Tag Archives: GMOs

Massie Asks A Reasonable Question, by Karl Denninger

If you eat food, you’ll probably share Karl Denninger’s opinion that Senator Thomas Massie’s question is reasonable. From Denninger at market-ticker.org:

Pertaining to GMOs and what we’ve learned about genetically engineering viruses.

Should the results of the genetically engineered virus give us concern about genetically modifying seeds/food?

The clear answer is yes, for the following reasons:

  • Everyone involved lied about the SARS-CoV2 origins.  Ecohealth got caught lying quite early on when DRASTIC was exposed; DARPA turned down their requested program to engineer and test modified coronaviruses in Chinese caves, and among the slams in that refusal was the fact that the population of the nation in question were effectively not being asked for their consent.  That Ecohealth arrogated to itself the right to test a genetically-modified organism on someone else’s soil without the informed consent of the people residing there was sufficient grounds to destroy the organization and jail every single person involved.  DARPA has no authority to do that, but our DOJ does and didn’t.  The deception did not stop there; Fauci claimed that NIH wasn’t actually funding said research when it was, and we now know he was lying.  He didn’t go to jail for that either, did he?  That the virus was clearly engineered was known very early on because it contained a patented sequence and, in addition, had another sequence in it that never occurs in nature.  The latter is routinely used by virus labs for this exact reason; if you put a virus through some process (e.g. through a cell line) and that sequence comes out the other end you know what you did worked because it can’t occur naturally.  That this was present in SARS-CoV2 was known within weeks of its alleged “arrival” in the US.

Continue reading

Everything That Dies Does Not Come Back, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

There are some major drawbacks to factory food. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:

There are a lot of industries in our world that wreak outsized amounts of havoc. Think the biggest global banks and oil companies. Think plastics. But there is one field that is much worse than all others: agro-chemicals. At some point, not that long ago, the largest chemical producers, who until then had kept themselves busy producing Agent Orange, nerve agents and chemicals used in concentration camp showers, got the idea to use their products in food production.

While they had started out with fertilizers etc., they figured making crops fully dependent on their chemicals would be much more lucrative. They bought themselves ever more seeds and started manipulating them. And convinced more and more farmers, or rather food agglomerates, that if there were ‘pests’ that threatened their yields, they should simply kill them, rather than use natural methods to control them.

And in monocultures that actually makes sense. It’s the monoculture itself that doesn’t. What works in nature is (bio)diversity. It’s the zenith of cynicism that the food we need to live is now produced by a culture of death. Because that is what Monsanto et al represent: Their solution to whatever problem farmers may face is to kill it with poison. But that will end up killing the entire ecosystem a farmer operates within, and depends on.

However, the Monsantos of the planet produce much more ‘research’ material than anybody else, and it all says that the demise of ecosystems into which their products are introduced, has nothing to do with these products. And by the time anyone can prove the opposite, it will be too late: the damage will have been done through cross-pollination. Monsanto can then sue anyone who has crops that show traces of its genetically altered proprietary seeds, even if the last thing a farmer wants is to include those traces.

To continue reading: Everything That Dies Does Not Come Back

The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector, by Colin Todhunter

Is a once proud scientific institution being undone by corporate money and influence? From Colin Todhunter at counterpunch.org:

The Royal Society in the UK is a self-governing fellowship of distinguished scientists. Its purpose is reflected in its founding charters of the 1660s: to recognise, promote and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity. Its motto, nullius in verba, is taken to mean ‘take nobody’s word for it’. It is an expression of the determination to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts based on experiment.

In 2015, Steven Druker challenged the Royal Society to justify its outspoken and partisan support of genetically modified (GM) crops and to correct any errors of fact in his book ‘Altered Genes,Twisted Truth’. Not long after the book’s release, he wrote an open letter to the Society calling on it to acknowledge and correct the misleading and exaggerated statements that is has used to actively promote genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and in effect convey false impressions.

Druker cited specific instances where members of the Royal Society have at various times made false statements and the Society’s actions were not objective or based on scientific reasoning but biased and stridently pro-GMO. He argued that the Royal Society has misrepresented the case for GMOs and has effectively engaged in a campaign of disinformation.

Almost three years later, from what we can gather, the Royal Society has not responded to Druker.

In August 2017, Druker wrote:

“For more than 20 years, many eminent scientists and scientific institutions have routinely claimed that genetically modified foods are safe. And because of the perceived authority of their pronouncements, most government officials and members of the media have believed them. But when the arguments these scientists employ to support their claims are subjected to scrutiny, it becomes clear that important facts have invariably been misrepresented — either deliberately or through substantial negligence. And when these facts are fairly considered, the arguments collapse.”

He goes on to discuss an inaccurate publication on GM foods issued by the Royal Society in May 2016, GMO Plants: Questions and Answers, which claims to provide “unbiased” and “reliable” answers to peoples’ most pressing questions.

To continue reading: The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector