Source: TheHealthRanger
Mike Adams
June 23, 2017
Pioneering food scientist and top selling author Mike Adams reveals why the new movie called “Food Evolution” is pure propaganda and disinformation from the chemical industry that poisons our food. Read more about the film at FoodEvolution.news.
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 16, 2017
It appears that big “agribusiness” – which we less-than-lovingly refer to here on this website as I.G. Farbensanto – is at it once again, using its usual bag of dirty tricks to attempt to outlaw normal seed exchanges in Africa (whew! is that the distinct whiff of imperialism and even racism that I smell here? Sure smells like it). At least, it is if the following article shared by Mr. V.T. is true:
Monsanto and Big Ag Colonizing Africa, Criminalizing Traditional Seed Exchanges
Just in case you missed how utterly draconian their policies are, and how utterly immoral and out of touch with humanity they are, consider these opening paragraphs of the article, noting in particular the use of GMOs as part of John Perkins’ “economic hit man” strategy:
Of the many concerns surrounding the dominance of agrichemicals companies and GMO foods, the most frightening dimension is that corporate manufactured seed is wiping out global biodiversity in food crops and creating a punitive legal framework for our total dependence on these companies for food.
Monsanto, Syngenta and other majors in agribusiness are presently colonizing Africa with the help of international aid programs which force nations into agreements requiring dependence on patented seeds, thereby prohibiting traditional seed exchanges.
Reporting on the situation in Tanzania, Ebe Daems of Mondiaal Nieuws informs us of recent legislation which puts local farmers under the threat of heavy fines of up to €205,300 and even prison terms of up to 12 years for violating the intellectual property rights of agrichemicals companies if individuals sell or trade in non-patented seed.
“If you buy seeds from Syngenta or Monsanto under the new legislation, they will retain the intellectual property rights. If you save seeds from your first harvest, you can use them only on your own piece of land for non-commercial purposes. You’re not allowed to share them with your neighbors or with your sister-in-law in a different village, and you cannot sell them for sure. But that’s the entire foundation of the seed system in Africa,” ~Michael Farrelly of TOAM, an organic farming movement in Tanzania.
This is highly disturbing, yet the laws are part of the umbrella of G8 agreements which require intellectual property rights to be enforced as part of an exchange for development aid. This type of agreement is shockingly similar to the methods described by economic hitman John Perkins, who, in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, explained how aid and development agencies conquer sovereign nations by offering at in exchange for natural resources.
Imagine, for a moment, that you’re a poor African farmer. You may, or may not be, literate, but even if you are, you probably aren’t a lawyer able to spend the time and sort through all the tangle of legalese that your government has engaged in, forbidding you to exchange your natural seeds in traditional seed exchanges.
The result?
As the author of the article, Alex Pietrowski points out (and as many others have also pointed out): the loss of biodiversity in seeds, and a corresponding loss of ability of natural seeds and food supply to adjust to changing natural conditions. And that imperils everyone, in the name of corporate profits and power for Mr. Globaloney. Why? Very simple: nature can respond far faster to changing conditions, than can Mr. Globaloney’s scientists in I.G. Farbensanto’s laboratories.
But no mind: I.G. Farbensanto would rather imperil the entire human food chain – including their own – in the name of profits and power than wake up and exercise their (here comes those words they hate) God-given rationality, conscience, and reason. There’s only one thing worse than the atheist Communist, and that’s the atheist crony corporate crapitalist. Both are forms of organized nihilism, but the crony crapitalist does it so much better, and makes more money in the process. Like the Communist, they attempt to shut down real discussion, and promote a narrative.
You know me, however, and know that I cannot resist a bit of high octane speculation when I see stories like this. I cannot help recall the third episode of the third season of the American television series, Blacklist, starring James Spader as the arch-international criminal mastermind, Raymond Reddington. In that episode, titled “Eli Matchett,” Reddington and former FBI agent Elizabeth Keene (played by actress Megan Boone), stumble less-than-accidentally on a plot of an argibusiness giant, a fictitious corporation called “Verdiant Industries,” to corrupt their own GMO seeds by genetically engineering a virus which attacks them, wiping out the food supply they themselves have foisted on most of the world via crony crapitalist means, which are, as they always are, special “concessions” for their products from governments.
Of course, the fictitious “Verdiant Industries” has a ready-made cure for their own pestilence, which after the food crisis breaks open, they will then offer to a starving world at a handsome profit, and, of course, even more power.
The trouble is, having watched the GMO “agribusiness” industry over the years, I put nothing past them.
And hence my nickname for them: I.G. Farbensanto.
Raymond Reddington, we need you.
See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
June 2, 2017
Is anyone surprised that Monsanto is moving on from “conventional” genetically modified organisms to gene editing? It seems that the world’s most evil corporation is convinced that the new gene editing technology that’s been taking the globe by storm will somehow ease consumer concerns about eating GMOs.
Whether or not the difference between the two is substantial enough to assuage the many fundamental issues that surround GMO seeds, which extend far beyond just concerns about the effects of consumption, has yet to be seen. Personally, this writer feels that the alleged differences between “genetically modified” and “gene-edited” are not going to be very moving.
Dr. Robert Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer, recently told Fox Business, “I see gene editing very differently [than GMOs] because it’s being used today broadly by pharmaceutical, agricultural companies, universities and hundreds of startup companies — and I think there is broad support for this science and I think that is going to make a big difference.”
Supposedly, the key difference between GMOs and “gene-edited crops” is that while GMOs rely on genes from different species (resulting in transgenic organisms), these gene-edited versions will be “generated through precise editing of an organism’s native genome,” as Business Insider explains.
Monsanto has recently announced that they would be investing heavily into new gene editing technology, known as CRISPR/Cas-9, which is a gene editing technique that essentially allows scientists to select, snip and replace certain genetic components. It’s essentially a genetic “find and replace” tool — but there are many questions about its safety.
This technology purportedly allows scientists to manipulate a plant’s DNA without having to pull foreign DNA from other species, like current GMOs. However, you may recall that this same CRISPR-Cas9 technology was used to create human-pig embryos — which are, obviously, transgenic organisms.
The use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in crops, therefore, would not implicitly guarantee that any creations derived from it would be free of foreign DNA. The potential for transgenic creations is absolutely still quite real.
Fraley says that the CRISPR technology allows them to precisely edit a gene without having to replace it entirely. However, there will still likely be concerns about where the replacement parts for snipped genes are coming from. According to Fraley, we can expect to see the first gene-edited creations on the market within the next five years.
Megan Westgate, the executive director of Non-GMO Project, explained to Fox Business, “While these new technologies are touted to be more precise than older genetic engineering technologies, it is widely accepted in the scientific community that there can be ‘off target’ effects to the genome when the technologies are utilized. GMOs, including the products of these new technologies, have not been adequately tested—no long-term feeding studies have been conducted—and people are starting to connect these experimental technologies to health concerns.”
Fraley, like other GMO proponents, claims that the skepticism of GMOs is due to the fact that Monsanto failed to educate people about the “science” of GMOs early on. And of course, by education he means “brain-washing.” They didn’t realize that the public would be smart enough to ask pertinent questions not just about the safety of GMOs, but everything that tends to come along with them: Pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers,and monocrop farming techniques — all of which can be harmful to the environment.
Claiming that there are “vast” differences between “genetically modified” and “gene-edited” crops could be seen as an exercise in semantics. The fact of the matter is that many people feel strongly about not eating food that has been modified in a lab, by humans who think they know what they’re doing. This is not likely to change just because a new label has been slapped on it.
Regardless of how you feel about genetically modified organisms, or their new “edited” counterparts, the fact remains that every person should have the right to choose what kind of food they want to consume — and the call to label these new “gene-edited” foods needs to begin before they hit the shelves.
Sources:
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 14, 2017
It has finally happened: human embryos have been genetically modified in China, by utilizing the CRISPR technique of genetic modification. Indeed, while the development is not surprising, as one might imagine, I have a few high octane speculations about it(and I would also like to thank all the readers here who sent me these two stories):
Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos
Frankly, I found the second article so disturbing that it is difficult for me to write about, particularly in connection with my habit of high octane speculation. Nonetheless, I want to draw your attention to the following paragraphs from the second article:
The technique used by Huang’s team involves injecting embryos with the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9, which binds and splices DNA at specific locations. The complex can be programmed to target a problematic gene, which is then replaced or repaired by another molecule introduced at the same time. The system is well studied in human adult cells and in animal embryos. But there had been no published reports of its use in human embryos.
Huang and his colleagues set out to see if the procedure could replace a gene in a single-cell fertilized human embryo; in principle, all cells produced as the embryo developed would then have the repaired gene. The embryos they obtained from the fertility clinics had been created for use in in vitro fertilization but had an extra set of chromosomes, following fertilization by two sperm. This prevents the embryos from resulting in a live birth, though they do undergo the first stages of development.
…
The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.”
His team also found a surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations assumed to be introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 complex acting on other parts of the genome. This effect is one of the main safety concerns surrounding germline gene editing because these unintended mutations could be harmful. The rates of such mutations were much higher than those observed in gene-editing studies of mouse embryos or human adult cells. And Huang notes that his team likely only detected a subset of the unintended mutations because their study looked only at a portion of the genome, known as the exome. “If we did the whole genome sequence, we would get many more,” he says.
…
He adds that critics of the paper have noted that the low efficiencies and high number of off-target mutations could be specific to the abnormal embryos used in the study. Huang acknowledges the critique, but because there are no examples of gene editing in normal embryos he says that there is no way to know if the technique operates differently in them. (Emphasis added)
There you have it: using the latest CRISPR technique, embryos were successfully modified, and those modifications would have been hereditary had the embryos been viable. But note what I can only hazard was probably a completely unexpected (and hence, ‘played down’) result: there were “off target mutations,” in other words, DNA mutations that were not planned and not expected, and might also have been passed down. Notably, we’re not informed what those “off-target mutations” actually consisted of; would they have resulted in entirely new congenital diseases or, alternatively, special “uniquenesses”? Might they have resulted – to exaggerate my point here – in people born with three eyes or six digits or truncated brains, or conversely, with expanded intellect or physical strength and endurance? We simply don’t know; the article does not say, and in that silence, I strongly suspect lies a tale.
Of course, as the article points out, critics of the study pointed out that these “off target mutations” may simply have been the result of the unusual embryos – fertilized by sperm from two different donors and hence of non-normal genetic derivation – that were used in the study.
Herewith my high octane speculation: what if they were not the result of the unusual embryos, but rather, in innate – perhaps epigenetic – response to the whole process of this type of genetic editing altogether? what if we are looking at a kind of “programmed-in defense mechanism” against tinkering in a fundamental fashion with DNA in general, or human DNA in particular? Many geneticists are in fact already questioning the standard genetic explanations for the development of individual life and its characteristics, suggesting there is another mechanism “beyond the genes” – hence the term “epi- (beyond) genetics” (genes) – that we do not yet understand.
In short, I think humanity was just served a timely warning with the appearance of “off target mutations,” the warning being: tread with great care, and great caution, and perhaps even, “Don’t tread here at all.”
See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 7, 2017
In case you didn’t catch the story, artificial wombs have been successfully created and tested… at least, for sheep, according to this article shared by Mr. B:
An artificial womb successfully grew baby sheep — and humans could be next
Now, of course, this is all being sold – predictably enough and just according to the playbook – as a potential health benefit, for if it can be applied to humans, the technology could conceivably help premature babies; here’s the way the article puts it in its first three paragraphs:
Inside what look like oversized ziplock bags strewn with tubes of blood and fluid, eight fetal lambs continued to develop — much like they would have inside their mothers. Over four weeks, their lungs and brains grew, they sprouted wool, opened their eyes, wriggled around, and learned to swallow, according to a new study that takes the first step toward an artificial womb. One day, this device could help to bring premature human babies to term outside the uterus — but right now, it has only been tested on sheep.
It’s appealing to imagine a world where artificial wombs grow babies, eliminating the health risk of pregnancy. But it’s important not to get ahead of the data, says Alan Flake, fetal surgeon at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of today’s study. “It’s complete science fiction to think that you can take an embryo and get it through the early developmental process and put it on our machine without the mother being the critical element there,” he says.
Instead, the point of developing an external womb — which his team calls the Biobag — is to give infants born months too early a more natural, uterus-like environment to continue developing in, Flake says.
(Emphasis added)
True enough, such a technology would be a boon for care of premature babies.
But like Mr. B., I have difficulty believing that this technology is not applicable to the earliest stages of pregnancy. And that brings me to my high octane speculation of the day…
… while such a technology might be beneficial in the care of premature babies, I strongly suspect there’s another reason set of reasons entirely for the creation of this technology, and that set of reasons boils down to just two words: genetic engineering. Conceivably, such a technology could fulfill two dreams – or rather, nightmares – of the transhumanist “community,” for it would be (1) a means not only to create but to gestate chimerical life forms, and (2) a means to create and gestate clones. Both purposes could be served by the perfection of this technology. In the latter case, it would be a kind of real world fulfillment of the film Island, staring Scottish actor Ewan McGregor, where human clones are literally gestated in such ‘biobags” and then “birthed” surgically on a pre-determined date.
The reason? There organs are going to be harvested for their “real” counterparts, and the clone – who is not viewed as a real “person” of course – is butchered, murdered, and thrown away. The technology, in other words, raises moral and jurisprudential issues. I’m one of those that maintains that human clones are persons, unique and different from their “originals” in the same way identical twins or triplets are different unique persons, regardless of the DNA similarities.
But watch, the transhumanist-progressive crowd will consult medical “ethicists” from the University of Oxford, who will contrive sophistical arguments why this is not the case.
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
March 30, 2017
Doctors in the U.K. have been given the first-ever license to create “three-parent babies,” with the controversial IVF treatment taking place as early as later this year. [1]
The license was granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to a team who pioneered the mitochondrial pronuclear transfer technique at the University of Newcastle.
The development takes humanity closer to the creation of “designer babies,” but the doctors at the Newcastle Fertility Centre say they only plan to use the technology “to help families affected by these devastating diseases.”
Mary Herbert, a professor of Reproductive Biology at the Centre, says:
“Many years of research have led to the development of pronuclear transfer as a treatment to reduce the risk of mothers transmitting disease to their children. It’s a great testament to the regulatory system here in the U.K. that research innovation can be applied in treatment.” [2]
Read: “Steer Clear of Creating GMO Babies,” Scientists and Ethicists Say
The IVF treatment involves halting the fertilization process to remove faulty mitochondria that can cause fatal heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders, blindness, and muscular dystrophy. These are known as mitochondrial diseases, and they are incurable conditions that get passed down the maternal line, affecting about one in 6,500 children worldwide.
It’s known as “three-parent IVF” because the babies are born from genetically modified embryos, and they would have DNA from a mother, a father, and a female donor.
In 2016, Britain’s parliament voted to change the law to allow three-parent IVF if and when it was ready for licensing. However, the HFEA still had to approve each clinic and each patient on an individual basis before the treatment could occur.
Now that the Newcastle Fertility Centre has received a license, the HFEA must approve each applicant for treatment. [2]
Professor Sir Doug Turnbull, who has led the team at Newcastle in developing the new IVF therapy, says:
“This will allow women with mitochondria DNA mutations the opportunity for more reproductive choice. Mitochondria diseases can be devastating for families affected and this is a momentous day for patients who have tirelessly campaigned for this decision.” [1]
Last fall, a team of U.S. doctors announced that the world’s first three-parent baby had been born in Mexico on 6 April 2016 to a Jordanian couple. The team held off on the announcement for five months to make sure the child didn’t have the same condition that killed his siblings, Leigh syndrome – a fatal disorder that affects the central nervous system.
Read More At: NaturalSociety.com
__________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:
[1] The Sun
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 10, 2017
Remember the glorious promise of agribusiness in the 1950s? Or even more importantly, the glorious and breathtakingly exciting days of the Administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, when the doctrine of “substantial equivalence” signaled the glorious end to human hunger, vastly expanded crop yields, and other boons to human health? Remember all the confident and assured results of modern science? Remember how we were assured this was “the solution?”
Well, Mr. C.S., a regular reader here found an important article by F. William Engdahl, which points out yet another emerging trend in agriculture that we’re certain I.G. Farbensanto, and its new member-corporation, Bayer (of the real I.G. Farben-Carl Duisberg fame).
To set that emerging trend into context, let us recall that IG Farbensanto was quick to reassure the public that their corporate science was thorough and that there were no dangers to GMOs. Then the independent science began to come in, linking cancers in agricultural animal populations to GMO consumption. Then came the studies of human cancer-GMO correlations. Then came Russia’s ban on GMOS (the only sane country in the world, in my opinion, on this issue).
Oh but wait… even though those might be a risk in a certain segment of the population, we need GMOs nonetheless, because they dramatically increase crop field yields, and that will mean more food, and more poor people can be fed.
Of course, they weren’t telling us that Indian farmers were committing suicide because they could not afford to pay for the more expensive GMO seeds, and of course, more yield and more GMOs mean more money lining the pockets of IG Farbensanto and its shareholders.
But… woops!… then came studies about how, over time, yields in GMO fields actually decreased, while costs of maintaining production increased, relative to good ole mother nature and her natural seeds, which any one can plant without having to pay a royalty or license fee (mother nature’s seeds, you see, aren’t patented, and therefore IG Farbensanto can’t make money from them).
Well, you can add to the list the following:
Will Superweeds Choke GMO to a Timely Death in USA?
The problem is that Mother Nature can react faster than the Rockefailure interests can strategize its plots and cabals:
Now with ruthlessness against the crass violation of natural law that is inherent in the entire GMO eugenics experiment, nature is waging its own clever war on GMO crops in the USA. And make no mistake, the intent of the Rockefeller Foundation in funding the creation of GMO back in the 1970’s was and still is just that–eugenics.
It seems that the lies of Monsanto-Bayer, Dow-Dupont, ChemChina-Syngenta are coming back to haunt them. Far from their widely advertised claim that their patented GMO seeds need far less chemical weed-killers, USA farmers are finding out, over a period of years, that their crop acreages sprayed with ample doses of Roundup or other glyphosate-based weed-killers are fostering the growth of toxic Superweeds. Those superweeds are “glyphosate-resistant” meaning the Monsanto and other glyphosate weed-killers are useless. Farmers are forced to pour on other toxic weed-killer options to salvage their crops.
Three-quarters US prime Farmland
An alarming new study has just been published by the University of Illinois Plant Clinic highly relevant and highly ignored by mainstream irresponsible media. The study took some 593 field samples of approximately 2,000 waterhemp and palmer amaranth (pigweed) plants from ten farm states across the USA Midwest, the heartland of world agriculture, or at least until recently. They conducted careful testing and found the alarming results that across America’s farmbelt, 456 of the whole 593 field sites sampled showed Glyphosate Resistance – a total of 76.8%.
In other words, plant GMO seeds, and over time, your field will require more and more pesticides to deal with the super-resistant weeds. The bottom line: you have to love it, because in their greed and utter lack of respect for the principles of independent science, and for that matter, humanity itself, the GMO companies…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 4, 2017
A few weeks ago, you might recall, I blogged about the latest diabolical gimick being cooked up in the bubbling cauldrons of Muck Pharmaceuticals, our euphemistic code name for Big Pharma. What was the gimick? Vaccines that literally modified a person’s sneeze with more of the same muck. The plan is relatively simple: (1) take a vaccine, (2) sneeze, and (3) thereby spread the vaccine to other people, who may not even want it. Add this to the arm’s length long list of other technologies – nano-technology, genetic engineering, CRISPR and so on – and one has a veritable witches brew of all manner of mischief. Then of course, we have the lunacy of the transhumanists who want to chip everyone (hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar), and put computer-brain interfaces inside you and everyone will be happy and there will be population control and world peace. Think of it as “the electronic LSD trip”.
The hang up of course, has been that pesky stuff called DNA.
Until now, for according to this article kindly shared by Mr. M.B., scientists at the university of Arizona have come up with… well, read for yourself:
Scientists Create Active Controllable Electronic DNA Switch
DNA has unique electrical properties that have for years interested pioneering engineers trying to advance the development of tiny, low-cost electronic devices. Now, a research team led by scientists at Arizona State University (ASU) have developed the first controllable DNA switch to regulate the flow of electricity within a single, atomic-sized molecule—much like flipping your light switch at home, only on a scale 1000 times smaller than a human hair.
“It has been established that charge transport is possible in DNA, but for a useful device one wants to be able to turn the charge transport on and off. We achieved this goal by chemically modifying DNA,” explained senior study investigator Nongjian Tao, Ph.D., professor of electrical engineering and director of the Center for Biosensors and Bioelectronics within the Biodesign Institute at ASU. “Not only that, but we can also adapt the modified DNA as a probe to measure reactions at the single-molecule level. This provides a unique way for studying important reactions implicated in disease, or photosynthesis reactions for novel renewable energy applications.”
There’s another statement that’s important here, a little further in the article:
To accomplish their goal, the investigators modified just one of the double-stranded DNA’s standard bases (A, T, C, or G) with another chemical group, called anthraquinone (Aq). Anthraquinone is a three-ringed carbon structure that can be inserted in between DNA base pairs but contains what chemists call a redox group (short for reduction, or gaining electrons, and oxidation, losing electrons).
Why is this statement important? Because it opens the door to how this new ability will be “sold” to the public: “Why, it will potentially help us be able to combat or even cure diseases with a known or suspected link to oxidation problems, cancer for example. Why, potentially, one might even be able to use the technique to repair or remake neural pathways. It’s hard to tell where this might go, we’re just beginning.” Now lest my usual trademark high octane speculation here might seem a bit over-the-top, it should be pointed out that in the very next sentence, the technique of how this will be “sold” to the public is clearly implicated:
Redox groups are also the foundation for how our bodies'(sic) convert chemical energy through switches that send all of the electrical pulses in our brains and hearts and communicate signals within every cell that may be implicated in the most prevalent diseases.
(Emphasis added)
Of course, the flip side of this switch is that if this technology impinges upon the switches “that send all of the electrical pulses in our brains and hearts” then it also has the potential to be that proverbial “kill switch” I and others have been warning about for a while.
Add this technology to the “sneeze vaccine” and voila, one has a pretty handy tool for all sorts of mischief.
So while Muck Pharmaceuticals may run commercials about this new wonder cure, also remember the darker potentials…
See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
March 2, 2017
Fast food has an undeniable appeal, despite its unhealthy reputation – it’s convenient, cheap and satisfying, making it attractive on several levels. On the other hand, fast food products are notoriously packed with unhealthy ingredients: highly-processed mystery meats, GMO products, pesticide-laden produce and more.
But is it possible to offer a classic fast food menu consisting of burgers, fries and shakes, etc. using all-natural, organic ingredients – and without having to charge exorbitant prices?
Benjamin Brittsan and his wife Nicolette are betting on the concept by opening the nation’s first certified-organic drive-thru burger chain, called Nic’s Organic Fast Food.
The first restaurant will open in the Rolling Meadows suburb of Chicago this February, with plans to open 50 more Chicago-area locations before launching the chain nationwide – if all goes according to plan.
Nic’s first location is a refurbished Pizza Hut that will seat 60 people indoors in addition to its drive-thru. The restaurant features a mascot named Nic the Organic Farmer – a muscular, life-sized super-hero figure in overalls who is ready to “take back fast food from the clutches of pesticides.”
Brittsan stresses that his products are truly certified organic and not merely labeled as such.
From the Chicago Eater:
“The restaurant’s products have been certified organic by Quality Assurance International… Certification means the foods are free of pesticides and other chemicals. The certification is something that comes with standards and isn’t an empty buzz phrase like ‘all natural,’ said Benjamin Brittsan.”
For example, the beef used in Nic’s hamburgers is USDA-certified organic and free of chemicals, antibiotics or hormones. But the all-organic standard extends to everything on the menu at Nic’s, including the chicken nuggets (made from organic white meat), french fries and even the drinks, which include organic juices, sodas and coffees.
But don’t expect a lot of low-fat, vegan-leaning menu items at Nic’s. Sure, you can order a fresh green salad or a veggie burger, but the emphasis – as with any fast food restaurant worthy of the name – is on big, greasy beef hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, french fries and sodas.
There’s nothing particularly healthy about the BigNic Bacon Burger – two beef patties, two slices of cheese, smoked bacon and all the trimmings – but the important thing, according to Brittsan, is what it doesn’t contain.
“The organic lifestyle doesn’t mean you’re eating any healthier in terms of the food,” he said. “What you’re benefiting from is from what’s not in the food.”
The prices at Nic’s are around the same as popular burger chains such as In-N-Out Burger or Steak ‘n Shake, with burgers at around $5 and combos for under $8.
Whether or not Nic’s can compete with the big fast food chains remains to be seen, but there does seem to be a trend towards fast food that uses fresh, natural ingredients.
Meanwhile, sales at McDonald’s and some of the other mega chains are slowing down significantly and part of the reason is that Mickey D’s and others have been so slow in cleaning up their act, in terms of using quality ingredients.
In fact, one of the headlines in today’s news concerned recent testing of chicken used in Subway products revealing that it contained less than 50 percent chicken DNA. One can only imagine what the rest of the product consisted of…
There will probably always be a market for greasy cheeseburgers, french fries and milkshakes, but it may no longer be possible to use the most questionable ingredients imaginable and expect the public to buy it – especially when restaurants like Nic’s can offer products that satisfy those fast food cravings without having to poison your body with GMOs, pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics.
Sources:
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 26, 2017
I am increasingly alarmed at the amount of power people are willing to surrender to big corporations, and to the GMO-pharmaceutical complex. Over the years I’ve been attempting to alert people not only to the dangers of these products, but more importantly, to the dangers of the mercantilist policies and corporate-government linkage that has been erected to protect them. Recently, one commentator on one of my blogs on this subject pointed out that one of my blogs contained an error: I had maintained a speculative scenario in which big pharma could be sued. The individual pointed out that vaccine makers cannot be sued under current law. Well, to be frank, I knew that, though I was not clear about that in my blog. But the commentator raised the point I was trying to make anyway: such a policy enshrined as a “law” is another case of the same mercantilism at work; and in the absence of the protection of law, and without recourse in complaints before the courts, pharmaceutical companies can, in effect, put whatever they please into their vaccines (and it appears they’ve been doing just that), and turn entire populations into their lab rats. They then control the discussion through control of journals and paid-for “science”, and work to mandate vaccinations in the general population.
The question is why? What’s the purpose, beyond keeping people sick and selling pharmaceutical “cures” to problems which they very well may have created (think of the vaccines-autism link)? Many would argue it’s because vaccines are viewed as a surreptitious way of enforcing population control, and indeed, there are some suggestive statements from vaccine advocates to this effect:
4 times Bill Gates said vaccines would reduce world population
It’s hard to follow Mr. Gates’ logic here: he seems, on the one hand, to be genuinely concerned to reduce childhood mortality from illnesses via vaccinations, but at the same time is heard advocating “reproductive health services,” a convenient euphemism for you-know-what, and is also heard implying that this will cut down on population growth. To be sure, in areas where infant and childhood mortality is high, people tend to have more children. And this appears to be Mr. Gates’ real point, taken out of context in the video clips. Nonetheless, when billionaire busybodies smile reassuringly, I tend to shudder, for like it or not, he does couple vaccination with population reduction. In any case, I use these remarks merely to illustrate what many out there believe the real covert agenda to be: population control and reduction through vaccination, and that implies covert ingredients to do just that. Another theory is that vaccines are being used as a wealth-harvesting mechanism: make people sick – with autism for example – and then harvest that family’s wealth thereafter by selling the expensive drugs that “treat” the condition.
However, there may be yet another agenda, suggested to me for today’s high octane speculation by the following article by Mr. Jon Rappaport, and shared by Mr. S.F.:
ALERT: New vaccines will permanently alter your DNA
Mr. Rappaport states something quite profound, and quite disturbing:
“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”
“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly two years ago.]
“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”
Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”
Alteration of the human genetic makeup.
Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line? (Emphases added)
So where’s my high octane speculation? In my book Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men I pointed out that the prospect of genetic engineering and the current legal practice literally allows corporations to own their genetic patents. I argued that, because of this, it is conceivable that someone receiving or experiencing a genetic modification to their DNA via one of these patented programs could, conceivably, end up having to pay for the privilege of such modification by becoming a permanent rentier of the modification, paying, in effect, a royalty or license fee to the company that owned the patent on it, for as long as that person exhibited the modification, and potentially for the rest of their lives. Think of it as the genetic version of what the GMO companies have managed to do with their seeds. Add to this the possibility that this modification could be passed to their children, and one gets the idea. A massive system of serfdom and wealth-harvesting could be introduced via gene-altering vaccines. Such a draconian system would, in effect, make everyone vassals to the company for their modifications; indeed, it is conceivable that so long as their DNA alterations exhibit the patented modifications, that they in effect become the property of the patent-holder.
Call it: “Slavery through genetic modification via vaccines.”
As Mr. Rappaport says at the end of his article:
If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.
The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.
And I would argue, that the sinister toad squatting in the middle of all of this is precisely current patent law, and what that might imply for the long-term goals of billionaire busybodies and their vaccine advocacy: it’s another way of “perfecting slavery collateral” in reducing everyone to feudal vassals, and increasing their own wealth. But this is all high octane speculation, to be sure. We’ll know if it’s true if, in fact, these billionaire busybodies and pharmaceutical companies start talking about “individual health care savings accounts” – which will be mandated of course – to pay for long term medical care and fees, which would cover payments of permanent royalty fees for the privilege of having one’s DNA modified by (mandated) vaccines.
What’s next to roll off the assembly line of designer drugs, therapies, and humans? Watch for it: cannibalism: in the form of stem cells being included in vaccines. And while we’re at it, let’s make them oral vaccines, just for good measure.
See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
TheBreakAway 