This post was published at Press For Truth
This post was published at Press For Truth
If we had a dime for every kooky, left-wing theory we’ve heard alleging some vast corporate conspiracy to exploit the treasures of the earth, destroy the environment and poison people with unknown carcinogens all while buying off politicians to cover their tracks, we would be rich. The problem, of course, is that sometimes the kooky conspiracy theories prove to be completely accurate.
Lets take the case of the $60 billion ag-chemicals powerhouse, Monsanto, and their controversial herbicide, Roundup as an example. For those who aren’t familiar, Roundup Ready is Monsanto’s blockbuster weedkiller, credited with transforming U. S. agriculture, with a majority of farm production now using genetically modified seeds resistant to the chemical.
For years the company has assured farmers that their weed killing product was absolutely safe to use. As proof, Monsanto touted the approval of the chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)….more on this later.
But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the ‘extensive’ work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much). As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product’s active ingredients.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Mar 14, 2017.
Pledges for Trump
‘You boys know what makes this bird go up? Funding makes this bird go up. That’s right. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.’
– Gordon Cooper and Gus Grissom, The Right Stuff (film)
Things are looking up for the United States economy in 2017. You can just feel it. Something great is about to happen.
Earlier this week, for example, after meeting with the incoming President, Bayer and Monsanto announced they will spend at least half of their agriculture research and development budget – approximately $8 billion – in the U. S. over the next six years. It’s estimated the combined efforts of these two companies will add 3,000 new U. S. high-tech jobs.
Wal-Mart and General Motors also made job and investment pledges for Trump. Wal-Mart said they’ll add 10,000 jobs this year. General Motors announced $1 billion in investment, which would generate 1,500 U. S. jobs. Following these pledges, Trump tweeted:
‘Thank you to General Motors and Walmart for starting the big jobs push back into the U. S.!’
This post was published at Acting-Man on January 20, 2017.
In November, a very concerning report — Glyphosate: Unsafe On Any Plate — was released by The Detox Project and Food Democracy Now!, raising the alarm of the high levels of glyphosate in the US food supply and the (deliberate?) low levels of awareness of its associated health risks.
Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!, joins us this week to explain the finding of this new report on the world’s most-used herbicide (more commonly known by its retail brand: Roundup). As happened in past decades with the alcohol and tobacco industries, there’s compelling evidence that profits have taken a priority over consumer safety — and as public health concerns are being raised, Big Ag is circling its wagons and attacking the questioners rather than embracing open scrutiny.
Are we being poisoned in the pursuit of profit?
Look at the chemical and what actually it does. Monsanto has three patents for glyphosate and the first one is from 1964 from the Sulfur Chemical Company in Westport, Connecticut. It was originally used to clean pipes. It’s like Drano: it basically strips minerals out of and heavy metals out of a pipe. Scientists have found that it actually chelates those same minerals in soil and makes them unavailable into the plant. At some point in the 1960s a Monsanto chemist discovered that it would also kill weeds. Monsanto applied for a patent in ’68 or ’69, was awarded that patent in ’74, and that is when Roundup first went on the market.
This post was published at PeakProsperity on January 1, 2017,.
Inequality vs Inequality
There is inequality and inequality.
The first is the inequality people tolerate, such as one’s understanding compared to that of people deemed heroes, say Einstein, Michelangelo, or the recluse mathematician Grisha Perelman, in comparison to whom one has no difficulty acknowledging a large surplus. This applies to entrepreneurs, artists, soldiers, heroes, the singer Bob Dylan, Socrates, the current local celebrity chef, some Roman Emperor of good repute, say Marcus Aurelius; in short those for whom one can naturally be a ‘fan’. You may like to imitate them, you may aspire to be like them; but you don’t resent them.
The second is the inequality people find intolerable because the subject appears to be just a person like you, except that he has been playing the system, and getting himself into rent seeking, acquiring privileges that are not warranted -and although he has something you would not mind having (which may include his Russian girlfriend), he is exactly the type of whom you cannot possibly become a fan. The latter category includes bankers, bureaucrats who get rich, former senators shilling for the evil firm Monsanto, clean-shaven chief executives who wear ties, and talking heads on television making outsized bonuses. You don’t just envy them; you take umbrage at their fame, and the sight of their expensive or even semi-expensive car trigger some feeling of bitterness. They make you feel smaller.
There may be something dissonant in the spectacle of a rich slave.
The author Joan Williams, in an insightful article, explains that the working class is impressed by the rich, as role models. Michle Lamont, the author of The Dignity of Working Men, whom she cites, did a systematic interview of blue collar Americans and found present a resentment of professionals but, unexpectedly, not of the rich.
It is safe to accept that the American public -actually all public -despise people who make a lot of money on a salary, or, rather, salarymen who make a lot of money. This is indeed generalized to other countries: a few years ago the Swiss, of all people almost voted a law capping salaries of managers . But the same Swiss hold rich entrepreneurs, and people who have derived their celebrity by other means, in some respect.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Dec 28, 2016.
Santa Claus is not who you think he is. In fact, the myth of Santa Claus appears to be a very powerful psyop. Think not? Read on…
Brainwashing an entire country is a daunting task. So, how does one go about it? How about starting at childhood. That would be the most effective plan.
Take for example, teaching people to accept Big Brother in the form of a merry old gift-giver called Santa Claus, who is promoted by parents everywhere. Everyone loves Christmas and Santa Claus! If you don’t, you are a Grinch! A mean, old, ugly, disgusting Grinch who likes to steal joy from children and grown-ups alike.
Brilliant. Simply brilliant. And the whole country goes along, merrily singing and playing into the game. Never questioning the motive behind the scenes.
Just like Monsanto’s genetically engineered, patented concoctions promoted as ‘green, sustainable and solving the world hunger problem.’ People believe it because they want to. Because it is easier to believe the lie and go along with the program. Key word ‘program.’ Marketing. Social engineering. Just like the Santa Claus program.
This post was published at FarmWars on Dec 25, 2016.
They call us technophobes and luddites, or whatever derogatory term used to describe those who don’t automatically go along with the ‘latest and greatest’ scientific invention. But is it really asking too much to question whether or not it is okay to unleash an invention on society without learning about the possible effects before doing so? Is merely questioning the safety of new technology before implementing it such a ludicrous proposal?
Are we so in love with what we can invent that we cannot even fathom that anyone should be allowed to posit an opposing opinion without provoking the wrath of the scientific community? If so, this is not truly science, but the ego-driven machinations of corporate-controlled narcissists masquerading as scientists. And woe to the world if we continue buying into their schemes.
We love the newest and most inventive toys. We like to play. We like to be ‘number one’ and proudly display our acquisitions. But just when does this tendency turn into a fatal attraction and end up costing us our very lives?
In the latest scheme to force new and dangerous technology down our throats, we find that Monsanto is now merging with Bayer. Another Solutia solution for Monsanto’s Glyphosate woes.
This post was published at FarmWars on Sept 15, 2016.
In a transaction that will allow Bayer to command more than a quarter of the combined world market for seeds and pesticides, not to mention is set to be the biggest M&A deal for 2016, Reuters reported that Bayer has won over Monsanto’s management with a $128 per-share cash offer to acquire the global seed market leader, in a deal worth $66 billion.
Bayer has signed a deal that includes a fee of $2 billion should the transaction fail to get regulatory clearance as planned, the Reuters source said. The deal is expected to close by the end of 2017, the source told Reuters on Wednesday.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 14, 2016.
Well this certainly explains a lot… You can watch the rest of Anthony Samsel's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzIQNSu5QQCatherine's article on Activist Post: http://www.activistpo…
‘Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.’ – The Georgia Guidestones
The full-spectrum global attack on human health is quite obvious to see for anyone who is paying attention and in search of wellness. So many of the factors that are negatively influencing public heath could easily be prevented or removed from society, yet the decisions of the ruling class continue to ensure that our food supply is toxic, that our environment is compromised, and that our exposure to chemicals and industrial waste is total. Why?
With the stroke of a pen carcinogenic poisons like Monsanto’s Roundup could be banned. Industrial disasters like Fukushima or the Deepwater Horizon could easily get the attention they deserve from world powers, but the will to intervene on behalf of human and environmental health is zero, while the will to intervene militarily in corporate and political affairs is guaranteed.
People are suffering more than ever from a host of chronic conditions and illnesses that can wreck even the healthiest and strongest of us. To be sick is the new normal, and to be healthy is outstanding and unusual.
Concerned citizens are battling grass roots struggles on all fronts, yet, at the top levels of society the corruption, gross negligence, and seeming incompetence continue unabated, ensuring that important decisions always favor the health of corporations and special interests.
With such obvious disregard for life, it would be naive to presume that our national and global leadership have our best interests at heart, and also to assume that any of this could be accidental. And when we look at comments and statements from some of the world’s most influential people, a dark philosophy is uncovered, and a shocking agenda todepopulate planet earth is revealed. See for yourself:
This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on AUGUST 22, 2016.
With the Brexiteers marching on in their quest to leave the European Union, it is well worth remembering that the EU is not all bad.
While some have argued that the myriad of regulations bestowed upon countries by the EU are a bad thing, some of them are genuinely protecting the general public from toxic dangers that are otherwise allowed to flow freely across the Atlantic Ocean in the US.
While there are undoubtedly lobbying efforts in the EU to get laws altered in the favour of special interest groups, it appears to be much more challenging of a task than in the US. This story shows how ‘significant public mobilization’ can, in fact, bring about political change within the EU; something that the Brexit crowd would argue is not at all possible.
This post was published at 21st Century Wire on JUNE 9, 2016.
A little over a year ago, GMO giant Monsanto was furious at the World Health Organization for linking glypshophate, the chief ingredient in weed killer Roundup, to cancer. As a result Monsanto immediately demanded that WHO retract said report, saying that the report was biased and contradicts regulatory findings that the ingredient, glyphosate, is safe when used as labeled.
A working group at WHO said after reviewing scientific literature it was classifying glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Howeber Monsanto was relentless and said that “we question the quality of the assessment,” according to Philip Miller, Monsanto vice president of global regulatory affairs. “The WHO has something to explain.”
In retrospect it may have been Monsanto who had something to explain, which it did, indirectly, when last week another report was released, this time from the U. N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), according to which Roundup’s glyphosphate is unlikely to cause cancer in people. Continuing the explanation, diazinon and malathion, two other pesticides reviewed by the committee, which met last week and published its conclusions on Monday, were also found to be unlikely to be carcinogenic.
“In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet,” the committee said.
As Reuters itself notes, the conclusions appear to contradict the abovementioned finding by the WHO’s Lyon-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in March 2015 said glyphosate is “probably” able to cause cancer in humans and classified it as a ‘Group 2A’ carcinogen. This is when the alarm bells at Monsanto went off and, according to some, the company’s spending on favorable reports shot through the roof. The result was immediate.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on 05/22/2016.
Why is Monsanto allowed to get away with forcing its products onto the market, especially for use on farms with its highly toxic Roundup? The elites give precedence and control to large corporations, protected by government and protected by government agencies that lie and coverup for the poisons foisted into the public food chain. Profits must prevail!
NEW EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DANGERS OF MONSANTO’S ROUNDUP
JOHN SANDERS WORKED in the orange and grapefruit groves in Redlands, California, for more than 30 years. First as a ranch hand, then as a farm worker, he was responsible for keeping the weeds around the citrus trees in check. Roundup, the Monsanto weed killer, was his weapon of choice, and he sprayed it on the plants from a hand-held atomizer year-round.
Frank Tanner, who owned a landscaping business, is also a Californian and former Roundup user. Tanner relied on the herbicide starting in 1974, and between 2000 and 2006 sprayed between 50 and 70 gallons of it a year, sometimes from a backpack, other times from a 200-gallon drum that he rolled on a cart next to him.
The two men have other things in common, too: After being regularly exposed to Roundup, both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer that starts in the lymph cells. And, as of April, both are plaintiffs in a suit filed against Monsanto that marks a turning point in the pitched battle over the most widely used agricultural chemical in history.
This post was published at Edge Trader Plus on May 17, 2016.
An oligopoly takes shape to corner the human food supply.
The hunter, it seems, has become the hunted. After wresting control of roughly a quarter of the global seeds market by acquiring a massive portfolio of seed companies, including Agroceres, Asgrow, Cristiani Burkard, Dekalb, Delta & Pine and the seeds division of Cargill North America, Monsanto now suddenly finds itself on the menu of two very powerful, much bigger rivals.
On Thursday, it was reported that Germany’s two chemical-industry titans Bayer and BASF, both of which have a market capitalization more than double Monsanto’s, are mulling a takeover bid.
Reaping a Whirlwind
In many ways, Monsanto has only itself to blame. When it launched a hostile bid for Swiss-based pesticides behemoth Syngenta last year, it sparked a massive consolidation race in the agrochemical industry. In the end it was the Chinese state-owned giant ChemChina that walked away with the spoils, at a dizzying price of 43 billion.
This post was published at Wolf Street by Don Quijones ‘ May 17, 2016.
The Washington elite believe that the British people should serve Washington’s interest and not their own. To this end, President Obama has been sent to London to emphasize that the UK must remain in the EU.
Does this make you wonder why it is important to Washington for the British people to surrender their national sovereignty to the European Union? If not, it should.
It is easier and less expensive for Washington to control the EU government than to control 28 separate governments. For example, if Washington wants to open up Europe to Monsanto, it is easier for Washington to bribe one EU government than to deal with 28 governments, especially as the European Commission is not accountable to the European people, whereas the individual populations of the countries would make their objections known to the national governments. The EU can open the door to Monsanto without accountability.
If you think the US government has too much integrity and righteousness to force the EU to serve
Europeans and not Monsanto, read this:
This post was published at Paul Craig Roberts on April 21, 2016.