Friday, October 24, 2014

GMO Labelling: Reflections on "Weaponized" Science

By Carl-John X Veraja

H. 112, a law that requires labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is active in Vermont, and being assaulted by the GMO industry and by Scientific American. The bill notes a lack of scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs, and conflicting studies that helped produce this. Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) are two groups helping to defend the law.

Monsanto, Pepsi, and Dupont have been reported as spending millions to kill GMO labelling bills.

On July 13, 2013, a German newspaper, Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), ran a report on how Monsanto had teamed up with the United States military industrial complex and federal government to target independent researchers of GMO foods. Opponents of Monsanto, a GMO giant, have been slandered, hacked, threatened, and discredited through "cyber warfare" tactics. Similarly, Tyrone Hayes, a scientist at University of California, Berkeley, who discovered endocrine disrupting properties in a herbicide used on corn crops, said he had been subjected to the same tactics by Syngenta, a competitor of Monsanto's. A campaign to credit such reports is apparent with a Google search.

Shortly after Senator Bernie Sanders, on August 15, 2013, gave his backing to the Vermont Public Interest Research Group's initiative for the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms, the Scientific American released an article with the anonymizing byline "The Editors" titled "Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea." The article assured the rational, scientifically astute reader that thinking you should know what's on your table was evidence you do not appreciate the complexity of the issue. They then demonstrated by oversimplifying the issue themselves, comparing genetically modified food with selective breeding. The comparison pointed out how selective breeding was a good thing, producing more resilient crops, despite the fact that selective breeding involved the transfer of "giant chunks of DNA" from one species to another. Think sex and those pesky, pollinating bees. Genetic modification, on the other hand, involved only a small number of genes, and in "most cases" is "less likely" to produce an "undesired result." These results possibly including reduced profits for the GMO industry, for instance.

The Editors then went on to exclaim against the argument that labeling would increase consumer choice since they'd know what they were eating. On the contrary, labeling had effectively removed GMO's from the market in the EU. So, when consumers had a choice, they lost their choice because they overwhelmingly chose to not purchase GMO-labelled products in their vast ignorance. Didn't they know that the Food and Drug Administration, which has a former Monsanto lawyer, Michael R. Taylor, as it's deputy commissioner for foods, has declared that GMO foods are not toxic or allergenic?  

And the price you will pay if GMOs are similarly removed from the American market could be $400 according to one estimate from a private firm study that was overturned in later studies. Stacy Malkin, former director of Yes on 37, a group that wanted labeling in California, said :“Scientific American got seduced into using this bogus report.” 

Claims that GMOs reduce the need for herbicides and pesticides by SA were also discredited by a Food and Water Watch study that determined the resultant "superweeds" which resisted glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Round Up had required the increased use of herbicides to control them. This increase is ongoing.

Scientific American is a magazine owned by the Holtzbrink Publishing Group.  Holtzbrink's CEO, Stefan von Holtzbrinck, was worth $1.05 billion as of last year, according to Holtzbrinck was a 2011 attendee of the Bilderberg conference in Davos, Switzerland, where media attend under a code of secrecy at a group which was started by members of the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and its secretive administrative funding arm, the 1001 Club. Prince Bernhard, who was instrumental in Bilderberg's organization, was previously a member of the Nazi party, and had worked for I.B. Farben, a pharmaceutical company which weaponized vaccines, and produced the gas for concentration camps.

Scientific American has repeatedly called the practice of affixing a label that describes the production process of an ingredient as "unscientific", calling into question the public's ability to appreciate such labeling, not realizing they are potentially dooming themselves to paying more for foods that are not genetically modified once they become aware of their existence.

GMOs for use in depopulation of the human species was openly reported in the Guardian on the 9th of September, 2001. A corn containing a human gene that would cause bodies to produce a sperm antibody was discovered by Epicyte. Some claim it has been secretly encoded into food supplies already. 

Currently, Oregon and Colorado have labeling laws on the ballot, with dozens of other states considering the same.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Gang Stalking 101

Thomas Marshall is an activist who did a great deal of research on targeted individuals. This video serves as a primer on the tactics, motivations, and effects of the attacks perpetrated. This is what is sometimes called silent kill, where the victim is broken down and driven to suicide in a situation where accountability can be denied.

He has a youtube channel with much more information here.

This page cites some published evidence of these technologies. 

Jesse Ventura also confirmed the targeted individuals program on his show Conspiracy Theory.

Thousands of people claim to have been victimized by secret government-sponsored harassment programs.

This was a BBC report on mind control technologies.

This video show how people are manipulated into joining in on stalking activities.
Mainstream media stories on gang stalking involving probably psychotronic weaponry.


The Consequence of Sounds, Regina Spektor

 Dissent is necessary for a healthy democracy.