When will it be ALL GONE?

[suspectnumber961]

READ IT ALL...


THE FORCES OF EVIL PREPARE TO STRIKE DOWN PROP 37



by Jon Rappoport

November 5, 2012

No More Fake News Jon Rappoport Investigative Reporter



You can go into a market and pick out organic vegetables and fruit. This isn't something you do through magic or secret divination with a special wand. There are labels that tell you the food is organic.

"Experts" claim organic food is no better or safer than food drenched with pesticides. But still, you can choose organic.

You have a right to know. And then, knowing, you have a right to make your choice.

You can go into a market, pick out a food product, and read a list of its ingredients as long as your arm. But you'll find no mention of whether someone shot insect genes into it.

For some reason, you have no right to know about that.

It's no accident. The powers-that-be want it that way.

On Tuesday, the voters of California will cast the die on Prop 37. Yes on 37 means GMO food will henceforth be labeled.

The idea behind 37 is simple. If you're eating food, you have a right to know what's in it and what's been done to it. Government scientists and corporate scientists can claim GMO food is "the same in all aspects" as non-GMO, but you still have a right to know.

Monsanto and it allies claim that you knowing is unfair, because you might be swayed, by your own prejudice, to leave that GMO food on the market shelf, when in fact there is no reason to leave it there.

They are telling you the companies who are selling you food are more important than your own judgment about what to put in your body.

You would be impeding commerce if you believe GMO food is bad for you, and in order to protect GMO companies and the economy, you must go into a market blind, to keep things "honest."

That's what they think of you: you're an idiot. You can't make reasonable judgments. Therefore, you need to be blind.

Let me draw an exact parallel. Let's suppose you were part of a group that was rallying for a particular political cause, and the government had planted an FBI agent in your midst.

Now, if exposed and questioned, this FBI plant would say, "I wasn't there to disrupt or influence the group in any way. I was merely trying to protect good Americans. I was there to observe, nothing more."

Would you nevertheless have the right to know he was there? Would you have the right to decide whether you wanted him there? Or are you too stupid to know that he should be there because America is in danger and we need people like him to spy on us without our knowing, to keep us safe?

It's the same situation. They tell you the genes planted in your food are neutral in every sense. They affect nothing. They're good genes and they do good work. But because you might not think so, because you're too stupid to know the truth, you have to be blind about what's in your food when you choose it and buy it and eat it.

That's the argument.



YES ON 37=you have a right to know.



NO ON 37=you need to be protected against your own stupidity.



According to this logic, the NO ON 37 people have a right, even a moral duty, to lie to you, to say whatever they need to, in order to move you in the direction of giving up your right to know. They should lie, they have to lie, since their "truth" wasn't doing the job.

And they have lied.

Press Statement

In other words, they're looking at you as if you were a leading suspect in a criminal case. The cops can put you in a room, they can falsely say they have a witness who saw you at the scene of the murder, who saw you dump the gun in a garbage can. They can falsely say they have you on video committing the murder. They can lie about all this non-existent evidence.

The Supreme Court has ruled this is legal in criminal cases. The cops can do this to get a confession from a suspect.

In the same way, the NO ON 37 people can tell you anything, can lie to you about anything, because it's assumed their cause is just.

Your inherent right to know is a threat to the established order. It must be taken away.

The government is trying to make the same argument about vaccines. They want to close down all possible exemptions that would allow you to refuse a vaccine for yourself or your child. Why? Because, they say, only a moron would refuse a vaccine. Therefore, the CDC can make all sorts of false statements about dire disease threats and pandemics that aren't pandemics, in order to scare you into taking a vaccine. It doesn't matter what they say, as long as it results in you getting the vaccine.

And since you're too stupid to realize the country is under constant threat from terrorists and, therefore, the government has to spy on you 24/7, they spy on you without a warrant. Secretly. Otherwise, you might object.

All these examples of preempting your right to know the truth are connected. They are the strategy of the corporate-government complex that runs America.

They claim to have a monopoly on truth. To impose the truth, they need to lie.

The massive push to defeat Prop 37 in California tomorrow is the latest illustration.

Cops need to lie, the FBI needs to lie, the CDC needs to lie, Homeland Security needs to lie, so NO ON 37 needs to lie.

Does it make you feel warm and safe?


...

[niky]

You know, that post would have Jonathan Salk spinning in his grave. Up until you got to the point where you claimed the CDC was lying in order to coerce people into taking vaccines, you had me considering to pass this over.

But then, forcing a reply is the plan, isn't it?

While I agree that no one has the right to force you to take vaccines, the near eradication of polio by the concerted efforts of the Rotary Club and various other organizations speaks volumes for their effectiveness.

I have quite a few colleagues who would be alive today if they'd "given in to the conspiracy" and taken their vaccines before going out into the jungle to cover a story.

[NeilBlanchard]

Why is the default policy to wait for proof of harm, instead of the proof of safety?

We are subjecting ourselves to 100's of different chemicals (like fire retardants and pesticides and genetically modified food) -- many of which are carcinogenic, or they are endocrine disruptors, and they certainly are not naturally occurring. We have lots of estrogen and synthetic estrogen in the environment -- and all vertebrates have the same estrogen. Most *male* small mouth bass *lay eggs*.

[niky]

Proof of safety is built into the years of blind clinical trials and and research that goes into every medicine that's put on the market. It' s heartbreaking everytime the next "miracle cure" for cancer or HIV ends up flayed to pieces on the floor after exhaustive trials prove them worthless or worse, dangerous.

Proof of safety is also built into regulations for pesticides and regular studies conducted reviewing such... spurred by the massive damage done by DDT back in the days.

Mind you, there IS a lot of junk out there we shouldn't be exposing ourselves to. And it's true that we don't know or understand all the dangers of the chemicals we use everyday... which is why there are dozens of studies carried out on each one.

But let's put this into perspective. We are surrounded by carcinogens. Tobacco is very obviously carcinogenic. The tannins in our tea is carcinogenic. Natural caramel food coloring is carcinogenic. A majority of our food crops possess natural pesticides which are carcinogenic, pesticides which they secrete and store to ward off pests in their multi-million year long battle with insects, mold and fungi. Cooked food may or may not be carcinogenic, based on how you cook it. That lovely char on barbecue? Almost as carcinogenic as smoking. Smoked meats are (obviously) carcinogenic, as is well-cooked but not burned beef. Yipes. Guess we have to go back to eating raw fish. Watch the mercury, though.

Got a chuckle when people start going bananas over high fructose corn syrup. Amazing how giving it a scientific sounding name makes it ripe for alarmism over the big "C" when all it really is is fructose and glucose. Stuff that you get naturally from fruit, already.

Disclaimer, I don't even touch the stuff. A low-sugar or no-sugar diet is definitely good for you. The sugar in my diet comes mostly from fruit... and you shouldn't over-indulge on fruit, either, as it carries the same dangers of obesity and diabetes as refined sugar if eaten in large amounts. Funny thing... most of us health nuts use honey as a sweetener instead, but honey is chemically identical to HFCS except for the added minerals and proteins.

The important difference is the immunological benefits from eating honey from local bees, the antibiotic properties* of honey and the minerals present in honey that you don't get from refined sugar or HFCS. But in terms of actual safety, there's little to no difference.

*one of our students actually did a study on gargling with honey as opposed to mouthwash. It would work, but you'd need to gargle a whole lot of it. Too much, actually. You need to extract the stuff from the beeswax, instead. At home, we use refined propolis wax for salves and ointments. Effective stuff.

The furore over all these cancer scares gets even weirder when you consider some of this stuff isn't even as carcinogenic as sawdust.

-

It's less a matter of waiting for proof of harm as it is assessing actual risk. Personally, I'm still on the fence about GM foods, but let's face it. Millions of years of evolution and random mutation, topped by millenia of cultivation, hybridization and breeding mean that our modern crops are as genetically modified as you can get without going straight in with the nano-tweezers and tape. Genetic Modification has the potential to restore lost vigor, disease resistance, hardiness and nutritional value that has been lost over the centuries due to farmers selectively growing for yield without considering the other nasty effects.

It also has the potential to introduce new carcinogens... like... for example, if they splice in genes that make the plants produce natural pesticides from non-cultivated plants.

But that's what testing and validation are for. Unfortunately, as with AGW, since the issue has become so politicized, more attention is given to the one-or-two hackjob studies that raise alarm bells than the dozens of studies that show no significant correlations whatsoever.

[suspectnumber961]

GMOs - Suspected culprit in devastating 'fiber disease'


Morgellons is primarily found in the United States -- mainly California, Texas and Florida. All three states just happen to be the predominant U.S. growers of genetically modified Bt cotton. Over 10,000 families who felt they had at least one family member with the disease registered with the Morgellons Research Foundation. 24 percent of registered families were clustered in the San Francisco Bay area.

Perplexing fiber disease - GMO driven?

Dr. Rima Laibow, medical director for the Natural Solutions Foundation, suspects Morgellons is caused by genetically modified organisms. After studying the skin fibers, it was discovered that they contain DNA of both fungus and bacterium used extensively in GMOs. The fibers consist of cellulose and cannot be made nor broken down by the human body. According to Laibow, "...GM technology apparently has, like Professor Frankenstein found, a way to animate the non-living. These fibers twist and twine, grow and divide. In short, living beneath the skin of people, they form parasitic lesions out of what should be non-living material but which, through the horror of genetic modification, has taken on the characteristics of a living thing."

A letter received by Laibow documented how GM 'bio-active textiles' may actually be the cause of Morgellons. A handful of university labs have created textiles with genetically manipulated e-coli bacteria, chemicals, nematodes and proteins infused into their structure. The technology was then sold to textile manufacturers for broad scale applications.

The fibers found in the fabric have striking similarities to the fibers found in the skin of individuals suffering from Morgellons. Both are composed of cellulose, have 'helical coil type tendencies' (a genetically manipulated trait), autofluoresce (also seen in genetic manipulation) and contain DNA of genetically modified bacteria.

.....

The concern about GMOs is that the genetic modifications end up being transferred to bacteria, etc inside the body. Thus eating BT corn would leave you with bacteria in your colon that might be producing BT toxins. As for the BT cotton...who the hey knows....how the "transfer" happens...or if it does.

These human biological experiments are probably going to end badly?

[niky]

Bacteria are already exposed to foods we eat that produce "natural" pesticides or toxins. If you've eaten any cassava, potato or apples and the bacteria in your gut purloined their DNA, you would be dead by now thanks to cyanide poisoning.

-

Being a sufferer of chronic itching, scratching and allergies when I was younger due to contact dermatitis (I would take several showers a night to relieve the condition... sometimes I still take an extra shower at night), the descriptions of the "disease" gave me a chuckle.

Sadly, we had no GMO corn within thousands of miles of my house when my symptoms started thirty years ago. Those *******s. They created a superfungus that can travel in time.

[suspectnumber961]

Prop 37 Loses, Scientists Cheer | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network

Be SURE and read the comments section.....

“The simple fact is that there is no evidence that GMOs, as a blanket group, are dangerous.”

100% false statement. There has been no HUMAN testing, but there are dozens that show tumor growth within 90 days in lab animals just from feeding them GMO corn. And there have been dozens showing GMO products causing liver and kidney failure. Thousand of sheep, buffalo, and goats died in India after feeding them GMO products. Soy allergies skyrocketed off the charts in the UK after the introduction of GMO soy. Animals born to GMO fed parents had a 70% mortality rate and were born 35% smaller.

The list goes on…quit spreading lies on a website that claims to be scientific

Originally Posted by niky

Bacteria are already exposed to foods we eat that produce "natural" pesticides or toxins. If you've eaten any cassava, potato or apples and the bacteria in your gut purloined their DNA, you would be dead by now thanks to cyanide poisoning.

-

Being a sufferer of chronic itching, scratching and allergies when I was younger due to contact dermatitis (I would take several showers a night to relieve the condition... sometimes I still take an extra shower at night), the descriptions of the "disease" gave me a chuckle.

Sadly, we had no GMO corn within thousands of miles of my house when my symptoms started thirty years ago. Those *******s. They created a superfungus that can travel in time.

[niky]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

quit spreading lies on a website that claims to be scientific

Spreading a message based on decades of rigorous research as opposed to fear-mongering based on pseudo-scientific "studies"? Do tell.

It is impossible to cover up anything nowadays. Not even the most powerful of companies are immune. Why do you think some of the richest companies in America shift production and sales of products overseas? Because there's no way they'd get them to pass US regulations, which are strict enough. Europe is a different thing. That's the place where scientists get convicted for not predicting earthquakes and headscarves are banned.

Want MY point of view? Well... here you go:

Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions? by Fred Pearce: Yale Environment 360

You can be for a position, but you can't ignore the evidence that goes against it. Which is why I'm not against GMOs, because the evidence against the anti-GMO position is pretty damn overwhelming.

We don’t have to be slaves to science. There is plenty of room for raising questions about ethics and priorities that challenge the world view of the average lab grunt. And we should blow the whistle on bad science. But to indulge in hysterical attacks on any new technology that does not excite our prejudices, or to accuse genuine researchers of being part of a global conspiracy, is dishonest and self-defeating.

[NeilBlanchard]

GMO are done so that companies like Monsanto can make big profits. We already have a number of "super weeds" that are now immune to Roundup, just like the GMO seeds, so what's the point? Why should we risk our health for such a short term gain? It is almost a guarantee that if we mess with things, it will do damage.

Getting that crap into the water system is definitely messing things up. Have you seen the amount of plastic and chemicals in the food chain? Blinky the fish is pretty much what we have already. I wouldn't eat seafood from the Gulf of Mexico if you paid me - the dead zone from the Mississippi is only part of it...

[niky]

Oh, I'm on board with being against toxic pesticides. Because, yes, they only work until they stop working (ain't evolution wonderful?). The problem is making blanket statements against all GMOs based merely on the fact that one company co-packages its pesticides with GMO strains specifically built to resist those pesticides is pretty presumptuous.

And it's pretty hilarious that the spin being put on the study was not: "MONSATO PESTICIDE CAUSES CANCER" but "FINALLY! PROOF THAT GMOs CAUSE CANCER".

There's a big difference there, don't you agree?