Monsanto is a huge international GMO that plans to control and IS controlling more and more of the international food supply. They aren't just a little start-up research group studying food supply. They are in 60 countries, have over 14,000 employees, and have revenues of $6 billion. They have invested over 500 million in one of their destructive schemes - genomics and biotechnology. I call it what it is - ‘depopulation’ hiding behind ‘Mother Theresa’ goals.

Data linking GMOs and pesticides to human health ailments continues to emerge, as a new report put together by the Ministry of Health in Cordoba, Argentina has found that increased levels of crop spraying in Argentina’s most extensively farmed areas has resulted in a large increase of cancer rates for those who live in the vicinity. According to the report, deaths from cancerous tumors have as much as doubled in areas where 'genetically modified' (GM) crops are grown and agro-chemicals are used. That’s not really surprising, given the fact that numerous studies have linked them to cancer, and other detrimental health ailments. The highest death rate was recorded in the ‘Pampa Gringa’ area. This is where most GM crops are grown and where the most pesticides are used.  Making up a large portion of the Cordoba region, this area and other areas in the region have cancer rates that are way above the national average.

Monsanto is quite famous for the release of the ‘Terminator Seed‘, which renders a seed as a controlled and neutered item that can only produce a crop one time. Farmers and growers cannot use and re-use seeds as they have historically done for thousands of years. Monsanto has made sure that their Terminator Seed is good for one crop only. Thus, the farmer is forced to come back to them and get more seeds that ‘hark’ Monsanto controls. Now growers are dependent on Frankenstein's laboratory.  

One whistleblower using an assumed name, ‘Miguel‘, talked of Monsanto's domination in our colleges and universities. He also said that after watching them and working with them for 25 years, it was very clear that their care for the safety and welfare of people and health is seriously in question. Monsanto has been accused numerous times of fraud, threats to health, ecological disasters, and false evidence.

Some say that ‘genetically modified food’ is the harbinger of saving a hungry humanity. Monsanto talks a good game on the surface - food protection, stopping world hunger, and controlling viruses, but it appears more and more that their goal is just the opposite. Control the world food supply, and depopulate parts of the world by creating massive illness and death and dependency on them for modified seeds. They will have the increasing power to turn the ‘modified’ spicket on and off - create diseases at will, and get rid of unwanted populations. Obama and the UN must be thrilled . . . and you thought abortion was the big depopulation weapon.

With most of the world standing against Monsanto's terminator technology, they are verbally distancing themselves from it, but in truth, the Bio giant is pushing and funding it worldwide. It is a known fact that poor farmers feed up to 1.4 billion people a year. If they cannot afford to buy seed after the first year, millions if not billions stand to die from starvation.

Rats fed a lifelong diet of one of the best selling strains of genetically modified corn suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, according to a controversial French study recently published.The report is set to ignite the debate over whether GM crops are safe. Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said rats fed on a diet containing NK603 - a seed variety from crop giant Monsanto made tolerant to dousings of the best selling weed killer Roundup - or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet. The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely,  compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group. Seralini was part of a team that flagged previous safety concerns based on a shorter rat study in a scientific paper published in December 2009 but this takes things a step further by tracking the animals throughout their two-year lifespan. Significantly, the majority of tumors were detectable only after 18 months - meaning they could be discovered only in long-term feeding trials. The study - led by molecular biologist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a critic of GM technology, was published yesterday in US Journal Food and Physiological Pathway’.

Mustafa Djamgoz, professor of Cancer Biology at Imperial College, London, said the findings relating to eating GM corn were a surprise. "We are what we eat," he added. "I work at the molecular level on cancer. There is evidence what we eat affects our genetic make-up and turns genes on and off.  We are not scare mongering here. More research is warranted."

Dr Julian Little, of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which speaks for the GM industry, insisted GM foods were safe, adding, "‘The industry takes all health concerns regarding biotech food and feed very seriously." Anthony Trewavas, professor of cell biology at Edinburgh University, questioned the way the research had been conducted, saying the number of rats involved in the study – 200 – was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

"To be frank, it looks like random variation to me in a rodent line likely to develop tumors anyway," he said.  He also claimed Professor Seralini was an anti-GM campaigner and that previous studies questioning the technology’s safety had not withstood scrutiny.

What Monsanto didn't count on:

Mutated pests are adapting to Biotech crops in unpredicted and disturbing ways. Genetically modified crops are often designed to repel hungry insects. By having toxins built into the plant itself, farmers can reduce their use of environmentally unfriendly insecticide sprays. But as any first-year evolutionary biology student can tell you, insects are like the 'Borg' in Star Trek: they quickly adapt. And this is precisely what is happening - but in ways that have startled the researchers themselves. The discovery is a wakeup call to geneticists because it has highlighted the importance of having to closely monitor and counter pest resistance to biotech crops. The development also raises the question of the potential futility of having to change the genetic structure of crops in perpetuity; given that insects are constantly evolving, to what degree will geneticists have to go to ensure crop immunity to pests? And what does that say to the ongoing safety of such crops as far as human consumption is concerned?

While it’s not earth-shattering news, genetically modified foods carry 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 micro-RNA (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. A tiny change may not seem all that important, but it can greatly change the owner of that RNA.

Because most of the laws regulating genetically modified crops, plants and foods were created in 1986, crop-producers like Scotts have found ways to get around them, according to a report in the 
January 1st edition of The New York Times. Companies like DuPont, Cibus, Ceres and Syngenta are among the companies using or researching the use of genetic 'editing' to get around regulations. The new editing process involves the use of naturally occurring genetic material and uses a gene gun, rather than bacteria, to deliver the desirable DNA material into the plant. Critics say the 'editing' process merely takes advantage of loopholes in the laws and amounts to the same thing as traditional genetic modification. They say altered crops can have significant and irreversible negative impact on the environment.

JULIE GERBERDING 

(CDC)  - CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL

Julie Gerberding, the former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been  President of Merck’s vaccine unit for the past 18 months as. At Merck, she has been learning the 'ins and outs' of a $5-billion-a-year operation that makes 14 of the 17 vaccines the CDC recommends for children, and nine of the 10 recommended for adults. It would be an understatement to say this job carries a huge social responsibility, both to insure steady supplies of vaccines already on the market, and to develop new ones. More importantly, she is responsible for the welfare and safety of everyone who will be vaccinated. 

The following info was obtained from an interview that 'Xconomy'  had with Gerberding.  The question/answer format gives insight to her opinions and focus . . . 

Xconomy: Can you talk a little about what kind of scope you have in Merck Vaccines, in terms of people, facilities, and the R&D portfolio?

Julie Gerberding: Vaccines have been in Merck’s DNA forever. We have a tradition of being the scientific source of many of today’s modern vaccines. We have a very strong pediatric portfolio, and one of our unique strengths is our adult portfolio. Where we haven’t traditionally focused is in the global environment. We see tremendous unmet need, and tremendous opportunity for Merck to leverage our innovations in ways that bring these products to the kids who need them most.

X: You occasionally hear market research reports say the vaccine market is poised to grow, and build on the success of Gardasil and Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine (Prevnar). Do you see that phenomenon happening? 

JG: No matter what market you are in, we want to deliver value at the best possible price. The fastest way to achieve a price improvement is through volume. So, the more global manufacturing we do, the more we cover our fixed costs, and the less expensive on a per-dose basis our vaccines will become. With a vaccine, it’s about how can we continue to position the product, or evolve the product in its life cycle so that it continues to deliver value to people. That can be forever. Our measles vaccine has been around a long time, and it’s still delivering enormous public health value. A bigger challenge is that we, all of us in the world of vaccines, can imagine innovations, bio-process improvements, other things that might improve our ability to lower costs, or speed up production, or localize production in new markets, but the regulatory environment hasn’t caught up with our innovation capability. 

X: What exactly is the problem at the regulatory level?

JG: In vaccines, the process is the product. Any change you make in how you process your route to the vaccine actually changes the product. Often, you are faced with needing to do clinical studies, or make macro investments in a way that would simply discourage you from moving in that direction. That’s a little different from making a tablet. As long as at the end of the day you have the stated composition of matter, and quality, there’s more flexibility. 

JG: On a global basis, it’s a small issue today. Most people in the world are so grateful to have their child immunized. They see the diseases, and understand how life-saving those vaccines can really be. If you are thinking globally, it’s not the most important obstacle we face. But it’s clearly a powerful local issue in many westernized or developed countries. It’s a growing issue. We have to work harder to engage people in the conversation. And that conversation needs to be led by trusted and credible people, not necessarily vaccine manufacturers.

X: So do you just get out of the way then?

JG: No, we have a responsibility. The most important component of our contribution is that we do make trustworthy, reliable products that address health needs. We should be proud of it. These are critically important products for global health and local health. We don’t need to be silent about the contribution we are making, and our employees should take pride in it. Having said that, for people who have already made up their mind that there are issues around the need for vaccines, the manufacturers are not likely to be the best resource for changing their minds. People need to hear balanced information from trusted peers, and/or their doctor. That’s what we need to learn—what really does motivate people’s behavior. The old model would say, "We just need to give people better information. If they have the facts, they’ll make the right choice."  The new model is that it’s not a left-brain decision for many parents—this is a right-brain, heartfelt decision. While they can understand objectively that vaccines are important means of protection, when they are sitting with a child on the lap and deciding to give them a shot, it becomes emotional for the parent. Not all parents respond to that situation the same way.

X: When you look at the landscape of vaccines, there are maybe five or so major producers of vaccines left. Do you see much innovation out there beyond those companies, in small biotechs, and in the nonprofit world?

JG: I’m very bullish on vaccines, I think there is incredible innovation going on in the biotech environment. Innovations in antigens [new vaccine targets] and adjuvants [immune-boosting compounds], but also innovations in delivery methods and stability, in combinations that put more than one vaccine in a vial. There’s innovation in vaccine logistics, innovation in vaccine financing, and in partnerships, and translational research. The problem with vaccine innovation is that it isn’t fast. There’s a long runway for these products, and it takes a long time for these products to be commercially relevant and available. You have to be very patient. I’m learning.

X: Have you had surprises in the switch to industry, or impressions that might surprise your peers?

JG: From a personal perspective, there’s an enormous amount of learning. I’m not trained, and wasn’t brought up in a marketing environment. I have to learn how to think about value in ways that are focused on respecting what people really need and want, while at the same time keeping in mind what’s practical and feasible from a private sector perspective. Sometimes that balance is challenging. We have lots of great ideas about things we’d like to be able to do, but if they don’t make business sense, it’s going to be a lot harder for us to do them. Or, we have to be creative and think about who we can partner with. How can we move this into a nonprofit situation? Or how can we get a venture capitalist to share risk on this? Can we create a joint venture? The exciting challenge for me is how we can figure out creative ways to do the things we want to do, because they are the right thing to do even when the business model isn’t oriented toward the blockbuster.

Maurine Meleck - SC:
Gerberding talks about the first model (which is not used anymore) that gave information to parents about vaccines. I beg to differ. We never got information on the negative side effects of vaccines. They need to start doing this now-and let the parents read the vaccine inserts before deciding. The autism community is not anti-vaccine (remember we vaccinated and that’s how our children got sick), but we are ‘safe vaccine‘. Big difference here. No problem here if they do away with mandated vaccines and let people pick and choose what drugs should enter their children's bodies and their own. Personal choice and parental consent will do it. If someone wants to give their child 10 vaccines on the same day–fine–their choice.

Erwin Alber:
Vaccines are by their very nature as chemical and biological agents unsafe Maurine, which is why all the clamor for safe vaccines or green vaccines is a lot of nonsense. Vaccines need to be abolished, not made safer. Because it’s not a good idea to hold one’s breath waiting for this to happen, parents meanwhile just need to say NO to vaccines because this toxic garbage is injected into babies and children not to prevent, but to PROMOTE ill-health. Think about it: sick people are profitable – healthy people are not! The reactions, disorders, disabilities and deaths vaccines cause are consequently not as we are led to believe unfortunate, accidental side-effects, but their only and in my opinion . . .   INTENDED effect.

Prudence Dagg
I doubt anyone who knows their child is vaccine injured has a hard time believing that. However, those who oppose vaccines are bullied and browbeaten, so probably some feel pushed to keep it to discussion of making vaccines 'safer', when no one has ever needed a vaccine. I would say they are the 'hoax of the century' except that they have been here longer than that.

Aimee Doyle
My son was vaccine-injured. I saw him develop seizures with his DPT, lose language and social skills with his first MMR, develop autistic behaviors with his second MMR, and develop self-injurious behaviors with subsequent vaccines. Until you’ve lived with a child who hits his leg so many times there are permanent bruises and yells at the top of his lungs for hours every night, I’m not interested in hearing about how vaccines are 'safe'. I could accept the coincidence argument once, perhaps, but my son has regressed and shown adverse effects with each vaccine. He was diagnosed with autism at age 4. He is now 21, so I’ve been in the trenches a long time and I’ve read just about every study on the issue of vaccines and autism. Clearly vaccines are not always safe. The Supreme Court, in the Bruesewitz decision, noted that vaccines are 'unavoidably unsafe'.  That’s the reason we have a vaccine court — because there is a genetically vulnerable subpopulation of children who do not respond well to a vaccine, and may respond even worse to vaccines given together. I am skeptical about the 'future of vaccines' unless the industry acknowledges that there may be problems for some children with some vaccines and abandons the 'one size fits all' vaccination policy.

Jessica
Anyone who believes that vaccines are safe and go out of their way to defend them along with the companies who develop them for people are dumber than a bag of hammers and are being bought themselves. There is so much evidence that supports the fact that vaccines have dangerous side effects and that they even cause death. Parents who have dealt with sick children as a result of being vaccinated know how deadly these vaccines truly are and will continue to be. If you’re stupid enough to vaccinate your child(ren) and be brainwashed by all of the propaganda then I truly feel for your complete and utter ignorance and your children and that they have such moronic parents.  I could continue – but, my comments have summed this topic up nicely.

Erwin Alber
You have summed up this topic very nicely indeed Jessica! Based on my research I have arrived at the inevitable conclusion that vaccination is an organized criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention by means of junk science. In my books, vaccination is bio-terrorism against civilians – particularly our young – and vaccines biochemical warfare agents and weapons of mass destruction.  The fact that Julie Gerberding previously held a high position at the CDC is an example of the 'revolving-door-policy' between vaccine policy-makers and the vaccine-industry and an illustration of the serious conflict of interest these people are involved in.  In New Zealand a few years ago, a well-known TV journalist who was involved in the making of a documentary about the adverse effects caused by Merck’s genetically engineered hepatitis B vaccine was offered the job of New Zealand Public Relations Manager for Merck. Needless to say in return for the favor, the documentary was canned.

Grim Fandango
Part of what brings Merck, Pfizer, Glaxo/Smith/Kline, and other major vaccine companies into the conversation is the realization that vaccines are no longer just a low-margin, high-liability corporate backwater. That’s right, vaccines are now a high-margin, ZERO-liability corporate free-money machine. These psychopaths can’t be sued, for any reason whatsoever, including knowingly and intentionally distributing a vaccine that cripples and kills.

Larry
And here is the propaganda spun at warp speed:   Julie Gerberding, the former Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is now the President of Merck’s vaccine unit. She’s the latest in a long line of revolving-door movements of top executives from FDA and CDC 'decision making' positions to top 'executive positions' in the Drug companies they used to 'regulate', and often back again to the FDA and CDC. According to the article above, It’s a good thing, now the little psychopath can do even more good for humanity. Barf bag please, and hurry.  Just wait for the final single payer nightmare iteration of Obama Care, and the mandated vaccines that you will be forced to submit to in order to receive any heath care whatsoever.

In conclusion, please avail yourself of the YouTube interview with Jon Rappoport as advertised on this website - 

Regina Dugan - DARPA

Regina E. Dugan - born March 19, 1963. She obtained her Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1984 and 1985 respectively, and her Doctorate degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1993 from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). She was co-chairwoman of the Organization for Women at Caltech, an institution where 80% of graduate students were men.

While heading the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) - Google’s Regina Dugan violated ethics rules by awarding government contracts to a company she founded, according to a Department of Defense investigation. The Department’s Inspector General found that while at DARPA Dugan had 'conflicting financial interests' with a company called RedXDefense.  Building on her DARPA experience involving land mines, Dugan, her father, and her uncle used their firm to found RedXDefense in 2005, a company specializing in technology for screening humans, vehicles and packages for explosive threats. RedXDefense builds technologies to detect explosives, gunshot evidence and narcotics. A Wired report from 2012 raised speculation over the ability of the company’s products to achieve their purposes, and quoted one defense official as saying RedXDefense tech was less efficient than a 'coin flip' when it came to detecting bombs. 

Dugan acted as CEO of RedXDefense from 2005 until 2009, when she took the top spot at DARPA,the Pentagon’s forward-thinking 'Weapons Development Division'. She reportedly exited all RedXDefense affiliations at that time, but has maintained a longstanding financial stake in the company.  Sworn in on July 20, 2009, Regina Elvira Dugan is the first female Director to lead the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. military’s secretive, high-tech operation responsible for inventing the forerunner to the Internet (ARPAnet) and the technology behind the stealth fighter, unmanned drone aircraft, global positioning satellites and the M16 rifle.  On January 27, 2010, DARPA awarded a $400,000 research contract to RedXDefense, a company created by Dugan. In August 2010, RedXDefense received another contract from DARPA, an extension of the January one; this time in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security.

From artificial mammal brains to prosthetics that feel like real limbs, the military’s blue-sky researchers are aiming to bring man and machine closer than ever before. You've probably never looked at a mammal’s brain and thought -  “Gee, I wish I could yank that out of its skull and shrink it onto a chip.” Nor have you likely gazed upon a colony of ants and remarked, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could get spy drones to work together like that?” That’s because you don’t work for the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, the Pentagon’s way, way out science and technology arm. Their annual budget request, which they made public on Thursday, reads like something out of a lost Philip K. Dick notepad. DARPA, for the uninitiated, acts as the Pentagon’s blue-sky research agency, always looking beyond the horizon for the technologies which will have the greatest impact in the future.

DARPA robot	DARPA killer robot	DARPA insect drone