Russian General: US trying to destroy Syria's critical infrastructure

ORIGINAL LINK

A top Russian general claims that the U.S. is trying to “completely destroy critical infrastructure in Syria and complicate post-war reconstruction as much as possible"DemocracyLieutenant General Sergei Rudskoi of the Russian military's General Staff said on Tuesday that U.S.-led coalition airstrikes were intentionally targeting critical infrastructure in Syria — which could lead to major ecological and humanitarian catastrophes. According to General Rudskoi,&...

via IFTTT

April Fools: Kremlin offers 'election interference'

ORIGINAL LINK

(CBS) Need some election interference? The Russian Foreign Ministry is ready to help — or so it says on April Fools’ Day.

On Saturday, the ministry posted on its Facebook page an audio file of the purported new automated telephone switchboard message for Russian embassies.

“To arrange a call from a Russian diplomat to your political opponent, press 1,” the recording begins, in Russian and English. Press 2 “to use the services of Russian hackers,” and 3 “to request election interference.”

via IFTTT

Zika vaccine: watch out—it will alter your DNA

ORIGINAL LINK

Zika vaccine: watch out—it will alter your DNA

Explosive details

by Jon Rappoport

March 24, 2017

First, I’ll lay out a little background—

In many previous articles, I’ve established there is no convincing evidence the Zika virus causes the birth defect called microcephaly. (Zika archive here)

Basically, Brazilian researchers, in the heart of the purported “microcephaly epidemic,” decided to stop their own investigation and simply assert Zika was the culprit. At that point, they claimed that, out of 854 cases of microcephaly, only 97 showed “some relationship” to Zika.

You need to understand that these figures actually show evidence AGAINST Zika. When researchers are trying to find the cause of a condition, they should be able to establish, as a first step, that the cause is present in all cases (or certainly an overwhelming percentage).

This never happened. The correlation between the presence of Zika and microcephaly was very, very weak.

As a second vital step, researchers should be able to show that the causative virus is, in every case, present in large amounts in the body. Otherwise, there is not enough of it to create harm. MERE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS IS NOT ENOUGH. With Zika, proof it was present in microcephaly-babies in large amounts has never been shown.

But researchers pressed on. A touted study in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed Zika infected brain cells in the lab. IRRELEVANT. Cells in labs are not human beings. The study also stated that Zika infected baby mice. IRRELEVANT. Mice are not humans. And these mice in the lab had been specially altered or bred to be “vulnerable to Zika.” USELESS AND IRRELEVANT.

All this fraud set the stage for the Zika DNA vaccine. Yes, it is under development. It is, in fact, an example of the next generation of vaccines. And this is why you should watch out.

Here is an excerpt from a US National Institutes of Health press release (8/3/16) (here, here, and, the booster to the DNA vaccine here):

“The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health [NIH], has launched a clinical trial of a vaccine candidate intended to prevent Zika virus infection.”

“Scientists at NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center (VRC) developed the investigational vaccine — called the NIAID Zika virus investigational DNA vaccine — earlier this year.”

“The investigational Zika vaccine includes a small, circular piece of DNA — called a plasmid — that scientists engineered to contain genes that code for proteins of the Zika virus. When the vaccine is injected into the arm muscle, cells [in the person’s body] read the genes and make Zika virus proteins, which self-assemble into virus-like particles. The body mounts an immune response to these particles, including neutralizing antibodies and T cells. DNA vaccines do not contain infectious material — so they cannot cause a vaccinated individual to become infected with Zika — and have been shown to be safe in previous clinical trials for other diseases.”

SYNTHESIZED GENES ARE INJECTED INTO THE BODY.

That’s why it’s called a DNA vaccine.

Beginning to wonder what this is all about?

It’s about PERMANENTLY ALTERING YOUR DNA.

It’s about altering the DNA of every person on the planet who is vaccinated.

New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” The article describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly two years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line?

The Times article taps Nobel laureate Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

By now you should be seeing the larger picture. A virus (Zika)…

Never proved to cause anything…

Becomes the occasion for developing and injecting a vaccine…

That is actually a group of synthetic genes…

Which will alter your DNA.

---

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

---

And that program implies the possibility of a far wider operation:

Covertly, any genes can be injected in the body and called vaccination. Untold numbers of experiments to alter human DNA can be run. Experiments to create more obedient and passive people, more intelligent and talented people, soldiers who have much higher pain thresholds and who will accept orders without thought or question…

And if you think that is science fiction, read these words from biophysicist Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine, to get a glimpse of what “the best and the brightest” are considering:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

Brave New World? Yes, if Brave means Insane.

(For more on the insanity at NIH, click here)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Filed under: Medical Fraud, Vaccinegate, zika

via IFTTT

National Poll: 60% Of Americans Believe Mainstream Media Is ‘Fake News’

ORIGINAL LINK

A staggering 60% of Americans do not trust the mainstream media and think they regularly publish “fake news”, according to a new poll.

via IFTTT

Podesta Company Paid One Billion Rubles from Russian Govt.

ORIGINAL LINK
The Putin Government gave John Podesta 35 million dollars (1 billion rubles) while he advised Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Investigative reporter and author Peter Schweizer went on FOX and Friends to discuss Kremlin influence on US politics — and how the Clinton camp was in bed with the Putin regime. Peter Schweizer: In 2011 […]

via IFTTT

WikiLeaks Vault 7 Reveals CIA Can Disguise Hacks, Malware As Russian Or Chinese

ORIGINAL LINK

by Matt Agorist, Activist Post:

Moments ago, WikiLeaks released another set of data from the Vault 7 CIA documents which, believe it or not, paints an even more ominous picture of the world’s most unscrupulous spy agency. The latest leak consists of 676 source code files from the CIA’s anti-forensic “Marble” framework — which allows the CIA to covertly create malware, trojans, and hacking attacks — while attributing them to foreign entities.

According to WikiLeaks, Marble is able to hide or cloak their virus signature by “by hiding (“obfuscating”) text fragments used in CIA malware from visual inspection. This is the digital equivalent of a specialized CIA tool to place covers over the English language text on U.S. produced weapons systems before giving them to insurgents secretly backed by the CIA.”

Marble is “[D]esigned to allow for flexible and easy-to-use obfuscation” as “string obfuscation algorithms (especially those that are unique) are often used to link malware to a specific developer or development shop.”

Over the course of the last 4 months, the deep state has claimed — without evidence — that Russia has interfered in US elections. With this technology, the CIA could theoretically present the evidence it needs to “prove” Russian meddling.

According to WikiLeaks, this blame game is possible due to the fact that the source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion, — but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages.

Read More @ ActivistPost.com

via IFTTT

Shocking letter from dead EPA scientist reveals 14 biochemical mechanisms by which glyphosate (Roundup) causes cancer … All were suppressed by the EPA

ORIGINAL LINK

In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced its findings that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is “probably carcinogenic” – in other words, likely to cause cancer in humans. Then, in late April 2016, an 87-page report by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) appeared on its website, claiming that the herbicide was “not likely to be carcinogenic.” It is interesting to note that the document was labeled “final report,” and was based on an assessment overseen by former EPA deputy director and chair of the CARC, Jess Rowland.

The report mysteriously vanished from the website on the 2^nd of May, with the explanation that it had been leaked, and was not, in fact, the agency’s final word on the glyphosate issue.

And that’s where it gets really interesting, because just a few days later, Jess Rowland mysteriously retired.

Of course, the usual “nothing to see here” rhetoric came thick and fast, with condescending references to “conspiracy theories” thrown in the direction of anyone who dared to question the glaring coincidence.

The latest twist in this saga is even more disturbing: A group of cancer victims who are suing Monsanto in a California federal court, have accused Rowland of actively hiding evidence of the cancer-causing properties of glyphosate. And their accusations are obviously not far-fetched, since the judge presiding over the trial has referred to the relationship between Monsanto and Jess Rowland as “highly suspicious.”

The plaintiffs’ attorneys have introduced into evidence a letter written to Rowland in March 2013, by Senior Toxicologist Marion Copley. Copley worked in the EPA’s Health Effects Division, had been with the agency for 30 years, and was the recipient of numerous awards.

In a sad and ironic twist, Copley herself was dying of cancer at the time she wrote the letter.

Copley started the letter by referencing her decades of pathology experience and expressed the hope that her insights would be valuable to the CARC in its investigation of glyphosate.

Having noted that glyphosate was originally created as a chelating agent – chelators are chemicals or chemical compounds that react with heavy metals, altering their chemical structure and improving both their stability and their ability to bond with other metals or substances – Copley went on to list 14 different mechanisms in glyphosate that could cause cancer:

–Chelators inhibit apoptosis, the process by which our bodies kill tumor cells

-Chelators are endocrine disruptors, involved in tumorigenesis

-Glyphosate induces lymphocyte proliferation

-Glyphosate induces free radical formation

-Chelators inhibit free radical scavenging enzymes requiring Zn, Mn or Cu for activity (i.e. SODs)

-Chelators bind zinc, necessary for immune system function

-Glyphosate is genotoxic, a key cancer mechanism

-Chelators inhibit DNA repair enzymes requiring metal cofactors

-Chelators bind Ca, Zn, Mg, etc to make foods deficient for these essential nutrients

-Chelators bind calcium necessary for calcineurin-mediated immune response

-Chelators often damage the kidneys or pancreas, as glyphosate does, a mechanism to tumor formation

-Kidney/pancreas damage can lead to clinical chemistry changes to favor tumor growth

-Glyphosate kills bacteria in the gut and the gastrointestinal system is 80% of the immune system

-Chelators suppress the immune system making the body susceptible to tumors

Copley then went on to make a truly shocking statement: She noted that while any one of the above mechanisms could, in fact, cause tumors, glyphosate causes all those mechanisms simultaneously.

Her chilling conclusion? “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.” [Emphasis added]

Copley went on to point out that Rowland’s credentials were outdated, and that the CARC’s science was at least a decade behind where it should have been. She begged him to put personal gain aside and do what he knew he needed to do in speaking out about the dangers of glyphosate.

She ended her letter, “I have done my duty.”

Jess Rowland, on the other hand, clearly did not do his duty.

Sources:

TROFire.com

DeltaFarmPress.com

Drive.Google.com^[PDF]

NaturalNews.com^[PDF]

TheEcologist.org

via IFTTT

Missing Children Rarely Abducted by Strangers

ORIGINAL LINK

Missing and abducted children have been a big news topic lately, spurred by a host of high-profile conspiracy-theories and falsehoods that began slithering their way through social media. A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking we're in the midst of a child-abduction epidemic. But the truth is that American children today are no more likely to be kidnapped than they were decades ago, and much more likely to be returned safely when they are.

According to an estimate from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), there were just 105 "stereotypical kidnappings" in America between late 2010 and late 2011, the last period for which we have data. (For reference, there were about 73.9 million children in America that year.) Just 65 of these kidnappings were committed by strangers. Less than half involved the abduction of a child under age 12. Only 14 percent of cases were still open after one week, and 92 percent of victims were recovered or returned alive.

In the previous OJJDP survey, from the late 1900s, there had been an estimated 115 stereotypical kidnappings and just 60 percent of victims made it home.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) defines stereotypical kidnappings as those in which 1) the victim is under 18-years-old, 2) the kidnapper is either a stranger or a "slight acquaintance," 3) the abduction involves moving the victim at least 20 feet or detaining them for at least one hour, and 4) the victim is either held for ransom, transported at least 50 miles, detained overnight, held with an intent to keep permanently, or killed. In other words, these are "the most serious" sorts of child abductions, as DOJ puts it.

However, not all of the 105 cases in this category are quite as stereotypical or serious as the others. DOJ defines slight acquaintance as someone the child or their family have known for less than six months, someone they've known for longer than six months but see less than once per month, or someone who might be recognizable to a child or their parents but not known by name. In one "stereotypical kidnapping" case DOJ highlights, a 16-year-old girl ran away to live with an adult boyfriend, who is defined as a "slight acquaintance" because she had only been seeing him a few months. So the number of stereotypical kidnappings that the general public would consider stereotypical is actually lower than the feds' estimate.

Both the 2011 and the 1997 data come from the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). By surveying law-enforcement agencies in a representative sample of U.S. counties, OJJDP came up with estimates for the prevalence and characteristics of stereotypical kidnapping overall during the study periods. The latest NISMART survey covers incidents that occurred between October 1, 2010, and September 20, 2011. The previous survey covers incidents that occured in 1997. Here's an overview of what the federal surveys found.

Number of "stereotypical kidnappings" in America, October 2010 - September 2011: 105

• perpetrated by strangers: 65
• perpetrated by slight acquaintances: 40

Are stereotypical kidnappings up or down? Down, maybe—there were 115 incidents defined as stereotypical kidnappings in the '90s NISMART survey, compared to 105 in more recent research. But because these estimates are based in part on weighted data, the DOJ considers the two numbers "statistically equivalent." However, 2010-2011 victims were much more likely to make it home safely than their 1990s counterparts. In the 90s survey, only 60 percent of stereotypical kidnapping cases ended with the child being recovered alive. In the 2010-2011 survey, it was 92 percent.

Ages of victims: More than half of stereotypical kidnapping victims in 2010-2011 were ages 12 or above. In total, an estimated 61 victims were between 12- and 17-years-old. An estimated 19 victims were between 6- and 11-years-old, with 11 victims between ages three and five and around 14 that were two-years-old or younger.

Race, ethnicity, and gender of victims: Most of the stereotypical kidnapping victims from the more recent survey—approximately 81 percent—were female. Girls ages 12-17 accounted for about half of all victims, with girls age 11 or younger accounting for another 30 percent. About 12 percent of victims were boys age 11 or younger. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of victims from 2010-11 were white, 31 percent were black, and about 24 percent were (white or black) Hispanic. In the 1997 survey, 74 percent of stereotypical-kidnapping victims were white and 19 percent were black, with eight percent identified as Hispanic.

Race, ethnicity, and gender of perpetrators: Three quarters of perpetrators were male, and nearly three quarters were between 18- and 35-years-old. The remaining perpetrators were mostly between the ages of 36 and 45. Around 44 percent were white, 45 percent black, and 18 percent were Hispanic. Relatively few cases (17 percent) involved more than one kidnapper.

Where and how do stereotypical kidnappings occur? About 32 percent of those abducted were taken from a place where they were living or staying (their home, a relative's home, a homeless shelter, etc.). Another 32 percent were abducted at the kidnapper's home. The final 36 percent of victims were taken from a public place of some sort. Most cases featured only one victim (81 percent) and only 18 percent of cases involved a child taken from a group of two or more children. In nearly two-thirds of the abductions, the victims voluntarily went with kidnappers at first.

What happens to victims after they're abducted? In 66 percent of stereotypical kidnapping cases, a perpetrator used force or threats to detain their victim(s). About 37 cases involved physical abuse, 66 cases involved sexual abuse, and 25 cases involved neglect. Some 17 cases were suspected to be related to sex trafficking, but did not necessarily involve sex trafficking.

In more than one third of the stereotypical kidnapping cases, victims were found or returned within 24 hours. In another 31 percent of incidents, the victim was found or returned within one to three days. Only 15 total cases dragged on for more than one week.

via IFTTT

Here's Why Used Car Prices May Crash 50%

ORIGINAL LINK

For months we've been talking about the massive lending bubble propping up the U.S. auto market.  Now, noting many of the same concerns that we've highlighted repeatedly, Morgan Stanley's auto team, led by Adam Jonas, has just issued a report detailing why they think used car prices could crash by up to 50% over the next 4-5 years. 

Here's the summary (flood of supply, poor lending standards and desperate OEMs who need to keep new car sales elevated at all costs):

• Off-lease supply: This has already more than doubled since 2012 and is set to rise another 25% over the next 2 years.

• Extended credit terms: Auto loans are at record lengths and lease assumptions (residuals, money factor) are at record levels of accommodation.

• Rising rates: Starting from record low levels in auto loans.

• Overdependency on auto ABS: The outstanding balance of auto securitizations has surpassed last cycle's peak.

• Record high deep subprime participation: 32% of subprime auto ABS deals were deep subprime (weighted average FICO < 550) in 2016 vs. 5% in 2010.

• Record high units of new car inventory: 2016YE unit inventory levels were near 10% higher than 2015YE, and are continuing to trend higher in 2017.

• OEM price competition: Car manufacturers have capacitized to a 19mm or 20mm SAAR. At this point in the cycle we start seeing more money 'on the hood' to move the metal. As new car prices fall, used prices look relatively more expensive, which necessitates a decline in used prices to equilibrate the supply/demand imbalance.

• Increased ADAS penetration: We expect auto firms to achieve nearly 100% active safety penetration by 2020, creating an unprecedented safety gap between new and used vehicles, accelerating obsolescence of the used stock. Rising insurance premiums on older cars could accelerate this shift.

• Trouble in the car rental market: Due to a number of secular shifts, including how consumers access transportation options (e.g. ride sharing), car rental firms are facing stagnant growth, weak pricing and over-fleeted conditions. As these cars hit the auction, the impact on prices could be significant.

All of which Morgan Stanley thinks could spark a 50% decline in used car prices over the next couple of years.  So, for all of you pension funds out there scooping up all of the AAA-rated slugs of the latest auto ABS deals for the 'juicy yield', now might be a good time to review what happened to the investment grade tranches of MBS structures back in 2009 when home prices crashed by similar amounts.

And here are the stats...

Off-lease volumes have already doubled since 2012 and are only expected to get worse...meanwhile, lending standards have gradually gotten worse and worse...

 

...as further revealed by the growing share of 'deep subprime' loans in auto ABS deals.

 

Of course, so far negative equity hasn't been a problem for car buyers because lenders have been all too willing to roll those debt balances into new loans.  And, courtesy of low rates and stretched out terms, consumers haven't really cared that their debt balances are ballooning so long as their monthly payments remain low. 

 

Meanwhile, none of the warnings about a flood of used car volumes about to hit the market has impacted new car volumes being pushed on to dealer lots.

 

All of which results in this fairly brutal outlook for used car prices:

 

Dear OEMs, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

via IFTTT

‘Remember the 11 million’? Why an inflated victims tally irks Holocaust historians

ORIGINAL LINK

An oft-cited statistic of 5 million non-Jewish Holocaust deaths has no basis in fact, experts say, and may be contributing to denial efforts

via IFTTT

'Stunning' Drug Lab Scandal Could Overturn 23,000 Convictions

ORIGINAL LINK

In the annals of wrongful convictions, there is nothing that comes close in size to the epic drug-lab scandal that is entering its dramatic final act in Massachusetts. About 23,000 people convicted of low-level drug crimes are expected to have their cases wiped away next month en masse, the result of a five-year court fight over the work of a rogue chemist.

via IFTTT

Girl Gets Home From ‘Sex Education’ School Trip. Mom Notices Something IN Her Arm

ORIGINAL LINK

A young girl went on a school outing sold as being done as ‘sex education’, but it seems to have been used as a trip to the doctors office beyond the reach of her parents.

The public school system, the federal government, and even some state governments have recently been destroying parental sovereignty.

“When the government gets up in the middle of the night to clean up puke from a sick child, then they can call themselves a parent.” says my sister!

Independent Journal Review reports:

A mother was horrified after her 16-year-old daughter’s school provided a service that she claims violated her parental rights. The mom, Miracle Foster, became aware of what happened during a school trip when she noticed a mark on her daughter’s arm.

The mark appeared after Foster’s daughter listened to a sex education lecture at her school, Langston Hughes Academy in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Foster’s daughter and several other girls allegedly requested more information, so the school set up transportation for them to visit Youth Services of Tulsa during the school day.

The mother claims a three-year Norplant implant, a form of birth control, was inserted into her daughter’s arm while she was at the clinic. Foster is upset that this happened without her consent.

According to WFTV, school principal Rodney L. Clark said he called the mother for permission before her daughter went on the trip. Clark also released a statement to clarify the Youth Services trip:

“This was not a field trip. Youth Services of Tulsa does an annual in-service on Sex Education. They offer students an opportunity to contact them on their own for more information. The parent gave her child permission to leave the school. Under Title X once young people are at the clinic and are of reproductive age, they can make decisions on their own without parental consent. As you can understand this situation involves a minor and we do not release information about students. Nevertheless, the student was well within their rights of Title X which is a federal guideline that provides reduced cost family planning services to persons of all reproductive age.”

To Foster’s dismay, no law was broken when the implant was put into her child’s arm.

Fox23 reports that teens as young as 12 years old are allowed to receive contraceptives without a parent’s consent, according to Title X federal guidelines.Pure insanity.

The post Girl Gets Home From ‘Sex Education’ School Trip. Mom Notices Something IN Her Arm appeared first on I Have The Truth.

via IFTTT

So Who Annexed the Crimean Peninsula Then?

ORIGINAL LINK

Due to the international media’s continued claims about the «annexation of Crimea», it’s been difficult for the citizens of the US and Europe to make sense of the details of the peninsula’s recent history. Exactly three years ago, on March …

via IFTTT

Evidence EPA Colluded With Monsanto to Dismiss Cancer Concerns Grows Stronger

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

Glyphosate — the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and other herbicides — is the most widely used agricultural chemical in the world, and testing suggests a large portion of the global population now has glyphosate in their system.

According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the "gold standard" in carcinogenicity research, glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" (Class 2A).^1,2

Research scientist Anthony Samsel has also reported he has evidence showing Monsanto is well aware glyphosate promotes cancer, and that they've had this knowledge since 1981.

Publicly, the company has insisted glyphosate is harmless to both environment and human health, but recent revelations are beginning to unravel Monsanto's carefully orchestrated plot to deceive the public.

The evidence in question suggests the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in fact colluded with Monsanto to protect the company's interests by manipulating and preventing key investigations into glyphosate's cancer-causing potential.

What we have here is really the most dangerous situation possible. Taxpayers' money has essentially been used to help shield companies from liability and obstruct consumers' ability to prove damages.

Environmental Protection Agency Accused of Colluding With Monsanto

But first, some background: Based on the IARC's classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) followed suit, declaring glyphosate a carcinogen under Proposition 65.

As a result, all glyphosate-containing products must carry a cancer warning. Monsanto attempted to overturn the OEHHA's decision, but Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan ruled against it.^3,4,5 More than 60 plaintiffs are also suing Monsanto claiming Roundup caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

One of them is Yolanda Mendoza,⁶ who has battled stage 4 non-Hodgkin's for over a year. She believes her cancer was caused by Roundup, which she would spray on her lawn every weekend, using a backpack sprayer. She has lost sensation in her fingers and jaw due to nerve damage.

Monsanto has defended Roundup's safety in court by leaning on a 2016 EPA report that found glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic" to humans.⁷ At the time, Jess Rowland was the associate director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division,⁸ and Rowland was a key author of that report.

The EPA's conclusion, which runs counter to the IARC's determination, met with severe criticism — so much so, a scientific advisory panel was recently convened to evaluate the strength of the EPA's decision.

According to some of the members on this panel, the EPA indeed appears to have violated its own guidelines by discounting and downplaying data from studies linking glyphosate to cancer.⁹

Next, attorneys for plaintiffs suing Monsanto found email correspondence between EPA toxicologist Marion Copley and Rowland suggesting Rowland may have colluded with Monsanto to find glyphosate non-carcinogenic.^10,11

In one email Copley cites evidence showing glyphosate is toxic to animals, adding "It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer." She directly accuses Rowland of playing "political conniving games with the science" to help Monsanto and other pesticide manufacturers.

According to court records, Rowland also warned Monsanto of the IARC's determination months before it was made public,¹² giving the company time to plan its defense strategy.

New Bombshell — Evidence for EPA-Monsanto Collusion Grows Stronger

Then came the next bombshell. Email correspondence showed Rowland helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto's behalf.

In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he'd had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, "If I can kill this I should get a medal,"^13,14 referring to the ATSDR investigation.

Jenkins also noted that Rowland was planning to retire in a few months and "could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense."¹⁵ This is about as damaging as it gets.

By colluding with Monsanto to declare glyphosate safe and stopping toxicology evaluations by other federal offices, the EPA has used taxpayers' money to hide the truth about a dangerous toxin and prevent consumers harmed by the chemical from being able to effectively prove their case in court.

Without the EPA, Monsanto would have a tougher time arguing Roundup is harmless, and the company has gone to great lengths to get the court to discount the IARC's determination that glyphosate is carcinogenic, insisting the EPA is a far superior agency, referring to the IARC as an "unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body."

Instead of protecting public health, the EPA basically gave the finger to all those who may have been harmed or killed by Roundup by providing Monsanto with the "evidence of innocence" they so desperately need to defend themselves. But now the truth is bubbling out. As reported by Bloomberg:¹⁶

"The plaintiffs' lawyers say Rowland's communications with Monsanto employees show the regulator who was supposed to be policing the company was actually working on its behalf.

The unsealing of the court documents 'represents a huge development in public health,' said Tim Litzenburg, one of the lawyers suing Monsanto.

Regulatory agencies, scientists, consumers and physicians 'can see some of what Monsanto was actually engaging in behind the scenes, and how they have manipulated the scientific literature to date. That's important to their decision-making, not just our lawsuits."

Jenkins went on to write, "I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this, but it's nice to know they're going to actually make the effort." His pessimism was overblown.

Another Monsanto memorandum notes the ATSDR "agreed, for now, to take direction from EPA," showing Rowland did in fact succeed in his mission to thwart the ATSDR's glyphosate investigation. Whether Monsanto fashioned him a medal for his feat remains unknown. How Rowland sleeps at night is yet another mystery.

Did Monsanto Ghostwrite EPA Reports on Glyphosate?

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also claim Monsanto employees ghostwrote EPA reports on glyphosate,^17,18,19,20 which were then included in the evidence base the EPA relied on to conclude glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic to humans. Monsanto denies the allegations,²¹ yet some of the correspondence seems incriminating enough. Bloomberg recounts a 2015 email by Monsanto toxicologist Bill Heydens:²²

"'A less expensive/more palatable approach' is to rely on experts only for some areas of contention, while 'we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections,' Heydens wrote to a colleague. The names of outside scientists could be listed on the publication, 'but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,' according to the email, which goes on to say that's how Monsanto handled the 2000 study."

Other emails suggest Monsanto colluded with Syngenta and Dow to publish favorable studies on glyphosate. Monsanto argues that plaintiffs are "cherry-picking" emails among some 10 million pages of documents. But if a killer writes a million emails in his lifetime and admits his crime in one, that singular instance could hardly be written off as cherry-picked evidence. As noted by The New York Times:²³

"The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a consulting firm.

Email traffic made public shows that Monsanto officials discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the project. 'I think it's important that people hold Monsanto accountable when they say one thing and it's completely contradicted by very frank internal documents,' said Timothy Litzenburg of the Miller Firm, one of the law firms handling the litigation."

Office of Pesticide Programs Disagrees With EPA Ruling on Glyphosate

Adding fuel to charges of malfeasance at the EPA is an internal memo by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) dated December 14, 2015, which makes it clear the ORD disagrees with the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs' (OPP) determination that glyphosate is "unlikely to be carcinogenic." The OPP's opinion was originally published in April 2016. This, according to the OPP, was done in error since the report was not yet finalized, and it was promptly taken down.

However, this did not stop Monsanto from using the report to defend glyphosate's safety. The ORD memo reveals the department is closely aligned with the IARC's view on glyphosate, and that ORD scientists raised strong objections against the OPP's findings, noting the OPP did not follow established international conventions when reviewing glyphosate. As reported by GM Watch:²⁴

"'Frameworks for data analysis and determination of causality [between exposure to a substance and cancer] that are currently in effect at the EPA and in the risk assessment community include gradations,' wrote the ORD in its memo. 'The preliminary opinion of the OPP appears not to follow this approach,' adds the latter …

[T]he OPP appears to have abandoned the rules for the evaluation of the dangers of a substance to 'use a yes/no approach which could only lead to describe the substances only as 'carcinogenic' or 'unlikely to be carcinogenic' for humans. The criticism is very technical, but nonetheless crucial. The EPA classification actually includes, in theory, five different grades:

• Carcinogenic

• Probably carcinogenic

• Showing suggestive signs of carcinogenicity

• Insufficiently documented for carcinogenicity analysis

• Unlikely to be carcinogenic

Thus there are many nuances that, according to the memorandum of the ORD, disappeared from the preliminary analysis conducted by the OPP."

No Consensus on Glyphosate Carcinogenicity Among EPA Scientists

The ORD memo admits the evidence of cancer in humans is limited, but stress that animal studies show strong correlation between exposure and cancer, noting that "glyphosate has been tested in several two-year studies in rats or mice. A wide range of tumors have been observed in these studies. Tumors have been observed in the thyroid, liver, skin, pancreas, lymph, testis, mammary gland, kidneys and lung."

That said, depending on the statistical methods used, the incidence of cancer may be significant or insignificant, and this is a main point of contention. The OPP claims they did not find statistically significant evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, but they didn't specify which statistical method they used to reach their conclusion. According to the ORD's memo:

"[T]he category ''unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans' can without doubt be thrown out. We can discuss whether the level of evidence is sufficiently high for the category 'probable carcinogen' … But this classification cannot be rejected."

As noted by GM Watch:

"Several questions remain: how will the ORD memo … be taken into account in the EPA's final opinion? Why was the OPP's preliminary notice published on the agency's website before being removed a few hours later?

The EPA states that a discussion paper jointly drafted by the two departments was forwarded in September 2016 to a third group of federal experts, whose opinion is expected to be published on 16 March. This new opinion will in turn be revised prior to publication of the EPA's final official notice."

Turns out this third group of federal experts —the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) — remain equally split over the issue. On March 16, the report from the SAP meeting was published²⁵ showing a wide range of opinions within the panel. Some feel the "not likely to be carcinogenic" designation should be changed to "suggestive signs of carcinogenicity," while others argue there's "no credible evidence of carcinogenicity."

It still remains to be seen what the EPA's final and official decision on glyphosate will be, but evidence clearly shows serious collusion between EPA officials and Monsanto has occurred, thereby tainting the entire process and making any determination in glyphosate's favor highly suspect.

Pesticide Companies Kill Hundreds of Thousands of Children Each Year — Time to End the Massacre!

The EPA carries a tremendous burden. According to two recent reports,²⁶ pesticides like Roundup are taking a major toll on health and life across the globe, and by colluding with pesticide makers to shield them from that liability, the EPA has committed a serious crime against humanity.

According to a recent United Nations (UN) report, pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, and chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.²⁷

The report specifically highlights the pesticide industry's "systematic denial of harms" and "aggressive, unethical marketing tactics," noting the industry is spending massive amounts of money to influence policymakers and contest scientific evidence showing their products do in fact cause great harm to human and environmental health.

The report also firmly denies the idea that pesticides are essential to ensure sufficient amounts of food for a growing world population, calling the notion "a myth,"²⁸ while highlighting developments in sustainable and regenerative farming showing biology can completely replace chemicals, delivering high yields of nutritious food without detriment to the environment.

The second report, this one by the World Health Organization (WHO), notes environmental pollution — which includes but is not limited to pesticides — kills 1.7 million children each year. A full quarter of all children's deaths and diseases could be prevented by reducing environmental risks!

Both of these reports offer the same recommendations in regard to agricultural chemicals — reduce or get rid of them altogether. In fact, the UN report goes so far as to propose a global treaty to phase out toxic pesticides and transition to a more sustainable agricultural system.

Donations to Organic Consumers Association TRIPLE-Matched During GMO Awareness Week

During this annual GMO Awareness Week, I strongly encourage you to give the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) your financial support. We are making great headway in promoting organics and fighting for a cleaner, safer food supply, but we cannot do it without your help. This week, you can seriously maximize the impact of your generosity, because I will match each and every dollar you donate to the OCA with $3, up to $250,000.

>>>>> Donate Today <<<<<

As noted by OCA in an article commenting on the latest evidence showing what appears to be serious betrayal of consumer trust on behalf of the EPA:²⁹

"Please help keep the pressure on corporations like Monsanto that poison with impunity. We need to raise $200,000 by midnight, March 31, to meet our quarterly online fundraising goal … According to the NYT, while farmers and children exposed to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide were dying from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a high-level EPA official was colluding with Monsanto behind the scenes to hide the truth. And he actually bragged about it …

The only way we will stop Monsanto, and other corporations, from this kind of ruthless disregard for public health is to keep the pressure on — through boycotts, through relentless demands for accountability, and through the courts. We may have lost the battle to label GMOs. But make no mistake — the years of educating consumers about the risks of GMO foods, and the poisons used to grow them, are paying off …

Just this week, a California judge ruled that the state can require Monsanto to label Roundup sold in retail stores as a "possible carcinogen" … OCA, along with another organization, will soon file our own lawsuit against Monsanto — details to be made public soon …"

Related Articles:

  Legal Filing Accuses EPA of Unfairly Protecting Monsanto

  Smoking Gun on EPA's Secret Collaboration With Monsanto

  Monsanto Mayhem

 Comments (12)


via IFTTT

Global Warming Is Real Say the Academies of Sciences of All of the Major Countries, But a Handful of my Readers Know Better

ORIGINAL LINK

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:

I am fortunate in having readers who look after me. Some have offered me refuge in their countries and their homes from what they expect otherwise will inevitably be the midnight knock on my door. Others correct my mistakes from typos to content. As I have never considered myself infallible, I carefully read what they have to say.

Usually those who want to straighten me out on a subject are polite and respectful. However, among those corrections brought in by my reporting on the dangers implied by the warming of the poles and melting of the ice were a few not merely ignorant and uninformed, but also condescending and rude. One even accused me of selling out to the climate change hoax in order to buy my way off the lists of Russian agents and fake news purveyors.

I thought this was a bit much. Of course, the reader could have been a polluting industry troll. I also detected in the comments of some a good brainwashing by carbon industry-funded climate science.

It is difficult for those of us who are not climate scientists to form an opinion with confidence. Even climate scientists have honest disagreements. However, as far as I can tell, it is the carbon industry-funded scientists and think tanks that deny global warming, and it is independent scientists who say it is occurring and who are concerned with the implications.

I always ask the Roman question, who benefits? Some libertarians and free market advocates explain what they dismiss as the “global warming hoax” as a plot against capitalsim by left-wing climate scientists. So where are the right-wing or conservative or merely honest climate scientists? Are all or most independent climate scientists left-wing? Do all honest ones work for the carbon industry?

I find it difficult to believe that the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency, The University of Bremen’s Institute of Physical Analysis, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Danish National Space Center, The Russian Academy of Sciences, the UK Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Accademia dei Lincei of Italy, the French Academie des Sciences, the Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Canada’s Royal Society, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Indian National Science Academy are in a conspiracy against capitalism. “Climate change is real” declares the Joint Science Academies’ statement. http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Climate change deniers make much of a Russian scientist’s claim that we are all about to freeze to death, but the Russian Academy of Sciences agrees with all the other countries’ academies of science that global warming is real.

Now, compare this impressive group with the Koch and carbon industry funded climate change deniers. What interest do scientific organizations all over the world have in orchestrating a false issue? There is no obvious answer to this. However, the interest of polluters is obvious. To avert potentially cataclysmic consequences of global warming implies a reduction in the use of carbon-based energy. This reduction adversely affects the profits of carbon-based energy producers.

My article, which is mainly about the road we are on to thermo-nuclear war, reports as a second cataclysmic or apocalyptic event, the sudden release of massive methane locked in Arctic ice and permafrost. That such a thing could happen seems not to be controversial. The corrections I received from my readers focused on the melting Arctic ice. There is nothing unusual, I am assured, about the ice melt in summer. It always melts and then it refreezes.

Yes, of course, this is true. But what those setting me straight seem not to know is that each year more of the ice melts, but less refreezes and is much thinner. Moreover, the former impenetrable Arctic Northwest Passage has now thawed so much that the passage is open to cruise ships and freighter traffic.

So, if there is no global warming, why is the Arctic ice cap receding, which it most definitely is doing? Indeed, unambigious evidence shows that both North and South poles are losing ice. Apparently, in the Arctic this is because as the ice, which reflects the sunlight, recedes, the darker areas of the sea, which hold the sun’s heat, take its place. In the Anarctic, the ice appears to be melting because warmer water is melting the ice from below. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stable-antarctic-ice-is-suddenly-melting-fast/

Below is a sample of various real news reports on the shrinkage of Arctic ice in the 21st century. The shrinkage is unprecedented in recorded history.

For what appears to be the first time in recorded history, a direct seagoing route from Europe to Asia, around the north side of Canada, is ice free.

The opening of the Northwest Passage is among the most conspicuous results of global warming and average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere.

Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable.

The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet. The extent of Arctic sea ice, which melts to its low each September, has steadily declined over the past three decades, as the chart below illustrates. The years 2007–2012 saw the six lowest levels since satellite imaging began in 1979. The trend is likely unmatched in recent human history, reported a UN panel on climate change in 2013.

We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million sq km which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100 000 sq km per year on average, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is extreme.

Beyond surface area, recent data indicate that Arctic sea ice is also younger and thinner, and hence more inclined to melt. Less white ice and more dark sea means that more solar radiation is absorbed, accelerating the thaw.

Of course, we could dismiss these facts, as a few of my readers do, on the basis of faith that it will all turn around. But we should at least have a basis for our faith.

The thawing of the Northwest Passage was predicted in 2002. No doubt the scientists who predicted the thawing were ridiculed for their fake news and plot against capitalism. The thawing actually occurred three years before the predicted date.

Whereas I am proud that my readers show their willingness to protect me from threats and error, I am saddened to learn that a few of them read me in order to have their prior beliefs confirmed and that when my columns do not confirm their prior beliefs, they kiss me good-bye with rude, aggressive, and condescending words.

The reason to read me is to learn to notice and think for yourself. If you read me, or anyone, for confirmation of your prior beliefs, you are not doing yourself a favor. Uninformed prior beliefs are part of The Matrix. So is carbon industry brainwashing.

Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org

via IFTTT