Steven Gaal Posted November 13, 2014 Author Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) We give lots of vaccines below 2 yrs of age kids. Japan almost ZERO under age two.....Evan is Japan stupid ??...or BIG PHARMA can trick a lot of people... STEVE GAAL SAID CDC documents influenza outbreak among population that was 99% vaccinated with flu shots NaturalNews) If flu shots are really as effective as the U.S. government claims they are, then why did nearly a quarter of the Navy crewmen aboard the U.S.S. Ardent earlier this year contract the flu, even though 99 percent of them had been previously vaccinated with flu shots? When u dont have facts u Burton Japan versus USA infant vaccination policies: less is better. www.vaclib.org/basic/japanusa.htm Jun 21, 2000 ... The 2002 vaccination scehdule is below. Two 'immunization schedules' follow,the 1st is from Japan and the second is ... You will note that Japan recommends,in the first year of life: ... [Japan and Britian both proved that less vaccination ofinfants results in lower overall mortality figures in that age group.]. Japan suspends two vaccines after infant deaths (Update) - Phys.org phys.org/news/2011-03-japan-baby-vaccines-deaths.html Mar 7, 2011 ... The infants, aged from around six months to under two years old, died over athree-day period this month after receiving the vaccinations or in ... What Others Do? - Life Health Choices www.lifehealthchoices.com/the-center/.../vaccines/what-others-do In Japan, after two babies died of the vaccine in 1975, the Japanese ... Japanesebabies only receive 14 vaccines by two years of age compared with ... Theydramatically outperform us in infant mortality, under five mortality and longevity. [PDF] ... Excessive Vaccine Doses Cause High Infant Mortality Rates - Mercola articles.mercola.com/sites/.../right-vaccine-dosage-for-babies.aspx Nov 3, 2011 ... However, also be aware that vaccine exemptions are under attack in every ..... In1991, my beautiful, healthy 3 1/2 year old son began having ...######################################################))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) http://everythingbirthblog.com/2011/05/delayed-vaccination-schedule-fact-sheet/ Delayed Vaccination Schedule Fact Sheet Given that: By the time our children are one year old, the CDC recommends 26 vaccine doses be administered to them, The United States vaccination schedule means that babies in the United States get more vaccine doses than any other babies in the entire world,[1] Babies in the United States also have an infant mortality rate that ranks 34th in the world, Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country on the planet, [2] 33 nations have better infant mortality rates than we do, I am choosing delayed vaccinations for my child. I am aware that there are many contributing factor that go into Infant Mortality Rates such as: Economic Factors Environmental Factors Diet Nutrition I understand that the Givens in this proof indicate no directly proportional evidence that vaccinating infants under two years of age is unsafe. However, when those same countries lessened their infant vaccination schedules and requirements, they saw their infant mortality rates change rapidly and directly. For example: In 1975, Japan eliminated all vaccines for children under two and that when that happened; their infant mortality rate plummeted so that it was the lowest in the world. In 1995, Japan started allowing infant vaccines, though on a very limited scale. Japan, with their very non-aggressive early vaccination schedule fell behind from the lowest mortality rate in the world to a still impressive 3rd place for awesomeness in the babies-living department. I find the following chart difficult to allow me any other choice but to delay vaccinations for my child: Furthermore… RE: SIDS and the Introduction of Recommended Infant Vaccines In the United States in the 1960s, campaigns urging national vaccination programs to be implemented for our infants were initiated. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of the vaccinations DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella. While “crib death” has always existed, it was always so infrequent; it wasn’t even listed on infant mortality rates because it was that rare. In 1969, however, just a few years after the implementation of wide spread vaccinations of our nation’s newborns, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome. [3] I understand that: The CDC states that vaccines are not attributed to cases of SIDS. Their evidence offered is that the back to sleep campaign has significantly reduced the numbers of SIDS cases. From 1992 to 2001, the SIDS rate did drop by an average annual rate of 8.6% during the implementation of the “Back to Sleep” campaign. However, during that same time period, other causes of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) increased. And so, I believe that the re-categorizing of infant causes of deaths has different results. For example: During this same period, the postneonatal mortality rate from suffocation in bed from 1992 to 2001 actually increased at an average annual rate of 11.2%. The postneonatal mortality rate in the categories of suffocation other, unknown and unspecified causes and due to intent unknown all increased during this period. Even with the “Back to Sleep” campaign, our babies’ rates of dying from inconclusive causes did not lessen as the CDC portrays.[4] I would like to reopen the vaccination discussion when my child has reached the age of two because while I know the CDC says that we have to vaccinate as infants because infants are more susceptible to these horrible diseases, when taking into account the Infant Mortality Rates among different countries, deaths due to all of these diseases still counted as an infant mortality. It is my understanding that the Infant Mortality Rates are just what they are, the rates of death, not the causes of death. And the very simple fact is that we have alarmingly unacceptable Infant Mortality Rates compared to other industrialized, modern nations. I have prepared a vaccination exemption form to be included in my child’s medical file. I would like a copy of this document entered into my child’s medical file as well. [1] CIA. Country comparison: infant mortality rate (2009). The World Factbook. www.cia.gov (accessed 13 April 2010) [2] Anderson GF, Hussay PS, Frogner BK, and Waters HR. Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world. Health Affairs 2005; 24: 903–91 [3] MacDorman MF and Rosenberg HM. Trends in infant mortality by cause of death and other characteristics, 1960-88 (vital and health statistics), Volume 20. Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Government Printing, 1993 [4] Malloy MH and MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths: United States, 1992-2001. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1247–1253 ############### ############### CDC: Flu vaccine only provided 9 percent protection for seniors ... www.cbsnews.com/.../cdc-flu-vaccine-only-provided-9-percent-protection-for-seniors-against-worst-strain/ Feb 21, 2013 ... A new government report on the effectiveness of this year's flu vaccine findsdramatic discrepancies in the amount of protection Americans ... Flu vaccine barely worked in people 65 and older - USA Today www.usatoday.com/story/news/.../flu-vaccine...work.../1934651/ Feb 21, 2013 ... This season's flu vaccine was almost completely ineffective in people ... Thevaccine was 67% effective against influenza B in adults over 65 but only 9% ...live and work around people 65 and older need to get vaccinated to .. ################ ))))))))))))))))))))))))) What the Gardasil Vaccine Did to Me: Pacemaker at Age 21 healthimpactnews.com/.../what-the-gardasil-vaccine-did-to-me-pacemaker-at-age-21/ Nov 5, 2014 ... When I was 20 years old, I was working as a certified pharmacy technician. I wasvery healthy, athletic and active. I looked forward to my future. The Gardasil Vaccine Gave Her A Pacemaker - Wellness Bite www.wellnessbite.com/the-gardasil-vaccine-gave-her-a-pacemaker/ 1 day ago ... The Gardasil vaccine is one of the most horrible, damaging vaccines everinvented. There are too many numerous stories from victims that ... What the Gardasil Vaccine Did to Me: Pacemaker at Age 21 www.therealtruthabouthealth.com/.../1262945-What%20the%20Gardasil%20Vaccine%20Did%20to%20Me-... I still have a pacemaker implanted. If you are considering Gardasil, or any otherHPV vaccine, please do some research before you decide, I wish I would have. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ skeptics are dangerous people, dangerous !! Edited November 13, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 15, 2014 Author Share Posted November 15, 2014 Is Kenya's tetanus vaccine a secret sterilization campaign? World Magazine - 1 day ago NAIROBI, Kenya—The Catholic Church in Kenya is up in arms about a government campaign to vaccinate women against tetanus, saying it ... 'A mass sterilization exercise': Kenyan doctors find anti-fertility agent ... LifesiteWHO-UNICEF Tetanus Vaccination Campaign: A “Well-Coordinated ... Center for Research on GlobalizationMass Sterilization Campaign: UN Laces Tetanus Vaccine With Drug ... LifeNews.comWashington Times - Talk Radio News Service Doctors: UN Vaccines in Kenya Used to Sterilize Women The New American - 2 days ago In a statement released last week by the Kenya Catholic Doctors ... “The unfortunate truth is that the vaccine was laced with [sterilizing agent ... Kenyan gvmt launches probe into claim UN is using vaccines for ... Lifesite - 2 hours ago Kenyan gvmt launches probe into claim UN is using vaccines for ... a documented involvement in developing a sterilization vaccine using the ... Is the WHO Using Vaccines to Secretly Sterilize Women All Over the ... Center for Research on Globalization - 1 day ago ... vaccines” laced with sterilizing agents to girls and women in Kenya. ... According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic ... “Depopulation Vaccine” in Kenya and Beyond Center for Research on Globalization - 2 days ago And not just a vaccine against the “killer germ” of the moment. ... Mass Sterilization: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-Fertility Agent in UN Tetanus ... Kenyan government promises probe into vaccination campaign that ... Catholic Culture - 1 day ago Kenyan government promises probe into vaccination campaign that included sterilization ... Catholic health-care workers found that the vaccine used to inoculate young women against tetanus also included a hormone that ... Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-Fertility Agent In Tetanus Vaccine ... The Inquisitr - 5 days ago The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association is charging two separate United Nations organizations with knowingly sterilizing millions of women ... using the ... ++++ United Nations Charged With Birth Control Subterfuge In Kenya Acton Institute (blog) - 6 days ago kenya vaccine ... a statement this week saying they have found an antigen that can cause miscarriages and sterilization in women and girls. Kenyan bishops find that women were unknowingly sterilized in ... Catholic CultureJudgementalism and moralizing in response to Brittany Maynard's ... Lifesite +++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ Anti-Fertility Under The Guise Of A Tetanus Vaccine For Africa ... Headlines & Global News - 3 days ago Catholic bishops in Kenya are urging their congregations to refuse the tetanus vaccine, because they claim it is part of a sterilization movement ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) I N T E R N A T I O N A L Havana. November 7, 2014 Ebola and hunger on the African continent The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has aggravated the food situation in the region, principally in Guinea-Conakry, Liberia and Sierra Leona, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The Institute emphasized that the shortage of food will lead to thousands of more deaths among those infected with Ebola, and called on the international community to join forces to assure adequate nutrition for the ill, as well as others who have limited access to food. The three countries most impacted by the epidemic are among the world’s poorest, and prices of agricultural products have sky-rocketed, since farmers and agricultural workers are abandoning the area. The World Bank has estimated that, if the Ebola virus continues to spread, the epidemic could cost West Africa more than 32 billion dollars, by the end of 2015. The IFPRI is insisting that, in order to prevent future suffering when the epidemic is controlled, essential social measures and policies to support agriculture must be implemented. "Investing in the vulnerable population’s nutrition and health could reduce the mortality rate of illnesses such as Ebola, since the level of nutrition and infection are closely related," the Institute emphasizes.* The United Nations’ World Food Programme, and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), have stepped up and ensured access to basic foods for some 1.3 million people and 90,000 rural families in the three affected countries. Nevertheless, the IFPRI describes prospects for the coming harvest season as alarming, given the limited workforce available, warning that the food security of thousands of people is at risk. Other international organizations have noted the severity of measures implemented to contain the epidemic, which have made access to food difficult for a large part of the population, while the closing of schools in Sierra Leone has kept children away from nutritional support programs upon which many depend. Likewise, restrictions on the consumption of wild game - the presumed initial source of Ebola - has eliminated a traditional source of protein in the local diet. While it is now necessary to direct international funds toward controlling and eradicating Ebola in West Africa, thought must be given to solving long-standing problems in the most affected countries. To date, Ebola has caused 5,000 deaths among the approximately 10,000 infected, according to recent reports from the World Health Organization, which has had a serious impact on the production and distribution of food in the worst-hit countries. Currently, five new cases of Ebola are identified every hour, according to the non governmental organization Save the Children. The rate at which the virus is spreading has been called "terrifying" and endangers all sectors of the economy in these nations. (PL) * as with most of these 'conspiracies' there is an underlying reality guided by economics. Whether its superbugs, foodcrops (which with GMO lead to superbugs which leads to increaed toxins and reduction in diversity) to sensational events, economic considerations rather than what is rational and best for the people caught up in whatever will always be a decider. Ebola, poverty & reparations By Editor on November 16, 2014 The latest news about Ebola is both reassuring and tragic. On the hopeful side, it confirms that this deadly virus can be treated and contained. But it also confirms that Ebola is basically a disease of poverty. As of Nov. 11, there have been nine reported cases of Ebola in the United States. Of those nine, eight have now recovered after medical treatment. The only person to die, Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian, had been turned away by a Texas hospital when he was already very ill from the disease. It is clear now that Duncan stood a good chance of recovering had he been treated in a timely fashion. In West Africa, three countries — Nigeria, Senegal and Mali — now report they are Ebola-free after carrying out intensive campaigns to locate and treat people with the disease and their contacts. But Ebola is still raging in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, where the mortality rate among those infected ranges as high as 90 percent. These three countries have a common history. The area was depopulated by the Atlantic slave trade and later plundered for its natural resources as imperialism and neo-colonialism fattened off the people and their land. Even before this deadly outbreak, these three were listed among the 16 poorest countries in the world by the International Monetary Fund. Liberia, which has always been under the thumb of the U.S. since its founding, became a virtual plantation of the Firestone Rubber Co. in 1926. Firestone is still the largest employer in the country, and has been accused of vicious exploitation of child labor and environmental destruction. European and U.S. imperialists have grown fabulously wealthy due in part to their past and present superexploitation of Africa — both its resources and its people. Now that it has been shown that Ebola can be contained, will these capitalist rulers feel safe from further contagion and decide against allocating the resources needed to end the current outbreak? Socialist Cuba has shown by deeds that its practice of international solidarity, especially with Africa, can make a huge difference. In the 1960s and 1970s, its soldiers fought alongside African liberation fighters against racist apartheid and colonialism. Today doctors and nurses from this small Caribbean country are on the front lines in the struggle against Ebola. But Africa needs reparations from the imperialists who stole its resources — both to fight Ebola and to overcome the terrible poverty that is its breeding ground. Print PDF Also see: Ebola in Texas: For-profit health care system exposed Ebola and the real health crisis Capitalism increases Ebola dangers Ebola crisis: Rich countries must respond Ebola hits U.S. amid charges of racism edit format Edited November 18, 2014 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) A Century Ago: Rockefellers Funded Eugenics Initiative to Sterilize 15 Million Americans (click link) = Some people are still under the impression that the Rockefeller Foundation is all about philanthropy: helping people and saving lives. In reality, the Rockefellers have been one of the largest financial backers and drivers of the eugenics and the depopulation agenda for over a century now. Check out these 1915 newspaper clippings we came across in research. Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3M3EBkKxs =========== Edited December 16, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water. Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrockethttp://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-approves-raising-permissible-levels-of-nuclear-radiation-in-drinking-water-civilian-cancer-deaths-expected-to-skyrocket/5331224 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 31, 2014 Author Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) GM soy and maize is toxic to rats – new detailed study (CLICK LINK) A diet containing GM soy and maize fed to rats for 30, 60, and 90 days caused a wide range of toxic effects, including DNA damage, abnormal sperm, blood changes, and damage to liver, kidney, and testes. The Egyptian team of researchers concluded (see item 1 below) that "there are health hazards linked to the ingestion of diets containing genetically modified components". Histopathological examinations of various body tissues were carried out, and marked differences in the tissues of the GM-fed animals were found. The images, with explanations, can be seen in the published study. Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3NPv78Xsv Edited December 31, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) GENETICALLY MODIFIED GENES ON RICE CAN NOW BE SEEN IN HUMAN BLOOD AND ORGANS (CLICK LINK) It’s not earth-shattering news: genetically modified foods carry huge risks for humans. The newest information, however, shows that there are larger risks than ever before seen. These risks affect us on a much deeper level than previously thought. Researchers at the Nanjing University in China have shown that small pieces of ribonucleic acid (RNA) of rice can be seen in the organs and blood of the humans that eat the rice. The RNA is actually microRNA (miRNA). It is incredibly small, but plays a role in such diseases as Alzheimer’s, Cancer and Diabetes. MiRNA usually works to turn off or down the effects of certain genes. The Chinese researchers found the rice miRNA binding to receptors in the liver. The miRNA then affect how the body takes cholesterol from the blood. Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3NfzFd0vV Edited January 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) The Government’s Drive to Force GMOs into Britain Against the Will of the People Continues (click link) The UK government and its associated bureaucracy is colluding with powerful global agritech corporations to get genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into Britain. Politicians and officials whose views of GMOs are based on ignorance or whose statements are distorted as a result of their conflicts of interest have been spearheading this campaign. ===================================================(in USA) GMO-Free Food Sales Explode Amid Public Awareness (click link) Americans are speaking with their wallets like never before in order to voice our true collective opinion of how corporations and Big Food are working with our food. One critical example of how we are demanding change can be seen where the sale of non-GMO Project Verified foods have more than doubled since 2013. Verified GMO-free food sales were $3 billion in 2013 and were $8.5 billion in 2014! Not only that, organic food sales overall are projected to grow another 14% by 2018, and this is a modest estimate according to The United States Organic Food Market Forecast & Opportunities. Edited January 6, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 HPV vaccine controversy in Colombia continues Carmen de Bolivar, Colombia has become ground zero in the international debate over HPV vaccine safety, efficacy, and need. After the administration of the 2nd dose of Gardasil in local schools, beginning in March 2014, hundreds of young girls were admitted to the hospital with mysterious new medical conditions. According to local sources, doctors who examined the girls and reported symptoms as possible adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine would often find manufacturer’s representatives in their office the next day trying to convince them otherwise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 Argentina: The Country That Monsanto Poisoned (CLICK LINK)American biotechnology has turned Argentina into the world’s third-largest soybean producer, but the chemicals powering the boom aren’t confined to soy and cotton and corn fields. They routinely contaminate homes and classrooms and drinking water. A growing chorus of doctors and scientists is warning that their uncontrolled use could be responsible for the increasing number of health problems turning up in hospitals across the South American nation. In the heart of Argentina’s soybean business, house-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities found cancer rates two to four times higher than the national average, as well as higher rates of hypothyroidism and chronic respiratory illnesses. Associated Press photographer Natacha Pisarenko spent months documenting the issue in farming communities across Argentina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Steven, I posted on the JFK assassination thread about a bonus chapter from my book Hidden History, which wasn't included in the published version, about Eugenics. Interested readers can find it on my blog here: https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/ The chapter discusses this obsession with "depopulation" that you describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 Steven, I posted on the JFK assassination thread about a bonus chapter from my book Hidden History, which wasn't included in the published version, about Eugenics. Interested readers can find it on my blog here: https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/ The chapter discusses this obsession with "depopulation" that you describe. DON GREAT WORK !! In August, 1988, Prince Philip, husband of England’s Queen Elizabeth, made the following ghastly statement: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” This was obviously a serious fantasy of Philip’s, as he had mentioned it earlier, in the foreword to the 1986 book If I Were an Animal, where he declared, “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” Philip stated his opinion that, “…some animals have to be killed in the interest of maintaining the health and vitality of the species as a whole…” Given his other comments, one can easily surmise what species of “animals” he had in mind...... .....Author G.K. Chesterton understood this issue better than most. In his Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State, Chesterton wrote: “The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science…And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statues, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen—that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the government will really help it to persecute its heretics…I am not frightened of the word ‘persecution’…It is a term of legal fact. If it means the imposition by the police of a widely disputed theory, incapable of final proof—then our priests are not now persecuting, but our doctors are.” // JEFFRIES BLOG ============= this just in = Wording of eugenics compensation law may be excluding ... The Progressive Pulse - 1 hour ago Of the estimated 7600 people involuntarily sterilized pursuant to state eugenics policies from the 1930s until 1974, only slightly more than ten percent have filed ... ooooooooooooooooooooo ================== creating cultural acceptance of genetic manipulation Reproductive cloning and human eugenics: The science of the sci-fi series “Orphan Black” David Warmflash | January 9, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Projec Human fascination with twins is at least as ancient as the Greek tale of Leda and the swan. Seduced by the swan–Zeus in disguise–Leda gives birth, not merely to twins, but quadruplets. The females, Helen and Clytemnestra, cannot be more different. But the boys, Castor and Polydeuces, are identical in all ways–but for Polydeuces being a god and his brother merely human. Even so, Castor is placed in the sky with his twin to form the Gemini constellation. He is promoted to god status, and that’s important to any fan of the hit Canadian science fiction series Orphan Black. With the arrival of the New Year, a third season waits in the wings. Starting April 18, we can expect to hear more about Leda and her children, along with a plethora of biotechnology issues. Airing on BBC America, the first two seasons already have included a goldmine of conversation starters highlighting social implications of human reproductive cloning, and, more importantly, policy and societal issues of other biotechnologies that human cloning could facilitate. In particular, Orphan Black puts a spotlight on eugenics, reopening a discussion that started in 1931 with Brave New World, the novel by Aldous Huxley, who imagined a future in which humans have moved beyond natural reproduction. Instead, babies in Huxley’s fictional world begin their lives in mechanized hatcheries after being genetically designed. Setting his story in mid-26th century London, Huxley probably did not expect biotechnology to advance as quickly as it has in the last 84 years, but later sci-fi writers saw the advances coming sooner. Star Trek, for example, took on the issue in the 1960s by creating the character Khan Noonien Singh, the eugenically bred villain who came to age as early as the 1990s in the Star Trek backstory. Though apparently set in and around present day Toronto, Orphan Black cleverly alludes to Brave New World by slipping the author’s name into the script in two different ways. “Huxley” is a fictional train stop where the story begins. Later, we meet Dr. Aldous Leekie, a scientist who is not only pro-eugenics, but developing artificial wombs to bring on the age of motherless birth. The plot depends on the revelation, early in the first season, that several grown women are genetic identicals–clones, all born late March to early April of 1984 from a handful of surrogate mothers. The emerging backstory starts with human cloning experiments – appropriately called “Project Leda”–that began in the 1970s–either in Canada or the United States. At this juncture in the series, the precise location and political jurisdiction where the fictional experiments occurred are left vague. This may be intentional on the part of the writers, to obviate potential criticism from storyline knit pickers that any cloning-related experiments, past or present, would have alerted government authorities. The geographical vagueness notwithstanding, there is one message that Orphan Black made clear in the first two seasons. Because of phenomenal writing, coupled with an amazing performance by actress Tatiana Maslany–who gives each clone a completely distinct personality, accent and world view–the audience learns early that human cloning per se should not be a problem. Instead, the red flag goes up based on what Dr. Leekie, and others drawn to a movement that he calls “Neolution”, have been trying to do with the clones, or to the embryos that led to them. This means eugenics along with commodification: turning the clones, or at least the DNA sequences that made them possible, into commercial goods. Before unpacking these issues, though, let’s lay out a foundation of science issues central to Orphan Black, along with related policy questions. Human reproductive cloning: Should we be worried? Human cloning is divided into two categories that are approached differently in terms of policy. There is human reproductive cloning–cloning to create a baby genetically identical to the parent. This is the scenario that worries more people and the type of cloning that led to the birth of the characters that Maslany portrays in Orphan Black. There is also human cloning to create embryonic stem cells and replacement tissues and organs, without creating babies. Known as human therapeutic cloning, this area of research typically alarms anti-abortion activists, but not everyone else, because it doesn’t produce new people. But is it rational to worry, even about the reproductive category of human cloning? Like twins separated at birth, by interacting with one another, the clones of Orphan Black learn that the interaction between nature and nurture is complex. While sharing genome might put them all at risk for the same medical condition (a defect manifesting with polyps in the lungs and uterus in at least three of the clones, and killing one of them), it doesn’t mean that the disease will actually develop in everybody of the clone line. Genes are affected by the environment, beginning with the environment inside the uterus of one’s birth mother. Unlike twins, most of the clones did not even share the same intrauterine environment. The only exceptions are two clones: Sarah and Helena. Near the end of season 1, we learned that these two women actually were born of the same mother, implanted with a cloned embryo that subsequently split early in the pregnancy. That’s the same process that leads to natural identical twins, albeit from an embryo formed the natural way. Thus, while Sarah and Helena share a genome with several other women, biologically these two have still more in common –as much as natural identical twins have in common. Though born around the same time as Sarah and Helena, the other clone “sisters” developed in the uteri of different mothers, so they actually have less biological commonality than natural twins do. At the end of the second season, we also meet a member of the clone line, Charlotte, who is just eight years old. Genetically, she’s identical to the other clones, but doesn’t appear identical, because of her youth. She looks like her clone sisters did when they were that age, but then some children born naturally often look remarkably like one of their parents in childhood photos. At the same time, the differences between the clones apart from looks, due to growing up in different environments, are emphasized strongly. “There are nine of you?” one of the characters asks Sarah after learning about the clones. “No!” Sarah replies, having met a few of her genetic identicals and seeing how different their lives are from hers. “There’s only one of me!” Absorbing all of this leaves us pondering why cloning one’s self should be an ethical problem –if proven safe and performed merely for the sake of producing a child to raise like any other. In other words, we should be no more concerned about reproductive cloning than people were about in vitro fertilization embryo transfer (IVF-ET) before it was achieved in 1978. On the other hand, Orphan Black makes it equally clear that there is an ethical problem, if reproductive cloning might not be safe –if the clones are at high risk for health problems– or, if the purpose of the procedure is something other than creating normal children. How realistic are thirty year-old human clones? Like the Star Trek episode that introduced Khan, the Orphan Black story depends on a major biological milestone happening earlier than we might expect. How could Orphan Black imagine human reproductive cloning succeeding in the early 1980s? We could fall back on the argument used often in science fiction of the need to suspend belief and just enjoy the show, but we don’t need to do it in this case, since the writers have been very careful not to say much about how the cloning was achieved. We tend to think of the word “cloning” as synonymous with the technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Take the nucleus from any cell in your body, other than germ cells, use it to replace the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, and this can develop into a human embryo whose genome matches yours. This is the strategy that was used to clone Dolly the sheep in 1996, and it makes creation of an enormous number of clones possible from the same individual. But another route to reproductive cloning is simply to split an embryo. It’s the same process that leads to identical twins in nature, and it can be done intentionally in the lab, for instance with an embryo produced by IVF that has not yet undergone embryo transfer (implantation into the uterus of the birth mother). Embryo splitting is performed in non-human mammals and has been feasible as a human cloning technique since the 1978 IVF-ET milestone. So it’s reasonable to imagine it as the approach used by the fictional Project Leda scientists, leading to the birth of the Orphan Black clones in early spring of 1984. Unlike SCNT, the number of clones that can be made using embryo splitting is finite, but so far Orphan Black has mentioned fewer than a dozen clones of the line that includes Sarah. That means fewer than a dozen adult clones, and we could imagine a few cycles of embryo splitting leading to the birth of these characters with no need for human SCNT. In the case of Charlotte, the eight-year-old clone, we learned that she’s the sole survivor of more than 400 new attempts to reproduce the clone line. She apparently has a physical defect. It’s a leg condition, not the illness that has stricken three of her elder clone sisters, suggesting that whatever the scientists did to produce her around 2005 might have entailed safety issues, but possibly different from the safety issues of the procedure used in 1983 (when the adult clones began embryonic life). Or, the brace on Charlotte’s leg could just be a red herring. Legal considerations Despite efforts over the years by various groups concerned about human cloning for different reasons, federalism has prevented the emergence of a nationwide human cloning ban in the United States. At present, several U.S. states either prohibit –or prohibit the use of public money to support– human reproductive cloning, while a smaller number of states also prohibit human therapeutic cloning. Meanwhile, in Canada, human cloning (both reproductive and therapeutic) has been prohibited since 2004. The adult clones of Project Leda would have been created long before the Canadian law went into effect, but as the series progressed we learned that cloning was just the beginning of things. Implanted into surrogate mothers in various countries, the clones have been subjects of various experiments and manipulations since embryohood. Some of the manipulations –for instance incorporation of a “barcode” DNA sequence carrying a message that the clones are patented material, and thus property– might be equally dismissible by any North American government. But other things done to the clones that are emerging in the backstory would entail very complex legal debates, particularly in the context of events that the series spreads over both sides of the US-Canadian border. Science, society, and religion One of the most fascinating dimensions of Orphan Black is the Neolutionist movement that the series uses as the driving force for much of the storyline. The first two seasons provide glimpses of strange phenomena, such as a Neolution nightclub full of people with strange physical modifications that that they consider to be enhancements. This includes a man with a tail, and by the end of season 2 we learn that the enhancement philosophy has been the driving force of many of the negative developments in terms of how the clones have been treated. Initially, this might sound as if Orphan Black were promoting an image of misguided scientists. But the scientists on the series are depicted as diverse in their beliefs. While the Dyad Institute, the company that runs Project Leda, is controlled by Neolutionists, it turns out that the worst, most ruthless Neolutionists are not actually scientists themselves. Of the few characters who are both scientists and Neolutionists, Dr. Leekie is the only one who has done something horrible, but he is not without a good side. During season 2, he attempts to sway the Neolutionist leader of Dyad (a clone who was raised in the Neolution movement) away from the hard-handed tactics. He also puts himself at risk helping a different clone, a clone who is ill, with her medical treatment. This contrasts the science community on Orphan Black with the element of society that most opposes Project Leda: religious extremists called “Proletheans”. Like the scientists, the Proletheans are not uniform in their beliefs, but they, at least their leaders, are pure evil. Proletheans are constantly engaged in murder, physical abuse, and other major crimes and have absolutely no remorse about it. While it may look as though Project Leda is now going to be run with a softer hand, the final episode of season 2 also introduces us to an entirely new batch of clones, this one male. Unlike the female batch, the male clone project is controlled by the military. Given the culture behind Project Leda that emphasizes the idea of controlling human evolution through enhancement, it’s hard not to suspect that the military male cloning project would be involved in something similar. It seems likely that we’ll learn that they’ve enhanced the male clones to develop ideal soldiers, giving them the strength of the gods. Therefore, it’s fitting that the male cloning experiments should be named for a human who was promoted to god status: Project Castor. = David Warmflash is an astrobiologist, physician, and science writer. Follow @CosmicEvolution to read what he is saying on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 Steven, I posted on the JFK assassination thread about a bonus chapter from my book Hidden History, which wasn't included in the published version, about Eugenics. Interested readers can find it on my blog here: https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/ The chapter discusses this obsession with "depopulation" that you describe. DON GREAT WORK !! In August, 1988, Prince Philip, husband of England’s Queen Elizabeth, made the following ghastly statement: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” This was obviously a serious fantasy of Philip’s, as he had mentioned it earlier, in the foreword to the 1986 book If I Were an Animal, where he declared, “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” Philip stated his opinion that, “…some animals have to be killed in the interest of maintaining the health and vitality of the species as a whole…” Given his other comments, one can easily surmise what species of “animals” he had in mind...... .....Author G.K. Chesterton understood this issue better than most. In his Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State, Chesterton wrote: “The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science…And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statues, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen—that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the government will really help it to persecute its heretics…I am not frightened of the word ‘persecution’…It is a term of legal fact. If it means the imposition by the police of a widely disputed theory, incapable of final proof—then our priests are not now persecuting, but our doctors are.” // JEFFRIES BLOG ============= this just in = Wording of eugenics compensation law may be excluding ... The Progressive Pulse - 1 hour ago Of the estimated 7600 people involuntarily sterilized pursuant to state eugenics policies from the 1930s until 1974, only slightly more than ten percent have filed ... ooooooooooooooooooooo ================== creating cultural acceptance of genetic manipulation Reproductive cloning and human eugenics: The science of the sci-fi series “Orphan Black” David Warmflash | January 9, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Projec Human fascination with twins is at least as ancient as the Greek tale of Leda and the swan. Seduced by the swan–Zeus in disguise–Leda gives birth, not merely to twins, but quadruplets. The females, Helen and Clytemnestra, cannot be more different. But the boys, Castor and Polydeuces, are identical in all ways–but for Polydeuces being a god and his brother merely human. Even so, Castor is placed in the sky with his twin to form the Gemini constellation. He is promoted to god status, and that’s important to any fan of the hit Canadian science fiction series Orphan Black. With the arrival of the New Year, a third season waits in the wings. Starting April 18, we can expect to hear more about Leda and her children, along with a plethora of biotechnology issues. Airing on BBC America, the first two seasons already have included a goldmine of conversation starters highlighting social implications of human reproductive cloning, and, more importantly, policy and societal issues of other biotechnologies that human cloning could facilitate. In particular, Orphan Black puts a spotlight on eugenics, reopening a discussion that started in 1931 with Brave New World, the novel by Aldous Huxley, who imagined a future in which humans have moved beyond natural reproduction. Instead, babies in Huxley’s fictional world begin their lives in mechanized hatcheries after being genetically designed. Setting his story in mid-26th century London, Huxley probably did not expect biotechnology to advance as quickly as it has in the last 84 years, but later sci-fi writers saw the advances coming sooner. Star Trek, for example, took on the issue in the 1960s by creating the character Khan Noonien Singh, the eugenically bred villain who came to age as early as the 1990s in the Star Trek backstory. Though apparently set in and around present day Toronto, Orphan Black cleverly alludes to Brave New World by slipping the author’s name into the script in two different ways. “Huxley” is a fictional train stop where the story begins. Later, we meet Dr. Aldous Leekie, a scientist who is not only pro-eugenics, but developing artificial wombs to bring on the age of motherless birth. The plot depends on the revelation, early in the first season, that several grown women are genetic identicals–clones, all born late March to early April of 1984 from a handful of surrogate mothers. The emerging backstory starts with human cloning experiments – appropriately called “Project Leda”–that began in the 1970s–either in Canada or the United States. At this juncture in the series, the precise location and political jurisdiction where the fictional experiments occurred are left vague. This may be intentional on the part of the writers, to obviate potential criticism from storyline knit pickers that any cloning-related experiments, past or present, would have alerted government authorities. The geographical vagueness notwithstanding, there is one message that Orphan Black made clear in the first two seasons. Because of phenomenal writing, coupled with an amazing performance by actress Tatiana Maslany–who gives each clone a completely distinct personality, accent and world view–the audience learns early that human cloning per se should not be a problem. Instead, the red flag goes up based on what Dr. Leekie, and others drawn to a movement that he calls “Neolution”, have been trying to do with the clones, or to the embryos that led to them. This means eugenics along with commodification: turning the clones, or at least the DNA sequences that made them possible, into commercial goods. Before unpacking these issues, though, let’s lay out a foundation of science issues central to Orphan Black, along with related policy questions. Human reproductive cloning: Should we be worried? Human cloning is divided into two categories that are approached differently in terms of policy. There is human reproductive cloning–cloning to create a baby genetically identical to the parent. This is the scenario that worries more people and the type of cloning that led to the birth of the characters that Maslany portrays in Orphan Black. There is also human cloning to create embryonic stem cells and replacement tissues and organs, without creating babies. Known as human therapeutic cloning, this area of research typically alarms anti-abortion activists, but not everyone else, because it doesn’t produce new people. But is it rational to worry, even about the reproductive category of human cloning? Like twins separated at birth, by interacting with one another, the clones of Orphan Black learn that the interaction between nature and nurture is complex. While sharing genome might put them all at risk for the same medical condition (a defect manifesting with polyps in the lungs and uterus in at least three of the clones, and killing one of them), it doesn’t mean that the disease will actually develop in everybody of the clone line. Genes are affected by the environment, beginning with the environment inside the uterus of one’s birth mother. Unlike twins, most of the clones did not even share the same intrauterine environment. The only exceptions are two clones: Sarah and Helena. Near the end of season 1, we learned that these two women actually were born of the same mother, implanted with a cloned embryo that subsequently split early in the pregnancy. That’s the same process that leads to natural identical twins, albeit from an embryo formed the natural way. Thus, while Sarah and Helena share a genome with several other women, biologically these two have still more in common –as much as natural identical twins have in common. Though born around the same time as Sarah and Helena, the other clone “sisters” developed in the uteri of different mothers, so they actually have less biological commonality than natural twins do. At the end of the second season, we also meet a member of the clone line, Charlotte, who is just eight years old. Genetically, she’s identical to the other clones, but doesn’t appear identical, because of her youth. She looks like her clone sisters did when they were that age, but then some children born naturally often look remarkably like one of their parents in childhood photos. At the same time, the differences between the clones apart from looks, due to growing up in different environments, are emphasized strongly. “There are nine of you?” one of the characters asks Sarah after learning about the clones. “No!” Sarah replies, having met a few of her genetic identicals and seeing how different their lives are from hers. “There’s only one of me!” Absorbing all of this leaves us pondering why cloning one’s self should be an ethical problem –if proven safe and performed merely for the sake of producing a child to raise like any other. In other words, we should be no more concerned about reproductive cloning than people were about in vitro fertilization embryo transfer (IVF-ET) before it was achieved in 1978. On the other hand, Orphan Black makes it equally clear that there is an ethical problem, if reproductive cloning might not be safe –if the clones are at high risk for health problems– or, if the purpose of the procedure is something other than creating normal children. How realistic are thirty year-old human clones? Like the Star Trek episode that introduced Khan, the Orphan Black story depends on a major biological milestone happening earlier than we might expect. How could Orphan Black imagine human reproductive cloning succeeding in the early 1980s? We could fall back on the argument used often in science fiction of the need to suspend belief and just enjoy the show, but we don’t need to do it in this case, since the writers have been very careful not to say much about how the cloning was achieved. We tend to think of the word “cloning” as synonymous with the technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Take the nucleus from any cell in your body, other than germ cells, use it to replace the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, and this can develop into a human embryo whose genome matches yours. This is the strategy that was used to clone Dolly the sheep in 1996, and it makes creation of an enormous number of clones possible from the same individual. But another route to reproductive cloning is simply to split an embryo. It’s the same process that leads to identical twins in nature, and it can be done intentionally in the lab, for instance with an embryo produced by IVF that has not yet undergone embryo transfer (implantation into the uterus of the birth mother). Embryo splitting is performed in non-human mammals and has been feasible as a human cloning technique since the 1978 IVF-ET milestone. So it’s reasonable to imagine it as the approach used by the fictional Project Leda scientists, leading to the birth of the Orphan Black clones in early spring of 1984. Unlike SCNT, the number of clones that can be made using embryo splitting is finite, but so far Orphan Black has mentioned fewer than a dozen clones of the line that includes Sarah. That means fewer than a dozen adult clones, and we could imagine a few cycles of embryo splitting leading to the birth of these characters with no need for human SCNT. In the case of Charlotte, the eight-year-old clone, we learned that she’s the sole survivor of more than 400 new attempts to reproduce the clone line. She apparently has a physical defect. It’s a leg condition, not the illness that has stricken three of her elder clone sisters, suggesting that whatever the scientists did to produce her around 2005 might have entailed safety issues, but possibly different from the safety issues of the procedure used in 1983 (when the adult clones began embryonic life). Or, the brace on Charlotte’s leg could just be a red herring. Legal considerations Despite efforts over the years by various groups concerned about human cloning for different reasons, federalism has prevented the emergence of a nationwide human cloning ban in the United States. At present, several U.S. states either prohibit –or prohibit the use of public money to support– human reproductive cloning, while a smaller number of states also prohibit human therapeutic cloning. Meanwhile, in Canada, human cloning (both reproductive and therapeutic) has been prohibited since 2004. The adult clones of Project Leda would have been created long before the Canadian law went into effect, but as the series progressed we learned that cloning was just the beginning of things. Implanted into surrogate mothers in various countries, the clones have been subjects of various experiments and manipulations since embryohood. Some of the manipulations –for instance incorporation of a “barcode” DNA sequence carrying a message that the clones are patented material, and thus property– might be equally dismissible by any North American government. But other things done to the clones that are emerging in the backstory would entail very complex legal debates, particularly in the context of events that the series spreads over both sides of the US-Canadian border. Science, society, and religion One of the most fascinating dimensions of Orphan Black is the Neolutionist movement that the series uses as the driving force for much of the storyline. The first two seasons provide glimpses of strange phenomena, such as a Neolution nightclub full of people with strange physical modifications that that they consider to be enhancements. This includes a man with a tail, and by the end of season 2 we learn that the enhancement philosophy has been the driving force of many of the negative developments in terms of how the clones have been treated. Initially, this might sound as if Orphan Black were promoting an image of misguided scientists. But the scientists on the series are depicted as diverse in their beliefs. While the Dyad Institute, the company that runs Project Leda, is controlled by Neolutionists, it turns out that the worst, most ruthless Neolutionists are not actually scientists themselves. Of the few characters who are both scientists and Neolutionists, Dr. Leekie is the only one who has done something horrible, but he is not without a good side. During season 2, he attempts to sway the Neolutionist leader of Dyad (a clone who was raised in the Neolution movement) away from the hard-handed tactics. He also puts himself at risk helping a different clone, a clone who is ill, with her medical treatment. This contrasts the science community on Orphan Black with the element of society that most opposes Project Leda: religious extremists called “Proletheans”. Like the scientists, the Proletheans are not uniform in their beliefs, but they, at least their leaders, are pure evil. Proletheans are constantly engaged in murder, physical abuse, and other major crimes and have absolutely no remorse about it. While it may look as though Project Leda is now going to be run with a softer hand, the final episode of season 2 also introduces us to an entirely new batch of clones, this one male. Unlike the female batch, the male clone project is controlled by the military. Given the culture behind Project Leda that emphasizes the idea of controlling human evolution through enhancement, it’s hard not to suspect that the military male cloning project would be involved in something similar. It seems likely that we’ll learn that they’ve enhanced the male clones to develop ideal soldiers, giving them the strength of the gods. Therefore, it’s fitting that the male cloning experiments should be named for a human who was promoted to god status: Project Castor. = David Warmflash is an astrobiologist, physician, and science writer. Follow @CosmicEvolution to read what he is saying on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 New York: The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New York's requirement for children to be vaccinated in order to attend school is constitutional and supersedes parents' objections, even when based on religious convictions. (CLICK LINK) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 Genetically Modified Food and the False GMO Narrative: Britain’s “Corporate Political Parrots”By Colin TodhunterGlobal Research, January 16, 2015======================== British Environment Secretary Elizabeth Truss has stated that genetically modified (GM) food should be grown in Britain because it is more ‘eco-friendly’. She adds that steps should be taken to speed up this development. Her statements come as little surprise to many because Truss’s predecessor, Owen Paterson, was also a staunch supporter of GM technology. He was so staunch in his support that fellow Conservative Party MP Zak Goldsmith stated Paterson was little more than an industry puppet (see here). Paterson was ignorant of or quite content to ignore the devastating, deleterious health, environmental, social and economic impacts of GMOs (see here). He acted as a mouthpieces for the GMO biotech sector and made numerous false claims about the benefits and safety of GMOs that flew in the face of research findings. During his ministerial stint, Owen Paterson was keen to reassure the British public that safety concerns over GMOs are based on “humbug” and that GM food is completely safe to eat. His comments appeared to come from the school of bogus logic that is based on the premise that ‘no one has ever died from eating GM food.’ Paterson, Truss and other supporters of GMOs (and indeed the pesticide-ridden food that we are fed) might like to consider the long-term negative health impacts that petrochemical agriculture is having on humans before claiming that GMOs are safe or indeed are safer than ‘conventional’ food (as Paterson once stated). Writing in India’s Deccan Herald newspaper, food policy analyst Devinder Sharma cites evidence indicating the wholly fallacious nature of such a claim, especially as illnesses and diseases relating to pesticide use can take more than a generation to show up (see here). Paterson’s support for GMOs was being carried out in partnership with a number of pro-GMO institutions, including the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), which is backed by GM companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience. Last year, despite government attempts to throw a veil of secrecy over meetings and conversations it had with the industry, GeneWatch UK uncovered evidence that GMO companies are driving UK government policy in this area (see here). The evidence strongly suggests that the Government and the GMO industry is manipulating the media and forcing GM crops into Britain. Details of certain emails were made public and revealed what the veil of secrecy is trying to hide and what many strongly suspected: collusion between the government and the GMO sector is rife. Truss was appointed to her current role six months ago. It is the first time she has spoken out in public in favour of GMO technology, and her recent statements, like many of her predecessor, are based on ignorance or merely parrot a slick PR soundbite that comes courtesy of the GM biotech cartel. At last week’s Oxford Farming Conference, Truss supported plans to weaken EU laws that have so far kept commercial GM crops out of Britain. She stated: “I think GM crops have a role to play here… If you look at what has happened in the US, crops are being grown in a more environmentally friendly way with less water usage and less pesticide usage. I would like us to have that opportunity. Our farmers need access to technology that will help them work in world markets.” Did she take that passage from a glossy industry brochure? Probably not, but it wouldn’t be the first time an official has read from such a script and used cut-and-paste ‘puff’ material written by the industry to become what campaigner Aruna Rodrigues calls “uncaged corporate parrots” (see here), based on her analysis of the politics underlying the GM issue in India.The statement by Truss flies in the face of evidence that associates GM crops with higher pesticide use, the advance of ‘super weeds’, falling yields and a negative impact of biodiversity and the environment (see here). But Truss is correct when she says this technology would certainly help – it would help the GMO biotech corporations (not “farmers” as she states) ‘work’ in world markets. It would allow Monsanto et al to genetically modify organisms, subsequently slap patents on them and thus secure monopolistic control over seeds, markets and the food supply. This is who Truss is representing - not the British electorate who do not want GMOs (see here). On behalf of Big Biotech, the UK government’s strategy involves an ongoing attempt to get GM food into the Britain via the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the weakening of pan-European legislation, which to date has prevented GM crops from being grown in most European countries. The GMO biotech sector staunchly supports the TTIP and is the biggest lobby group in Brussels pushing for this deal (see here). TTIP is aimed at dismantling regulations, bypassing democratic procedures and threatening governments with legal action if their decisions in any way harm profits (see here). Result of new vote will allow for GM cultivation in Europe As for the weakening of pan-European safeguards concerning GMOs, which the UK government has been spearheading (see here), on 13 January the European Parliament passed a law that could in effect permit EU-wide GMO crop cultivation – exactly what the UK wanted. Writing in The Ecologist (here), Oliver Tickell states that with regulation and safeguards now devolved to member states as a result of the vote and only limited ‘opt-out’ rights on the table, this is a recipe for chaos that GM corporations will ruthlessly exploit. The proposed law allows individual member states to ban genetically modified crops, but only on very limited grounds that many fear could be subject to legal challenges. The law also opens the door to the possibility of more varieties of GM crops being approved in the EU. Currently only one GM crop is grown in Europe, but a further seven GM varieties are in the pipeline and may be approved early this year. The outcome of the vote will allow the GMO biotech companies to pick off each country one at a time. Tickell quotes Green UK MEP Keith Taylor as saying: “This agreement is not all it seems. While giving EU countries new powers to ban GMOs, I believe what this will mean in reality for the UK is more GMOs not fewer. This is because our pro-GM Government are now able to give the go-ahead to more authorisations.” Lawrence Woodward on the Beyond GM website (here) says the UK government is setting time aside to clear away all obstacles to the introduction of GMOs to English farms. He reports that in a letter to Beyond GM, Defra (Department for Environment and Rural Affairs) junior minster Lord de Mauley, confirmed that: “We do not expect any commercial planting of GM crops in the UK for at least a few years as no GM crops in the EU approval pipeline are of major interest to UK farmers… the government will ensure that pragmatic rules are in place to segregate GM and non-GM production.” Woodward argues that “pragmatic rules” imply as few and as weak as possible with no rules on liability and nothing to ensure that ’the polluter pays’ in the event of organic and non-GM crops and habitats being contaminated.The so called ‘opt-out’ regulation will now free up countries such as the UK, which in reality wanted to ‘opt-in’ and enable genetically engineered crops to be grown in its fields. Woodward notes that prior to the vote on 13th January, the proposal had already been through a non-transparent process involving a trialogue, where the European Commission (EC), EP and representatives of the Council of Ministers secretly wheel and deal to facilitate the passage of legislation. The process stripped out all mandatory measures to prevent contamination of non-GM crops. Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director, is quoted in Oliver Tickell’s piece in The Ecologist as saying: “Environment ministers say they want to give countries the right to ban GM crop cultivation on their territory, but the text they have agreed does not give governments a legally solid right. It ties their hands by not allowing them to use evidence of environmental harm to ban GM cultivation. This leaves those countries that want to say ‘no’ to GM crops exposed to legal attacks by the biotech industry.” Tickell also quotes the Green French MEP José Bové: “In the short term, this change will allow multinationals like Monsanto to challenge national bans at the WTO or, if free trade deals like TTIP are finalised, in arbitration tribunals.” With the exception of the Greens, all the main political groups in the European Parliament united to back this new GMO law. Oliver Tickell goes on to state that among the problems in the new law is the absence of strict regulation at the European level. Instead it will be up to member states to impose their own safeguards and regulations. Tickell quotes GM Freeze Director Liz O’Neill: “This directive offers no meaningful protection to people who want to make informed choices about what they are eating or to farmers who want to protect their fields from the superweeds and biodiversity loss associated with the kind of GM crops likely to be heading our way. There are no EU-wide mandatory measures to prevent contamination within an individual member state and no rules governing liability. That means it’s down to the UK Government to protect our right to grow and eat GM Free.” And how do you stop cross-border contamination? GM pollen does not respect national borders. But contamination suits the aims of the GMO biotech industry just fine (see here). It is arguably a deliberate strategy.Peter Melchett from the Soil Association argues that the new law: “… fails to require countries to ensure that any GM crops grown will not contaminate GM free farms, nor to ensure that the cost of any contamination will fall on the shoulders of the GM companies who own the patented products, not on farmers or food businesses that suffer from pollution…. The rights of farmers who do not wish to grow GM crops, particularly in England, are therefore under threat by this proposal. Indeed, the entire organic sector, growing rapidly in Europe and which may double by 2020, is in danger – as are the rights of anyone who wants to buy GM free foods.” (Quoted by Tickell) Tickell concludes by saying that amid the chaos the law will create, at least one thing is certain: that the situation will be exploited by the GM corporations to introduce GMOs as widely as possible with a minimum of regulation. The GMO biotech sector’s false narrative Officials like Truss, Paterson and Anne Glover, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission from 2012 to 2014 (see her views here), parrot industry claims that are ultimately based on a false narrative: there is or will soon be a food crisis and only GMOs or more petrochemical agriculture can save us. There is more than enough food currently being produced to feed a projected world population of nine billion, let alone the current one of 7.2 billion. Furthermore, agro-ecological processes (not petrochemical or GM) are key to securing food security for the planet (see here), without the massive costs in terms of health, the environment, energy use, population displacement, etc. which result from the current petrochemical/GMO system. I have stated the following in a recent article, but it is worth stating again: Despite the slick lobbying and PR from Monsanto et al, this isn’t about nutrition or ‘feeding the world’, it’s about modifying organisms to create patents that will allow monopolistic control over seeds, markets and the food supply. It’s not about objective science stripped of vested interests either. It’s ultimately about the geopolitics of oil-dependent agriculture and resultant debt, it’s ultimately about seed freedom and it’s ultimately about food democracy. Before finishing, consider the following: “There is no global or regional shortage of food. There never has been and nor is there ever likely to be. India has a superabundance of food. South America is swamped in food. The US, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe are swamped in food (e.g. Billen et al 2011). In Britain, like in many wealthy countries, nearly half of all row crop food production now goes to biofuels… China isn’t quite swamped but it still exports food… No foodpocalypse there either.” Jonathon Latham (read his article here ”How the great food war will be won.”) The current global system of chemical-industrial agriculture and World Trade Organisation rules that agritech companies helped draw up for their benefit to force their products into countries (see here) are a major cause of structural hunger, poverty, illness and environmental destruction. By its very design, the system is meant to suck the life from people, nations and the planet for profit and control (see here). Some bogus technical quick-fix will not put that right. It represents more of the same. The disease is offered as the cure. Truss should realise this before jumping into bed with the agritech cartel. But, as their new handmaiden within what is a staunchly pro-GM government, the suspicion is that she already does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts