by Jon Rappoport
May 4, 2017
The US press is aware that medically caused death is the third leading cause of death in America. But nothing happens in their elite corner of the “information age.”
For years, I’ve been pointing out that the medical apparatus is best-protected structure in the US and the world.
One piece of evidence for that statement: we haven’t had, symbolically speaking, a medical Edward Snowden. Indeed, if you go to WikiLeaks or some other source that routinely exposes leaks, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything substantial about the inner workings of what I call the medical cartel.
And when I say inner workings, I mean memos, emails, and other documents that irrevocably reveal:
* How medical studies are routinely twisted and cooked to achieve a predetermined outcome in contradiction to the facts;
* How virus-hunters casually claim to have discovered “the virus” that causes a disease, when they have not followed standard procedure, and are merely making insupportable and self-serving assumptions;
* How researchers ignore evidence that a “new disease” is indistinguishable from an old disease that has been on the scene for decades or even longer; there is money in new diseases;
* How medical drugs are having grave toxic effects on patients and delivering no visible results;
* How government health officials are conspiring with drug companies to bring medicines to market, despite the fact that there is every reason to assume the drugs are worthless and destructive;
* How public health agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies cover up the widespread harm vaccines are causing;
* How fake epidemics are launched to convince the public that they must follow prescribed vaccination schedules.
These are just a few of the many issues we would expect an insider to expose in blowing the whistle. We would expect to see these issues (crimes) revealed in numerous and detailed and irrefutable paper trails.
What the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, exposed in 2014 (see the film Vaxxed) mainly concerned one study that falsely exonerated one vaccine (the MMR) from a role in causing autism. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Over the years, I’ve gone after the medical cartel from many angles. There is a surprising amount of open-source material. I have also interviewed medical “dissidents,” doctors who have left the fold and are ready to talk. And using straightforward logic, I’ve discovered deep flaws in spurious medical arguments, and those flaws have led to deeper flaws and lies.
I could easily do a week-long course for honest and independent medical reporters on what I’ve found and how I’ve found it. Connecting the dots often requires a prior knowledge of basic fallacies in the medical framework of “knowledge.”
I have never encountered a medical insider who had access to miles and miles of damning data and was prepared to release it to the world.
Understand: I’m NOT talking about practicing physicians who are willing to talk about medical lies. I’m talking about people who are buried deep in the heart of the pharmaceutical/government agency/research establishment, who are ready to step forward with documents that turn the establishment upside down, as a matter of duty to their various oaths.
This absence of deep insiders speaks to the wall that has been built around the medical cartel. We’re not just talking about insiders’ fear of going public. We’re talking about more. For example, the refusal of major media to cover deep revelations that threaten to torpedo the whole medical structure. A potential whistleblower pauses for thought in the face of that. He could risk everything, and then—silence from the press. No “Snowden coverage.” There would be unanimous press attacks on his person, accusations that the documents are forged or inconclusive, and he is mentally unbalanced. Accusations that he is preventing people from believing in a system that saves lives every day. And so on and so forth.
But that isn’t the end of it. The wall around the medical cartel is, in its origin, a Rockefeller wall. Modern medicine is a Rockefeller production, jump-started in the early 20th century with the famous Flexner Report. On the basis of the Report, medical systems devoted to discovering and treating disease were gradually transformed into a machine that routinely kills 225,000 Americans a year—and that is a conservative estimate.
Rockefeller influence is no small thing.
The march to include every human on the planet under the umbrella of modern diagnosis and treatment is relentless. It is part and parcel of an agenda to weaken, debilitate, confuse, control, and destroy populations. I do not make that statement lightly.
I have shown, in past investigations, that medical-cartel players are surely aware of the damaging effects of their drugs, and yet, for decades, they have stood by and done nothing. The profit motive is one thing; but this is, at the least, indifference to human suffering and death. You could call it reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, but these are euphemisms for assault with deadly weapons (the drugs) and murder.
You could say the reason medical insiders do not step forward and reveal key data is fear for their own lives; but this is true of whistleblowers in other professions who do step forward.
Suppose Edward Snowden, considering a plan to obtain and leak NSA data, felt strongly that the leaks would have no effect, that his revelations would be blacked out by the mainstream press, that no mainstream reporters would take his material and publish it?
Suppose there was no Glenn Greenwald to come to Snowden’s aid? Suppose the NSA had such a powerful propaganda arm that the public was utterly convinced the Agency was an angel with wings and was saving countless lives through its technology? Suppose, the public believed every act of NSA spying was comparable to doctors in an emergency room putting an accident victim back together after a car crash?
Snowden would have paused for thought. He would have wondered deeply about whether his leaks would have any effect at all.
Let me give you an example. For years, I have been writing articles about medically caused death in America. One of the key studies I’ve cited is decidedly mainstream. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered and honored public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.
That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.
Aside from a brief flurry of mainstream press articles that followed Dr. Starfield’s publication, in 2000, the press has been silent. My articles, which have been published at my site and other independent sites, have garnered no mainstream attention. Zero.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out the degree of mainstream censorship. The medical cartel has great influence.
A medical Edward Snowden, observing the media landscape, would have every reason to pause and consider his options. Why would he risk his reputation, his job, his paycheck, his future, his life, if the cartel he is exposing is so well protected that nothing would come of his bravery?
This is one reason why I write articles about the expanding power and influence of independent media. The day may come, and soon, when a medical Edward Snowden realizes he doesn’t have to find an editor at the New York Times who will look at his treasure trove of data and consider publishing it. Instead, he can pass along that data to any one of a hundred independent media operations and strike gold.
Or he can simply dump all the data on to a site he himself has created, comfortable in the knowledge that these same independent media sources will pick up the data, analyze it, and launch an unstoppable attack on the medical cartel.
Not one day’s coverage. A month, a year of coverage.
Operation Relentless Medical.
Then, the blind spot obscuring medical crimes will recede and vanish.
The public will no longer feel queasy about these revelations; the public will not feel they are witnessing a despicable attack on a wonderful messiah who has come to save the planet.
Eventually, the public will be able to make the distinction between emergency/crisis medicine, where competent and careful doctors (not sloppy and ignorant doctors) can save the lives of people who are lying on streets, after car wrecks, who need to be put back together—the public will be able to separate that from long-term fake medicine, where people are falsely diagnosed and drowned in toxic drugs which create a whole array of new symptoms which are then criminally diagnosed as new medical conditions, leading to the prescription of even more toxic drugs…all the way to the grave.
The public will understand how unnecessary and dangerous surgeries, and unnecessary and poisonous vaccines, are being foisted on them and those they love.
The public will understand. And will rise up.
This is not a pipe dream, if independent media continue to expand, and if they realize revelations of deep medical crimes are at least as important as exposures about the military industrial complex or the spying systems of national governments, or corporate pollution, or high-level money manipulation.
True medical insiders will step forward and reveal the secrets of the Temple.
I assure you, if we are alert, we are far more important and effective than “they” are.
A new day has dawned.
The sun is coming up.
By Dr. Mercola
Up to 180 million Americans use artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, routinely.1 But the idea that they’re a safe alternative to sugar, even one that promotes weight loss, is a deceiving myth. In fact, the story of aspartame has been deceitful from the beginning.
Drug company G.D. Searle & Company first discovered aspartame in the 1960s. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974 based on studies submitted by the drug maker. An FDA scientist pointed out “serious shortcomings” with all the studies the FDA used to make their approval decision. Tonic, which described the story of aspartame’s approval as “scary as hell,” reported:
“For example, some rats in the studies died but were not autopsied after to discern the cause; in other cases, the aspartame was not mixed well enough into the feed and the rats were eating around it. There was also evidence of brain tumors in the rats in several studies,” they said.2
The FDA’s next move was to set up a public board of inquiry composed of outside experts to investigate the safety of aspartame, and in 1980 that board unanimously rejected aspartame’s request for approval.
Meanwhile, many are not aware of Donald Rumsfeld’s involvement in the approval of aspartame. Rumsfeld served as White House chief of staff from 1974 to 1975. He was also secretary of defense from 1975 to 1977 and again from 2001 to 2006. In 1976, however, Rumsfeld became CEO of G.D. Searle. Tonic commented:
“He was also on the transition team for Ronald Reagan, who was inaugurated in 1981. After the inauguration, Searle reapplied to the FDA for approval, at which point Reagan fired the FDA commissioner and replaced him with Arthur Hayes Hull Jr., who reapproved aspartame for dry products.”3
Just two years later the artificial sweetener was approved for use in liquid products, like diet soda, and the rest is history.
Serious Aspartame Safety Questions Remain
There’s a reason why, when asked whether or not he would consume aspartame, Dr. Robert Lustig, pediatric neuroendocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said, “No way in hell.” As he told Tonic, “We just don’t have the data” to prove its safety.4
On the contrary, there’s mounting evidence that it’s dangerous. In 1996, for instance, researchers suggested that the increasing rate of brain tumors in the U.S. could be linked to aspartame, particularly since it was introduced to the U.S. market several years prior to a sharp increase in malignant brain tumors.5
They cited an early animal study that found an “exceedingly high incidence of brain tumors” in rats fed aspartame, as well as evidence that the aspartame molecule has “mutagenic potential.” A study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, which treated six groups of mice with aspartame from before their birth until their deaths, also found that this toxic artificial sweetener induces cancers of the liver and lungs in male mice.6
Another study of great importance was published in 2012.7 The study spanned more than 20 years and evaluated the link between aspartame intake and cancer. They found a clear association between aspartame consumption and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and leukemia.
Artificial Sweeteners Might Make You Fat
Perhaps the greatest scam of all is including these “zero-calorie” sweeteners in diet foods and drinks, which people consume with the impression that they may help with weight loss. The opposite is actually true. In April 2017, research presented at ENDO 2017, the Endocrine Society’s 99th annual meeting in Orlando, Florida, once again found that artificial sweeteners promote metabolic dysfunction that may promote the accumulation of fat.8
The study tested sucralose (brand name Splenda) on stem cells taken from human fat tissue, which revealed that a dose similar to what would be found in the blood of someone who drinks four cans of diet soda a day increased the expression of genes linked to fat production and inflammation, as well as increased fat droplets on cells.9
The study’s lead author, Dr. Sabyasachi Sen, associate professor of medicine and endocrinology at George Washington University in Washington D.C., noted in a press release:10
“From our study, we believe low-calorie sweeteners promote additional fat formation by allowing more glucose to enter the cells, and promotes inflammation, which may be more detrimental in obese individuals.”
The fact that the artificial sweetener was associated with increased glucose uptake in the cells was particularly concerning, as it could have detrimental effects for people with elevated blood sugar levels, like those with diabetes or pre-diabetes — a population that’s often told to swap sugar for the artificial sweeteners.11
Aspartame May Promote Obesity and Inflammation
Research has also linked aspartame to weight gain and obesity. A study on mice revealed that animals fed aspartame-laced drinking water gained weight and developed symptoms of metabolic syndrome while mice not fed the artificial sweetener did not. Further, the researchers revealed that phenylalanine, an aspartame breakdown product, blocks the activity of a gut enzyme called alkaline phosphatase (IAP).
In a previous study, IAP was found to prevent the development of metabolic syndrome (and reduce symptoms in those with the condition) when fed to mice.12 Aspartame likely promotes obesity by interfering with IAP activity.
Mice in the study were fed either plain water or water infused with the equivalent amount of aspartame found in two to 3.5 cans of soda, along with a normal diet or a high-fat diet. Mice in the high-fat group that drank aspartame-infused water gained more weight than those eating the same diet without aspartame in their water.
Further, all the mice fed aspartame had higher blood sugar levels — an indicator of glucose intolerance — and higher levels of inflammatory protein TNF-alpha, which is suggestive of systemic inflammation. Given aspartame’s inhibition of IAP, the researchers suggested its use is counterproductive.
Other research found drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (regardless of whether the participants gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent.13 Artificial sweeteners may increase your risk of weight gain, obesity and other related problems like type 2 diabetes by inducing “metabolic derangements,” according to a report published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism.14
The Many Reasons to Ditch Diet Soda: Increased Risk of Dementia and Stroke
I don’t recommend drinking soda, whether regular or diet, but most people are aware of the pitfalls of sugar-sweetened soda. Diet soda, on the other hand, has managed to hold on to the reputation that it’s somehow a more sensible alternative. This is not at all the case.
A recent study has even found that drinking diet soda daily may increase your risk of stroke and dementia three-fold.15 Even drinking artificially sweetened beverages one to six times a week was linked to a 2.6 times greater risk of stroke.16 For a bit of background, when aspartame is in liquid form, as it is in diet soda, it breaks down into methyl alcohol, or methanol, which is then converted into formaldehyde and represents the root of the problem with aspartame.
Research has even found that the administration of aspartame to rats resulted in detectable methanol even after 24 hours, which might be responsible for inducing oxidative stress in the brain.17 Diet soda, which is often sweetened with aspartame, meanwhile has its own set of problems. People who drank diet soda had a 70 percent greater increase in waist size in a 10-year period compared to non-diet soda drinkers, for instance.
If you’re pregnant, you’ll also want to steer clear of artificial sweeteners. In 2016, a study found that women who consumed artificially sweetened beverages daily during pregnancy had babies with a two-fold higher risk of being overweight at the age of 1 year.18
Diet Soda Drinkers Have a 30 Percent Higher Risk of Depression
Preliminary research presented at the 65th annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology found those who drank more than four cans or glasses of diet soda or other artificially sweetened beverages had a nearly 30 percent higher risk of depression compared to those who did not consume diet drinks.19
Meanwhile, a report published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism highlighted the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same health problems as those who opt for regular soda, such as excessive weight gain, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke. The researchers noted:20
” … [C]onsuming sweet-tasting but noncaloric or reduced-calorie food and beverages [may] interfere with learned responses that normally contribute to glucose and energy homeostasis. Because of this interference, frequent consumption of high-intensity sweeteners may have the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements.”
And the risks go on. Research published in PLOS One found regularly consuming artificially sweetened soft drinks is associated with several disorders of metabolic syndrome, including21
- Abdominal obesity
- Insulin resistance
- Impaired glucose intolerance
- Abnormally elevated fats in the blood
- High blood pressure
The study found drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (whether they gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent.
By Dr. Mercola
Glyphosate — the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicides — is the most widely used agricultural chemical in the world, and testing suggests a large portion of the global population now has glyphosate in their system.
According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the “gold standard” in carcinogenicity research, glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (Class 2A).1,2
Research scientist Anthony Samsel has also reported he has evidence showing Monsanto is well aware glyphosate promotes cancer, and that they’ve had this knowledge since 1981.
Publicly, the company has insisted glyphosate is harmless to both environment and human health, but recent revelations are beginning to unravel Monsanto’s carefully orchestrated plot to deceive the public.
The evidence in question suggests the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in fact colluded with Monsanto to protect the company’s interests by manipulating and preventing key investigations into glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential.
What we have here is really the most dangerous situation possible. Taxpayers’ money has essentially been used to help shield companies from liability and obstruct consumers’ ability to prove damages.
Environmental Protection Agency Accused of Colluding With Monsanto
But first, some background: Based on the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) followed suit, declaring glyphosate a carcinogen under Proposition 65.
As a result, all glyphosate-containing products must carry a cancer warning. Monsanto attempted to overturn the OEHHA’s decision, but Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan ruled against it.3,4,5 More than 60 plaintiffs are also suing Monsanto claiming Roundup caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
One of them is Yolanda Mendoza,6 who has battled stage 4 non-Hodgkin’s for over a year. She believes her cancer was caused by Roundup, which she would spray on her lawn every weekend, using a backpack sprayer. She has lost sensation in her fingers and jaw due to nerve damage.
Monsanto has defended Roundup’s safety in court by leaning on a 2016 EPA report that found glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.7 At the time, Jess Rowland was the associate director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division,8 and Rowland was a key author of that report.
The EPA’s conclusion, which runs counter to the IARC’s determination, met with severe criticism — so much so, a scientific advisory panel was recently convened to evaluate the strength of the EPA’s decision.
According to some of the members on this panel, the EPA indeed appears to have violated its own guidelines by discounting and downplaying data from studies linking glyphosate to cancer.9
Next, attorneys for plaintiffs suing Monsanto found email correspondence between EPA toxicologist Marion Copley and Rowland suggesting Rowland may have colluded with Monsanto to find glyphosate non-carcinogenic.10,11
In one email Copley cites evidence showing glyphosate is toxic to animals, adding “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.” She directly accuses Rowland of playing “political conniving games with the science” to help Monsanto and other pesticide manufacturers.
According to court records, Rowland also warned Monsanto of the IARC’s determination months before it was made public,12 giving the company time to plan its defense strategy.
New Bombshell — Evidence for EPA-Monsanto Collusion Grows Stronger
Then came the next bombshell. Email correspondence showed Rowland helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto’s behalf.
In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he’d had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,”13,14 referring to the ATSDR investigation.
Jenkins also noted that Rowland was planning to retire in a few months and “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”15 This is about as damaging as it gets.
By colluding with Monsanto to declare glyphosate safe and stopping toxicology evaluations by other federal offices, the EPA has used taxpayers’ money to hide the truth about a dangerous toxin and prevent consumers harmed by the chemical from being able to effectively prove their case in court.
Without the EPA, Monsanto would have a tougher time arguing Roundup is harmless, and the company has gone to great lengths to get the court to discount the IARC’s determination that glyphosate is carcinogenic, insisting the EPA is a far superior agency, referring to the IARC as an “unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body.”
Instead of protecting public health, the EPA basically gave the finger to all those who may have been harmed or killed by Roundup by providing Monsanto with the “evidence of innocence” they so desperately need to defend themselves. But now the truth is bubbling out. As reported by Bloomberg:16
“The plaintiffs’ lawyers say Rowland’s communications with Monsanto employees show the regulator who was supposed to be policing the company was actually working on its behalf.
The unsealing of the court documents ‘represents a huge development in public health,’ said Tim Litzenburg, one of the lawyers suing Monsanto.
Regulatory agencies, scientists, consumers and physicians ‘can see some of what Monsanto was actually engaging in behind the scenes, and how they have manipulated the scientific literature to date. That’s important to their decision-making, not just our lawsuits.”
Jenkins went on to write, “I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this, but it’s nice to know they’re going to actually make the effort.” His pessimism was overblown.
Another Monsanto memorandum notes the ATSDR “agreed, for now, to take direction from EPA,” showing Rowland did in fact succeed in his mission to thwart the ATSDR’s glyphosate investigation. Whether Monsanto fashioned him a medal for his feat remains unknown. How Rowland sleeps at night is yet another mystery.
Did Monsanto Ghostwrite EPA Reports on Glyphosate?
Attorneys for the plaintiffs also claim Monsanto employees ghostwrote EPA reports on glyphosate,17,18,19,20 which were then included in the evidence base the EPA relied on to conclude glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic to humans. Monsanto denies the allegations,21 yet some of the correspondence seems incriminating enough. Bloomberg recounts a 2015 email by Monsanto toxicologist Bill Heydens:22
“‘A less expensive/more palatable approach’ is to rely on experts only for some areas of contention, while ‘we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections,’ Heydens wrote to a colleague. The names of outside scientists could be listed on the publication, ‘but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,’ according to the email, which goes on to say that’s how Monsanto handled the 2000 study.”
Other emails suggest Monsanto colluded with Syngenta and Dow to publish favorable studies on glyphosate. Monsanto argues that plaintiffs are “cherry-picking” emails among some 10 million pages of documents. But if a killer writes a million emails in his lifetime and admits his crime in one, that singular instance could hardly be written off as cherry-picked evidence. As noted by The New York Times:23
“The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a consulting firm.
Email traffic made public shows that Monsanto officials discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the project. ‘I think it’s important that people hold Monsanto accountable when they say one thing and it’s completely contradicted by very frank internal documents,’ said Timothy Litzenburg of the Miller Firm, one of the law firms handling the litigation.”
Office of Pesticide Programs Disagrees With EPA Ruling on Glyphosate
Adding fuel to charges of malfeasance at the EPA is an internal memo by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) dated December 14, 2015, which makes it clear the ORD disagrees with the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs’ (OPP) determination that glyphosate is “unlikely to be carcinogenic.” The OPP’s opinion was originally published in April 2016. This, according to the OPP, was done in error since the report was not yet finalized, and it was promptly taken down.
However, this did not stop Monsanto from using the report to defend glyphosate’s safety. The ORD memo reveals the department is closely aligned with the IARC’s view on glyphosate, and that ORD scientists raised strong objections against the OPP’s findings, noting the OPP did not follow established international conventions when reviewing glyphosate. As reported by GM Watch:24
“‘Frameworks for data analysis and determination of causality [between exposure to a substance and cancer] that are currently in effect at the EPA and in the risk assessment community include gradations,’ wrote the ORD in its memo. ‘The preliminary opinion of the OPP appears not to follow this approach,’ adds the latter …
[T]he OPP appears to have abandoned the rules for the evaluation of the dangers of a substance to ‘use a yes/no approach which could only lead to describe the substances only as ‘carcinogenic’ or ‘unlikely to be carcinogenic’ for humans. The criticism is very technical, but nonetheless crucial. The EPA classification actually includes, in theory, five different grades:
•Showing suggestive signs of carcinogenicity
•Insufficiently documented for carcinogenicity analysis
•Unlikely to be carcinogenic
Thus there are many nuances that, according to the memorandum of the ORD, disappeared from the preliminary analysis conducted by the OPP.”
No Consensus on Glyphosate Carcinogenicity Among EPA Scientists
The ORD memo admits the evidence of cancer in humans is limited, but stress that animal studies show strong correlation between exposure and cancer, noting that “glyphosate has been tested in several two-year studies in rats or mice. A wide range of tumors have been observed in these studies. Tumors have been observed in the thyroid, liver, skin, pancreas, lymph, testis, mammary gland, kidneys and lung.”
That said, depending on the statistical methods used, the incidence of cancer may be significant or insignificant, and this is a main point of contention. The OPP claims they did not find statistically significant evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, but they didn’t specify which statistical method they used to reach their conclusion. According to the ORD’s memo:
“[T]he category ”unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans’ can without doubt be thrown out. We can discuss whether the level of evidence is sufficiently high for the category ‘probable carcinogen’ … But this classification cannot be rejected.”
As noted by GM Watch:
“Several questions remain: how will the ORD memo … be taken into account in the EPA’s final opinion? Why was the OPP’s preliminary notice published on the agency’s website before being removed a few hours later?
The EPA states that a discussion paper jointly drafted by the two departments was forwarded in September 2016 to a third group of federal experts, whose opinion is expected to be published on 16 March. This new opinion will in turn be revised prior to publication of the EPA’s final official notice.”
Turns out this third group of federal experts —the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) — remain equally split over the issue. On March 16, the report from the SAP meeting was published25 showing a wide range of opinions within the panel. Some feel the “not likely to be carcinogenic” designation should be changed to “suggestive signs of carcinogenicity,” while others argue there’s “no credible evidence of carcinogenicity.”
It still remains to be seen what the EPA’s final and official decision on glyphosate will be, but evidence clearly shows serious collusion between EPA officials and Monsanto has occurred, thereby tainting the entire process and making any determination in glyphosate’s favor highly suspect.
Pesticide Companies Kill Hundreds of Thousands of Children Each Year — Time to End the Massacre!
The EPA carries a tremendous burden. According to two recent reports,26 pesticides like Roundup are taking a major toll on health and life across the globe, and by colluding with pesticide makers to shield them from that liability, the EPA has committed a serious crime against humanity.
According to a recent United Nations (UN) report, pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, and chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.27
The report specifically highlights the pesticide industry’s “systematic denial of harms” and “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics,” noting the industry is spending massive amounts of money to influence policymakers and contest scientific evidence showing their products do in fact cause great harm to human and environmental health.
The report also firmly denies the idea that pesticides are essential to ensure sufficient amounts of food for a growing world population, calling the notion “a myth,”28 while highlighting developments in sustainable and regenerative farming showing biology can completely replace chemicals, delivering high yields of nutritious food without detriment to the environment.
The second report, this one by the World Health Organization (WHO), notes environmental pollution — which includes but is not limited to pesticides — kills 1.7 million children each year. A full quarter of all children’s deaths and diseases could be prevented by reducing environmental risks!
Both of these reports offer the same recommendations in regard to agricultural chemicals — reduce or get rid of them altogether. In fact, the UN report goes so far as to propose a global treaty to phase out toxic pesticides and transition to a more sustainable agricultural system.
Donations to Organic Consumers Association TRIPLE-Matched During GMO Awareness Week
During this annual GMO Awareness Week, I strongly encourage you to give the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) your financial support. We are making great headway in promoting organics and fighting for a cleaner, safer food supply, but we cannot do it without your help. This week, you can seriously maximize the impact of your generosity, because I will match each and every dollar you donate to the OCA with $3, up to $250,000.
As noted by OCA in an article commenting on the latest evidence showing what appears to be serious betrayal of consumer trust on behalf of the EPA:29
“Please help keep the pressure on corporations like Monsanto that poison with impunity. We need to raise $200,000 by midnight, March 31, to meet our quarterly online fundraising goal … According to the NYT, while farmers and children exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide were dying from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a high-level EPA official was colluding with Monsanto behind the scenes to hide the truth. And he actually bragged about it …
The only way we will stop Monsanto, and other corporations, from this kind of ruthless disregard for public health is to keep the pressure on — through boycotts, through relentless demands for accountability, and through the courts. We may have lost the battle to label GMOs. But make no mistake — the years of educating consumers about the risks of GMO foods, and the poisons used to grow them, are paying off …
Just this week, a California judge ruled that the state can require Monsanto to label Roundup sold in retail stores as a “possible carcinogen” … OCA, along with another organization, will soon file our own lawsuit against Monsanto — details to be made public soon …”
Give Us Your Urine
by Jon Rappoport
August 2, 2016
Every day in the news business is a fake day.
Headlines and articles smear lies, cover stories, distractions, diversions, and phony parroting across the landscape. And headlines that would reveal important truth are omitted.
The gullible buy in and submit themselves to prime-A mind control.
Here are three current stories I have covered in detail already:
Zika, Florida (one Miami area is the focus): the CDC has issued a travel warning. Pregnant women, or women planning to become pregnant, should avoid this area. Feds are going door asking for urine samples, to test for Zika.
But every effort in Brazil, America, Colombia and other countries to link Zika to the birth defect called microcephaly has failed. Utterly.
The correlation between the presence of Zika and cases of microcephaly is so weak, so thin, that researchers have resorted to a bumbling “add-on” analysis. It goes this way:
“If we can find several groups in which Zika and microcephaly are barely connected at all, and combine these findings, we can say they add up to a convincing case.”
In Brazil, embarrassed researchers have simply given up trying to show a correlation between Zika and the birth defect. They simply assert the connection, despite the fact that, at best, Zika is present in perhaps one-fifth of all microcephaly cases.
By any scientific measure, this constitutes counter-evidence that Zika causes microcephaly. But it doesn’t deter the CDC or the World Health Organization. They march on, their message of unrelenting fear fed directly into the brain of the mainstream press, and out into the public. The promise? A blockbuster vaccine, and high profits for Pharma.
Shifting to Hillary Clinton: her email scandal is, at the least, a case of extreme gross negligence in the handling of classified materials. FBI Director Comey said as much, several weeks ago, as he recommended no-prosecution during a global press conference.
“She’s guilty as hell, but we shouldn’t take her to court.”
Comey, acting as if he were, suddenly, a Grand Jury, the US Attorney General, and an appellate judge, misread the Federal Penal Statute—which specifically states that intent to do harm is irrelevant, and gross negligence is the standard—and dismissed a felony case against Hillary out of hand.
Now, Bill Binney, a former high-level NSA analyst who exposed the Agency’s crimes long before Ed Snowden emerged, states that the NSA would actually have all her emails, including the ones which were deleted and never turned over to the Justice Department.
Not only that, the NSA would, as a matter of course, share this information with the FBI and the CIA. In other words, the FBI has been posturing for over a year, in its comments about the missing emails. They could have access to them with a single request.
But mainstream press outlets are ignoring these new revelations. The Hillary case is history. Nothing to see. It’s old news. She’s been exonerated. She’s good to go in her campaign to win the Presidency. That’s the unanimous mainstream consensus.
And finally, Obama has signed the Dark Act, the federal bill which guts the right of any state to clearly label food products containing GMOs. Instead, a new federal standard will be developed—a so-called Q rating system. Under this program, which may possibly be implemented in the next five years, consumers can, if they’re aware, stop shopping and use their i-phones (or an 800 number) to discover what a “Q” means for a given product. Shop all day, check up on four products.
Good luck. Monsanto wins. As I’ve detailed, Obama is the GMO President. He has appointed a whole raft of former Monsanto people to key posts in his administration. He has let more new GMO food crops in the door than any President. This, despite his nudge and wink to supporters during his first run for the White House—signaling that he was on their side, and would make sure they’d know what was in their food. It was all con all the time.
But of course, the mainstream press is giving this zero coverage. There was barely a mention the other day when he signed the new federal bill making GMO labels a cumbersome and useless piece of nonsense.
It’s a good and great thing that mainstream news is dying like a giant corpse who insists on continuing to walk down the street. The New York Times, which keeps re-financing its debt, is showing disastrous numbers for ad-sales revenue this quarter. I’m waiting for the death rattle, when all Times’ front-page stories will center on celebrities and their peccadillos. “Goofy Toofy, Reality Star, shows off her very pregnant shape on a beach in Monaco, in a tiny bikini you won’t believe.” “The British Queen’s fourth cousin’s nephew tries to grow a beard in support of unlimited European immigration.”
Yes, why not go all the way? The Times reporters would love it. Instead of channeling lies out of certified experts, they could make it all up. Low gossip is a lot easier than high gossip.
Meanwhile, pretending a Presidential candidate is innocent of a felony that could carry a 10-year sentence, opening the way to unlabeled GMO anything-and-everything, and blaming a harmless virus for a birth defect that has existed for centuries—it’s just another day at the office.
“Want to grab a few drinks after work?”
“What are you working on?”
“A story about how Putin created ISIS when he was fourteen years old.”
“Sounds good. Who’s your source on it?”
“Osama Bin Laden.”
“Isn’t he dead?”
“The FBI just found a few hundred emails he sent to Putin in 1973.”