Jump to content
The Education Forum

DEPOPULATION - what elites want -


Recommended Posts

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jurriaan Maessen

http://www.infowars....ccines-exposed/

Saturday, June 9, 2012

-------------------------------------------------------

In the course of August and September 2010, I wrote several articles for Infowars on the Rockefeller Foundation’s admitted funding and developing of anti-fertility vaccines intended for “mass-scale distribution.” As the soft-kill depopulation agenda accelerates it seems all the more relevant to re-post these articles as one.

1- Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction

In its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:

“(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”

The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:

“We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two “modern” methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass scale.”

“A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined.”

Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial results, the report was adamant:

“The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several ways:

1- “Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology, embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;”

2- “Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;”

3- “Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means, established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control;”

4- “Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments of zoology, biology, and biochemistry.”

The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the RF?

“There are an estimated five million women among America’s poverty and near-poverty groups who need birth control service (…). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty, undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas.”

It wasn’t long before all the Foundation’s efforts began to have effect. In its annual report of 1988, The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation’s Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines:

“India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule.”

In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines, Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:

“The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…).”

In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.

Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essay Population control in the new world order:

“Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as ‘safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible’. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.”

The Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, quoted “a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:

“Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.”

Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:

“Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of user control and informed consent are further cause for concern.”

To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission.

2- Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction- which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”- another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”.

Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:

“basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade.”

In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

“The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):

“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”

Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:

“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; ( B) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and © in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.”

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”

Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, the time-line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extension, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol.”

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.

“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”

In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 1970s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.

3- On Top of Vaccines, Rockefeller Foundation Presents Anti-Fertility Substance Gossypol for “Widespread Use”

It seems there is no limit to the Rockefeller Foundation’s ambitions to introduce anti-fertility compounds into either existing “health-services”, such as vaccines, or- as appears to be the case now- average consumer-products.

The 1985 Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report underlined its ongoing dedication towards finding good use for the anti-fertility substance “gossypol”, or C30H30O8 – as the description reads.

Indeed, gossypol, a toxic polyphenol derived from the cotton plant, was identified early on in the Foundation’s research as an effective sterilant. The question was, how to implement or integrate the toxic substance into crops.

“Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and efficacy of gossypol.”

In the 1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the organization admits funding research into the use of fertility-reducing compounds in relation to food for “widespread use”:

“Male contraceptive studies are focused on gossypol, a natural substance extracted from the cotton plant, and identified by Chinese researchers as having an anti-fertility effect on men. Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive. The Foundation supported research on gossypol’s safety, reversibility and efficacy in seven different 1986 grants.”

In the RF’s 1988 annual report, gossypol as a contraceptive was also elaborated upon (page 22):

“Gossypol, a natural substance found in the cotton plant, continues to show promise as an oral contraceptive for men. Because it suppresses sperm production without affecting sex hormone levels, it is unique among the experimental approaches to fertility control in men. Foundation-funded scientists worldwide have assembled an aray of information about how gossypol works, and studies continue on a wide variety of its clinical applications. Dose reduction is being investigated to reduce health risks associated with the use of gossypol.”

The following year, according to the annual report, funds were allocated to several research institutions to see how this “dose reduction” could best be accomplished without interfering with the ant-fertility effects of gossypol.

(1988- $ 400,000, in addition to remaining funds from prior year appropriations) To support research on gossypol, its safety, reversibility, and efficacy as a contraceptive for use by men (…).”

Mention is made on money allocated to the University of Texas, “for a study of gossypol’s effects on DNA replication (…).”

The last mention of gossypol in the Foundation’s annals we find in the 1994 annual report, where funds were appropriated to the University of Innsbruck of Austria “for a study at the Institute of Physiology on the molecular action of gossypol at the cellular level.”

It seems that the funded scientists have indeed found a way of “lowering the dosage” of gossypol, circumventing the toxicity of the substance, so as to suppress or even eliminate these “undesirable side-effects”, which include: low blood potassium levels, fatigue, muscle weakness and even paralysis. If these effects could be eliminated without reducing the anti-fertility effects, the Foundation figured, it would be a highly effective and almost undetectable sterilant.

Although overtly, research into and development of gossypol as an anti-fertility compound was abandoned in the late 1990s, the cottonseed containing the substance was especially selected for mass distribution in the beginning of the current decade. Around 2006 a media-campaign was launched, saying the cottonseed could help defeat hunger and poverty.

In 2006, NatureNews reported that RNA interference (or RNAi) was the way to go. On the one hand it would “cut the gossypol content in cottonseeds by 98%, while leaving the chemical defenses of the rest of the plant intact.” Furthermore, the article quoted Dr. Deborah P. Delmer, the Rockefeller Foundation’s associate director of food security, who was quick to bury any concern:

“Deborah Delmer, associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City and an expert in agricultural food safety, points out that a benefit of using RNAi technology is that it turns off a gene process rather than switching on a novel function. “So instead of introducing a new foreign protein, you’re just shutting down one process,” Delmer says. “In that sense, I think that the safety concerns should be far less than other GM technologies.”

A 2006, National Geographic article Toxin-Free Cottonseed Engineered; Could Feed Millions Study Says, quotes the director of the Laboratory for Crop Transformation (Texas A&M Universtity), Keerti Singh Rathore as saying:

“A gossypol-free cottonseed would significantly contribute to human nutrition and health, particularly in developing countries, and help meet the requirements of the predicted 50 percent increase in the world population in the next 50 years.”

“Rathore’s study”, states the article, “represents the first substantiated case where gossypol was reduced via genetic engineering that targets the genes that make the toxin.”

I bring into recollection the statement made by the Rockefeller Foundation in its 1986 annual report, which reads:

“Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive.”

In the 1997 Foundational report, Rathore is mentioned (page 68). A postdoctoral fellowship-grant was given to a certain E. Chandrakanth “for advanced study in plant molecular biology under the direction of Keerti S. Rathore, Laboratory for Crop Transformation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.”

Compromising connections, in other words, for someone who claimed academic objectivity in regards to gossypol and its sterilizing effects. Rathore explained the workings of RNAi in a 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Cottonseed toxicity due to gossypol is a long-standing problem”, Rathore said, “and people have tried to fix it but haven’t been able to through traditional plant breeding. My area of research is plant transgenics, so I thought about using some molecular approaches to address this problem.”

Rathore also mentioned the desired main funder of his work without actually saying the name:

“we are trying to find some partners and will probably be looking at charitable foundations to help us out in terms of doing all kinds of testing that is required before a genetically engineered plant is approved for food or feed. We are in the very early stages and have a lot of ideas in mind, but we need to pursue those. Hopefully, we can find some sort of partnership that will allow us to do them.”

He also expressed the final adaptation of the cottonseed for widespread use is something of the long term:

“(…) right now there are many hurdles when you are dealing with a genetically modified plant. But I think in the next 15 or 20 years a lot of these regulations that we have to satisfy will be eliminated or reduced substantially.”

The Foundation, as is evident from the statements of Rockefeller’s own Deborah Delmer, is more than interested. Even worse, through the process of readying gossypol for mass-distribution in food, the fulfillment of their longstanding goal of sterilizing the populous into oblivion comes into view.

4- Rockefeller Foundation Conceptualized “Anti-Hormone” Vaccine in the 1920s and 30s, Reports Reveal

Rockefeller Foundation minion Max Mason, who acted as president in the mid-1930s, on multiple occasions expressed his master’s desire for an “anti-hormone” that would reduce fertility worldwide. Now keep in mind, this is more than 35 years before the Foundation actually mentioned funding “anti-fertility vaccines” in subsequent annual reports from 1969 onward.

Having traveled far beyond the realm of rumor and speculation, research into the admitted funding of anti-fertility vaccines has uncovered more and more sinister revelations along the way.

By the mid-1930s, Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation thought that “the ultimate solution of the problem [of birth control] may well lie in the studies of endocrinology, particularly antihormones.” The Foundation’s 1934 annual report states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has decided to concentrate its present effort in the natural sciences on the field of modern experimental biology, with special interest in such topics as endocrinology, nutrition, genetics, embryology, problems centering about the reproductive process, psychobiology, general and cellular physiology, biophysics, and biochemistry.”

“(…) research work is being conducted on the physiology of reproduction in the monkey. This work was begun at the Johns Hopkins University in 1921, and since 1923 has been continued at the University of Rochester. It involves observational and experimental studies of the reproductive cycle in certain species of the higher primates, in which this cycle closely resembles that of the human species. The effect of the various interrelated reproductive hormones is being studied.”

In the annual report of the previous year (1933), the Foundation stresses the fact that work on the reproductive hormones of primates serves to experiment on man in the future:

“(…) much work has been done in the formulation and solution of basic problems in the general biology and physiology of sex in organisms other than man. It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”

In the book Discipling Reproduction by Adele E. Clarke, the roots of Rockefeller-funded “anti-hormones” is being described in some detail, pointing out that the family’s ambitions to control man’s fertility date back even further than the 1930s. Clarke writes:

“On a cold morning in 1921, George Washington Corner, a physician and fledgling reproductive scientist, awoke in Baltimore to discover that it was snowing.”

“By 1929”, Clarke writes a bit further on, “Corner had mapped out the hormonal action of progesterone, an essential actor in the menstrual cycle and subsequently an actor in birth control pills.”

The 1935 Rockefeller Foundation annual report acknowledges funding Dr. Corner’s research:

“To the University of Rochester, for research on the physiology of reproduction under the direction of Dr. G. W. Corner during the threeyear period beginning July 1, 1935, and ending June 30, 1938, there has been appropriated the sum of $9,900. Dr. Corner’s activities are concentrated on a study of the oestrus cycle, using monkeys as the experimental animals. A colony of about thirty monkeys has been maintained, and experiments have furnished information on the normal histology of the reproductive cycle, the time of ovulation, the relation of ovulation to menstruation and other anatomically detectable correlations of the oestrus cycle. Work is continuing on two main lines: normal sex reproduction in the monkey, including the histology of ovary and uterus, and, secondly, the effects of the ovarian hormone.”

Again, never forget that the Foundation in 1933 stated outright that “It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”

Another essential problem which arises, of course, is how exactly the funding-mechanism worked by which Corner’s research could be made ready for mass-consumption. Clarke mentions that officially the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), was the institute responsible for the task of doing so. More specific: the Committee for Research in Problems of Sex (CRPS):

“The NRC itself was founded in 1916 as an agency to inventory research toward enhanced military preparedness.”

“The NRC”, states the author, “was a prestigious organization from its inception, thanks to its early association with the NAS, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Kohler (1991:109) has argued that the NRC essentially served as an intermediary between the foundations and scientists in the interwar years.(…). The NRC/CRPS itself was funded almost exclusively by Rockefeller monies, initially through the Bureau of Social Hygiene and, after 1931, through the Rockefeller Foundation.”

On the subject of so-called “current immunological contraceptive research”, Clarke channels Rockefeller-president Max Mason:

“Other lines of current immunological contraceptive research continue to seek what, during the 1930s, Max Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation called “anti-hormones”: vaccines to block hormones needed for very early pregnancy and a vaccine to block the hormone needed for the surface of the egg to function properly.”

In a February 1934 “progress report” written by Warren Weaver (director of the Natural Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation) once again underlined the endgame:

“Can man gain an intelligent control of his own power? Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men? Can we obtain enough knowledge of physiology and psychobiology of sex so that man can bring this pervasive, highly important, and dangerous aspect of life under rational control?”

The same Warren Weaver wrote a “biographical Memoir” in honor of his friend Max Mason, revealing some more interesting facts. Weaver, who describes himself as a great personal friend of Mason, gives a general description of him as Rockefeller-minion:

“He had by that time developed a consuming interest in behavioral research, and particularly in the possibility that the physical sciences, working with and through the biological sciences, could shed new and revealing light on the normal and abnormal behavior of individuals, and ultimately on the social behavior of groups of men.”

Here we have it. The blueprint for sterilizing vaccines has been first conceptualized way back in the 1920s and 1930s by social scientists of the Rockefeller Foundation. Although later the eugenic language (“anti-fertility vaccine”) was polished up with the help of some linguistic plastic surgery producing the term “immunological contraceptive”, the ultimate goal remains the same.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

/// RELATED

http://www.infowars....ne-action-plan/

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

Merck Teams With Gates Foundation to Further Worldwide Depopulation

Susanne Posel, Contributor 7/13/12

Activist Post

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/07/merck-teams-with-gates-foundation-to.html

At the London Summit on Family Planning (LSFP), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) pledged $560 million to their campaign to depopulate underdeveloped nations. World leaders, private-sector corporations, UN representatives and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) attended the LSFP.

Warren Buffet, friend and fellow Elitist, has agreed to hand over most of his wealth to charity; contributed stock valued at $1.52 billion in his annual gift to the BMGF.

Buffet asserted in a YouTube video in 2011:

"I urge people to unbutton their wallet, pull out a check, reach into their purse, whatever it takes. You will find that when you give a dollar and something of yourself, a lot more than a dollar comes out the other end."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical of what Gaal posts here, lots of hysterical claims, zero supporting evidence.

Edited by Evan Burton
Offensive term removed and replaced with the word "what"
Link to post
Share on other sites

If one would read the link ,one would find that said article has links within it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Landmark Summit Puts Women at Heart of Global Health Agenda

Global leaders unite to provide 120 million women in the world’s poorest countries with access to contraceptives by 2020.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Phone: +1 206 709 3400

Email: media@gatesfoundation.org DFID press office

Phone: +44 (0)207 023 0600

Email: fpmedia@dfid.gov.uk

London, July 11, 2012 –Voluntary family planning services will reach an additional 120 million women and girls in the world’s poorest countries by 2020 thanks to a new set of commitments announced today by more than 150 leaders from donor and developing countries, international agencies, civil society, foundations and the private sector.

The announcement was made at the London Summit on Family Planning, co-hosted by the UK Government’s Department for International Development and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This unprecedented effort showcased innovative partnerships and leadership at the country level, empowering women to reach their full potential. The Summit underscored the importance of access to contraceptives as both a right and a transformational health and development priority.

Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, said: “This is a breakthrough for the world's poorest girls and women which will transform lives, now and for generations to come. The commitments made at the Summit today will support the rights of women to determine freely, and for themselves, whether, when and how many children they have.”

“Enabling an additional 120 million women in the world’s poorest countries to access and use contraception, something women in the developed world take for granted, will save millions of lives and enable girls and women to determine their own futures.”

By 2020, the collective efforts announced today will result in 200,000 fewer women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, more than 110 million fewer unintended pregnancies, over 50 million fewer abortions, and nearly three million fewer babies dying in their first year of life.

Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said: “When I travel and talk to women around the world they tell me that access to contraceptives can often be the difference between life and death. Today is about listening to their voices, about meeting their aspirations, and giving them the power to create a better life for themselves and their families.”

The Summit has raised the resources to deliver contraceptives to an additional 120 million women which is estimated to cost $4.3 billion. More than 20 developing countries made bold commitments to address the policy, financing and delivery barriers to women accessing contraceptive information, services and supplies. Donors made new financial commitments to support these plans amounting to $2.6 billion – exceeding the Summit’s financial goal.

Access to safe, effective methods of contraception is considered one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Studies show that every US $1 invested in family planning services yields up to $6 in savings on health, housing, water, and other public services.

Contraceptive use also leads to more education and greater opportunities for girls, helping to end the cycle of poverty for them and their families. Up to a quarter of girls in Sub-Saharan Africa drop out of school due to unintended pregnancies, stifling their potential to improve their lives and their children’s lives.

The Summit galvanized the global community to create transformational change, calling for innovative solutions and robust public-private partnerships that put women at the heart of the equation. Commitments announced today will give women more options, easier access, and improved health care.

The Summit supports and builds on the momentum created by the UN Secretary General’s Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health (GSWCH), “Every Woman, Every Child,” and innovative public-private and civil society partnerships developed through the Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition. The Summit also aligns with the broader framework established by the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) almost 20 years ago.

#########################

The GSWCH, working with the World Health Organization (WHO) is a global plan to bring vaccines, international interventions and financing to the UN for the purpose of:

Controlling access to healthcare in under-developed nations

Use pre-determined drug corporations to treat third world nations so that they are no longer allowed to freely procreate

Monitor and evaluate the progress of depopulation in these areas

#########################

Melinda Gates Uses Contraception to Mask Depopulation Agenda

Susanne Posel May 11th, 2012 0 Comment

Susanne Posel

Occupy Corporatism

May 11, 2012

http://occupycorporatism.com/melinda-gates-uses-contraception-to-mask-depopulation-agenda/

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was created over a decade ago. They have been responsible for vaccine programs across the globe.

The Gates Foundation is focusing on controlling population in poor countries with drugs like Depo-Provera. By pouring funding into the supply chains and relationships with the pharmaceutical corporations, they plan on bringing this drug to the developing world.

Melinda Gates has made this issue her personal mission. Gates announced her new emphasis on contraception in a staff meeting to a room full of applause.

The Gates Foundation is teaming up with the British government in raising $4 billion to fund their birth control agenda worldwide by 2020.

Melinda Gates would like to see her agenda turned into a global movement. “When I started to realize that that needed to get done in family planning, I finally said, OK, I’m the person that’s going to do that,” she says.

By calling her mission “family-planning programs” Gates hopes to shift the focus of their agenda from their plan to secure a coercive population control strategy.

Gates justification for her invasive presence in the lives of women and children in poor countries is that 100,000 women die in child birth from unintended pregnancies.

The global family planning issue is been carted as a national security issue. Gates is purveying the rising birth rates in poor countries as an international over population situation. They are using a fear-mongering assertion that population instability leads to vulnerability to communist revolution.

In the 1960’s Dwight Eisenhower, who has an honorary member of Planned Parenthood, called for foreign aid for birth control to curb population growth.

In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson implored the United Nations to “face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying populations … Let us act on the fact that less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic growth.”

The United Nations created the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to use population control as a resolution toward facilitating peace, prosperity, and individual rights worldwide.

Melinda Gates hopes to continue the empirical authority in forcing countries to adhere to ideologies and change the general public’s perspective about population control by calling it “women’s rights” issues. “There is no controversy in raising your voice for equal access,” Gates said at a TEDxChange talk.

“If [Gates] wants to put money into it, that’s fine, but she doesn’t get to say no one gets to argue with me,” says Susan Yoshihara, director of research at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Yoshihara feels that Gates attempt to equate family planning programs to women’s rights issues is painting an inaccurate picture. “You don’t tell a woman dying of an ectopic pregnancy that she should have used a female condom. To say that we’re going to help women not die in childbirth by telling them that they shouldn’t get pregnant in the first place, I think, borders on scandalous.”

The Gates Foundation is currently funding research for the development of new forms of contraceptives with the intention of purveying them across the underdeveloped countries where their oversight is not closely regulated. The Gates Foundation wants to investigate the use of a contraceptive that does not utilize hormones, calling it a potentially “whole new class” of drugs.

They are also envisioning an implantable device that can completely override a woman’s natural ability to conceive. Gates believes that this type of birth control would greatly benefit the world’s populations.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

If one would read the link ,one would find that said article has links within it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes there were a few links but none of them substantiated the controversial claims. This is a typical tactic of crankpots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Human Population Reaching Plague Proportions.

Population Reduction

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh, leader of The World Wildlife Fund" and father of Prince Charles)

"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." -Paul Watson (founder of Greenpeace).

"The world has cancer, and that cancer is man." -Merton Lambert, (former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation).

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." - Carl Amery (German Greens).

"The human race could go extinct, and I for one, would not shed any tears." - Dave Foreman (founder of Earth First!).

"A Total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." -Ted Turner (media mogul and United Nations advocate).

"The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? ...some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan - the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size." -Paul Ehrlich (population control advocate, author of The Population Bomb).

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. ...All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower (first executive director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute).

"One American burdens the Earth much more than twenty Bangladeshis.... In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day." - Jacques Cousteau, quoted in the UNESCO Courier of November 1991.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically you dodge one sent of unsubstantiated claims with another. Can you provide citations to reliable sources that these people actually said these things and allow us to see them in context. Even IF they did make these statements and they are not out of context saying something and actually taking action to make it come true are quite different things. And are we to believe that Greenpeace and Cousteau were (are) in cahoots with the NWO to propagate worldwide genocide?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eugenics Quotes: Population Control And Reduction In Their Own Words.

One-fourth is destructive... defective... [who] must be eliminated from the social body.... Fortunately, you... are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection process for Death... We come to bring death... The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity... In the past they were permitted to die a 'natural death... We are in charge of God�s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God... The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity"

- Task Force Delta psychologist Barbara Marx Hubbard, supported by Rockefeller Fund (nominated for Vice-President at the 1984 Democrat National Convention)

"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

- The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America�s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz

"Many ecologists (myself included) would just as soon see huge areas of land kept off limits to human activities of any kind."

- Noss, R. 1995. Maintaining Ecological Integrity in Representative Reserve Networks. World Wildlife Fund Canada Discussion Paper. p. 12.)

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

- David Rockefeller Banker, Honorary director of Council on Foreign Relations, honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group & founder of Trilateral Commission. Member of Bohemian Club

"Eugenics is the study of the agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally."

- Francis Galton, first cousin and associate of Charles Darwin, circa 1883

"the most important, significant... genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics."

- John Maynard Keynes. Eugenics Review. 1946

"Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine."

- Eric Pianka

"[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,"

- Eric Pianka

"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Philosopher

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

- Margaret Sanger

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."

- Margaret Sanger

"Eugenics is... the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."

- Margaret Sanger

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many"

- Sir James Lovelock

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it�s full complement of species, returning throughout the world."

- Dave Foreman

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to itizens chosen for childbearing."

- David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

"I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding"

- Theodore Roosevelt

"Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races."

- Calvin Coolidge

"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes," --Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.--Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes - writing the majority opinion in Buck v. Bell - stated: "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind"

- 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court heard an appeal of Virginia's decision in Buck v. Bell ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, language that closely mirrored that of Hitler's Mein Kampf

"I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

- Adolf Hitler

"While we were pussyfooting around...the Germans were calling a spade a spade."

- Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, declared of Nazism

(referring to sterilizations) "The Germans are beating us at our own game."

- Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia's Western State Hospital, 1934

"From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." "Applied Eugenics" also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."

- In 1918, Dr. Paul Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, "Applied Eugenics"

"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague."

- Thomas Malthus

"Englishmen Francis Galton to describe the "science" of bettering human stock and the elimination of unwanted characteristics... and individuals. Galton proposed societal intervention for the furtherance of "racial quality," maintaining that "Jews are specialized for a parasitical existence upon other nations" and that "except by sterilization I cannot yet see any way of checking the produce of the unfit who are allowed their liberty and are below the reach of moral control."

- Francis Galton

"The Aids epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population... If [it] didn�t exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it]."

- Dave Foreman, the founder of the die hard extreme environmental group EARTH FIRST!

"Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined... and that the public mind is informed... so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable"

- UNESCO ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY by the founding Director-General of UNESCO Sir Julian Huxley. This is from the original founding document of the UNESCO, THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION, 1946

"Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion"

- "Eugenics and Society" (The Galton Lecture given to the Eugenics Society), by Julian Huxley

"You can kill the body but not the spirit."

Robert Stevenson

Francis Crick, who together with James Watson is credited with the groundbreaking discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA, declared at a conference shortly after receiving the Nobel Prize that the "reproductive autonomy" of human beings could not be tolerated in the future. Among other things, Crick suggested the idea of adding a chemical to public water supplies, that would make men and women sterile; only those who qualified for a "license" to produce children, would be given an antidote drug!

"we have to take away from humans in the long run their reproductive autonomy as the only way to guarantee the advancement of mankind."

- Francis Crick

Alexander Graham Bell advocated passing laws (with success in some states) for compulsory sterilization of people deemed to be, as Bell called them, a "defective variety of the human race."

The Rockefellers funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, when eugenicists were preparing the way ideologically for what eventually became the world's most infamous slaughter, the Nazi holocaust. The Rockefeller Institute supported Alexis Carrel, who advocated the use of gas to get rid of the unwanted. Keep turning over rocks and you�ll keep finding eugenicists� slime trails.

"If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."

- Bertrand Russell, "The Scientific Outlook", 1931

"The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size."

- Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."

- Joseph Stalin

"We are entering a new phase in human history - one in which fewer and fewer workers will be needed to produce the goods and services for the global population."

- Jeremy Rifkin

=======================================================================

=======================================================================

Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

http://www.infowars.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalit

arian-population-control-measures/

The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

(( SEE LINK ))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven is correct- the elite do appear to want to eliminate the "wrong" kind of stock. This is such a consistent, prevalent theme over the past more than 100 years that it is undeniable. Eugenics logically came from Darwinism; the idea that the "fittest" should survive. Prince Philip's comment, Bill Gates' comments, and many others, were not flippant anomalies. While these same people seem "liberal" to the naked eye, they are more snobbish in their thinking than any "racist" you care to choose.

Margaret Sanger not only said the things Steven quoted, she also wrote in a letter that has been widely disseminated that it must not be publicized that "we" want to exterminate the "negro" race. She was also photographed at KKK rallies. Despite this, she's a liberal icon today. Go figure. The whole "population control" thing is tied directly to the eugenics philosophy, which holds that "inferior" genes should not produce.

I delve into this subject in some depth in the book I hope to complete soon, which will be a compilation of conspiratorial activity since November 22, 1963.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK they’re in an anonymously produced YT clip that uses a cheesy speech synthesizer instead of a narrator and doesn’t provide any documentation, now I’m satisfied all those people really said those things. Many are so abbreviated as to suggest they were deceptively edited, others were not if favor of genocide or eugenics (Rockefeller, Russell {both}, Stevenson, Noss, PNAC etc.) others were from people who pretty obvious aren’t or weren’t part of the supposed NWO or whomever imagines is behind this: Stalin the founders of Earth First and Greenpeace etc. many were from those long, long dead so we have no indication their comments reflect current thinking.

Also as I said in my previous post: “Even IF they did make these statements and they are not out of context saying something and actually taking action to make it come true are quite different things. And are we to believe that Greenpeace and Cousteau were (are) in cahoots with the NWO to propagate worldwide genocide?”

Bizarre that Gaal and others wish to equate voluntary birth control programs in impoverished countries with genocide one must assume that either they haven’t witnessed the misery and squalor of the poor in such places or they are callous to their suffering. They should see how desperately poor families with many kids in the slums and countryside in 3rd world countries live before they equate Gates with Hitler because she wants to provide condoms and birth control medication etc.

DON,

Are you really following this? Gaal never quoted BILL Gates. Also it sounds like you don’t believe in evolution, or did I misunderstand you?

EDIT - Formatting

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what one thinks of evolution, there was a logical progression from "survival of the fittest" to eugenicist thought. The elite that Steven quoted (and many more he didn't quote) clearly and unequivocally desire to rid the world of the people they clearly consider to be of "inferior" stock. In my view, this is why they concentrate so much on "controlling" the population in Third World countries. Certainly a lot of well intending persons do simply want to teach birth control to those who may not be educated about it, but I think this whole issue has been twisted in order to achieve the primary goal of the eugenicists; which is a dramatic reduction in the earth's population.

The mass sterilizations that took place historically in America were tied to eugenicist thought. The notion that someone shouldn't breed who isn't "fit" to do so is tied directly to eugenicist philosophy. Perhaps they're just super responsible, and care so much about the poor that they want fewer of them. I think eugenicist quotes are blood curdling, regardless of their context.

My research into this area has disillusioned me even further. For instance, I've always admired George Bernard Shaw and, to a lesser extent, Bertrand Russell. I found hideous eugenicist statements from both of them freely accessible in the public record.

I think it's very hard to support a group that appears to openly desire plagues and other global catastrophes. It sounds innocuous to be concerned about "over population." However, it's when you examine the details, the "how" of reducing the population, that you begin to shudder. However you look at it, eugenicists want to eliminate large numbers of human beings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"there was a logical progression from "survival of the fittest" to eugenicist thought

No this was a distortion, Darwin himself never promoted such ideas nor seemingly do the vast majority biologists. There is a huge difference between pushing eugenics and providing birth control to the poor the former is imposed forcibly or through deception the latter is consensual. have you ever been to a 3rd World country? If so did see how the poor lived? In Brazil poor families with 5 - 10 kids are common and case 20 or more are not unheard of. Thhis creates huge burdens for both the families and society as a whole..

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.responsib...org/gmo-dangers

GMO Dangers

Genetically modified foods…

Are they safe? ((linked at site above))

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.

Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

Since then, findings include:

•Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants

•Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies

•More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller

•Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly

•By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies

•Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity

•Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen

•Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced

•The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.

•Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us. This could mean:

•If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics

•If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

Although no studies have evaluated if antibiotic or Bt-toxin genes transfer, that is one of the key problems. The safety assessments are too superficial to even identify most of the potential dangers from GMOs. See our Health Risks brochure and State of the Science report for more details and citations.

Recent health studies provide growing evidence of harm from GMOs:

((ALL BELOW IN RED LINKED see top post link))

GM Corn Damages Liver and Kidneys

Meat Raised on GM Feed is Different

Roundup Could Cause Birth Defects

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility

Damaging Effects of Roundup

GM Crops Do Not Increase Yields

GMOs Inevitably Contaminate and Persist

Industry Studies are Flawed

####################################################

Banned in Germany, But You're Probably Still Eating It

1/31/12

http://articles.merc...ny-of-2011.aspx ((this website has videos and much more material))

Monsanto, the world leader in genetically modified (GM) crops and seeds, has been named the worst company of 2011 by Natural Society -- for "threatening both human health and the environment."

I couldn't agree more. I have long designated Monsanto the most dangerous corporation on the planet, and clearly this is a growing sentiment …

According to Forbes:

"Monsanto is so despised by environmentalists that Google's first suggested search term for the St. Louis company is 'Monsanto evil.'

Readers... voted Monsanto the world's most evil corporation in a January poll, giving the corporation a whopping 51 percent of the vote."

What's Wrong With Monsanto?

You may be wondering what Monsanto -- the world's largest seed company whose net income for the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 totaled $126 million (up from $9 million in 2011) --- has done to have earned such ire.

The list is long, easily enough for a novel, but to sum it up, biotech giant Monsanto has created some of the most dangerous products on the planet, including Agent Orange, dioxin, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)… and genetically modified seeds.

The latter is one of the most pressing concerns because GM crops are now a mainstay of American agriculture.

Ninety percent or more of all US-grown corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets are genetically modified versions, which means that virtually all processed food items contain at least one or more genetically modified ingredients.

GM foods are, from what I perceive, one of the most significant threats that we have against the very sustainability of the human race. Why? In a nutshell, these toxins are being linked to a growing repertoire of assaults against human health and the environment -- and they are already migrating into fetal blood, which means future generations are now at risk.

Monsanto is Destroying the Food System Via Their GMO Crops

Virtually all of the claims of benefit of GM crops – increased yields, more food production, controlled pests and weeds, reductions in chemical use in agriculture, drought-tolerant seeds – have not materialized.

The Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs states:

•Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop.

•Herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops were supposed to control weeds and Bt crops were intended to control pests. Instead of controlling weeds and pests, GE crops have led to the emergence of super weeds and super pests … Herbicide resistant crops such as Roundup Ready cotton can create the risk of herbicide resistant "superweeds" by transferring the herbicide resistance to weeds.

•Despite claims that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will lower the levels of chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) used, quite the opposite has occurred, with 1.6 billion pounds of glyphosate (the active in ingredient in Roundup) being applied to American soil in 2007 alone. This is of great concern both because of the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and humans, and because there is the danger that increased chemical use will cause pests and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them.

•Monsanto has been claiming that through genetic engineering it can breed crops for drought tolerance and other climate-resilient traits. This is a false promise.

•Among the false claims made by Monsanto and the Biotechnology industry is that GE foods are safe. However, there are enough independent studies to show that GE foods can cause severe health damage.

Thanks to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's non-selective, broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, that is sprayed on massive acreages of GM Roundup Ready soybeans, cotton, and corn grown in the United States each and every year, super weeds are growing at an alarming rate. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant, and the superweeds are showing no signs of stopping. In fact, the situation is getting progressively worse.

Extremely hardy Roundup-resistant weeds are already boosting costs and cutting crop yields for U.S. farmers. And with world food stores already strained, diminished crop production is a serious problem. In addition, the creation of these superweeds is leading farmers to douse their fields with ever increasing amounts of herbicides in a desperate attempt to stop their spread.

Along with the environmental devastation, research published in 2010 showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications. And numerous animal studies suggest reproductive problems are a common side effect of glyphosate exposure and the consumption of genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops.

Quite shockingly, the amount of glyphosate residue you can be exposed to through food is remarkably high, and is very close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) legally allowed According to GMO expert Jeffrey Smith, there is so much glyphosate in GM soybeans, when they were introduced, Europe had to increase their allowable residue levels by 200-fold! For more information, please listen to this informative interview with Dr. Don Huber, an expert in an area of science that relates to the toxicity of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

#################################################

Eugenics and Depopulation

Sunday, January 22, 2012

How Long Will People Take To Realise GM Foods Sterilise ??

http://the-tap.blogs...realise-gm.html

I read in the book called 'Seeds Of Destruction' by William Engdahl about the development of spermicidal corn by technologies of genetic modification. The company that 'achieved' this great feat of science was bought out, and there was no further mention of it anywhere in the media. In fact the lack of any mention of GM food anywhere would be sufficient to convince most people the threat had gone away.

This clip shows that there are other forms of sterilisation being caused by corn crops, where female animals are rendered sterile. All the experiments carried out feeding GM foods to mice and rats indicated that GM foods were likely to cause sterility and cancers, but the test results were suppressed. A British scientist (Dr Arpad Pusztai) who insisted on exposing what he had discovered, lost his job the same day, with Prime Minister Blair personally involved in his sacking.

There appears to be a worldwide cover-up of the dangers of GM foods. They are hardly ever mentioned in any media. This farmer experienced them first hand, and lost his business as a result. How long will it be before it is realised that GM foods are contributing to sterility in humans?

=============((GEE maybe Dr. Pusztai had WMDs ??))=================================================

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Farmer feeds GMO corn to his pigs: they all become sterile.

######################################

So in October, when Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, flew in for a series of teachings on genetically modified organisms, Marlene’s was there.

His first address, at Marlene’s-Federal Way, stunned the crowd of 150+ with a troubling survey of research linking GMOs to lowered sperm count, an aggravated intestinal issues and the very real possibility of altered human DNA through their proliferation in our food supply. Just as shocking was what Smith had to say about the quiet war being waged on scientists who speak out against GMOs.

Marlenesmarket-deli.com

#######################################

Many GMO crops increase the ability of the plant to survive increased pesticide usage. ((Gaal))

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.Pesticides: Be glad that DDT has been banned. It contains an estrogen mimicker. However, there are many others in use today on food crops. They are among the greatest offenders of male reproductive health. To mitigate against your testicular cancer risk, eat only organic

veggies and fruits.

HEALTH FREEDOM ALLINCE

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/22/jeffrey-smith-interview-april-24.aspx

Genetically Modified Foods Could Cause Long-term Sterilityarticles.mercola.com/sites/.../jeffrey-smith-interview-april-24.aspxCached - Similar

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

May 22, 2010 – So these second-generation GM soy-fed hamsters had a five-fold higher infant ... Nearly All of the Third-Generation GMO Babies Were Sterile!

################################# thus

So Human Sterility may not show up until 40 years from now........

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the theory now Gaal? That GM foods are part of the vast global conspiracy to wipe out undesirable populations? I have some reservations about frankenfood as well but see if you can post links to peer-reviewed papers from respected journals backing the claims made above. One of the chief proponent of the claims from your posts is "Dr." Mercola who neither an MD nor a PhD but rather an osteopath who makes his living peddling alternative health products on the same site where he push his alternative theories. He backs many ideas that ring of crackpottery such as the notion that HIV does NOT cause AIDS and other theories rejected by virtually every scientist who has studied them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...