Groundbreaking Investigation Reveals Monsanto Teamed Up With US Military; Targets Scientists,

reply to post by FyreByrd


It's hard to tell the two apart nowadays. Big business basically is the government.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Governments are being extinct. National sovereignty is long gone. Nations are mere vehicles. Always been. It's the corporations now. Once you take hold of the government structure is a piece of cake. Lobbying and stuff. They own the political system in almost every country. It's the basic tool after all. But governments dont run things. The capital does and a basic means is the government, along with media, law, education you name it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The 'study' was bait to make the anti-GMO movement look like idiots.

The same about Carman? Seralini?

3rd reply;

Concerning the Seralini studies and reports.

After reading about the multiple massive objections to Seralini, I would say those reports are also genuine for the most part.

Again, I'm no expert.

But I sensed a wild panic by the main stream scientific 'community', and not enough 'credible' 'discrediting' by the seemingly shilled responders to the Seralini reports. Their long list of credentials and titles were not impressive compared to the generalized criticisms many of which seemed weak.

Even some foreign (to the U.S.) governments based their bans and condemnations on the Seralini reports. Although I did sense the remote possibility that those governments may be 'holding out' so to speak, until somebody realizes that a higher 'gate fee' will be required to gain access to those countries. The politicians there may be aware of the high 'protection fees' paid to the U.S. officials to guarantee corporate safety.

After reading about Seralini and Carman, I don't feel 'lied to' and, I am convinced that many GMO products and all the related pesticides involved have long term health risks to Humans.

Those health risks are numerous and dangerous IMO

That's my take-away on the entire GMO controversies.

I also believe an agenda exists that may not be beneficial to people or animals.

It's Corporatist with commie elements mixed in.

I need more hard and convincing evidence to change my thinking now, like proof positive evidence that GMO is safe.

I won't hold my breath and I hate Fritos .... too much MSG


Links;


Séralini affair


Anti-GM corn study reconsidered: Séralini finally responds to torrent of criticism

reply to post by tenaciousmidfielder


I totally agree.

Why should politicians vote for what's right when they can vote for what's wrong and become rich off of it? There's hardly any integrity left in government, it's all about self-gain.

There are some good guys still left up there, but they are few and far between.

This post, a first in a series of posts on the Terminator tech of GMO corn.

Much thanks to hounddoghowlie , and the co research into this aspect of Monsanto and other
large bio tech companies Terminator tech, who have been involved with this
eugenics plan, making seeds of humans and corn sterile.

We plan to bring you a history of this from the inception, to the current developments.

We begin with a San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers discovered a rare
class of human antibodies that attack sperm. From there, they engineered this genetic trait
into the genes of corn. In essence, corn that if consumed makes men and women sterile!

This first article is from 2001, and we hope to bring you up to date on the developments
over the last 13 years. Thanks for your interest, and if you all have anything to add, please
feel free to do so. As mentioned before, this maybe one reason other scientists are
observed, and "attacked" by the MIC.

Thank you HDH!

GM Corn Set To Stop Man Spreading His Seed

Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize
may one day save the world from overpopulation.

The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm.

By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives.

'We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies,' said Epicyte president Mitch Hein.

'We have also created corn plants that make antibodies against the herpes virus, so we should be able to make a plant-based jelly that not only prevents pregnancy but also blocks the spread of sexual disease.'

www.theguardian.com...

reply to post by xuenchen


Xue,

Fantastic work on that aspect of Dr. Carmans studies and investigations, and the work of the pro
GMO movement, and how they conspire to intimidate and malign independent research!

Thanks much!

reply to post by Phage


Did you do a search of industry financed trials and it's bias in design and outcome? 98% of trials funded by the government or entities friendly with the government are favorable. Think of that...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You say you look at both sides, yet you seem to be only for one side of the debate. You are defending Monsanto for shooting down bills, yet you believe those bills should be implemented. Seems kind of counter-productive doesn't it?

Correction, shooting down lies about the bill.
Correction, I have never expressed support for the bill.

It's like someone believing Zimmerman was guilty, yet going on to defend his side of the story, or vice versa.

No it isn't. It called separating fact from fiction. You on the other hand do no investigation on your own and accept the lies you are given by the anti-GMO crowd.

Your argument makes no sense.

To you it wouldn't. You don't mind being lied to as long as those lies support your position.

To all people supporting these guys or who see no harm; look at the rate of people with ailments in this country and others with a primarily GMO diet. Now look at the health statistics of other country's that ban GMO's, there fine. Two things, either these GMO country's are very fast food centered, which results in higher cancer, obesity, diabetes, whatever disease rates, or there is somehting in the general foods we eat that is bringing on these sicknesses at alarming rates. In this country, even people who eat relatively to somewhat healthy are still getting cancer, or some other crappy health ailment. Then you have these studies saying that the properties in GMO's are linked to these various ailments. Buy yet, they are ALWAYS concluded as unreliable, by the companies producing the GMO's.

End of debate...period. Done.

reply to post by Phage


I'm not talking about the Plant Protection Act anymore, I agreed that you were right on that, I'm talking about any bill that comes up dealing with labeling GMO's as GMO. Please keep up.

You agree that the bills should be implemented, yet go on to defend and justify Monsanto paying politicians and courts to shoot them down. Pretty counter-productive and it makes me think you are only disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

Phage, this is a post from you that clearly proves you don't read links at certain times. But you always require that of other posters.

Yes I read the link. There are few direct quotes in the article and this one is also not a direct quote. (Note: direct quotes are designated by quotation marks when someone is speaking. I notice that there are very few direct quotes in that article.)

The citation came from a FDA official, describing how the policy in effect was and interpreted on and as of October 1998 as described in NYT Magazine article written by Michael Pollan from xuenchen's post.

The claim was quite direct.

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels

Why does that "bar" not seem to exist in the Act?

If you can point out that "specific bar" within the Act I will be satisfied.

reply to post by burntheships

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

Oh, I know I won't get you to think about what you are told or wonder why you are lied to by your own.
But there are those on the sidelines who may when shown that the anti-GMO rhetoric cannot be taken at face value.

reply to post by burntheships


Good topic !!

Here's some suspicious background that could tie in to Monsanto .....

First....

Biolex Therapeutics was a biotechnology firm in the Research Triangle of North Carolina that was founded in 1997 and raised $190 million from investors. It filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on July 5, 2012.

Biolex acquired Epicyte Pharmaceutical Inc. on May 6, 2004, and acquired LemnaGene SA of Lyon, France in 2005.[6]

Biolex acquired Epicyte Pharmaceutical Inc. on May 6, 2004

pay close attention to the "[6]" ..... there is no verified reference to Biolex buying Epicyte .... could be planted information ??!! (but wait, there's more)


Second....

But once the Epicyte gene, which irreversibly sterilizes humans who eat it, was patented, Monsanto and DuPont bought the company in order to "commercially exploit" the Epicyte gene. That means they had a customer for this product! Who is buying this gene and where is it being used? After ten years, how many GMO products have included this human-sterilization gene?
Top 10 Monsanto Epicyte Sterilization Crimes

?????


Third....

Here’s where things get interesting. In 2001, Monsanto and Du Pont bought a small biotech company called Epicyte that had created a gene that makes the male sperm sterile. In the US, GM foods are already on the market and unlabeled. US citizens have no idea what could be in their food.
Is Bill Gates using Epicyte gene to control population of poor?

2001 ???


Fourth....

May 7, 2004

Epicyte Pharmaceutical, one of the last vestiges of the San Diego biotechnology community's attempt to become an agricultural biotech stronghold, has closed and sold its assets to a North Carolina company.

The privately held San Diego biotech, which at its peak employed about 50, has been purchased by Pittsboro, N.C.-based Biolex, another privately owned biotech. Financial terms were not disclosed when the deal was announced yesterday.
Epicyte Pharmaceutical joins failing-biotech row

this 'verifies' the Biolex aquisition

So ... who 'owns' the original Epicyte technology NOW ?????


We need to verify the sinister background of Epicyte.

Monsanto might have actually 'owned' Epicyte by proxy or 'license' since it was a private company. In fact, Monsanto may have been the original financiers ???

AND, Monsanto may have 'acquired' full control of the technology through the liquidation bankruptcy of Biolex.

All through a back door leading into a deep rabbit hole.

Hmmm.


Fifth....
More mysterious activity !!

Published on Monday, October 27, 2003

Citing steep initial R&D costs, long time horizons and no particular development advantage over the competition, Monsanto Co. has closed its therapeutic pharming business to focus on large acre crops. Monsanto's exit leaves a handful of clinical stage companies to grow the field of plant-based pharmaceuticals (PBP).

Facing flat sales growth for the year and an increased net loss, MON decided to exit the PBP business to reduce costs.....
Monsanto: Down on the pharm

an obvious dis-info story to hide an agenda ???? .... I bet 'YES'

This should get interesting any second now ....tick tick tick

All extremely relevants points, wow.

This I must post, it pertains to your Third point here....
as it is fresh in my mind I had just read about Gates and some reasearch that
was found to be tainted, in other words it was disqualifed. It had to do with Yams...
odd at that. And it was in The U.S. and if I recall in St. Louis. Now....I need to go find that.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Third....

Here’s where things get interesting. In 2001, Monsanto and Du Pont bought a small biotech company called Epicyte that had created a gene that makes the male sperm sterile. In the US, GM foods are already on the market and unlabeled. US citizens have no idea what could be in their food.
Is Bill Gates using Epicyte gene to control population of poor?

2001 ???

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm not talking about the Plant Protection Act anymore, I agreed that you were right on that

Tell me, how do you feel about being lied to about it?

You agree that the bills should be implemented, yet go on to defend and justify Monsanto paying politicians and courts to shoot them down.

Wait. What do politicans have to do with the public voting against labeling (California)? What to the courts have to do with the public voting against labeling? I'm all for the people deciding.

Let me ask you a question. A little while ago you were outraged about how the "Monsanto Act" removed the power of the court to protect the people from "frankenfoods". Now you are saying that Monsanto has bought the courts? That seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me. If the courts are in Monsanto's pocket...you get my meaning?

reply to post by burntheships


The Rockefellers are involved also.

Consider how the scheme ties in with Rockefeller Foundation population control strategy. In 2001, it was aided when the privately-owned biotech company, Epicyte, announced it successfully developed the "ultimate GMO crop" - contraceptive corn. It was called a solution to world "over-population," but news about it vanished after Biolex acquired the company.

Seeds Of Destruction

reply to post by xuenchen


Oh, goodness sakes. Its an all out conspiracy then, where has this been
hidden off to in the back corners? Great find Xue!

This is about to get real interesting.

That Terminator gene was blowing in the wind.....

www.ucsusa.org...

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Oh, goodness sakes. Its an all out conspiracy then, where has this been
hidden off to in the back corners? Great find Xue!

This is about to get real interesting.

one of the thing that came to mind while looking at the info, was that the pig uterus that showed a deference.
this came to mind while i was looking for the information to share, and i came across a report about the decline in the U.S. birth rate.

i remembered that two of the sources for rebuttal phage used mentioned the pigs uterus and played them off like there was nothing to it.

Dr. Mark Hoofnagle (MD/PhD)

“Looking at the data there were no differences in any of the major variables evaluated by the study, such as weights, veterinary costs, illnesses, or mortality. No significant differences in blood biochemistry were found. At autopsy most organ weights were similar between groups. There was a statistically significant (but likely clinically-meaningless) increase (0.1kg vs 0.12kg) in uterus weights in the GM group. At pathology there were nonsignificant decreases in cardiac and liver abnormalities in the GM group (half as many), in stomach pathology there was one significant finding of more ‘severe inflammation’ (on a 4-point scale from no inflammation to severe) in the GM group. This is the finding that has been amplified as variably ‘damning’ or ‘concerning’ depending on which source is reporting.”

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge

“The study’s conclusions don’t really stand up to statistical scrutiny. The authors focus on ‘severe’ stomach inflammation but all the other inflammation categories actually favour the GM-diet. So this selective focus is scientifically inappropriate. “When analysed using appropriate methods, the stomach inflammation data does not show a statistically statistical association with diet. There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.”

it is a fact that the U.S. brith rate has been dropping, it is a fact that the U.S. food chain has gmo's in the food chain. could it be that the pigs uterus show this and that's why they tried to play if off.
just seems strange that they would mention that and to see the U.S. brith rate has been dropping since 2007.

see this report, there are better ones this was just the quickest.

The overall U.S. birth rate, which is the annual number of births per 1,000 women in the prime childbearing ages of 15 to 44, declined 8% from 2007 to 2010. The birth rate for U.S.-born women decreased 6% during these years, but the birth rate for foreign-born women plunged 14%—more than it had declined over the entire 1990-2007 period.1 The birth rate for Mexican immigrant women fell even more, by 23%.

In addition to the birth rate decline, the number of U.S. births, which had been rising since 2002, fell abruptly after 2007—a decrease also led by immigrant women. From 2007 to 2010, the overall number of births declined 7%, pulled down by a 13% drop in births to immigrants and a relatively modest 5% decline in births to U.S.-born women.

the above quotes come U.S. Birth Rate Falls to a Record Low; Decline Is Greatest Among Immigrants

isn't strange that the rates start to fall after about 5yrs after the Epicyte strain of corn was announced. i guess it need time to build up in people systems, and spread through out the country.

just something to ponder.

reply to post by Phage


It certainly doesn't change my opinion of Monsanto.

You're deflecting. Monsanto payed courts and politicians to shoot down labeling bills or to water them down to the point of uselessness.

Connecticut became the first state in the nation to pass a GMO labeling law on Monday, but food advocates and those who are concerned about what they eat shouldn’t bust out the (organic) bubbly just yet.

Though the mere fact that the Connecticut General Assembly passed a GMO labeling bill is a step in the right direction, the full story is a disturbing reminder of how powerful the biotech lobby really is.

But instead, lobbyists led by Monsanto Company (NYSE:MON) and the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade association succeeded in neutering the law by launching a large-scale lobbying campaign aimed at state lawmakers, who were convinced in part by the lobby to add requirements that two triggers be met in order for the law to go into effect.

www.ibtimes.com/army-lobbyists-led-monsanto -helped-neuter-gmo-labeling-law-connecticut-1295489

Why are you trying to justify things like this when you agree that bills like this should be put In place?

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Indeed, that is very curious, and suspect. Perhaps and likely explains why some of the
GMO supporters attempted to use a red herring about pheotype differences.
(which relates to hormonal differences) between GMO and non GMO.

Since there is no testing done on the GMO products, we can pretty much assume
as with the wheat that was found growing in Oregon....there is contamination.