People Don’t ‘Trust The Science’ Because Too Many Scientists Are Liars With Agendas

By Brandon Smith

There has been an unfortunate shift in Western educational practices in the past few decades away from what we used to call “critical thinking.” In fact, critical thinking was once a fundamental staple of US colleges and now it seems as though the concept doesn’t exist anymore; at least not in the way it used to.

Instead, another form of learning has arisen which promotes “right thinking”; a form of indoctrination which encourages and rewards a particular response from students that falls in line with ideology and not necessarily in line with reality.

people don’t 'trust the science' because too many scientists are liars with agendas

It’s not that schools directly enforce a collectivist or corporatist ideology (sometimes they do), it’s more that they filter out alternative viewpoints as well as facts and evidence they do not like until all that is left is a single path and a single conclusion to any given problem. They teach students how to NOT think by presenting thought experiments and then controlling the acceptable outcomes.

For example, a common and manipulative thought experiment used in schools is to ask students to write an “analysis” on why people do not trust science or scientists these days. The trick is that the question is always presented with a built-in conclusion – that scientists should be trusted, and some people are refusing to listen, so let’s figure out why these people are so stupid.

I have seen this experiment numerous times, always presented in the same way. Not once have I ever seen a college professor or public school teacher ask students: “Should scientists today be trusted?”

Not once.

This is NOT analysis, this is controlled hypothesis. If you already have a conclusion in mind before you enter into a thought experiment, then you will naturally try to adjust the outcome of the experiment to fit your preconceived notions. Schools today present this foolishness as a form of thinking game when it is actually propaganda.

Students are being taught to think inside the box, not outside the box. This is not science, it is anti-science.

Educational programming like this is now a mainstay while actual science has taken a backseat. Millions of kids are exiting public schools and universities with no understanding of actual scientific method or science in general.

Ask them what the equations for Density or Acceleration are, and they’ll have no clue what your are talking about. Ask them about issues surrounding vaccination or “climate change”, and they will regurgitate a litany of pre-programmed responses as to why the science cannot be questioned in any way.

In the alternative media we often refer to this as being “trapped in the Matrix,” and it’s hard to think of a better analogy. People have been rewarded for so long for accepting the mainstream narrative and blindly dismissing any other information that when they are presented with reality they either laugh at it arrogantly or recoil in horror. The Matrix is so much more comfortable and safe, and look at all the good grades you get when you say the right things and avoid the hard questions and agree with the teacher.

Given the sad state of science in the West these days surrounding the response to covid as well as the insane and unscientific push for forced vaccinations, I thought it would be interesting to try out this thought exercise, but from an angle that is never allowed in today’s schools:

Why don’t people trust the science and scientists anymore?

This is simple: Because too many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact.

That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all.

Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well.

The usual false claim is that the average person is ignorant and that they don’t have the capacity to understand scientific data. I do find it interesting that this is the general message of the trust-science thought experiment. It fits right in line with the mainstream and government narrative that THEIR scientists, the scientists they pay for and that corporations pay for, are implicitly correct and should not be questioned. They are the high priests of the modern era, delving into great magics that we dirty peasants cannot possibly grasp. It is not for us to question “the science”, it our job to simply embrace it like a religion and bow down in reverence.

Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it. Let’s look at a couple of examples directly related to human health…

GMO Crops And The Corporate Money Train

The propaganda surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms is relentless and pervasive, with the overall thrust being that they are perfectly safe and that anyone who says otherwise is a tinfoil hat crackpot. And certainly, there a hundreds if not thousands of studies which readily confirm this conclusion. So, case closed, right?

Not quite. Here is where critical thinking is so useful and where reality escapes the indoctrinated – Who paid for these studies, and do they have a vested interest in censoring negative data on GMOs?

Well, in the vast majority of cases GMO studies are funded by two sources – GMO industry giants like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, or, government agencies like the FDA and EPA. Very few studies are truly independent, and this is the problem. Both the government and corporations like Monsanto have a vested interest in preventing any critical studies from being released on GMO’s.

Monsanto has been caught on numerous occasions hiding the dangerous health effects of its products, from Agent Orange to the RGBH growth hormone used in dairy cows. They have been caught compiling illegal dossiers on their critics. The industry has been caught multiple times paying off academics and scientists to produce studies on GMOs with a positive spin and even to attack other scientists that are involved in experiments that are critical of GMOs. Research shows that at least half of all GMO studies are funded by the GMO industry, while the majority of the other half are funded by governments.

There has also long been a revolving door between GMO industry insiders and the FDA and EPA; officials often work for Monsanto and then get jobs with the government, then go back to Monsanto again. The back scratching is so egregious that the government even created special legal protections for GMO companies like Monsanto under what is now known as the Monsanto Protection Act (Section 735 of Agricultural Appropriations Bill HR 993) under the Obama Administration in 2013. This essentially makes GMO companies immune to litigation over GMOs, and the same protections have been renewed in different bills ever since.

Beyond the revolving door, the government has approved many GMO products with little to no critical data to confirm their safety. Not only that, but in most cases the government has sovereign immunity from litigation, even if they’ve been negligent. Meaning, if any of these products is proven to cause long term health damage the government cannot be sued for approving them unless there are special circumstances.

If they could be held liable, you would be damn sure the FDA would be running every conceivable test imaginable to confirm GMOs are definitively safe without any bias attached, but this is not the case. Instead, the government actively propagandizes for GMO companies and uses hired hatchet men to derail any public criticism.

I, for one, would certainly like to know for sure if GMOs are harmful to the human body in the long term, and there is certainly science to suggest that this might be the case. There have been many situations in which specific GMO foods were removed from the market because of potentially harmful side effects. Endogenous toxins of plants with modified metabolites are a concern, along with “plant incorporated protectants” (plants designed to produce toxins which act as pesticides).

There is data that tells us to be wary, but nothing conclusive. Why? Because billions of dollars are being invested by corporations into research designed to “debunk” any notion of side effects.

If the same amount of funding was put into independent studies with no bias, then we might hear a different story about the risks of GMOs. All the money is in dismissing the risks of GMOs; there’s almost no money in studying them honestly.

The science appears to be rigged to a particular outcome or narrative, and that is lying. Science is supposed to remain as objective as possible, but how can it be objective when it is being paid for by people with an agenda? The temptation to sell out is extreme.

Covid Vaccines And The Death Of Science

I bring up the example of GMO’s because I think it is representative of how science can be controlled to produce only one message while excluding all other analysis.

We don’t really know for sure how dangerous GMOs are because the majority of data is dictated by the people that profit from them and by their friends in government.

The lack of knowing is upheld as proof of safety – but this is not scientific. Science and medicine would demand that we err on the side of caution until we know for sure.

The same dynamic exists in the world of covid vaccines. Big Pharma has a vested interest in ensuring NO negative information is released about the mRNA vaccines because there is a perpetual river of money to be made as long as the vax remains approved for emergency use by the FDA. It may be important to note that the FDA has said it will take at least 55 YEARS to release all the data it has on the Pfizer covid vaccines, which suggests again that there is a beneficial collusion between the government and corporate behemoths.

In the meantime, anyone that questions the efficacy or safety of the vax is immediately set upon by attack dogs in the media, most of them paid with advertising dollars from Big Pharma. These attacks are not limited to the alternative media; the establishment has also gone after any scientist or doctor with questions about vaccine safety.

There are clear and openly admitted ideological agendas surrounding covid science which have nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with political control. When you have the head of the World Economic Forum applauding the covid pandemic as a perfect “opportunity” to push forward global socialist centralization and erase the last vestiges of free markets and individual liberty, any rational person would have to question if the covid science is also being rigged to support special interests.

Luckily, the covid issue is so massive that it is impossible for them to control every study. Instead, the establishment ignores the studies and data they don’t like.

The virus is being hyped as a threat to the majority of the public and as a rationale for 100% vaccination rates, by force if needed. Yet, the median Infection Fatality Rate of covid is only 0.27%. This means that on average 99.7% of the population at any given time has nothing to fear from the virus. This is confirmed by dozens of independent medical studies, but when was the last time you heard that number discussed by mainstream government scientists like Anthony Fauci?

I’ve never heard them talk about it. But how is it scientific to ignore data just because it doesn’t fit your political aims? Again, deliberate omission of data is a form of lying.

What about the multiple studies indicating that natural immunity is far superior in protection to the mRNA vaccines? What about the fact that the countries with the highest vaccination rates also have the highest rates of infections and their hospitalizations have actually increased? What about the fact that the states and countries with the harshest lockdown and mask mandates also have the highest infection rates? What about the fact that the average vaccine is tested for 10-15 years before being approved for human use, while the covid mRNA vaccines were put into production within months? That is to say, there is NO long term data to prove the safety of the covid vax.

These are easily observable scientific facts, but we never hear about them from corporate scientists or government scientists like Fauci. Instead, Fauci argues that criticism of his policies is an attack on him, and attacking him is the same as “attacking science.” In other words, Fauci believes HE IS the science.

And doesn’t that just illustrate how far science has fallen in the new millennium. Real scientists like Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique, call Fauci a fraud, but they are ignored while Fauci is worshiped.

The Global Cooling, Global Warming And Now Climate Change Fraud

I can’t even get into climate change “science” here, I would have to write an entire separate article about the fallacies perpetrated by global warming academics (did you know that global temperatures have only increased by 1 degree Celsius in the past century? Yep, just 1 degree according to the NOAA’s own data, yet, institutions like the NOAA continue to claim the end of the world is nigh because of global warming).

The stringent bottleneck on science today reminds me of the Catholic church under Pope Innocent III when church authorities forbade common people from owning or reading a bible. These laws remained in effect well into the 13th century. Instead, the peasants were to go to church and have the texts read to them by specific clergy. Often the bible readings were done in Latin which most people did not speak, and interpreted however the church wished.

It was only the invention of the printing press in the 1400s that changed the power dynamic and allowed bibles to be widely distributed and information to spread without church oversight. Much like the creation of the internet allows the public to access mountains of scientific data and methodologies at their fingertips. The free flow of information is an anathema according to the establishment; they argue that only they have the right to process information for public consumption.

Cultism requires excessive control of data and the complete restriction of outside interpretations. As information becomes openly available the public is then able to learn the whole truth, not just approved establishment narratives.

Science is quickly becoming a political religion rather than a bastion of critical thought. Conflicting data is ignored as “non-science” or even censored as “dangerous.” Government and corporate paid studies are treated as sacrosanct. Is it any wonder that so many people now distrust the science? Any reasonable person would have questions and suspicions. Those who do not have been indoctrinated into a cult they don’t even know they are a part of.

Conflict Of Interest: Documents Prove Bill Gates Gave $319 Million To Top Mainstream Media Outlets

According to MintPress News, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated at least $319 million to fund media projects at hundreds of organizations including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic, raising questions about those news outlets’ ability to report objectively on Gates and his work.

by Alan Macleod

conflict of interest bill gates gave $319 million to major media outlets

Up until his recent messy divorce, Bill Gates enjoyed something of a free pass in corporate media. Generally presented as a kindly nerd who wants to save the world, the Microsoft co-founder was even unironically christened “Saint Bill” by The Guardian.

While other billionaires’ media empires are relatively well known, the extent to which Gates’s cash underwrites the modern media landscape is not. After sorting through over 30,000 individual grants, MintPress can reveal that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has made over $300 million worth of donations to fund media projects.

Recipients of this cash include many of America’s most important news outlets, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic.

Gates also sponsors a myriad of influential foreign organizations, including the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph in the UK; prominent European newspapers such as Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain); as well as big global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.

The Gates Foundation money going towards media programs has been split up into a number of sections, presented in descending numerical order, and includes a link to the relevant grant on the organization’s website.

Awards Directly to Media Outlets:

Together, these donations total $166,216,526. The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gates’ hearts.

For example, the $3.6 million CNN grant went towards “report[ing] on gender equality with a particular focus on least developed countries, producing journalism on the everyday inequalities endured by women and girls across the world,” while the Texas Tribune received millions to “to increase public awareness and engagement of education reform issues in Texas.”

Given that Bill is one of the charter schools’ most fervent supporters, a cynic might interpret this as planting pro-corporate charter school propaganda into the media, disguised as objective news reporting.

The Gates Foundation has also given nearly $63 million to charities closely aligned with big mediaoutlets, including nearly $53 million to BBC Media Action, over $9 million to MTV’s Staying Alive Foundation and $1 million to The New York Times Neediest Causes Fund.

While not specifically funding journalism, donations to the philanthropic arm of a media player should still be noted.

Gates continues to underwrite a wide network of investigative journalism centers as well, totaling just over $38 million, more than half of which has gone to the D.C.-based International Center for Journalists to expand and develop African media.

These centers include:

  • International Center for Journalists — $20,436,938.
  • Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) — $3,800,357.
  • The Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting — $2,432,552.
  • Fondation EurActiv Politech — $2,368,300.
  • International Women’s Media Foundation — $1,500,000.
  • Center for Investigative Reporting — $1,446,639.
  • InterMedia Survey institute — $1,297,545.
  • The Bureau of Investigative Journalism — $1,068,169.
  • Internews Network — $985,126.
  • Communications Consortium Media Center — $858,000.
  • Institute for Nonprofit News — $650,021.
  • The Poynter Institute for Media Studies — $382,997.
  • Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) — $360,211.
  • Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies — $254,500.
  • Global Forum for Media Development (Belgium) — $124,823.
  • Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting — $100,000.

In addition to this, the Gates Foundation also plies press and journalism associations with cash, to the tune of at least $12 million. For example, the National Newspaper Publishers Association — a group representing more than 200 outlets — has received $3.2 million.

The list of these organizations includes:

  • Education Writers Association — $5,938,475.
  • National Newspaper Publishers Association —$3,249,176.
  • National Press Foundation — $1,916,172.
  • Washington News Council — $698,200.
  • American Society of News Editors Foundation — $250,000.
  • Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — $25,000.

This brings our running total up to $216.4 million.

The foundation also puts up the money to directly train journalists all over the world, in the form of scholarships, courses and workshops.

Today, it is possible for an individual to train as a reporter thanks to a Gates Foundation grant, find work at a Gates-funded outlet, and to belong to a press association funded by Gates.

This is especially true of journalists working in the fields of health, education and global development, the ones Gates himself is most active in and where scrutiny of the billionaire’s actions and motives are most necessary.

Gates Foundation grants pertaining to the instruction of journalists include:

  • Johns Hopkins University — $1,866,408.
  • Teachers College, Columbia University — $1,462,500.
  • University of California Berkeley — $767,800.
  • Tsinghua University (China) — $450,000.
  • Seattle University — $414,524.
  • Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies — $254,500.
  • Rhodes University (South Africa) — $189,000.
  • Montclair State University —$160,538.
  • Pan-Atlantic University Foundation — $130,718.
  • World Health Organization — $38,403.
  • The Aftermath Project — $15,435.

The BMGF also pays for a wide range of specific media campaigns around the world. For example, since 2014 it has donated $5.7 million to the Population Foundation of India in order to create dramas that promote sexual and reproductive health, with the intent to increase family planning methods in South Asia.

Meanwhile, it alloted over $3.5 million to a Senegalese organization to develop radio shows and online content that would feature health information.

Supporters consider this to be helping critically underfunded media, while opponents might consider it a case of a billionaire using his money to plant his ideas and opinions into the press.

Media projects supported by the Gates Foundation:

Total: $97,315,408

$319.4 Million And (A Lot) More

Added together, these Gates-sponsored media projects come to a total of $319.4 million.

However, there are clear shortcomings with this non-exhaustive list, meaning the true figure is undoubtedly far higher. First, it does not count sub-grants — money given by recipients to media around the world.

And while the Gates Foundation fosters an air of openness about itself, there is actually precious little public information about what happens to the money from each grant, save for a short, one- or two-sentence description written by the foundation itself on its website.

Only donations to press organizations themselves or projects that could be identified from the information on the Gates Foundation’s website as media campaigns were counted, meaning that thousands of grants having some media element do not appear in this list.

A case in point is the BMGF’s partnership with ViacomCBS, the company that controls CBS News, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and BET. Media reports at the time noted that the Gates Foundation was paying the entertainment giant to insert information and PSAs into its programming and that Gates had intervened to change storylines in popular shows like ER and Law & Order: SVU.

However, when checking BMGF’s grants database, “Viacom” and “CBS” are nowhere to be found, the likely grant in question (totaling over $6 million) merely describing the project as a “public engagement campaign aimed at improving high school graduation rates and postsecondary completion rates specifically aimed at parents and students,” meaning that it was not counted in the official total.

There are surely many more examples like this. “For a tax-privileged charity that so very often trumpets the importance of transparency, it’s remarkable how intensely secretive the Gates Foundation is about its financial flows,” Tim Schwab, one of the few investigative journalists who has scrutinized the tech billionaire, told MintPress.

Also not included are grants aimed at producing articles for academic journals. While these articles are not meant for mass consumption, they regularly form the basis for stories in the mainstream press and help shape narratives around key issues.

The Gates Foundation has given far and wide to academic sources, with at least $13.6 milliongoing toward creating content for the prestigious medical journal The Lancet.

And, of course, even money given to universities for purely research projects eventually ends up in academic journals, and ultimately, downstream into mass media. Academics are under heavy pressure to print their results in prestigious journals; “publish or perish” is the mantra in university departments.

Therefore, even these sorts of grants have an effect on our media. Neither these nor grants funding the printing of books or establishment of websites counted in the total, although they too are forms of media.

Low Profile, Long Tentacles

In comparison to other tech billionaires, Gates has kept his profile as a media controller relatively low. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s purchase of The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013 was a very clear and obvious form of media influence, as was eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s creation of First Look Media, the company that owns The Intercept.

Despite flying more under the radar, Gates and his companies have amassed considerable influence in media.

We already rely on Microsoft-owned products for communication (e.g., Skype, Hotmail), social media (LinkedIn), and entertainment (Microsoft XBox). Furthermore, the hardware and software we use to communicate often comes courtesy of the 66-year-old Seattleite.

How many people reading this are doing so on a Microsoft Surface or Windows phone and doing so via Windows OS? Not only that, Microsoft owns stakes in media giants such as Comcast and AT&T. And the “MS” in MSNBC stands for Microsoft.

Media Gates Keepers

That the Gates Foundation is underwriting a significant chunk of our media ecosystem leads to serious problems with objectivity. “The foundation’s grants to media organizations … raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?” wrote Gates’s local Seattle Times in 2011.

This was before the newspaper accepted BMGF money to fund its “education lab” section.

Schwab’s research has found that this conflict of interests goes right to the very top: two New York Times columnists had been writing glowingly about the Gates Foundation for years without disclosing that they also work for a group — the Solutions Journalism Network — that, as shown above, has received over $7 million from the tech billionaire’s charity.

Earlier this year, Schwab also declined to co-report on a story about COVAX for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, suspecting that the money Gates had been pumping into the outlet would make it impossible to accurately report on a subject so close to Gates’s heart.

Sure enough, when the article was published last month, it repeated the assertion that Gates had little to do with COVAX’s failure, mirroring the BMGF’s stance and quoting them throughout. Only at the very end of the more than 5,000-word story did it reveal that the organization it was defending was paying the wages of its staff.

“I don’t believe Gates told The Bureau of Investigative Journalism what to write. I think the bureau implicitly, if subconsciously, knew they had to find a way to tell this story that didn’t target their funder.

The biasing effects of financial conflicts are complex but very real and reliable,” Schwab said, describing it as “a case study in the perils of Gates-funded journalism.”

MintPress also contacted the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for comment, but it did not respond.

Gates, who amassed his fortune by building a monopoly and zealously guarding his intellectual property, bears significant blame for the failure of the coronavirus vaccine rollout across the world.

Quite aside from the COVAX fiasco, he pressured Oxford University not to make its publicly-funded vaccine open-source and available to all for free, but instead to partner with private corporation AstraZeneca, a decision that meant that those who could not pay were blocked from using it.

That Gates has made over 100 donations to the university, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, likely played some role in the decision. To this day, fewer than 5% of people in low-income countries have received even one dose of COVID vaccine. The death toll from this is immense.

Unfortunately, many of these real criticisms of Gates and his network are obscured by wild and untrue conspiracy theories about such things as inserting microchips in vaccines to control the population.

This has meant that genuine critiques of the Microsoft co-founder are often demonetized and algorithmically suppressed, meaning that outlets are strongly dissuaded from covering the topic, knowing they will likely lose money if they do so. The paucity of scrutiny of the world’s second-richest individual, in turn, feeds into outlandish suspicions.

Gates certainly deserves it. Quite apart from his deep and potentially decades-long ties to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein, his attempts to radically change African society, and his investment in controversial chemical giant Monsanto, he is perhaps the key driver behind the American charter school movement — an attempt to essentially privatize the U.S. education system.

Charter schools are deeply unpopular with teachers’ unions, which see the movement as an attempt to lessen their autonomy and reduce public oversight into how and what children are taught.

All the way to the bank

In most coverage, Gates’s donations are broadly presented as altruistic gestures. Yet many have pointed to the inherent flaws with this model, noting that allowing billionaires to decide what they do with their money allows them to set the public agenda, giving them enormous power over society.

“Philanthropy can and is being used deliberately to divert attention away from different forms of economic exploitation that underpin global inequality today,” said Linsey McGoey, Professor of Sociology at the University of Essex, U.K., and author of “No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy.” She adds:

“The new ‘philanthrocapitalism’ threatens democracy by increasing the power of the corporate sector at the expense of the public sector organizations, which increasingly face budget squeezes, in part by excessively remunerating for-profit organizations to deliver public services that could be delivered more cheaply without private sector involvement.”

Charity, as former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee noted, “is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.”

None of this means that the organizations receiving Gates’ money — media or otherwise — are irredeemably corrupt, nor that the Gates Foundation does not do any good in the world.

But it does introduce a glaring conflict of interest whereby the very institutions we rely on to hold accountable one of the richest and most powerful men in the planet’s history are quietly being funded by him.

This conflict of interest is one that corporate media have largely tried to ignore, while the supposedly altruistic philanthropist Gates just keeps getting richer, laughing all the way to the bank.

The Revival Of Ancient Lost Crops Reveals Surprising Results

FORBIDDEN HISTORY

The Revival Of Ancient Lost Crops Reveals Surprising Results

The scientific cultivation of lost ancient seed crops has yielded much higher than expected growth rates, challenging assumptions about maize (corn) growth in prehistoric North America.

According to new research ‘lost crops’ might have fed as many people in prehistoric North America as traditionally grown maize.

But the study was not without challenges as no written or oral histories exist about these lost crops, and the more modern domesticated forms are now extinct.

Natalie Mueller is assistant professor of archaeology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, and writing in the Journal of Ethnobiology she describes how “painstakingly” she calculated yield estimates for two annual plants that were cultivated in eastern North America for thousands of years before being abandoned for maizeproduction.

The researchers grew ‘goosefoot’ (Chenopodium, sp.) and erect knotweed (Polygonum erectum), which when grown together were found to be “much more productive” than growing either species individually.

According to a report in Eureka Alert, the researcher explained that when these two plants were grown along with the other known lost crops, they might have fed thousands of indigenous people.

Photo of the ‘goosefoot’ plant

The Search For Ancient Botanical Answers

The first seed caches and dried leaves held as evidence of ‘lost crops’ was gathered in the 1930s by archaeologists in rock shelters in Kentucky and Arkansas, and over the past 25 years professor emerita of archaeology at Washington University, Dr Gayle Fritz, established that the extinct crops had supported local indigenous societies for at least a thousand years and long before maize (corn) became their staple crop.

According to Dr Mueller, the lost crops were made up of “diverse native grasses, seed plants, squashes and sunflowers” of which only the latter two are still cultivated today.

Furthermore, the scientist now knows that these lost crops were “purposefully tended.” But while there are many Native Americanpractitioners, of ethnobotanical knowledge, who know about traditional medicinal plants and wild foods, “as far as we know” nobody knows how the lost crops were grown, said Dr Mueller.

Saving Seeds For Future Catastrophes

In February 2015, a Native American researcher in Vermont, Frederick Wiseman, a retired professor and expert on ethno-botany, reproduced horticulture that existed in his state for centuries before Europeansarrived.

After the scientist spent many years researching and working with the Maya civilization in Guatemala and Mexico, Dr. Wiseman identified and preserved 26 different varieties of plants, including “squash, beans, corn, artichokes, ground cherries and tobacco”, which were all vital to the Abenaki Native Americans of northeastern North America and “would otherwise have been lost in time,” Ancient Origins reported in February 2015.

To further ensure our current knowledge of plants and growing methods are secure from being lost to future generations, a 2015 Ancient Originsarticle explained that scientists founded the Svalbard Global Seed Vaultin Norway that preserves more than 860,000 food-crops.

But the question as to why these “lost plants” were abandoned by indigenous cultures has been a point of debate among archaeologists, said Mueller, who added that people (archaeologists) have mostly “assumed” maize was a lot more productive seeing as it’s still grown today, and it has the lowest cost per unit area.

But not content with “assumptions”, Dr Mueller quantified the yield so that comparisons could be drawn between lost crops and maize growth for the first time accurately.

The researcher said that her team had been motivated by wanting to see “more diverse agricultural systems” and to better understand the knowledge, management and ecosystems of indigenous people of North America before the modern industrial agricultural system.

Pairing Up Plants To Enhance Growth

Before the tests began, the scientist first identified several ecological elements, which had to be accounted for before recreating a stable growth system that was as similar to the ancient ecosystem as possible.

This meant leaving aside greenhouses, pesticides and modern fertilizers. Dr Mueller stated in the study, the bugs that pollinated the pants and the pests that ate them were also considered in the experiments, along with the diseases that affected their growth and the animals the plants attracted.

The new paper specifically details the findings from two experiments, which had been designed to investigate germination requirements and potential yields for the lost crops.

Dr Mueller’s new research discovered that a polyculture of goosefoot and erect knotweed grew much more productively than when grown separately as a monoculture.

Additionally, when grown together, these two plants yielded “higher than global averages” for closely related domesticated crops, like quinoa and buckwheat. These results were found to challenge the growth rates of traditionally grown maize.

5 Signs You’re Being Poisoned Every Day

Earlier I posted a blog uncovering the dire truth that we are exposed to upwards of 80,000 toxinsevery single day

These poisonous toxins build up in our bodies and can lead to extremely dangerous medical conditions.
Oftentimes, the effects start off small and seem unrelated to toxins. 

Here are five signs that you might be experiencing toxic overload:

1.     Stubborn weight gain.
If you’ve gained weight or found it difficult to lose, toxins could be to blame. Many types of toxins store in your fat cells or increase the size of fat cells, making weight difficult to shed.
2.     You feel like you can’t focus on anything.
Most heavy metals are neurotoxins, meaning they have a major impact on cognitive function, leading to lack of focus, memory loss and overall brain fog.
3.     It takes you twice as long to get over a cold.
Toxins put an enormous strain on your immune system, ultimately weakening it and leaving you vulnerable to catching whatever is going around, and then making it even harder for you to shake it.
4.     You’re lethargic yet have trouble sleeping.
Toxins like pesticides and flame retardants disrupt your endocrine system which handles everything hormonal in the body. These disruptions can cause everything from poor sleep to fertility issues and worse!
5.     You’re on a collision course with a deadly disease.
Studies have shown that a large percentage of some of the most common fatal diseases like cancer and heart disease are a direct result of external factors, as opposed to genetic. Let that sink in. That means prevention can make a huge difference in the majority of these illnesses.
There’s no escape. Toxins are everywhere. They are in the food you eat, water you drink and air you breathe.

Top 5 “Conspiracy Theories” That Turned Out To Be True

Episode 356 – Top 5 “Conspiracy Theories” That Turned Out To Be True : The Corbett Report

We all know the old trope of the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who believes crazy things like “the government is spying on us” and “the military is spraying things in the sky” and “the CIA ships in the drugs.”

Except those things aren’t so crazy after all. As it turns out, many of the old “conspiracy theorist” fantasies are actually true.

Here are five examples of things that were once derided as zany conspiracy paranoia and are now accepted as mundane historical fact.

#1 – The CIA Ships in the Drugs

The Central Intelligence Agency, the most well-known branch of America’s shadowy intelligence community, features in a number of popular conspiracy theories. One of the theories about the CIA’s dirty dealings that has been around for decades is that the agency helps bring illegal drugs into the United States.

But this isn’t just a theory. In fact, the CIA has been involved in drug running from its very inception.

Just months after its creation in 1947, the agency began a relationship with the Corsican mafia that controlled the Old Port of Marseille in post-war France. That relationship involved a quid pro quo: The CIA would protect the mafia if the mafia would keep the Communists from taking control of the port. In this case “protecting the mafia” meant protecting their most lucrative business, which just happened to be smuggling heroin into the United States. This “French Connection” thrived for decades, with the majority of the heroin in the US in the post-war period coming via France under the watchful eye of the CIA.

From the Korean War to the Vietnam War and beyond, CIA-supported warlords used CIA-run airlines like Air America to ship heroin from the “Golden Triangle” at the borders of Thailand, Laos, and Myanmar. As even The New York Times reported, the agency prevented the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs from monitoring drug trafficking in the region. They even stopped an investigation into “an Air America DC-3 loaded with heroin packed into boxes of Tide soap powder” that had been seized on its way to the US.

In the 1980s yet more agency involvement in drug smuggling rings came to light. This time it was drug traffickers connected to the Contras in Nicaragua that received help from the agency. After the Contra-connected trafficking came to light, a Senate investigation headed by Senator John Kerry confirmed government complicity in the drug trade.

BOB MCKEOWN: As for the CIA, it’s denied ever aiding or condoning drug smuggling.

JOHN KERRY: Reports were reaching the highest councils of our government, in the White House and in the Justice Department. There is no question of that. I can document that.

MCKEOWN: The White House and Justice Department disputed Kerry’s report at the time. But he still believes some government officials turned a blind eye toward drug dealing in the mid-1980s, after the time at the heart of Gary Webb’s stories.

SOURCE: A Crack in the Story — NBC Dateline (13 June 1997)

In the 1990s, award-winning journalist Gary Webb traced the Contras’ CIA-protected backers to cocaine shipments into the US, and, ultimately, to the crack epidemic of the 1980s.

Stories of CIA drug running continue to be covered up almost as quickly as they are exposed, from the CIA Beech 200 that was apprehended in Nicaragua with 1100 kilos of cocaine to the crash of a Grumman Gulfstream II that had been used for CIA rendition flights that was carrying 3.3 tons of Columbian cocaine. Then there’s the CIA’s relationship with Afghan drug warlord Ahmed Wali Karzai in Afghanistan and the admission that the Sinaloa cartel was aided by US agencies and the recent confession that famed Columbian drug king Pablo Escobar worked for the CIA.

At this point, the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency has facilitated drug running into the United States is one of the worst kept secrets in history.

#2 – The government is spraying us from the skies

It is incumbent on everyone who wishes to remain in the respectable, polite circles of society that they deride all chemtrail theorists as kooky fringe-nut wingbats (or whatever the ad hominem du jour is). I mean, who could actually believe that the government would ever coordinate a program to spray toxic chemicals on unwitting citizens?

Except, of course, for the pesky little fact that the US government has done precisely that. Repeatedly, in fact.

Like in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1950. The US Navy conducted an experiment they codenamed “Operation Sea-Spray,” in which they secretly sprayed the population with Serratia marcescens, a “rod-shaped gram-negative bacteria” that just happens to be a human pathogen.

And what did the Navy hope to accomplish with this experiment? Why, to “determine the susceptibility of a big city like San Francisco to a bioweapon attack by terrorists,” of course.

And what did they actually accomplish? The death of at least one person and the hospitalization of many others.

Which, I suppose, answers the experimenters’ question, doesn’t it? Are San Franciscans susceptible to a bioweapon attack by terrorists? Well, yes, evidently . . . assuming by the word “terrorist” you mean the US Navy.

So surely this type of thing was just a one-off. They never tried something like this before or since, right? . . . Right?

. . . Oh, of course they did.

Like in 1953, when “the U.S. Army secretly dumped a carcinogen on unknowing Canadians in Winnipeg and Alberta” as part of a cold war weapons test.

In fact, in 1977 the U.S. Army   that they “conducted 239 germ warfare tests in open air between 1949 and 1969,” using the public as human guinea pigs in New York, San Francisco, Key West, and numerous other cities.

But don’t worry, everyone. I’m sure the government wouldn’t be doing anything like this to the unaware masses today. That’s just crazy talk.

JEFF FERRELL: KSLA News 12 discovered chemtrails are even mentioned by name in the initial draft of House Bill 2977 back in 2001 under the Space Preservation Act. But the military denies any such program exists. Jeff Ferrell, KSLA News 12 reporting.

ANCHOR: And you know it turns out [that] until nine years ago the government had the right under US law to conduct secret testing on the American public under specific conditions. Only a public outcry repealed part of that law, with some exceptions.

SOURCE: KSLA News 12 report on chemtrails

#3 – Governments stage terror attacks

Over the last decade internet conspiracy analysts have brought the term “false flag” to the public consciousness.

In naval warfare, a “false flag” refers to an attack where a vessel flies a flag other than their true battle flag before engaging their enemy. It is a trick, designed to deceive the enemy about the true nature and origin of an attack, and it has been used over and over by government after government for hundreds of years in order to motivate their people for war.

In the 1780s, Swedish King Gustav III—looking to start a war with Russia in order to shore up his own domestic political power—dressed some of his own troops in Russian military uniforms and ordered them to attack a Swedish outpost on the Russian border. The ruse worked, and the Swedes, outraged at this supposedly “Russian” attack, gave the king the authority to launch a “defensive” war.

In 1931, the Japanese were looking for a pretext to invade Manchuria. On September 18th of that year, a Lieutenant in the Imperial Japanese Army detonated a small amount of TNT along a Japanese-owned railway in the Manchurian city of Mukden. The act was blamed on Chinese dissidents and used to justify the occupation of Manchuria just six months later. When the deception was later exposed, Japan was diplomatically shunned and forced to withdraw from the League of Nations.

In 1954, the Israelis hired a number of Egyptian Jews to plant bombs in American and British cinemas, libraries, and other civilian targets to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood or other malcontents. The plan, known as the Lavon Affair, was part of an effort to convince the British to retain their military presence in the occupied Suez Canal zone. Several bombings took place, but the British were ultimately forced out after Nasser nationalized the canal in 1956.

In August 1964, the USS Maddox, a US destroyer on patrol in the Gulf of Tonkin, believed it had come under attack from North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats, engaging in evasive action and returning fire. The incident led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing President Johnson to begin open warfare in Vietnam. It was later admitted that no attack had occurred, and in 2005 it was revealed that the NSA had manipulated their information to make it look like an attack had taken place.

In June 1967, the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty, a US Navy technical research ship conducting maneuvers off the coast of Egypt. The ship was strafed relentlessly for hours in an attempt to blame the attack on Egypt and draw the Americans into the Six Day War, but amazingly the crew managed to keep the ship afloat. In 2007, newly released NSA intercepts confirmed that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship, not an Egyptian ship as their cover story has maintained.

In the fall of 1999, a wave of bloody apartment bombings swept through Russian cities, killing 293 people and causing widespread panic. Although blamed on Chechen terrorists, later that month FSB agents were caught planting the exact same type of bombs as in the other blasts. The government claimed that the FSB bomb was part of a “security exercise” but the terror hysteria of the apartment bombings were used to justify Russian aggression in Chechnya and win public approval for a full-scale war. Russian troops entered Chechnya the next month.

In 2001, attacks in New York and Washington are blamed on Al Qaeda as a pretext for invading Afghanistan. In the months leading up to the event, American negotiators had warned Afghanistan’s Taliban that they were interested in securing right of way for proposed pipeline projects, and the US would achieve this with either a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs. The Bush administration’s first major national security directive, NSPD-9, a full-scale battle plan for the invasion of Afghanistan, including command and control, air and ground forces, and logistics, was drafted and sitting on the President’s desk to be signed off on September 4, 2001, seven days before the 9/11 attacks. The invasion proceeded as planned in October.

Naturally, mainstream commentators have to pretend that “false flags” and staged terror incidents are ludicrous flights of fancy that have no historical precedent . . . unless they’re talking about one of their enemies, like Russia, staging a false flag incident. Then it’s perfectly acceptable.

#4 – The CIA ran mind control experiments on unwitting Americans

Ever hear the “theory” that the government abducted people against their will and experimented on them to study mind control techniques and mind-altering chemicals? Well, it isn’t a theory, it’s a documented fact. The US government did run just such a program, dubbed Project MKULTRA, and it was exposed in the 1970s. . . or at least parts of it were.

What we don’t know about Project MKULTRA and its affiliated subprojects could probably fill several warehouses with books, but what we do know is voluminous (and scary) enough. The formerly top-secret program was as horrific as any dystopian fantasy ever devised . . . and is now openly acknowledged and documented.

Even the Wikipedia article on the subject admits that the project was completely illegal, employed unwitting test subjects, and attempted to “manipulate people’s mental states and alter brain functions through the “surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse (including the sexual abuse of children), and other forms of torture.”

Some aspects of the MKULTRA nightmare are relatively well-known by now.

One series of experiments, presided over by Sidney Gottlieb, involved administering LSD to unwitting Americans, including mental patients, prisoners, drug addicts and prostitutes. This included “Operation Midnight Climax” in which unsuspecting men were drugged and lured to CIA safe houses by prostitutes on the CIA payroll. Their sexual activity was monitored behind one-way mirrors and used to study the effect of sexual blackmail and the use of mind-altering substances in field operations.

Another experiment, dubbed MKULTRA Subproject 68, was overseen by the esteemed psychiatrist Dr. Ewen Cameron. This subproject involved Dr. Cameron using LSD, paralytic drugs, electroshock therapy and drug-induced comas to attempt to wipe patients’ memories and reprogram their psyche. When brought to light, the program was identified as an attempt to refine methods of medical torture for the purpose of extracting information from unwilling sources and condemned. Lawsuits regarding the blatantly illegal experimentation conducted by Cameron continue to this day.

Yet despite CIA assurances that the program was scrapped in 1973 (“would the CIA ever lie to us?”), documentary evidence continues to emerge that the program was far more extensive and horrific than the public was ever told.

But simply pointing to the documented horrors that took place during the officially acknowledged period of the officially acknowledged program’s officially acknowledged existence is enough to make even the most stubborn conspiracy deniers squirm in their seats.

MELISSA DYKES: MKULTRA would mostly be remembered for its drug experiments.

DOCTOR: I’m going to give you this cup which contains lysergic acid 100 micrograms.

NARRATOR: That’s “acid.” Characterized by hallucinations, illusions, distortions of perception and thinking.

NEWS ANCHOR: John Gittinger, recently retired chief psychologist for the CIA.

GITTINGER: You could disable a whole city by putting a very small amount in our water supply.

DYKES: Everything from prostitution studies to poisions to top-secret weapons like the heart attack gun grabbed headlines with the sensational accounts of the CIA’s sketchy techniques.

SENATOR: You’ve brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for . . .

CIA REPRESENTATIVE: We have indeed.

SENATOR: . . . for killing people?

NEWS ANCHOR 2: Good evening. The White House disclosed today that the CIA’s drug testing program on unsuspecting Americans had been more expensive than the agency had admitted.

SPEAKER: . . . CIA secretly funneled money through scores of research foundations, colleges, hospitals, and clinics, including a $375,000 grant through the Shifter [?] Research Fund here in Washington.

DYKES: The complex and compartmentalized management of such a large project through front groups and with the participation of countless agencies and institutions to carry out secret research should be a testament to just how sophisticated and shadowy government science had become.

SPEAKER 2: They’re names of doctors, they’re names of officials, they’re names of former and present CIA officials who were involved, they’re names of hospitals. And depending on how you treat it, it could be sensational.

SOURCE: The Minds of Men | Official Documentary by Aaron & Melissa Dykes

#5 – Chemicals are turning the friggin’ frogs . . . female

You’ve probably seen the memes about it. It’s one of the best known and most parodied conspiracy memes of recent years, constantly held up as an example of how utterly deranged and off base-online conspiracy theorists are. *MEME. After all, everyone knows that chemicals in the water aren’t turning the frogs gay. They’re turning them female.

Reports began to emerge on this phenomenon a decade ago, like this one from LiveScience: “Pesticide Turns Male Frogs into Females,” which points out that scientific research is demonstrating that “a commonly used pesticide known as atrazine can turn male frogs into females that are successfully able to reproduce.”

Atrazine, it turns out, is a weed killer used primarily on corn crops, and can cause “sexual abnormalities” in frogs, such as hermaphroditism (having both male and female sex organs). The study from 2010 further discovered that atrazine’s effects are long-lasting and can influence reproduction in amphibians.

The results suggest that atrazine could have potentially harmful effects on populations of amphibians, animals that are already experiencing a global decline. And despite the steady flow of funny memes this observation has generated, this is no laughing matter. As study author Tyrone B. Hayes of the University of California, Berkeley explains, the study suggests that atrazine—which is banned in Europe—could have potentially harmful effects on populations of amphibians, animals that are already experiencing a global decline.

Though there’s no mention of the frogs’ sexual preferences, pesticides are admittedly bending the genders of amphibians. And to top it all off, since atrazine interferes with the production of the sex hormone estrogen, present in people and frogs, the findings could have implications for humans as well.

But it isn’t just atrazine. Over the last century, mass manufacturing of plastics and other products have meant that our environment is now awash in chemicals called “endocrine disrupters” which, a growing body of research suggests, interferes with sperm production and may impair human fertilization. These chemicals may be one of the reasons that sperm counts are undergoing a dramatic drop in developed countries and other issues with men’s health, including “testicular cancer, undescended testes and low sperm count.”

That’s actually a pretty big deal. But I guess if you want to make trendy hipsters laugh, just tell them these completely admitted scientific facts about the pesticides that are wreaking untold havoc on our environment and then do your best impression of a loud-mouthed Texan ranting about gay frogs. You’ll have your friends in stitches. Just don’t say it’s a theory.

In Conclusion…

In truth, there are many many more examples of conspiracy “theories” that turned out to be true, from the US government knowingly injecting poor black sharecroppers with syphilis to the CIA heart attack gun to the “anonymous” letter that the FBI wrote to Martin Luther King urging him to kill himself. So, what other not-so-theoretical conspiracy theories do you know of

DARPA Plans to Spread Viruses Using Insects — Scientists Sound Alarm About the Dangers

 

A team of scientist sounds the alarm in a new Science Policy Forum report about a mysterious US government program that is developing genetically modified viruses that would be dispersed into the environment using insects.

 

The virus-infected or ‘Frankenstein’ insects are being developed as countermeasures against potential natural and engineered threats to the US food supply. The program is operated by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) could be viewed as an attempt to develop an entirely new class of bioweapons that would prompt other nations to seek similar weapons, they cautioned.

The researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology and the University of Freiburg both in Germany, and the University of Montpellier in France suggest DARPA’s program could likely breach the Biological Weapons Convention, the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning the development, production, and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons.

Dubbed the “Insect Allies” program, DARPA began modifying insects in 2017, with the plan to produce more resilient crops to help farmers deal with climate change, drought, frost, floods, salinity, and disease, said Gizmodo. The technology at the center of the program is an entirely new method of genetically modifying crops.

Instead of modifying seeds in a lab, farmers would send swarms of insects into their crops, where the genetically modified bugs would infect plants with a virus that passes along the new resilience genes, a process known as horizontal genetic alteration. Hence the technology’s name — Horizontal Environmental Genetic Alteration Agents (HEGAA).

For HEGAA to work, Gizmodo explains that DARPA labs develop a virus that is inserted into the chromosome of a target organism. Scientists would use leafhoppers, whiteflies, and aphids genetically altered in the lab using CRISPR, or a variant of a gene-editing system, to carry the virus into crops.

Each plant would then be infected by the insect, triggering the intended effects of protecting crops from natural and or human-made threats.

However, the lead author of the report, Richard Guy Reeves from the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, says DARPA’s Insect Allies program is disturbing and an example of dual-use research in which the US government, in addition to aiding farmers’ crops, is also developing a biological weapon.

Insect Allies is reportedly backed by $27 million of funding. According to Gizmodo, there are four academic research teams currently working on the project, including researchers at the Boyce Thompson Institute in New York, Pennsylvania State University, Ohio State University and the University of Texas at Austin.

DARPA maintains that “all work is conducted inside closed laboratories, greenhouses, or other secured facilities,” and that the insects have built-in lifespans to limit their spread. By 2020 or 2021, DARPA is planning on testing the virus-infected insects on crops inside greenhouses at undisclosed locations.

Reeves said the use of insects as a vehicle for genetic modification is a horrible idea because they cannot be controlled and indicates that traditional overhead sprays to deliver HEGAA’s is the safest bet. DARPA says insects are the only practical solution, as overhead spraying of HEGAAs would require increased farming infrastructure — something that is not available to all farmers.

The report specifies how there is currently no global regulatory framework to support this new way of transporting HEGAAs to crops, which if not supervised correctly, could lead to potential mishaps.

The scientists of the report interpret DARPA’s insect program as “an intention to develop a means of delivery of HEGAAs for offensive purposes,” such as conducting biological warfare.

These genetically modified bugs could be implanted with a dangerous plant-killing disease that the Trump administration could unleash over farmland in Venezuela, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and or even China, that would decimate the countries’ food supply.

The introduction of this potentially dangerous technology, the scientists argue, would usher in an entirely new class of biological, insect-dispatched weapons that could be considered weapons of mass destruction. Scientists warn that this technology would spur rival nations to develop similar insect programs.

Read: DARPA Genetically Modified Humans for a Super Soldier Army

In response to a Gizmodo question, a spokesperson for DARPA said it welcomes academic dialogue about the Insect Allies program, but criticizes the conclusion of the report, saying it is “misleading and peppered with inaccuracies.”

Blake Bextine, DARPA Program Manager for Insect Allies, rejects many of the claims made by Reeves.

“DARPA is not producing biological weapons, and we reject the hypothetical scenario,” Bextine told Gizmodo.

“We accept and agree with concerns about potential dual use of technology, an issue that comes up with virtually every new powerful technology. Those concerns are precisely why we structured the Insect Allies program the way we did, as a transparent, university-led, fundamental research effort that benefits from the active participation of regulators and ethicists and proactive communication to policymakers,” said Bextine.

The purpose of Insect Allies program, he states, is to prepare for a new era of emerging threats to US agriculture. Brextine added that DARPA is evaluating the potential environmental impacts of HEGAAs.

“DARPA is extraordinarily sensitive to environmental risks and off-target effects, and has structured the Insect Allies program to identify and mitigate them,” he said. “DARPA has mandated multiple levels of biosafety and biosecurity at each stage of the program.”

If DARPA’s program succeeds, they will have developed gain-of-function treatments that can be delivered to the “right plants” and the “right tissue,” he said. In other words, DARPA wants precision guided biological weapon insects.

Jason Delborne, an Associate Professor at North Carolina State University, an expert in genetic engineering, says the concerns seem “appropriate.”

“The social, ethical, political, and ecological implications of producing HEGAAs are significant and worthy of the same level of attention as exploring the science underpinning the potential technology,” Delborne told Gizmodo.

“The authors argue persuasively that specifying insects as the preferred delivery mechanism for HEGAAs is poorly justified by visions of agricultural applications. The infrastructure and expertise required for spraying agricultural fields — at least in the U.S. context — is well established, and this delivery mechanism would offer greater control over the potential spread of a HEGAA.”

DARPA could be on the cusp of obtaining a new biological weapon that would most certainly be used against Venezuela, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and or even China, to cripple the countries’ food supply and lead to a regime change without firing a signal shot — this the future of warfare.

Forget Agenda 21: UN’s 2030 Agenda Will ‘Transform the World’ — and Not in a Good Way

 

If you think Agenda 21 was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until you learn what the creepily utopian 2030 Agenda has in store for us all.

Once again Germany has stepped forward with their ideas of how to speed up the arrival of a one-world government.

While all eyes were on Obama and his creepily NWO speech, the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave an address which went largely unnoticed. It was a lengthy speech – you can read his entire address here – but these are some takeaway points:

“We could also choose to put our faith in the power of diplomacy or shrug our shoulders” in the face of the conflicts in SyriaLibyaIraq and Yemen he said, noting that Europe also faces a choice of fighting to hold the region together or allowing it to fall apart again and be overrun by populists.

“The United States is also faced with a choice; in six weeks’ time, here too, the choice is about the supposed withdrawal from a crisis-ridden world – which some are calling for – or cooperation with international partners to solve some of those problems, he continues, noting that this choice “is important for all of us.”

Indeed, “withdrawal, resignation, going it alone, or, responsibility for a better future; that is the choice in many places,” he said.

The United Nations would remain the central forum, for tackling these issues, he said. In the context of all the crisis meetings, “it gives me hope that we have made an important choice, the right choice, of the direction we want to take and that we have chosen unity and sustainability,” he said calling the 2030 Agenda a global pact that is the point of convergence for dealing with poverty and underdevelopment.

Now we know when they want the takeover to be complete: 2030.

What is the 2030 Agenda?

We have all heard of Agenda 21, but the 2030 Agenda isn’t quite so familiar. Agenda 2030 emphasizes gender and racial equality, eradication of poverty, and the total abolition of violence and hate.

It lays out that the future world is based entirely on these goals and that the only way to achieve these things is through sustainable development and control of climate change. Oh – and the planet will also be totally poverty free by 2030 as well.

Here are a few of the pertinent points:

  • It actually came into effect in January 2016.
  • Its full title is ‘Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.’
  • The  areas covered by the Agenda are people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership.
  • The 17 goals and 169 targets of the Agenda seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete those that were not achieved.
  • The ‘Declaration’ agreed upon at the United Nations meeting in New York has 53 points.
  • Point 2 sets the tone: ‘On behalf of the peoples we serve, we have adopted a historic decision on a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred set of universal and transformative goals and targets. We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030’.

Points 5, 18, 28, and particularly point 29 are particularly interesting. Now, in theory, it’s wonderful – rainbows and unicorns for everyone. It’s repetitive in the extreme, constantly pointing out the sanctity of sovereign nations and saying these issues apply TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET…

So, how does the 2030 Agenda morph into the arrival of a one-world government?

Simple. It is entirely impossible to achieve what they have laid out without a one-world government, the New World Order we have heard so much about over the last few years.

This is what they are stating WILL be achieved by 2030 with all countries somehow miraculously retaining their own culture, resources, and economies:

  • Total eradication of hunger across the planet.
  • Total eradication of race inequality across the planet.
  • Total eradication of poverty across the planet.
  • Total eradication of gender inequality across the planet.
  • Total eradication of war across the planet.
  • Total eradication of Malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases across the planet.
  • Total eradication of TB across the planet.
  • A set standard of education for every child on the planet.
  • Clean water and sanitation for every person on the planet.
  • A decent job for every worker on the planet.
  • Sustainable economic growth in every country on the planet.
  • Sustainable agriculture across the planet.
  • Sustainable livestock production across the planet.
  • A reduction in natural resource use in every country on the planet.
  • A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized nation on the planet.
  • A reduction in flood and drought events is susceptible locations around the world.

All of the above are decoded in THIS article.

There are other odds and ends they have thrown in but the bottom line is that they intend for all of these things to be done by the year 2030.

Really? Honestly?

There are barely a half dozen countries on the planet that can engage in conversation without some disagreement and they honestly expect us to believe that there will be enough international co-operation while retaining nation sovereignty, to achieve even one goal on that list?

The Islamic State is gonna be our friend?

The ‘Migrant Crisis’ will solve itself?

India will give water to Pakistan?

North and South Korea will kiss and make-up?

Iran will stop making nuclear bombs?

Israel and Palestine will finally shake hands and  sort out their differences?

Right…

Achieving ANY of the goals on that list is impossible unless one single government calls the shots and enforces conditions whereby the goals become achievable. That means the removal of sovereign status for individual nations. It means one giant money pot made up of cash from every nation that has cash to finance these initiatives.

Bayer-Monsanto ‘Marriage’ Signals Death Knell for Humanity

 

On what plane of reality is it possible that two of the world’s most morally bankrupt corporations, Bayer and Monsanto, can be permitted to join forces in what promises to be the next stage in the takeover of the world’s agricultural and medicinal supplies?

Warning, plot spoiler: There is no Mr. Hyde side in this horror story of epic proportions; it’s all Dr. Jekyll.

Like a script from a David Lynch creeper, Bayer AG of poison gas fame has finalized its $66 billion (£50bn) purchase of Monsanto, the agrochemical corporation that should be pleading the Fifth in the dock on Guantanamo Bay instead of enjoying what amounts to corporate asylum and immunity from crimes against humanity.

Such are the special privileges that come from being an above-the-law transnational corporation.

Unsurprisingly, the first thing Bayer did after taking on Monsanto, saddled as it is with the extra baggage of ethic improprieties, was to initiate a rebrand campaign.

Like a Hollywood villain falling into a crucible of molten steel only to turn up later in some altered state, Monsanto has been subsumed under the Orwellian-sounding ‘Bayer Crop Science’ division, whose motto is: “Science for a better life.”

Yet Bayer itself provides little protective cover for Monsanto considering its own patchy history of corporate malfeasance. Far beyond its widely known business of peddling pain relief for headaches, the German-based company played a significant role in the introduction of poison gas on the battlefields of World War I.

Despite a Hague Convention ban on the use of chemical weapons since 1907, Bayer CEO Carl Duisberg, who sat on a special commission set up by the German Ministry of War, knew a business opportunity when he saw one.

Duisberg witnessed early tests of poison gas and had nothing but glowing reports on the horrific new weapon: “The enemy won’t even know when an area has been sprayed with it and will remain quietly in place until the consequences occur.”

Bayer, which built a department specifically for the research and development of gas agents, went on to develop increasingly lethal chemical weapons, such as phosgene and mustard gas.

“This phosgene is the meanest weapon I know,” Duisberg remarked with a stunning disregard for life, as if he were speaking about the latest bug spray. “I strongly recommend that we not let the opportunity of this war pass without also testing gas grenades.”

Duisberg got his demonic wish. The opportunity to use the battlefield as a testing ground and soldiers as guinea pigs came in the spring of 1915 as Bayer supplied some 700 tons of chemical weapons to the war front.

On April 22, 1915, it has been estimated that around 170 tons of chlorine gas were used for the first time on a battlefield in Ypres, Belgium against French troops. Up to 1,000 soldiers perished in the attack, and many more thousands injured.

In total, an estimated 60,000 people died as a result of the chemical warfare started by Germany in the First World War and supplied by the Leverkusen-based company.

According to Axel Koehler-Schnura from the Coalition against BAYER Dangers:

“The name BAYER particularly stands for the development and production of poison gas. Nevertheless the company has not come to terms with its involvement in the atrocities of the First World War. BAYER has not even distanced itself from Carl Duisberg’s crimes.”

The criminal-like behavior has continued right up until modern times. Mike Papantonio, a US attorney and television presenter discussed one of the more heinous acts committed by this chemical company on Thomas Hartmann’s program, The Big Picture:

“They produced a clotting agent for hemophiliacs, in the 1980s, called Factor VIII. This blood-clotting agent was tainted with HIV, and then, after the government told them they couldn’t sell it here, they shipped it all over the world, infecting people all over the world. That’s just part of the Bayer story.”

Papantonio, citing Bayer’s 2014 annual report, said the company is facing 32 different liability lawsuits around the world. For the 2018 Bayer liability report, click here.

Before flushing your Bayer products down the toilet, you may want to put aside an aspirin or two because the story gets worse.

One of the direct consequences of the ‘Baysanto’ monster will be a major hike in prices for farmers, already suffering a direct hit to their livelihood from unsustainable prices.

“Farmers have already experienced a 300% price increase in recent years, on everything from seeds to fertilizer, all of which are controlled by Monsanto,” Papantonio told Hartmann.

“And every forecaster is predicting that these prices are going to climb even higher because of this merger.”

Yet it’s hard to imagine the situation getting any worse for the American farmer, who is now facing the highest suicide rate of any profession in the country. The suicide rate for Americans engaged in the field of farming, fishing and forestry is 84.5 per 100,000 people – more than five times that of the broader population.

This tragic trend echoes that of India, where about a decade ago millions of Indian farmers began switching from farming with traditional farming techniques to using Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds instead.

In the past, following a millennia-old tradition, farmers saved seeds from one harvest and replanted them the following year. Those days of wisely following the rhythms and patterns of the natural world are almost over.

Today, Monsanto GMO seeds are bred to contain ‘terminator technology’, with the resulting crops ‘programmed’ not to produce seeds of their own. In other words, the seed company is literally playing God with nature and our lives.

Thus, Indian farmers are forced to buy a new batch of seeds – together with Monsanto pesticide Round Up – each year and at a very prohibitive cost.

Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India has destroyed the lives of countless farmers. As a result, over 12,000 Indian farmers take their own lives every year.

But should the world have expected anything different from the very same company that was involved in the production of Agent Orange for military use during the Vietnam War (1961-1971)?

More than 4.8 million Vietnamese suffered adverse effects from the defoliant, which was sprayed over vast tracts of agricultural land during the war, destroying the fertility of the land and Vietnam’s food supply.

About 400,000 Vietnamese died as a result of the US military’s use of Agent Orange, while millions more suffered from hunger, crippling disabilities and birth defects.

This is the company that we have allowed, together with Bayer, to control about one-quarter of the world’s food supply. This begs the question: Who is more nuts? Bayer and Monsanto, or We the People?

It’s important to mention that the Bayer – Monsanto convergence is not occurring in a corporate vacuum. It is all part of a race on the part of the global agrochemical companies to stake off the world’s food supplies. ChemChina has bought out Switzerland’s Syngenta for $43 billion, for example, while Dow and DuPont have forged their own $130 billion empire.

However, none of those companies carry the same bloodstained reputations as Bayer and Monsanto, a match made in hell that threatens all life on earth.