War On You: Breaking Alternative News » Depopulation

Forced Sterilization Victims Granted $50,000 Over Admitted US ‘Eugenics’ Program

WarOnYou — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:00:56 +0000

Forced Sterilization Victims Granted $50,000 Over Admitted US ‘Eugenics’ Program

January 11, 2012

By Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post

This is no conspiracy theory — North Carolina officials are proposing that victims of forced sterilization programs be given $50,000 each in compensation, with the Associated Press admitting that the sterilization campaign was part of a “once-common public health practice called eugenics.”

Victims include thousands of individuals, such as criminals, mentally disabled, and women who were sterilized after giving birth to children as a product of rape.

The forced sterilizations occurred from 1929 to 1974 under admitted eugenics programs that officials claimed were ‘creating a better society’ by removing the reproductive abilities of criminals and those suffering from mental disorders. During this time periods, more than 7,600 individuals in North Carolina were sterilized. On a national scale, around 60,000 were forcibly sterilized under the same eugenics program.

Eugenics Program Linked to Nazi Germany, Targeted Mostly Black Women

What makes North Carolina’s rampant sterilizations so concerning, however, is that the program kept going on right through World War II despite the direct association between eugenics and Nazi Germany.

In fact, about 70% of all North Carolina’s sterilizations were performed after the war, with numbers peaking in the 1950s. Again, this is not something being made up; this is all reported by the Associated Press and other mainstream media outlets. According to the Associated Press report:

North Carolina’s program stood out because it ramped up sterilizations after World War II despite associations between eugenics and Nazi Germany.

The report also states within the first sentence that the practicing of eugenics was quite common during this time period:

People sterilized against their will under a discredited North Carolina state program should each be paid $50,000, a task force voted Tuesday, marking the first time a state has moved to compensate victims of a once-common public health practice called eugenics.

Perhaps the most criminal part of the forced sterilizations is the blatant racism involved. Most victims were poor, black women who were ‘deemed unfit to be parents’. Individuals as young as 10 were sterilized simply for not getting along with schoolmates or being promiscuous, and many parents were misled into sterilizing their children.

All of this happened in the United States, where government officials operated under a strict eugenics policy, seeing many people as ‘unfit’ to procreate. After this racist, Nazi-styled fertility purge, the victims may not receive a measly $50,000 decades after the fact.

GlaxoSmithKline Fined Over Illegal Vaccine Experiments Killing 14 Babies

WarOnYou — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:12:17 +0000

GlaxoSmithKline Fined Over Illegal Vaccine Experiments Killing 14 Babies

January 5, 2012

Print Version

By Anthony Gucciardi

Vaccine and drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been fined 400,000 pesos (around the equivalent of $93,000) by an Argentinian judge for killing 14 babies during illegal lab vaccine trials that were conducted between 2007 and 2008.

In addition to killing the children and experimenting with human beings, the judge asserted that the corporation actually falsified parental authorizations so that babies could participate without legitimate parental permission.

Judge Marcelo Aguinsky made the decision after a report was released on the subject by the National Administration of Medicine, Food and Technology (ANMAT in Spanish). Since 2007, 15,000 children below the age of one from Mendoza, San Juan, and Santiago del Estero have been participating in the illegal research. These babies were recruited by GSK from poor families that attended public hospitals. It was found that of the 14 baby deaths, 7 died in Santiago del Estero; 5 in Mendoza; and 2 in San Juan.

GSK Recruited Doctors, Pressured Illiterate Parents into Signing Over Children

Currently, it is unknown how many babies suffered serious side effects, adverse reactions, or if this is truly the total death count. As with many other vaccinations such as Gardasil, the official death count continues to rise as leaked reports from the FDA and elsewhere continue to surface.
One pediatrician working at the public hospital when GSK began recruiting babies for their illegal human trials said that not only did GSK force illiterate parents into handing over their children, but they also ‘recruited’ several doctors working at the hospital into their cause.

Ana Marchese, a pediatrician at the Eva Perón children’s public hospital in Santiago del Estero, stated:

GSK Argentina set an protocol at the hospital, and recruited several doctors working there. These doctors took advantage of many illiterate parents whom take their children for treatment by pressuring and forcing them into signing these 28-page consent forms and getting them involved in the trials.

It is quite clear that GSK has zero regard for human health, morals, and will go to any length to experiment with their latest jab regardless of the casualties. Of the 15,000 babies that were reported to be a part of the illegal trials, many may suffer from life-altering illness and serious side effects.

Amazingly, many parents had no idea they were signing over the lives of their children to GSK, as they were completely illiterate. Meanwhile, GSK sells their latest shots and pharmaceutical drugs to United States consumers, raking in record profits each year as the second-largest drugmaker.

Explore More:

GSK Forced Illiterate Parents Into Signing Over Child in Illegal Vaccine Experiments

North Carolina Weighs Restitution for Victims of Sterilization Program

WarOnYou — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:34:01 +0000

North Carolina Weighs Restitution for Victims of Sterilization Program

December 11th, 2011

Via: New York Times:

Now, along with scores of others selected for state sterilization — among them uneducated young girls who had been raped by older men, poor teenagers from large families, people with epilepsy and those deemed to be too “feeble-minded” to raise children — Mr. Holt is waiting to see what a state that had one of the country’s most aggressive eugenics programs will decide his fertility was worth.

Although North Carolina officially apologized in 2002 and legislators have pressed to compensate victims before, a task force appointed by Gov. Bev Perdue is again wrestling with the state’s obligation to the estimated 7,600 victims of its eugenics program.

The board operated from 1933 to 1977 as an experiment in genetic engineering once considered a legitimate way to keep welfare rolls small, stop poverty and improve the gene pool.

Thirty-one other states had eugenics programs. Virginia and California each sterilized more people than North Carolina. But no program was more aggressive.

Only North Carolina gave social workers the power to designate people for sterilization. They often relied on I.Q. tests like those done on Mr. Holt, whose scores reached 73. But for some victims who often spent more time picking cotton than in school, the I.Q. tests at the time were not necessarily accurate predictors of capability. For example, as an adult Mr. Holt held down three jobs at once, delivering newspapers, working at a grocery store and doing maintenance for a small city.

Wealthy businessmen, among them James Hanes, the hosiery magnate, and Dr. Clarence Gamble, heir to the Procter & Gamble fortune, drove the eugenics movement. They helped form the Human Betterment League of North Carolina in 1947, and found a sympathetic bureaucrat in Wallace Kuralt, the father of the television journalist Charles Kuralt.

A proponent of birth control in all forms, Mr. Kuralt used the program extensively when he was director of the Mecklenburg County welfare department from 1945 to 1972. That county had more sterilizations than any other in the state.

Gene Patenting Causes People to Be Company-Owned Intellectual Property

WarOnYou — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:39:24 +0000

Gene Patenting Causes People to Be Company-Owned Intellectual Property

December 2, 2011

Print Version

By Mike Barrett
Activist Post

“The information contained in our shared [genome] is so fundamental, and requires so much further research to understand its utility, that patenting it at the earliest stage is like putting up a whole lot of unnecessary toll booths on the road to discovery”, said National Institutes of Health Director and former head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins in his 2010 book The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine.

Unfortunately such toll booths were just given the go-ahead by a Federal appeals court. In a 2-1 decision issued on July 29, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled a lower court’s decision in Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office et al. holding that private companies and researchers could in fact patent genes and DNA sequences. If not overturned by the Supreme Court, this decision could have harmful impacts on patient health and could limit future genomic and scientific discoveries.

To get a better sense of what this case means and where it is going, we must take a step back and look at the history of gene patenting and the case against it. These patents harm patients and researchers, and they go against years of legal precedent holding that one cannot patent a “fact of nature.”

A Brief History of Gene Patents

Most people are shocked to learn that more than 20 percent of the human genome is patented.¹ Corporations and researchers own patents on genes that correlate diseases such as breast cancer, Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s disease, among others. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office started granting patents on human genes in the 1980s and has since granted more than 4,300 of them.

In May 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, which owned genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) that correlate with increased risk for breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The ACLU named the Patent Office as a defendant, too, since it had granted these patents. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women’s health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists and laboratory professionals.

The plaintiffs claimed that genes are “facts of nature” and are therefore not patentable. Additionally, they argued that Myriad’s patents limited patients’ access to potentially life-saving genetic diagnostic tests and prevented researchers from looking at those genes to help their patients or to develop more effective and affordable tests.

The defendants argued that patents are necessary to protect the time and money invested in identifying disease-gene correlations. Myriad Genetics also claimed that its patents are on “isolated” genes and DNA sequences, and this act of isolating a gene from the genome is an inventive step and worthy of a patent. These patents, the industry claims, are necessary to bring expensive tests and products to market and improve patient health.

In March 2010, a Federal judge agreed with the ACLU and decided that DNA sequences are “facts of nature” and are therefore no more patentable than “isolated” gold from a mine or isolating a natural element. Myriad Genetics quickly appealed the decision.

Do Gene Patents Harm Patients and Innovation?

Contrary to industry claims that gene patents are necessary to bring tests and products to market, such patents are actually detrimental to patient health and researcher access to genetic information. Gene patent holders often use their exclusive control to charge excessive fees for diagnostic testing and to prevent other researchers from utilizing specific genes for research.²

Myriad Genetics, for example, charges up to $4,000 for its breast cancer diagnostic test, a price too steep for many patients and health insurance providers. If allowed, labs could run the same genetic test for only a few hundred dollars.³ Myriad also sent cease-and-desist letters to researchers who were looking at the BRCA1/2 genes in their labs, providing diagnostic tests to patients and even providing patients second-opinion tests to confirm the test provided by Myriad.

Gene patents have a detrimental impact on health care and research.⁴ Gene patents can prevent more accurate, affordable and complex diagnostic tests from being developed.⁵ A survey of genetics labs found that 53 percent stopped doing research due to concerns about patented genes,⁶ and there has been a significant decline in published material on patented genetic information.⁷ The future of personalized medicine may be crushed by the weight of gene patent thickets if a company must ask permission from hundreds of patent holders to scan a single patient’s genome.

Gene patents also drive research towards gene-to-disease correlations and away from factors that actually cause disease, such as exposure to toxic chemicals. Most genetic tests offer only an estimate of the chances for developing a particular disease and fail to account for the influence of other genes and environmental factors that cause disease.⁸ The predictive power of the test for BRCA breast cancer mutations is high for persons from families with a history of particular kinds of breast or ovarian cancer, but very low for women without a family history of breast cancer; many women who test positive for a BRCA1 mutation do not get the disease.⁹ Gene patents lock-in our knowledge on these DNA sequences to only their potential correlation to a disease while preventing others from looking at how that gene may interact with other genes or the outside environment.

Are Genes Patentable?

This brings us to the recent verdict, in which the judges were not asked to rule on whether gene patents are harmful but whether they are patentable. In this respect, the appeals court largely agreed with Myriad Genetics when it determined that “isolated DNA” is patentable since it is not found in nature and is the result of a human process. The appellate court did agree with the lower court on one point when it said the act of comparing two DNA sequences (comparing a normal gene with a mutated gene sequence to identify said mutation) was not patentable since it was simply a mental process.

The majority opinion stated that, since isolated DNA is not found in nature, the act of isolating said DNA is an inventive step worthy of a patent. Since the bonds between the specific gene and the rest of the DNA had been broken, they argued, the isolated DNA is no longer a “fact of nature” but a man-made invention.

This view fails to take into account the unique nature of DNA. As Judge Sweet said in the lower court’s decision originally invalidating the BRCA1/2 genes, the “essential characteristic” of DNA is its nucleotide sequence, which is “defined by nature and central to both its biological function within the cell and its utility as a research tool in the lab.”¹⁰ In other words, DNA sequences have naturally evolved over millennia and are important not simply for their chemical construction but for the information they code for. If the genetic code and its information were different than that found in nature, Myriad’s and others’ genetic diagnostic tests would be worthless. That is why Judge Sweet called attempts to define patented genes as novel as merely a “lawyer’s trick.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that facts of nature are not patentable. In the 1980 landmark case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Court explained how patents can be granted to:

Anything under the sun that is made by man . . . . [T]he laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable . . . a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc²; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are manifestations of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.¹¹ [emphasis added]

The dissenting judge in the appeals court agreed that genes are not patentable and that “extracting a gene is akin to snapping a leaf from a tree.” Since the genetic information in isolated genes is identical to that in genes found in nature, and in our bodies, it should be beyond the scope of patentability.

This case points out an interesting problem: We are asking our judges, who are experts in legal jurisprudence, no doubt, to make decisions about basic facts of biology and genetics. The two judges who supported gene patents, Judge Lourie and Judge Moore, studied chemistry and electrical engineering, respectively, before their legal careers.¹² While they must have consulted experts on the issue, we should not delegate the future of genetic research and access to our common genetic heritage to engineers and chemists. Congress, which has constitutional authority over what is patentable, should pass legislation making it clear that genes are “facts of nature” and are therefore unpatentable. Such a law would tear down the thicket of gene patent “toll booths” that are harming patient health and scientific research.

The Next Battleground

This legal battle is far from over, since the case is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court, and no matter which way the court rules, Congress will likely step in.

As Joseph Stiglitz and John Sulston explained in the Wall Street Journal, “the patenting of human genes is wrong as a matter of science and as a matter of economics.” Lets hope Congress keeps with good science, good economics and good public health policy by declaring, once and for all, that genes and DNA sequences are facts of nature, part of our common genetic heritage, and therefore unpatentable.

¹Kyle Jensen and Fiona Murray, “Intellectual Property Landscape of the Human Genome”, Science, October 14, 2005. See also Human International Genome Sequencing Consortium, “Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome”, Nature, February 15, 2001; J. Craig Venter et al., “The Sequence of the Human Genome”, Science, February 16, 2001.

²Mildred K. Cho, Preparing for the Millennium: Laboratory Medicine in the 21st Century (American Association for Clinical Chemistry Press, 2d ed., 1998), pp. 47–58.

³Joseph Stiglitz and John Sulston, “The Case Against Gene Patents”, Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2010.

⁴See Jon F. Merz, Antigone G. Kriss, Debra G. B. Leonard and Mildred K. Cho, “Diagnostic Testing Fails the Test”, Nature, February 7, 2002; David Blumenthal et al., “University-Industry Research Relationships in Biotechnology”, Science, June 13, 1986; David Blumenthal et al., “Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Sciences”, Journal of the American Medical Association, April 16, 1997; David Blumenthal et al., “Data Withholding in Academic Genetics”, Journal of the American Medical Association, January 23/30, 2002.

⁵Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests, report of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society.

⁶Mildred K. Cho, Samantha Illangasekare, Meredith A. Weaver, Deborah G. Leonard and Jon F. Merz. “Effects of Patents and Licenses on the Provision of Clinical Genetic Testing Services”, Journal of Molecular Diagnostics (February 2003).

⁷Fiona Murray, Scott Stern, “Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis,” prepared for the NBER Academic Science and Entrepreneurship Conference (June 2005).

⁸Michael J. Malinowski and Robin J.R. Blatt, “Commercialization of Genetic Testing Services: The FDA, Market Forces, and Biological Tarot Cards”, Tulane Law Review, vol. 71, no. 4 (1997).

⁹Wylie Burke, “Genetic Testing”, New England Journal of Medicine, December 5, 2002.

¹⁰Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office et al., 132, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, March 29, 2010.

¹¹Diamond v. Chakrabarty, U.S. Supreme Court, June 16, 1980.

¹²Andrew Cohen, “Like a Leaf From a Tree: The Gene Patent Ruling”, The Atlantic Online, August 1, 2011.

Scientist Makes H5N1 Highly Contagious

WarOnYou — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:33:52 +0000

Scientist Makes H5N1 Highly Contagious

November 26th, 2011

Via: NPR:

If the virus evolves to spread as easily between people as seasonal flu, however, it could cause a devastating global pandemic. So in an attempt to stay ahead of H5N1, scientists have been tweaking its genes in the lab to learn more about how this virus works, and what it is capable of.

In September, one scientist made a stunning announcement. At a flu conference held in Malta, he said he’d done a lab experiment that resulted in bird flu virus becoming highly contagious between ferrets — the animal model used to study human flu infection. It seemed that just five mutations did the trick.

News of the results raised red flags for Dr. Thomas Inglesby, a bioterrorism expert and director of the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

“It’s just a bad idea for scientists to turn a lethal virus into a lethal and highly contagious virus. And it’s a second bad idea for them to publish how they did it so others can copy it,” says Inglesby.

No science journal has published the information yet. And Inglesby hopes none of them do.

Biology research usually has a culture of openness. Scientists report their methods and results so others can repeat their work and learn from it.

Inglesby agrees that’s the way to go the vast majority of the time. But not this time. “There are some cases that I think are worth an exception to that otherwise very important scientific principle,” he says. “I can only imagine that the process of deliberating about the publication of these findings is quite serious.”

The researcher who presented these findings at the science meeting is virologist Ron Fouchier, of the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. NPR has learned that his work is now under scrutiny by a committee called the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity.

Scientists Create Lethal, Highly Contagious Bird Flu

WarOnYou — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:51:14 +0000

Scientists Create Lethal, Highly Contagious Bird Flu

November 20, 2011

Print Version

Source: NPR

Scientists and security specialists are in the midst of a fierce debate over recent experiments on a strain of bird flu virus that made it more contagious.

The big question: Should the results be made public?

Critics say doing so could potentially reveal how to make powerful new bioweapons.

The H5N1 virus has been circulating among birds and other animals in recent years. It’s also infected about 500 people. More than half died. But this dangerous virus has not caused widespread human disease because, so far, sick people haven’t been very contagious

It’s just a bad idea for scientists to turn a lethal virus into a lethal and highly contagious virus. And it’s a second bad idea for them to publish how they did it so others can copy it.

Read More…

Air pollution in Britain: state-sanctioned mass poisoning

WarOnYou — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:48:42 +0000

Source: UK Guardian

Successive governments have found that the simplest way to end urban poverty is to encourage poor people to live near congested roads. Apart from war and fags, nothing is more certain to shorten human life than to make people breathe a daily dose of poisons, especially sooty particles known as PM10s and nitrogen oxides that largely come from traffic and factories. The minute particles of partially burned diesel fuel and tyres travel deep into lungs and the gases trigger respiratory diseases. If you already have heart disease or asthma, then just living near a main road can be a death sentence.

In Britain, the environment audit committee has just produced a shocking report showing that 200,000 people can expect to have their lives shortened by as much as two years and everyone else have theirs curtailed by seven months for just breathing. In London alone, air pollution has been linked to nearly one in five deaths a year. This is in line with the rest of the US and Europe where last week the European Environment Agency [EEA] reported that air pollutants already lead to 500,000 premature deaths a year and are now a bigger killer than passive smoking, road traffic accidents and obesity together.

Of course no government needs to encourage the poor to live close to main roads. They already do. Pollution follows the poor just as assiduously as debt collectors. The worse the air, the poorer the people living in it. Where there is wealth you will mostly find clean air. The reason why west London is far richer than east? Because the wind mainly blows from the west, so the factories and the workers were last century put downwind in the east.

Little has changed since the 1950s, when thousands died annually from “pea souper” smogs caused largely by coal burning, except that you can barely see today’s photochemical pollution from traffic. There are good EU laws and WHO guidelines on air pollution now, but successive central and local governments have not just failed to act, but continually tried to evade their legal responsibilities.

Back in the 1990s, Britain was given six years’ notice to meet European laws, but like other countries it failed to meet its targets and since then has been trying to extend its time limits. Since 2005 it has been in flagrant breach of the law and last week it wrote to the European commission to say it expected London’s pollution to remain over the legal limit for another decade or more. This means the government has deliberately sanctioned the mass poisoning of its own people for nearly 20 years. To add insult, it has just changed the rules to ensure that it can pass the £300m of fines it stands to incur every year for missing European standards on to local authorities.

Protestations that government is encouraging electric cars and needs more time to comply are rubbish. It’s not as if air pollution is hard to control or even expensive. Most comes from mass car use, so a national network of low emissions zones could be set up within months. Fewer vehicles could be allowed into city centres. Government could spend on better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

As it is, air pollutants are bleeding the economy nearly as much as bankers. Europe, says the EEA, could be paying €537bn (£460bn) a year in human health terms for air pollution by 2020, and government estimates it costs Britain £20bn a year already. If you include crop damage, acidification, eutrophication of rivers and the impact on vegetation then the real costs of air pollution may rival or even exceed the cost of Britain going to war every year.

Yet it is not even in the business plan of the environment department and, because of an obsession with climate change, it has until very recently barely been on the agenda of national environment groups. Few politicians appear to understand the importance of the issue even though traffic volumes are predicted to rise by 14% over the next 10 years, and even fewer people make the link between air pollutants and climate change. Recent UN studies suggest that air pollution from cars, cooking stoves and factories may contribute as much as 25-30% to climate change emissions even as they kill up to 2.5 million people a year.

Instead, under the banner of its localism agenda, the government’s response to Europe’s biggest health crisis is breathtaking. It is dumping the problem on local authorities and putting off taking action, while behind the scenes it lobbies the EU to weaken limits and tries to create a legal loophole for inaction. How cynical can you get?

Victims speak out about North Carolina sterilization program, which targeted women, young girls and blacks

WarOnYou — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 06:16:39 +0000

Victims speak out about North Carolina sterilization program, which targeted women, young girls and blacks

November 7, 2011

Print Version

Source: MSNBC

Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967. The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized. Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes.

“I have to carry these scars with me. I have to live with this for the rest of my life,” she said.

Riddick was never told what was happening. “Got to the hospital and they put me in a room and that’s all I remember, that’s all I remember,” she said. “When I woke up, I woke up with bandages on my stomach.”

Riddick’s records reveal that a five-person state eugenics board in Raleigh had approved a recommendation that she be sterilized. The records label Riddick as “feebleminded” and “promiscu

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Most Popular Contraceptive Used in Parts of Africa May Double Risk of Contracting HIV

WarOnYou — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:52:42 +0000

Most Popular Contraceptive Used in Parts of Africa May Double Risk of Contracting HIV

October 4th, 2011

Instead of cheap, effective, ubiquitous neem oil being promoted by alleged humanitarian organizations for birth control, dangerous and expensive pharmaceutical products are used that also happen to double the risk of women being infected with HIV.

That’s an absolutely fascinating coincidence.

Via: New York Times:

The most popular contraceptive for women in eastern and southern Africa, a hormone shot given every three months, appears to double the risk the women will become infected with H.I.V., according to a large study published Monday. And when it is used by H.I.V.-positive women, their male partners are twice as likely to become infected than if the women had used no contraception.

The findings potentially present an alarming quandary for women in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of them suffer injuries, bleeding, infections and even death in childbirth from unintended pregnancies. Finding affordable and convenient contraceptives is a pressing goal for international health authorities.

But many countries where pregnancy rates are highest are also ravaged by H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. So the evidence suggesting that the injectable contraceptive has biological properties that may make women and men more vulnerable to H.I.V. infection is particularly troubling.

THE TYLENOL MAFIA: Marketing, Murder, and Johnson & Johnson

WarOnYou — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:10:34 +0000

THE TYLENOL MAFIA: Marketing, Murder, and Johnson & Johnson

By Scott Bartz

On September 29, 1982, seven people in Chicago died after taking Extra Strength Tylenol capsules laced with cyanide. Officials have long cited the scarcity of physical evidence and apparent lack of motive to explain why they never solved the Tylenol murders. However, new revelations and information not previously disclosed tell a very different story of a crime that should have been solved.

In a story both fascinating and dramatic in its warnings, The Tylenol Mafia rips away the facade of the investigation that J&J CEO James Burke labeled “A demonstration without parallel of government and business working with the news media to help protect the public.” This gripping, meticulously documented expose’ unearths the troubling details of an investigation corrupted by well-connected corporate executives and politically motivated government officials who simply buried the truth inside a shadow legal system inaccessible to everyday Americans.

The Tylenol Mafia will be available on Amazon.com, Kindle, and Barnes & Noble NOOK on Monday, September 26, 2011

The Tylenol Mafia is “probably the most threatening book to Johnson & Johnson, the feds, and the media.”

— Gary Franchi, National Director of Restore the Republic

“This expose’ of the No. 1 phony story in PR is long overdue. It is regrettable that major media such as the New York Times, The Economist, Fortune magazine and the Christian Science Monitor continue to refer to the Tylenol tragedy as some kind of “gold standard” for crisis handling. It is the opposite of that–the gold standard of spin and lying.”

– Jack O’Dwyer, who has covered the PR industry since 1968 after ten years at two of America’s biggest dailies–the Chicago Tribune and New York Journal-American.

“For 29 years now, the FBI and mainstream media have done nothing but make a circus out of this still-unsolved case. We have lost all hope for closure or justice at this point. Finally, Scott Bartz brings to light key evidence that exposes Johnson & Johnson’s handling of the Tylenol crisis, not as the gold standard, but as a heavily-connected empire literally getting away with murder. The extremely well-researched facts in The Tylenol Mafia put all the puzzle pieces together from a case that should have been solved within a week.”

– Michelle Rosen, the daughter of Tylenol murder victim Mary “Lynn” Reiner.

Gardasil Ingredient caused sterility in lab rats

WarOnYou — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:02:18 +0000

Gardasil Ingredient caused sterility in lab rats

Monday 29 September 2008, 3:31PM
By Jenese James
6087 views, 6 comments

An ingredient of the Gardasil HPV vaccination has known carcinogenic and sterility affects in lab rats

Know as Polysorbrate 80 or Tween 80 it is a food additive that enables solubility of flavoring oils with water and is used widely – however few know the effects of this chemical when injected directly into the body.

“Polysorbate 80 injected into prepubescent rats caused a rapid growth of reproductive organs, but growth was abnormal and the rats were sterile, unable to have children. When used intravenously with vitamins it has been known to cause anaphylactic shock. According to the Polysorbate 80 MSDS, it may be a carcinogenic, (cause cancer), as well as a mutagenic, (birth defects).”
Merck must have known this – or should have known this but included it in its vaccination anyway.

Few Doctors understand the repercussions of this on their teenage patients and continue blindly to believe in the rightness of the vaccine

Given that the recent reactions to the melamine contaminated milk scandal which caused 4 infants to die and thousands more to be in severe pain with kidney stones – allowing a vaccination which has already killed 21 young women and seriously affected thousands more to remain on the market is shocking.

In other articles written by women concerned at what is happening to young girls and Merck’s dodgy science along with government and health authorities inaction it is revealed that Gardasil is anything but a safe vaccination for your self or your daughters

“Merck’s case studies for the HPV vaccine (paid for by Merck) included only 1200 test subjects under the age of 16, and the drug was only tested for an average of 18 months. This is not nearly enough time to test for the long-term side effects of a vaccine that will be used on young girls just entering adolescence.

The Gardasil vaccine contains Polysorbate 80 (also known as Tween 80), a known carcinogen. In addition, this ingredient has been shown to have estrogenic alterative effects and cause reproductive disturbances in rats:

Previous studies…have shown that Polysorbate 80 administered by intraperitoneal injection to neonatal female rats on days 4-7 after birth produced estrogenic effects including earlier vaginal opening, prolongation of the estrus cycle and persistent vaginal estrus. Some of these effects were evident many weeks after cessation of administration of Polysorbate 80 [Gajdova et al. Food Chem Toxicol 31(3):183-90 (1993)].

We don’t know what those estrogenic effects would be on the developing bodies of pre-adolescent girls. The statistics being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Effect Response System (VAEECS) are already troubling:

“Because Merck only studied Gardasil in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16 in prelicensure trials, it is critical that doctors and parents be made aware of the nature of the initial adverse event reports coming into VAERS and that they report serious health problems after vaccination when they occur,” said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. “There are twice as many children collapsing after getting a Gardasil vaccination compared to those getting a Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccination. There have been reports of facial paralysis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. And doctors who give Gardasil in combination with other vaccines are basically conducting an experiment on their young patients because Merck has not published any safety data for simultaneous vaccination with any vaccine except hepatitis B vaccine”

Read rest of article here

and again ….

“In the same section of toxicological information it states that it may cause reproductive effects, it may cause cancer, and may be a mutagenic, (change the genetics), in animals but this is followed up with the statement, no human data found. Well, unless they use people as lab rats, they won’t find this data until it is used on humans to an extent to present this data.

According to PubMed.Gov a service of the U.S. Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health, a report shows that neonatal rats were injected with small doses of polysorbate 80 and the results were major effects on the reproductive organs of the rats, resulting in infertility. (see the PubMed link below). Considering this is a component of the Gardasil HPV vaccine, (not to mention other vaccines), and they are recommending this to girls at prepubescent ages, there should be some concern to any parent that this could possibly lead to infertility in your child.
As this vaccine has been made mandatory of on young girls in the US its interesting to note that early on in the piece politicians are address issues of liability

An early version of the Virginia house bill contained a clause addressing liability issues “if a female who is inoculated with the HPV vaccine becomes incapable of naturally conceiving a healthy child carried to live birth or experiences impaired fertility as a result of the HPV vaccine”.

Read rest of article here
“Since June 2006, when the HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, there have been 28 reported cases in which pregnant women miscarried after receiving the vaccine”.
There are NO long term studies done on the damage this vaccination could do to young women’s reproductive health – none. This is alarming – our young women are in essence guinea pigs for this new vaccination

see the lab report here

see the Gardisal ingredient list (at bottom of document) here
Meanwhile in Australia side affects are appearing with Australian authorities and the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Authority) looking into whether there are links between Gardasil and the development of pancreatitis after several young women developed the disease after their Gardasil shots

“In January 2008, Channel 7 analyzed TGA data from a FOI request which showed 681 adverse reactions with 162 girls and women not recovered. Girls between 14 and 17 had not recovered for an average of 165 days. On July 4, 2008, the TGA published new figures of just over 1,000 adverse reactions to-date that had been reported. But they did not release in depth details of what these reactions were and, importantly, whether or not the girls and women had recovered.”

Read article here

read the blog set up for Australian women to talk about their experience here

In a similar article

“Dr Das and his colleagues said an extensive investigation could find no other cause for the pancreatitis and while a coincidental illness could not be ruled out, “neither can HPV vaccination be excluded as a potential cause”.

In 2007 when Gardasil was first administerd to young girls in Australia …

….”Sacred Heart Girls’ College principal Christopher Dalton said today that 26 girls were taken to the school sick bay after injections“

There is no follow up on these girls to determine their current state of health given that thousands of girls in the US are still unwell with symptoms of fatigue, incredible headaches, paralysis, stinging eyes and consistent vomiting – most doctors and practise nurses continually refuse to see a link

In another alarming article – American writer Cynthia A. Janak concerned at the alarming numbers of healthy young girls dying and experiencing deliberating illness has uncovered some research that suggests to her that given the ingredients within the Gardasil vaccination - that this vaccination NOT be given to any girl with a family history of allergies

She says

“Do you know how it is when you have a gut feeling that just won’t quit? It is like the itch you just cannot scratch that gets worse with time. It is very annoying. Well, I was finally able to scratch that itch and all my efforts have finally paid off…… I have been researching Polysorbate 80 for some time now because I had a gut feeling that there is something to this chemical. I have been doing the same for Histidine because Gardasil is the first vaccine that is using this chemical. I knew that the addition of Histidine had something to do with what we are seeing with Gardasil. Here are my findings.

Read the first Gardisal article I wrote here and the second one here

if you are still unsure about the concern and threat this vaccination poses to the reproductive health of young women go here

What is HPV – an excellent video that gives you the actual facts
&feature=related
side affects

Getting used to Life without Food

WarOnYou — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:16:57 +0000

Wall Street, BP, bio-ethanol and the death of millions

Global Research, July 3, 2011

by F. William Engdahl

My late grandfather, a man of sturdy Norwegian-American farm stock, who later became a newspaper editor and political activist during the First World War, used to say, ‘A man can get used to pretty much anything with time, except dying…and even that with some practice.’ Well, as fate has it, it seems we, the vast majority of the human race, are about to test that adage in regard to the availability of our daily bread itself.

Food is one of those funny things it’s hard to live without. We all tend to take it for granted that our local supermarket will continue to offer whatever we wish, in abundance, at affordable prices or nearly so. Yet living without adequate food is the growing prospect facing hundreds of millions, if not billions, of us over the coming years.

In a sense it’s a genuine paradox. Our planet has everything we need to produce nutritious natural food to feed the entire world population many times over. This is the case, despite the ravages of industrialized agriculture over the past half century or more.

Then, how can it be that our world faces, according to some predictions, the prospect of a decade or more of famine on a global scale? The answer lies in the forces and interest groups that have decided to artificially create a scarcity of nutritious food. The problem has several important dimensions.

Eliminating emergency reserves

The ability to manipulate the price of essential foods worldwide at will — almost irrespective of today’s physical supply and demand for grains — is quite recent. It is also scarcely understood.

Up until the grain crisis of the mid-1970s there was no single “world price” for grain, the benchmark for the price of all foods and food products. Grain prices were determined locally in thousands of market places where buyer and seller met. The onset of economic globalization was to change that radically to the worse as the tiny percent of grains traded internationally were able to set the global price for the bulk of grains grown.

From the time of the earliest traces left by Sumerian civilization some two thousand years before Christ, in the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in today’s Iraq, almost every culture had the practice of storing a reserve stock of a grain harvest – right up to the most recent times. Wars, droughts and famines were the reason. When properly stored, grain can be safely stored over a period of about seven years, enabling reserve stocks in case of an emergency.

After the Second World War, Washington created a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to serve as a wedge to push free trade among major industrial nations, especially the European Community. During initial negotiations, agriculture was deliberately kept off the table at the insistence of the Europeans, especially the French, who regarded political defense of Europe’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and European agriculture protections as non-negotiable.

Beginning in the 1980s with the political crusades of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, the extremist free market views of Chicago’s Milton Friedman became increasingly accepted by leading European power circles. Step-by-step the resistance to the Washington agriculture free trade agenda dissolved.

After more than seven years of intense horse-trading, lobbying and pressure, the European Union finally agreed in 1993 to the GATT Uruguay Round, requiring a major reduction of national agriculture protection. Central to the Uruguay Round deal was agreement on one major change: national grain reserves as a government responsibility were to be ended.

Under the new 1993 GATT agreement, formalized with the creation of a World Trade Organization to police the agreements with enforceable sanctions against violators, ‘free trade’ in agriculture products was for the first time an agreed priority of the world’s major trading nations, a fateful decision to put it mildly.

Henceforth, grain reserves were to be managed by the ‘free market,’ by private companies, greatest among them the US Grain Cartel giants, the behemoths of American agribusiness. The grain companies argued that they would be able to fill any emergency gaps more efficiently and save governments the cost. That ill-advised decision would open the floodgates to unprecedented grain market shenanigans and manipulations.

ADM (Archer Daniels Midland), Continental Grain, Bunge and the primus inter pares, Cargill—the largest privately-held grain and agribusiness trading company in the world—emerged the great winners of the WTO process.

The outcome of the GATT agriculture talks was very much to the liking of the people at Cargill. That was no surprise to insiders. Former Cargill executive Dan Amstutz played the key role in drafting the agriculture trade section of the GATT Uruguay Round.[1] In 1985 D. Gale Johnson of the University of Chicago, a colleague of Milton Friedman, co-authored a seminal report for David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission that was the blueprint for what they called “market-oriented” agricultural reform. It provided the framework for the US position in the coming GATT Uruguay Round negotiations. The Rockefeller group and its think tanks were the architects of ‘agricultural reform,’ as with so much in our post-1945 world.

The process of eliminating government grain reserves in major producing countries took time, but with the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, the US had virtually eliminated its grain reserves. The EU followed soon after. Today, among major agriculture producing countries, only China and India still hold to a strategic security policy of nationally held grain reserves. [2]

Wall Street smells blood

The elimination of national grain reserves in the USA and EU and other major OECD industrial countries set the stage for the next step in the process—elimination of agricultural commodity derivatives regulation, allowing unbridled unchecked speculative manipulations.

Under the Clinton Treasury (1999 – 2000) the deregulation of government controls over agriculture commodity speculation was formalized by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—the government body charged with supervising derivatives trade in exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade or NYMEX— and in legislation drafted by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers at Treasury. As described below, it was no accident that Wall Street pushed Geithner, former President of the NY Federal Reserve, to become Obama’s Treasury Secretary in 2008, amid the worst financial debacle in history. Something to do with having foxes guard henhouses.

When Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State in 1972-1973, acting in league with the Department of Agriculture and major US grain trading companies, he orchestrated an unprecedented 200% jump in the price of grain. The price hike was triggered at that time by the US signing a three-year contract with the Soviet Union that had just gone through a disastrous harvest failure.

The US-Soviet deal hit amid global drought and severely reduced harvests worldwide, hardly a prudent time to sell the entire US grain cupboard to an ostensible Cold War opponent. The sale took place amid a major world grain harvest shortfall leading to the explosive price rise. Critical voices in US press at the time appropriately dubbed it the Great Grain Robbery. Kissinger had even arranged for much of the cost of shipping US grain to the Soviets to be paid by US taxpayers. Cargill and company laughed all the way to the bank. [3]

Around the same time, the big American grain companies—Cargill, Continental Grain, ADM, Bunge—began what would be a twenty-year process of transforming world grain markets into venues for controlling essential human and animal nutrition by manipulating grain prices regardless of supply.

The twenty-year process of the US’ gaining control of world grain markets and prices took a giant leap forward in the 1980s with the advent of financial commodity index trading and other derivatives.

The Summers-Geithner-Wall Street new version of the earlier grain robbery especially after 2006 would eventually pale anything Kissinger and friends had engineered in the 1970s.

In 1999, at the urging of major Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Chase Manhattan and Citibank, the Clinton Administration drafted a statute that would fundamentally alter grain-trading history. It was called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and was made law in 2000.

The two key architects of Clinton’s new law were a former Goldman Sachs consultant and Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and his Assistant at Treasury Tim Geithner, friend of Wall Street and today Obama’s Treasury Secretary. Secretary Summers was also a key player in preventing efforts to regulate financial derivatives in commodities and financial products.[4]

The Summers-Geithner recommendations were contained in a November 1999 Report to Congress from the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, the infamous “Plunge Protection Team.” [5]

At the time, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) proposed also to deregulate trading in derivatives between major banks or financial institutions, including derivatives of grain and other agricultural commodities.[6]

The historic and unprecedented deregulation opened a massive hole in Government supervision of derivatives trading, a gaping hole that ultimately facilitated the derivatives games leading to the 2007 financial collapse. It also formed the deregulation free-for-all that is behind much of the recent explosion in grain prices.

Some years earlier in 1991 Goldman Sachs had rolled out its own commodity “index,” which was to go on to become the global benchmark for derivatives trading of all commodities, including food and oil. The Goldman Sachs Commodity Index or GSCI was a new derivative that tracked the prices of some 24 commodities — from corn to hogs to coffee to wheat to precious metals and energy. From the point of view of Wall Street, the idea was brilliant. It let speculators gamble on the future price of an entire range of raw materials in one step, a kind of Wall Street version of a “one-step” gambling mall…

With the CFTC deregulation of commodity trading in 1999 Goldman Sachs was positioned to reap sweet financial rewards with its GSCI. Now bankers and hedge funds and other high-profile speculators were able to take huge positions or bets on the future grain price with no need to take delivery of actual wheat or corn at the end.

The price of grain was now run by the new casino masters of grain supplies — from Wall Street to London and beyond — who traded grain futures and options in Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City. No longer was future price a form of hedging limited to knowledgeable active participants in the grain industry, whether farmers or millers or large grain end-users – the individual traders who had relied on futures contracts for more than a century to insulate themselves from risks of harvest failure or disasters.

Grain had become a new speculative field for anyone willing to risk investors’ capital, high stakes gamblers such as Goldman Sachs or Deutsche Bank or high-risk offshore hedge funds. Grain, like oil before it, had now been almost entirely decoupled from everyday supply and demand in the short term. The price could be manipulated for brief periods through rumor rather than fact. [7]

Unlike directly involved parties like millers or farmers or large restaurant chains, speculators neither produced nor took delivery of the corn or wheat they gambled with. They could hardly take delivery of 10 tons of hard red winter wheat and store it. Their game was a complex new form of arbitrage where the only rule was to buy low and sell high. Derivative instruments and US Government laissez faire regulatory negligence allowed the players’ potential profits from the game to be leveraged often many-fold.

But there was another perverse twist: Goldman Sachs’ GSCI was structured so that investors could only buy the contract. It was, as the industry calls it, “long only.” No one could bet on a fall in grain prices with it. You only stood to profit from an ever-rising grain price and that happened as ever more innocent investors were suckered into high-risk commodity speculation creating a kind-of self-fulfilling prophesy.[8]

That long-only feature was done to encourage bank clients to leave their money with the bank or fund for the long term and let the bankers play with other people’s money, with huge potential windfall profits to the bankers — while any losses fell to the clients.

The fatal flaw was that the GSCI structure did not allow “short selling” that would force prices down in times of grain surplus. Investors were lured into a system that required them to buy and keep buying once grain prices rose for whatever reason. Soon other banks, including Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Pimco, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers, floated their own commodity index funds.[9] For the first time, high-risk commodity investing — including into grain and other agriculture products — became a financial product for the “little man” who knew little if anything about what he was getting into, just that his banker or fund adviser was urging him to invest in it. The banks as usual played with “other people’s money” – at the expense of ‘other people.’

In a detailed analysis of the grain price bubble of 2007-2008, Olivier de Schutter, a UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, recently concluded that “a significant portion of the increases in price and volatility of essential food commodities can only be explained by the emergence of a speculative bubble.” [10] The timing of that bubble was notable as it conveniently offset huge losses of those same mega-banks that were under water with their excesses in securitized home mortgages and other Wall Street casino madness. Schutter added,

In particular, there is a reason to believe that a significant role was played by the entry into markets for derivatives based on food commodities of large, powerful institutional investors such as hedge funds, pension funds and investment banks, all of which are generally unconcerned with agricultural market fundamentals. Such entry was made possible because of deregulation in important commodity derivatives markets beginning in 2000. [11]

Following the collapse of the dot.com stock bubble in 2000, as Wall Street and other major financial players began seeking alternatives, commodities and high-risk derivatives based on baskets of commodities became a major speculative investment theme for the first time.

Since 2000 the totality of dollars invested in various commodity index funds –Goldman Sachs’ GSCI being the largest — has risen from some $13 billion in 2003 to a staggering $317 billion during the oil and grain speculation bubble in 2008. This was documented in a study by Lehman Brothers shortly before Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made them a sacrificial lamb in order to bail out his Wall Street cronies.[12]

Since 2008 with some fluctuation, investor funds have continued to pour into various commodity funds, keeping food prices high and rising. From 2005 to 2008, the worldwide price of food rose 80 percent — and has kept rising. In the period from May 2010 through May 2011 the price of wheat rose again some 85%. “It’s unprecedented how much investment capital we’ve seen in commodity markets,” said Kendell Keith, president of the National Grain and Feed Association, in a recent interview. [13]

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimates that since 2004, world food prices on average have soared by an unprecedented 240%. The offering of food commodities as a speculative alternative by the large banks and hedge funds exploded in 2007 when the US sub-prime financial tsunami first hit. Since then, speculation in food commodities has only gathered more momentum as other investments in stocks and bonds became highly dangerous. One result has been a predictably rapid rise in starvation, hunger and malnutrition in poorer populations around the world.

The FAO calculates that food-deficit countries will be forced to spend fully 30% more on importing food — with a world value of a staggering $1.3 trillion. Three decades ago, that international market was tiny; today it is overwhelmingly dominated by a small handful of US agribusiness giants. Agribusiness, like military exports, is a core US strategic sector, long supported to extraordinary lengths by Washington. It is part of a larger and rather private agenda shaped decades ago under the aegis of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and their eugenics advocates. [14]

Importing food is today the rule rather than the exception as cheap, globalized agribusiness products, often under IMF pressure, are being forced onto populations across the developing world, including formerly self-sufficient food-producing societies now rendered dependant on imported food. This is done in the name of ‘free trade’ or what is often called ‘market-oriented agriculture.’ Left unsaid is that the so-called ‘market’ is colossally inefficient and unhealthy, literally and financially. Imported food dependency is artificially created by huge multinational conglomerates such as Tyson Foods, Smithfield, Cargill or Nestle, corporate giants whose last concern seems to be the health and well-being of those of us who must consume their industrial food products.

The cheap agribusiness imports often undercut the prices of locally grown crops, driving millions from their land into overcrowded cities in desperate search of jobs.

Today the price of wheat derivatives, or ‘paper wheat,’ controls the price of real wheat as speculators like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, HSBC, Barclays or numerous offshore hedge funds — with little interest in grains other than as a profit source — now outnumber bona-fide agriculture industry hedgers four-to-one.

That is a complete reversal of the situation that dominated grain prices for the past hundred years or more. For some 75 years, the CFTC had imposed limits on how much of certain agricultural commodities — including wheat, cotton, soybeans, soybean meal, corn, and oats — can be traded by non-commercial players who are not part of the food industry. So-called ‘commercial hedgers,’ like farmers or food processors, previously could trade unlimited amounts in order to manage their risk. Not so with pure speculators.

Those limits were designed to prevent manipulation and distortion in what are relatively small markets. With the passage of the Summers-Geithner Commodity Modernization Act of 2000 and the infamous ‘Enron Loophole’ — allowing exemption from government regulation — the fast and loose trading in energy derivatives was rapidly expanded to include food commodities. The dam broke in 2006 when Deutsche Bank asked for and was granted CFTC permission to be exempt from all trading limits. The regulatory authorities assured them that there would be no penalties for exceeding the limits. Others followed, lemming like. [15]

For some two billion people in the world who spend more than half of their income on food, the effects have been horrifying. During the speculation-driven grain price explosion in 2008, more than a quarter billion people became what the UN terms “food insecure,” or a total of one billion human beings, a new record. [16]

That need never have occurred had it not been for the diabolical consequences of the US Government deregulating grain speculation, with support from the US Congress over the past decade or more. By early 2008, upwards of 35% of all US arable land was being planted with corn to be burned as biofuel under the new Bush Administration incentives. In 2011 the total is more than 40%. Thus, the stage was set for the slightest minor market shock to detonate a massive speculative bubble in grain markets, as was then being done by the use of the same GSCI index games as are played with oil.

Agribusiness as a long-term strategy

The record rise in grain and food prices in recent years is not a mere Wall Street profit gimmick, although obscene profits are being made. Rather, it is apparently an integral part of a long-term strategy whose roots go back to the years just after World War Two when Nelson Rockefeller and his brothers tried to organize the global food chain along the same monopoly model they had used for world oil. Food would henceforth become just another commodity like oil or tin or silver whose scarcity and price could ultimately be controlled by a small group of powerful trading insiders.

At the same time the Rockefeller brothers were expanding their global business reach from oil to agriculture in the developing world through their technology-driven Green Revolution scheme after the war, they were also financing a little-noticed project at Harvard University. The project would form the infrastructure for their plan to globalize world food production under the central control of a handful of private corporations.

Its creators gave it the name ‘agribusiness,’ in order to differentiate it from traditional farmer-based agriculture — the cultivation of crops for human sustenance and nutrition. The push to place world national governments’ emergency grain reserves into private hands was merely a logical expansion of the original Rockefeller agribusiness strategy, as was their highly mis-represented “Green Revolution” which at day’s end merely promoted a huge sale of US agriculture products from John Deere tractors (using large volumes of Standard Oil Rockefeller products) to US chemical fertilizers made by other companies in the Rockefeller orbit—forcing a trend to large scale farming and forcing millions off the land into cities where they former a cheap labor pool for large multinationals. The highly-touted harvest yields turned out to be actual losses after several harvests. [17]

Agribusiness and the Green Revolution went hand-in-glove. They were part of a grandiose strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for development of genetic alteration of plants a few years later.

John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. Davis had a clear strategy. In 1956 he wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared, “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.” He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few observers had a clue back then.[18]

Davis, together with another Harvard Business School professor, Ray Goldberg, formed a Harvard team with Russian-born economist Wassily Leontief, who was then mapping the entire US economy, in a project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. During the war, the US Government had hired Leontief to develop a method of dynamic analysis of the total economy that he referred to as ‘input-output’ analysis. Leontief worked for the US Labor Department as well as for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor to the CIA.[19]

In 1948 Leontief got a major four-year $100,000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to set up the Harvard ‘Economic Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy.’ A year later the US Air Force joined the Harvard project, a curious engagement for one of the prime US military branches. The transistor and electronic computers had just been developed along with methods of linear programming that would allow the processing of vast amounts of statistical data on the economy. Soon the Ford Foundation joined in to fund the Harvard project.[20]

The Harvard project and its agribusiness component were part of a major attempt to revolutionize US and later, global food production. It was to take four decades before it dominated the food industry. Professor Goldberg later referred to the agribusiness revolution and the development of genetically-modified agribusiness as ‘changing our global economy and society more dramatically than any other single event in the history of mankind.’ [21] He just might have been right as we are now likely about to witness over the coming decade.

As Ray Goldberg boasted years later, the core idea driving their agribusiness project was the re-introduction of ‘vertical integration’ into US food production. By the 1970s most Americans had forgotten that bitter battles had been fought before World War I and during the 1920′s to pass laws in Congress to prohibit vertical integration by giant conglomerates, and to break up trusts such as Standard Oil, in order to prevent them from monopolizing whole sectors of vital industries.

It wasn’t until the David Rockefeller-backed Presidency of Jimmy Carter in the late 1970’s that US multinational business was able to begin the rollback of decades of carefully constructed US Government regulations of health, food safety and consumer protection laws, and open the doors to a new wave of vertical integration of agriculture. The vertical integration process was sold to unaware citizens under the banner of ‘economic efficiency’ and ‘economy of scale.’ [22]

A return to vertical integration and the accompanying agribusiness were introduced amid a publicity campaign in mainstream media and from industry claiming that government had encroached far too much into the daily lives of its citizens and had to be cut back to give ordinary Americans ‘freedom.’ The war cry of the campaigners was ‘deregulation.’ Of course, de-regulation by government merely opened the door to private control – another form of regulation — by the largest and most powerful corporate groups in any given industry. That was certainly the case for agriculture — the big four grain cartel companies dominated world grain markets from the 1970s to today. They worked hand-in-glove with big Wall Street derivative players such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup.

By the latter part of 2007, trading in food derivatives was fully deregulated by Washington, and US government grain reserves gone. The way was clear for dramatic food price rises.

The speculative machine that had been put into place by Wall Street and its banker friends was creating the potential for significant, long-term food inflation. But the inflation needed a major ‘venting’ to get the ball really rolling. That was to come from George W. Bush.

The Killer Punch—BP, Bioethanol and Genocide

In 2007, just as the US real estate crisis was causing the first tsunami shock waves through Wall Street, the Bush Administration made a major public relations push to convince the world that the US had turned into a “better steward of the environment.” Too many fell for the hype.

The center of the Bush program, announced in his January 2007 State of the Union Address, was something called ’20 in 10′—cutting US gasoline use 20% by 2010. The official reason given to the public was to “reduce dependency on imported oil,” as well as cutting unwanted “greenhouse gas” emissions. That wasn’t the case, of course, but it made good PR. Repeat it often enough and maybe most people will believe it. Maybe they won’t realize that their taxpayer subsidies are being used to grow ethanol corn instead of feed corn and are also driving the price of their daily bread through the roof.

The heart of the Bush plan was a huge taxpayer-subsidized expansion of the use of bio-ethanol for transport fuel. President Bush’s first plan required production of 35 billion gallons (about 133 billion liters) of ethanol a year by 2017. Congress had already mandated, via the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that corn ethanol for fuel must rise from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012.

To make certain it would happen, farmers and big agribusiness giants like ADM were given generous taxpayer subsidies to grow corn for fuel instead of for food. David Rockefeller’s corporate farms were one of the largest recipients of US Government agriculture subsidies. Currently ethanol producers in the US get a subsidy of 51 cents per gallon of ethanol. The subsidy is paid to the blender, usually an oil company, that blends it with gasoline for sale. In the 2011 harvest year, an estimated 40% of all corn acreage in the United States is expected to be grown for biofuel.

As a result of these generous US Government subsidies to produce bio-ethanol fuels, and the new legislative mandate, the US refinery industry has been investing big time in building special new ethanol distilleries, similar to oil refineries, except they produce ethanol fuel. The number currently under construction exceeds the total number of oil refineries built in the US over the past 25 years. When finished in the next 2-3 years, the demand for corn and other grain to make ethanol for car fuel will double from present levels.

Not wanting to be left behind, the EU bureaucrats in Brussels — no doubt generously encouraged by the likes of BP, Cargill, ADM and the major biofuel lobby — came up with its own scheme for “10 in 20″ or a mandate that 10% of all road fuel in the EU by 2020 be from biofuel. Shockingly, they did so despite the existence of a report by the same EU Commission on the damaging impact of such a massive turn to subsidized biofuels. The London Times reported,

A study by the Commission on the land use implications of sourcing only 5.6 per cent of Europe’s transport fuel from biofuels concluded that any significant rise beyond 5.6 per cent would ‘rapidly’ increase carbon emissions and ‘erode the environmental sustainability of biofuels’… Like most political diktats, the figure of 10 per cent was plucked out of the air and no one at the Commission had a clue, when the policy was adopted, how the fuel industry was to meet the one in ten mandate without a huge rise in biofuel planting in the tropics. [23]

In short, the use of farmland worldwide for bio-ethanol and other biofuels—burning the food product rather than using it for human or animal feed—is being treated in Washington, the EU, Brazil and other major centers as a major new growth industry. The impact on human beings, however, is quite the opposite. It is rapidly becoming a death industry, death of millions of innocent human beings unable to afford adequate nourishment for themselves or their families.

The United States today is far and away the world’s largest producer of ethanol biofuel for transportation fuel. In 2010 the US produced 13 billion gallons (US) or 50 billion liters of ethanol biofuel, amounting to near 60% of the world’s total. The EU added some 6% to the global total as number three behind Brazil in a macabre contest to see which country can destroy the most food by burning toxic biofuels. [24]

The most alarming aspect of the entire biofuel scam is the fact that three full years after the grain price explosion of 2008 was demonstrated to be directly tied to the biofuels removal of millions of acres of US farmland — from corn for feed to corn for fuel — no action has been taken either in the US Congress or in the EU or anywhere else to reverse that insane policy. The stunning inaction seems testimony to the political power of the biofuels lobby. Who are they? Not surprisingly, they are the same agri and oil giants behind US and EU food and energy policy. Major players include BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ADM, Cargill and the like. It is a powerful lobby and sees a goose that can literally lay multiple golden eggs in the form of mandated biofuels requirements of the EU and USA and elsewhere.

This January the Institute for European Environment Policy (IEEP), an independent body, issued a report on the role of bioenergy in EU governments’ “renewable energy action plans.” Recent proclamations by the German government that renewables will replace nuclear electric generation by 2020, and similar pledges by other EU governments, all rely on a fantastic delusion that the electriic power being generated by large nuclear plants can come from biodiesel. The January IEEP study notes that:

More than half of the renewable energy which EU Member States expect to consume annually by 2020 will consist of bioenergy, e.g. biomass, bioliquids and biofuels. This is revealed in a first evaluation of the proposed scale of deployment of bioenergy by the EU Member States in the period to 2020 as forecast in their National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs)…A significant increase in absolute consumption of bioenergy is anticipated. In the 23 plans examined, bioenergy will thus remain the main contributor to the renewable energy sector. Overall, the bioenergy contribution to final energy consumption is expected to more than double, from 5.4% in 2005 to almost 12% (124Mtoe) in 2020. Bioenergy will have a quasi-dominant role in the renewable portion of the EU heating and cooling sector, and is foreseen to contribute more than 80% to the sectoral target. In the electricity sector the bioenergy share will be relatively low but in the transport sector it is expected to reach nearly 90% of total renewable energy by the year 2020. [25]

The IEEP conducted an analysis of required land acreage needed for the cultivation of such a huge increase of biofuels by 2020. They estimated, after all factors are properly calculated, that an additional “4.1 to 6.9 million hectares” in the European Union will be needed for biofuel, acreage more than three times the entire state of Kansas.

Further, belying the EU myth that biofuels give a reduction of CO2 (even were CO2 a problem — which is highly contested among serious scientists), the IEEP calculates that the enormous rise in biofuel use will lead to more CO2 emissions from vehicles, equivalent to adding as many as 26 million additional vehicles on European roads. [26]

Biofuels are highly undesirable for countless reasons, as many serious environmental organizations have begun to realize. The corn ethanol industry has grown, largely due to powerful corn and oil lobbies. High demand will likely increase corn ethanol and gas prices as corn ethanol is mixed with gasoline.

Ethanol energy gets poor fuel-economy with standard engines. And most importantly, it simply is not possible to produce the amount of corn required to make the fuel a viable alternative to oil or a serious supplier of energy. [27]

New Global Dustbowls?

What biofuels and their pushers—from BP to agribusiness, combined with the mad decisions of governments from Washington to Berlin to Paris and beyond – have accomplished is the elimination of grain security reserves worldwide. This has been vigorously mixed with a cocktail of deregulated free commodity derivatives trading to create the ingredients for the worst potential food crisis in human history.

The testing of that hypothesis may unfortunately already be underway at the hands of forces far beyond the ability of man to control. At the recent annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, scientists from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) presented results of studies of recent solar flare activity, by far the greatest factor influencing climate change on Earth. Flares occur in periodic cycles such as 11-year, 22-year and longer ones. The solar studies indicate that the Earth is now at the beginning of what might be a decade or longer period of greatly reduced solar activity.

Reduced solar sunspot activity means a less active sun. As Dutch physicist Gijs B. Graafland puts it, “It will affect severely the evaporation of ocean water and by that the amount of rain. This results in lower water for agriculture and therefore in less growth and more severe blowing away of dry fertile top soil layers which gives a decade of high food prices.” [28]

Translated to us, that could mean climate catastrophes, harvest failures, droughts and dust storms — such as those that swept the US Midwest during the Great Depression of the 1930s — in fertile regions across the planet, not just once but over a span of years. If the solar physicists as well as earlier Russian astrophysicist, Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia who predicted similar onset of a new “Little Ice Age” [29] beginning 2014, are right, we may soon face a food crisis on a scale our planet never in history has faced. [30]

F. William Engdahl, is the author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, published by Global Research. He is also the author of Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century; A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order and Full Spectrum Dominance : Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be contacted via his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net. Reproduction of all or significant parts of this article, as well as foreign translations, require the author’s prior permission.

notes:

[1] F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, www.GlobalResearch.ca, Montreal, 2007, pp. 216-219.

[2] Sophia Murphy, Strategic Grain Reserves In an Era of Volatility, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, October 2009.

[3] Anon., Another Soviet Grain Sting, Time, November 28, 1977, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919164,00.html#ixzz1NMsb5yQY

[4] PBS, The Warning, Public Broadcasting System, October 20, 2009, accessed in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/#morelink.

[5] Lawrence Summers et al, Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets and the Commodity Exchange Act: Report of The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, Washington, D.C., November 1999.

[6] Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, CFTC Releases Plan for Market Deregulation, March 1, 2000, accessed in http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Mar/1/128962.html.

[7] Frederick Kaufman, How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis, Foreign Policy, April 27, 2011, accessed in http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis.

[8] Amine Bouchentouf, et al, Investing in Commodities via the Futures Markets, accessed in http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/investing-in-commodities-via-the-futures-markets.html#ixzz1PdYxiCqD.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Olivier de Scheutter, Food Commodities Speculation and Food Price Crises, Briefing Note 02, September 2010, accessed in http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20102309_briefing_note_02_en_ok.pdf

[11] Ibid.

[12] Frederick Kaufman, The Food Bubble: How Wall Street starved millions and got away with it, July 2010, Harper’s Magazine, pp. 32, 24.

[13] Frederick Kaufman, How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis, Foreign Policy, April 27, 2011, accessed in http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

[14] Neena Rai, et al, High Food Prices Pose Threat to Poor Nations, The Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2011.

[15] Global Labour Institute, Food Crisis—Financializing Food: Deregulation, Commodity Markets and the Rising Cost of Food, Geneva, June 7, 2008, accessed in http://www.globallabour.info/en/2008/07/financializing_food_deregulati.html

[16] Ibid.

[17] See F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, 2007, Montreal, www.GlobalResearch.ca, pp.123-151 for a more detailed analysis of the fraud of the Green Revolution and its so-called “wonder wheat“ from Norman Borlaug, himself a product of the Rockefeller research organization.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Current Biography, 1967, Wassily Leontief; and Ray Goldberg.

[21] Ray Goldberg, The Evolution of Agribusiness, Harvard Business School Executive Education Faculty Interviews: www.exed.hbs.edu/faculty/rgoldberg.html. W. Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, 1953. International Science Press Inc., White Plains, New York. In its 1956 Annual Report, the Ford Foundation noted the following grant: ‘Harvard Economic Research Project:’ In addition to these over-all programs, a grant of $240,000 was made to support the activities of the Harvard Economic Research Project over a six-year period. This center, under the direction of Professor Wassily Leontief, was engaged in a series of quantitative studies of the structure of the American economy, focusing mainly on inter-industry relationships and the interconnections between industry and other sectors of the economy. Equal support was contributed by the Rockefeller Foundation. See also Ray Goldberg, The Genetic Revolution: Transforming our Industry, Its Institutions, and Its Functions, an address to The International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA). Chicago, June 26, 2000. Goldberg founded and headed the IAMA as well as holding seats on the boards of agribusiness giants Archer Daniels Midland, Smithfield Foods and DuPont Pioneer Hi-Bred. He practiced what he preached.

[22] F. William Engdahl, op. cit.

[23] Carl Mortished, We’re on a green road to hell, The London Times, April 10, 2010.

[24] F.O. Lichts, Industry Statistics: 2010 World Fuel Ethanol Production, Renewable Fuels Association, accessed in http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics#E.

[25] IEEP Study, The Role of Bioenergy in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans: A First Identification of Issues and Uncertainties, January 31, 2011, accessed in http://www.ieep.eu/topics/climate-change-and-energy/energy/bioenergy/.

[26] IEEP Press Release, New Report Concludes that Indirect Impacts of EU Biofuel Policy will Create Major Environmental Pressure, November 8, 2010.

[27] P. Gosselin, German Ethanol Requirement Turns Into A Debacle, March 4, 2011, accessed in notrickszone.com/2011/03/04/German-Ethanol-Requirement-Turns-Into-A-Debacle.

[28] Gijs B. Graafland, Effects of low sunspot levels on evaporation…, May 9, 2011, private email to the author.

[29] Jerome R. Corsi, New Ice Age to begin in 2014–Russian scientist to alarmists: ‘Sun heats Earth!’, May 17, 2010, WorldNetDaily.

[30] Solar Science Staff Writers, Major Drop In Solar Activity Predicted, June 15, 2011, Boulder Colorado, accessed in http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Major_Drop_In_Solar_Activity_Predicted_999.html

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Moves 265 Tons of Explosives Into Position to Breach Birds Point Levee

WarOnYou — Sun, 01 May 2011 18:41:37 +0000

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Moves 265 Tons of Explosives Into Position to Breach Birds Point Levee

May 1st, 2011

Is It Strange That FEMA Wants to Buy 140 Million Packaged Meals with a Shelf Life Only 36 Months for a Specific Disaster Scenario?

U.S. Government Printing Office Needs 350,934 National Detainee Handbooks Printed by 29 April 2011

Via: South Missourian:

Maj. Gen. Michael Walsh has given the order to move barges carrying 265 tons of explosives upriver in Kentucky from Hickman to Wickliffe, putting them in position to blow the Birds Point levee in Mississippi County, Mo. But corps officials said the general has yet to decide whether he will blow the levee and will re-evaluate the situation Sunday.

“We are moving the barges to Wickliffe, Ky., and they are going to hold there,” spokesman Jim Pogue said. “We’re essentially at 24 hours out of operating the floodway, but essentially in a holding plan.”

Walsh, a top commander at the Corps, has decided to move to the next step in the process, but Pogue said it was not indicative of whether Walsh was leaning toward fully activating the plan, which would divert floodwaters through approximately 130,000 acres of spillway mostly in Mississippi County.

The Nazi & Jewish Affair to Remember

WarOnYou — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:02:42 +0000

The Nazi & Jewish Affair to Remember (November 2010)

By Katherine Smith, PhD

Premise

The following informed-opinion essay puts forth the premise that WW I, WW II and the Holocaust can be understood if you realize that 70 million people died in order for the Jews to settle in Palestine in 1948.

Events That Changed the World in the 20^th Century, edited by Frank W. Thackeray and John E. Findling is a unique resource that offers detailed descriptions and expert analysis of the 20th Century’s most important events; however, the creation of the State of Israel is not among the Events That Changed the World in the 20^th Century. [1]

Without a modern State of Israel perspective, historians, scholars and researchers have spent half of the 20^th Century writing hundreds of thousands of manuscripts, books, theses, dissertations, essays and journal submissions attempting to resolve the anomalies and inconsistencies of the events from 1897-1948.

The year 2009 was the first time anyone in history realized the significance of Theodore Herzl’s remarks at the first Zionist conference in 1897. Herzl predicted UN Resolution GA 181, would be adopted in 1947, creating the State of Israel. [2]

The Modern State of Israel: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened, by Robert Singer was given to Canada Free Press (CFP) as an Exclusive in March of 2009. CFP is the conservative Canadian website (Alexa Traffic Rank: 20,536), owned and operated by Judi McLeod.

The website disappeared each time the webmaster attempted to post the article. McLeod writes: “Naturally, I am fearful of posting anything that would make CFP disappear. Can you shed any light on this possibility? Thanks, Judi, 3-17-09” [More at Websites Under Attack]

The Modern State of Israel: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened was reviewed by Mark Weber, the director of The Institute for Historical Review (www.ihr.org) in May of 2010.

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) continues the tradition of historical revisionism pioneered by distinguished historians such as Harry Elmer Barnes, A.J.P. Taylor, Charles Tansill, Paul Rassinier and William H. Chamberlin. It strives, in the words of Barnes, to “bring history into accord with the facts.”

After the review, Mark wanted to know what Robert Singer had read (The Bible, The Incredible Scofield and his Book, The Cassandra Prophesy) that allowed him to be the first one in history to connect The Scofield Bible, World Wars I, II and the Holocaust, to the Jews arriving in Palestine not in 1946 or 1950, but in 1948, Aka The Key to the Secret of the Universe. [More at, Speaking Engagement at The Institute for Historical Review**Cancelled**]

If the creation of the modern State of Israel is considered one of the most important events in the 20^th century, then the following insights “bring history into accord with the facts” and resolve every anomalies and inconsistencies of the events from 1897-1948:

World War I is no longer “a pointless tragedy,” if the goal was to obtain the Balfour Declaration.
Adolph Hitler, a gay prostitute and a street cleaner, who made every mistake possible in his failed attempt to take over the world, can finally be understood.
The influence of the con artist Cyrus Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible, as the most important instrument for spreading the message of Christian Zionism: that the modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
The Beer Hall Putsch, The Munich Agreement and Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis are anomalies that can finally be reconciled. Part 3: Adolph Hitler: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened?

[End of Premise, see Endnote 2]

The Nazi & Jewish Affair to Remember (November 2010)

Why did the CIA create a ‘safe haven’ for Nazis in the US after the War? [3]

Read the rest at The Peoples Voice: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/12/26/the-nazi-aamp-jewish-affair-to-remember–2010#more15372

Monsanto’s Many Attempts to Destroy All Seeds but Their Own

WarOnYou — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:20:36 +0000

(PoorRichard) – There is a reason why I believe Monsanto to be one of the most evil companies on the planet, and this is in large part due to its activities relating to controlling food production through controlling the seeds to produce it. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for seed patents in a five-to-four decision, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply.
Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won at least 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company.
This is not surprising, considering they invest over $2 million a day on research and development!
But Monsanto is not only patenting their own GMO seeds. They have also succeeded in slapping patents on a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time — again without a vote of the people or Congress. By doing this, Monsanto becomes sole owner of the very seeds necessary to support the world’s food supply … an incredibly powerful position that no for-profit company should ever hold.

Do they defend this blatant attempt to control the food supply? They write on MonsantoToday.com:

“Patent protection allows companies to see a return on their investment which enables further investment in R-and-D and product development. This profit-investment cycle drives product innovation that is responsive to farmer needs.”

Farmers’ needs?
Farmers who buy Monsanto’s GM seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seeds or sell them to other farmers. The result? Farmers must buy new seeds every year, and they must buy them from Monsanto.
Meanwhile, these same farmers who Monsanto is claiming to help are being aggressively targeted and pursued for outrageous patent infringements on these same seeds.
The “Seed Police”‘
Monsanto employs an arsenal of private investigators and agents who secretly videotape farmers, snatch crop samples from their land and even fly helicopters overhead to spy — all to catch farmers saving or sharing seeds.
As of 2005 Monsanto had 75 employees and a $10-million budget solely to investigate and prosecute farmers for patent infringement.
And until recently, Monsanto has even been known to sue farmers for GM crops growing on their land that got there via cross-contamination. In other words, a neighboring farm’s GM seeds blew over onto their land, and Monsanto slaps them with a lawsuit.
I realize this seems incredible, but it is true.
Have You Heard of Terminator Seeds?
Creating and promoting GM crops is, in my opinion, a major threat to public health. Patenting those same seeds takes it to an even higher level of evil. But there is another reason why I don’t believe for one second that Monsanto has the virtuous intentions they claim: terminator seeds.
Monsanto is considering using what’s known as terminator technology on a wide-scale basis. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.
This solves their problem of needing “seed police,” but they are obviously looking the other way when it comes to the implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops, and often do.
Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.
Not only would this mean that every farm in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply, but if the GM traits spread it could destroy agriculture as we now know it.

How Can You Get Through to Monsanto?
First, I urge you to get informed on the issue by watching The Future of Food. This in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind genetically modified foods is one of the best documentaries I have ever viewed. It will help you understand the very real threat that ALL future generations face as a result of genetic engineering.
Next, hit Monsanto where it counts … their bottom line. By boycotting all GM foods and instead supporting organic (and local) farmers who do not use Monsanto’s GM seeds, you are using your wallet to make your opinions known.
This means abstaining from virtually all processed food products (most are loaded with GM ingredients) and sticking to fresh, locally grown, organic foodstuffs instead.
The True Food Shopping Guide is a great tool for helping you determine which brands and products contain GMO ingredients. It lists 20 different food categories that include everything from baby food to chocolate.
I’ve also compiled an excellent list of resources where you can still find pure, GM-free foods, and I encourage you to refer to it often and also share it with your friends and family.

Source: Poor Richards Blog

War On You: Breaking Alternative News » Depopulation

Forced Sterilization Victims Granted $50,000 Over Admitted US ‘Eugenics’ Program

Forced Sterilization Victims Granted $50,000 Over Admitted US ‘Eugenics’ Program

Related Posts:

GlaxoSmithKline Fined Over Illegal Vaccine Experiments Killing 14 Babies

GlaxoSmithKline Fined Over Illegal Vaccine Experiments Killing 14 Babies

Related Posts:

North Carolina Weighs Restitution for Victims of Sterilization Program

North Carolina Weighs Restitution for Victims of Sterilization Program

Related Posts:

Gene Patenting Causes People to Be Company-Owned Intellectual Property

Gene Patenting Causes People to Be Company-Owned Intellectual Property

Related Posts:

Scientist Makes H5N1 Highly Contagious

Scientist Makes H5N1 Highly Contagious

Related Posts:

Scientists Create Lethal, Highly Contagious Bird Flu

Scientists Create Lethal, Highly Contagious Bird Flu

Related Posts:

Air pollution in Britain: state-sanctioned mass poisoning

Related Posts:

Victims speak out about North Carolina sterilization program, which targeted women, young girls and blacks

Victims speak out about North Carolina sterilization program, which targeted women, young girls and blacks

Related Posts:

Most Popular Contraceptive Used in Parts of Africa May Double Risk of Contracting HIV

Most Popular Contraceptive Used in Parts of Africa May Double Risk of Contracting HIV

Related Posts:

THE TYLENOL MAFIA: Marketing, Murder, and Johnson & Johnson

Related Posts:

Gardasil Ingredient caused sterility in lab rats

Related Posts:

Getting used to Life without Food

Related Posts:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Moves 265 Tons of Explosives Into Position to Breach Birds Point Levee

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Moves 265 Tons of Explosives Into Position to Breach Birds Point Levee

Related Posts:

The Nazi & Jewish Affair to Remember

By Katherine Smith, PhD

Related Posts:

Monsanto’s Many Attempts to Destroy All Seeds but Their Own

Related Posts: