Dewayne Johnson during the Monsanto trial in San Francisco, California. Photograph:
Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images
Dewayne Johnson said that if he had known what he knew now about Roundup weedkiller, “I would’ve never
sprayed that product on school grounds … if I knew it would cause harm … It’s unethical.”
Johnson, a former school groundskeeper in northern California who is terminally ill, was testifying on Monday in his landmark suit against Monsanto about the cancer risks of the company’s popular weedkiller. He is the first person to take the agrochemical company to trial over allegations that the chemical
sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer.
He spoke for the first time during the trial in San Francisco, detailing his use of Monsanto’s products, his extensive exposure to herbicides, and his belief that the
chemicals caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a blood cell cancer. He also described the suffering he endured as skin lesions took over his body.
“I’ve been going through a lot of pain,” said Johnson, a father of three who goes by the
name Lee. “It really takes everything out of you … I’m not getting any better.”
His doctors have said he may have just months to live.
Johnson’s lawyers have argued in court that Monsanto has “fought science” over the years and worked to “bully” researchers who have raised concerns about potential health risks of its herbicide product. At the start
of the trial, the attorneys presented internal Monsanto emails that they said revealed the corporation’s repeated efforts to ignore expert’s warnings while seeking favorable scientific analyses and helping to “ghostwrite” positive papers.
Thousands have brought similar legal claims across the US, and a federal judge in California ruled this month that hundreds of cancer survivors or
those who lost loved ones can also proceed to trial. Johnson’s case has attracted international attention, with the judge allowing his team to present scientific arguments about glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide.
continued to assert that Roundup, which is registered in 130 countries and approved for use on more than 100 crops, is safe and not linked to cancer, despite studies suggesting the contrary. Notably, the World Health Organization’s international agency
for research on cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, a decision that has been central at the trial.
Johnson, 46, took the stand in a crowded courtroom and said he was excited when he first got
a job as a groundskeeper and pest manager for the school district in Benicia, a suburb north of San Francisco. Part of the work, which began in 2012, involved spraying herbicide to control weeds on school grounds – sometimes for several hours a day.
Although he wore extensive protective gear while spraying, he was often exposed to the Roundup and Ranger Pro chemicals, both glyphosate-based Monsanto products, due to “drift”, he testified.
“You were getting it on your face everyday,”
he said. “It was kind of unavoidable.”
Monsanto has continued to assert that Roundup is safe. Photograph: Josh
Johnson described two incidents in which he said he was badly exposed to the chemicals due to mishaps and leaking while spraying, including a hose breaking.
“It got on my clothes, got on everything,” he said of
one incident, noting that before his cancer, he had “perfect skin”, but after he started spraying and suffered exposures, he got sick and began seeing rashes, lesions and sores all over his body. “I’ve had it bad everywhere.”
He was diagnosed with cancer in 2014.
“It was a very scary, confusing time, and I didn’t know what was happening,” said Johnson, who also recounted his calls to Monsanto seeking information about possible risks, and the lack of
responses or cancer warnings from the company.
“It’s so tough when you can’t work, you can’t provide for your family,” added Johnson, who said he would be doing another round of chemotherapy in less than a month.
Araceli Johnson, Dewayne’s wife, also offered emotional testimony in court on Monday, saying she now has two jobs at a local school district and a nursing home, sometimes
working 14-hour days.
“It’s very stressful. It’s just too much for me to explain how I really feel,” she said, recounting the cancer diagnosis and aftermath. “My world just shut down. I couldn’t think. I couldn’t
clean. I couldn’t do anything.”
His wife recalled the worst moments of chemotherapy when her husband struggled to get out of bed and make it to his uncle’s funeral: “He just starts crying … and saying, ‘I just wanna
die.’ And that broke my heart.”
Araceli also talked about their two sons, ages 10 and 13, and said she has had a hard time explaining their father’s cancer. Her message to them, she said, has been: “He’s just very sick
… Spend time with him. Get to know your dad.”
In a statement to the Guardian, Monsanto noted studies that have found Roundup is safe, adding: “We have empathy for anyone suffering from cancer, but the scientific evidence clearly shows
that glyphosate was not the cause.”
Better safe than sorry on chemicals used in agriculture
How can you
guarantee that every member of a food production supply chain has used these chemicals ‘according to the label’, asks Craig Sams
Tue 14 Aug 2018 18.03 BST
Demonstrators march for agroecology and civil
resistance against pesticide maker Monsanto in Bordeaux, France, last year. Photograph: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images
Your article (One man’s suffering exposed Monsanto’s secrets to the world, 11 August) is the tip
of the iceberg. Glyphosate is considered a “probable carcinogen” by the WHO. The Netherlands banned its use in 2014. This isn’t the first time a “safe” agrichemical has been exposed as potentially dangerous.
Food Safety Authority has launched a review into the safety of herbicides, pesticides and fungicides, as so many have been permitted without proper testing. In February iprodione, a fungicide used in professional sports turf, was banned by the EU. Golfers
have been unwittingly exposed for decades.
We cannot trust science that was paid for by the manufacturers. Bayer’s statement in glyphosate’s defence illustrates the risk to which we have been exposed: “Bayer is confident … that glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer when used according
to the label.”
How can you guarantee that every member of a food production supply chain has used these chemicals “according to the label”? How can you guarantee that, even though you wore gloves as you sprayed fungicides on your turf,
a child won’t do a cartwheel on the grass later, or a golfer won’t pick up a ball with their bare hands and unknowingly violate the label’s conditions?
When people buy cigarettes, they know the risks. But when people eat food
or sit on grass treated with probable carcinogens, they don’t. That’s why the industry is turning to bio-stimulants, like enriched biochar, which are as effective as chemicals but are natural and pose no risk of being outed as harmful down the
When it comes to consumer choice, health and welfare, isn’t it better to be safe than sorry? Craig Sams Executive chairman, Carbon Gold; former chairman, Soil Association
The jury ruled that Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper, developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to regularly using Roundup. It also found that the manufacturer, Monsanto, knew of the product’s potential health risks, and acted “with malice or oppression” by failing to warn users.
The active chemical in Roundup – glyphosate – has been classified as “probably carcinogenic” by the World Health Organisation but is still
approved for use in Australia and the US.
On Tuesday, the NFF said the US court decision was “in blatant ignorance” of science.
“No other herbicide has been tested to the lengths that glyphosate
has,” the NFF president, Fiona Simson, said. “After four decades of evaluations, no regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic.”
She said glyphosate – the world’s most common herbicide –
had an environmental benefit.
“Through the use of glyphosate, farmers are able to practise minimum tillage – protecting soil structure and nutrients and ultimately increasing the storage of soil carbon,” she said.
Australia’s chemical regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, classifies Roundup as safe.
“The APVMA is aware of the decision in the Californian superior court,”
a spokesman said on Monday. “APVMA approved products containing glyphosate can continue to be used safely according to label directions.”
Paul Pharoah, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge, said the court’s
finding did not mean that glyphosate necessarily caused cancer.
“These medico-legal cases are always difficult to make because the concepts of risk and cause in a scientific sense are different to those concepts in a legal sense,” he said.
“The epidemiological evidence that glycophosphates are associated with an increased risk of lymphoma is very weak ... From a purely scientific point of view I do not think that the judgement makes sense.”
Ian Rae, a professor
of chemistry at the University of Melbourne, said the risk of developing cancer from Roundup was “very, very low”.
He said the categorisation of glyphosate as a carcinogen was based on very high exposure levels in workplaces.
basic measure is that if the exposure is low, there is very little risk ... I don’t think there is a case for stopping using it at all.”
Monsanto’s vice-president, Scott Partridge, has also insisted that Roundup is safe, and the company
intends to appeal against the decision.
But Friday’s ruling in the US was scathing of Monsanto’s behaviour.
Johnson’s lawyers produced internal Monsanto emails that they said proved the corporation knew of the risks, ignored
expert warnings, “ghostwrote” research that was favourable and targeted academics who spoke up against Roundup.
They alleged that Monsanto “fought science” for decades to have the product’s health risks downplayed.
Patridge said the internal emails had been taken out of context.
Johnson, a 46-year-old father of three, was awarded US$289m in damages and compensation. He worked for a school district near San Francisco, spraying herbicides on weeds for several
hours a day. Doctors say he has months left to live.
Another trial against Monsanto is scheduled to begin in Missouri in the coming months.
Wed 16 May 2018 09.30 BSTLast modified on Fri 18 May 2018 12.36 BST
This article is over 2 months old
A French farmer sprays glyphosate herbicide
produced by US agrochemical giant Monsanto on a field of corn. Photograph: Jean-Francois Monier/AFP/Getty Images
A chemical found in the world’s
most widely used weedkiller can have disrupting effects on sexual development, genes and beneficial gut bacteriaat doses considered safe, according to a wide-ranging pilot study in rats.
The substance was recently relicensed for a shortened
five-year lease by the EU. But scientists involved in the new glyphosate study say their results show that it poses “a significant public health concern”.
One of the report’s authors, Daniele Mandrioli, at the Ramazzini Institute
in Bologna, Italy, said significant and potentially detrimental effects from glyphosate had been detected in the gut bacteria of rat pups born to mothers, who appeared to have been unaffected themselves.
“It shouldn’t be happening and it is quite remarkable that it is,” Mandrioli said. “Disruption of the microbiome has been associated with a number of negative health outcomes, such as obsesity, diabetes and
Prof Philip J Landrigan, of New York’s Icahn School of Medicine, and also one of the research team, said: “These early warnings must be further investigated in a comprehensive long-term study.”
He added that serious health effects from the chemical might manifest as long-term cancer risk: “That might affect a huge number of people, given the planet-wide use of the glyphosate-based herbicides.”
Controversy has raged around glyphosate
since a World Health Organisation agency – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – judged it to be a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015.
The US firm, which recently merged with Bayer in a deal worth more than $60bn, argues that it is being unfairly targeted by activist scientists with ulterior motives.
Partridge, Monsanto’s VP for global strategy told the Guardian: “The Ramazzini Institute is an activist organisation with an agenda that they have not disclosed as part of their crowdfunding efforts. They wish to support a ban on glyphosate and
they have a long history of rendering opinions not supported by regulatory testing agencies.”
“This is not about genuine research,” he added. “All the research to date has demonstrated that there is no link between glyphosate
The new crowdfunded pilot study which the Ramazzini Institute compiled with Bologna University, the
Italian National Health Institute, George Washington State University and the Icahn School
of Medicine observed the health effects of glyphosate on Sprague Dawley rats, which had been dosed with the US EPA-determined safe limit of 1.75 micrograms per kilo of body weight.
Two-thirds of known carcinogens had been discovered using the Sprague
Dawley rat species, Mandrioli said, although further investigation would be needed to establish long-term risks to human health.
The pilot research did not focus on cancer but it did find evidence of glyphosate bioaccumulation in rats– and changes
to reproductive health.
“We saw an increase in ano-genital distance in the formulation that is of specific importance for reproductive health,” Mandrioli said. “It might indicate a disruption of the normal level of sexual hormones.”
The study’s three peer-reviewed papers will be published in Environmental Health later in May, ahead of a €5m follow-up study that will compare the safe level against multiple other doses.
Canadian authorities have admitted that a patch of an unapproved, genetically modified strain of wheat has been found in the wild, well outside of old Monsanto test areas,
but hope the unfortunate discovery won’t hamper exports.
The crop, of unknown origin, was first discovered on an access road in Alberta last year, after it survived the spraying of the area with herbicide, the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) saidThursday.
After conducting thorough tests on the samples, the watchdog concluded that the crop was “genetically modified and herbicide-tolerant,” and was never approved for commercial use or production within Canada. The agency then narrowed
down the producer of the crop to be Monsanto, the agrochemical and biotechnology giant.
“CFIA confirmed that the Alberta wheat sample was a match for a Monsanto GM wheat line (MON71200), which was used in multiple confined research field trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s in both Canada and the United States,” the
watchdog said in its report.
wheat is not approved to be grown for commercial use anywhere in the world due to food safety concerns. Both the US and Canada have previously conducted field trials on GMO wheat.
It remains a mystery how the strain got into the wild more than 62 miles (100 km) away from any known former test fields. The size of the contaminated
patch is also unclear. Authorities, however, are adamant that no GM wheat has entered the country's commercial system, and hope that the discovery will not interfere with the export trade of one of the world’s largest wheat exporters.
government is going to provide information to allow our trading partners to make informed, science-based decisions to continue trading in Canadian wheat,” said Kathleen Donohue, executive director of market access at Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada is reasonably worried that some of its customers might reconsider deals, pending further investigation. For instance, back in 2016, Japan and South Korea temporarily suspended imports of some US wheat, after a discovery of GMO wheat
developed by Monsanto.
Emphasizing that the strain has not been found anywhere in the country’s commercial fields outside of that one “isolated site,” the CFIA vowed to monitor the area of discovery for the next
three years. The discovered GM crop has, meanwhile, been destroyed, with Health Canada reassuring the public that the “finding does not pose a food safety risk.”
Monsanto told RT in an emailed comment that “CFIA
took the lead on inspection activities associated with this matter and has found no evidence to show that transgenic wheat is in commerce. On May 9, 2018, risk assessments examining potential implications of this wheat to food, animal feed and the environment
were completed by Health Canada and CFIA. These risk assessments determined that this wheat does not pose any risk. There are no food, feed or environmental safety concerns associated with glyphosate tolerance in plants.”
there goes the Canadian wheat crop. It has been shown that Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops do cross pollinate with normal varieties. Monsanto should be sued just like they sued Canadian farmers when their Frankenfoods were found on farms that didn't use their
probably a half million "isolated" acres
No mystery how it got there. Birds eat the seeds
then fly for thousands of miles and crap it out somewhere else. And the cycle continues. Life finds a wa
I think you have a typo in your reply. You said "warming"
instead of "cooling". The last two years have produced the largest drop in global temperature in over a century. the period from Feb to June 2016 was the biggest drop in temperature ever! The global warming hoax is over.
Do a search for "Earth in ‘Greatest Two-Year Cooling Event in a Century’ Shock". The data for the article comes from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Mainstream western mass media
will never report this. The LA times, The Guardian and Scientific American are well know establishment outlets for disinformation.
happens when Ziocorporations run the show behind the smoke and mirrors of democracy. Monsanto should be outlawed along with all the corporate class.
Well, stands to reason Monsanto
is going to take the Canadian government to court... and win just like when it took American farmers to court. And won.what a bunch of tw@ts.
The only reason for GMO foods
is to sell LOTS of pesticides, which people then eat and suffer as a result. The day will come when GMO foods will be unsaleable and organic, unmodified foods will be highly prized.
Monsanto produced a seed product that has been condemned throughout the whole planet. Think about that.
Soon it will be Bayor GMO. Companies
were never allowed to merge in the past if it ruined competition. Now it's all about money instead of getting to know your neighbor.
One finds illegal Monsanto-Bayer GMO soy and cereals in
Don't you worry. 80% of the American food supply is polluted with GMO's. I see a bright future for depopulation.
this gmo things are a BAD IDEA what
about the fungi bacteria gmo mutation present in also humans now? yes those types of tumors...
this gmo things are a BAD IDEA what about the fungi bacteria gmo mutation present in also
humans now? yes those types of tumors...
It is often said that “other-izing” people overall can be dangerous and other-izing your enemies specifically can be tactically detrimental. For one, it can lead to a false sense of superiority over those people as you
assert some kind of imagined genetic advantage. It can also lead to dangerous generalizations of vast groups as you categorize and pigeonhole millions as being exactly the same when this is rationally impossible. However, other-izing is perhaps the only option
when faced with a very particular type of person embracing a very particular brand of ideology; other-izing can become a matter of survival.
I am of course talking about globalists.
Not the low level cronies and useful idiots within the globalist
push or “movement,” because many of them simply represent a underlying gullibility or stupidity among people attracted to the inbred world of academia. Instead, I’m talking about the people behind the curtain; self proclaimed “globalists”
or internationalists that have positioned themselves into strategic power centers. I am talking about the people that influence or outright control government policy as they stand over the shoulders of supposedly freely elected officials. I am talking about
the people that influence economic security or insecurity through unaccountable central banking conglomerates. I am talking about the men and women that desire to dictate the fate of billions.
These people are not easily identified by anything other
than their rhetoric and actions. They are made up of multiple ethnic groups. They herald from all corners of the planet. They do not subscribe to any one spiritual doctrine, but they do publicly devote themselves to many different religions as a means to “fit
in” with the common citizen. Globalism IS their religion. And their god? Well, they see themselves as gods.
To be a globalist, though, one has to do more than merely subscribe to the tenets of globalism; there is a matter of character traits and
actions which must be examined.
After studying the behavior of globalists and their organizations for quite some time, I have noticed that their psychological patterns tend to match with a narrow band of people that are best described as “criminally
insane.” More accurately, globalists behave like high-functioning narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths. But what are the traits of such people? Let’s take a look at some of them…
False Sense Of Superiority – Self-Aggrandizement
Every person wants to be seen as important or unique. But, narcissistic sociopaths believe themselves to be entitled to special treatment and see themselves as above the laws and niceties of normal society. They sometimes seek to prop up this attitude through
“accomplishment;” scratching for positions of power and influence in order to reinforce the notion that they are special compared to others.
Of course, power is usually an artificial construct because the only power we have over others is
the power they give us, knowingly or unknowingly. Power does not make one special. The narcissistic sociopath does not make such distinctions, however. He/she only distinguishes between the people who strive for dominance and everyone else. In their minds,
people that covet power are a superior subspecies, while people who do not covet power are considered bugs.
Frankly, I see no reason why we should not make the same absolute statement, only in reverse.
Narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths
are stricken with visions of assumed greatness. They do not view the content of their accomplishments as necessarily important. Meaning, they think they were born great, therefore, it is not for them to accomplish anything that serves to help others or advance
the knowledge of humanity. They don’t care about proving their greatness through legitimate achievement, they only care that people BELIEVE they are special, that they are anointed.
Manipulation And Coercion
sociopath usually prefers to get what they want easily. They expect people to hand them adoration and control automatically. But if they don’t get what they want as a matter of course, they will use any means at their disposal.
This usually includes
the threat of force or the use of force, the use of torture, the use of elaborate lies and schemes to push their target into a corner (to make them behave in a specific manner), the use of psychological conditioning (molding behavior, usually through fear
responses) and also the use of “gaslighting” (accusing the target of being “crazy” if they do not subscribe to the narcissist’s twisted view of the world).
Of course, this kind of disturbed person is never actually satisfied,
even when they do get what they want. They always want more, there is always something else they need to fill the endless void within.
Lack Of Empathy For Others
Not all narcissists are sociopaths, but most sociopaths are narcissists.
When we speak of narcissists, it is important to remember that there are varying degrees of this psychological cancer. When I mention globalists in particular as being “narcissistic,” I am referring to their propensity to be high functioning narcissists
with sociopathic tendencies. In other words, they are narcissists that not only have an inflated sense of self worth, but they are also devoid of empathy and conscience. They are willing to harm others to any degree to get what they want in the moment as long
as they think can avoid consequences for doing so.
There is also the matter of distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths. This is a little hard to describe being that they are so similar in many respects. I would put it this way — while sociopaths
chase a goal and are willing to step on people to get to it, psychopaths step on people even when they don’t have a goal in mind. That is to say, the psychopath enjoys the act of destruction; what they want most of all is other people's pain.
and psychopaths both appear to permeate the ranks of globalist institutions. Some of them want to build an idol to themselves and don’t care who they harm in the process. Some of them derive great enjoyment from simply hurting as many people as possible.
Desperate Need For Adoration
It is not enough for the narcissistic sociopath to attain a level of respect through coercion. Ultimately, what they want is for the lowly masses to voluntarily ACCEPT their greatness as absolute, as an obvious
and undeniable fact of life. What they want is reverence and devotion. As mentioned earlier, they want to be treated as gods by the people around them, and if they are particularly ambitious, by everyone in the world.
This is a strange dynamic indeed,
for it requires a highly elaborate set of schemes and manipulations. If one is not a great person, let alone god-like, the amount of psychological conditioning needed to convince people otherwise is substantial. This makes the narcissistic sociopath a potential
slave to his/her own incessantly engineered conspiracies; lies pile upon lies and schemes upon schemes in the search for something they will never truly achieve.
Globalists Are Psychologically Broken Non-Humans
In the world of alternative
analysis and investigative journalism it is not uncommon to run into people who attribute an otherworldly status to globalists. Some people see them as a representation of biblical Apocalypse — minions from the depths of hell. Others see them as literally
alien — interdimensional beings posing as human. And while many will laugh at such people as fringe conspiracy freaks, I think it is important to understand why they see the globalists this way.
When faced with true and organized evil empty of
all care or remorse, one may be tempted to apply supernatural explanations. I'm not sure that I am against the idea.
Globalists exhibit most if not all the telltale signs of narcissistic sociopaths, including being devoid of conscience and moral
compass. While there are many definitions of what it is that makes us human, there is a kind of universal requirement regardless of culture; namely the requirement of something like a soul.
What makes a soul? How about a basic desire to do right by
others even if that means not getting what we want all the time? This is a good starting point, but there is more to it than that.
Psychologists and scientists have over many decades found a pattern of inherent character traits hardwired in the
human psyche, traits present in humans from the moment of birth that stand outside of the influences of social environment. Carl Jung was the foremost expert in this field of “archetypal qualities,” with a vast catalog of case studies from around
the world including studies in tribal Africa. An important part of archetypal or inborn knowledge and traits is the notion of good and evil; we are born understanding that certain behaviors are constructive while others are destructive and abhorrent. This
is most likely the source of what we call “conscience.”
Unfortunately, not all people are born with a conscience. In some people, the difference between good and evil or constructive and destructive behavior is treated as blurry or frivolous.
Jung and other psychologists mark this subset of our species as “latent” sociopaths and psychopaths. Together they make up around 10% of any given culture or group. Many of them remain “latent” and more or less harmless for their entire
lives unless certain unstable environmental conditions provide fuel for their malfunction. Around 1% are born as full blown sociopaths and psychopaths. These are what I would call the “non-humans.”
This is because high level narcissism and
sociopathy are not traditional “mental illnesses,” but ingrained character traits. A narcissistic sociopath cannot be “cured” of his ailment because it is not an ailment, it is who they are. If you were to take the narcissism and sociopathy
away from them, there would be nothing left to their personality.
When a normal person comes in contact with someone that has no inherent conscience there is an immediate recoil; a sense that they have just stumbled across a monster. This is not an
exaggeration, this is entirely accurate.
High level narcissists and sociopaths are physically human of course, but if we were to peer in at a visual representation of their psyche, we would find a barren wasteland — a place where ghouls lurk.
They do not dream as normal people dream. They do not feel joy in the manner normal people do. They do not feel fulfillment in the things that commonly lift up the rest of us. They are incapable of love for others. They are incapable of regret for their actions,
and only ever feel regret over failing to get what they want. They do not see other people as individuals, they see them as tools to be exploited.
Being sociopathic though does not mean that they are ignorant of what makes the rest of us function. On
the contrary, sociopaths are very good at identifying the personal desires and drives of others, and mimicking people in a way that makes them seem “human.” They are parasites by nature,and thus they have to be able to get close to their host victims
if they are to survive.
The globalist dynamic is interesting in that it is an example of organized narcissistic sociopathy. Globalists have stood at the forefront of numerous wars, economic collapses and tyrannies over the years, all ending in
great suffering for the masses. Contrary to popular belief, sociopaths and psychopaths DOwork together towards a common goal as long as there is a sense of mutual benefit. In fact, these people seem to gravitate to each other in odd ways.
It is my belief that globalist hierarchies actually seek out people with narcissistic and sociopathic personalities; that they do this deliberately when they wish to expand their ranks. These seem to be the only aspects that they all have in common.
is quite a “conspiracy theory,” I know. But look at it this way, how else can we explain their tendencies and behaviors? If organized annihilation was an intrinsic value of humanity then we would have died out long ago. The globalists are not human,
though. They are something opposite, and if you do not understand this core truth, they can be bewildering and terrifying.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it's no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this
threat, it's critical to act now! That's why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into
here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
those having trouble posting comments, simply copy and paste the following in the Recaptcha field:
recaptcha v1 is shutdown
If your comment doesn't post, refresh the web page and try again. If your comment is flagged as spam
change it slightly and try again. Your comment WILL post.
I concur written by Jasper , May 16, 2018
I've come into contact with some of these
'beings'. You are spot on, they are not human. I had one who shape-shifted on me. Nothing we can do about it.
oh my written by Lynn Booth , May 16, 2018
The one I know began
shape shifting several times as well! Also, while with life long friends we played a board type word game (can't recall name of it). His thought process to reach answers was completely foreign and not very productive, very strange. Had occasion to see him
demonstrate superhuman strength as well. Needless to say I've nothing to do with him x 10 years now. Tried to warn people but they think I'm crazy. Great article.
Outside appearances deceiving written by Hubbs , May 16, 2018
Probably as important a feature which you only touch on is that sociopaths outwardly can appear to be very pleasant and agreeable people, especially when they are trying
to get something from you. That is why they are so dangerous.
Once they have what they want, then the difference becomes night and day. The true extent of their treachery is unbelievable.
I know, I married one. Not to recommend
you waste your time and money reading this, but this is what happened to me...and the consequences.
My Medical-Legal Back Pages Bryce Sterling. Amazon.
Right on the money written by Escaped certain doom , May 16, 2018
...thought you were describing my ex-wife.
just a slight correction, thank you written by fanofjesus , May 16, 2018
only thing I disagree with is that these sociopaths and psychopaths are born that way. These "labels" only categorize their dominant traits, but all mental illness, according to M.Scott Peck, constitutes a "substitute for legitimate suffering"; i.e., these
people were wounded/abandoned/not cared for, etc in childhood such that they could not pass the developmental stages of normal growth of the personality, character, etc. Thus they are vulnerable to evil spirits, who tell them lies, such as "you are not worthy
of being loved" and all such lies that keep them from ever having hope in being loved. Thus their behavior is to one degree or another a compensation for not getting the love they need. Of course, as peck suggests, they never get in touch with the agony of
their truth, and grieve it and get healed and restored to capacity to love and be loved. and then it is enabled by these evil spirits, who give them guidance and even enter them; I theorize that the psychopaths are the sociopaths that have been possessed by
demons, which is what makes them murderous. so, what people are reacting to when around them is the presence of evil within them.
... written by Brandon Smith
, May 16, 2018
I'm sorry to say but M.Scott Peck is utterly wrong. Peck is what I would call a pop-psychiatrist from the baby boomer era desperate
to promote the idea that all negative character traits are a product of environment. This is false. High level narcissists and sociopaths are often born with the exact traits I describe - also, many of them are born into well-to-do families with no history
of abuse or neglect.
The majority of people that suffer abuse also do not become sociopathic. It is essentially impossible to take a person born with empathy and turn them into a sociopath. They have to already have the trait in them.
That said, a LATENT sociopath or narcissist has an inborn POTENTIAL to become a full blown monster. Many of them don't because their environment is too "stable" to bring out those negative traits.
I can't really comment on the whole
demon thing. It's not something that can be conclusively proved or disproved.
Agreed. written by Crickets , May 16, 2018
Yes, they are actually DEMON MEN. Under
the control of their father SATAN. Very inhuman, indeed. Very strange people to watch. Their demeanor and appearance change and why many are very ugly and have demonic appearances, especially in their eyes.
Delusions of grandeur written
by Yeti , May 16, 2018
I definitely see that false sense of superiority in some of our political leaders.
Take Tony Blair and Emmanuel Macron for example. They
possess ridiculous levels of self esteem.
I guess a lot of psychopaths rise to the top all by themselves (they learn it "on the street") but I suspect some get a helping hand.
Clever spotters and kingmakers - themselves psychopaths
most probably - will intuitively know one when they see one and help them on their way. They make good puppets.
Blair and Macron were both Bilderbergers. So often we see Bilderbergers airlifted into positions five stations above their true
calling. And at such young ages.
Tom Cotton is another example.
Depo written by a garde , May 17, 2018
The current power structure is not sustainable
with the current population. However, change the power structure, change the culture and we have more than enough resources for the current population.
As an example : thorium vs uranium for power. One would be limitless, clean, free energy
(for all intents) but not able to be weaponized. Hence why we use uranium. The psychopaths need the weapons, and if it destroys most life on earth, so be it.
Change the culture to do more of your own gardening, aquaponics, etc.. along with
a reduction in meat consumption. This won't happen as the psychopaths need to control the fool supply as well.
You see, it's all about them owning and controlling everything. It has nothing to do with them being benevolent, misunderstood protectors
BORN EVIL written by awed bawl , May 17, 2018
May 26, 2005
Twins Study Finds Genetic Cause For Psychopathy
studies can help distinguish between genetic and environmental determinants of violence, said Essi Viding of the Institute of Psychiatry in London. In antisocial 7-year-olds with callous and unemotional traits, Viding found, the antisocial behavior was strongly
genetic in origin (a group heritability of 80%). If these youths can be identified early, perhaps with a genetic test on cells from a cheek swab, one could target programs for them. "Genes are not a blueprint that determines outcome," said Viding. "Rather,
they act together with other risk or protective factors to increase or reduce the risk of disorder."
Origins of mass psychopathy written by rwinkel , May 17, 2018
Few people are asking where these damaged people are coming from. Humanity has always had problems with psychopaths but they seem to be in mass production now. How is this happening? I believe
I have at least part of the answer:
Re: Twin study finds genetic cause for psychopathy written by rwinkel
, May 17, 2018
"A sample of 3687 twin pairs formed the starting point for this research. Teacher ratings for antisocial behaviour and psychopathic tendencies (i.e. lack of empathy
and remorse) were used to classify the twins. Those who were in the top 10% of the sample for antisocial behaviour were separated into two groups - those with and without psychopathic tendencies. ..." https://web.archive.org/web/20060316135021/http://www.mrc.ac.uk:80/index/public-interest/public-news_centre/public-press_office/public-press_releases_2005/public-press_25_may_2005.htm
Perhaps there is a genetic component, but such research only validates helplessness. Not a recipe for change.
DNA written by Margot , May 17, 2018
If we make the assumption
that sociopaths are born, and not bred - it means that sociopathy is a genetic trait (dare I say defect)..
Makes one wonder what the genetic markers for "Globalists" are?
Maybe they are already privy to this knowledge, and
are actively seeking out and breeding more of themselves - that is the mandate of life, after all.
The rabbit hole deepens...
... written by Brandon Smith
, May 17, 2018
Not necessarily. There is no concrete evidence that character traits are specifically linked to "genetics", that is simply an assumption
that scientists make because they do not take into account the notion of "other sources".
In fact, no one actually knows exactly where archetypes come from, which is why I refuse to discount spiritual explanations. It could be that there are
no genetic markers for pyschopathy, and the only way to discover a psychopath is to wait and watch what a person does.
Psychopathy is tied to specific brain deformity written by nat , May 17, 2018
Nice article. You might read "The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience" by Kent A. Kiehl PhD. He took a new generation NMR machine into a hard core prison and documented specific brain deformities (atrophies) which physiologically
distinguish psychopaths from those who do feel remorse, empathy, and bonding. Further, he found the extent of the brain deformities and the regions affected correlate well to the degree of psychopathy. (Psychopathy is not an all or nothing trait).
Prior to his work the only way to identify psychopathy was via psychological testing for evidence of guilt, conscience, thrill seeking behavior, empathy, social behavior, bonding, abstraction, etc. Psychological testing, of course, is not very rigorous
- especially in high performing individuals who can be quite cunning in mimicry and charm. The smart psychopaths learn to cry when needed and otherwise fake facial cues, although their act seems a little shallow since they really can't feel the emotions and
bonding they are feigning.
The word "sociopath" doesn't appear to have a rigorous definition and you might want to either define it with exquisite precision or, better yet, discontinue its use as it mostly seems to provide an alibi for psychopaths
and their apologists.
In SOME circles, sociopaths are distinguished as those who have LEARNED to disregard their human feelings and, presumably, can learn to be human again. While I think this can happen (viz, those who learn to kill or be
killed in a war/gang zone) it is most definitely NOT the same thing as psychopathy at all. Further, I think you get it -- but most people don't -- that ENJOYING killing is distinct from psychopathy.
Most intelligent hard core psychopaths don't
want to kill. They don't want to kill NOT because they care about anothers' suffering but because killing increases the chances they will get caught and put in prison. So likely the vast majority of intelligent psychopaths fake normal emotions as necessary
to rise to the top of high-paying fields such as politics, law, medicine, and business. In these fields, their utter ruthlessness gives them a distinct advantage. Another trait of psychopaths is that they typically regard themselves as BETTER than human since
they are unconstrained and, to their minds, therefore superior.
Anyway, with that substitution for a more rigorous word, you say: "High level narcissists and [psychopaths] are physically human of course..." Well, no...I'd say they are not
In closing, I want to thank you again for your article. I think you have put your finger on the root cause of so much of the world's suffering. We are ruled by overlords who are not human in the soulful sense of the word.
... written by Brandon Smith , May 18, 2018
That is not exactly accurate. Scientists have noticed some "deformities" in very limited studies of criminally violent people, however, they did not provide extensive background analysis of the case studies involved and apply it in discovering if there
were any alternative causes to the brain "abnormalities". Meaning, they simply assumed that the abnormalities were related to their violent behavior. But, as any real scientist or psychologist knows, correlation does NOT necessarily mean causation.
For example, there is evidence to suggest that character traits and behavior can affect the very makeup of one's brain chemistry and activity, rather than brain makeup determining behavior.
Also, sociopathy is a concrete and well recognized
psychological trait. Not sure where you got the idea that it is somehow undefined. It also rarely has anything to do with "learned behavior". I suggest you pursue far more study into the subject.
Despite your misconceptions about this issue,
I appreciate your comment.
effect of mass obstetrical abuse on psychopathy rates written by rwinkel , May 18, 2018
"Modern" obstetrical practices
metastasized from rockefeller american medical education constitutes a form of psychological torture
Child abuse changes brain structure written by rwinkel , May
Childhood Abuse Disrupts Brain Formation Harvard Study Says
Childhood abuse leads to permanent changes in a seahorse - shaped area of the brain that can cause adult depression
and drug abuse, Harvard researchers said in a study that raises the possibility of new treatment. ...
Activists demonstrate in favor of a glyphosate ban by the European Union in Brussels on July 19, 2017. A US has study found that the controversial chemical found in herbicides markedly increased in bodies of a
Levels of glyphosate, a controversial chemical found in herbicides, markedly increased in the bodies of a sample population over two decades, a study published Tuesday in a US medical journal said.
The increase dated from the introduction of genetically-modified glyphosate-tolerant crops in the United States in 1994.
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association(JAMA) came as the European Commission proposed on Tuesday to renew the license for glyphosate for a shorter than usual five to seven years.
That decision by the EU's executive
arm followed a growing uproar over the alleged danger of its use.
Researchers compared the levels of glyphosate in the urine of 100 people living in California. It covered a 23-year period starting from 1993, the year before the introduction of genetically-modified
crops tolerant to Roundup.
Glyphosate-containing Roundup, produced by US agro giant Monsanto, is one of the world's most widely-used weedkillers.
"Prior to the introduction of genetically modified foods, very few people had detectable levels of glyphosate," said Paul Mills, of the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, the study's principal author.
Among the study group, detectable amounts
increased from an average of 0.20 micrograms per liter in 1993-1996 to an average of 0.44 micrograms in 2014-2016.
These figures are far from the daily limit of 1.75 milligrams per kilogram set by the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the even
stricter limit of 0.3 milligrams per kilogram in the European Union.
"Our exposure to these chemicals has increased significantly over the years but most people are unaware that they are consuming them through their diet," Mills said.
was initially used on genetically modified soy and corn, but it is also sprayed on a substantial portion of wheat and oats grown in the US, he said.
In July, California listed glyphosate as carcinogenic, and the World Health Organization International
Agency for Research on Cancer called it "probably carcinogenic" in 2015.
There are few human studies on the effects of glyphosate, but research on animals demonstrated that chronic exposure can have adverse effects, said Mills.
Along with the
European Commission's proposal on Tuesday, the European Parliament approved a non-binding resolution calling for the chemical to be banned by 2022.
Glyphosate critics, led by environmental activist group Greenpeace, are calling for an outright ban in
Europe. On Monday activists handed the EU a petition signed by more than 1.3 million people backing such a move.
Monsanto maintains that glyphosate "meets or exceeds all requirements" for full license renewal in Europe, and says the renewal procedure
has in "many respects been hijacked by populism."
raging dispute on both sides of the Atlantic have centred on whether the weedkiller glyphosate causes cancer and should be banned (AFP Photo/PHILIPPE HUGUEN)
Paris (AFP) - Wedged between green groups and the agriculture lobby, an EU members expert committee punted a vote Wednesday on proposals to extend the European license for the controversial weedkiller glyphosate, set to expire
at the end of the year.
Lawsuits and a raging dispute on both sides of the Atlantic have centred on whether the herbicide causes cancer and should be banned.
Here's a rundown on the sometimes bruising debate over possible health impacts:
What is glyphosate? -
First marketed in 1974, glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and other weedkillers. Available in generic form since 2000,
it is the most commonly used herbicide in the world.
Studies of potential toxicity have focused mainly on exposure of agricultural workers, and laboratory experiments
- 'Probably carcinogenic'... -
In March 2015, the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate "as probably carcinogenic to humans."
The IARC cited "limited evidence" the weedkiller
caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans, and "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals."
Glyphosate is classified just below "carcinogenic" in a
five-tiered scale in which the lowest threat level is "probably not carcinogenic".
A committee of 17 experts from 11 countries arrived at this conclusion after a year-long
review of government reports and peer-reviewed scientific studies.
That bombshell finding has energised an aggressive grassroots campaign -- back by environmental groups
such as Greenpeace -- to ban the herbicide.
In France, the ministers of health and environment have both called for a rapid phase out.
Importantly, the IARC's mission is to identify substances that may cause cancer in humans, not to measure cancer risk.
... or maybe not -
In October 2015, the other shoe dropped: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) determined that the weedkiller "is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic
hazard to humans."
Available evidence did not support a causal link "between exposure to glyphosate and the development of cancer in humans," it said in a much anticipated
Similarly, a multi-agency UN panel on pesticide residue likewise concluded last year that the weedkiller is "unlikely" to pose a cancer risk through diet.
In the United States, meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency -- after briefly tagging glyphosate in 1985 as "possibly carcinogenic" to humans -- has failed to find
a cancer link across three decades of reviews.
"In epidemiological studies, there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes,"
including stomach, colon, lung, kidney, prostate and brain cancers, the agency said last year.
For the single exception -- non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- there was "conflicting
evidence," it said.
- Attacks from both sides -
Critics have accused European
and US health authorities of misreading data or bowing to pressure from industrial lobbies fighting to keep glyphosate-based herbicides on the market.
In May, the former
director of the US National Center for Environmental Health, Christopher Portier, alleged in an open letter to the president of the European Commission that EFSA had underplayed some animal studies showing a clear cancer risk for humans.
"The evaluations applied to the glyphosate data are scientifically flawed," he wrote.
Portier and 100
other experts wrote a commentary last year in a peer-reviewed medical journal defending the IARC findings.
Defenders of the herbicide were quick to challenge Portier's
motives, pointing to his links with a major anti-GMO green group in the United States, and his alignment with a ongoing lawsuit against Monsanto.
The IARC has come under
attack as well.
A media report last week accused the agency of selectively deleting passages from its review that did not support the link with cancer.
The IARC rejected the claims, noting that the process was transparent and consensual, and that the passages in question were mostly from a single study authored by a Monsanto scientist.
Glyphosate, often sold under the brand name “Roundup,” is the most widely used weed killer in the U.S.
Glyphosate is a “non-selective herbicide,” which
means it kills many plants, not just weeds. It kills them by interfering with the production of critical proteins necessary for growth.
In commercial agriculture, Roundup is used on “Roundup Ready” crops—crops that have been genetically
modified to resist the powerful toxic effects of glyphosate. The list of Roundup Ready crops includes soy, corn, canola and sugar beets. It is important to remember that, while these plants have been modified to resist the harmful effects of glyphosate, the
people and animals that eat them have not.
It is important to remember that, while these plants have been modified to resist the harmful effects of glyphosate, the people and animals that eat them have not.
series of articles, my colleague Anthony Samsel and I have been exploring the connection between glyphosate and a number of diseases, including multiple sclerosis, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancer. In our most recent article, “Glyphosate
Pathways to Modern Diseases VI: Prions, Amyloidoses and Autoimmune Neurological Diseases,” we present evidence that glyphosate has made its way into several widely used vaccines. We describe how the glyphosate residue contained in vaccines might
induce the kind of autoimmune responses typically observed in autism.
Interestingly, of all the vaccines we tested, MMR stood out as consistently having the highest level of glyphosate contamination. This fact may help explain why the MMR vaccine, which
contains neither mercury nor aluminum, has been implicated so often in vaccine injury and autism.
How Might Glyphosate Make Its Way into Vaccines?
Vaccines can become contaminated in many ways. One potential source of contamination
is the animal tissue (chicken embryo, fetal bovine serum, monkey kidney, etc.) that is used as a culture medium to grow the viruses contained in vaccines. The measles virus for the MMR is grown on gelatin made from the bones and ligaments of commercially raised
cows and pigs, animals that have been fed a steady diet of Roundup Ready corn and soy feed. Gelatin is also used as a stabilizer in vaccines, creating another possible route of contamination.
As Roundup producer Monsanto itself has reported, the residue
from glyphosate tends to accumulate in the bones, marrow, and collagen-rich ligaments of animals. Anthony Samsel confirmed this finding in his own study of the bones, marrow, and other parts of pigs and cows, as well as the derived bovine gelatin.
provide additional evidence that gelatin is the source of glyphosate contamination in vaccines, Samsel looked at a number of gelatin-based products, including Jell-O, gummi vitamins, and protein powders. He also looked at digestive enzymes such as trypsin
and lipase. He found significant glyphosate residue in all of them. It should come as no surprise, then, that all of the vaccines that list gelatin and bovine serum as ingredients tested positive for glyphosate, while those that contained neither of these
ingredients tested negative.
Glyphosate may be contributing to another source of vaccine contamination. In a recent study published in the International Journal of Vaccines
and Vaccination, researchers were shocked to discover a variety of toxic metals in a number of common vaccines. Platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, and chromium all showed up in the MMR vaccine. The source of these contaminants is considered to be a mystery.
It is interesting to note in this context that glyphosate was first patented as a pipe cleaner due to its remarkable ability to chelate metals. It may be the case that glyphosate is playing a role in extracting metals from containers during the manufacture
My research leads me to believe that synergistic toxicity between glyphosate and vaccines, particularly MMR, is a major factor in the growing autism epidemic. The severity of MMR-related adverse events, as reflected in the FDA’s
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, has increased steadily in recent years—along with the use of glyphosate on corn and soy crops in the U.S. Some of the reactions that have become significantly more common after 2002 compared to before 2002
are seizures, anaphylactic shock, asthma, autism, eczema, irregular heart rate, and ear infection. Of course, correlation does not prove causation; it is important to understand how glyphosate residues might disrupt the body’s immune
How Might the Glyphosate in Vaccines Cause Autism?
In our recent article, Samsel and I describe how the measles virus in the MMR, which is grown on nutrients contaminated with glyphosate, could incorporate this glyphosate
into its own proteins, as a coding error, in place of the amino acid glycine. Glyphosate is a glycine molecule with an additional methyl phosphonyl group attached to the nitrogen atom, and we have argued that a key mechanism of its insidious cumulative toxicity
is its ability to substitute for glycine by mistake during protein synthesis.
Haemagglutinin is the main antigen produced by the measles virus that is responsible for inducing an antibody response to the vaccine. A glyphosate-contaminated haemagglutinin
molecule from a measles virus will be much more allergenic than one that is free of glyphosate. When the measles virus from the vaccine gains access to the brain, the brain’s immune system acquires antibodies to this abnormal haemagglutinin molecule,
and then, through molecular mimicry, these antibodies become autoantibodies to myelin basic protein, a basic component of the myelin sheath. This autoimmune attack on the nerve fibers in the brain disrupts neuronal communication channels, causing the symptoms
Vijendra K. Singh and his colleagues at Utah State University have published multiple papers, dating back to the 1990s, proposing that an autoimmune attack on the myelin sheath due to a viral infection may be a causative factor in autism.
In their 2002 paper, “Abnormal Measles-Mumps-Rubella Antibodies and CNS Autoimmunity in Children with Autism,” they concluded that “an inappropriate antibody response
to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.” A paperpublished by Dr. William Shaw in 2017 discussed a set of triplets—two
boys with autism and a girl with a seizure disorder—all of whom had high levels of glyphosate in their urine and a disrupted gut microbiome, which he proposed was a causative factor.
Gut Dysbiosis: a Primary Factor
all children will respond to a glyphosate-contaminated vaccine in the same way. A key factor that increases susceptibility of the brain to damage is an unhealthy gut microbiome, which leads to a leaky gut barrier and subsequently a leaky brain barrier, via
a tight communication channel between the gut microbes and the brain. Prior chronic exposure to high levels of dietary glyphosate can set a child up for a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, together with many colleagues,
published a seminal article in the Lancet in 1998 on a case study of twelve children, all of whom had a gut disorder and all of whom
suffered onset of gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms following MMR vaccine, with regression into an autism-like syndrome.” Parents of eight of the children cited MMR as the trigger for their child’s decline. Wakefield was among the
first scientists to recognize the important role of a disrupted gut microbiome in the etiology of autism. Unfortunately, the Lancet paper was later retracted and other researchers were very slow to follow up on this important lead, although
finally today an unhealthy gut is recognized as a key feature linked to autism.
Dr. Wakefield recognized that the children in his study suffered from a leaky gut barrier, as a consequence of damage to the lining of the small intestine. This lining is
covered with millions of small projections called villi, creating a huge surface area for the absorption of nutrients. The cells that form these villi, called enterocytes, begin life as an undifferentiated stem cell in the “crypt” area of the intestines.
From there, they proliferate and mature as they migrate up the walls of the crypt, and then settle in on the surface of the villi, where they absorb nutrients before dying and getting replaced by new arrivals in a constant renewal process, as illustrated in
Glyphosate, as an amino acid, is actively imported into cells along L-type amino acid transporters. Cells that proliferate, like enterocytes, express high levels of these transporters, and therefore preferentially take up glyphosate. In Celiac
disease (gluten intolerance), the enterocytes are destroyed more quickly due to exposure to glyphosate and other toxic chemicals. This damage causes the cells to proliferate more quickly, in order to replace destroyed cells. Increased proliferation causes
an increase in the uptake of glyphosate, creating a downward spiral.
Thus, glyphosate residue in food sets a child up to fail following an MMR vaccine. Wheat, barley, oats, chick peas, lentils, and sugar cane are not glyphosate resistant, but glyphosate
is frequently used as a desiccant or ripening agent for them right before harvest, and it is actively taken up by the seed. Some of the highest levels of glyphosate have been found as a contaminant in these non-GMO foods, so eating “non-GMO” is
not adequate for glyphosate avoidance. Glyphosate is not allowed in organic agriculture, so buying USDA certified organic foods is the best option. Children with autism often suffer from gluten intolerance, and I believe glyphosate is a major causative factor
in both conditions.
Figure 1: Schematic of the enterocytes in the villi lining the walls of the small intestine, which migrate upward from the crypt to the villus as they mature into functioning enterocytes from initial stem cells. These cells are especially
vulnerable to glyphosate toxicity, leading to a leaky gut syndrome.
A Lost Generation
We have been misled for far too long by the claim that vaccines are “safe and effective.” It is not at all clear that inducing
specific antibodies to a small set of infective agents, such as the measles virus, while weakening the immune system’s ability to fight off all the other infective agents in the environment, is the best way to deal with infectious disease. As we have
seen, antibodies can become autoantibodies and attack the body’s own tissues, leading to chronic diseases that are often worse than the infectious diseases they protect from. Vaccinated children suffer from many debilitating neurological and autoimmune
diseases in far greater numbers than unvaccinated children. The manufacture of vaccines is a tricky process, and along with the acknowledged toxic ingredients like mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde, they also have been found to contain contaminants like
glyphosate and toxic metals that may well be the biggest contributors to severe adverse reactions.
As we have seen, antibodies can become autoantibodies and attack the body’s own tissues, leading to chronic diseases that
are often worse than the infectious diseases they protect from.
Children today may already be a lost generation, but several policy changes need to take place in the immediate future to save subsequent generations from a similar fate. We need
to repeal the 1986 legislation that protects pharmaceutical companies from liability when a child’s life is ruined by a vaccine. This will surely pressure them to try
harder to keep impurities out of vaccines. We need to eliminate laws such as California’s SB277 that prevents unvaccinated children from enrolling
in public or private schools, and be vigilant to ensure other states don’t follow suit. Then parents will be empowered to make decisions about the best path towards building a strong immune system in their child. Part of that program needs to be a switch
to a 100 percent USDA certified organic diet, in order to protect children from the dangers posed by toxic herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Finally, we need to insist that our elected representatives pass laws that protect consumers from products like
glyphosate, which are designed to disrupt processes that support life.
Top 5 Reasons to Avoid Glyphosate Exposure
1. Glyphosate is a “Probable” Carcinogen In March of 2015, scientists at
the UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen. The IARC report linked glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans and to cancer in laboratory animals, and indicated it can cause “DNA
and chromosomal damage in human cells.”
2. Glyphosate is a Patented Antimicrobial Agent Glyphosate disrupts the gut microbiome leading to the overgrowth of pathogens and inflammatory bowel disease.
Negatively Impacts the Brain According to the National Pesticide Information Center at Oregon State University (NPIC), glyphosate exposure has been linked to developmental effects when administered to pregnant rats in high doses.
May Disrupt the Reproductive System
The Western world faces an epidemic in declining sperm quality. The NPIC links high dose exposure in rats to negative reproductive effects.
5. Glyphosate May Be a Critical Factor
the Autism Epidemic
Much evidence supports this, including disruption of the gut microbiome, chelation of important minerals like manganese and zinc, and extremely high correlations between time trends in autism and in the use of glyphosate
on core crops.
I’ll get to genetically modified people; but first, the background on the grand gene hype and propaganda operation.
The war against cancer has painted a picture of hope: genetic
This, despite the fact that there are no successful genetic treatments, across the board, for any form of human cancer.
The focus on genes is a diversion from obvious causes of cancer in the environment: industrial chemicals, pollutants,
pesticides, food additives, and even pharmaceuticals.
This futile human gene-fix has a direct parallel in food crops: modify plants so they can grow despite drenching them with toxic pesticides.
However, massive GMO crop failures, reduced nutritive
value of such crops, and the rise of super-weeds are three reasons why the gene model fails.
So it is with human cancer: “let’s modify the genes of people and they will be impervious to the environmental assault of chemicals that cause cancer.”
In other words, the fantasy proposes that someday, humans will be able to live in a toxic soup created by mega-corporations, and even thrive, because they have been genetically altered.
There is no reason under the sun to believe this.
us. Even if environmental toxins trigger gene mutations that bring about cancer, we can just cancel out those mutations through better human engineering.”
This is like saying you can cure diseases caused by germs even though
people’s immune systems are severely and chronically compromised.
The entire cancer industry exists to protect the corporations that are manufacturing products that cause cancer.
I’ve made these points during radio interviews, and
I make them here again, because major media news outlets are silent; they are part of the cancer industry and are beholden to the cancer-causing corporations that buy huge blocks of advertising.
In the so-called research community, scientists can spin
their wheels and obtain grant monies to do experiments with genes and mice and ‘cell lines’ forever and never emerge with results that will save lives. (Note: by the way, did you know there is a huge, general scandal with ‘cell lines’?
More on that here.)
These scientists and their corporate masters can herald minor tumor reductions, but nothing
changes. The war on cancer is a war on people.
Assuming gene damage can cause cancer, the triggering event can occur as a result of coming into contact with environmental toxins. In other words, the toxic effects on genes will continue apace, no matter
how much research is done on the composition and disposition of the genes themselves.
Much cancer research does, in fact, discover toxic causes—and it is in the interest of companies that spew those compounds out into the world to cover up their
criminal guilt. What better way to achieve that than by asserting: “cancer is all in the genes.”
Look at the giant biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta. In one way or another, they are all involved in chemical AND genetic
research and production.
So they are in a prime position to deflect the chemical destruction they are wreaking by pushing “the frontiers of gene research.”
“It’s all about the genes.”
Hype. Hype. Hype.
Dr. Samuel Epstein, who devoted a major part of his life to the research of environmental toxins, wrote:
“We are losing the war against cancer. The prohibition of new carcinogenic products, reduction of toxins in use, and right-to-know laws
– these are among the legislative proposals which could reverse the cancer epidemic.”
But that would be bad for business. The solution? Promote endlessly the notion that genes and only genes are at the root of cancer.
The big picture?
The big con? Imagine a world drowning in pollution of all kinds, and top (bought-off) scientists saying: “Don’t worry, when it comes to cancer we’ve got it covered. Tweak this gene, tweak that gene, and poof, cancer never has a chance. Or
if you get cancer, we can go in there and re-position crucial genes and knock out the disease. See, you can live in a chemical soup and never feel adverse effects…”
Genes. High-level, high-flying, high-minded, high-tech answers for the
problems we face.
What? The science isn’t solid? The propaganda is wall-to-wall? The shills are everywhere? Don’t worry, be happy. The best minds will come up with solutions. Just wait and see. The great discoveries are right around the
And I have condos for sale on Jupiter.
Step right up.
You can see the same kind of gene-hustle when it comes to autism, which many researchers, based on no real evidence, claim is “surely a genetic disease.”
assertion covers up the fact that happy and healthy children, soon after receiving a vaccination, experience devastating neurological damage, leading to a diagnosis of autism.
But don’t go there, don’t look there, don’t talk about
vaccines. No, instead, listen to the ascendant experts, who say it was just a coincidence that a vaccine was given and a child’s life was destroyed. You see, what really happened was: an errant gene response kicked in at the same moment as the shot of
vaccine. A grand coincidence. Nothing to do with the vaccine. Certainly not.
In actuality, the dominant paradigm of this world’s power structure is: float cover stories.
Sell big cover stories and keep selling them. Use them to conceal
“It’s the genes” is the latest and greatest cover.
Some of the biggest, best-educated liars on the planet deploy it every day.
Here is the next big thing: genes injected, functioning as vaccines. The hype
is over the top. Of course, scientists admit that these injected genes will incorporate themselves in the body and alter its genetic makeup permanently.
If you like and trust that idea, I have condos in the core of the sun for sale. Bargain prices.
The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It 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.”
“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.”
again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Not just a “visit.”
The Times article taps 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.”
Yes, some people might be
leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.
Let’s take this further. Under the cover of preventing disease (note: all good covert ops float a laudatory goal to conceal their true intent), vaccines are ideal carriers for all sorts of
genes that would be permanently incorporated into the human structure.
The enormous tonnage of propaganda about vaccines, and the resultant mandatory laws that enforce vaccination (without fear of liability), create a powerful channel along which re-engineering
is eminently possible.
Synthetic genes injected into billions of humans would form a grand experiment to create an altered species.
This grand experiment could be compartmentalized. For example, secretly, genes 1-6 will be injected into Group
A in geo-location I. Genes 7-12 will be injected into Group B in location II. And so on.
Vaccine recipients will be subjected to ongoing surveillance to gauge the results. On various pretexts, members of these groups will be brought into clinics for
exams and tests, to discover markers that purportedly reveal their bodies’ responses to the genetic alterations.
Are these people stronger or weaker? Do they exhibit signs of illness? Do they report behavioral changes? Through surveillance and
testing, all sorts of information can be compiled.
Of course, there is no informed consent. The human guinea pigs have no knowledge of what is being done to them.
And what would be the objectives of this lunatic research program? They would vary.
On a simplified level, there would be two. Create weaker and more docile and more obedient and more dependent humans. On the other side, create stronger and healthier and more intelligent and more talented humans. Obviously, the results of the latter experiments
would be applied to the “chosen few.” And clearly, some of this research will be carried on inside the military. Secrecy is easier to maintain, and the aim to produce “better soldiers” is a long-standing goal of the Pentagon and its
research arm, DARPA.
A global vaccine experiment of the type I’m describing here has another bonus for the planners: those people who fall ill or die can be written off as having suffered from various diseases and disorders which “have nothing
to do with vaccines.” This is already SOP (standard operating procedure) for the medical cartel.
The numbers of casualties, in this grand experiment, would be of no concern to the Brave New World shapers. As I’ve documented extensively,
the US medical system is already killing 2.25 million people per decade (a conservative estimate), as a
result of FDA-approved drugs and mistreatment in hospitals. Major media and government leaders, aware of this fact,
have done nothing about it.
Here is a quote from Princeton molecular biologist, Lee Silver, the author of Remaking Eden. It gives you a window into how important geneticists are thinking about an engineered future:
account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…
[unaltered humans] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human
would have for a chimpanzee.
“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres
to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.
“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis
for restricting the use of repro[grammed]-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”
Here is another gem, from Gregory Stock, former
director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:
“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—so