According to these minutes, released in the Kremlin today by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNRE), Putin was so incensed over the Obama regimes refusal to discuss this grave matter that he refused for three hours to even meet with Kerry, who had traveled to Moscow on a scheduled diplomatic mission, but then relented so as to not cause an even greater rift between these two nations.

At the center of this dispute between Russia and the US, this MNRE report says, is the “undisputed evidence” that a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine, known as neonicotinoids, are destroying our planets bee population, and which if left unchecked could destroy our world’s ability to grow enough food to feed its population.

So grave has this situation become, the MNRE reports, the full European Commission (EC) this past week instituted a two-year precautionary ban (set to begin on 1 December 2013) on these“bee killing” pesticides following the lead of Switzerland, France, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine, all of whom had previously banned these most dangerous of genetically altered organisms from being used on the continent.

Two of the most feared neonicotinoids being banned are Actara and Cruiser made by the Swiss global bio-tech seed and pesticide giant Syngenta AG which employs over 26,000 people in over 90 countries and ranks third in total global sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market.

Important to note, this report says, is that Syngenta, along with bio-tech giants Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and DuPont, now control nearly 100% of the global market for genetically modified pesticides, plants and seeds.

Also to note about Syngenta, this report continues, is that in 2012 it was criminally charged in Germany for concealing the fact that its genetically modified corn killed cattle, and settled a class-action lawsuit in the US for $105 million after it was discovered they had contaminated the drinking supply of some 52 million Americans in more than 2,000 water districts with its “gender-bending” herbicide Atrazine.

To how staggeringly frightful this situation is, the MNRE says, can be seen in the report issued this past March by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) wherein they warned our whole planet is in danger, and as we can, in part, read:

“As part of a study on impacts from the world’s most widely used class of insecticides, nicotine-like chemicals called neonicotinoids, American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has called for a ban on their use as seed treatments and for the suspension of all applications pending an independent review of the products’ effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.

“It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns,” said Cynthia Palmer, co-author of the report and Pesticides Program Manager for ABC, one of the nation’s leading bird conservation organizations.

ABC commissioned world renowned environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau to conduct the research. The 100-page report, “The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds,” reviews 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act. The report evaluates the toxicological risk to birds and aquatic systems and includes extensive comparisons with the older pesticides that the neonicotinoids have replaced. The assessment concludes that the neonicotinoids are lethal to birds and to the aquatic systems on which they depend.

“A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a songbird,” Palmer said. “Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the oldest neonicotinoid — called imidacloprid — can fatally poison a bird. And as little as 1/10th of a neonicotinoid-coated corn seed per day during egg-laying season is all that is needed to affect reproduction.”

The new report concludes that neonicotinoid contamination levels in both surface- and ground water in the United States and around the world are already beyond the threshold found to kill many aquatic invertebrates.”

Quickly following this damning report, the MRNE says, a large group of group of American beekeepers and environmentalists sued the Obama regime over the continued use of these neonicotinoids stating: “We are taking the EPA to court for its failure to protect bees from pesticides. Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an agricultural system in trouble.”

And to how bad the world’s agricultural system has really become due to these genetically modified plants, pesticides and seeds, this report continues, can be seen by the EC’s proposal this past week, following their ban on neonicotinoids, in which they plan to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with the European Union, and as we can, in part, read:

“Europe is rushing towards the good ol days circa 1939, 40… A new law proposed by the European Commission would make it illegal to “grow, reproduce or trade” any vegetable seeds that have not been “tested, approved and accepted” by a new EU bureaucracy named the “EU Plant Variety Agency.”

It’s called the Plant Reproductive Material Law, and it attempts to put the government in charge of virtually all plants and seeds. Home gardeners who grow their own plants from non-regulated seeds would be considered criminals under this law.”

This MRNE report points out that even though this EC action may appear draconian, it is nevertheless necessary in order to purge the continent from continued contamination of these genetically bred “seed monstrosities.”

Most perplexing in all of this, the MRNE says, and which led to Putin’s anger at the US, has been the Obama regimes efforts to protect pesticide-producer profits over the catastrophic damaging being done to the environment, and as the Guardian News Service detailed in their 2 May article titled “US rejects EU claim of insecticide as prime reason for bee colony collapse” and which, in part, says:

“The European Union voted this week for a two-year ban on a class of pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, that has been associated with the bees’ collapse. The US government report, in contrast, found multiple causes for the collapse of the honeybees.”

To the “truer” reason for the Obama regimes protection of these bio-tech giants destroying our world, the MRNE says, can be viewed in the report titled “How did Barack Obama become Monsanto’s man in Washington?” and which, in part, says:

“After his victory in 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.”

Even worse, after Russia suspended the import and use of an Monsanto genetically modified cornfollowing a study suggesting a link to breast cancer and organ damage this past September, theRussia Today News Service reported on the Obama regimes response:

“The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week – including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.”

On 26 March, Obama quietly signed this “Monsanto Protection Act” into law thus ensuring the American people have no recourse against this bio-tech giant as they fall ill by the tens of millions, and many millions will surely end up dying in what this MRNE report calls the greatest agricultural apocalypse in human history as over 90% of feral (wild) bee population in the US has already died out, and up to 80% of domestic bees have died out too.

Source

"March Against Monsanto" protesters say they wanted to call attention to the dangers posed by genetically modified food and the food giants that produce it. Founder and organizer Tami Canal said protests were held in 436 cities in 52 countries.

Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply.

Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But some say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment.

Monsanto Co., based in St. Louis, said Saturday that it respects people's rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintains that its seeds improve agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources such as water and energy.

The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe.

The American Food and Drug Administration does not require the labeling, but organic food companies and some consumer groups have intensified their push for labels, arguing that the modified seeds are floating from field to field and contaminating traditional crops.

The groups have been bolstered by a growing network of consumers who are wary of processed and modified foods.

FDA sees no difference between GMO and non-GMO foods

The Senate this week overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group that represents Monsanto, DuPont & Co. and other makers of genetically modified seeds, has said that it supports voluntary labeling for people who seek out such products.

But it says that mandatory labeling would only mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe, even though the FDA has said there's no difference between GMO and organic, non-GMO foods.

However, state legislatures in Vermont and Connecticut moved ahead this month with votes to make food companies declare genetically modified ingredients on their packages. And supermarket retailer Whole Foods Markets Inc. has said that all products in its North American stores that contain genetically modified ingredients will be labeled as such by 2018.

Whole Foods says there is growing demand for products that don't use GMOs, with sales of products with a "Non-GMO" verification label spiking between 15 per cent and 30 per cent.

Original Source

A Freedom of Information Act request filed with the CDC  seeking information on what the CDC knows about the dangers of vaccines, had by law to be responded to in 20 days. Nearly 7 years later a judge ordered the CDC to turn over the documents on September 30th, 2011. These documents were part of the study discussed in this article.

The paper has received a lot of attention. UBC even held a symposium about vaccination safety as a result in an effort to arouse more critical thinking and discussion around the topic. The response was disturbing  with a number of UBC professors upset that the discussion was taking place in the first place. It’s disturbing to know that there are those out there who wish to silence an opposition to vaccination, and not even keep an open mind to potential dangers. Much of the medical literature examined by researchers comes straight from pharmaceutical company-sponsored medical research. It’s time for us to wake up and make some obvious connections. Here is a quote from the published, peer reviewed paper.

Deliberately concealing information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program(1).

The documents reveal that vaccinations don’t work, and that they cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They also indicate scientific fraud, that government ‘experts’ are working to conceal information. The 45 page paper was published in 2011 and presented at the BSEM scientific conference (2)

Here I present the documentation which appears to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity”, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence as will be explained. As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics. –  Dr Lucija Tomljenovic (1)

She also mentions evidence of ties between vaccine manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.

The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence”, and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website – Dr Lucija Tomljenovic (1)

The documents go on to show that when strong evidence was presented against vaccination, they were completely ignored and overlooked by the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunizations. Furthermore, the committee has constantly dismissed independent research and downplayed vaccine concerns while over inflating the benefits. They’ve also promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine pediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted. All of these violate the JCVI’s own code of conduct.

Alternative media outlets continue to raise awareness about vaccinations and their potential dangers. With the world handing over credibility to a certain criteria, we thank all of the researchers out there who continue to examine all information, and a wide variety of sources. With the work of these researchers and doctors, the truth about vaccinations continues to spread across the planet.

For more articles about vaccinations, you can browse through our health, science/tech, and alternative news sections. Thank you for reading and spread the word!

Sources:

(1)http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

(2)http://www.ecomed.org.uk/publications/the-health-hazards-of-disease-prevention

http://www.vancourier.com/Responses+vaccine+paper+problem+free+scientific+inquiry+expression/6073466/story.html

http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/10/the-vaccine-hoax-is-over-freedom-of-information-act-documents-from-uk-reveal-30-years-of-coverup/

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/government-experts-cover-up-vaccine-hazards/

"Whoever thought they would hear a third-grader saying that they liked tofu and Chinese noodles?" asked Dennis Walcott, New York City schools chancellor.

Walcott was at the Active Learning Elementary School this week to celebrate its move to all-vegetarian meals five days a week. The school of nearly 400 students, from pre-kindergarten to third grade, was founded five years ago on the principle that a healthy lifestyle leads to strong academic achievement.

"We decided on a vision where health and nutrition would be a part of educating the whole child," school principal Bob Groff said.

The school's focus on healthier meals began three years ago when Groff noticed a majority of students were bringing their own vegetarian meals. The school went meatless three days a week about a year and a half ago. It also tested meals on a small group of students, gathering feedback and changing the menu accordingly.

Active Learning's student body may be more accustomed to vegetarian diets than most, with 85% of the students being Asian and another 10% Hispanic, said Margie Feinberg, spokeswoman for the New York Department of Education.

"Rice was a staple of many of their home foods," Groff said of the students.

The vegetarian program expanded to four days a week last spring but reverted back to three days when the U.S. Department of Agriculture changed its requirements for protein per serving in the fall, he said.

The school worked closely with the city's education department food program to ensure menu items met USDA standards. It officially went all-vegetarian in January.

"We've been working with tofu for a few months," Groff said. At first, the tofu was served as a seasonless block; now, smaller pieces of barbeque-flavored, oven roasted tofu are served with noodles. That, Groff said, "changes how the kids perceive it."

Other options might include roasted chickpeas, vegetarian chili and brown rice, or falafel, the city Department of Education said in a statement.

Students appear to be enthusiastic about their healthy meals.

"When you're healthy, you can do better on tests and you can fight more diseases," student Nick Lin told CNN affiliate NY1.

Following the announcement this week, Groff said he was welcomed into a PTA meeting with roaring applause.

He told parents the children may still bring whatever meal they like for lunch.

But "the vegetarian menu fits right in with our mission, and we are thrilled that our students in pre-kindergarten all the way up to grade three understand the importance of healthy and nutritious meals," Groff said in a statement.

New York schools -- which provide meals for 1.1 million students daily -- offer principals vegetarian and nonvegetarian lunch options. Groff worked closely with the department so that the menu changes came at no additional cost to the school.

He hired a school parent as a vegetarian chef to develop the menu and described his school as the vegetarian test kitchen for the city. One original recipe, called "Malini's Curry Chickpeas" after the school's chef, was offered as an option in schools across the city on Earth Day, he said.

The department hopes other schools will consider going vegetarian.

"As far as we know, (Active Learning) is the only public school in the nation that offers an all-vegetarian menu," Feinberg said.

Source

In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization.

So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.

No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.

The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. It’s almost ready for ‘business’ according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government. Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault’s relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity.

Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.’ What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?

Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it’s worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things.

The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change.

CGIAR and ‘The Project’

As I detailled in the book, Seeds of Destruction1, in 1960 the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III’s Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, the Philippines. By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation’s IRRI, along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR).

CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation’s George Harrar, Ford Foundation’s Forrest Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family’s international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation’s decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of racial purity, what has been called The Project.

To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank. Thus, through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the beginning of the 1970’s was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And shape it did.

Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to ‘master’ the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO ‘Gene Revolution’ in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture.

Genetically engineering a master race?

Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race.

The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.2

The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace.

The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same.

In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’

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

Move on to Svalbard

Now is it simply philosophical sloppiness? What leads the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to at one and the same time to back proliferation of patented and soon-to-be Terminator patented seeds across Africa, a process which, as it has in every other place on earth, destroys the plant seed varieties as monoculture industrialized agribusiness is introduced? At the same time they invest tens of millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday vault near the remote Arctic Circle ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future’ to restate their official release?

It is no accident that the Rockefeller and Gates foundations are teaming up to push a GMO-style Green Revolution in Africa at the same time they are quietly financing the ‘doomsday seed vault’ on Svalbard. The GMO agribusiness giants are up to their ears in the Svalbard project.

Indeed, the entire Svalbard enterprise and the people involved call up the worst catastrophe images of the Michael Crichton bestseller, Andromeda Strain, a sci-fi thriller where a deadly disease of extraterrestrial origin causes rapid, fatal clotting of the blood threatening the entire human species. In Svalbard, the future world’s most secure seed repository will be guarded by the policemen of the GMO Green Revolution–the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, Syngenta, DuPont and CGIAR.

The Svalbard project will be run by an organization called the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT). Who are they to hold such an awesome trust over the planet’s entire seed varieties? The GCDT was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), an offshoot of the CGIAR.

The Global Crop Diversity Trust is based in Rome. Its Board is chaired by Margaret Catley-Carlson a Canadian also on the advisory board of Group Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, one of the world’s largest private water companies. Catley-Carlson was also president until 1998 of the New York-based Population Council, John D. Rockefeller’s population reduction organization, set up in 1952 to advance the Rockefeller family’s eugenics program under the cover of promoting “family planning,” birth control devices, sterilization and “population control” in developing countries.

Other GCDT board members include former Bank of America executive presently head of the Hollywood DreamWorks Animation, Lewis Coleman. Coleman is also the lead Board Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation, one of America’s largest military industry Pentagon contractors.

Jorio Dauster (Brazil) is also Board Chairman of Brasil Ecodiesel. He is a former Ambassador of Brazil to the European Union, and Chief Negotiator of Brazil’s foreign debt for the Ministry of Finance. Dauster has also served as President of the Brazilian Coffee Institute and as Coordinator of the Project for the Modernization of Brazil’s Patent System, which involves legalizing patents on seeds which are genetically modified, something until recently forbidden by Brazil’s laws.

Why now Svalbard?

We can legitimately ask why Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation along with the major genetic engineering agribusiness giants such as DuPont and Syngenta, along with CGIAR are building the Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic.

Who uses such a seed bank in the first place? Plant breeders and researchers are the major users of gene banks. Today’s largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants. Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called ‘Terminator’ or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits ‘suicide’ after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind existed.

This clever genetically engineered terminator trait forces farmers to return every year to Monsanto or other GMO seed suppliers to get new seeds for rice, soybeans, corn, wheat whatever major crops they need to feed their population. If broadly introduced around the world, it could within perhaps a decade or so make the world’s majority of food producers new feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed companies such as Monsanto or DuPont or Dow Chemical.

That, of course, could also open the door to have those private companies, perhaps under orders from their host government, Washington, deny seeds to one or another developing country whose politics happened to go against Washington’s. Those who say ‘It can’t happen here’ should look more closely at current global events. The mere existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not.

These private companies, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical hardly have an unsullied record in terms of stewardship of human life. They developed and proliferated such innovations as dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange. They covered up for decades clear evidence of carcinogenic and other severe human health consequences of use of the toxic chemicals. They have buried serious scientific reports that the world’s most widespread herbicide, glyphosate, the essential ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that is tied to purchase of most Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, is toxic when it seeps into drinking water.9 Denmark banned glyphosate in 2003 when it confirmed it has contaminated the country’s groundwater.10

The diversity stored in seed gene banks is the raw material for plant breeding and for a great deal of basic biological research. Several hundred thousand samples are distributed annually for such purposes. The UN’s FAO lists some 1400 seed banks around the world, the largest being held by the United States Government. Other large banks are held by China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany and Canada in descending order of size. In addition, CGIAR operates a chain of seed banks in select centers around the world.

GMO as a weapon of biowarfare?

Now we come to the heart of the danger and the potential for misuse inherent in the Svalbard project of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundation. Can the development of patented seeds for most of the world’s major sustenance crops such as rice, corn, wheat, and feed grains such as soybeans ultimately be used in a horrible form of biological warfare?

The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy elite families such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920’s, has embodied what they termed ‘negative eugenics,’ the systematic killing off of undesired bloodlines. Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was all about the fact that, as she put it, ‘we want to exterminate the Negro population.’ 11

A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.

In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.

Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.

It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine. 12

Is it a coincidence that these same organizations, from Norway to the Rockefeller Foundation to the World Bank are also involved in the Svalbard seed bank project? According to Prof. Francis Boyle who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, the Pentagon is ‘now gearing up to fight and win biological warfare’ as part of two Bush national strategy directives adopted, he notes, ‘without public knowledge and review’ in 2002. Boyle adds that in 2001-2004 alone the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work, a staggering sum.

Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright estimates that over 300 scientific institutions and some 12,000 individuals in the USA today have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare. Alone there are 497 US Government NIH grants for research into infectious diseases with biowarfare potential. Of course this is being justified under the rubric of defending against possible terror attack as so much is today.

Many of the US Government dollars spent on biowarfare research involve genetic engineering. MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the ‘growing bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population.’ King adds, ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’ 13

Time will tell whether, God Forbid, the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Bank of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution, this involving the extinction of the Late, Great Planet Earth.

Read Original article

Read the full article

The Nation Organic Standards Board decided to stick with the plan to end the exemption that allows for the use of antibiotics in organic apple and pear orchards next year.

Jack Jones (who asked that his real name not be used) takes care of a small organic pear orchard for a farmer south of the San Francisco Bay Area. This spring, as the trees have begun to blossom, he’s been spraying them with a small amount of the antibiotic tetracycline to prevent a disease called fire blight. 

Last year, when the perfect storm of warm, wet air first brought the bacteria to the farm, he tried removing infected branches and getting rid of cover crops, which were providing nitrogen that fed the disease. But to no avail—the disease had established itself in the trunks.

“It just devastated the orchard. We lost 80 percent of our trees in one season,” he recalls.

About half of the remaining 90 trees were a variety called Warren, which is immune to fire blight. For the rest, he decided to spray the tetracycline as a preventative measure, and is replanting the rest of the orchard with other varieties that are resistant to the disease.

It may shock you to discover that antibiotic use in organic apple and pear orchards is routine. In fact, tetracycline has been on the national list of synthetic production materials allowed in organic farming since the mid-’90s. Even so, antibiotic use in fruit production has largely gone unnoticed by the public, until now. With more focus on the larger issue of antibiotics in animal production—which accounts for nearly 80 percent of the antibiotics sold every year in the U.S.—a growing number of consumer advocates are sounding the alarm.

The growth in public awareness coincides with internal debate about the future of antibiotic use in organic orchards. Ahead of The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) (the decision-making body behind the federal organic standards) meeting this week in Portland, Oregon, where members will discuss just how much longer farmers like Jones can continue routine use of antibiotics like tetracycline or streptomycin to control fire blight, several issues remain unresolved.

Debate pits consumer watchdog groups against farmers

There is an antibiotic-free alternative to controlling fire blight, a German product called Blossom Protect, which has had promising results in field trials. This is the first season it will be available for widespread commercial use, but growers simply don’t know if it will be reliable enough to effectively control the bacteria.

In the meantime, advocacy groups such as the Consumers Union, the Center for Food Safety, and Food & Water Watch have petitioned the NOSB to preserve the current phase-out date of 2014 for the antibiotics. Growers and scientists are pushing for an extension, which would allow for the use of tetracycline and similar drugs to control fire blight until 2016. 

Organic fruit farmer and NOSB member Zea Sonnabend is not optimistic that farmers will have other viable options by 2014. “Nobody wants to [use antibiotics], but on the other hand, farmers have not had enough political clout to get research funded for alternatives until now,” she told TakePart.

Blossom Protect, which Sonnabend says has done well in university tests in California and Oregon, hasn’t proven very effective in Michigan, a big apple-growing state. “If farmers only have one season [to test Blossom Protect], that’s not enough time for them to figure out all of the details—when to spray, how many times, how much to spray, etc. All that stuff takes experimentation on each farm.”

If the phase out happens before farmers feel confident, Sonnabend worries some will drop their organic certification to save their orchards.

“That will create a difficult choice for consumers because organic fruit can still be produced in areas where the fire blight disease hasn’t arrived yet, such as China, Argentina and Chile,” she adds.

These antibiotics were originally placed on the exception list with the understanding that they would be phased out eventually, but their exemption has been renewed several times since the federal standards went into effect in 2000. Consumer advocates say a 14-year exemption by the National Organic Standards Board allowing antibiotic use in organic apple and pear production provided more than enough time for growers to find alternative solutions to fire blight.

“I’m not saying this isn’t a difficult issue that farmers face, and it’s unfortunate that we’ve gotten to this point, but when is enough enough? At a certain point you have to call this use of antibiotics, which has gone on since 1995, into question,” says Lisa J. Bunin, Ph.D., Organic Policy Director for Center for Food Safety.

For those who say fighting fire blight is too difficult without the help of antibiotics, Bunin counters by pointing out that it’s already being done successfully by growers who export to Canada and the European Union, where such usage is prohibited.

“There are a large number of growers not using antibiotics because they want to sell to the EU market,” she says.

In Washington state, the nation’s leading producer of organic apples and pears, about 20 percent of orchards are antibiotic free, according to David Granatstein. A former organic farmer and head researcher at the Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, Granatstein has spent a great deal of his 25-year tenure studying the effects of fire blight on the industry there (he also keeps a detailed website where he collects data on the topic).

He says that even some of the farmers Bunin points to have had to give up their EU organic certification in bad fire blight years.

“For our growers to export to Europe, they have to prove they haven’t used antibiotics for three years. If they have a bad fire blight year and they have to use an antibiotic, they can still sell their products as certified organic in the U.S. If you’re on a site that doesn’t have a lot of fire blight, you can say, ‘what the heck’ and take that risk,” he says.

But if antibiotics are phased out before a viable alternative proves to be effective industry-wide, he says, those export growers will have to default to selling their fruit into the conventional market for three years. “The penalty would be much, much bigger,” says Granastein, who echoes Sonnabend’s concerns about the potential shrinking of the organic fruit industry, pointing to polling his center did with Washington farmers.

The research [PDF link] reads: 

Organic growers in Washington State were surveyed about their likely response to the loss of oxytetracycline in 2010 and 2011. Only 20-25% of the growers said such a loss would have little or no effect. When asked if they could effectively control fire blight in a year of high risk without antibiotics, 82% said no.

It turns out that some varieties are more resistant to fire blight than others. Unfortunately, those more at risk are the ones consumers know and love most—apples like Fuji, Gala, Golden Delicious, Pink Ladies and Granny Smiths. Pears that are most susceptible include favorites like D’Anjou, Bartlett, Bosc, and Comice. Will consumers be willing to switch to unfamiliar varieties like Winesaps or Melrose apples? It’s hard to say. But rather than take that risk, Granastein says some organic apple and pear growers have chosen to exit the organic market instead.

“One of the largest organic apple growers in Michigan has begun to transition out of organic because he doesn’t feel the tools are there,” he says.

Residue and resistance

Antibiotic residue on your fruit isn’t the foremost concern in this fight. While definitive information on how much of the drugs remain on fruit is still forthcoming, Granatstein has done some his own research. He and his researchers looked at fruit from trees that were sprayed with tetracycline during bloom time, or around 120 days before harvest.

“We’re not finding residues,” he says. “We haven’t published the data, but that’s what the initial results show. If you apply it 60 days before harvest you already have an apple that’s an inch and a half. There’s a surface to capture that spray. But the blossom captures it and falls off. This material, to my understanding, doesn’t move around in the plant, so it’s not going to be present in the developing fruit.”

What we do know is that fire blight has become resistant to streptomycin, which had been used in orchards since the 1950s. Consumer advocates are concerned that this will also happen with routine tetracycline use.

“To the degree that fire blight is becoming resistant to these antibiotics, it’s their own race to the bottom,” says Consumers Union’s Urvashi Rangan, director of consumer safety and sustainability.

What’s really at stake here, she says, is that allowing this fruit to carry the organic label is in fact compromising the term, and watering down the high standards that accompany it.

The lack of awareness and its impact on consumer expectation is what’s important to Rangan. An online survey of nearly 1,000 people conducted by The Consumer Reports National Research Center found that more than 80 percent of the respondents said they either didn’t think (68 percent) or didn’t know (17 percent) that antibiotics are used to treat disease in apple and pear trees. Once they were told, more than half of consumers said they don’t think the fruit should be labeled as organic.

“Consumers don’t know that antibiotics are being used in organic apple and pear production. At the very least, they should come up with a different label or disclose that use on the package. Call it ‘Organic-plus-Antibiotics’,” she says. “We think apple and pear growers who don’t use antibiotics should be able to differentiate their product, and right now, they can’t do that.”

Read Original Article.

A 5-year-old girl on Staten Island is banned from her kindergarten class because she has not been vaccinated against the chicken pox.

She's actually under doctor's orders not to get vaccinated because if she does it could kill her baby sister.

Her parents are now facing quite a conundrum.

"You're looking for answers or the best way to help her, and no one will help you," said Elizabeth Wagner, a parent.

Elizabeth Wagner is heartbroken.

Her 5-year-old daughter, FrankieElizabeth, spent yet another day at home Monday after she was kicked-out of kindergarten at PS 36 on Staten Island.

The Department of Education is refusing to allow the little girl to return until she's vaccinated for chicken pox.

But, FrankieElizabeth has a newborn sister.

The family's doctor is refusing to vaccinate FrankieElizabeth because of the remote risk of an allergic reaction.

The doctor says that the newborn could become infected if the two come into contact.

"The doctor is telling me it could be harmful to the baby. Like I said, even if it's a small chance, I don't want to take the chance and give me any other parent that would take a chance with their newborn. I'm not willing to take that chance," Wagner said.

The Department of Education told Eyewitness News, "The medical exemption was denied after a thorough review with the parent and the student's doctor. A student can be excluded from school for not having the required vaccines."

Read the full article

Mysterious new disease striking young women, symptoms mimic demonic possession

Evidence points to vaccines, lack of proper nutrients as cause of Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis

Read more:  

It all began when the reporter was investigating a surge in E.coli outbreaks in meat when an industry source told him that the even bigger public health hazard was what companies were intentionally adding to their products, starting with salt. He looked, he was shocked, he wrote a book. And his findings are nothing short of depressing.

Through extensive interviews with past and present industry insiders, scouring scores of documents, and years of investigation, Moss unveils any number of tricks and strategies intended to do one thing only: sell more products. If it means endangering the health of the nation by boosting salt, fat and sugar levels, so be it. As it stands, a third of Americans are obese. The number one reason, according to Moss, is potato chips.

Among his many findings, he writes about what scientists call “bliss spots,” the point when the sugar and salt levels are just exactly right; the point where you continue to want more, but don’t get bored or overwhelmed by the flavor. The point where you don’t want to stop eating. These levels are determined by labs designed to find them, and “crave consultants” in white coats do the dirty work.

The amount of research done on perfecting the desirability of junk food is staggering. Frito-Lay had a research complex near Dallas, where nearly 500 chemists, psychologists and technicians conducted research costing up to $30 million a year. Sadly they weren’t finding a cure for cancer, but analyzing issues of crunch, mouth feel and aroma of snack items. According to an excerpt from Moss’ book published in The Times, their tools included a $40,000 device that simulates a chewing mouth to test and perfect the chips, discovering things like the perfect break point. (Most people like a chip that snaps with about four pounds of pressure per square inch. Who knew?)

One of the most perfect snacks ever invented, according to food scientist Steven Witherly, is Cheetos. “This,” Witherly told Moss, “is one of the most marvelously constructed foods on the planet, in terms of pure pleasure.” He described a dozen attributes of the Cheetos that make the brain say “more.” But the one he focused on most was the puff’s uncanny ability to melt in the mouth. “It’s called vanishing caloric density,” Witherly said. “If something melts down quickly, your brain thinks that there’s no calories in it ... you can just keep eating it forever.”

The processed food giants have spent decades allocating tremendous amounts of money in engineering perfectly addictive products and then relentlessly and often unscrupulously selling these products. Says Moss, the effects “are seemingly impossible to unwind.”

In an Amazon.com interview, Moss offers these three tips to break the grasp that the junk food industry may have on you:

1. The most alluring products — those with the highest amounts of salt, sugar and fat — are strategically placed at eye-level on the grocery shelf. You typically have to stoop down to find, say, plain oatmeal. (Healthier products are generally up high or down low.)

2. Companies also play the better-nutrition card by plastering their packaging with terms like "all natural," "contains whole grains," “contains real fruit juice,” and "lean," which belie the true contents of the products.

3. Only since the 1990s have the manufacturers even been required to reveal the true salt, sugar, fat and caloric loads of their products, which are itemized in a box called the "nutrient facts." But one game that many companies still play is to divide these numbers in half, or even thirds, by reporting this critical information per serving — which are typically tiny portions. In particular, they do this for cookies and chips, knowing that most people can't resist eating the entire three-serving bag. Check it out sometime. See how many “servings” that little bag of chips contains.

Watch the interview: