Posted on

Russia labels GMOs, while America’s government sells out to the biotech poisoners and propagandists

Monday, March 25, 2019 by: Vicki Batts

(Natural News) GMO labeling laws have been a source of controversy in the United States for quite some time. Consumer advocates have called upon the federal government to protect Americans’ right to freedom of choice and to encourage transparency in the food industry, but officials seem to be more interested in defending corporate interests. Industry leaders are afraid proper GMO labeling will interfere with their bottom lines — that alone should be a huge red flag. But while federal officials in the United States are twiddling their thumbs over GMOs, nations around the world are beginning to take action. Russia, for example, just introduced clear GMO labeling on all foods.

While GMO labeling laws have been passed in the United States, the proposed implementation of such laws leaves much to be desired. Critics say GMO labeling practices enacted here in America function more like propaganda for the biotech industry. Brightly colored smiley-face stickers that don’t even bear the letters “GMO” are hardly a clear identifier, after all. Heaven forbid Americans actually make informed decisions about the food they eat– the entire industry would collapse overnight if people knew what they were really getting.

Clear GMO labeling comes to Russia

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which includes Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Belarus, introduced their new, clear GMO labeling practices at the start of the new year. All food and supplements containing genetically modified ingredients will bear a “GMO” label on the packaging.

As Sustainable Pulse reports:

According to the new regulations, the basic size of the GMO label must not be less than 5 mm. The technical regulations also require that the GMO label be applied in a manner that provides easy readability and visibility throughout the shelf life of food and supplement products.

Across the board, the EAEU is taking a firm stance on GMOs. In 2016, Russia’s State Duma voted on a bill which would ban the cultivation of GMO crops and animals in Russia entirely, except for scientific purposes. And in 2018, the Kyrgyzstan government announced that it would be the second country in the world to adopt organic-only farming practices.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is a world away from reaching any kind of transparency on GMOs.

GMO labeling in the U.S. is lackluster

Congress passed a law to label GMO products in the U.S. back in 2016. Since that time, federal officials have been struggling to come up with the specifics of labeling such items. The USDA recently revealed a few of the “options” they’ve come up with. As NPR reports, all options are brightly colored, friendly looking labels that bear the letters “B.E” instead of “GMO.” Some show a smiling sun, or a circle of growing plants, too.

“B.E” is apparently supposed to stand for “bioengineered,” and this little change is clearly an attempt at placating Big Biotech and Big Ag. As critics have stated, replacing the well-known and easily recognizable term “GMO” arbitrarily with some new term will only confuse consumers. The average person may not be aware of the fact that “B.E” actually means “GMO.”

This is a blatant attempt to obscure truth and feign transparency, and it should not be tolerated. The federal government is literally conspiring to fool the American people, to protect corporate interests. Who are these federal agencies supposed to serve and protect, again?

George Kimbrell, the legal director for the Center for Food Safety, criticized the USDA’s iteration of GMO labeling. “They’re very pro-biotech, cartoonishly so, and to that extent are, you know, not just imparting information but instead are essentially propaganda for the industry,” he told NPR.

The failure to come up with a clear and easily understood label for GMO products is an affront to American freedom. Regardless of one’s view on GMOs, the simple fact remains that people have the right to choose what they put in their bodies. Ingredient labels exist for a reason — and GMO labels should, too. (Click to Source)

Learn about GMO labeling and more at GMO.news.

Sources for this article include:

SustainablePulse.com

NPR.org

FacebookTwittergoogle_plusShare
Posted on

On Thanksgiving, Native Americans Should Have Used Food As a Weapon-The Deep State Won’t Make the Same Mistake

thanksgiving

 

The Common Sense Show sincerely hopes you and your family are blessed with a great Thanksgiving, complete with all the turkey, stuffing  and pumpkin pie that you can eat and of course you should pray that the Lord protects you from the GMO’s. Thanksgiving’s days may be numbered. If the Deep State is not able to quell Trump’s brand of nationalism, the people of America may very well look back at this Thanksgiving as the good ‘ole days  because the Deep State will indeed not hesitate to use food as a weapon.

As you prepared your feast, did you think about the fact that we in America throw away more food than many countries have an opportunity to eat? As you pulled your chair up to your Thanksgiving table, will you think about the fact that half the world goes to bed hungry? Please say a prayer for those who are not as lucky as most of us.

Since the end of WWII, most Americans have been blessed with plenty to eat, so much so, that we simply take our overflowing of Thanksgiving blessings for granted.

If you think an 800 number begging you to feed a hungry child is going to appear, you would be mistaken. However, there are people, who have power over us (ie the Deep State), who would like to make this the last Thanksgiving by making food into a weapon and to use that food as a weapon against the people who are participating in the rising tide of American populism to “Make America Great Again”.

A Global Awakening

The late despot globalist, Z. Brzezinski, was one of the most hated and well-known globalists, lamented back in 2011, that there is a global awakening to the source of the tyranny on this planet and that “they” must accelerate their timetable for the completion of a global takeover. And the full-court press has subsequently been placed on humanity as we are under assault in ways never witnessed before.

One of the most popular methods of subjugation has to do with controlling who eats and who starves to death. Historically, food has been one of the most effective tools of subjugation. If we, the Trump supporting Constitutionalists, think that the Deep State is not about to pull out all stops, including the using of food as a weapon against the people, you obviously have not heard of Venezuela and how food is being used to quell all political opposition by Madura.

The Historical Precedent of Subjugating Through Starvation

The lessons of history clearly demonstrate that dictatorial regimes, whether they be Socialists, Communists, and/or Marxists will not hesitate to use food as a weapon against their own people in order to solidify power and impose absolute autocratic control. Food can be withheld from the masses by preventing it from being grown and harvested, by contaminating it and rendering it unfit for human consumption or by simply preventing food from being distributed to a targeted population.

The two most notable examples of dictators using food a weapon in order to destroy the free will of their people comes from the regimes of Stalin and Hitler.

Josef Stalin engaged in his own Soviet style Holocaust when, in 1932 and 1933, and estimated six to 20 million people in the Ukraine died from starvation when Stalin implemented his prescription of “hope and change” policies in order to eliminate the Ukrainian’s desire for becoming their own nation-state.

Upon assuming power, the Stalinist Communist regime rapidly nationalized the food industry and forced all of the region’s farms into collectives. Thus, Stalin’s version of the Holocaust came to fruition in what history has dubbed, the “Holdomor,” in which millions perished in only a two year period when the Soviet government began to exterminate the Ukrainian population by taking control of food and food production.

Hitler proclaimed that food could be used as a tool “…to discipline the masses” and he did not hesitate to use the control of food as a type of carrot and stick in which he would reward accomplishment and punish failure as well as to promote preferential class distinctions in which his armed forces received the largest food ration cards and this is exactlywhat happens in North Korea in 2017. Skilled workers who were engaged in industries critical to the building of the German war machine, received food ration cards which were slightly less in value. And, finally, the prisoners and the Jews received the lowest valued Nazi food ration cards. Food ration cards were also utilized as incentives to increase industrial production and were also increased in value when productive Nazi workers would be promoted. Food ration cards were diminished in value for the failure to meet Nazi production goals. Hitler’s use of what psychologists refer to as classical conditioning techniques reduced the will of the German population to a pack of Pavlovian dogs who were conditioned to be totally dependent upon the government for their survival.In recent times Most recently, Somalia thug, Farah Aideed, systematically starved his people into submission as a brutal civil war raged in both Darfur and Rwanda where the Islamic regimes sought the annihilation of ‘infidels’ and the use of food was one of the primary weapons designed to force compliance. And of course, Pol Pot, Castro and Mao all used food deprivation to quarantine their political opposition and exact absolute allegiance to their respective dictatorial regimes. After reviewing this brief history lesson, does any reasonable person not believe that the Deep State, who is losing control of the national narrative, will not resort to these extreme measures?

It is safe to say that the above mentioned dictators did not rule over countries that enjoyed a Thanksgiving feast similar to what you and I are enjoying in the present time.

The US Government and Its Mass Starvation Policies

It may surprise the readers to know that the use of food by the U.S. government has been a matter of official U.S. governmental covert policy since 1974-1975.

In December, 1974, National Security Council directed by Henry Kissinger completed a classified study entitled, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study was based upon the unproven claims that population growth in Lesser Developed Countries (LDC) constituted a serious risk to America’s national security.

In November 1975 President Ford, based upon the tenets of NSSM 200 outlined a classified plan to forcibly reduce population growth in “Lesser Developed Countries (LDC)” countries through birth control, war and famine. Ford’s new national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, in conjunction with CIA  Director, George H. W. Bush, were tasked with implementing the plan and the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture assisted in the implementation of these insane genocidal plans.

NSSM 200 formally raised the question, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power here in the United States? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” Worse yet, could food be used a manipulative political tool within the United States? Kissinger has answered these questions when he stated that he was predicting a series of contrived famines, created by mandatory programs and this would make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary i order to control population, in this modern day application of eugenics in a scheme that would allow Henry to have his cake and eat it too in that the world would finally be rid of the “useless eaters!” The term “use eaters” is derived from the Fabian Socialist notion that if one consumes more than they produce, they should be exterminated. Subsequently, we should all be asking the following question:

With automation looming, and the demise of most occupation likely prior to 2030, should the American people be concerned about being labeled a bunch of useless eaters”?

Before you answer know, perhaps you might want to consider some other very salient factors.

The American Government’s Blueprint to Starve the Masses Into Submission

Third world population control, using food as one of the primary weapons, has long been a matter of official covert national policy and a portion of President Obama’s Executive Order 13603 (EO), National Defense Resources Preparedness is a continuation of that policy. Only now, the intended target are not the LDC’s but, instead, the American people and after Obama declares martial law, food will undoubtedly be used to subjugate the more resistant regions of our country.

Obama Tried to Become the Next Stalin?

On the surface, it seems unlikely that any US president, particularly………………………………………………………………………………………… President Trump, would ever starve any segment of the American people to death. However, when one considers the implications of former President Obama’s EO 13603, there can be no doubt that a future president, which would replace Trump in an act of illegitimate impeachment over the bogus Russian allegation, or by direct assassination, would not hesitate to make this Thanksgiving, the last Thanksgiving.

The blueprint has been laid, America, as the above mentioned Executive Order states:

e)  “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption.  “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f)  “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…”

These passages represent the intent of the Deep State to control all food and to starve any targeted people for political purposes. Even if this executive order was to be repealed, a new one, just like it, could be reinstated based on the whim of the next globalist-orientated president.

How will farmers maintain the nation’s food supply when all fertilizer, their farm equipment and all of their vehicles are under the control of this sociopathic  President or the next power-hungry President?

The term “all food storage facilities” includes your refrigerator, your pantry and even the very food in your cabinets as well as what is on your kitchen table. In short, anywhere you keep food is now under the control of the government and can be redistributed.

Even though Obama is no longer President, the globalists tipped their hand in EO 13603.

Senator Feinstein’s Husband Is Becoming the Next Obama

Were you scratching your head in bewilderment as you watched on the news as the Amish have had their farms raided, raw milk producers have been jailed and the kids running lemonade stands have been shut down and ticketed? Now you know why these abuses are being perpetrated by the government in that it represents a mere conditioning process designed to get all U.S. citizens used to the idea that the government owns all food and food production.

The most clever aspect of this EO is that no Hegelian Dialectic (i.e., false flag event) is needed as a pretense to seize food and imperil survivability. Section 201(b) of the Obama EO clearly states that this EO is enforceable under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.”

Diane Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum has positioned himself to be the Stalin of California. After Obama’s EPA denied water to California’s ranchers and farmers, they went broke. Richard Blum, Feinstein’s husband bought up the distressed properties are bargain basement rates and sold the land to the Chinese at a greatly increased price.. The water restrictions were subsequently lifted and these Chinese owned farms began to send the food to China where they have a food shortage.

The World-Wide Conversion of Private Farms to Corporate Farms

In a previous interview on The Common Sense Show, Patrick Wood revealed how China is forcibly moving millions of peasants from their small farms into the previously vacant ghost cities. This is all being accomplished with a rifle pointed at the faces of the peasants in order to ensure their cooperation. Should America be concerned? Well, Hank Paulson as well as Goldman Sachs devised this plan to seized private farmland and convert land into a series of corporate farms. We already see this plan taking shape in Northern California and Southern Oregon as the BLM and the EPA are literally forcing ranchers and farmers off of their land.

George Soros, though one of his newest creations, Antifa, and its MS-13 and ISIS allies is in the midst of promoting instability through false flag attacks. IF enough false flag attacks take place and enough instability is artificially created, the “just-in-time” deliveries that visit your grocery store 3 to 6 times per day, will stop and you will find that during times like these, your grocery store will be ramsacked and will be emptied in a day. Where will you go for food then? Don’t worry, your friends from the Deep State will have set up camps all across the country to accommodate you and your family.

I sincerely hope that you will enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner, and I further hope you have lots of store-able food, because if the Deep State ever becomes desperate enough, you may find yourself desperate enough to “cross the line” into a FEMA camp in order to feed yourself and your family. (Click to Source)

Happy Thanksgiving America from The Common Sense Show.

 

TELEMEDICINE 1

Posted on

What to expect from the new GMO labels we’re getting in 2020

woman_shopping_groceries

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced their plan for rolling out mandatory labels for all food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). So far they’ve only released potential prototypes for the labels and a proposed set of rules, both of which are subject to future changes, but they offer a preview of what we might all be seeing on cans and boxes come 2020, when the new regulations would go into effect.

Here’s a quick guide:

Remind me what a GMO is?

A GMO is, at base, any organism (plant or animal) that has been genetically modified in some way. Crop plants may have genes inserted that give them resistance to common herbicides or insects, for example, or even to ward off viruses. These fixes would be impossible or very challenging to achieve with conventional breeding, where you would need to wait for a genetic mutant to arise that happened to have herbicide resistance.

Under this new provision, though, an organism is technically only a GMO if the gene that’s been added is from a different organism. So tweaking a mushroom’s DNA by turning off a gene wouldn’t mean you had to label it as a GMO. Adding a gene from a virus to give a papaya viral resistance would. Here’s the technical definition straight from the USDA:

A bioengineered food is one that “(A) that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and (B) for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.”

What will the labels say?

Somewhat confusingly, they won’t say “GMO.” The proposed labels use the terms “BE” and “bioengineered” instead to avoid the contentious connotations that GMO carries. They labels look quite friendly, which people in the pro-labeling camp have already criticized, and would only appear as a small icon on the final food product. You can check them out here—they’re mostly the letters B-E inside a happy green and yellow circle. But using those labels is just one of three options. The second is to write out the disclosure (for example: “contains a bioengineered food ingredient”). Companies could also opt to use a QR code that would link to the proper disclosure.

If the current proposal passes, that could mean companies who want to hide their GMO affiliations could easily obscure the information, at least from consumers who aren’t going to take the time to scour the small print or scan a QR code (or can’t). It’s open to comment from the public until July 3, and a final ruling will come out later this year (the USDA hasn’t said exactly when yet). Not much is likely to change at this point, though. Congress has already enacted the standard—this is just figuring out the nitty gritty of enforcement.

Which foods will get the labels?

Not all food products are subject to these regulations, but perhaps the most important exemption is for highly refined products like corn syrup or cane sugar. More than 90 percent of the corn and sugar beets grown in the U.S. to make those products are genetically modified. The USDA doesn’t require labeling because there’s no genetic material detectable in the final product. Though that logic makes sense for consumers who are only worried about the safety of eating GMOs, it doesn’t if consumers want to avoid supporting companies who use GMOs, or who have environmental concerns about GMO crops.

Foods with non-GMO primary ingredients won’t need a label, either. Meat and eggs, for instance, are subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act labeling requirements, so any product where those are the predominant ingredients won’t need a BE label, regardless of whether any GMO items make it in. Seafood isn’t treated the same way (except for catfish, for some reason), because it’s not subject to the FMIA rules.

Why is all of this happening?

Food companies on both sides—organic and otherwise—have long lobbied the federal government to either include these labels or not include them, depending on what they stood to gain or lose. Organic food producers are generally in favor, in part because of their values but also because it will likely make their products more visibly distinct to consumers seeking “natural” options. Companies who use GMO ingredients have generally opposed the labels, in part because they argue GMOs are safe—which scientific evidence backs up, by the way—but also because they worry consumers will avoid the labels out of unfounded fear.

If GMOs are safe, why should we label them?

A report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2016 found, after reviewing over 1,000 studies on the matter, that GMO crops don’t pose a health risk to humans. That’s the same conclusion reached by the World Health Organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission.

But consumers may not be avoiding GMOs for safety reasons. Some people may have concerns about companies like Monsanto controlling so much of our agricultural sector, others may simply gravitate towards eating as naturally as possible. Monsanto controls roughly a quarter of the global seed market and it licenses its genetic modification technologies to DuPont, its largest competitor (which controls 18 percent of the market). Their seeds grow into 80 percent of the corn and 90 percent of the soybeans in the U.S. That level of monopolization makes a lot of people understandably uncomfortable. Plus, there can be unforeseen consequences of genetic meddling, even though human health doesn’t seem to be a concern. The invention of crops resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide, has made glyphosate itself more popular—they’re a perfect pair (and both sold by Monsanto). But it’s also made some glyphosate-resistant weeds emerge and thrive, even though Monsanto claimed that was a remote possibility.

Whether or not you feel the need to avoid GMOs, labeling efforts are at least a step forward for transparency. (Click to Source)

CLICK HERE for the finest faith based personalized and compassionate addiction recovery program – right from the comfort of your home.

CLICK HERE for Healthy Reishi Mushroom Infused Coffee and an unbeatable coffee club. Super affordable!

Posted on

‘I want to help humans genetically modify themselves’

Former Nasa biochemist Josiah Zayner became an online sensation by conducting DIY gene therapy on himself. He explains why he did it.

3993

Josiah Zayner, 36, recently made headlines by becoming the first person to use the revolutionary gene-editing tool Crispr to try to change their own genes. Part way through a talk on genetic engineering, Zayner pulled out a syringe apparently containing DNA and other chemicals designed to trigger a genetic change in his cells associated with dramatically increased muscle mass. He injected the DIY gene therapy into his left arm, live-streaming the procedure on the internet.

The former Nasa biochemist, based in California, has become a leading figure in the growing “biohacker” movement, which involves loose collectives of scientists, engineers, artists, designers, and activists experimenting with biotechnology outside of conventional institutions and laboratories.

Despite warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that selling gene therapy products without regulatory approval is illegal, Zayner sells kits that allow anyone to get started with basic genetic engineering techniques, and has published a free guide for others who want to take it further and experiment on themselves.

Was administering a dose of Crispr on yourself an experiment, or a stunt to show what amateur scientists/biohackers can do?
Both. The technical feasibility of what I did is not under question – researchers have done this many times, in all sorts of animals. But there’s a barrier – people are afraid of it, and just talk about the possibilities in humans. I wanted to break that down, to say “Hey look, the tools are inexpensive, and somebody with a bit of knowledge can actually go through with these experiments”.

I chose to start with the gene for myostatin [a protein that regulates muscle growth], because it has been extensively studied, and it produces an obvious change if it has worked.

So, how is your arm looking?
In similar experiments with animals, you only start to see results after four to six months of treatment. I would expect that the DNA in some of the cells of my arm has changed, but I am still working on developing assays [tests] to try and detect that. As to whether the actual size of the muscle changes, I’m more sceptical.

Changing the way one gene behaves can have a huge number of knock-on effects on the way other genes are regulated or expressed. Do you really know what you’re doing?
It’s a good question. These things are complicated, and obviously with things like this there are lots of unknowns. I look at what the possible negative outcomes are and ask: “Are those risks insignificant enough that I’m willing to undertake this experiment?” Based on the data I read, for a local injection the answer was yes. A treatment that blocks myostatin throughout the whole body? That would be much more hazardous – you would be messing with the muscles of your heart.

You support the idea of people attempting gene therapy and other experimental procedures on themselves. What’s wrong with the existing system, where treatments are thoroughly tested by professionals before being approved for use?
If we’re going to do these experiments you have to balance two things: how many people can possibly die from testing their own products or making them available prematurely, versus how many people have genetic disorders and are just dying because they don’t have access to them. I think there’s a huge imbalance, where we’re overprotective of hurting people instead of offering a chance to millions of people who are dying right now.

As human beings we’re very big on freedoms, equality, equal rights. What’s more of an equal right than being able to control what genes we have? I think people should be able to choose that. I’m not saying anything I can do can help treat people, but treating things genetically is the ultimate medicine.

I grew up in the 90s with the computer hacker movement, the development of the internet – the whole open-source movement was amazing. Who created Linux, the most used operating system ever? Not students from Harvard or Cambridge, but Linus Torvalds, a student in Finland working in his apartment.

Advertisement

I don’t think for a second I’m going to be the mastermind behind a great biotech revolution, but I think there’s some brilliant person waiting to be discovered out there that could be.

In another recent biohacking experiment, a man injected himself with an unproven gene-therapy treatment for HIV which had been developed by biohacking startup Ascendence Biomedical. What do you know about what they are doing, and do you support their approach?
I think they’re at a lot more risk because they are trying to work in the medical field, saying they can cure people. I think that starts to get a little more ethically and morally sketchy, and the government will certainly crack down on that.

The reason we have hospitals is that it’s not just one random person giving you their opinion; there is oversight, checks and balances. When people start proposing new treatments without data to back them up or without consulting people, I think “Hey, be smart”. Get a second opinion, third opinion, ask doctors, ask other biohackers. Trying a therapy that doesn’t work instead of your medication obviously could be worse.

The problem is, it’s like the freedom of speech thing: it sucks sometimes. If I say I want the freedom to test something on myself, it means everybody does – even people who are stupid or want to do crazy stuff.

But if you say people should experiment on themselves outside of the traditional clinical trial system, surely that’s exactly what will happen? There will be a grey area where people are halfway there, or guessing what the effects will be.
Yeah. I don’t know – honestly, I would never put me in charge of running this stuff for the FDA or the government. I think there are people who know how to make the rules to protect the most amount of people.

People are going to get hurt with this stuff and I feel ethically terrible about that, and I don’t know how to prevent it. I see these instances of people doing crazy stuff and I’m like, “No, that’s not what I meant! Why are you injecting things in your eyeballs?”.

I have this very libertarian side of me that says people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. But I also have this part of me that says “Be knowledgeable! Base it on scientific data!”

What do your family think of what you do?
I usually hide stuff I’m about to do from them, in case they try and talk me out of it. If I decide to do something, it’s because I’ve carefully weighed up the pros and cons. They won’t understand how much research I’ve done. My mom supports me, but thinks I’m crazy. She was so sad when I left Nasa.

Last year, you performed a DIY faecal transplant on yourself. How did that go?
Yes, I did a DIY faecal transplant to help with my gut health issues. It still blows my mind the effect it had, and DNA samples showed I did manage to change the makeup of my gut bacteria. I don’t exactly recommend the course of action I took, because there are safer alternatives to DIY. But if people have no access to those I support their choice to try it. Faeces is quite strictly regulated in the US, like a drug, so people travel to the UK where there are clinics.

Where do you and other biohackers get the equipment, tools and chemicals to conduct genetic engineering at home? 
People don’t know that generally the same resources that are available to scientists are available to non-scientists. I can just order DNA online and they ship it to my house. If I want to get some sequencing done I send it off to a company and they’ll do it for me. It’s really inexpensive – we’re talking $6 to get a sample sequenced, or $10 to get a piece of DNA.

What are you working on next? 
We have always been slaves to the genomes we have, and giving people the ability to change that almost changes what it means to be human. It seems so sci-fi and made up, but we’ve been genetically modifying humans with gene therapy since the 1990s – it’s just been very few people and for medical reasons. I want to help humans genetically modify themselves.

If DIY genetic engineering becomes commonplace, as you hope, what do you think the world will be like in the future?
To me it’s like Blade Runner, where he goes into that back-alley science lab and there’s the guy making eyes. I imagine people going to some place like a tattoo parlour, and instead of getting a tattoo they pick out some DNA that makes them muscly, or changes the colour of their hair or eyes.

DNA defines what a species is, and I imagine it wouldn’t be too long into the future when the human species almost becomes a new species because of these modifications.

When scientists first started altering DNA just to make, say, tomatoes ripen differently, there was immense public concern. Do you expect the general public is going to be supportive of people modifying any organism, including people, in any way they can, in their garage?
The whole thing with GMOs [genetically modified organisms] was that it was “us and them”. They have the power to modify plants and we don’t know what they’re doing, and have no control over it, and so we are against it. This technology that I’m trying to do is for all of us. Whether you’re a big corporation or somebody in their basement, you have access to this stuff – everybody does. People respond very positively to that. We’ll see what happens. I’m sure we’ll get a different response when people are doing it every day, or when the first person decides to try and give themselves a tail or something. (Click to Source)

Posted on

Is the public ready for Meat 2.0?

gmo-burger

Impossible Foods, a Silicon Valley-based company, has rolled out its new Impossible Burger, genetically engineered from plant protein to look and taste as much as possible like red meat.

The new burger, and a similar product from a company called Beyond Meat, seems to be marketed to win over people making the transition from eating meat to a more vegetable-based diet, while not depriving them of the flavor. These products are already available in some restaurants and specialty stores, but making them more broadly popular may take some time.

“Vegetarians are not their primary market,” says Garrett Broad, a professor of communications and media studies at Fordham University. “In fact, in a lot of ways, they don’t want their products to be associated with vegetarians at all. They’re really aiming for those meat reducers. They’re aiming for those folks who are maybe looking to switch out a meat option once, twice, three times a week. They want this to be a product that is meat. It’s just meat from plants.”

The genetically modified ingredients in the Impossible Burger remain a source of controversy. In fact, it can’t be sold at all in certain European countries. The US, on the other hand, has a longer history of accepting genetic modification in our food systems, Broad notes.

The specific genetic modification occurs in the construction of a substance known as heme. Heme gives the familiar flavor, smell and texture to meat as we know it, but it’s also found in a variety of plant-based sources. The Food and Drug Administration has decided not to certify this key plant protein as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), but this is not an indication that the burger is unsafe to eat, Broad says.

“The FDA hasn’t said that the hemoglobin ingredient is not safe. What they have said is that it has not passed their Generally Recognized As Safe requirement, as yet,” Broad explains. “They’re looking for more testing from Impossible Foods to meet this GRAS requirement. … The history of the FDA and the history of food science and technology suggests we’re likely to see these ingredients get the Generally Recognized As Safe designation.”

Environmental groups and food activists don’t speak with a unified voice on this topic, Broad says. While some are generally supportive, in large part because of the known environmental harms caused by contemporary animal food production, Broad says, others are asking Impossible Foods to pull the burger from the market until it gets official FDA approval.

These groups are concerned “as much about process as they are about the product,” Broad explains. Their concerns center on who is making decisions about “what we’re going to eat and the transparency in the regulatory process,” as well as a general skepticism about genetic modification, which they see as potentially harmful to the environment and human health.

Plant-based burgers have seen significant growth in market share in the last few years, but much of that has been at high-end grocery stores and high-end restaurants. That might, however, be changing, Broad says. Beyond Meat now has a deal with Safeway, and their “burger” is now available at other major mass-market grocery stores, primarily in California.

Price is still an obstacle for the average shopper, but Broad points out that if consumers paid the full price of a beef hamburger, taking into consideration all the costs to environmental and human health, “that couple-of-dollar burger from McDonald’s really costs more.”

“That’s an argument that these folks make, too,” he points out. “If we were able to have a level playing field here, these prices could get to parity even quicker. But there is still a way to go. … With scale and with time, I think something like a quarter of the market in the next 20, 30 years would be huge, going from this very niche space that we’re in now.” (Click to Source)

Posted on

DARPA developing “genetic doomsday” weapon to exterminate populations on demand… GMOs to become WMDs

epigenetics-e1480853396368

(Natural News) The U.S. military agency known as DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is investing $100 million into so-called “genetic extinction technologies” that could be deployed to exterminate targeted human populations.

Emails acquired under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), “suggest that the US’s secretive Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) has become the world’s largest funder of “gene drive” research,” reports The Guardian. “The use of genetic extinction technologies in bioweapons is the stuff of nightmares…” The Guardian reports.

The disclosure of this genetic extinction technology comes on the heels of Natural News blowing the whistle on a global eugenics program to target and exterminate people of African descent as part of an ongoing global depopulation agenda. In a one-hour video lecture published a few weeks ago, I detail the six vectors through which the weaponization of science and medicine is being deployed right now to exterminate blacks. See “The Science Agenda to Exterminate Blacks” for full details (full lecture video below).

Crispr gene editing technology becomes weaponized

The genetic doomsday weapon system now being developed by DARPA is based on the Crispr-Cas9 gene editing technique which allows simple, low-cost laboratories to achieve previously impossible genetic editing goals in almost any organism… including humans. “These might, for example, distort the sex-ratio of mosquitoes to effectively wipe out malarial populations,” explains The Guardian. But they could also be used to wipe out targeted genetic sub-species of humans, too.

“The dual use nature of altering and eradicating entire populations is as much a threat to peace and food security as it is a threat to ecosystems,” explained Jim Thomas, co-director of the ETC group, as reported by The Guardian. “Militarisation of gene drive funding may even contravene the Enmod convention against hostile uses of environmental modification technologies.”

Because much of the funding for modern-day science comes from military and government, scientists are finding themselves forced to work on “weaponization” programs or face a loss of funding. Via The Guardian:

Todd Kuiken, who has worked with the GBIRd programme, which receives $6.4m from Darpa, said that the US military’s centrality to gene tech funding meant that “researchers who depend on grants for their research may reorient their projects to fit the narrow aims of these military agencies”.

The weaponization of gene drive technology — turning genetics into a doomsday weapon — is widely known to be capable of spreading through a population and causing deliberate extinction. “Think of it as a way to supercharge evolution, forcing a genetic modification to spread through an entire population in just a few generations,” reports WIRED. The technology is so potentially devastating that former national intelligence director James Clapper classified gene drive technology as one of many “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation,” according to WIRED, which also said:

Taking into account things like how often Crispr screws up and the likelihood of protective mutations arising, their work shows how gene drives could be ruthlessly aggressive.

Natural News warned the world about weaponized GMOs five years ago

As usual, Natural News was years ahead of the lagging scientific community in sounding the alarm over the weaponization of genetic engineering technology. In a 2012 article entitled, “S.O.S. alert: Help STOP Out-of-control Science from destroying us all,” I wrote about weaponized GMOs as a danger to human civilization:

Humanity has reached a tipping point of developing technology so profound that it can destroy the human race; yet this rise of “science” has in no way been matched by a rise in consciousness or ethics. Today, science operates with total disregard for the future of life on Earth, and it scoffs at the idea of balancing scientific “progress” with caution, ethics or reasonable safeguards. Unbridled experiments like GMOs have unleashed self-replicating genetic pollution that now threatens the integrity of food crops around the world, potentially threatening the global food supply.

In an accompanying infographic, which I developed and published in 2012, I wrote:

SCIENCE must exist to serve the long-term interests of humanity, not to serve the short-term profits of corporations. To protect the future of life on Earth, science must operate under the Precautionary Principle.

In that infographic, republished below, I categorized genetic engineering technology as a “Level IV” hazard to humanity because it is self-replicating. Other risks posed to humanity by out-of-control science and named in the infographic include artificial intelligence, nano-technology, pollinator disruption chemicals, weaponized vaccines and nuclear weapons. Since 2012, we’ve seen devastating effects on humanity and the global ecosystem from nearly all of these vectors:

(Click to Source)

Posted on

TRANSHUMANISM: THE ULTIMATE AIM OF THE SYNTHETIC AGENDA AND THE DISTORTED HEART OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

2-5-900x400

The synthetic agenda is the overarching agenda of the New World Order worldwide conspiracy. Think about it – so many aspects of the conspiracy are about supplanting the real with the fake, the organic with the inorganic, the carbon with the silicon and the biological with the artificial.

In the synthetic agenda, everything in our world is being threatened with replacement by an inferior version or fake replica of itself – which sells itself as superior so as to increase the acceptance and assimilation of it. Almost everything around us is a facade, fake or fraudulent. For instance, we have vaccines, petrochemical drugs and radiation masquerading as “medicine”, foreign corporations masquerading as “government”, mainstream science masquerading as “knowledge”, GMOs masquerading as “food” and fiat paper masquerading as “money”.

However, as David Icke in Phantom Self has been saying, the deeper reason is that all these fake things are being created from some sort of virus or distorted force that has hacked the source and digital-genetic code of life itself – and is madly spewing out an inferior version of everything in the only way it knows how. Ultimately, this force is using the synthetic agenda to entrain us onto its frequency and transform us into a hybrid species that will no longer be able to be called human. (Click to Site)

Posted on

Disclosed emails prove that SCIENCE has been totally corrupted by Monsanto, and regulators have become prostitutes and shills for GMOs

monsanto-e1456383207955

(Natural News) A new batch of internal company documents has been releasedshowing that agricultural giant Monsanto suppressed key data about the potential dangers of its Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide. These documents also suggest that the multinational chemical corporation worked with United States regulators to make Roundup appear safer than it is in order to gain regulatory approval.

More than 75 documents have been made public revealing discussions, text messages, and other communications between Monsanto executives and various academics and scientists about its products. Some of these documents show that Monsanto employees offered cash payments to scientists in exchange for their stamp of approval.

The documents have been made public as part of a lawsuit filed against Monsanto by individuals who say that exposure to Roundup caused themselves or their family members to fall ill with serious health conditions. Among these is non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer that’s increased in prevalence alongside increased use of Roundup.

Attorneys at the firm Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, which is just one of many firms representing the thousands of plaintiffs who are pursuing claims against Monsanto, posted the documents, which collectively account for more than 700 pages of information. Upwards of 100 of these lawsuits have reportedly been consolidated in multi-district litigation in the federal court of San Francisco, while others are pending in places like Missouri (Monsanto’s home state), Delaware, and Arizona.

“This is a look behind the curtain,” stated Brent Wisner, one of the Baum Hedlund attorneys representing the case.

“These show that Monsanto has deliberately been stopping studies that look bad for them, ghostwriting literature and engaging in a whole host of corporate malfeasance. They (Monsanto) have been telling everybody that these products are safe because regulators have said they are safe, but it turns out that Monsanto has been in bed with U.S. regulators while misleading European regulators.” (Click to Site)

Posted on

After Vatican staff caught in gay orgy, the Pope says GMOs are approved by the Catholic Church

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

(Matthew 24:3-5)

popefrancis

(Natural News) To state it bluntly, Pope Francis is not merely a freedom-hating communist and traitor to the sacred blessing of liberty, he’s actually part of the Satanic takeover of the Catholic Church that has now led the organization down the path of self-destruction.

Not only was the staff of a key Vatican advisor recently caught hosting a gay sex orgy, but now the Church says foods made from genetically engineered seeds that are “owned” by the world’s most evil corporation (Monsanto) are perfectly okay to use in holy church events.

This is only accelerating the demise of the Catholic Church, of course, as people see it abandoning God and cozying up to evil, domineering corporations that seek to place Man higher than God when it comes to seeds and food crops. Aside from the philosophical arguments about seeds and Mother Nature, Monsanto is also the single most evil corporation in the world, running some of the sleaziest “dark ops” negative P.R. operations the world has ever seen, lying, deceiving and smearing clean food advocates in order to dominate the world’s food supply at all costs. (Click to Site)

Posted on

Insidious leaders: How the last five U.S. Presidents royally screwed up American food and medicine

(Natural News) Welcome to the United States of GMOs and toxic symptom-cover-up medicine. Over the past few decades, leaders in Washington D.C. have kept American consumers in the dark about the truth regarding toxins in our food and medicine, all while denying us some of our most fundamental rights. However, thanks to leading journalists and seekers of truth, much of this corruption has been exposed. Jane Goodall, Ph.D. DBE and UN Messenger of Peace, wrote an amazing foreword for a revealing, chilling, and meticulously researched book published in 2015 about the auspicious and ominous beginning of genetically modified food in America.

The book called Altered Genes, Twisted Truth starts with Jane Goodall explaining to the world how horrified she felt when she learned that scientists had “succeeded in reconfiguring the genetics of plants and animals.” She learned of the atrocity in the 1990s (even though it all started in the 1980s) and she termed it all as “a shocking corruption of the life forms of the planet,” and she referred to these altered organisms as “Frankenfoods.” Jane Goodall explains that there were good science-based reasons to mistrust GE (genetically engineered) crops.

Most importantly, Goodall points out the formidable task the bioengineers faced as they engaged downright corruption of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a regulatory agency that was supposed to ensure that new additives to foods are proven scientifically safe before coming to market. For GMOs, no such evidence existed, and the same could be said for most chemical medicine approved by the FDA and CDC. So, for starters, what U.S. President opened the doors for this Frankenfood horror story that has besieged more than 90 percent of all U.S. staple crops? (Click to Site)