Category Archives: Corporate Fraud

Covert chemical warfare/a time bomb in the Ukraine

by Jon Rappoport

February 28, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

In the entirely justified blow-up over the poisonous effects of Monsanto’s Roundup, recent history has been pushed to the side.

There are, of course, other companies and other poisons (herbicides, pesticides).

For example, read this from “Transport and Trade,” published by the Pesticide Action Network: “…US [companies] shipped nearly 1.7 billion pounds of pesticide products to other countries from 2001-2003…

“more than 32 tons per hour…

“Nearly 28 million pounds of these pesticides are banned for use in the US.”

Consider this broad 1997 indictment: “…large international corporations are able to sell pesticides abroad that cannot be sold in the U.S. These corporations sell pesticides that are classified as so harmful to human health and the environment, that their use cannot be justified for any purpose.” (Jefferson D Reynolds, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, “International Pesticide Trade”)

A case in point: Propargite. Writing in the Albion Monitor (May 5, 1996, “US Firm Exports Hazardous Pesticide”), Haider Rizvi describes the chemical as “a widely used pesticide for control of mites on a range of fruit, grain, vegetable, nut and fiber crops.”

Here are quotes from the Monitor article:

“The US-based Uniroyal Corp. will continue selling a hazardous pesticide to farmers overseas even though the product has been withdrawn from domestic markets for ‘health and safety reasons.’”

“In a recent agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the company canceled nearly a dozen uses of the pesticide Propargite in the United States. But, the accord does not affect sales of the suspected carcinogen in other countries.”

“Its recent agreement with EPA prohibits Uniroyal from selling propargite for use on nearly a dozen [US] crops — including apricots, apples, peaches, pears, plums, figs, strawberries, and green beans — because of its cancer-causing potential.”

“Both independent and EPA scientists say infants and children are especially vulnerable to the potential dangers of exposure to Propargite-treated food products, which include damage to the nervous system, as well as cancer.”

Here’s the capper:

“Despite banning a dozen uses, the EPA-Uniroyal agreement still allows the company to continue production and distribution of Propargite for use on nearly 30 other [US] crops, including grapes, cotton, grapes, watermelon, and potatoes.”

And remember, along with destruction wreaked on people in countries to which the US exports these chemicals, the food grown and sprayed in those countries is shipped back to the US for sale. This route was called “the circle of poison.” That phrase has dropped out of popular usage.

Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, and other mega-corporations don’t let up. They continue in the tradition of the infamous IG Farben—chemicals for destruction.

In 2009, I researched the problem of pesticides in the Ukraine. Use is not the only issue; so is storage. And the scope and danger are huge.

Tamara Gurzhiy, “Expired and prohibited pesticides problem in Ukraine,” Independent Agency for Ecological Information, Kharkiv, Ukraine (English translation):

“Twenty thousand to 25,000 t [tons] of expired or prohibited pesticides are stored on 4,000 Ukrainian depots. This is a serious threat for people and environment. Arsenic compounds are highly toxic for cattle. Death comes within several hours…Majority of pesticide depots were not designed for long-term usage. Chemicals are stolen and illegally sold to people. Depots’ roofs collapsed over the time, pesticides’ wrapping gets [out of] of order, pesticides of different nature may become [a] catalyst of spontaneous chemical reactions with unpredictable results. Spontaneous fire may spread toxins on a wide area. Utilization of expired and prohibited pesticides is Ukrainian national problem.”

Indeed, there was a fire in 2009.

Simferopol, October 17 (Interfax-Ukraine): “A storehouse with pesticide in Dzhankoi (Crimea) is on fire…around 200 tonnes of pesticide and magnesium chloride…around 40 tonnes of pesticide was taken from the storehouse…” How extensive were the toxic clouds? Is this the real reason for 2009 reports of a million people ill in the Ukraine with Swine Flu?

“BRNO, Czech Republic, Sept. 23 /CNW/ – According to Milieukontakts Partner IHPA (the International HCH and Pesticides Association) the health of at least 7 million inhabitants in Moldavia and Ukraine is seriously threatened by a stock of old pesticides. IHPA calls for fast EU action to disarm this ‘biggest chemical time bomb of Europe’.

“…[in] the former Kalush factory in the west of Ukraine there is a stock of no less than 10,000 tonnes of superfluous Hexachlorobenzene (HCB). It’s particularly the positioning along the Dniester river that makes the situation extremely hazardous: a single flood and the high concentrations of poison would pollute the natural habitat of some 7 million people in the west of Ukraine and Moldavia.

“In total, tens of millions of inhabitants in Europe, Central Asia and the former Soviet Union are being threatened by pesticides. In Ukraine alone there are 4,500 storage locations with more than 30,000 tonnes of old pesticides, a legacy from the Soviet era. The substances have been prohibited since 2001. As a rule the packaging only lasts five to ten years. If nothing happens in that time, then the substances could simply end up in the soil or in the water…”

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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 29th 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.

“Not one case of harm from GMOs”

“Not one case of harm from GMOs”

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here are two GMO quotes. I’ll let them speak for themselves, and then make a few comments.

QUOTE ONE: “This compilation is a sample of the scientific references including over 1200 studies, surveys, and analyses that suggest various adverse impacts and potential adverse impacts of genetically engineered (GE/GMO) crops, foods and related pesticides. This list contains references regarding health impacts, environmental impacts, including impact of non-target organisms (NTOs), resistance of target organisms, genetic drift and drift of pesticides, horizontal gene transfer, unintended effects, as well as references regarding yields, social impact, ethics, economics and regulations. In most cases, links are provided to the abstracts for the references.” (See gmofreeusa.org, “GMO Science,” for the list of 1237 specific references.)

QUOTE TWO: “If we look at evidence from [more than] 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food…The bottom line for me is that there is no more risk in GMO food than conventionally farmed food, it has nothing to do with genetic engineering…” (Statement of Anne Glover, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, in a July 24, 2012, interview with EurActiv.)

No problem, nothing to see here, no harm, no foul.

The existence of 1237 references that contradict Anne “the science is settled” Glover (twitter: @EU_SceinceChief) doesn’t automatically prove GMOs are harmful, but it does prove she’s a parrot. She’s just mouthing the talking point that all GMO advocates deploy.

And she hasn’t studied these 1237 (and more) references to see what’s there.

Instead, she herself is a study in studied ignorance.

* Abdo E. M., et al. Chemical Analysis of BT corn “Mon- 810: Ajeeb-YG®” and its counterpart non-Bt corn “Ajeeb”. IOSR Journal of Applied Chemistry (IOSR-JAC) e-ISSN: 2278–5736. Volume 4, Issue 1 (Mar.–Apr. 2013), PP 55–60

* S. L. Abidi, G. R. List, K. A. Rennick (1999) Effect of genetic modification on the distribution of minor constituents in canola oil. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 463-467

* Accinelli, C.; Screpanti, C.; Vicari, A. & Catizone, P. (2004) Influence of insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp.kurstaki on the degradation of glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium in soil samples. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,103, 497-507

* Achiorno, C. L., C. de Villalobos, and L. Ferrari. (2008) Toxicity of the Herbicide Glyphosate to Chordodes Nobilii (Gordiida, Nematomorpha). Chemosphere 71, no. 10 (May): 1816-22.

* Acquavella JF, Alexander BH, Mandel JS, Gustin C, Baker B, Chapman P, Bleeke M. (2004) Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmers and their families: results from the Farm Family Exposure Study. Environ Health Perspect. Mar;112(3):321-6.

* Adam A, Marzuki A, Abdul Rahman H, Abdul Aziz M. (1997) The oral and intratracheal toxicities of ROUNDUP and its components to rats. Vet Hum Toxicol. Jun;39(3):147-51

* Adugna A, Bekele E: (2013) Geographical distribution and phenotypic diversity in wild sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.)] in Ethiopia: implications for germplasm conservation and crop-wild flow. Plant Genet Resour , 11:68–76

* Asfaw Adugna (2013) Ecotypic variation for seed dormancy, longevity and germination requirements in wild/weedy Sorghum bicolor in Ethiopia: implications for seed mediated transgene dispersal and persistence SpringerPlus May, 2:248

* Adugna, A., & Bekele, E. (2013) Morphology and fitness components of wild 3 crop F1 hybrids of Sorghum bi- color (L.) in Ethiopia: implications for survival and introgression of crop genes in the wild pool. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization: 1-10

Only 1228 more references to go, Anne.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

What the Whole Foods-Monsanto connection really means

What the Whole Foods-Monsanto connection really means

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yesterday, I wrote and posted an article, “Top shareholders in Whole Foods and Monsanto: identical.” I laid out the five investment funds that hold huge numbers of shares of both companies, and, the ‘proxy voting guidelines’ of Vanguard (note: one of Vanguard’s investment funds is THE top shareholder of Monsanto and the fourth largest shareholder of Whole Foods).

This means very little to Monsanto. But to Whole Foods—that’s a very different story.

Suppose, for example, Whole Foods executives suddenly decided the best and most ethical approach to GMO crops is to ban them altogether. Not label them. (I know, it’s a fantasy, but just suppose.)

And suppose Whole Foods led such a movement.

Now, the investment funds that own all that Whole Foods stock could decide Whole Foods was going too far, and needed to be taught a lesson. The lesson could come in the form of unloading WF shares and sending the company’s stock price plummeting.

The message would be: “Look, if you want to label GMOs, it won’t make Monsanto and Dow and the other ag-bio-tech giants very happy, but they can handle the fallout from labeling. If you start to get serious, though, and go for an outright ban on GMO crops in counties across America…that’s a no-no. That’s a violation of the existing order, and we will punish you.”

In other words, if a company is playing in the field of the big boys, the money boys, who buy and sell shares in the millions and billions without blinking an eye, the game changes. The rules tighten. The options dwindle.

The men who came up with the money to back those GMO-labeling ballot initiatives in California and Washington? They were doing anti-GMO Lite. That’s the soft approach. That still leaves the majority of farm acreage in America with GMO crops—and genes drifting into non-GMO growing fields 24/7.

But a real movement, with money behind it, to ban growing GMO food? That’s anti-GMO Heavy. That’s going for the throat.

In the world of buying and selling stocks in publicly traded companies, companies are under a ceiling. The CEOs know serious activism of any kind, on any vital issue, can disturb Big Money, the kind of money the giant investment funds use to send the market up…and take it down.

All publicly traded companies willingly sign on to a tacit understanding. They’re “in the stock market.” They’re in that world. They’re in a space where the status quo is respected and acknowledged.

The boundaries are drawn.

That world, in certain respects, resembles one of those Club Feds, where white collar criminals and other Lite offenders are sent to serve out their sentences.

The convicts enjoy many privileges. Within those fences, they can move about with relative freedom. But if an inmate decides to hop the fence and go out into the wider world, and if he’s caught, he’ll find out what a real prison feels like.

In an interview I did years ago with Richard Bell, a financial analyst, Richard put it to me this way: “Imagine that a publicly traded energy company suddenly brought out a device that supplied enormous amounts of energy at a very, very cheap price.

“Among the many punishments that would be heaped on the company, its stock price would go into free fall. It would be taken down, amid accusations of fraud. It would be massacred in the market…”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Top shareholders in Whole Foods and Monsanto: identical

Top shareholders in Whole Foods and Monsanto: identical

By Jon Rappoport

February 25, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Is there a Whole Foods-Monsanto connection?

The answer is yes.

But the important question is: what does this connection mean?

What does it imply?

Is it significant?

If you consult open listings (for example, investors.morningstar.com), you can look at the major shareholders of these two publicly traded companies, Monsanto and Whole Foods.

If you read the top 10 shareholders for each company—the holders of the most stock—you’ll see that five out of those ten are the same.

Who are those five?

Don’t prepare to see the names of individuals.

The five are funds. Investment funds.

They are, at the moment: Vanguard Total Stock Mkt. Index; SPDR S&P 500; Vanguard Institutional Index I; Vanguard 500 Index Inv; Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl.

These funds buy stocks in many, many companies.

These funds don’t say, “Well, we’ll buy Monsanto and Whole Foods stock and then exert massive direct control over Whole Foods and make it bow to Monsanto’s agenda.” No. That’s not how it works.

These funds make automatic purchases of stocks, based on computer calculations and based on the S&P rankings of companies.

These investment funds could be sitting on Mars, and their computers would be running numbers and buying and selling stock in Earth companies with no input from the outside.

Unless…something came up. Unless something big came up. Unless a private and elite word went out that Whole Foods was becoming a threat to some entrenched interest, some vital agenda. For example, some Monsanto agenda.

In that case, one of these big shareholders could cast a proxy vote that would go against the aims or plans of Whole Foods.

One of Vanguard’s investment funds is THE top shareholder of Monsanto, and the fourth largest shareholder of Whole Foods. Here, from Vanguard’s website, is a quote from “Vanguard’s proxy voting guidelines.” Read carefully:

“In evaluating proxy proposals, we consider information from many sources, including but not limited to, the investment advisor for the fund, the management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal, and independent proxy research services. We will give substantial weight to the recommendations of the company’s board, absent guidelines or other specific facts that would support a vote against management. In all cases, however, the ultimate decision [on how to vote] rests with the members of the [Vanguard] Committee, who are accountable to the [Vanguard] fund’s Board.”

The key excerpt from this paragraph is: “We will give substantial weight to the recommendation of the company’s board, absent guidelines or other specific facts that would support a vote AGAINST MANAGEMENT.”

Bottom line, in plain English, it goes this way: “We, as an investment fund, hold a huge number of shares of a company (like Whole Foods). If the company is holding a vote on its future plans and policies, we can, if we decide to, weigh in with our huge voting block and go against the wishes of that company. And win.”

The Matrix Revealed

If such a proxy vote came down to favoring the agenda of Monsanto or Whole Foods, and if the situation was crucial enough, who do you think would come out on top? Who would be torpedoed?

Taking this a step further: with Whole Foods’ decision, in January of 1992, to go public, to become a publicly traded company, to sell stock out in the open, it put itself into a world where money talks a language that is no longer simply based on products sold and company profit.

Whole Foods entered a world where billions and trillions of dollars exert influence, where “important people” can “have discussions” with companies and “suggest strategies” and “offer advice” that goes beyond how to run a successful enterprise.

If someone who is tangentially associated with one of Whole Foods’ top shareholders shows up and wants to talk, there are ears ready to listen.

Remember, that top shareholder in Whole Foods is also a top investor in Monsanto. It isn’t hard to figure out which company—Whole Foods or Monsanto—occupies the superior position in that someone’s mind.

The top shareholder in Whole Foods holds a boatload of proxy votes in his back pocket. He can cast them with or against Whole Foods. The possibility is always there.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Study: Monsanto’s Roundup causes “gluten intolerance”

Study: Monsanto’s Roundup causes “gluten intolerance”

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

A recent study proposes that gluten intolerance and celiac disease are on the rise as a result of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

The National Library of Medicine states that celiac disease “damages the lining of the small intestine and prevents it from absorbing parts of food that are important for staying healthy. The damage is due to a reaction to eating gluten, which is found in wheat, barley, rye, and possibly oats.”

The study authors, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, have a different view. They point out that this rise in celiac disease parallels the increase in the use of Roundup, and the effects of glyphosate are those listed for celiac disease.

Here is the abstract of their study [Interdisciplinary Toxicology, http://www.intertox.sav.sk/, 2013, Vol. 6 (4), 159-184]: “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance”:

(Click here for the .pdf document of the report. See also this link.)

“Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers from it.

“Symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, skin rashes, macrocytic anemia and depression.

“It is a multifactorial disease associated with numerous nutritional deficiencies as well as reproductive issues and increased risk to thyroid disease, kidney failure, and cancer.

“Here, we propose that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup®, is the most important causal factor in this epidemic.

“Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria.

“Characteristics of celiac disease point to impairment in many cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, activating vitamin D3, catabolizing vitamin A, and maintaining bile acid production and sulfate supplies to the gut.

“Glyphosate is known to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes. Deficiencies in iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, and other rare metals associated with celiac disease can be attributed to glyphosate’s strong ability to chelate these elements.

“Deficiencies in tryptophan, tyrosine, methionine, and selenomethionine associated with celiac disease match glyphosate’s known depletion of these amino acids.

“Celiac disease patients have an increased risk to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which has also been implicated in glyphosate exposure.

“Reproductive issues associated with celiac disease, such as infertility, miscarriages, and birth defects, can also be explained by glyphosate.

The Matrix Revealed

“Glyphosate residues in wheat and other crops are likely increasing recently due to the growing practice of crop desiccation [drying] just prior to the harvest. We argue that the practice of “ripening” sugar cane with glyphosate may explain the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America. We conclude with a plea to governments to reconsider policies regarding the safety of glyphosate residues in foods.”

This study could change the way gluten intolerance and celiac disease are understood, and it adds to the growing body of evidence against Monsanto’s Roundup and those GMO crops which require Roundup as the herbicide of choice.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The statement was drawn up by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility. It was released on October 21, 2013.

Since then, 297 scientists and experts have signed it.

Thus exploding the myth that “the science is settled.”

Exploding the claim that a consensus about GMOs has been reached.

You can read the statement and the signatories at ensser.org.

http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/

Here are two excerpts from the statement:

“As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over’.”

“We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

Exit From the Matrix

The number of scientists on either side of a question does not, alone, imply a final answer. But it does indicate whether the question is closed or still open. It does indicate that those who claim the question is closed are wrong.

Completely wrong.

Monsanto PR and government PR and media PR are so many tongues wagging in the wind.

In previous articles, I’ve highlighted dangers and lies re GMOs. Here I’m simply reporting that a consensus about GMO safety is a delusion.

In other words, anybody can say “everybody knows…” And if those people have access to, or control, major media, they can make a persuasive case.

But the persuasion is nothing more than one voice drowning out other voices.

Other voices who, for example, make this declaration:

(Signatory, Dr. Margarida Silva, biologist and professor at the Portugese Catholic University)—“…research has been mostly financed by the very companies that depend on positive outcomes for their business, and we now know that where money flows, influence grows. The few independent academics left must work double shift to address the vast array of unanswered questions and red flags that keep piling up.”

Or this voice: Signatory, Dr. Raul Montenegro, biologist, University of Cordoba, Argentina—“As things stand, the governments of these countries [Argentina, Brazil] deny that there is a [GMO] problem even in the face of numerous reports from the people who are affected and the doctors who must treat them.”

So far, there are 297 such voices.

Will CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX report this story in full and overturn the false consensus? Will they make room for the 297 voices?

Of course not. Their job is to invent consensus by consulting “reliable sources.” Meaning: liars who also want to invent false consensus.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Under the radar: prestigious mainstream editor torpedoed the FDA

Under the radar: prestigious mainstream editor torpedoed the FDA

by Jon Rappoport

February 3, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Seven years ago, Marcia Angell, who, for two decades, edited one of the most famous medical journals in the world, the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote a piece for the Boston Globe.

It was titled, Talking Back to the FDA (February 26, 2007).

In his book, Medication Madness, Dr. Peter Breggin quotes Angell’s article:

“The FDA also refuses to release unfavorable research results in its possession without the sponsoring company’s permission…It’s no wonder that serious safety concerns about drugs such as Vioxx, Paxil, and Zyprexa have emerged very late in the day—years after they were in widespread use.”

Serious safety concerns? Heart attacks, strokes, suicide and homicide, etc.

What’s this ongoing bureaucratic insanity Marcia Angell is referring to?

The drug companies do the human studies on new drugs before they are submitted to the FDA, who then decides whether to approve the drugs for public consumption.

The FDA examines these studies. But here is the catch. A drug company might submit four studies on a new drug to the FDA. The FDA might choose to render a favorable decision based on two studies.

Now, somebody like Angell, while she was editing the New England Journal, would approach the FDA and say, “We want to see all the study-data you have on this new drug. Not just the most positive findings.”

And the FDA would refuse. Why? Because these studies are “property” of the drug companies, and those companies don’t want the studies to see the light of day.

Those are the human clinical trials that reveal heart attacks, strokes, and deaths are quite real results for people taking the drug.

The FDA, tasked with protecting the public, says no. “No, you can’t see the data.”

Angell’s column in the Boston Globe was a blockbuster. It should have provoked action from the Department of Justice. After all, people having strokes and dying…and the drug companies and the FDA concealing this…if that isn’t a crime, what is?

But no. Angell’s revelation goes nowhere. It’s published and it sinks like a stone.

And people think, “Well, I guess there really isn’t a problem. If it were serious, the government would have done something about it.”

Wrong. The government isn’t in the business of sending pharmaceutical executives and FDA bureaucrats to jail. A drug company might have to pay a hefty fine and promise to behave, but the profits from the killer drug are already in the bank. Pay a fine of $2 billion? Chump change, when the drug already made $20 billion in sales.

So, as Angell reveals, we have a hidden definition of pharmaceutical science: “Conceal the dangers, get the drug on the market, ignore the human destruction, and at worst pay a fine.”

The FDA hiding and burying the truth about medical drugs? This helps explain how, in the US, every year, 106,000 people die as a direct result of ingesting FDA-approved medicines.

Yes, 106,000. See “Is US health really the best in the world?”, Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000. Her statistics were a conservative estimate.

In one of the last interviews (2009) she did before she died, Dr. Starfield told me as much. She remarked that later studies reported higher death rates from the effects of the American medical system.

This is the FDA at work. This is the federal agency whose wet dream is limiting people’s access to nutritional supplements, which cause virtually no deaths.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Our Special today is corn chowder with Agent Orange

Our Special today is corn chowder with Agent Orange

by Jon Rappoport

February 3, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Remember Agent Orange? The US Army sprayed it all over Vietnam. It defoliated (destroyed) plant growth and brought on cancers and birth defects.

One of its significant ingredients was a chemical called 2.4-D.

Well, the US Dept. of Agriculture has cleared the way for brand new Dow GMO corn and soy crops. They are engineered to withstand spraying with 2,4-D.

The theory is, the corn and soy will survive, but pesky weeds will die.

Of course, the drifting spray of 2,4-D will kill all sorts of other plants, including fruit trees.

And there is that species called Human. Have a little lymphoma with your corn chowder.

Here are several quotes from Senior Scientist, Doug Gurian-Sherman, who writes for the Union of Concerned Scientists at their Equation blog:

“On Friday, January 3, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This clears the way for approval of engineered soybeans and corn resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D, pending a final EIS and pesticide tolerances from EPA.”

“2.4-D has also been associated with human health risks, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and is considered by some health agencies to be a possible human carcinogen.”

“The herbicide [2,4-D] is also notorious for causing severe damage to many fruit and vegetable crops from drift after spray application.”

Argentina has already approved Dow’s GM soy that is “resistant” to 2,4-D.

Think about it. Corn and soy have been grown for centuries. They’ve survived. But now, big companies like Dow and Monsanto genetically modify the crops, so they can withstand a highly toxic chemical—in order to kill weeds in the growing fields.

Killing weeds vs. chemical warfare.

The USDA sees no reason to stop this. The Dept. of Justice sees no reason to intervene.

Nothing illegal about poisoning people, as long as you call it a magnificent technological breakthrough in agriculture.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Monsanto’s Roundup: new deadly scam exposed

Monsanto’s Roundup: new deadly scam exposed

by Jon Rappoport

February 2, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Roundup is the Monsanto herbicide that is touted as the cornerstone of GMO food crops. Monsanto claims these crops are genetically engineered to withstand heavy spraying of Roundup.

Therefore, the crops live and the weeds die. Breakthrough.

There are several key lies associated with these claims—but a new one has surfaced.

A study to be published this month indicts Roundup and, in fact, the general class of insecticides and herbicides. On what grounds? When they’re tested for safety, only the so-called “active ingredients” are examined.

The untested ingredients are called “adjuvants,” and they are said to be inert and irrelevant. But the new study concludes this is far from true. The adjuvants are actually there to INCREASE the killing power of the active ingredient in the herbicide or insecticide.

Safety tests don’t take this into account. “Active ingredients” are already toxic, but the adjuvants ramp up their poisonous nature even higher.

And the worst offender is Roundup.

Here are key quotes from a January 31 article at GM Watch, “Pesticide approvals misleading—and Roundup most toxic of 9 pesticides tested.”

“Pesticide formulations as sold and used are up to 1000 times more toxic than the isolated substance that is tested and evaluated for safety.”

“Roundup the most toxic of herbicides and insecticides tested.”

“…the complete pesticide formulations as sold and used also contain additives (adjuvants), which increase the pest- or weedkilling activity of the pesticide. These complete formulations do not have to be tested in medium- and long-term tests – even though they are the substances to which farmers and citizens are exposed.”

“This is a serious defect of the regulatory process, according to a newly published study by the team of Professor Séralini (Mesnage et al. 2014, Biomedical Research International). The study found that for eight major pesticides (out of a total of nine analyzed), the commercial formulation is up to 1000 times more toxic than the active ingredient assessed for safety by regulators.”

“The study was carried out in vitro on three types of human cells.”

“The study produced another surprise outcome. Roundup is often claimed to be a benign herbicide that is widely used in public spaces and by home gardeners as well as by farmers. Yet the researchers found it was by far the most toxic of all the herbicides and insecticides they tested.”

Obviously, we are looking at a major crime and major scam here. It boils down to this: the manufacturers who put these adjuvants in their pesticides and herbicides know very well why they are there—to increase the killing power of the “active ingredient.” But this fact is overlooked and ignored. The pretense is, the adjuvants are inert and harmless.

The Matrix Revealed

The new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was “discredited.” But in case you think we should reject Seralini’s latest findings, here is my piece on the earlier manufactured firestorm:

Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it?

He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors. Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. Pictures of the rats were published.

A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. “Experts” said the study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn’t like Seralini at all.

The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.

Why? Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material, not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:

He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That’s it. Those were Seralini’s errors.

Well, guess what? Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto’s study showed there were no tumor problems in the rats. But here’s the explosive kicker. Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10). And nobody complained about it.

Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, explains in an interview with Steve Curwood at loe.org:

“Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.”

Boom.

I can just hear Monsanto felons gibbering: “Well, we the biotech industry people published our study. We used 10 rats and we used the Sprague-Dawley strain. And that was fine. It was especially fine because our study showed GMOs were safe. But then this guy Seralini comes along and does the same study with the same kind of rat and same number of rats, and he discovers tumors. That’s not fine. That’s very bad. He…he…used the wrong rats…yeah…and he didn’t use enough rats. He’s a faker. Well, I mean, we used the same kind of rat and same number of rats, but when we did the experiment, we were Good, and Seralini was Bad. Do you see?”

Yes, the mists are clearing and things are coming into focus.

Any comments, Monsanto? I’d be happy to pass them along to Michael Hansen.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

“Big government isn’t a problem, it’s those damn corporations”

“Big government isn’t a problem, it’s those damn corporations”

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

I know. All our problems come from mega-corporations. That’s it. End of story.

The Surveillance State, for example, knows what brand of paper towel you’re using and whether you put on your left or right shoe first, because “we’re all potential terrorists.” That’s the NSA, which isn’t really part of the government. No. Not really.

NSA may be organized under the Dept. of the Navy, but it’s something different, right?

No? Hmm.

Well, maybe NSA is part of big government, but it’s an exception to the rule. Or something.

And then we have the FDA, which routinely approves medical drugs that kill, at a conservative estimate, 106,000 Americans a year, which comes out to more than a MILLION deaths per decade. The FDA isn’t really part of big government. No.

Murder at the FDA

AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH Dr. Barbara Starfield: Medically Caused Death in America

Well, it is, but after all, pharmaceutical corporations control the FDA, yes? Those poor earnest victims at the FDA can’t do anything about it. Isn’t it tragic? Those FDA employees, who work for the government and draw a government paycheck, can’t stand up and resist, while millions of deaths pile up.

Poor little victims at the FDA. It’s not their fault. No one should expect them to be honest. They’re under a spell.

Likewise, when the members of Congress (both sides of the aisle) take money from corporations to vote on a bill, when these elected members take a bribe, it’s not their fault. You see, the one who offers the bribe is the criminal, but the one who takes the bribe can’t be blamed. No. He or she is the victim, and we have to sympathize with victims. It’s in the Constitution somewhere. I’m looking for the quote. “The bribe taker is always innocent.” Yes. There it is.

And when a President opens the door to a parade of toxic GMO crops and Monsanto, when he appoints ex-Monsanto people to key federal posts, it’s not the President’s fault. He’s the victim, too. Commander in Chief of all those soldiers, the Dept. of Justice at his beck and call, but he’s the victim. Poor Mr. President. See my tears.

Meet Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

How about the FBI? Is that part of big government? Hmm. Well, yes, I guess so, but these huge agencies, I mean, they aren’t elected, they’re just there.

Oh. Isn’t that a major aspect of what big government means? Unelected?

Remember way back, in the Oklahoma Bombing case, when whistleblower Fred Whitehurst revealed that the FBI lab was a nest of liars and had never really tested materials before concluding (from press reports) that an ammonium nitrate bomb blew up the Murrah Federal Building? Ha-ha. Well, that’s “history,” and history doesn’t count. COINTELPRO doesn’t count, either. Who remembers that?

Then there is the CIA and its various crimes, going way back. You know, overthrowing governments, that sort of thing. The CIA is part of big government last time I looked. Ditto for DHS.

And the Federal Reserve? They’re a special case. They’re private banks but they’re part of big government because big government says so. That’s pretty fantastic.

And wars. Lots and lots of people die. Our government declares wars. The President does, sometimes with the approval of Congress. Sometimes not. But there again, the President is just the victim, he’s surrounded by evil people who make him go to war. Right. He can’t say no. Just can’t say no. Amazing. See, the President really has no responsibility. When he does a good thing, he does it, but when he does a bad thing, it’s other people making him do it. Nice setup.

“Surrounded by evil people, evil corporations, the President had no choice but to send many young Americans to die, to lose arms and legs and eyes…” Sure. Who would expect a President to stand up and say no?

Can’t do it. Just can’t. The man’s a victim, and we weep for him.

“Well, if the President went against the powers-that-be, they’d kill him.”

Bingo. Here’s a little secret: if somehow an honest and honorable person were running for President, he’d be crazy to ignore that possibility. He’d know exactly what he was getting into. Unless he were a complete idiot. And he’d take the ride anyway. He’d take that risk.

Otherwise, why is he in the game? To compromise and bargain away and withdraw from his position as an honest person?

Exit From the Matrix

That phrase, “the military-industrial complex,” has two parts. Military and industrial. The military part is government. And they have weapons. But, well, they just cave in when the corporate CEOs come calling.

I could go on, but you get the point.

And in case you’re wondering, in the mid 1990s I launched a boycott of the eight biggest chemical/pesticide/GMO/pharmaceutical companies in the world. So yes, I’m aware of what mega-corporations are doing.

But to say that accusing big government of major ongoing RICO crimes is a DISTRACTION from blaming big corporations…no, that’s not going to fly. Afraid not.

They’re both guilty. Big government and big corporations. Neither one gets off the hook. Not a chance.

So….when the political Left (liberals, progressives) gives the impression big corporations are the problem…and when the political Right (conservatives) gives the impression big government is the problem, they’re both, to put it politely, completely full of shit.

It’s a straight con. Both sides know they’re lying through their teeth.

This country has been sold out and taken down by BOTH big government and mega-corporations, working hand in hand. And yes, banks are corporations, in case you thought I was leaving them out.

Consider this article a run-up to the next Presidential election. You know, Hillary, Jeb, Mitt, whoever. A vote for any of them is a vote for destruction.

Big government, big corporations. Together.

Eyes straight ahead. Salute!

Love it. The biggest government in the history of the world is surrounded by corporations and can’t do a thing about it. Beautiful. I’ve heard a lot of victim stories in my time, some real, some fake, but this one is number one on the chart. With a bullet.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com