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
Isabelle Z
June 16, 2017
Life is full of frustrations, from rush hour traffic to overly complex tax codes. However, if you’re Forbes contributor Kavin Senapathy, even the mere act of going to the grocery store is torture. It’s not the bad music they play or a shortage of cashiers that makes this mundane task so annoying for her – it’s Non-GMO Project Verified Labels.
Yes, you read that correctly: This woman claims these Non-GMO labels are “ruining” her shopping experience. They are just a few words slapped onto food packaging with an image of an unassuming-looking butterfly, yet somehow they are turning her trips to the supermarket into an unbearable undertaking.
What’s even more outrageous, this easily frustrated individual says that people do not have a “right to know” if food is GMO because she feels that GMOs are essentially “impossible to define.” She also says these labels don’t tell us anything meaningful. That’s funny; GMOs are a huge topic of debate throughout the world and everyone on both sides seems to know exactly what people are referring to when they use the term.
She might not want to know if her food contains GMOs, but plenty of other people certainly do. Why else would 3,000 brands go to the trouble of having 43,000 products verified by them? Granted, the label is not quite the same as an organic certification, but it does give peace of mind that a company has avoided GMOs in all aspects of food production. It doesn’t consider whether or not a product was exposed to chemical fertilizers or other synthetic substances like the USDA organic label does, but it’s still a good mark to look out for when deciding between two products that otherwise appear to be similar.
Consumers do indeed have a right to know what the products they are buying contain. If you don’t care whether you consume GMOs or not, that’s your right. In that case, don’t look for the label, buy whatever you want, go home and eat it and roll the dice with your health. There is no reason to get worked up over a label on packaging – unless, of course, you are being paid to make a point about it.
She’s taking this really hard for someone who ostensibly has no vested interest in the matter. A quick scroll through some of the author’s past articles for Forbes, however, brings up an interesting and wholly unsurprising trend: She’s quite fond of defending Monsanto.
One of her articles, “Monsanto Found Guilty in Fake Trial that Distracted from Real Problems”, calls the firm a “symbolic scapegoat.” Another piece, “The Anti-Vaccine and Anti-GMO Movements Are Inextricably Linked and Cause Preventable Suffering” tries to cast people who are against dangerous practices like eating food doused in carcinogenic herbicides in a negative light. She also wrote an article telling America to “break up with Dr. Oz,” a vocal GMO critic with a huge television audience.
What do all of these pieces have in common? Senapathy’s articles all read like pro-GMO propaganda. In fact, it’s not out of the question that Monsanto itself penned the pieces, as we found out is common practice at the world’s most-hated firm. Internal emails released in a court case showed that staffers hire ghost writers to craft stories inaccurately portraying its products as safe and then pay scientists to sign off on them.
They also have a team of trolls who are paid to find any negative mentions of their products online and post some fake science in their defense. Therefore, it would not be surprising at all if they were enlisting writers like Senapathy to promote their business by discouraging people from seeking such labels.
Of course, none of this should come as any surprise from Forbes, a publication that published attack pieces by unethical individuals like PR operative Jon Entine against researchers who have the audacity to try to warn the public about GMO dangers. We see you, Forbes, and we know what you’re trying to do.
Sources:
Source: RT
June 12, 2017
Diamondback moths are a major global pest with their ability to ravage entire crop fields. Managing this invasive pest costs between $4-5 billion a year. Now, researchers at Oxitec are planning to release genetically-engineered sterile moths onto a cabbage field run by Cornell University in upstate New York. RT America’s Trinity talks with Tony Shelton, professor of entomology at Cornell University and Andrianna Natsoulas, executive director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York.
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: NaturalBlaze.com
Heather Callahan
April 26, 2017
But don’t worry…….they don’t bite?
The biggest trend for mad scientists now is the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes – the same mosquitoes that are noted for carrying tropical diseases and for getting genetically engineered under the guise of fighting the Zika. Zika is one of the latest banners of scare porn that the mainstream media has foisted on the public in a seeming attempt to pave the way for biotech companies to operate unhindered.
CNN quietly blurbed the following last week:
Thousands of mosquitoes infected with the Wolbachia bacteria were released in an area of the Florida Keys this week, in hopes of a new approach to control the disease-carrying female Aedes aegypti mosquito, which transmits Zika virus, Dengue fever and Chikungunya.
According to the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District, 20,000 male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes were released on Stock Island Tuesday for a field trial that will last 12 weeks. The mosquitoes, which do not bite, have been manually infected with a naturally occurring bacteria called Wolbachia.
CNN adds:
As explained in a presentation by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District, when these infected male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes mate with female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, the eggs she produces won’t hatch, thus they can’t reproduce. The result, they hope, will be a reduced or eliminated population of female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes and the viruses they spread, including Zika virus.
Similar to the GE mosquitoes that British company Oxitec are trying to release, the offspring die but in this case it is the mechanism of the bacteria doing it.
MosquitoMate claims that their mosquitoes are non-GMO and apparently they have already been released in Kentucky, California an New York. They work closely with University of Kentucky and say, “We rely on a natural approach rather than GMO to reduce the mosquito population in your backyard. We utilize a naturally-occurring bacterium called Wolbachia, which is present in insect cells, to infect our male mosquitoes.” Sounds pretty natural right? Injecting an unnaturally occurring bacterium into the mosquitoes before release…
Then the report goes on to say more scary things about Zika and pregnant women who could have babies born with microcephaly – a link that is questionable.
Andrea Leal, executive director for the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District said:
A successful trial with the Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes could mean the availability of a new tool in the fight against the Aedes aegypti mosquito for not only our District, but for Mosquito Control Districts around the country.
Floridians have been rejecting the release of British company Oxitec’s genetically modified mosquitoes for some time. Is this little “experiment” a way to finally release some type of modified pest?
Florida’s elected are still trying to push for Oxitec’s field trials on the public. It would include the release of thousands of GE mosquitoes. A similar push is happening in Houston, TX by – you guessed it – Oxitec! They just keep buzzing to other locations since they already received FDA approval.
Oxitec also conducted field trials in Brazil, Panama and the Cayman Islands. The company boasts that it has reduced the Aedes mosquito populations by up to 90 percent each time. One has to wonder what the ecological impact is for other animals, like bats and frogs, who may actually be losing most of their food supply. Another thing to consider is that the newly mutated offspring can actually survive maturity if they are antidoted with the antibiotic tetracycline.
One wonders what will happen in a future of competing biotech companies – will their experiments overlap or will the government simply dole out territories with which they can test their patented creatures?
So – don’t you love how the media just tells you what you get to accept and then juxtapose the scary reason why an unacceptable action has to take place right now?
These people should be in prison.
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: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
March 23, 2017
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art… Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be. Take action now, join Mercola.com’s GMO Awareness Week, and help spread the word about the health dangers of genetic engineering.
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
March 22, 2017
In this video, Dr.Joseph Mercola, natural health expert and Mercola.com founder, is joined with Ronnie Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), in discussing the current state of the opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To read other health articles, visit Mercola.com.
TheBreakAway 