Posts tonen met het label Geo-ingeneering. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Geo-ingeneering. Alle posts tonen

zaterdag 20 december 2014

Bill Gates’ Human Experimentation with GM Bananas in Africa Condemned by Scientists

At least 124 food and outreach organizations, as well as 26 individual scientists, have signed onto a letter sent to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation protesting ongoing human trials of genetically modified (GM), beta-carotene-enriched bananas intended for Africa.
The GM bananas, which never underwent animal trials, are currently being administered to 12 students attending Iowa State University (ISU), presumably without full disclosure as to the many unknown risks involved.
According to the letter, the trials are taking place under the guidance of Dr. Wendy White, an associate professor of food science and human nutrition. Funding for the trials came from a grant issued by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
“We, the undersigned, representing diverse constituencies from across Africa and the world, working towards food sovereignty, are strongly opposed to the human feeding trials taking place at the Iowa State University involving the so called genetically modified (GM) ‘super banana,’” reads the letter.
Gates Foundation funded creation of GM “Matooke” bananas in Australia
Prior to landing in Iowa, the transgenic bananas were spawned at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia, also with funding from the Gates Foundation. The goal all along has been to eventually force these “frankenfruits” on Uganda and other countries in East Africa.
But there is still no evidence that the GM Matooke bananas are safe. Most independent research to date suggests that GMOs can induce allergies, trigger autoimmune disorders and even cause cancer, especially after many years of consumption.
“Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996,” explains the Institute for Responsible Technology.
“The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise.”
GM bananas unnaturally produce added substances for human consumption
Another major concern with the Gates Foundation’s GM bananas is that they are a functional food designed for complete human consumption. They are substantially different from GM corn and soy, for instance, which contain modified traits and aren’t consumed directly.
“Unlike current GM crops in commercial production where agronomic traits have been altered, scientists have spliced genes into the GM banana to produce substances for humans to digest (extra beta carotene),” explains the letter.
“The GM banana is a whole different ballgame, raising serious concerns about the risks to African communities who would be expected to consume it. Production of vitamin A in the body is complex and not fully understood.”
GM bananas aren’t safe and weren’t created to help Africans
If addressing vitamin A deficiency is really Bill Gates’ concern in all this, then he would be actively encouraging Africans to consume a more diverse array of foods already native to their country that are rich in vitamin A, including sweet potatoes and other natural varieties of carotene-rich bananas.
Instead, he is pushing for an untested banana with altered vitamin A levels to be forced on rural Africans who already have access to all the naturally vitamin A-rich foods they could possibly want. The real goal may have to do with Gates’ other admitted agenda to greatly reduce the world’s population.
“Great strides have been made in the Philippines, another target country for vitamin enhanced GM crops, through government programs that supply supplements and improve access to vitamin A rich foods, to overcome Vitamin A deficiencies,” adds the letter.
“Ironically, the promotion of a GM food staple high in Vitamin A, risks perpetuating monolithic diets, the very causes of Vitamin A deficiency in the first place.”
The full letter is available here:
AFSAfrica.org.
Sources:

maandag 12 mei 2014

Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience: The GMO Biotech Sector can’t win the Scientific Debate. Co-optation, Deception and Collusion

 

British Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Owen Paterson is a staunch supporter of the GM sector (1). Despite criticisms of him being an industry puppet (2) and content to ignore the devastating, deleterious health, environmental, social and agricultural impacts of GMOs (3), both he and other officials like the EU’s chief science advisor Anne Glover (4) have been more than happy to act as mouthpieces for the GM sector by making false statements and claims about the benefits and safety of GMOs that fly in the face of scientific findings.
Paterson’s support for GMOs is being carried out in partnership with a number of institutions, including the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), which is backed by GM companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience (5).
Evidence recently emerged of meetings and briefings involving ministers and the ABC and its industry backers, despite no such meetings with groups worried about the impact of GM on human health and the countryside. In response, GeneWatch UK made a Freedom of Information request to find out what was said at the briefings. Paterson’s department refused to give details. GeneWatch lodged a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner in the hope that ministers will be forced to admit how GM companies are driving government policy. The evidence strongly suggested that the Government is colluding with the GM industry to manipulate the media and plot the return of GM crops to Britain.
Paterson’s department refused to provide details of a telephone conference between the department and the ABC on June 10 last year. Ten days later, Paterson made a speech calling for opposition to be dropped and claiming GM crops and food were ‘probably safer’ than the conventional equivalent. It also refused to release a “message on media suggestions” sent by the ABC to the ministry last April, or details of discussions between Monsanto and the ministry two months before. In addition, his ministry would not provide details of a meeting and emails between former environment minister David Heath and the ABC.
However, details of certain emails have now been made public. They reveal what the veil of secrecy is trying to hide and what many strongly suspected: collusion between the government and the GM sector is rife.
The emails between civil servants and the GM industry reveal how the two developed a media strategy to convince the public about the merits of GM food. Writing on the Mail Online website (6), Sean Poulter notes that the email contacts were part of a wider strategy designed to relax European regulations on growing GM crops and spend millions of taxpayers’ money on GM research in British fields. Owen Paterson has pushed for faster approval of new crops and lobbying for public support and has lobbied the EU to allow biotech crops to be planted in Britain even if they are banned elsewhere.
Poulter argues that such support represents a coup for the GM industry and follows a meeting with ministers and researchers in 2012 which came up with a series of ‘to do’ lists.
The GM sector is working to get its products into Britain by infiltrating or creating institutions and co-opting strategically placed politicians and officials in order to influence decision making and manipulate public perception about GM crops. The ABC has been central in influencing government policy. Indeed, Poulter notes that email exchanges often coincided with major announcements by ministers, which shifted government policy in support of GM crops.
Civil servants hosted a meeting with industry leaders in June 2013 to decide how to present the government’s agri-tech strategy. Officials at the Business, Innovations and Skills (BIS) department even emailed the ABC asking for advice on how to promote the policy. Poulter writes that one BIS official asked for “any ideas you may have that will showcase agri-tech – as you are aware it will need to be eye-catching but reflect the main themes of the strategy.”
BIS also created a list of journalists and influential people who should be targeted with information about the new strategy and asked the ABC if it wanted to add any names or flag up “potential pitfalls.” The ABC responded by adding some names, but it also highlighted a number of journalists on the list who had been critical of GM.
The GM sector – via Paterson’s and his Environment, Food and Rural Affairs department, the BIS, the ABC, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture (7), strategically placed scientists with their ‘independent’ reports (8) and the industry-backed Science Media Centre (9) – is mounting a full-fledged assault on Britain.
Its strategy also involves an ongoing attempt to get GM food into the EU via the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP/TAFTA), which is also shrouded in secrecy. The negotiations for this treaty are backed by the US GM sector: it is aimed at dismantling regulations on behalf of big corporations, bypassing democratic procedures and threatening governments with legal action (10-14).
The majority of the British public who express a view on GM food do not want it (15). However, we are experiencing a consistent, multi-pronged attack on democracy that seeks to distort the debate over the GM issue, hijack institutions, co-opt so-called ‘public servants’ and pass off vest commercial interests as the ‘public good’.
The GM sector will only get its products into Britain (and elsewhere) if its institutions and mouthpieces in government, academia and the media are left unchallenged. Part of the strategy involves counting on a misinformed and easily manipulated public.
 Be informed and take action:
 Notes   
 15) http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/21/many-britain-remain-sceptical-gm-foods/

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-syngenta-and-bayer-cropscience-the-gmo-biotech-sector-cant-win-the-scientific-debate-the-options-are-co-option-deception-and-collusion/5381725

donderdag 8 mei 2014

GMO Crops and Labeling: Barack Obama and the Monsanto Betrayal



gmfood
Under the selective radar of mainstream media, Barack Obama has been carving out a whole new level of support for Monsanto and other destructive biotech giants.
From Scott Creighton, “Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa”:
“At the G8 Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.
“But African civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned ‘public private partnership.’ Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero has teamed up with their most hated nemesis [Monsanto] to exploit an entire continent like they did to India not that long ago?…
“With a commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to ‘partner up’ with mega-multinationals like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential, Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says ‘There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.’
“Of course, that’s an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos for centuries. But it’s true that only the biowreck engineers will foist patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa.”
Under the guise of replacing the “donor-recipient model” of charity with “smart business development that’s a win-win for everybody,” a new level of corporate-government colonialism is aimed at the continent of Africa. The new and improved strategy means bigger profits for the few and greater suffering and displacement for the many.
Support self-sufficiency for the small farmer? Expand the number of small farms growing nutritious and non-toxic food? Never heard of it. Not on the agenda—except in false propaganda statements and promises.
No, instead, the idea is putting small farmers into debt to Monsanto for GMO seeds and highly toxic herbicides, so they can grow (until they go bankrupt) noxious GMO food crops. Small farms will eventually be snapped up by big ag corporations.
Obama? A warrior against corporations on behalf of the people? It’s long past the time for ripping that false mask away.
 During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.
These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”
Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.
Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in assuring that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”
 Then came the reality.
After the election, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.
After the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:
At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.
As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.
As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.
As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.
As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.
As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.
We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.
Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.
The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.
And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.
Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
Monsanto GMO sugar beets.
Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.
Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.
Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.
Syngenta GMO stacked corn.
Pioneer GMO soybean.
Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.
Bayer GMO cotton.
ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
A GMO papaya strain.
And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.
This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.
You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.
From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for gardens and clean, organic, nutritious food is nothing more than a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.
Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.
We are talking about a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.
Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.
 To those people who fight for GMO labeling and the outlawing of GMO crops, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:
Wake up.
Sources include:

maandag 28 april 2014

Geo-Engineering update

..


NASA Proposes Spraying Stratospheric Aerosols Into Earth’s Atmosphere



It’s really amazing how many people are waking up to the fact that “chemtrails” are different from “con-trails.” What was once considered a conspiracy to many is now a fact, chemicals are constantly sprayed into our atmosphere and have been for quite some time now.
Not long ago, NASA personnel gave a lecture (that was also streamed live) at their Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. It was a series of talks by scientists and engineers exploring the topic of Geoengineering and Climate Intervention. (1)
Some of you might be thinking, “Geoengineering, what is that?” Geoengineering encompasses strategies to combat and reduce the effects of global warming and climate change. It’s the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system, and one of these methods, as illustrated in the lecture, is called Solar Radiation Management (SRM) by spraying stratospheric aerosols into the atmosphere. (1) The lecture outlines how SRM would require the equivalent of airplanes spraying aerosols into our atmosphere for decades. You can see this at approximately the 32 minute mark. It seems it’s already happening . 
These programs are also considering spraying Aluminum into the atmosphere (if not already doing it).
“There might be some good reasons to think about aluminum. Aluminum has four  times the volumetric rate for small particles as does sulphur. That means you have roughly 16 times less the coagulation rate, and that’s the thing that really drives removal.” – David Keith, Canadian Environmental Scientists, Professor of Applied Physics at Gordon McKay, Professor of Public policy, Harvard University, President of Carbon Engineering. (2)
The idea of spraying aluminum into our atmosphere goes way back, patents exist that clearly demonstrate the consideration of such materials that include the oxides of metals which have high emissivity. These include harmful substances like aluminum oxide and thorium oxide. A great patent example is one from the Hughes Aircraft Company that dates all the way back to 1990, that’s over twenty years ago. You can take a look at it here.
“We do stuff in the stratosphere all the time off-course, so it’s not as though the stratosphere is absolutely pristine. But you don’t want to have people going off and doing things that involve large radioactive forgings, or programs that go on for extended periods or for that matter provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction.” -M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, University and Lord Chair Professor of Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences Member (2)
Did you know that “they” do stuff in the atmosphere all the time? Is he referring to the Department of Defense? These programs are indeed backed by agencies like the CIA and NASA, they support the National Academy of Sciences with regards to geoengineering projects, and still do till this day. (3)(4)Why are Defense Intelligence Agencies in control? Is this a national security issue? If so, that means happenings with regards to geoengineering might remain classified.
Below is a visual I used from a previous article to give you a good idea about SRM.
Geoengineering schematic
If you are a constant observer of the skies, as I am, it’s not hard to see that something is already going on. This has been voiced by various individuals from all over the world. For example, Rosalind Peterson, president and Co-Founder of the Agriculture Defense Coalition (ADC), and x United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) employee stated at a 2007 United Nations hearing on global warming that:
“One of the things that’s affected by climate change is agriculture, but some of what we are seeing  is man made, but man made in a different way than what you may guess. Weather modification programs, experimental ones done by private companies, the US government, are underway and there are more than 50 operations underway across the United States. All of these impact agriculture because they change the micro-climates needed for agriculture to survive. None of these programs are done with oversight. International corporations are modifying our weather all the time, and modifying it in ways that cover thousands and thousands of square miles. Most of it is chemically altered, so what happens is that we are putting ground based chemicals that are shot into the air that change and modify our weather.”
You can read more, and view that full hearing here.
A former premier of British Columbia felt so strong about the issue that he sent out a letter across Canada to multiple politicians voicing his concern. You can read more about that here.  Neurosurgeon Russel L. Blaylock made some noise about health concerns as a result of nanoaluminum spraying, you can read about that here.
Anybody who looks out their window on a bright day and watches these trails will notice them spread out and expand until the sky is covered with them. Contrails don’t do that.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that these geonengineering techniques have already begun, and were initiated a long time ago.
As far as global warming goes, that’s another controversial topic. There is no doubt climate change is occurring, but why and how is still not well understood. Is ‘global warming’ just a justification for geoengineering? Is geoengineering a cover for alternative agendas we don’t know about? These are important questions. No doubt that human activity has played a large role in the destruction of our environment.
There are better ways to operate here on planet Earth, ways that are more harmonious with the plant. One example is Free Energy, and another is Solar.

=======================================================================Unilateral Geoengineering Non-technical Briefing Notes for a Workshop - At the Council on Foreign Relations Washington DC, May 05, 2008

http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_041209.pdf


April 18th 2014 article on Nsnbc:

EU Elections: Candidates Challenged to Come Clean on Clandestine Geoengineering

Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) : Civil Society Organizations from 17 EU member states challenge candidates in the upcoming EU Elections to come clean about their stand, on the established facts about clandestine aerial spraying of the European sky within the context of illegal, ongoing, climate manipulation and geoengineering programs before May 25.


http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/17/eu-elections-candidates-challenged-to-come-clean-on-clandestine-geoengineering/

=========================================================================================

Video streaming by Ustream ...
Scientists: "Exclusive Club" To Assume Command Of Global Geoengineering
http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-we...

CIA co-sponsoring geoengineering study to look at reversing global warming options
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-cia-co-s...


Scientists: "Exclusive Club" To Assume Command Of Global Geoengineering
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29293171

World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
http://www.theguardian.com/environmen...
Government Response to the House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee 5
Report of Session 2009-10:
The Regulation of Geoengineering

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...

Strategic incentives for climate
geoengineering coalitions to exclude
broad participation

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8...

Scientists: "Exclusive Club" To Assume Command Of Global Geoengineering
http://explosivereports.com/2013/03/0...

Here are just a few resources highlighted in the video:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk...
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp...
http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/geo...
http://www.theguardian.com/environmen...
http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressB...
http://www.theguardian.com/environmen...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-102...
http://acrf-campaign.arm.gov/isdac/
http://truthstreammedia.com/cia-funds...
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08...


Chemtrail Proof - German Military Exposed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4
See also:
What in the World Are They Spraying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khs...

Why in the World Are they Spraying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9VcWk...

Aaron Dykes on Chemtrail/Geoengineering Agenda + DOCS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbszeB...