider the following revelation:

A new technology in which insects are used to genetically modify crops could be converted into a dangerous, and possibly illegal, bioweapon, alleges a Science Policy Forum report released today. Naturally, the organization leading the research says it’s doing nothing of the sort.

The report is a response to a ongoing research program funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Dubbed “Insect Allies,” the idea is to create more resilient crops to help farmers deal with climate change, drought, frost, floods, salinity, and disease. But instead of modifying seeds in a lab, farmers would send fleets of insects into their crops, where the genetically modified bugs would do their work, “infecting” the plants with a special virus that passes along the new resilience genes.

…

The technology at the heart of this research could herald an entirely new way of genetically modifying crops. Instead of having to wait for a plant to pass its newly-acquired traits onto the next generation, genetic changes would be imposed upon living organisms, a process known as horizontal genetic alteration. Hence the technology’s name—Horizontal Environmental Genetic Alteration Agents, or HEGAAs.

For HEGAAs to work, a lab-developed genetic modification needs to be inserted into the chromosome of a target organism. And that’s where the insects come in. The system would utilize leafhoppers, whiteflies, and aphids genetically altered in the lab using CRISPR, or some other gene-editing system, to carry an infectious virus to pre-existing crops. Each plant would be infected with a transgene, triggering the desired gain-of-function, such as improved resistance to drought or frost.

Now, most readers here are familiar with the biggest criticism leveled against GMOs: the utter lack of long-term trans-generational studies; they were simply rubber-stamped and allowed out (during the [mis-]administration of G.H.W. Bush). At the time of course there were German generals people who said that using poison gas wouldn’t work because France and England had chemists too further testing needed to be done of environmental impact, long term crop yields, and human health impact, but no one listened to them, and the result was predictable: England and France started using poison gas long term independent studies began to confirm that long term yields fell as prices rose, and a whole host of animal and human problems began to occur. Now, without any long-term studies, DARPA wants to create and release Genetically Modified Insects (GMIs) to Genetically Modify Crops.

And that’s the positive spin!

The potential for weaponization of this Lucy Furrian idea is definitely there, so like Carl Duisberg, DARPA plunges ahead anyway, forgetting that England and France have chemists too China and Russia have genetic and robotical engineers too, and GMI warfare becomes an apocalyptic possibility.

All it will take is for some heartlessly brilliant corporocrat colossally stupid and greedy Carl Duisberg to recommend that the insects can be released on farmers’ fields through gigantic artillery bombardments…

… oh… wait… we have airplanes for that now.

And gee, what a coincidence synchronicity that they’re spraying like crazy. Why not just add some GMIs to the mix?

…sigh…

See you on the flip side…

Source:  Dr. Mercola

Source:  No More Fake News

by Jon Rappoport
August 13, 2018

A lot of people were waiting for this day. It finally arrived.

Reuters: “…a California jury ordered [Monsanto]…to pay $289 million for not warning of cancer risks posed by its main weed killer [Roundup].”

“The case of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, filed in 2016, was fast-tracked for trial due to the severity of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system that he alleges was caused by Roundup and Ranger Pro, another Monsanto glyphosate herbicide.”

More than 5000 lawsuits against Monsanto and Roundup are waiting in the wings, and this verdict, in favor of Johnson, is a strong signal to future juries.

Of course, Monsanto, and its new parent company, Bayer, claim last week’s court ruling was deeply flawed and Roundup is not a health threat; an appeal is in the works.

And that is where the danger lies.

As you go higher in the court system, judges, not juries, are making the decisions, the judges tend to be appointed on the basis of their politics.

Official science IS politics, with mega-corporations the favored clients.

Monsanto’s lawyers will be able to restate the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] assessment that Roundup is not a proven or likely carcinogen.

The judges of an appeals court could decide, for example, that the scientific evidence presented by both sides “cancels itself out” and leaves a definitive opinion on Roundup in maybe-limbo “at the present time.” Therefore, the accuser, Dewayne Johnson, has not proved his case. Therefore, there is no judgment in his favor, and no $$ penalty against Monsanto.

I would say Monsanto (and its new owner Bayer) are counting on this scenario.

Could we also be talking about secret payoffs (or blackmail) to assure a favorable outcome? I’m absolutely shocked that anyone would suggest the possibility. As we all know, these corporations are models of propriety and good citizenship. Their reputations are above reproach. They arise each day seeking only to do good in the far flung communities they serve. They search their souls for any sign of moral turpitude and eradicate such problems in short order.

Right?

No?

Dane Wigington: Geoengineering Is Fueling Firestorm Catastrophes

by Dane Wigington, Geoengineering Watch
July 30, 2018

Yet again forests in the Western US are incinerating as the US east coast is anomalously wet and cool. All official sources are blaming the rapidly increasing extreme and deadly wildfire behavior on global warming alone, but is that the full truth? What factors are “official sources” not informing us of in regard to the increasingly destructive wildfires?

The NASA satellite image above reveals massive climate engineering operations being carried out over vast expanses the Pacific ocean off of the US west coast. The geoengineering / solar radiation management operations completely disrupt the hydrological cycle and thus fuel drought and fires (a scenario which has been ongoing). The image was captured on Saturday, July 28th, 2018. This happened to be the day that a long planned climate engineering awareness and call to action event had to be canceled in Redding, California, due to the Carr fire. Smoke from the Carr fire is clearly visible on the NASA satellite image.

Though there are countless forms of human activity damaging the climate and biosphere, illegal global climate engineering / solar radiation management operations are a primary causal factor fueling catastrophic wildfires all over the globe (which official sources are not disclosing). Climate engineering is completely disrupting the hydrological cycle, triggering increasing dry lightning, destroying the ozone layer, contaminating soils, and covering everything at ground level with an incendiary dust (due to the fallout from atmosphere spraying programs). The 10 minute video below elaborates on the direct effect geoengineering operations are having on forest fires, their behavior and their frequency. Geoengineering is nothing less than weather warfare.

The Carr Fire in Redding, California, my hometown, is one of the latest catastrophic infernos to erupt.

Other recent western infernos also confirm the impact of climate intervention operations. The satellite animation below was recorded on October 11th, 2017, it is important to examine carefully. Anomalous, counter-directional and extreme wind patterns over the core wildfire region was a major contributing factor in the firestorm cataclysm that occurred in the Santa Rosa region of California . All official sources continue to ignore and omit any discussion of the ongoing illegal climate engineering operations.

The climate engineering atrocities are a primary factor in the equation of exponentially increasing forest fires and fire intensity.

All around the world forests are incinerating at an ever more rapid rate, if the current trajectory of biosphere collapse continues, these forests are not coming back.

All of us must work together in the effort to fully expose and halt the ongoing climate engineering / weather warfare assault. How? By circulating credible data from a credible source. Make your voice heard in this all important battle.
DW

[TCTL editor’s note: The commentary below was added to this “Geoengineering Is Fueling Firestorm Catastrophes” post in response to many sensationalized narratives and conclusions that are being circulated about the creation and / or causes of the recent and ongoing catastrophic California firestorms.]

How do we expose and halt the catastrophic global climate engineering assault?  We need to stand on solid verifiable ground in regard to the data and conclusions we share, or we will lose all credibility in this most important battle for the greater good. We must not give in to and indulge in implausible speculation that by its very nature provokes disbelief which can only weaken our strategic position as we expose the very real and terrible crimes being perpetrated against our dying planet. Are recent and current California fires behaving in unprecedented ways and burning at exceptionally high temperatures? Yes. Are there reasons to believe the public is not being informed of key core issues that are directly related to the exponential increase in global forest fires? Yes. Does available data make clear that climate engineering in countless ways set the stage for the firestorm nightmares? Without question.

All this being said, in regard to the recent and ongoing California firestorms there are a great many baseless claims circulating on the internet that should cause us all to take immediate pause. These narratives include the suggestion that everything from laser beams to military incendiary bombs were used to cause/create recent and ongoing catastrophic fires. Though laser and directed energy weapons do exist in some forms (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2016/06/25/air-force-has-directed-energy-weapons-now-comes-the-hard-part/)  ,there is no documentation whatsoever to confirm any sky to ground laser / directed energy platform is even remotely capable of causing massive and instant vaporization of countless structures over vast expanses. If such instant and extreme destruction were to occur (from massive laser / energy beams, spiraling down from the sky in the middle of the night), wouldn’t they have been seen by many? If such instant destruction technology does exist, and was used, why is there so much film footage of extreme wind and heat driven flames during the fires? Even if “directed energy” weapons of this caliber existed, and were used, CAL FIRE and thousands of residents would also have to be a part of such a coverup (which is completely implausible).  Again,” laser / directed energy beams” (if a technology for such sky to ground decimation even exists) would be extremely visible.

Again, though some have referred to technology (that does exist) for extremely powerful laser and plasma beams, emission can only be produced from a ground bases source with access to extreme levels of power. Any such powerful emission could not be produced from an overflying aircraft or a satellite. Even a flying full scale massive electrical power plant could not even begin to produce such an emission. And consider this, the most powerful laser beams (that have been created under test conditions in ground facilities) only existed for a trillionth of a second, and was only 2 millimeters wide, thats it.  We must remember and consider that the California wind driven firestorms raged for days over extensive areas.

We must also stop to consider all the converging factors that are fueling the firestorm cataclysms.  Record low fuel moisture contents (directly connected to climate engineering). Extreme and unpredictable wind conditions which can be directly connected to convection manipulation via jet aircraft dispersions of atmospheric aerosols (that are a core part of climate engineering operations). Accumulated incendiary dust (from climate engineering fallout) not only laying on the surface of forest foliage, but blowing in the winds around and above the fires. About the trees that are still standing in many photos of fire burn areas, green living trees are not prone to burning beyond the folliage and thinner branches. Green living trees WILL NOT fully incinerate (unlike dwellings that contain no imbedded fuel moisture. In the case of the Santa Rosa firestorms many of the trees were Redwoods which are extremely fire resistant. All should take the time to look up more information on this, here is one sample link, FYI http://forestschoolsbapet.blogspot.com/2013/04/redwoods-and-why-are-they-fireproof.html

Redwood trees have very thick bark which has a lot of water inside it. They also DO NOT have any pitch inside the trunks which is a very flammable substance found in many other trees. Another factor that helps to make the redwood trees fireproof is the fact that they do not have any of the resins that other trees like pine and the sap that the tree contains is made up of a majority of water also adding to the fireproofing ability.

As already stated, other species of living and green trees would also not completely burn in the same manner as dried and fully cured building materials, not at all. Any that have ever tried to burn a completely green log in a fire will know this. Such a piece of “fuel” will not burn, the moisture is too impregnated in it. Ever put a paper cup filled with water in a fire? It, also, will not burn until the water boils out. The top of the cup burns down in pace with the water boiling out. Though the crowns of many pine species are, of course, highly combustible, the trunks and heavy branches are not (assuming the tree was alive when exposed to fire).

Back to the extreme heat and wind in these fires, like a bellows (or blower) for a forge, such extreme conditions can rapidly increase combustion and thus temperatures. Such extreme conditions and winds also scatter embers at unimaginable speed onto landscapes, into attics, eaves, etc, where the embers are fanned by the high winds into further combustion. Many older homes are built with extremely flammable materials, and many even with wood sub-floors which provide even more fuel at the critical base of dwelling fires. Once subfloors have been burnt away, it could provide a cavity for some larger incombustible materials to fall into (such as porcelain sinks and toilets which extreme heat can also shatter).

Structure fires are much hotter and burn longer than a forest fire, and in many cases, what you find is a single home ignites and then like dominos falling other homes catch on fire. This is exactly what is occurred in California communities like Santa Rosa.

As homes in close proximity ignite, all of the natural gas and / or propane supplied to homes adds further fuel to the wind blown furnace flames. Once fully ablaze, one home can ignite those immediately adjacent to it from the radiant heat alone. Homes across a street could be far enough away to be spared. Also, in scenarios where one home was in ashes next to another that did not burn, fire crews may have been present and actively watering down homes that had not yet ignited. Again, some next to other homes that were fully ablaze. In regard to the many badly burned vehicles, none of those making the “directed energy weapons” claims have bothered to mention the obvious, vehicles all have fuel tanks that radically accelerate and heat fires once the vehicle is fully ablaze. Those that have ever seen the remains of a vehicle that has fully incinerated along the side of a highway know that such vehicles look exactly like those in the firestorms.

I viewed a number of videos that show trees burning from the inside out, with some claiming this was proof of a laser weapon. This, also, is verifiably false. I have personally witnessed  this exact scenario dozens of times over years of controlled burns on my own habitat reserve land, and fighting on the front line of wildfires that have occurred with staggering frequency on and near my acreage on the east side of Lake Shasta.. Any ember that settles into a hollowed out and decaying tree trunk will start such a fire as those featured in videos claiming directed energy weapons were used. In several instances I have witnessed trees that had a rotted hollow at the base of the trunk which allowed air in, and embers. Once the rotted core ignited and burned up through the rotted center of the trees (completely rotted cores are now common in still living trees due to epidemic fungal infections in the forest), the trees  literally looked like a blow torch with flames shooting out from the top. Please, don’t believe me about trees with rotting cores burning from embers being common, ask any wild land firefighter how many times they have witnessed this phenomenon, it is extremely common. About the extreme heat and wind blown fire scenarios, again, if and when the heat plum from a fire is blowing along at ground level, combustibles one side or another may not be very effected from the directional flow of flames and heat that is being pushed in a particular direction due to the powerful winds. I am speaking from personal experience, not from speculation.

Some videos claimed brick or rock walls on some sides of some homes had disappeared, all of the “before and after” photos I have seen of this showed veneer walls of brick or rock, not walls that were actually constructed of these materials. Some of the same circulating videos claim that glass or aluminum could not melt in a wildfire, also false. Anyone that has ever put bottle into a hot camp fire and left it in the core of the coals all night knows better. The same with an aluminum can. And, again, to be clear, all the factors I mentioned in this report must be remembered. Yes, these fires are unprecedented, the heat and behavior is unprecedented, geoengineering is inarguably a major factor that set the stage. Fires are increasingly ignited in the worse possible locations at the worst possible times. Do these fires serve many agendas of those in power? Yes, absolutely, but we must still stand on solid ground with the data and conclusions we share with any breaking news story if we are to retain credibility.

I know many people who are now claiming no one died (and no one was injured) in Las Vegas, claiming that it was all staged. This narrative is also very harmful to the cause of credibility, insisting on the truth. I have a long term friendship with a former Green Beret who just lost two close colleagues in Las Vegas. Though the Las Vegas event also has countless unanswered questions, and appears to be anything but what official sources are telling us, people were injured and died. The notion that thousands of people, including emergency workers and hospitals, could all be in on some grand conspiracy theater, is not rational. Are we to believe that 9/11 was only a staged slaughter? That people did not die there? Let’s all remember that those in power do not care how many they kill (collateral damage) to accomplish their agenda. Are we to believe the power structure would go to unimaginable lengths to avoid killing anyone in the Las Vegas event? Such a conclusion is also not rational given what we know about the demeanor of those in power. Many of the sites and sources pushing the ” laser beams / directed energy beams” created the fires” false narrative are also propagating the “Flat Earth” and “global warming is a hoax” false and highly discrediting narratives.

William Thomas, a former member of the U.S. Navy Reserves, author of Chemtrails Confirmed, and the reporter who broke the “chemtrails” story for Environment News Service in 1998, observes that smoke is the bane of atmospheric lasers.

Directed-energy beams from military lasers are scattered and diffused by curtains of smoke, as well as water vapor (clouds) and rain.

And sandstorms. “Just look what happened during the U.S. invasion of Iraq when directed-energy sensors on aircraft, gunships and armor were shut down by blowing sand,” this author of Bringing The War Home wrote to geoengineeringwatch.

“There is no way (unverified) space-based lasers could penetrate the smoke over the vast U.S. wildfires with enough focused energy remaining to light a campfire.”

In the case of the “global warming is a hoax” disinformation, this is in fact exactly the false narrative that the power structure and the geoengineers want. Why would anyone who claims to be fighting climate engineering / geoengineering push this kind of disinformation?

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/toeing-the-line-for-big-oil-and-the-geoengineers/

There is also the false and completely undocumented claim reporting  “water vapor machines” are producing all the moisture for storms. Again, this narrative is verifiably absurd. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/cooling-towers-climate-engineering-is-there-a-connection/

Credibility is so very critical in the fight for the greater good. Logic, reason, and due diligence investigation must be a part of the equation, or hard earned credibility is completely sacrificed. The truth is more than alarming enough, we must make every effort to stand on solid and factual ground. Credibility is extremely difficult to earn, and so very easy to lose.
DW

Connect with GeoEngineering Watch

Cover image credit: YIvers

by James Corbett
June 23, 2018

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khfdjPbecwM

TRANSCRIPT

WERNER BAUMANN: Hello. Today I’m happy to announce that this Thursday Bayer will complete the acquisition of Monsanto. This is good news for several reasons…

SOURCE: Statement by Werner Baumann on the expected closing of the acquisition of Monsanto

If you had told someone two decades ago that by 2018 the company that commercialized chemical warfare and the company that commercialized Agent Orange were going to team up to control a quarter of the world’s food supply, chances are you would have been labeled a loony.

Unless your name was Robert B. Shapiro. He was CEO of Monsanto from 1995 to 2000, and in 1999 he told Business Week that the company’s goal was to wed “three of the largest industries in the world—agriculture, food and health—that now operate as separate businesses. But there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration.”

With this month’s announcement that Bayer has completed its $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto, it is hard to deny that Shapiro’s vision has been realized. Too bad for all of us that vision is a nightmare.

Because, contrary to the feel-good corporate propaganda being churned out by the company’s PR department—propaganda that would have you believe that this merger will be good for the environment, for farmers, for ending global hunger, and, incidentally, for lining the pockets of shareholders—these two corporate giants are in fact committed to the consolidation and transformation of the world’s food supply in the hands of the genetic engineers.

Monsanto and Bayer are a match made in hell. This is The Corbett Report.

It is hardly surprising that the first thing Bayer did after completing their takeover of Monsanto earlier this month was to announce that they were dropping the Monsanto name, merging the two companies’ agrichemical divisions under the “Bayer Crop Science” name. After all, as everyone knows, Monsanto is one of the most hated corporations in the world.

HOST: In the film Food Evolution, Neil Degrasse Tyson notes that Monsanto is one of the most hated companies in the world. Why do people have such strong feelings toward Monsanto?

SOURCE: Why is Monsanto Hated?

MARINA PORTNAYA: The worldwide March Against Monsanto has drawn hundreds out onto the streets here in New York City, with people seizing the opportunity to voice their concerns and opposition to GMO foods.

SOURCE: March against Monsanto: World rallies to protest GMO in 38 countries, 428 cities

LUKE RUDKOWSKI: Why are you here?

PROTESTER: I am here because I have a loathing hatred for the company Monsanto, which a lot of people don’t know that Monsanto is actually just a chemical company and they have no business basically dictating our food supply.

SOURCE: Why Are People Protesting GMO’s [sic] and Monsanto

ANCHOR: New at noon: The City of Seattle is suing biotech giant Monsanto to make it pay for removing cancer-causing chemicals in the water. The city says the company knowingly dumped the compounds in the city’s drainage system and the Duwamish River for years. Seattle needs to build a storm water treatment plant to clean the system that will cost about 27 million dollars. Six other major municipalities sued Monsanto as well.

SOURCE: Seattle Sues Monsanto For KNOWINGLY Dumping Cancer Causing Chemicals Into City’s Drainage System

MIKE PAPANTONIO: Environmental lawyers have begun filing lawsuits against Monsanto for cancer deaths related to their product Roundup. What these lawsuits are showing is an effort—both on the part of Monsanto and the US government—to minimize the message about the dangers of Roundup in relationship to human cancer.

SOURCE: Lawsuits Helping To Expose Monsanto’s Deadly Roundup Cover-up

BILL MOYERS: Now your bullseye is on Monsanto. Why is Monsanto so crucial to this fight over seeds?

VANDANA SHIVA: Monsanto is crucial to this fight because they are the biggest seed company now. Monsanto is privatizing the seed. They control 95% of the cotton in India, 90% of the soy in this country. They’ve taken over most of the seed companies in the world.

SOURCE: Vandana Shiva on the Problem with Genetically-Modified Seeds

This hatred of Monsanto is not unreasonable. It is, after all, difficult to think of a company that has ruined the lives of more people around the world, either directly through its coercive and litigious practices against small farmers the world over, or indirectly through the pollution of the food supply with their genetically modified crops.

Many are familiar with the company’s sordid past, including its role in the development of Agent Orange and its contribution to the epidemic of farmer suicides in India. But in recent years Monsanto has gained special notoriety for its attempts to push the boundaries of patent law in a self-admitted effort to gain a monopoly over the world’s food supply.

Even worse, Monsanto has, thanks to a revolving door with the highest levels of the US government, been not just evil, but extraordinarily effective in spreading its evil seed around the world.  That revolving door has seen literally dozens of top Monsanto executives drift in and out of the US government agencies that, laughably, are said to “regulate” the agrichemical business, including Dennis DeConcini, the former US Senator who now acts as legislative consultant for Monsanto; Mickey Kantor, the Commerce Secretary under President Clinton who also served on Monsanto’s board of directors; Michael Taylor, Obama’s Deputy FDA Commissioner who had previously served as Monsanto’s Vice-President for Public Policy; Linda Fisher, who was appointed Deputy Administrator of the EPA in 2001 fresh off a five-year stint asMonsanto’s Vice- President of Government and Public Affairs; and US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who served as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto in the 1970s.

These officials have helped smooth the way for Monsanto to achieve a number of key corporate objectives, including the passage of the infamous “Monsanto Protection Act” in 2013.

TABETHA WALLACE: First off, President Barack Obama recently signed into law what many are
calling the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Monsanto, the world’s leading producer of genetically modified food, will benefit greatly from the bill, since the legislation gives companies dealing in modified organisms and genetically engineered seeds immunity from federal courts. (Nothing creepy about that.) The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sale.

Interesting to note the bill carrying the Monsanto rider has virtually nothing to do with food, agriculture, or consumer health. It was inserted into a spending bill through lobbying efforts and the good work of freshman Senator Roy Blunt.

TYREL VENTURA: Well, congratulations Mr. Blunt!

WALLACE: Well done!

VENTURA: Very good.

WALLACE: Maybe write him a letter.

VENTURA: I love Mr. Blunt because Monsanto’s such a wonderfully healthy, nutritious company.

WALLACE: Really looking out. It’s amazing. And the Center for Responsive Politics notes that Senator Blunt received $64,250 from Monsanto for his campaign committee between 2008 and—

VENTURA: Nothing to do with him making a protection bill or anything like that. That was just purely good citizenry at work.

WALLACE: Of course. Mr. Blunt has been the largest Republican recipient of Monsanto funding as of late.

VENTURA: Oh, lovely. So basically Mr. Blunt gave him an out clause. We don’t know what these GMO seeds and all that crazy shit that they do does. Sorry for the sailor talk. But you know we don’t know what these cats do. They basically are poisoning the plants to kill bugs and—

WALLACE: Their pesticides are actually killing the bee population. There’s research to prove it, and now because of this law technically we can’t do anything.

VENTURA: Yeah, we can’t go back as citizens. The government can’t go back and sue them or hold them accountable for any of the actions that they’ve done. This is beautiful. This is wonderful politics as usual. You know, the old pay-to-play kind of technique of “we’ll give you X amount of dollars, get you elected, and then help us out here.”

SOURCE: Obama and the Monsanto Protection Act

But, ironically, of all the corporations in the world, Bayer is one of the few that could compete with Monsanto for its position as the world’s most evil company.

MIKE PAPANTONIO: There are two huge issues with this Bayer Monsanto merger.

The first is, that it’s going to raise food prices all across the United States and even
beyond our borders. Farmers have already experienced a 300% price increase in recent years, on everything from seeds to fertilizer, all of which are controlled by Monsanto. And every forecaster is predicting that these prices are going to climb even higher because of this merger. So we’re going to have this massive price hike at a time when 14 million Americans have already been unable to provide food for their families, and then we’re going to have this ethical problem that’s plagued both of these corporations for decades.

Let’s start with Monsanto.This is a company that produced Agent Orange, which resulted in one of the largest human-induced health epidemics in modern history. They made dioxin, they created and distributed PCBs across the planet, and now, pending litigation against them for Roundup is right there. Looking at their rap sheet would scare the heck out of anybody with a brain. They’re in the business … Actually, really, when you drill down to it, it looks more like a cancer business than anything. They’ve been hit for false advertising and bribing public officials.

Then, move to Bayer. We’ve got Bayer and we’ve got Monsanto. Move to Bayer. This is a company that’s joined at the hip with the Nazis, during World War II. They produced a clotting agent for hemophiliacs, in the 1980s, called Factor VIII. This blood-clotting agent was tainted with HIV, and then, after the government told them they couldn’t sell it here, they shipped it all over the world, infecting people all over the world. That’s just part of the Bayer story. Right now, they’re facing lawsuits over products like Yaz, Xarelto, Essure, Cipro. In fact, the company, in 2014 annual report, listed 32 different liability lawsuits that the company’s now facing.

So now you have the worst of the worst joining with the worst of the worst, and we have this
magnificent experience of greed with these two huge corporations. This is a merger of evil, probably second only to the kind of merger that we’d see with DuPont and Dow Chemical. It’s an ugly story.

Again, the media is missing the point. They’re not looking at all behind what these people are … They’re people. These corporations are regarded as people. If these are people on a witness stand, it’s going to be a very ugly cross examination. These are people who should probably be in prison, rather than engaging in mergers.

SOURCE: Nazi Ties & Agent Orange: The Real Bayer-Monsanto Merger Story – The Ring Of Fire

Although less well-known by the general public, Bayer’s shameful history is, like Monsanto’s, a case study in corporate psychopathy.

Founded in 1863 by Friedrich Bayer and Johann Friedrich Weskott, it wasn’t until 1899 that the company trademarked its most well-known product: aspirin. Less well-remembered is the fact that Bayer was the first company to trademark heroin, which they marketed as a “non-addictive” alternative to morphine and a “cough suppressant.”

But it was under the stewardship of Carl Duisberg at the turn of the 20th century that the company began to develop its psychopathic character. In 1914 the German Ministry of War appointed Duisberg as one of the co-directors of a commission into the use of dangerous byproducts from the chemical industry. Unsurprisingly, Duisberg and his fellow directors jumped at the opportunity to turn their waste into profit by recommending the development of chlorine gas for use on the battlefield, a direct contravention of the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which Germany had signed just seven years earlier.

Bayer, under Duisberg’s command, did not just participate in the development and use of poison gas in warfare; they spearheaded it. Duisberg personally oversaw the earliest tests of poison gas and bragged about its lethal capabilities: “The enemy won’t even know when an area has been sprayed with it and will remain quietly in place until the consequences occur.” Setting up a School for Chemical Warfare at Bayer headquarters in Leverkusen, Duisberg also oversaw the development of phosgene and mustard gas, which he urged the German government to use: “This phosgene is the meanest weapon I know. I strongly recommend that we not let the opportunity of this war pass without also testing gas grenades.”

On April 22, 1915, Duisberg got his wish. On that day 170 tons of chlorine gas was used against French troops at Ypres, Belgium, killing 1,000 and injuring a further 4,000. Attacks on the British followed days later. In all, some 60,000 people died as the result of the chemical warfare perfected by Bayer and urged on by Duisberg, one of the great, largely-forgotten atrocities of the First World War.

Most galling of all, Duisberg was not ashamed of his accomplishments. On the contrary, he was immensely proud of them. He even commissioned famed artist Otto Bollhagen to paint the scene of the earliest poison gas test at Cologne. Duisberg so enjoyed the finished result that he had it hung in his breakfast room at Bayer headquarters in Leverkusen.

Later, Duisberg—inspired by a tour of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil in the US—wedded Bayer to the IG Farben chemical cartel. As I explained in “How Big Oil Conquered the World,” IG Farben was a key player in the burgeoning oiligarchy of the early 20th century, boasting key oiligarchs like Royal Dutch Shell’s Prince Bernhard and Standard Oil’s Walter Teagle on the boards of its various branches. Bayer’s Duisberg served as the head of its supervisory board.

Joining Duisberg on the board was Fritz ter Meer, who oversaw the construction of the IG Farben factory at Auschwitz, which ran on slave labor and participated in human experimentation. After the war, ter Meer was sentenced to seven years in prison for his participation in looting and enslavement of the camp prisoners, but was released in 1950 for “good behaviour,” and, in 1956 became chairman of Bayer AG, newly resurrected from the ashes of IG Farben.

But this legacy of death is not some ancient relic of Bayer’s distant past. Decade after decade, the company continues to be involved in scandal after scandal, involving wanton environmental destruction, injury, and even mass murder.

JAMES EVAN PILATO: “Bayer Accidentally Funds Study Showing Its Pesticide is Killing Bees, Promptly Denies Conclusions”

A large-scale study on neonicotinoid pesticides is adding to the growing body of evidence that these agricultural chemicals are indeed harming bee populations (to say the very least). Carried out at 33 sites in the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary, the study found that exposure to neonicotinoids “left honeybee hives less likely to survive over winter, while bumblebees and solitary bees produced fewer queens.”

SOURCE: Interview 1283 – New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

FARRON COUSINS: Mirena is a chemical-coated soft plastic IUD that proved to be a huge moneymaker for Bayer. But part of the reason that this particular contraceptive was so profitable was because Bayer was deliberately overstating the benefits of their device and not disclosing some of the rare but dangerous side effects.

For example, in April of 2009 the FDA had to issue a warning letter to Bayer HealthCare because its website for Mirena made a number of claims that were simply untrue or unproven. Bayer was so busy making claims that the IUD was a perfect solution for busy moms and would increase women’s sex lives while making them look and feel great that it forgot to mention that the device is recommended for women who have already had at least one child. The company also declined to state that the Mirena IUD increases the risk of ectopic pregnancies, which is when a fertilized egg attaches to an area other than the uterus.

SOURCE: Lawsuit Claims Bayer Birth Control Device Linked to False Brain Tumors

ANA KASPARIAN: So the CEO was actually speaking to Bloomberg Businessweek, and he is trying to appeal the Indian court’s decision to allow this patent for another company. He said the following: “We did not develop this medicine for Indians. We developed it for Western patients who can afford it.”

CENK UYGUR: Uhhhh. Uhhhh. Look at that face. That’s the kind of face that would say a thing like that. Doesn’t he look so smiley? “Oh, please. We didn’t develop this for Indians! We developed it for Westerners who are rich!”

SOURCE: ‘Our Cancer Drug Is For Rich Westerners, Not Poor Indians’

MIKE PAPANTONIO: In the 1980s Bayer Corporation produced a medicine that was supposed to improve the lives of hemophiliacs. Bayer didn’t tell those hemophiliacs that their product was infected with HIV. Because of that, entire families of hemophiliacs died with AIDS as the virus spread within households.

When Bayer was ordered to stop selling their drug in America, they dumped their AIDS-laden product in Asia and killed Asian families. No one with Bayer management was arrested. No one who made these psychopathic-quality decisions went to prison. They claimed the protection of their status as a corporation. That corporate status gave management the ability to kill people for profit and not go to prison.

SOURCE: Bayer Corporation Infected Hemophiliacs With HIV

Indeed, it is not difficult to see why these two companies—each one a titan of its respective industry, each one guilty of the most atrocious crimes against humanity and the destruction of the environment—would feel an affinity for each other. But why merge? What does a pharmaceutical giant have to gain from buying out and merging with an agrichemical giant, especially one that carries as much baggage as Monsanto?

If the connection between these corporate behemoths seems tenuous, then perhaps the key to understanding it is presented in that 1995 quote from former Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro: “We’re talking about three of the largest industries in the world—agriculture, food and health—that now operate as separate businesses. But there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration.”

Integration of agriculture, food and “health” is the goal, and once that goal is reached the entire life support system of the human population, including all of our food and “medicine,” will be in the hands of a few mega-corporations. Indeed, the history of the production of food and pharmaceuticals has always followed the same trajectory: away from natural, abundant, locally-produced organic materials and toward artificial, scarce, factory-produced synthetic alternatives.

Control of the global food supply is, needless to say, along with control of money and oil, one of the pillars upon which the globalist oligarchs seek to construct their system of total control. Although there is no proof whatsoever that he said it, the dubious quote sometimes attributed to Henry Kissinger is nonetheless quite true: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

The process of consolidating these industries is of course nothing new. In fact, it started long ago. As I explained in “How Big Oil Conquered the World,” even the current agrichemical industry has to be seen in its historical context as a fusion of the petrochemical fertilizer giants (Dupont, Dow, Hercules Powder and other businesses in the Standard Oil orbit) with the “ABCD” seed cartel of Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus. These previously separate fields were gradually consolidated under the flag of “agribusiness,” itself developed at Harvard Business School in the 1950s with the help of research conducted by Wassily Leontief for the Rockefeller Foundation.

And as I also explained in “How Big Oil Conquered the World,” Big Pharma, too, was a creation of the same drive toward consolidation, and spearheaded by the same people. From the Carnegie and Rockefeller-funded institutionalization of the medical profession to Standard Oil’s role in supplying the petrochemicals for the burgeoning pharmaceutical industry to the role of Rockefeller Institute researchers like Cornelius Rhoads, who developed chemotherapy from the mustard gas pioneered by Bayer, the overlap of the oligarchical interests in cementing global control has been abundantly clear.

Then, with the advancement of GMO technology in the 1980s and 1990s (again, with considerable help from the Rockefellers and other oiligarchical interests), new opportunities for consolidation presented themselves. Seeds used to be sold by seed companies, and fertilizers and herbicides used to be sold by chemical companies. But then the GMO “revolution” came along and all of these companies spun off “biotech” branches to genetically engineer seeds. That, in turn, opened up opportunities to create GMO seed strains that are tailored to work with patented herbicides and fertilizers. The combination of GMO seeds and specially tailored agrichemicals has been especially lucrative for Monsanto, which was the first to capitalize on those synergies when it won regulatory approval for its first Roundup Ready soybeans in 1994. Roundup, aka glyphosate, has gone on to become the most-used agricultural chemical in the history of the world.

Monsanto and Bayer—not to mention their cohorts in the agrichemical, pharmaceutical, and euphemistically-named “life sciences” industries—are ultimately seeking the same thing: complete control over the population, from the genetic engineering of its food supply to the control of its “medicines” and chemicals. It is a race toward complete centralization, and with this acquisition, Bayer and Monsanto are getting a head start.

Particularly frightening, then (though hardly surprising), that this latest round of consolidation is being spearheaded by two corporations as thoroughly deplorable as Bayer and Monsanto.

Bayer: One of the pieces of I.G. Farben’s grim (and oiligarchical) legacy; supplier of chemicals for the poison gas attacks of WWI; knowing seller of HIV-contaminated vaccines; mass murderer of bees; seller of tainted GMO crops.

And Monsanto: Dumper of toxic chemicals; proud seller of carcinogens; suer of farmers; cause of farmer suicides; suppressor of scientific dissent.

Are you feeling safe, knowing that a quarter of the world’s food supply will soon be in their combined hands?

If not, then all of the efforts that have been made in recent years to “March Against Monsanto” must be translated into a “Boycott Against Bayer” and all of their friends in the burgeoning biotech/big agra/seed cartel GMO franken-industry. It is only by increasing our support for locally sourced, organic, heirloom seed-grown produce that we can hope to supplant this new mega-giant and consign it to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Source:  Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

by Dr. Mercola
June 2, 2018

The featured documentary, “Harvest of Greed,” investigates a number of the many issues brought about by the merger of Monsanto and Bayer AG. The merger was initially announced in May 2016, when Monsanto accepted Bayer’s $66 billion takeover offer — the largest all-cash buyout on record.^1,2,3

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) approved the merger in April this year,⁴ following the European Union’s (EU) approval in March. As a condition of the DOJ’s approval, Bayer will sell some of its assets to BASF — its German competitor — before the finalization of the merger.

This includes its soybean, cottonseed and glufosinate weed killer businesses, which overlap with Monsanto’s and were antitrust sticking points. Combined, Bayer and Monsanto used to control nearly 60 percent of the American cottonseed market. Monsanto also owns the rights to 80 percent of corn and 90 percent of soybeans grown in the U.S.⁵ The EU also demanded Bayer eliminate about $7.4 billion-worth of its various firms “to ensure fair competition.”⁶

Mega-Entity Now Controls Large Portion of Global Seed Supply

This new entity is now the largest seed and pesticide company in the world, controlling more than 25 percent of the global seed and pesticide supply. In all, just three companies now dominate the global seed and pesticide market.⁷ (In addition to the Bayer-Monsanto merger, the DOJ has also given the Dow-DuPont merger the green light, and the Federal Trade Commission recently approved ChemChina’s acquisition of Syngenta.)

The Bayer-Monsanto merger generated deep concerns right from the start, and anti-competition regulators were urged to investigate the takeover. Bernie Sanders went on record saying the takeover poses “a threat to all Americans” and needed to be blocked.⁸ He also urged the DOJ to “reopen its investigation of Monsanto’s monopoly over the seed and chemical market.” Farmers have also expressed concern over what the merger might do to prices, as less competition inevitably tends to lead to price hikes.

As just one example, the price of a bag of seed corn has risen from $80 to $300 over the past decade alone — a price hike attributed to the consolidation of seed companies and reduced competition. The merger of Bayer and Monsanto is predicted to make matters worse. Farmers also worry that consolidation will result in lower quality products by reducing incentive for innovation. Organic farmers have their concerns as well. As noted by Food and Power:⁹

“For Kristina Hubbard, director of advocacy and communications for the Organic Seed Alliance, the merger presents a particular threat to organic farmers. She notes that the National Organic Program’s regulations on organic seeds generally dictate that growers must use organic seeds to grow their crops. But there is an exception granted for non-organic seed when ‘an equivalent organically produced variety is not commercially available.’

Acceptable non-organic seeds are generally owned by the giant seed companies. ‘That exemption is important because currently the supply [of organic seeds] isn’t sufficient to meet the diverse and regional needs of all organic farmers,’ she says. With continued consolidation in the seed industry, she says farmers that rely on those non-organic seed options may find themselves faced with even fewer options as the merged companies cut down on research and development.”

Bayer-Monsanto Merger Unlikely to Benefit Anyone but Its Shareholders

Bayer AG’s CEO, Werner Baumann, has stated that “it is not our plan or our ambition or our intent to prevent farmers from having choice.”¹⁰ But the history of Monsanto and Bayer both suggest it would be naïve to believe him. As noted by Mark Connelly, an agriculture analyst at the investment group CLSA Americas, “These companies want to make more money, they want to raise prices. No company in this industry needs these deals in order to innovate.”¹¹

Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Bayer-Monsanto merger will give the subsequent entity even more power to bully farmers into paying more and pressuring and manipulating governments into accepting the unacceptable risks posed by genetically engineered (GE) crops and mounting use of ever more toxic pesticides.

One example of Monsanto’s strong-arm tactics included in the film is that of India, where more than 300,000 farmers have committed suicide due to farm-related debt. When the government attempted to regulate the price of seed — the main cause leading to these debts — Monsanto sued the Indian government.

Between 1997 and 2014, Monsanto also sued 147 farmers for “improperly reusing patented seeds.”¹² They never lost a single case, even in cases where organic fields were contaminated or cross-pollinated with unwanted GE seeds.

Billions Against Bayer

In response to the announcement of the merger in 2016, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) launched a boycott against Bayer. The “Billions Against Bayer” campaign is essentially a continuation of the successful “Millions Against Monsanto” campaign. Following the DOJ’s April approval of the merger, OCA renewed its call for consumers around the world to join the boycott. You can follow the campaign and get the latest news updates on Facebook.¹³ As noted in a September 2016 press release:¹⁴

“Two of the world’s most foul corporate criminals will be one. Monsanto will pack up its headquarters and head overseas. The much-maligned Monsanto name will be retired. But a corporate criminal by any other name — or size — is still a corporate criminal.

This merger only heightens the urgency, and strengthens our resolve, to hunt down the corporations that are poisoning everything in sight. We will follow them to the ends of the earth, if need be. We will expose their crimes. We will end the toxic tyranny. We will become the Billions Against Bayer. And we will need your help …”

Even many Bayer employees are leery of the merger. While both companies have checkered pasts, Bayer has managed to escape the brunt of the kind of criticism, if not hatred, leveled at Monsanto over the years.

According to the featured documentary, Bayer claims the merger has widespread support among its staff, yet when Bayer employees were approached under the promise of anonymity, the general consensus was one of dismay at inheriting Monsanto’s tarnished reputation. Such fears are likely to come true sooner rather than later. Activists in Argentina, for example, promise Monsanto’s ill reputation cannot be washed clean but will now transfer over to Bayer.

Glyphosate — A Toxic Legacy

Both Bayer and Monsanto insist that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup and other herbicide formulations, is “a very safe product when used properly.” In the video, Bayer CEO Werner Baumann stresses that more than 3,000 studies support the chemical’s safety. Yet numerous studies have reached the converse conclusion, showing it poses toxic risks to soil, animals and humans.

“The things you hear in the public debate are ultimately based on misinformation about the risks of this product,” Baumann says. “So, we think glyphosate, even if it does belong to our company, is a good product, and its license should be renewed.”

At the end of 2017, the EU did indeed renew its approval of glyphosate for the next five years,¹⁵ but the process was not without its critics, such as Martin Häusling, member of the Green Party and the European Parliament, who noted that many of the studies exonerating glyphosate were funded by Monsanto itself, while independent research keeps finding problems.

Indeed, scientists have discovered it not only may be carcinogenic,¹⁶ but may also affect your body’s ability to produce fully functioning proteins, inhibit the shikimate pathway (found in gut bacteria) and interfere with the function of cytochrome P450 enzymes (required for activation of vitamin D and the creation of nitric oxide and cholesterol sulfate).

Glyphosate also chelates important minerals, disrupts sulfate synthesis and transport, interferes with the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine, resulting in folate and neurotransmitter shortages, disrupts your microbiome by acting as an antibiotic, impairs methylation pathways, and inhibits pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism.

Recent Government Tests Show Roundup Is More Toxic Than Glyphosate in Isolation

Most recently, toxicology testing¹⁷ by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded the Roundup formula is actually far more toxic than glyphosate alone.¹⁸ The NTP testing was done by request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassification of glyphosate as a Class 2A probable carcinogen three years ago.¹⁹

At the time, the IARC noted concerns about glyphosate formulations possibly having increased toxicity due to synergistic interactions. As it turns out, that’s exactly what the NTP testing found. According to the NTP’s summary of the results, glyphosate formulations “significantly altered” the viability of human cells by disrupting the functionality of cell membranes.

Mike DeVito, acting chief of the NTP Laboratory commented on the results saying, “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it.”

Internal documents from Monsanto, obtained through previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, reveal Monsanto’s own employees have not been convinced the product is harmless either. For example, in a 2002 email, Monsanto executive William Heydens said, “Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product … does the damage.”²⁰

Monsanto Charged With Crimes Against Humanity

October 16, 2016 (on World Food Day), Monsanto was put on trial for “crimes against nature and humanity” at a tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands. The steering committee²¹ included Vandana Shiva, Corinne Lepage (former environment minister of France), Giles-Eric Séralini (toxicologist researching toxicities of GMOs and glyphosate), and Olivier De Schutter (former U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food), among others. The legal opinion on the evidence presented at the tribunal was delivered April 18, 2017. As reported by Corporate Europe Observatory:²² “The tribunal concluded that:

When asked if Bayer will continue Monsanto’s underhanded business practices, Baumann said the new entity will be managed “according to our standards,” adding that “Bayer stands for transparency, reliability and a different style of debate.”

Monsanto — A Destroyer of the Natural World

In addition to GE seeds and its flagship product, Roundup, Monsanto has also been a leading producer of Agent Orange, PCBs, DDT, recombinant bovine growth hormone and aspartame — the history of which is summarized in “The Complete History of Monsanto, ‘The World’s Most Evil Corporation,’”²³ originally published by Waking Times in 2014.²⁴

Monsanto also made its mark on history by participating in the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb, thereby becoming a “war horse” ally to the United States government — an alliance that still holds today. As noted in “The Complete History,” article:

“To add insult to world injury, Monsanto and their partners in crime Archer Daniels Midland, Sodexo and Tyson Foods write and sponsor The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875.²⁵ This ‘act’ gives the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard, and provides harsh penalties and jail sentences for those who do not use chemicals and fertilizers. President Obama … gave his approval.

With this Act, Monsanto claims that only GM [genetically modified] foods are safe and organic or homegrown foods potentially spread disease, therefore must be regulated out of existence for the safety of the world … As further revelations have broken open regarding this evil giant’s true intentions, Monsanto crafted the ridiculous HR 933 Continuing Resolution,²⁶aka Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama robo-signed into law as well.

This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose. Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself.”

Bayer Also Has a Long, Dark, Destructive History of Genocide

Despite having a far “cleaner” public reputation than Monsanto, Bayer is really just more of the same. Founded in Germany in 1863 by Friedrich Bayer and Johann Wescott, it too has a long, sordid history of creating poisons and mass destruction.²⁷ During World War II, Bayer (then I.G. Farben) produced Zyklon B gas, used in the Nazi gas chambers to eradicate 11 million people whose only crime was to be born a Jew.

According to Alliance for Human Research Protection, the company was also “intimately involved with the human experimental atrocities committed by Mengele at Auschwitz.”²⁸ In one case, Bayer purchased 150 healthy female prisoners from the camp commander of Auschwitz for use as test subjects for a new sleep drug. All the test subjects died, and another order for prisoners was placed.

While some of its board members ended up being arrested and tried for their crimes against humanity, others escaped and helped create the Federal Reserve.²⁹ If you think the passing of time might have made this corporate entity kinder, safer and gentler, think again.

In 2003, it was revealed Bayer sold blood-clotting medicine tainted with the HIV virus to Asian, Latin American and Europe in the mid-1980s.³⁰ The drug, Factor VIII concentrate, was worth millions of dollars, and the company continued to sell the tainted drug for a year after the contamination was discovered. In Hong Kong and Taiwan alone, more than 100 hemophiliacs contracted HIV and died after using the medicine.

Bayer’s drug Trasylol — used to control bleeding during surgery — was also eventually found to be responsible for at least 1,000 deaths each month for the 14 years it was on the market.³¹ In 2006, documents proved Bayer hid evidence showing unfavorable results from the drug in order to continue selling it.  Lawsuits have also been filed against Bayer for the untimely death of 190 young women taking their birth control pill Yaz, which raises your risk of blood clots by 300 percent.

Bayer Unlikely to Shift Public Perception of GMOs and Toxic Agriculture

Between 2006 and 2007, Bayer was also responsible for contaminating U.S. rice imports with three unapproved varieties of GE rice under development by Bayer CropScience. Bayer also makes neonicotinoid pesticides, suspected of being responsible for mass die-offs of bees around the world, thereby threatening the global food supply, and made the plastic chemical bisphenol-A, now known to have a dangerous impact on the human endocrine system.

In short, Bayer’s history is just as dark and unethical as Monsanto’s, if not more, and some have rightfully referred to the merger of these two destructive behemoths as a “marriage made in hell.”³² While change is possible, it seems improbable that this new Bayer-Monsanto mega-entity will radically change, and based on their combined histories, the world better get ready for a monumental fight.

Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government

Monsanto and their industry allies will not willingly surrender their stranglehold on the food supply. They must be resisted and rolled back at every turn. There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs and the chemical-intensive agricultural model of which they are part and parcel, pose a serious threat to the environment and our health. Yet, government agencies not only turn a blind eye to the damage they are inflicting on the planet, but actively work to further the interests of the biotech giants.

This is not surprising. It is well-known that there is a revolving door between regulatory agencies and private corporations. This has allowed companies such as Monsanto to manipulate science, defang regulations and even control the free press, all from their commanding position within the halls of government.

Consider for a moment that on paper, the U.S. may have the strictest safety regulations in the world governing new food additives, but has repeatedly allowed GMOs and their accompanying pesticides such as Roundup to circumvent these laws.

In fact, the only legal basis for allowing GE foods to be marketed in the U.S. is the FDA’s tenuous claim that these foods are inherently safe, a claim which is demonstrably false. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency’s own scientists warned their superiors about the detrimental risks of GE foods. But their warnings fell on deaf ears.

Don’t Be Duped by Industry Shills!

In a further effort to deceive the public, Monsanto and its cohorts spoon-feed scientists, academics and journalists a diet of questionable studies that depict them in a positive light. By hiring “third-party experts,” biotech companies are able to take information of dubious validity, and present it as independent and authoritative.

Industry front groups also abound. The Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council for Science and Health are both Monsanto-funded. Even WebMD, a website that is often presented as a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information, is heavily reliant on advertising dollars. It is no coincidence that they promote corporate-backed health strategies and products.

There’s No Better Time to Act Than NOW — Here’s What You Can Do

The biotech giants have deep pocketbooks and political influence, and are fighting to maintain their position of dominance. It is only because of educated consumers and groups like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) that their failed GMO experiment is on the ropes. We thank all of the donors who helped OCA achieve their fundraising goal. I made a commitment to triple match all donations to OCA during awareness week. It is with great pleasure to present a check to this fantastic organization for $250,000.

At the end of the day, we must shatter Monsanto’s grip on the agricultural sector. There is no way to recall GMOs once they have been released into the environment. The stakes could not be higher. Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Monsanto and its industry allies are working so hard to protect?

For more and more people, the answer is no. Consumers are rejecting genetically engineered and pesticide laden foods. Another positive trend is that there has been strong growth in the global organic and grass fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.

One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so that you get a regular supply of fresh food. I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well.

In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country as well:

Monsanto and its allies want you to think that they control everything, but they are on the wrong side of history. It’s you, the informed and empowered, who hold the future in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.

Source:  Natural News

by Vicki Batts
May 17, 2018

(Natural News) After much fanfare, a state appeals court has ruled that California can list glyphosate as a carcinogen — and that the state’s ban on discharging the herbicide into public waterways stands, too. Despite Monsanto’s best efforts to keep the toxicity of their product under wraps, the ruling in California is undoubtedly a small victory for concerned consumers and environmental advocates everywhere. The great debate surrounding glyphosate has been in full swing for quite some time now. But in spite of this ruling, its clear that the drama and the controversies (and the health risks) coming from Monsanto and their flagship product, glyphosate-containing Roundup, are far from over.

Since the Golden State first proposed that Monsanto’s glyphosate-containing products should be recognized as carcinogenic, the biotech giant has been fighting tooth and nail to keep the public from knowing the truth about their products. Indeed, the efforts to which Monsanto has gone to keep the toxicity of glyphosate (and Roundup) under wraps is truly unmatched.

The recent ruling regarded Monsanto’s attempt at discrediting the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research  (IARC)– by claiming that California was “was illegally delegating lawmaking powers to an unaccountable foreign agency.”

The WHO is considered part of the U.N., an organization of which the U.S. is a member, and is the world’s leading health agency– hardly an “unaccountable” organization.

Fortunately, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Fresno has rejected Monsanto’s argument, which means that California’s right to list glyphosate as a carcinogen and prevent it from being discharged into public waterways.

In an earlier case this past February, a federal judge in Sacramento put the kibosh on the state’s call for glyphosate-containing products bear a warning label. As sources report, U.S. District Judge William Shubb said that the IARC’s results regarding glyphosate “had been contradicted by other studies, including one by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that found no link to cancer.”

Clearly, Shubb did not read the heartbreaking letter from a dying EPA scientist, begging her colleagues to “do the right thing” and tell the truth about glyphosate. Otherwise, he’d know that the EPA’s stance on glyphosate is far from reliable.

Or really, any government agency in the US, for that matter — the FDA has been hiding what they know about glyphosate, too.

In spite of their best efforts the truth has come out, but the fight still isn’t over

Environmental activists have been quick to cheer on the Fresno ruling. Rebecca Riley, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, commented, “This is a win for science and democracy.”

“The ruling clearly backs the voters’ choice to rely on expert scientific bodies to add dangerous chemicals to its list,” she continued.

But while the upholding of state rights is always a cause for celebration these days, it’s likely that Monsanto is planning on taking their case to the next level, by asking the Supreme Court for another review.

Monsanto executive Scott Partridge maintained that “no regulatory body in the world has concluded that glyphosate causes cancer,” and claimed that so-called “independent researchers” had concluded that the IARC used ‘“flawed and incomplete science” to draw their conclusion.

Perhaps Partridge is referring to one Bob Tarone — the man who authored a report decrying the IARC findings as a “flawed and incomplete summary.” Funny how Tarone used almost the same exact words as Partrdige, eh? Tarone was also featured in a hit piece to salvage Monsanto’s reputation.

It comes as no surprise that this so-called “independent researcher” actually turned out to be a paid shill for Monsanto.

IARC reports that his 2017 “research” paper will be amended to denote the fact that he was paid for his “opinion” by Monsanto, and that the revision will be re-labeled an “opinion paper” instead of a “research paper.”

Monsanto is known for stooping low to keep profits high; who knows what kind of scheme they’ll try to pull off next. Stay current on their latest atrocities at Monsanto.news.

Source:  Dr. Mercola

The Prophecy of the Eagle and the Condor is a story about the unification of the indigenous peoples of North America with those of South America. The Eagle of the north is said to represent masculine energy, as well as the energy of technological advancement and the focus of the mind. While the Condor of the south represents feminine energies and our connection to the earth and our own nature, along with the softness of the heart.

Of Incan origin, the prophecy has been told in many cultures, and points to the present day when after a long period of separation and dominance by the masculine, the two will again unite, bringing balance and harmony to our aching world.

The unification would heal old wounds and temper the destructive and dominating characteristics of modern society precisely at a time when all seems lost.

Here, author and former economic hitman John Perkins describes this prophecy.

In the following video, indigenous leaders and elders from both continents speak about the meaning of this prophecy and what it holds for our future.

“For us, us indigenous, there is no coincidence for us. Everything has a purpose. Bringing together people, uniting hearts, uniting the love, embracing the love of humanity, of our sacred mother earth, the universe, the light that shines on us everyday. What we call in our language the time of Pachacuti, the time of transformation.” [Source]

Indeed it is a time of transformation, and we can see how the cultures of North and South America are coming together in order to transform, largely to share sacred plant medicines and to work together to create alliances to conserve and protect mother earth, and to resist the domination of the corporate state.

The hour is late, however, and in the back pages of the news a pair of recent stories offer a warning that this prophecy is in danger of being plowed under by the unchecked powers of the corporatocracy.

In Argentina, activists recently issued a call for help to save the condor, which is at present being wiped out by the poisons introduced into the environment by the agrochemical industry.

Recently, thirty-four condors in Mendoza, Argentina were found dead, the result of chemical poisoning. Fundación Bioandina Argentina warns that this happening in many parts of the country.

READ: HOW MONSANTO DESTROYED RURAL ARGENTINA

Argentina is being poisoned on a massive scale by the carless overuse of Monsanto’s deadly herbicide glyphosate. The poisoning is affecting the health of people, causing shocking deformations and crippling illnesses, yet the industry presses onward, continuing to market and sell these chemicals as a safe way to boost agricultural production.

At the same time, conservationists in North America are asking for help to save the American bald eagle, who is at present suffering a similar fate. Eagles are being brought into rescue centers, some barely able to lift their heads, as their environment has become so toxic, poisoned by lead, DDT, and modern agrochemicals.

The heart-breaking significance of these die-offs is felt in the context of the Prophecy of the Eagle and the Condor. Our chances at reunification and global transformation are being killed off by the forces of greed and domination. This prophecy of hope is being stolen from us.

Support the movement to save South American condors by signing this petition. And support efforts to help the bald eagle by supporting The Indigenous American.

This article (The Dying Prophecy of the Eagle and the Condor) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to DylanCharles and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Source:   No More Fake News

Huge organic farm under threat: County will invade and spray Roundup if not stopped

What?? A county government is going to destroy a massive organic farm?

by Jon Rappoport
May 15, 2017

“I have a great idea. We’re the Sherman County government. We have power. Let’s claim Azure Farms can’t control their weeds. Let’s come in and invade them with Roundup and other toxic chemicals. Let’s destroy their organic farm. We know the spraying won’t wipe out the weeds—it’ll make the situation worse. But who cares? Let’s open up ourselves to massive lawsuits. I’m sure Monsanto will give us some legal help. We can set a fantastic precedent. No organic farm is safe. No organic farmer has the right to protect his land from the government. Isn’t that a terrific idea?”

Government trespass, invasion?

So far, I have seen no coverage of this issue in Oregon newspapers. Why not? Also, I find nothing on the Sherman County, Oregon, government website about a massive spraying program.

A local government is going to decimate a huge organic farm with herbicide?

Azure Farms, a 2000-acre organic farm in Oregon, states it is under threat from the local Sherman County government. Why? Because Sherman County officials are re-interpreting a law concerning the “control of noxious weeds,” so it means “eradication.”

These weeds can be controlled on an organic farm, but the only way they can be eliminated (according to conventional “science”) is by spraying. And that means Roundup and other toxic chemicals. That would decimate the organic nature of the farm. That would decertify it as an organic farm.

Further, according to Azure, Sherman County plans to put a lien on the farm, forcing it to pay for the spraying.

The deadline for expressing opposition is May 22. A better deadline is May 17.

Here is the complete press release from Azure Farms and the ways to register your concern:

Azure Farms is a working, certified organic farm located in Moro, central Oregon, in Sherman County. It has been certified organic for about 18 years. The farm produces almost all the organic wheat, field peas, barley, Einkorn, and beef for Azure Standard.

Sherman County is changing the interpretation of its statutory code from controlling noxious weeds to eradicating noxious weeds. These weeds include Morning Glory, Canada Thistle, and Whitetop, all of which have been on the farm for many years, but that only toxic chemicals will eradicate.

Organic farming methods – at least as far as we know today – can only control noxious weeds—it is very difficult to eradicate them.

Sherman County may be issuing a Court Order on May 22, 2017 to quarantine Azure Farms and possibly to spray the whole farm with poisonous herbicides, contaminating them with Milestone, Escort and Roundup herbicides.

This will destroy all the efforts Azure Farms has made for years to produce the very cleanest and healthiest food humanly possible. About 2,000 organic acres would be impacted; that is about 1.5 times the size of the city center of Philadelphia that is about to be sprayed with noxious, toxic, polluting herbicides.

The county would then put a lien on the farm to pay for the expense of the labor and chemicals used.

Contact Sherman County Court before May 17 when the next court discussion will be held.
Contact info:
1. Via email at lhernandez@co.sherman.or.us or
2. Call Lauren at 541-565-3416.

Show Sherman County that people care about their food NOT containing toxic chemicals.

Overwhelm the Sherman County representatives with your voices!

—end of Azure Farms statement—

Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor to jonathanturley.org, has been covering this story. He reached out and obtained a devastating letter from agricultural scientist, Charles Benbrook. Benbrook has his critics within the conventional pesticide and GMO research community. Here is Smith’s piece and Dr. Benbrook’s letter:

Yesterday I fielded an article concerning a rather distressing mandate by an Oregon county weed control agency seeking to force the application of hazardous herbicides onto a 2,000 acre organic farm owned by Azure Farms. Sherman County Oregon maintains this scorched earth policy is necessary to abate, or more specifically “eradicate”, weeds listed by state statute as noxious.

Now, the scientific community is responding to this overreaching government action by acting in the interests of health and responsible environmental stewardship through advocacy in the hopes that officials in Sherman County will reconsider their mandate.

Dr. Charles Benbrook is a highly credentialed research professor and expert serving on several boards of directors for agribusiness and natural resources organizations. Having read news of Sherman County’s actions, he penned an authoritative response I believe will make informative reading for those concerned by present and future implications in the forced use of herbicides under the rubric of noxious weed eradication, and the damage to organic farming generally arising from such mandates.

Charles Benbrook has a PhD in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and an undergraduate degree from Harvard University. He currently is a Visiting Professor at Newcastle University in the UK…

He was a Research Professor at Washington State University from 2012-2015, and served as the Chief Scientist of The Organic Center from 2006-2012. He was the Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture in the National Academy of Sciences from 1984-1990. He was the staff director of the Subcommittee on Department [USDA] Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture of the House Committee on Agriculture (1981-1983). He worked as an agricultural and natural resources policy expert in the Council for Environmental Quality in the last 1.5 years of the Carter Administration. He began Benbrook Consulting Services (BCS) in 1990, and continues to carry out projects with a wide range of clients via BCS

He coauthors an informative website Hygeia-Analytics.com.

I reached out to Dr. Benbrook and received permission to reprint his letter in the hope that with more attention, including that from the scientific community, we can arrive at a reasonable solution to the county’s concerns. Here is Dr. Benbrook’s letter:…

Tom McCoy
Joe Dabulskis
Sherman County Commissioners
Lauren Hernandez
Administrative Assistant
Sherman County, Oregon
Rod Asher
Sherman Country Weed District Supervisor
Moro, Oregon
Alexis Taylor
Director
Oregon Department of Agriculture

Dear Ms. Hernandez el al:

I live in Wallowa County. I learned today of the recent, dramatic change in the Sherman County noxious weed control program and the plan to forcibly spray a 2,000-acre organic farm in the county.

Over a long career, I have studied herbicide use and efficacy, public and private weed control efforts, the linkages between herbicide use and the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, and the public health and environmental impacts of herbicide use and other weed management strategies.

I served for six years, along with fellow Oregonian Barry Bushue, past-president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, on the USDA’s AC 21 Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Issues arising from herbicide use were a frequent topic of discussion during our Committee’s deliberations.

I have published multiple scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals on glyphosate, its human health risks, and the impact of genetically engineered crops on overall herbicide use and the spread of resistant weeds. In a separate email, I will forward you copies of my published research relevant to the use of herbicides, and glyphosate in particular.

The notion that Sherman County can eradicate noxious weeds by blanket herbicide spraying is deeply misguided. I cannot imagine a single, reputable university weed scientist in the State supporting the idea that an herbicide-based noxious weed eradication program would work (i.e., eradicate the target weeds) in Oregon, or any other state. To hear another opinion from one of the State’s most widely known and respected weed scientists, I urge the County to consult with Dr. Carol Mallory-Smith, Oregon State University.

I also doubt any corporate official working for Monsanto, the manufacturer of glyphosate (Roundup), would agree or endorse the notion that any long-established weed in Sherman County, noxious or otherwise, could be eradicated via blanket spraying with Roundup, or for that matter any combination of herbicides.

Before proceeding with any county-mandated herbicide use justified by the goal of eradication, I urge the County to seek concurrence from the herbicide manufacturer that they believe use of their product will likely eradicate your named, target, noxious weeds.

Given that almost no one with experience in weed management believes that any long-established weed, noxious or otherwise, can be eradicated with herbicides, one wonders why the County has adopted such a draconian change in its noxious weed control program. I can think of two plausible motivations – a desire by companies and individuals involved in noxious weed control activities, via selling or applying herbicides, to increase business volume and profits; or, an effort to reduce or eliminate acreage in the Country that is certified organic.

Weeds are classified as noxious when they prone to spread, are difficult to control, and pose a public health or economic threat to citizens, public lands, and/or farming and ranching operations. Ironically, by far the fastest growing and mostly economically damaging noxious weeds in the U.S. are both noxious and spreading because they have developed resistance to commonly applied herbicides, and especially glyphosate.

There is near-universal agreement in the weed science community nationwide, and surely as well in the PNW, that over-reliance on glyphosate (Roundup) over the last two decades has created multiple, new noxious weeds posing serious economic, environmental, and public health threats.

In fact, over 120 million acres of cultivated cropland in the U.S. is now infested with one or more glyphosate-resistant weed (for details, see http://cehn-healthykids.org/herbicide-use/resistant-weeds/.

The majority of glyphosate-resistant weeds are in the Southeast and Midwest, where routine, year-after-year planting of Roundup Ready crops has led to heavy and continuous selection pressure on weed populations, pressure that over three-to-six years typically leads to the evolution of genetically resistant weed phenotypes, that can then take off, spreading across tens of millions of acres in just a few years.

Ask any farmer in Georgia, or Iowa, or Arkansas whether they would call “noxious” the glyphosate-resistant kochia, Palmer amaranth, Johnson grass, marestail, or any of a dozen other glyphosate-resistant weeds in their fields.

It is virtually certain that an herbicide-based attempt to eradicate noxious weeds in Sherman County would fail. It would also be extremely costly, and would pose hard-to-predict collateral damage on non-target plants from drift, and on human health and the environment. But even worse, it would also, almost certainly, accelerate the emergence and spread of a host of weeds resistant to the herbicides used in the program.

This would, in turn, leave the county, and the county’s farmers with not just their existing suite of noxious weeds to deal with, but a new generation of them resistant to glyphosate, or whatever other herbicides are widely used.

Sherman County’s proposal, while perhaps well meaning, will simply push the herbicide use-resistant weed treadmill into high gear. Just as farmers in other parts of the county have learned over the last 20 years, excessive reliance on glyphosate, or herbicides over-all, accomplishes only one thing reliably – it accelerates the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, requiring applications of more, and often more toxic herbicides, and so on before some one, or something breaks this vicious cycle.

I urge you to take into account two other consequences if the County pursues this deeply flawed strategy. Certified organic food products grown and processed in Oregon, and distributed by Oregon-based companies like Azure and the Organically Grown Company, are highly regarded throughout the U.S. for exceptional quality, consistency, and value.

Plus, export demand is growing rapidly across several Pacific Rim nations for high-value, certified organic foods and wine from Oregon. Triggering a high-profile fight over government-mandated herbicide spraying on certified organic fields in Sherman County will come as a shock to many people, who are under the impression that all Oregonians, farmers and consumers alike, are committed to a vibrant, growing, and profitable organic food industry.

Does Sherman County really want to erode this halo benefiting the marketing of not just organic products, but all food and beverages from Oregon?

Second, if Sherman County is serious about weed eradication, it will have to mandate widespread spraying countywide, and not just on organic farms, and not just for one year. The public reaction will be swift, strong, and build in ferocity. It will likely lead to civil actions of the sort that can trigger substantial, unforeseen costs and consequences. I am surely not the only citizen of the State that recalls the tragic events last year in Malheur County.

Plus, I guarantee you that the County, the herbicide applicators, and the manufacturers of the herbicides applied, under force of law on organic or other farms, will face a torrent of litigation seeking compensatory damages for loss of reputation, health risks, and the loss of premium markets and prices.

I have followed litigation of this sort for decades, and have served as an expert witness in several herbicide-related cases. While it is obviously premature to start contemplating the precise legal theories and statutes that will form the crux of future litigation, the County should develop a realistic estimate of the legal costs likely to arise in the wake of this strategy, if acted upon, so that the County Commissioners can alert the public upfront regarding how they will raise the funds needed to deal with the costs of near-inevitable litigation.

—end of Dr. Benbrook’s letter—

Yesterday, Sunday, I emailed the Sherman County government asking them whether they really intend to pursue this lunatic program. If and when I receive an answer, I’ll post it.

I also emailed Azure Farms, asking why they believe there is no coverage of this issue in Oregon newspapers. If I get an answer, I’ll post that, too.

Ordinarily, local papers will print a stories about contentious issues, however one-sided they may be. In this case, I find nothing.

Is it possible the threat of herbicide spraying has been overstated? Why would Azure issue a release claiming the spraying is imminent if it weren’t true? Why would Azure risk getting into a wrangle with the County government if the threat weren’t real? Why isn’t there any mention of the spraying program on the Sherman County website? Does the County actually think they can keep their intentions under wraps?

“I have a great idea. Let’s claim Azure Farms can’t control their weeds. Let’s come in and invade them with Roundup and other toxic chemicals. Let’s destroy their organic farm. We know the spraying won’t wipe out the weeds—it’ll make the situation worse. But who cares? Let’s open up ourselves to massive lawsuits. I’m sure Monsanto will give us some legal help. We can set a fantastic precedent. No organic farm is safe. No organic farmer has the right to protect his land from the government. Isn’t that a terrific idea?”

The Silence and the Storm

by Zen Gardner
January 22, 2015

We’re being jerked around something fierce but most don’t even recognize it. The abrupt up and down news cycle changes are really doing a number on humanity. There’s this periodic deadness of spirit in the world at large coupled with this sugary news of fake social and political improvements, and then they slam us with another off the wall staged event.

The powers that be seem to regularly recoil for more madness to unleash while assuaging their docile populace. The on/off rhythm of this social programming is designed to callous, inoculate, dumb down and condition so it’s really no surprise if you’ve been watching with open eyes. They keep periodically both lulling us to sleep then hitting us with manufactured issues and weird events to keep us on our heels while we dance the defensive two-step to their music. Such perfidy.

It is upsetting. It can’t help but be.

The dearth of good news while false promises and doublespeak pervade during a blatant societal clampdown is enough to drive anyone to distraction. Which it does. Hence the emphasis on sports, fashion, entrancing Hollywand glitz and the like. What’s become the filler now, ironically enough, is global issues that are nothing but programmed diatribe to keep the war and police state narrative going. “Ho hum. Enemies everywhere, shut everything the hell down. We’re under attack blah blah. It’s all to insure our security and we’re safe here. Yay Amerika. Now pass the deep fried bullshit and shut up, the game’s on.”

The Lull During the Cull

This perceived lull is intuitive to the awake. We know much bigger events await us as they need massive triggers to push their agenda. I was thinking this morning about the upcoming Superbowl and the fact that it’s on the 33rd parallel and the Phoenix symbolism as I wrote about before in Phoenix False Flag Nuke on the Table?

Not a pleasant thought and I don’t like to put it out there as far as intention goes, but we need to be aware.

Whether it’s there or somewhere else, the PTBs have been rattling their sabres over an attack on American soil for years, and have been stepping it up vigorously since this engineered ISIS uprising. It’s the same old ploy, create the “enemy” then use what “they” do to justify whatever is on the agenda. Comatose Americans will fall for it as usual and the “world” will dutifully follow suit. Whatever the event or events, they always rattle political and societal bones far and wide to spark new clampdowns and stepped up draconian measures worldwide.

Meanwhile, the Slow Kill Proceeds

As if that isn’t dark enough, the poisoning of humanity continues. There’s enough aluminum and barium, glyphosate, GMOs, pharmaceuticals, EMFs and radiation (et al) being pumped out to stun just about any immune system and numb anyone’s brain. The reaction of the majority of such a stunted race will no doubt follow the programmed lead.

And that’s as beyond Huxley-Orwellian as you can get.

I’m clearly speaking to the informed, because we are not only aware of this madness, but are also not under their control, nor will we be. But this sits in the back of any awakened mind as things continue to deteriorate. These control mechanisms are aimed at the unknowing and unseeing, of whom there are way too many. Those that wake up, and there are more by the hour, gain control of their minds and lives. Those who don’t are blindly walking into a mass grave.

We cannot be ignorant of our current condition. It’s dire, any way you look at it. Whatever our understanding of this imposed madness, we seem destined to face serious immediate consequences and we need to be on our toes as we inform others of the reality encircling our species. Trying to identify the source of this control system is important but not essential to our survival. Dismantling whatever we can, mostly in the hearts of men, is our mission.

Sound the Alert

If my message has been anything it’s been to help people wake up and connect the dots, much like many others concerned for their fellow humans. It rends the heart to see such death and destruction rained down on our planet but this is our current reality and we can’t just bury our heads in the sand and attend the next celebration of life expo without this understanding firmly under our belts.

Yes, we can dance to the rhythm of the Universe and herald in the new dawn of consciousness, but we need to be awake and aware and not in denial or deliberately naive.

These hard realities sit before our eyes daily as they roll out their agenda. It’s not pretty and is more absurdly counter intuitive all the time, yet they play this card and seem to get away with it. After all, they control the media so that’s how it appears. But it’s not the case. More people are awakening by the day and are beginning to say “no more!” When individuals and their family’s lives are directly threatened things finally start to become clear and right action kicks into gear.

This is what they’re anticipating and why the militarized police build up is taking place. They know this is coming. After all, they designed this madness.

We Are Many, They Are Few

United action trumps all. When we coalesce into a cohesive force for a clear objective things begin to change, even if only energetically. That’s why words are so powerful. Aligning minds and spirits in a common understanding and goal is the most powerful weapon we have. Again, this is why they’re perpetrating the current stepped up clampdown on free speech, which has in typical Orwellian form been kicked off by the murder of those practicing free speech in the Paris set up.

Go figure. No, don’t. It doesn’t make any sense. That’s an essential part of their game.

That world leaders get a phone call to show up at this staged event in Paris is direct evidence of a dark cabal behind world affairs, but few would be able to recognize that. Who coordinated that? What pressures were brought to bear on these shills? Anyway, the world isn’t looking at why, they just react to what they are shown and told. A very, very sad state of affairs for humanity.

The good news is we are alive, very alive, and that drives them crazy. The elite mindset is that we are less than insects, a population of workers that don’t deserve to live except to bring them breakfast in the morning and clean their mansions. Sci-fi has made this clear for decades yet no one pays any attention. The above board eugenics movement in the first part of the last century was shut down because of its arrogant anti-human thrust, but they just went underground. They’ve been leaking out from their overflowing sewer covers ever since.

That’s what we’re up against. An anti-human force that seeks to not only rule, but transform our race and very planet.

It’s time to stand up and tell it like it is. You may be ridiculed, but there are those that will hear you. Maybe not now, but the time will soon come when the truth will sink in.

Perhaps it won’t be too late for this world after all.

I don’t know.

I do know once you’ve woken up the peace, love and truth flood in to where we know all is well where it really matters. But the responsibility to care for our fellow human beings is a big part of the territory, so it’s time to act on it.

You’ll know who is who by that trademark. Look for the sincere, sacrificial love. It’s what the family of humankind is all about.

Let’s do our part.

Love always,

Zen

Zen Gardner is an impactful and controversial author and speaker with a piercing philosophical viewpoint. His writings have been circulated to millions and his personal story has caused no small stir amongst the entrenched alternative pundits. His book You Are the Awakening has met rave reviews and is available on amazon.com. You Are the Awakening examines the dynamics of the awakening to a more conscious awareness of who we are and why we are here – dynamics which are much different from the programmed approach of this world we were born into.