Food Evolution Movie nothing but chemical industry PROPAGANDA to poison our food

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.

Advertisements

I.G. Farbensanto At It Again: Seed Exchanges In Africa Under Pressure

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
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

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”.

Monsanto quietly announces they are investing heavily in gene editing

Image: Monsanto quietly announces they are investing heavily in gene editing

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.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

FoxBusiness.com

BusinessInsider.com

CNN.com

SustainableTable.org

Human Embryos “Edited” In China

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):

Engineering the Perfect Baby

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
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

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”.

Artificial Womb Created


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
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

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”.

U.K. Doctors Granted License to Create 3-Parent GM Babies

DNA
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.

Source: Daily Mail

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

[2] Scientific American

Daily Mail

Science Magazine

Superweeds Emerge & Target GMOs

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
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

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”.