Category: NWO



Fukushima Update: “Your Radiation This Week, Nov 28 to Dec 5, 2015″

Saturday, December 5, 2015 14:15

(Before It’s News)

“Your Radiation This Week, Nov 28 to Dec 5, 2015″

By Bob Nichols

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzQuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tLy0yRVhuaVU1cjl6by9WaUo5eE9vcklOSS9BQUFBQUFBQmVnVS9Fb1QwemxUQ0dzQS9zMTYwMC9GdWt1c2hpbWElMkJUb3AuanBn

”I didn’t say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth.”

– Morpheus

(San Francisco) December 5, 2015 – “Good Day, this is “Your Radiation This Week.” These are the recorded Radiation Highs that affected some people this week around the United States. You should compare the Rad numbers directly with the Rad numbers in with my articles listed on the VT Author’s Page here. These are the American cities that exceeded 1,000 CPM this week. Thirty-eight (38) American cities exceeded 1,000 CPM this week; that’s up 6 cities since last week Another eleven (11) cities are clustered between 900 and 999 CPM. Stay Alert and take all appropriate precautions.

The Rad poison has spread all over the country and settled in for the long haul. The most prevalent isotope, Cesium 137, takes a daunting 600 years to decay to infinitesimal levels. It is not even particularly long-lived radiation. The Cesium will remain, though; we won’t.

All Radiation Counts reported are partial Counts. Uncounted types of radiation include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Neutron and X-Ray radiation. Uncounted radiation, if added, makes the actual Count higher and more dangerous. The highest radiation reporting city is listed first, the least radioactive city reporting is listed last. All reporting cities are above normal. I just could not overlook Washington, DC at 235 CPM subtotal Gamma and Beta for a low and 500 CPM subtotal Gamma and Beta for a High Rad reading. This is not even a low for the District. The low Gamma only reading was 80 CPM. The benefits of living in Washington, DC are never ending and far surpass those of Normal men and women living in other cities – even New York at 785 CPM High this week.

 

Normal Radiation is 5 to 20 CPM. 50 CPM is an alert level.

RADIATION  CPM* TIMES NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL CITY, STATE TYPE

1,585 CPM,  317 Times Normal,  Spokane, WA.  Gamma, Beta.

1,506 CPM,  301.2 Times Normal,  Miami, FL.  Gamma, Beta.

1,469 CPM,  293.8 Times Normal,  Bakersfield, CA  Gamma, Beta.

1,457 CPM,  291.4 Times Normal,  Portland, ME  Gamma, Beta.

1,378 CPM,  275.6 Times Normal,  Colorado Springs, CO.  Gamma, Beta.

1,347 CPM,  269.4 Times Normal,  Harrisonburg, VA.  Gamma, Beta.

1,345 CPM,  269 Times Normal,  Little Rock, AR  Gamma, Beta.

1,315 CPM,  263 Times Normal,  Kansas City, KS  Gamma, Beta.

1,278 CPM,  255.6 Times Normal,  Navajo Lake, NM  Gamma, Beta.

1,276 CPM,  255.2 Times Normal,  Raleigh, NC.  Gamma, Beta.

1,287 CPM,  254.4 Times Normal,  Fresno, CA  Gamma, Beta.

1,257 CPM,  254.4 Times Normal,  Reno, NV  Gamma, Beta.

1,269 CPM,  253.8 Times Normal,  Yuma, AZ.  Gamma, Beta.

1,266 CPM,  253.2 Times Normal,  Phoenix, AZ  Totally Gone.

1,250 CPM,  250 Times Normal,  Louisville, KY  Gamma, Beta

1,241 CPM,  248.2 Times Normal,  Worcester, MA.  Gamma, Beta.

1,238 CPM,  247.6 Times Normal,  Pierre, SD  Gamma, Beta.

1,237 CPM,  247.4 Times Normal,  Rapid City, SD.  Gamma, Beta.

1,225 CPM,  245 Times Normal,  Tucson, AZ  Gamma, Beta.

1,218 CPM,  243.6 Times Normal,  Idaho Falls, ID  Gamma, Beta.

1,208 CPM,  241.6 Times Normal,  Amarillo, TX.  Totally Gone.

1,186 CPM,  237.2 Times Normal,  Bismark, ND.  Gamma, Beta.

1,165 CPM,  233 Times Normal,  Madison, WI.  Gamma, Beta.

1,148 CPM,  229.6 Times Normal,  Billings, MT  Gamma, Beta.

1,145 CPM,  229 Times Normal,  Pittsburgh, PA,  Gamma, Beta.

1,124 CPM,  224.8 Times Normal,  Rochester, NY.  Gamma, Beta.

1,110 CPM,  222 Times Normal,  San Diego, CA.  Gamma. Beta.

1,106 CPM,  221.2 Times Normal,  Laredo, TX.  Gamma, Beta.

1,105 CPM,  221 Times Normal,  El Paso, TX.  Gamma, Beta.

1,091 CPM,  218.2 Times Normal,  Wichita, KS.  Gamma, Beta.

1,066 CPM,  213.2 Times Normal,  St George, UT.  Gamma, Beta.

1.058 CPM,  211.6 Times Normal,  Mason City, IA  Gamma, Beta.

1,051 CPM,  210.2 Times Normal,  Anaheim, CA.  Gamma, Beta.

1,041 CPM,  208.2 Times Normal,  Boston, MA.  Gamma, Beta.

1,039 CPM,  207.8 Times Normal,  Hartford, CT  Gamma, Beta.

1,032 CPM,  206.4 Times Normal,  Riverside, CA.  Gamma, Beta.

1,020 CPM,  204 Times Normal,  Denver, CO.  Gamma, Beta.

1,011 CPM,  202.2 Times Normal,  Boise, ID.  Gamma, Beta.

500 CPM,    100 Times Normal,  Washington, DC  High Gamma, Beta.

235 CPM,    47 Times Normal,  Washington, DC  Low Gamma, Beta.

Most Radioactive City in America: Spokane, Washington is the No 1 Radioactive City in America this week! Congrats to Spokane! Miami, Florida and Bakersfield, California are close behind in the CPM race to the end.

Special Gift from the Insane Pro-Nukers: California perennially leads the nation in population.  California is also the First State to have Six (6) Cities above the 1,000 CPM Level of Ionizing Radiation. Congrats, Cali, a real “Not In My Backyard” kind of Honor. The cities are listed here in CPM order: Bakersfield – 1,415, Fresno – 1,409, Anaheim – 1,128, Riverside – 1,049, San Diego – 1,046, Los Angeles – 1,020.

Nuclear Pulse Redo– Target Denver, Colorado. Another nuclear pulse struck in Denver, Colorado November 13, 2015. The rapid increase in measurable radiation had the same Rad signature as the September 30 – October 30 Rad Pulse in Champaign, Illinois reported in YRTW No 23. The governments involved know about it, of course, and have not said a word. Make of that what you will. On September 30 thru October 30, 2015 some unacknowledged source or sources around Lake Michigan spread measurable radiation all over the country. Like a Devil Wind it could be tracked for several weeks. Thousands of people know about it and no one is talking publicly. Three cities – Billings, Denver, and Colorado Springs – have been hit with massive pulses of radiation. After the attacks, the Rad rolled through the unprotected countryside and right through the unaware residents for hundreds of miles. The people were un-warned and had not a clue what hit them when the heart attacks and strokes started.

Which city will be next? I have no way of detecting it or knowing about it till after the Rad strikes. These attacks were launched without warning or any prior indications to civilians. The attacks are launched seemingly At Will and without restraint. The most common Rad effects are heart attacks and strokes. Know anybody who has unexpectedly dropped dead of a heart attack recently? Say “Hello” to Rad as a weapon.

US Abandons St Louis, Missouri: Manhattan Project’s former nuclear laden garbage dump for radiologically contaminated material is in comeback mode in a big way in St Louis. The nuclear laced garbage is directly in the path of a underground fire in a modern city garbage dump.* The US will throw its own residents under the bus rather than jeopardize any part of the nuclear weapons program. The fire is just another example of bad consequences that happen to good people as a result of the US Nuclear Weapons Program. The source of the Uranium was a very rich deposit in Africa. The US killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons made from it. Soon we can add St. Louis, Missouri to the nuclear kill. There are about 2,795,794 people in the St Louis Metro area.

As you will remember from High School Physics class, Uranium is the Metal that Burns. Burning Uranium isotopes can get as hot as 10,832 Degrees Fahrenheit. There is no way for individuals on their own to argue with a burning 10,832 Degree F chunk of Uranium. The only thing to do is get out of the way; leave St Louis!

 

The prudent Missouri State Attorney General’s report advises St Louis’ residents a nuclear dump fire could start December 1, 2015. Nothing has been done to stop the progress of the fire and nothing will be done, because nothing can be done. Like it always does, the US will study, not treat, a few unwitting victims and watch them die. Those people who are able to leave town should do so immediately – escape from St Louis. If you are still in St Louis now, God help you. Stay at your own risk. That is my opinion.

“Radiation Sensors in Major U.S. Cities Turned Off By EPA”: Billings, Montana on Oct 16, 2015 was reading a Combined Beta and Gamma Rad of 1,227 Beta and 703 Gamma for a Combined reading of 1,930CPM. The Beta Rad unit stopped publicly reporting, then four (4) days later on Oct 20, 2015 at 12:37:25 the unit came to life again. It’s… ahh, personality had changed, though. The new Beta and Gamma reading was 926 Beta and 401 Gamma. The new Combined radiation number on Oct 20 was 1,227 CPM Combined. The Combined reading was 603 CPM less than it was 4 days before. There was no Note or Comment on the missing four days. It was a 4 Day Rad Gap and an unexplained disappearance of 603CPM. The disappearing CPM was comprised of 302 CPM Gamma and 301 CPM Beta. In the next 4 Hours the Combined CPM eroded another 550 CPM for a total CPM Loss of 1,153 CPM. Billings, Montana today is barely in the List of cities above 1000 CPM. Billings is now 23rd on the list and reads 1,101 CPM. The missing Radiation remains “Unaccounted For.” Presumably it [the radiation] did not go to the Moon; therefore, it is on Earth somewhere now. (So, they apparently tried to “rig” the system and failed, so instead turned it all off. Just my hunch… – CP)

German Analysis of Certain Isotopes after Meltdown: Hold on to your hat… In 1992 Germany calculated that in reactor meltdowns like Fukushima Daiichi the radioactive isotope Strontium 90 would aggressively poison the environment for 109.2 years and then decline slowly over the next 273 years. Of course, we will ALL be long dead by then. Other deadly Rad isotopes put Strontium 90’s generous life span to shame. The German study is here for those brave enough to tackle it. Source: The IAEA: Dispersion of radionuclides and radiation exposure after leaching by groundwater of a solidified core-concrete melt by Bayer, A.; Tromm, W.; Al-Omari, I. (Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe (Germany)) from 8. International congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA8)

Isotope Count reporting: These CPM numbers do not represent the actual radiation counts in your radiation weather this week. It is higher [or worse] than these government certified partial reports say. Use these report numbers as your Starting Point in adding up your daily, monthly and annual exposure from your Rad Weather. Most radiation monitors report on the radioactive presence of Cesium 137 at the detector. YRTW will report on “the secrets the Pros use” in estimating the actual Total radiation counts. It is not a pretty picture. Squeamish readers may want to turn to other Veterans Today articles reporting on usual things like wars and people getting blown up by an actual named enemy you can see in pictures.

Day One out of the reactor use a news reported Cesium multiplier of 150 Times. After 15 days outside the reactor the multiplier is still approximately 100 times the Cesium Twins. Take all appropriate Rad precautions. A second Multiplier is for Rad particles that have been outside the reactor for ten years or more. The Total radiation declines to approximately Five (5) Times the Cesium level. The Lethality is still increasing though. Here’s how you can calculate an estimate of your Total Rad today: Use a reported account of the Cesium 137/134 CPM in your area and Multiply Times 5. Another way to say it is:

Cs137/134 CPM X 5.0 = Total Radiation released in CPM

Radiation types commonly measured by radiation monitors include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Neutron and X-Ray radiation. Only Beta and Gamma are reported by the EPA and here on YRTW. There are 1,944 other individual Rad elements, only a few are ever mentioned in articles. In short: The newer disaster’s Cesium 137/134 radiation CPM that is conveniently echoed by local and national news outlets, tells you right away by simple Multiplication how big the disaster really is, even if they are lying. At least it gets you closer than “There is no danger to the public.” That would be You. Think of it as the insider’s secret code. Multiply away! That’s it. No magic or VooDoo, just the facts as close as you can calculate it. However, provided Cesium 134 is present you are experiencing a recent radioactive release and all bets are off. Why is that? Because the two Rad Isotopes decay at greatly different rates. The relatively long lived Cs 137 is half gone in 30.1 years. The shorter lived Cesium 134 is half gone in only 2.06 years. As a result the Multiplier changes very rapidly. Good Luck.

The Lethality goes up for 35 years; then declines slightly and hangs steady for millions of years, for that release. New releases start a new clock all over again. Regrettably for all normal Humans, that is a bunch of generations. The end result is extinction, of course.  Everybody is included; no one is left out. Truthfully, it is a bummer and I know of no variety of radiation-exempt Human Species.

 

How often do radioactive releases occur? The answer is: Radioactive releases occur almost daily in most reactors. This venting does complicate your health and your estimated Rad readings. May you always have better Rad Weather; but, that’s not likely.

– http://www.veteranstoday.com/

Sources and Notes:

1. The Radiation charts and graphs of the EPA at http://www2.epa.gov/radnet  Don’t skip the “2” in www2.

2. The EPA based reporting of NETC.com, an LLC.

3. * This station’s Radiation equals combined Beta and Gamma Radiation. Note: Not all locations have reporting Beta Radiation Monitors. Gamma Radiation Monitors are functioning at all these locations.

4. “…If you pollute when you DO KNOW there is NO safe dose with respect to causing extra cases of deadly cancers or heritable effects, you are committing premeditated random murder.” – John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D. (1918-2007), associate director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1963-1969) — Comments on a Petition for Rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 21, 1994.

5. CPM. “Although we can’t see it, taste it, smell it or hear it we can measure radiation and observe its effects. One way to measure radiation which the United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has chosen to use on its radiation websites is in Counts Per Minute. Each Count is One Radioactive Decay.” Quote from the ‘Your Radiation, This Week.’” Apr 3, 2015.

6. Digilert 100 Promotional Flyer pdf, “Normal background is 5-20 CPM.”

7. ENENEWS, August 7th, 2015, US Gov’t: “We don’t know what’s going on” in Pacific — Many ill baby seals being abandoned; Dozens of walruses found dead; Dying whales, birds, fish — “Unprecedented things happening” — Experts: “It’s been a very unusual marine mammal year… I’m really worried, very concerned” (AUDIO)
8. Dispersion of radionuclides and radiation exposure after leaching by groundwater of a solidified core-concrete melt by Bayer, A.; Tromm, W.; Al-Omari, I. (Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe (Germany)) from 8. International congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA8)
9. Resuspension and redistribution of radionuclides during grassland and forest fires in the Chernobyl exclusion zone: part I. Fire experiments., Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 86 (2006) 143e163www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvrad

*10. St. Louis landfill fire could reach radioactive waste in months, September 18, 2015

11.Depleted Uranium Radioactive Waste. By: Evgenia Misenzhnikova, Legislative Intern. (uranium can spontaneously ignite and then burn at temperatures of above 10,832 degrees Fahrenheit) 

“World Health Organization:

Prolonged Exposure to Even LOW Level Radiation Increases the Risk of Cancer”

“Throughout this time the reactors continuously plumed out radiation into the environment. When seen through the refracted gaze of the media, it seemed as though the radioactive plumes that escaped the Daiichi plant were severe, but episodic and limited. In fact, the plumes that made their way into the atmosphere after the venting and hydrogen explosions were peak releases, but they were merely steps above an already elevated level that fluctuated but never stopped. One way to visualize this is to imagine the plume as a spotlight that swept back and forth, continuously pluming out radioactivity in the direction that light was shone: as the wind shifted the plume would move, but it never stopped. The plume was unrelenting (and, arguably, still is today in another mode, as contaminated water leaks into the ocean), and as this radioactivity has been released into the environment, it has incrementally distributed collective, cumulative doses whose consequences for public health were terrifying in the early days of the crisis but may well be even worse in the long-term.”

– http://japanfocus.org/-Kyle-Cleveland/4075/article.html

Aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, 100 miles offshore of Fukushima: “During that March 13 phone call, Cleveland wrote, Troy Mueller — the deputy administrator for naval reactors at the US Department of Energy — said the radiation was the equivalent of “about 30 times what you would detect just on a normal air sample out at sea.” “So it’s much greater than what we had thought,” Mueller reportedly warned other American officials after taking samples on the Reagan. “We didn’t think we would detect anything at 100 miles.” After Mueller made that remark, according to Cleveland’s transcript, Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman asked him if those levels were “significantly higher than anything you would have expected.” He responded yes. Poneman later asked Mueller, “How do the levels detected compare with what is permissible?” Mueller replied that those on the scene could suffer irreversible harm from the radiation within hours. “If it were a member of the general public, it would take- well, it would take about 10 hours to reach a limit,” he said. “At that point,” Mueller added, “it’s a thyroid dose issue.” If people are exposed to levels beyond the Protective Action Guideline threshold released by the Energy Department, Cleveland acknowledged in his report, radiation could have ravaged their thyroid glands.”

– http://www.rt.com/usa/uss-reagan-fukushima-radiation-979/

So within 10 hours of exposure to 30 times the normal background radiation level “radiation could have ravaged their thyroid glands.” Find the nearest location to you in the listing above. 10 hours? 30 times normal exposure? Remember this is 24 hour a day, 7 days a week exposure for over 4 1/2 years now. Draw your own conclusions…

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzQuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tLy1UNFExZVp5ZVNHdy9WYzliSG9MNDNTSS9BQUFBQUFBQmNyTS9PelpOT2RPWUg3by9zMTYwMC9lbmVsb2dvLmdpZg==

Record levels of Fukushima radiation detected off West Coast — Massive plume stretches for more than 1,000 miles — Reuters: Contamination is spreading off U.S. shores — Radioactive cesium reaches 11 Bq/m3 at multiple locations (MAP)

Former Japan Official: “Unstoppable contamination of Pacific Ocean… is seriously menacing US West Coast” — “Fukushima now undeniably a global security issue… can’t be brought under control by single state” — Experts: Wave of radiation will be 10 times more than entire world’s nuclear tests combined

Giant whales found piled up dead on west coast beach — Second largest animals on planet — Official: “It’s never happened… Extremely unusual… Very rare and odd… We want to know why” — Gov’t scientists testing for Fukushima radiation — Backlog at lab due to so many recent deaths (PHOTOS)

It’s all scripted! Ebola outbreak and impossibly rapid vaccine response clearly scripted; U.S. govt. patented Ebola in 2010 and now owns all victims’ blood


It’s all scripted! Ebola outbreak

and impossibly rapid vaccine

response clearly scripted; U.S.

govt. patented Ebola in 2010

and now owns all victims’ blood

September 21, 2014 2:39 pm EST

By Mike Adams | Natural News

On the very same day that vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline is being fined $490 million by Chinese authorities for running an illegal bribery scheme across China [3], the media is announcing the “astonishing” launch of human trials for an Ebola vaccine.

Care to guess who will be manufacturing this vaccine once it is whitewashed and rubber-stamped as “approved?” GlaxoSmithKline, of course. The same company that also admitted to a massive criminal bribery network in the United States, where felony crimes were routinely committed to funnel money to over 40,000 physicians who pushed dangerous prescription drugs onto patients.

This is the company that is now — today! — injecting 60 “volunteers” with an experimental Ebola vaccine.

Spontaneous vaccine development a scientific impossibility

“Normally it would take years of human trials before a completely new vaccine was approved for use,” reports the BBC. [1] “But such is the urgency of the Ebola outbreak in west Africa that this experimental vaccine is being fast tracked at an astonishing rate.”

Yes, it’s astonishing because it’s impossible.

As any vaccine-related virologist already knows, the process of going from an in-the-wild infection of Ebola to a manufactured vaccine ready for human trials simply cannot be achieved in a matter of a few weeks or months. Apparently, we are all to believe that a spontaneous scientific miracle has now taken place — a literal act of vaccine magic — which has allowed the criminal vaccine industry to skip the tedious R&D phases and create a vaccine ready for human trials merely by waving a magic wand.

“The first of 60 healthy volunteers will be injected with the vaccine,” says the BBC today, and vaccine pushers are of course lining up to proclaim the vaccine miracle which has spontaneously appeared before them like a burning bush:

Professor Adrian Hill, director of the Jenner Institute in Oxford, who is leading the trial, said: “This is a remarkable example of how quickly a new vaccine can be progressed into the clinic, using international co-operation.”

Near-proof that this was all scripted

The far more likely explanation, of course, is that all this was scripted in advance: the outbreak, the international cry for help, the skyrocketing of the stock price for Tekmira (which has received financial investments from Monsanto), the urgent call for a vaccine and now the spontaneous availability of human vaccine trials. It’s all beautifully scripted from start to finish, better than a Shakespearean tragedy played out on the international stage.

The “heroes” of this theater have been pre-ordained to be drug companies and vaccines, and it is already written in the script that vaccines will be heralded as lifesaving miracles of modern science even if they infect people and cause widespread damage as has now happened to young girls in Colombia who are being hospitalized en masse after being injected with HPV vaccines. [2]

Incredibly, the official response from vaccine-pushing health authorities in Colombia is that all these girls who are suffering from paralysis are merely “imagining” their symptoms and suffering from “mass hysteria.” Obviously, if vaccines are created by the gods of modern science — the new cult of our delusional world — then they must be perfect and infallible. Therefore, anyone who suffers side effects of such perfect vaccines must obviously be imagining things. Such is the delusional dogma of modern vaccine pushers.

This will be the exact same explanation leveled against anyone who suffers harmful effects from an Ebola vaccine, too. After all, the discovery of vaccine side effects simply isn’t in the script being played out before us. Therefore, it cannot be allowed, and any person who actually suffers side effects will be immediately deemed to be mentally ill. (Yes, this is how insane and Orwellian the vaccine industry has become. All who do now bow down to the voodoo of dangerous vaccines are labeled mental patients and then treated with psychiatric drugs. The vaccine industry has quite literally become the Heaven’s Gate Cult of modern medicine…)

The United States government now owns the patent on Ebola

This plot gets even more interesting when you realize that a patent on Ebola was awarded to the United States government just four years ago, in 2010.

That patent, number CA2741523A1, is available here.

Astonishingly, the patent claims U.S. government ownership over all variants of Ebola which share 70% or more of the protein sequences described in the patent: “[CLAIMS] …a nucleotide sequence of at least 70%-99% identity to the SEQ ID…”

Furthermore, the patent also claims ownership over any and all Ebola viruses which are “weakened” or “killed,” meaning the United States government is literally claiming ownership over all Ebola vaccines.

What this means, of course, is that the U.S. government can demand royalties on all Ebola vaccines.

Even more Orwellian is the fact that the U.S. government can use this patent to halt all other research for treatments or cures for Ebola.

Patent monopoly gives U.S. government legal right to block all non-vaccine Ebola treatments, cures or research

Do you remember the massive medical controversy over the BRCA1 gene tied to breast cancer in women? One corporation claimed patent ownership over the gene and then they used that patent to shut down all other research, testing or diagnosis of breast cancer related to that gene. To date, nearly 20% of the human genome has been claimed as “owned” by corporations, universities and even the government.

The controversy went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately ruled that human genes cannot be patented. But the Supreme Court decision actually protected patents on gene sequences for viruses and other pathogens.

The truth of the matter is that anyone who owns the Ebola gene patent can legally use that patent to shut down all research on Ebola, including research for non-vaccine medical treatments and cures. This is how medical monopolies are reinforced: by monopolizing all the research and all the “cures.”

Even more frightening, the “ownership” over Ebola extends to Ebola circulating in the bodies of Ebola victims. When Dr. Kent Brantly was relocated from Africa to the CDC’s care in Atlanta, that entire scene was carried out under the quasi-legal justification that the U.S. government “owned” the Ebola circulating in Dr. Brantly’s blood. Thus, one of the very first things that took place was the acquisition of his blood samples for archiving and R&D by the CDC and the U.S. Department of Defense.

(Only the gullible masses think that was about saving the life of a doctor. The real mission was to acquire the Ebola strain circulating in his body and use it for weaponization research, vaccine research and other R&D purposes.)

Anyone infected with Ebola now deemed to be carrying “government property” in the form of a patented virus

This brings us to the quarantine issue. As the whole world knows by now, the entire nation of Sierra Leone is now under a state of medical martial law, where Ebola victims are now being hunted down like fugitives in door-to-door manhunts. [4]

Simultaneously, the United States government is now operating under Obama’s executive order #13674, signed on July 31, 2014, which allows the U.S. federal government to arrest and quarantine any person who shows symptoms of infectious disease. [5]

This executive order allows federal agents to forcibly arrest and quarantine anyone showing symptoms of:

…Severe acute respiratory syndromes, which are diseases that are associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, are capable of being transmitted from person to person, and that either are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic, or, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality or serious morbidity if not properly controlled.

Part of the legal argument for justifying such a quarantine in the case of Ebola goes like this: If you are carrying Ebola in your body, then you are in possession of U.S. government property!

The fact that the virus is replicating in your body is, legally speaking, a violation of patent law. Because you are providing a host environment for the replication of the virus, you technically are breaking federal laws that restrict the copying and distributed of patented properties, which in this case include the Ebola virus.

Thus, the government has every right to “relocate” you and prevent you from violating patent law by replicating, distributing or spreading THEIR intellectual property (i.e. the Ebola virus).

Lest you think this legal argument sounds insane, just remember that the legal system is full of lawyers who make far more insane arguments on a daily basis, including the argument that human genes could be patented in the first place. And medical officials also make insane, irrational arguments almost constantly, including the argument that all those girls in Colombia who are suffering convulsions and paralysis from the HPV vaccine are merely “imagining” their symptoms. Such explanations flatly defy any attachment to sane thinking.

Ultimately, the patent on the Ebola virus provides the legal justification for forced government quarantines — and even medical research — on Ebola victims.

“Ebola is a genetically modified organism”

What I’ve outlined in this story is just a small taste of the crime against humanity which is taking place right before our eyes. I am now convinced that this Ebola outbreak is very likely not an accident, and many scientists in Africa wholeheartedly agree that the outbreak is actually the deployment of a biological weapon.

“Ebola is a genetically modified organism (GMO),” declared Dr. Cyril Broderick, Professor of Plant Pathology, in a front-page story published in the Liberian Observer. [6]

He goes on to explain:

[Horowitz] confirmed the existence of an American Military-Medical-Industry that conducts biological weapons tests under the guise of administering vaccinations to control diseases and improve the health of “black Africans overseas.”

SITES AROUND AFRICA, AND IN WEST AFRICA, HAVE OVER THE YEARS BEEN SET UP FOR TESTING EMERGING DISEASES, ESPECIALLY EBOLA

The World Health Organization (WHO) and several other UN Agencies have been implicated in selecting and enticing African countries to participate in the testing events, promoting vaccinations, but pursuing various testing regiments.

AFRICAN LEADERS AND AFRICAN COUNTRIES NEED TO TAKE THE LEAD IN DEFENDING BABIES, CHILDREN, AFRICAN WOMEN, AFRICAN MEN, AND THE ELDERLY. THESE CITIZENS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE USED AS GUINEA PIGS!

Africa must not relegate the Continent to become the locality for disposal and the deposition of hazardous chemicals, dangerous drugs, and chemical or biological agents of emerging diseases. There is urgent need for affirmative action in protecting the less affluent of poorer countries, especially African citizens, whose countries are not as scientifically and industrially endowed as the United States and most Western countries, sources of most viral or bacterial GMOs that are strategically designed as biological weapons. It is most disturbing that the U. S. Government has been operating a viral hemorrhagic fever bioterrorism research laboratory in Sierra Leone.

The world must be alarmed. All Africans, Americans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians, and people from every conclave on Earth should be astonished. African people, notably citizens more particularly of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone are victimized and are dying every day.

Learn the truth at BioDefense.com

If you really want to learn the truth about all this, listen to the free Pandemic Preparedness audio course available right now at www.BioDefense.com

All MP3 files are freely downloadable, and new episodes are being posted every few days.

Also check out these 11 horrifying truths about Ebola that you’re not supposed to know.

Nearly one million people have now visited www.BioDefense.com since its launch last week. Find out there what the mainstream media won’t dare tell you. Your life may quite literally depend on it.

Sources for this article include:
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29230157

[2] http://news.yahoo.com/mystery-illness-plague…

[3] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29274822

[4] http://www.naturalnews.com/046945_medical_ma…

[5] http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014…

[6] http://www.liberianobserver.com/security/ebo…

[7] http://www.google.com/patents/CA2741523A1

[8] http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merc…

[9] http://www.naturalnews.com/046259_ebola_outb…

[10] http://www.naturalnews.com/040400_gene_paten…

[11] http://www.naturalnews.com/028492_BRCA1_huma…

[12] http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/09/17…

This article originally appeared on Natural News.


Canada’s PM To Putin: “I Guess
I’ll Shake Your Hand…” Putin’s
Response “Was Not Positive”
"I have only one thing to say to
you: you need to get out of
Ukraine.”

Canada's PM To Putin: "I Guess I'll Shake Your Hand..." Putin's Response "Was Not Positive"

by Zero Hedge | November 16, 2014

Following last week’s (humiliating for the US) APEC meeting in Beijing, in which the BRIC nations clearly distanced themselves from the “developed world” and the topic of the “Russian invasion of Ukraine” was largely missing as it is clearly not in the interest of the Pacific nations to warmonger when the two key nations, Russia and China are obviously not complying with the western media ‘straight to populism‘ narrative, it was time for another major world summit, this time in the quite “western” Brisbane, Australia.

It was here that the G-7 part of the G-20 nations seized the opportunity to quickly pivot against Moscow and remind Europe that the reason why Europe is in a triple-dip recession (if one removes the GDP “boost” from hookers and blow) is because of Russia’s “take over” of east Ukraine, ignoring the reality that it was the US State Department’s Victoria Nuland that incited the Kiev coup and the west that imposed the “costly” sanctions on Russia which have hurt Germany and Europe just as badly. This was all largely lost on the local, as outside the summit, Ukrainian Australians staged an anti-Putin protest, wearing headbands reading “Putin, Killer”.

It was a full court press from the start: as the NYT reports, “at a speech at a university in Brisbane, Mr. Obama called Russia’s aggression against Ukraine a “threat to the world, as we saw in the appalling shoot down of MH-17, a tragedy that took so many innocent lives, among them your fellow citizens,” a reference to the Australian citizens and residents who were killed when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 went down in eastern Ukraine.

“As your ally and friend, America shares the grief of these Australian families, and we share the determination of your nation for justice and accountability,” Mr. Obama said.”

StevenHarper_douchebag

This charade was set to continue Sunday, when leaders from the European Union planned to meet with Mr. Obama to discuss Ukraine, among other issues, said Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. He said the European Union was committed to finding a political solution to the crisis.

“We will continue to use all the diplomatic tools, including sanctions, at our disposal,” he said.

Indeed, as Reuters adds “Western leaders warned Vladimir Putin at a G20 summit on Saturday that he risked more economic sanctions if he failed to end Russian backing for separatist rebels in Ukraine.”

But perhaps the best confirmation that all the G-20 meeting was nothing but a giant populist photo-op comes from Bloomberg which reports that “Russian President Vladimir Putin got a blunt message when he approached Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a handshake at today’s Group of 20 summit in Brisbane, Australia.

“I guess I’ll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine,” Harper told Putin, the prime minister’s spokesman Jason MacDonald said in an e-mail.

Putin’s response to the comment wasn’t positive, MacDonald said, without elaborating. Putin and Harper talked briefly, according to Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

“Indeed Harper told Putin that Russia should leave Ukraine,” Peskov said by phone today in Brisbane. Putin told him that this is impossible because they are not there.”    Which is the real TRUTH” known by all alternative media station

Asked about the tone of the meeting between the two leaders, Peskov said “it was within the bounds of decency.”

Say no more.

Righteous Russian President Vladimir Putin, right,

walks past Canadian Prime Minister

 Hannibal Cannibal Stephen Harper, left,

during a pompous welcoming ceremony at the

G-20Criminal Cabal Summit in Brisbane.

Yet at the end of the day, captioned photo-op or not, one wonders how much of all the front-page drama is even remotely real when every single time the west goes on the “offensive” against Putin with “costs” just to have a convenient scapegoat for Europe’s ongoing depression, one hears in the back of one head the following exchange:

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir”


Putin: World War Is Inevitable

At This Point

Friday, October 31, 2014 7:35

(Before It’s News)

As the tide shifts back to war, because of winter nearing, Putin now states that war is inevitable in the following speech. The facts are that this world war is planned, it has been planned from the very beginning all the way from Pike’s letter about a world war in the 1800’s, which you can see at the bottom of this post. The planning of this war goes back further than that however. This is a biblical war that will be waged. This is the war of the End Times.

Crusaders2127 Video


As winter nears, war gets closer because of a timeline that parts of Europe will run out of resources for the winter. Russia recently enacted an embargo in the Arctic and is practically a declaration of war. The other part of this is the FACT that during this time if Ebola remains in America, which it will, then it will be able to spread just like influenza A. These are the days.

Below are the 10 main points posted by, “The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:

1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia’s decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America’s ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia’s challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.

6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until their efforts start to impinge on Russia’s key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia’s power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.

To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.”

Putin’s full speech: Video

1`

To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-together, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.

Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power center, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?  

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power center does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the center of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the center of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries.   The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy.  But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

we are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.

So it Begins.

Ebo-Lie: Man Living In Ghana Confirms Ebola Is A Hoax!


Ebo-Lie: Man Living In Ghana

Confirms Ebola Is A Hoax!

Saturday, November 1, 2014 12:05

(Before It’s News)

  By Steven Bancarz October 16, 2014 Health and Wellness, Medicine

By Steven Bancarz| A statement made by a man in Ghana named Nana Kwame has rocked the internet in the last few days.   The following information needs to reach people.  We need to see Ebola for what it really is.  It’s time that the world wakes up to the agenda behind all of this hysteria. Here is what this man has to say about what is happening in his home country:

“People in the Western World need to know what’s happening here in West Africa. THEY ARE LYING!!! “Ebola” as a virus does NOT Exist and is NOT “Spread”. The Red Cross has brought a disease to 4 specific countries for 4 specific reasons and it is only contracted by those who receive treatments and injections from the Red Cross. That is why Liberians and Nigerians have begun kicking the Red Cross out of their countries and reporting in the news the truth. Now bear with me:

REASONS:

Most people jump to “depopulation” which is no doubt always on the mind of the West when it comes to Africa. But I assure you Africa can NEVER be depopulated by killing 160 people a day when thousands are born per day. So the real reasons are much more tangible.

Reason 1:

This vaccine implemented sickness being “called” Ebola was introduced into West Africa for the end goal of getting troops on the ground in Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. If you remember America was just trying to get into Nigeria for “Boko Haram”. BULLSHIT.  But that fell apart when Nigerians started telling the truth. There ARE NO GIRLS MISSING. Global support fell through the floor, and a new reason was needed to get troops into Nigeria and steal the new oil reserves they have discovered.

Reason 2:

Sierra Leone is the World’s Largest Supplier of Diamonds. For the past 4 months they have been on strike, refusing to provide diamonds due to horrible working conditions and slave pay. The West will not pay a fair wage for the resources because the idea is to keep these people surviving on rice bags and foreign aid so that they remain a source of cheap slave labor forever. A reason was also needed to get troops on the ground in Sierra Leone to force an end to the diamond miners strikes. This is not the first time this has been done. When miners refuse to work troops are sent in and even if they have to kill and replace them all, the only desire is to get diamonds back flowing out of the country.
Of course to launch multiple campaigns to invade these countries separately would be way too fishy. But something like “Ebola” allows access to an entire area simultaneously…

Reason 3:

In addition to stealing Nigerian oil, and forcing Sierra Leone back to mining, troops have also been sent in to FORCE vaccinations (Deadly “Ebola” Poison) onto those Africans who are not foolish enough to take them willingly.

3000 troops are being sent in to make sure that this “poison” continues to spread, because again it is only spread through vaccination. As more and more news articles are released as they have been in Liberia, informing the populous of the US lies and manipulation, more and more Africans are refusing to visit the Red Cross. Troops will force these vaccinations upon the people to ensure the visible appearance of an Ebola pandemic. In addition to this they will protect the Red Cross from the Liberians and Nigerians who have been rightfully ejecting them from their countries.

Reason 4:

Last but not least, the APPEARANCE of this Ebola “pandemic” (should Americans not catch on) will be used to scare the countless millions into taking an “Ebola vaccine” which in reality is the pandemic. Already they have started with stories of how it has been brought to the U.S. and has appeared in Dallas, how white doctors were cured but black infected are not being allowed to be treated, etc.

ALL that will do is make blacks STRIVE to get the vaccine, because it appears that the “cure” is being held back from blacks. They will run out in droves to get it and then there will be serious problems. With all we have seen revealed about vaccines this year you would think we learned our lesson. All I can do is hope so, Because they rely on our ignorance to complete their agendas.

Ask yourself: If Ebola really was spread from person to person, instead of controlled spread through vaccination – then WHY would the CDC and the US Government continue to allow flights in and out of these countries with absolutely no regulation, Or At All? We have got to start thinking and sharing information globally because they do not give the true perspective of the people who live here in West Africa. They are lying for their own benefit and there aren’t enough voices out there with a platform to help share our reality. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, paralyzed and disabled by these and other “new” vaccines all over the world and we are finally becoming aware of it. Now what will we do with all this information?”

The original piece written by him can be found here.

A Liberian-born faculty member of a US university wrote an article on Liberian newspaper, the Daily Observer, claiming that Ebola is the result of bioterrorism experiments conducted by the US.

Dr. Cyril Broderick claimed, among other things, that “sites around Africa, and in west Africa, have over the years been set up for testing emerging diseases, especially Ebola.

“WHO and several other UN Agencies have been implicated in selecting and enticing Africancountries to participate in the testing events, promoting vaccinations, but pursuing various testing regiments,” he continued.

“Reports narrate stories of the US Department of Defense (DoD) funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone” Claims a report from International Business Times.

It also happens that the Ebola breakout coincides with UN vaccine campaigns.  Pharmaceutical and biotech industries will have profited handsomely from the ebola crisis when biodefense-research generals, high civil servants and UN bureaucrats sheepishly sign multimillion-euro R&D contracts.  It’s quite the coincidence that the earliest breakout in Guinea happened along side three major vaccine campaigns conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN children’s agency UNICEF. At least two of the vaccination programs were implemented by Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF, or Doctors Without Borders), while some of those vaccines were produced by Sanofi Pasteur, a French pharmaceutical whose major shareholder is the Rothschild Group.  Of course, the Rothschilds run nearly all of the worlds central banks and have a family network of around 500 trillion dollars.  They are the ones pulling strings on this planet, and they will only profit from this outbreak.

Now, I am personally no expert on Ebola, but history has a funny way of repeating itself.  Here is my prediction.  Expect a false flag attack in the US as a way to further contain/control the population and kill them off in the process.  The are going to announce an outbreak (which may actually the release of a chemical bioweapon, and not Ebola) and then they will start administering the Ebola vaccine to the population.  They may even try to make it mandatory.  DON’T TAKE THE VACCINE.  This is how Ebola will spread, and this is how the will justify occupying other foreign countries and establishing military bases there.  This is part of their globalist agenda.

Don’t think this is a conspiracy yet? Check this out:

 

Oops. Guess they forgot the cameras were rolling.  Now here is where it gets weird.  Did you know that the CDC has a patent on the Ebola virus?  That’s right.  The US government owns it.  As reported on NaturalNews, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control owns a patent on a particular strain of Ebola known as “EboBun.” It’s patent No. is CA2741523A1 and it was awarded in 2010. You can view it here.

Patent applicants are clearly described on the patent as including:

The Government Of The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary, Department Of Health & Human Services, Center For Disease Control.

The patent summary says, “The invention provides the isolated human Ebola (hEbola) viruses denoted as Bundibugyo (EboBun) deposited with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”; Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America) on November 26, 2007 and accorded an accession number 200706291.”

Why the patent? Patenting Ebola seems as odd as trying to patent cancer or diabetes. Why would a government organization claim to have “invented” this infectious disease and then claim a monopoly over its exploitation for commercial use?

Does the CDC hope to collect a royalty on Ebola vaccines? Is it looking to “invent” more variants and patent those too?

They think we’re stupid or something. 911 and Sandy Hook weren’t enough I guess. “Let’s patent a virus and test it out in Africa so we can occupy their land, secure oil supplies, and create hysteria back home so they all think they need a vaccination containing a live virus.” says the global elitists.  The Ebola story has all of the ingredients of a classic false flag operation.  If Ebola is real, why the “Ebola is real campaign”?  What’s up with that anyways?

Please spread this information.  Enough with the propaganda fed to us by mainstream news.  We have testimony coming directly from Ghana telling us that the outbreak is being created by Red Cross vaccinations.  This is a massive lie and manipulative effort by the US government for ulterior motives.  Here is a video I recently made containing all of the evidence you could ever hope to see proving that Ebola is a conspiracy:

Sources: Listed within the article

About the author:  My name is Steven Bancarz, and I am the creator of Spirit Science and Metaphysics.  Thanks for reading this article! Please share it with your friends and family.  The world needs to wake up. If you wish to subscribe to my newsletter, you can do so HERE

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/ebo-lie-man-living-in-ghana-confirms-ebola-is-a-hoax/

Washington’s Web of Lies and Deception


Washington’s Secret Agendas
The public continues to fall for the lies

Washington’s Secret Agendas

by Paul Craig Roberts | Infowars.com | September 29, 2014

One might think that by now even Americans would have caught on to the constant stream of false alarms that Washington sounds in order to deceive the Washington people into supporting its hidden agendas.

The public fell for the lie that the Taliban in Afghanistan are terrorists allied with al Qaeda. Americans fought a war for 13 years that enriched Dick Cheney’s firm, Halliburton, and other private interests only to end in another Washington failure.

The public fell for the lie that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” that were a threat to America and that if the US did not invade Iraq Americans risked a “mushroom cloud going up over an American city.” With the rise of ISIS, this long war apparently is far from over. Billions of dollars more in profits will pour into the coffers of the US military security complex as Washington fights those who are redrawing the false Middle East boundaries created by the British and French after WW I when the British and French seized territories of the former Ottoman Empire.

The American public fell for the lies told about Gaddafi in Libya. The formerly stable and prosperous country is now in chaos.

The American public fell for the lie that Iran has, or is building, nuclear weapons. Sanctioned and reviled by the West, Iran has shifted toward an Eastern orientation, thereby removing a principal oil producer from Western influence.

The public fell for the lie that Assad of Syria used “chemical weapons against his own people.” The jihadists that Washington sent to overthrow Assad have turned out to be, according to Washington’s propaganda, a threat to America.

The greatest threat to the world is Washington’s insistence on its hegemony. The ideology of a handful of neoconservatives is the basis for this insistence. We face the situation in which a handful of American neoconservative psychopaths claim to determine the fate of countries.

galluppoll3

Many still believe Washington’s lies, but increasingly the world sees Washington as the greatest threat to peace and life on earth. The claim that America is “exceptional and indispensable” is used to justify Washington’s right to dictate to other countries.

The casualties of Washington’s bombings are invariably civilians, and the deaths will produce more recruits for ISIS. Already there are calls for Washington to reintroduce “boots on the ground” in Iraq. Otherwise, Western civilization is doomed, and our heads will be cut off. The newly created propaganda of a “Russian threat” requires more NATO spending and more military bases on Russia’s borders. A “quick reaction force” is being created to respond to a nonexistent threat of a Russian invasion of the Baltics, Poland, and Europe.

Usually it takes the American public a year, or two, three, or four to realize that it has been deceived by lies and propaganda, but by that time the public has swallowed a new set of lies and propaganda and is all concerned about the latest “threat.” The American public seems incapable of understanding that just as the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth, threat was a hoax, so is the sixth threat, and so will be the seventh, eighth, and ninth.

Moreover, none of these American military attacks on other countries has resulted in a better situation, as Vladimir Putin honestly states. Yet, the public and its representatives in Congress support each new military adventure despite the record of deception and failure.

Perhaps if Americans were taught their true history in place of idealistic fairy tales, they would be less gullible and less susceptible to government propaganda. I have recommended Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s The Untold History of the US, Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the US, and now I recommend Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers, the story of the long rule of John Foster and Allen Dulles over the State Department and CIA and their demonization of reformist governments that they often succeeded in overthrowing. Kinzer’s history of the Dulles brothers’ plots to overthrow six governments provides insight into how Washington operates today.

In 1953 the Dulles brothers overthrew Iran’s elected leader, Mossadegh and imposed the Shah, thus poisoning American-Iranian relations through the present day. Americans might yet be led into a costly and pointless war with Iran, because of the Dulles brothers poisoning of relations in 1953.

sgs-emp

The Dulles brothers overthrew Guatemala’s popular president Arbenz, because his land reform threatened the interest of the Dulles brothers’ Sullivan & Cromwell law firm’s United Fruit Company client. The brothers launched an amazing disinformation campaign depicting Arbenz as a dangerous communist who was a threat to Western civilization. The brothers enlisted dictators such as Somoza in Nicaragua and Batista in Cuba against Arbenz. The CIA organized air strikes and an invasion force. But nothing could happen until Arbenz’s strong support among the people in Guatemala could be shattered. The brothers arranged this through Cardinal Spellman, who enlisted Archbishop Rossell y Arellano. “A pastoral letter was read on April 9, 1954 in all Guatemalan churches.”

A masterpiece of propaganda, the pastoral letter misrepresented Arbenz as a dangerous communist who was the enemy of all Guatemalans. False radio broadcasts produced a fake reality of freedom fighter victories and army defections. Arbenz asked the UN to send fact finders, but Washington prevented that from happening. American journalists, with the exception of James Reston, supported the lies. Washington threatened and bought off Guatemala’s senior military commanders, who forced Arbenz to resign. The CIA’s chosen and well paid “liberator,” Col. Castillo Armas, was installed as Arbenz’s successor.

We recently witnessed a similar operation in Ukraine.

President Eisenhower thanked the CIA for averting “a Communist beachhead in our hemisphere,” and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles gave a national TV and radio address in which he declared that the events in Guatemala “expose the evil purpose of the Kremlin.” This despite the uncontested fact that the only outside power operating in Guatemala was the Dulles brothers.

What had really happened is that a democratic and reformist government was overthrown because it compensated United Fruit Company for the nationalization of the company’s fallow land at a value listed by the company on its tax returns. America’s leading law firm or perhaps more accurately, America’s foreign policy-maker, Sullivan & Cromwell, had no intention of permitting a democratic government to prevail over the interests of the law firm’s client, especially when senior partners of the firm controlled both overt and covert US foreign policy. The two brothers, whose family members were invested in the United Fruit Company, simply applied the resources of the CIA, State Department, and US media to the protection of their private interests. The extraordinary gullibility of the American people, the corrupt American media, and the indoctrinated and impotent Congress allowed the Dulles brothers to succeed in overthrowing a democracy.

mlshsm8l-0mdgn7zps4hzw

Keep in mind that this use of the US government in behalf of private interests occurred 60 years ago long before the corrupt Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes. And no doubt in earlier times as well.

The Dulles brothers next intended victim was Ho Chi Minh. Ho, a nationalist leader, asked for America’s help in freeing Vietnam from French colonial rule. But John Foster Dulles, a self-righteous anti-communist, miscast Ho as a Communist Threat who was springing the domino theory on the Western innocents. Nationalism and anti-colonialism, Foster declared, were merely a cloak for communist subversion.

Paul Kattenburg, the State Department desk officer for Vietnam suggested that instead of war, the US should give Ho $500 million in reconstruction aid to rebuild the country from war and French misrule, which would free Ho from dependence on Russian and Chinese support, and, thereby, influence. Ho appealed to Washington several times, but the demonic inflexibility of the Dulles brothers prevented any sensible response. Instead, the hysteria whipped-up over the “communist threat” by the Dulles brothers landed the United States in the long, costly, fiasco known as the Vietnam War. Kattenburg later wrote that it was suicidal for the US “to cut out its eyes and ears, to castrate its analytic capacity, to shut itself off from the truth because of blind prejudice.” Unfortunately for Americans and the world, castrated analytic capacity is Washington’s strongest suit.

The Dulles brothers’ next targets were President Sukarno of Indonesia, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of Congo, and Fidel Castro. The plot against Castro was such a disastrous failure that it cost Allen Dulles his job. President Kennedy lost confidence in the agency and told his brother Bobby that after his reelection he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. When President Kennedy removed Allen Dulles, the CIA understood the threat and struck first.

Warren Nutter, my Ph.D. dissertation chairman, later Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, taught his students that for the US government to maintain the people’s trust, which democracy requires, the government’s policies must be affirmations of our principles and be openly communicated to the people. Hidden agendas, such as those of the Dulles brothers and the Clinton, Bush and Obama regimes, must rely on secrecy and manipulation and, thereby, arouse the distrust of the people. If Americans are too brainwashed to notice, many foreign nationals are not.

The US government’s secret agendas have cost Americans and many peoples in the world tremendously. Essentially, the Foster brothers created the Cold War with their secret agendas and anti-communist hysteria. Secret agendas committed Americans to long, costly, and unnecessary wars in Vietnam and the Middle East. Secret CIA and military agendas intending regime change in Cuba were blocked by President John F. Kennedy and resulted in the assassination of a president, who, for all his faults, was likely to have ended the Cold War twenty years before Ronald Reagan seized the opportunity.

Secret agendas have prevailed for so long that the American people themselves are now corrupted. As the saying goes, “a fish rots from the head.” The rot in Washington now permeates the country.

Paul Craig Roberts


Inside the Ebola quarantine in Liberia

Monday, August 25, 2014

A man lies under a car after being put there in detention by the Liberian army on the second day of the government’s Ebola quarantine on their neighbourhood of West Point on August 21, 2014 in Monrovia, Liberia. An army officer said that he was showing symptoms of Ebola and was caught trying to escape from West Point. (John Moore/Getty Images)

Listen

The quarantine in the slum of West Point is driving street prices sky high, making an already bad situation worse. But the government says its necessary in its attempts to get ahead of the Ebola outbreak. Today we get an insiders look at West Point, and talk about the ethical implications of sealing 75,000 people in a cramped area that’s rife with the deadly Ebola virus.

john-moore-insert.jpg

A West Point resident looks on from closed gates on the second day of the government’s Ebola quarantine in Monrovia, Liberia. The government delivered bags of rice, beans & cooking oil to residents. (John Moore/Getty Images)

"The government love their people and they want to see their people doing well and to stay healthy and to make sure that this disease is serious."

Meata Flowers, West Point Commissioner

Last week, Liberian authorities implemented a nation-wide curfew and put the entire West Point district under quarantine. That’s roughly 75,000 people, sealed into a densely-packed slum. No one gets in. No one gets out.

Ebola outbreak: Why Liberia’s quarantine in West Point slum will fail — CBC News

Since the outbreak was identified in March, Ebola has taken more than 1,400 lives in the West African countries of Nigeria, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. But Liberia has been hardest hit, with at least 1,000 cases and 624 deaths recorded so far.

The few images that are emerging from quarantined West Point are especially harrowing. They show a frightened, confused population trapped with little access to food and water. This forced containment suggests that Liberia is becoming increasingly desperate in its effort to limit the spread of Ebola — a disease that, while difficult to get, is fatal up to ninety per cent of the time, according to the World Health Organization.

John Moore is a staff photographer with Getty Images who’s had rare access to the community of West Point since the quarantine has been put in effect. The pictures he’s taken there show the raw emotion of the situation. John Moore joined us earlier, on the line in Monrovia.

Putting entire neighborhoods under quarantine may seem like a drastic measure, but as the Ebola outbreak continues to devastate Liberia and the region, finding a solution to the spread is paramount. A key part of that solution is reaching out to those communities most affected, urban and rural.

Aphaluck Bhatiasevi is with the World Health Organization. She works with communities to determine the best way to fight against Ebola, and how people can best help each other with information and resources. We reached her in Montrovia, Liberia.

Health professionals around the world are watching the Ebola outbreak in Liberia, and how local authorities deal with it. Dr. Kamran Khan is a scientist and physician who specializes in infectious diseases. He has been a policy advisor for the Canadian government, the World Health Organization and the US Centres for Disease Control.

Have thoughts you want to share on this discussion?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Naheed Mustafa and Howard Goldenthal.

***********************************************

Ebola Outbreak: Why this time is different

Monday, August 18, 2014

  

Workers prepare the new Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Ebola treatment centre near Monrovia, Liberia. The Ebola epidemic has killed more than 1,000 people in four African countries, and Liberia now has had more deaths than any other country. (John Moore/Getty Images)

Listen

Experts say the Ebola outbreak is potentially more dangerous then ever before because it’s in countries that have never seen this. Now the outbreak is seriously depleting health care resources. We’re heading to the front lines in Liberia today.

ebola-outbreak-500insert.png


Hanah Siafa lies with her daughter Josephine, 10, while hoping to enter the new Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Ebola treatment center in Monrovia, Liberia. The facility initially has 120 beds, making it the largest such facility for Ebola treatment and isolation in history,


and MSF plans to expand it to a 350-bed capacity. (John Moore/Getty Images)


"The disease is not contained and it is out of control in West Africa. The international response to the disease has been a failure."

Ken Isaacs, the Vice President of the Christian aid group Samaritan’s Purse testifying at a US congressional hearing earlier this month

    The much-dreaded and deadly Ebola virus is back with a vengeance. Over the weekend the World Health Organization reported over 150 new cases of the virus in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

    Here’s a little background about the health crisis threatening Africa today:

  • The Ebola virus first appeared in 1976 in simultaneous outbreaks — in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan.

  • It’s not known for certain but fruit bats are the most likely host of the virus.

  • Researchers believe that the first case of Ebola in the current outbreak was that of a 2-year-old boy in Guinea who died early last December.

  • Over the next few days his mother, sister and grandmother all died as well.

  • The infection was carried by two mourners at the grandmother’s funeral to another village, where a health worker picked it up.

  • People who come into close contact with a patient — like family, friends and health care workers are most likely to be infected.

  • Ebola is transmitted through direct contact of broken skin or mucus membranes with bodily fluids.

  • It takes Ebola between 2 and 21 days to develop.

  • Symptoms are typically a rapid onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain and sore throat.

  • It can progress to vomiting and diarrhea, organ failure and in some cases both internal and external bleeding.

  • Ebola is fatal in up to 90% of cases.

"It is like a war time. General fear. All over. And they need help. They need leadership, co-ordination … they will not be able to over come this by themselves."

Dr. Joanne Liu, head of Medicines Sans Frontier

    On Friday, Joanne Liu, the head of Medicines Sans Frontier said the key to bringing the outbreak under control is to limit and reduce its spread in Liberia. That country had its first outbreak of Ebola in April and in June it resurfaced. What little healthcare resources Liberia has are being seriously depleted fighting the outbreak.

    The U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that this Ebola outbreak is on track to infect more people than every other Ebola outbreak combined. A grim forecast.


    To understand how and why this outbreak is different, we spoke to three people.

  • Tarnue Karbbar is program unit manager for Plan International in North and Western Liberia. He’s been working in Lofa in northern Liberia since January and now he’s helping co-ordinate the government and international response to the Ebola outbreak.

  • Nyka Alexander is the WHO’s Outbreak Coordination Center’s spokesperson. In July, the World Health Organization set up the Sub-regional Outbreak Coordination Centre in Conakry, Guinea. It functions as a hub for coordinating technical support and mobilizing resources needed by field staff in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

  • Tara Smith is an Epidemiologist at Kent State University.

    Have thoughts you want to share?

    Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

    This segment was produced by The Current’s Gord Westmacott, Naheed Mustafa and Sujata Berry.

    ******************************************

      Why is West Africa’s Ebola outbreak so hard to contain?

      Friday, August 1, 2014

      The head of the WHO has planned to meet with leaders of several West African nations in Guinea to launch a $100-million campaign to help fight the Ebola outbreak. (Reuters/Tommy Trenchard)

      Listen

      As the Ebola virus continues to spread, it’s becoming clear that a lack of knowledge about the disease and cultural factors are hindering treatment and containment.

      Tomorrow, the head of the WHO meets with leaders of several West African nations in Guinea to launch a $100-million campaign to help fight the Ebola outbreak. The WHO says that the scale of the outbreak and its continued growth make it necessary to take the fight to a new level.

      Dr. Kent Brantly was flown back to the U.S. for treatment after contracting the virus while helping patients in Liberia.

      If even the doctors who take elaborate precautions still manage to catch the lethal disease, it’s no wonder many Ebola patients and their families fear hospitals. Health workers say it’s often hard to convince patients infected with Ebola to seek treatment, and many are suspicious of health workers who show up during an outbreak.

      And the oubreak spreads across West Africa, many wonder if it can remain there. We asked Dr. Jay Keystone, a Senior Staff Physician at Toronto General Hospital’s Tropical Disease Unit, if Canadians should worry.

"Certainly if you look at the news media, and the pictures, I would be afraid, but my answer is no…in terms of spread to the community, and in Canada, it’s highly highly unlikely."

Dr. Jay Keystone

To find out more, we were joined by three guests:

– Jean-Pierre Taschereau is the Head Emergency Operations for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. He returns to West Africa next week.

– Reine Lebel is a psychologist who worked with Ebola patients and their families in Dikidou, Guinea.

Melissa Leach is Director of the Institute of Development Studies and the Leader of the Dynamic Drivers of Disease in Africa Consortium.

Have thoughts you want to share?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Sujata Berry, Catherine Kalbfleisch and intern Wanyee Li.

*************************************

Are drugs the best way to curb the Ebola outbreak?

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

As health care officials remind us, there is no proven cure for Ebola. But the WHO has ruled that experimental treatments should be made available to those who are suffering.(Reuters/Thomas Peter)

Listen

The World Health Organization has ruled that experimental drugs should be made available to countries dealing with the outbreak. We look at the science and ethics of using an unproven Ebola treatment, and if focusing on drugs is the best way to curb the outbreak.

"Countries affected to date simply do not have the capacity to manage an outbreak of this size and complexity on their own. Our collective health security depends on support for containment operations in these countries.

Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization

More than 1000 people have now died during this outbreak, and that number is growing.

This morning, a Spanish priest with the Ebola virus has died. He had received an experimental drug called Zmapp — the same drug used to treat two American relief workers who contracted Ebola in recent days. They are now in the United States recovering.

As health care officials remind us, there is no proven cure for Ebola. But some say that if the West has therapies that might work, it should move to mass produce the experimental treatment and get it to those who are suffering. Others caution that rushing ahead with unproven treatments is a serious mistake.

To discuss the ethics and effectiveness of using drugs to curb the outbreak, we were joined by two guests:

Dr. Michael Osterholm is the Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

Ubaka Ogbogu is the Katz Research Fellow in Health Law at the University of Alberta.

What do you think?

Tweet us @thecurrentcbc. Or e-mail us through our website. Find us on Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Idella Sturino, Naheed Mustafa and intern Wanyee Li.


Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a

New World Order

http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075?tesla=y

The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis

The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis, writes Henry Kissinger. Above, a pro-Russian fighter stands guard at a checkpoint close to Donetsk, Ukraine in July. European Pressphoto Agency

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan’s young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

In the Middle East, religious militias violate borders at will. Getty Images

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world’s territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe’s: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union’s southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as “social media” event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions’ histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America’s exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

—Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book “World Order,” to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075?tesla=y

Why isn’t this Piece of Shit Kissinger not in jail awaiting his execution for crimes against Humanity? Answer: Because he’s a ZIONIST ELITE

MERS “Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome”


A NEW VIRUS IS A "THREAT TO THE WORLD"

https://truthtalk13.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/3d828-mers-transmission-modelv2-1.jpg

Published June 24, 2013 | by Sentinel

Virus from the Middle East began to claim lives

https://i2.wp.com/www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/cder/PublishingImages/MERS-CoV%20Map.jpg

By Callum Wood – June 4, 2013 –

A potentially deadly from the Middle East virus made his way to Europe, highlighting the increased potential pandemics facing us. The virus, respiratory syndrome coronavirus in the Middle East (MERS-CoV), formerly known as the new coronavirus was confirmed in 44 people worldwide since its initial detection. The majority of cases came from the Middle East. Scientists are puzzled as to how the virus could reach into humans, and where it has spread. The strain of the larger family of coronaviruses, which covers many illnesses from the common cold to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which does not help to identify the origin of the virus.

There is still a lot that scientists do not know about MERS-CoV. Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization, gave a speech at the 66th World Health Assembly in Geneva on May 27, the deadly new strain of coronavirus. She said, "We will understand only too little about this virus when compared to the magnitude of the potential threat. Any new disease that is growing faster than our understanding is never under control. "

When a high-ranking member of one of the most prestigious health organizations in the world bluntly states that experts do not yet understand this deadly virus, people have to sit and listen.

Chan’s speech was full of warnings. She described the virus as "a threat to the entire world." Keep in mind that this statement was made ​​by someone who deals with health issues around the world on a daily basis. She sees this new strain as a major cause for concern, even more than the recent outbreak of H7N9 influenza in Asia.

https://i2.wp.com/media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/16/65/be/1665becf658ef46c8aa1ec00012a8647.jpg

His warning comes at a time when the MERS-CoV has traveled the Middle East to Europe. A man traveled from Saudi Arabia to France while carrying the virus without knowing it. When he fell ill and was taken to hospital, he then infected at least one other person before succumbing to the disease. The second infected man left the hospital before doctors realize what had happened. The incubation period of the virus is more than 12 days, which makes it difficult to detect. The man was then taken back to the hospital in critical condition.

Of the 44 cases reported worldwide, 23 people died, fixing the mortality rate at about 50 percent. With so many outstanding questions about the disease, Chan said: "We need more information, and we need it quickly, urgently."

https://i0.wp.com/www.tg1news.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/946085_10152864656115596_1139851763_n.jpg

But what kind of information do they need? Science can come up with something to try and eliminate this new disease, but how many deaths will it take to get there? There are several strains of influenza and other emerging diseases, but there is rarely another virus similar to penicillin from laboratories. As mentioned above, the H7N9 is resistant to drugs that have been used in the past.

The information that humanity needs is why these plagues fall on us in the first place. While the pharmaceutical industry has been effective in the fight against many diseases, new diseases continue to grow.

https://i0.wp.com/a.abcnews.com/images/Health/mers_coronavirus_world_map_140502_v12x5_12x5_992.jpg

As we explained in our article titled, "The coming pandemic diseases," the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are biblical figures that many can identify, but few can really understand the meaning. One of those riders, the pale horse, means the spread of disease and pestilence in this period of the End Times. MERS-CoV may not be the beginning of a major pandemic, but it is connected to the most tragic time that have yet to befall mankind.

Do you understand the weather where you live? Are you ready for unprecedented devastation by diseases such as the world has ever known? For those who faithfully obey God, He promises;

https://i1.wp.com/www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01649/12bgscreening_eps_1649419f.jpg

"You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at your right, you will not be achieved. "(Psalm 91: 5-7)

This is a great hope that we can have, knowing the difficult times ahead.

https://truthtalk13.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/f3974-mers-cov.jpg

"And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and it will seem terrible things and great signs from heaven. "(Luke 21: 11)

http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10669.18.0.0/society/health/new-virus-a-threat-to-the-entire-world

Happy 1st birthday Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)

A coronavirus schematic. The spiky bits give the virus
its name(corona=crown) and represent the
receptor binding, antigenic Spike protein.

…I can remember when you were just a novel little thing.
How you have grown young prince and how clever of you to emerge in a Kingdom of all places (corona=crown, named for it’s spikey appearance). You’ve certainly garnered attention worthy of a King given the relatively few cases of disease you gave been associated with in the first year we’ve known of you.
It was September 20th when Dr Zaki 1st alerted the world to the death of a Saudi man due to what looked to be a new coronavirus (CoV). Today we have over 135 cases 58 deaths (43%).
I’ve previously covered Zaki’s disocvery and the problems posed for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) by the way in which he announced that discovery, apparently without the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) foreknowledge. The way in which the sample was exported from the KSA without their prior consent was also problematic for them.

https://i1.wp.com/cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/2396/5aef8eaae1b94d88b71468f6ff7d1714.jpg
Soon after we heard of it, we had virus-detection assays with which we could seek out new cases. Were they used as they might have been in the days of the SARS-CoV? Nope. And there still seems to be only a single laboratory in KSA testing for MERS-CoV (despite reports of 3), with Dr Abdullah Al-Aeeri (a director of hospital infection control) claiming a 72-hour reporting turnaround time.
Is there an antibody detection assay that has been validated using a panel of known positive sera? Nope. There are some innovative antibody-detection methods around but why do they only include a single positive control? Is there no collaboration at all? Why is the KSA not leading the charge to develop these diagnostics and to hunt for an animal host? Why wait on advice from external organizations to screen samples?

https://i2.wp.com/d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1361348/camel.jpg

Why has the necessary testing capacity not been built well before now? Is it to do with that pesky material transfer agreement? I hope not because there is little evidence for that being a real block to anything from a public health standpoint.
At least we have some new MERS-CoV sequences to celebrate the birthday with. Although they and the 9 preceding them represent less than half of the relatively small number of cases described to date. Why can’t the typing region sequences be released? That should really be part of the diagnostic process. Okay, those may not inform us about the evolution of key regions of the virus but they do confirm it is the strain we know. Why not focus on full or subgenomic Spike gene sequences? They might be a better sentinel for keeping tabs on MERS-CoV change over time.

https://i1.wp.com/assets.rappler.com/93A3FB8965334123A482F055E7873C10/img/BFE8489A971B4AA5AF126FF26754F4A0/infographic-mers-symptoms-prevention-20140427.jpg
Most of the detail about MERS-CoV and cases of MERS has come through the peer-reviewed scientific literature. That is pretty normal for respiratory viruses that are not notifiable. But it’s generally a slow medium. Is MERS infection a notifiable disease? It is in some countries (e.g. the US and New Zealand), but is it at the epicenter of the outbreak, the KSA? I’m not sure. It’s not obviously stated as such anywhere I looked on the KSA MOH website.
The World Health Organization politely notes:

WHO encourages all Member States to enhance their surveillance for severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) and to carefully review any unusual patterns of SARI or pneumonia cases. WHO urges Member States to notify or verify to WHO any probable or confirmed case of infection with MERS-CoV.

https://i0.wp.com/www.bulletin.us.com/media/uploads/2/MERS_CoV_map_web.jpg

How’s that been working out? In a nice summary of the lack of communication, Helen Branswell and Declan Butler highlight that, as usual, everyone who was asked agreed that it’s not working out well at all. In fact it’s pretty woeful. And to add to matters, the latest WHO Disease Outbreak News (DON) takes the form of a summary of 18 "new" cases; no extra or confirmatory detail to be had from it. SO the KSA MOH is now the source for detail.

If we were talking about wanting more data on the monthly proportion of rhinovirus infections, the KSA would be justified in saying that the world doesn’t need to know (I’d like to but that’s my thing).

If we were talking about influenza, then there are plenty of international public health sites publishing these notifiable data on the internet; here’s Queensland, Australia’s for example.

https://i0.wp.com/l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/eyt6Dq_tPVtxTsy.mRLj7Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-04-24/98f7a3f0-cba7-11e3-a0bb-25537a06410c_infographic_mers_corona_virus.jpg

But we’re talking about an emerging disease which kills half of the people it infects, is caused by a novel virus for which no host is known, which transmits between people in a way we don’t yet understand, which is shed from ill (or well) people for an undefined period of time (if at all), which remains infectious in the environment for who knows how long, which jumps to other countries, which may only cause severe disease in those who are already ill with another disease, which may be endemically spreading within the community as mild or asymptomatic infections, for which there is no vaccine or proven antiviral therapy available..I’d say it’s a no-brainer that at the very least the WHO deserves regular and detailed updates of what’s going on. Reading between the lines, that does not seem to be happening even behind closed doors.
The mass gathering of pilgrims known as the Hajj is fast approaching. This may trigger a large increase in MERS cases or, in the worst case, a pandemic. I personally believe it won’t go that far. We shouldn’t forget is the 2nd Hajj for MERS. But perhaps the virus is much more widespread than it was in October 2012. But without testing data, we can only guess.
So, it’s your 1st birthday MERS-CoV. But instead of wishing you a happy birthday you opportunistic, spiky little killer, I’m wishing Dr Zaki well and congratulating him on co-parenting the birth of this novel coronavirus. Going by what we’ve seen to date, his actions may have been the only way we would have ever heard of this virus otherwise.
And, as noted previously, but not given much air to in the above rant (thanks to @MicorbeLover for straightening me out)…

https://i0.wp.com/s2.wheninmanila.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Health-Tips-2.jpg

It’s very sad that there are real people in these numbers who have died from MERS. You may have noticed that I try and stick with the cold number-crunching aspect of these outbreaks. It’s not because I’m a heartless b&^$# but because that is not what this blog is about. That and my editorialisation and expositionary writing consume what little time I have spare. But I don’t feel that I have enough information to make any other comments about these or any other lives lost to infectious disease. I personally feel that any unexpected and acute loss of life (if I had to scale loss of life) is the worst kind of loss; it’s a waste of potential, a source of great sorrow for all involved and it’s something we should all strive to prevent, if we can. I know that’s not much to convey, but it’s all I can offer from my kinda comfy chair in Brisbane.

The Saudi MOH says it better in anyway; May Allah have mercy upon the deceased.

virusmers


glyphosate

Urgent action alert: EPA about to raise allowable concentrations of glyphosate on food crops, edible oils and animal feed   

Tuesday, June 18, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)

(NaturalNews) This is an urgent action alert from Natural News and the Health Ranger. Public comments are due by July 1 to object to new EPA regulations which are already in place, allowing glyphosate contamination of food crops, edible oils and waterways at concentrations which are thousands of times higher than the amount needed to cause cancer.
The new regulation, which can be viewed HERE, sets the following regulations regarding glyphosate residues on crops:
• It allows forage and hay teff to contain up to 100 ppm glyphosate (that’s over one million times the concentration needed to cause cancer according to a recent study). See PubMed source here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
• Allows oilseed crops (flax oil, canola oil, soybean oil, olive oil, etc.) to contain up to 40 ppm glyphosate (which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer)
• RAISES the allowable glyphosate contamination level of root crops (such as potatoes) from 200 ppb to 6000 ppb.
• Allows glyphosate contamination of fruits at anywhere from 200 ppb to 500 ppb.
Importantly, the EPA says no one even commented on all this when it was initially filed! "There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing." Since then, a total of just 396 people have posted a public comment at the time of this story being published.
You can post your comments with the EPA at this page:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-00…

EPA declares glyphosate to be perfectly safe

Borrowing a page right out of Monsanto’s quack science playbook, the EPA says:
A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats found no systemic effects in any of the parameters examined (body weight, food consumption, clinical signs, mortality, clinical pathology, organ weights, and histopathology).
The EPA even offers this utterly absurd, false statement as justification for its allowable contamination levels of glyphosate: "EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary." (SOURCE)
Huh? Do you understand this? The EPA is saying glyphosate is so incredibly safe that it is not even necessary to study its possible carcinogenic effects in humans. No science needed! The EPA simply waves a magic (Monsanto) wand and says, "Shazam! Glyphosate is safe enough to EAT!"
The EPA, of course, is sadly mistaken. It is apparently not aware of two crucial facts to consider in all this:
1) The Seralini study released last year showed an alarming increase in cancer tumors in rats that were fed glyphosate in their drinking water.
2) Monsanto has already been found guilty of committing scientific fraud by altering the results of "scientific" studies in order to trick regulators.
The "scientific" data proving glyphosate to be "safe" has been fabricated! And the EPA is basing its conclusions on fabricated, corporate-quackified junk science that has one purpose: trick regulators into thinking the deadly poison is safe, thereby vastly increasing the usage of the chemical by farmers.

ACTION ITEM: Post your comments to protest the EPA’s glyphosate poisoning of the American people

It is crucial that We the People let the EPA know that raising the allowable levels of glyphosate in foods is unacceptable. This is especially true given the recent studies linking glyphosate to breast cancer, a disease that is ravaging women across America and has reached epidemic levels.
Post your comments in the following ways:
METHOD #1 – POSTING ONLINE
1) Go to this page:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-00…
2) Click the "Comment Now!" button on the top right.
3) Enter your information and comment, then click "Submit." Be sure to include reasons WHY you believe the EPA should not allow such high levels of glyphosate in foods, edible oils and animal feed. You can quote pages like GMOevidence.com:
http://gmoevidence.com/location/roundup-evidence/
You can also quote this excellent article from GM Watch which explains why the corporate-controlled media (and industry) so viciously attacked the Seralini rat study, trying to discredit it:
http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14514
METHOD #2 – MAIL IT IN
1) Write your letter of protest. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132 on the first page of your letter.
2) Mail it to: (all mail must be received by July 1st)
OPP Docket
Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington, DC 20460–0001
METHOD #3 – EMAIL ANDREW ERTMAN
Please use Method #1 or #2 if you want your comments to actually count. But if you also wish to email or phone the EPA person from the Office of Pesticide Programs, you may contact:
Andrew Ertman, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone number: (703) 308-9367
Email address: ertman.andrew@epa.gov
Note: If you choose to email Andrew Ertman, please be polite in your email. Do NOT send stupid things like death threats or emails full of profanity. Make your case clearly and politely, and ask him to review the full breadth of the scientific evidence now available instead of just the selected subset Monsanto wants EPA scientists to be aware of.

Over 200 million pounds of glyphosate poison is a chemical attack on America

The following map, compiled by the USDA, shows the use of glyphosate across America:

This is also a map of the mass poisoning of America with a chemical that has been scientifically linked to an increased risk of cancer.
Compare it to this map showing the rates of cancer by state:

By the way, Monsanto has already been caught committing scientific fraud in attempting to fake safety studies on glyphosate. The company also engaged in wildly false advertising, claiming RoundUp was "safer than table salt" (implying that it’s safe to eat in high doses).
Now the EPA is about to allow glyphosate in animal feed at concentrations that are one million times the concentration needed to cause cancer.
At the same time, the EPA continues to allow glyphosate at 700 ppb in public drinking water, too.
We are all being mass poisoned by this deadly chemical, and the EPA is actively conspiring with the chemical industry to downplay the real dangers of glyphosate, pretending it’s safe enough to eat in quantities that are orders of magnitude larger than should be allowed.
Allowing 100 ppm of glyphosate in animal feed is equivalent to allowing 1000 ppm of lead in children’s candy. It’s a deadly poison that inundates our food supply at such high concentrations that it’s guaranteed to cause deadly diseases in huge numbers of people.

EPA document is a blueprint for the mass euthanasia of Americans

This EPA regulation document is a blueprint for billions of dollars in profits for the cancer industry. It’s also a death sentence for America’s soils, farmers and food consumers. And it is insane policies like this that will ultimately lead to the downfall and collapse of modern human civilization… a civilization so stupid that it poisons its own food, water, soils and even its own children… all to make a quarterly profit on the selling of a deadly poison.
Humanity is being mass-euthanized by GMOs and glyphosate, and the EPA is standing by and openly allowing it to happen. This is an agency that did tremendous good back in the 1970’s but has since become nothing more than a corporate sellout and a purveyor of poison.
The EPA wants you to eat glyphosate. There’s no harm, they say. Lick it up!

What concentration of glyphosate should be allowed in foods? No more than 10 ppt

There is no safe level of exposure to glyphosate. The chemical has now been shown to promote cancer cell proliferation at ppt concentrations. This demands that glyphosate be eliminated from being sold in the USA — BANNED for life.
Remember: Glyphosate is the new DDT. But it’s much worse than DDT because its toxic effects kick in at far lower concentrations. If a "safe" level of glyphosate exposure were based on legitimate scientific studies that weren’t faked by Monsanto, it would have to be set no higher than 10 ppt.
In other words, it would need to be virtually undetectable even by the most precise laboratory equipment available today.
Glyphosate has no place in a civilized nation. I call it "Satan’s Molecule" because it is a destroyer of life and a destroyer of worlds.
No wonder it was invented by a scientist working for — guess who? — MonSatan.

Take action today. Comments are due by July 1, and if the EPA doesn’t hear from the People, it’s going to do whatever Monsanto tells it to do. Heck, it will probably do that anyway, but at least if you post a comment, when all of us die from cancer you will know that you did not willfully participate in the mass murder of Americans.

************

California allows up to 1000 times more glyphosate in drinking water than needed

…to cause breast cancer in women

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 17, 2013

Late last week, a story broke that revealed glyphosate — the chemical name of Roundup herbicide — multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%… even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt).

The study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, is entitled, “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.” You can read the abstract here.

There’s a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it, you need to understand these terms:

ppm = parts per million = 10 (-6) = number of parts out of a million

ppb = parts per billion = 10 (-9), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppm

ppt = parts per trillion = 10 (-12), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppb and 1,000,000 times smaller than ppm

The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb.

This news, all by itself, sent shockwaves across the ‘net all weekend. Women were asking things like: “You mean to tell me that glyphosate residues on crops in just ppt or ppb concentrations can give me breast cancer?” It doesn’t exactly translate like that. It depends on how much you eat vs. your body mass (nanograms of glyphosate per kilogram of body weight). But with ridiculously small amounts of this chemical now being correlated to cancer cell proliferation, you don’t have to eat much at all in order to put yourself at risk.

But it’s not just eating glyphosate that’s the problem. You’re also DRINKING it.

California allows 1,000 ppb of glyphosate in drinking water

In December of 1997, California released its Glyphosate in Drinking Water California Public Health Goal (PHG) document. You can view the document yourself at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/glypho_c.pdf

The document openly admits:

Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide used in agriculture, rights-of-way and aquatic systems. Exposure to glyphosate may occur from its normal use due to drift, residues in food crops and from runoff into potential drinking water sources.

It then goes on to state something borrowed straight from Monsanto’s quack science team: “Glyphosate is not mutagenic or teratogenic and there is no evidence for reproductive toxicity in multigeneration studies in rats.”

Based on this blatant lie, California set an upper limit of “1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water.”

Yes, that’s 1,000 times higher than the amount now shown to cause a 500% to 1300% increase in cancer cell proliferation.

What’s even more shocking is that California’s allowable exposure level was nearly 50% HIGHER than the federal (EPA) level — 700 ppb.

Yes, California — the state where more people are concerned about GMOs than seemingly anywhere else — actually used Monsanto-sounding language in its “official” report that set a higher water contamination level than the federal government!

Glyphosate carcinotoxicity was documented years earlier

Even though California released this document in 1997, the state was already willfully ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence documenting glyphosate toxicity. For example, a study published two years earlier — in 1995 — in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995) written by Caroline Cox concluded:

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. …In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors.

Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells… reduced sperm counts in male rats… an increase in fetal loss…

In other words, California knew — or should have known — that glyphosate was harmful to humans. But the California government willfully ignored this evidence and seemingly went out of its way to incorporate deceptive Monsanto spin into its “Public Health Goal” documents, thereby allowing 1,000 times higher levels of glyphosate in drinking water than we now know to cause cancer cell proliferation.

Ten years later, California lowers its level by just 10%

Fast forward to 2007. After a public comment period which was no doubt dominated by disinfo-spewing Monsanto trolls, the state of California issued an updated Public Health Goal (PHG) document.

You can view that document here:
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/080406dglyphosate.pdf

It concludes that the allowable glyphosate exposure for all Californians should be lowered to 900 ppb — still nine hundred times higher than the amount needed to accelerate cancer cell growth as we see in the study released last week.

This 2007 document from the California government also borrows language that sounds like it’s right out of Monsanto’s P.R. department: “Based on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity study results, glyphosate is not likely to pose a cancer hazard to humans,” it says.

Now the evidence is becoming clear: Monsanto’s chemicals are killing women

Now it’s 2013. We’ve seen the horrific results of the GMO rat study revealing the growth of massive tumors in rats exposed to GMOs and Roundup (glyphosate). We’ve also now seen the “parts per trillion” studyshowing cancer cell proliferation being caused by ultra-low concentrations of glyphosate.

We also know the biotech industry has gone to ridiculous lengths to spread disinfo on all this — to try to discredit scientists who speak out against GMOs and glyphosate, to get scientists blackballed from the industry, and to buy off politicians and members of the press to make sure there is no coverage granted to any scientific studies reporting the dangers of genetically modified crops (and their related chemical herbicides).

Glyphosate is the new DDT

Based on what we’re seeing now, I believe glyphosate is the most toxic chemical that has ever been widely deployed across our food supply. Glyphosate is the new DDT, and it’s contaminating our waterways, soils, food and bodies.

Furthermore, the California government has clearly been complicit in allowing extremely high levels of glyphosate to contaminate the public drink water, thereby causing tens of millions of Californians to be poisoned with concentrations of glyphosate that promote cancer cell growth.

And what will the California government tell you now that the truth has come out? Now that they’ve allowed their own population to be exposed to a thousand times the concentration needed to accelerate the growth of cancer tumors?

“Run for the cure!” And don’t label GMOs, either, because you don’t have a right to know whether you’re eating deadly poison in your food.

Join the Monsanto Video Revolt, July 24, 2013

Take part in the global video revolt against Monsanto. Learn more at:
www.MonsantoVideoRevolt.com

 

Glyphosate – GlyphoSatan

Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology.

Caroline Cox. Journal of Pesticide Reform, Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR.

Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology

by Caroline Cox

Introduction

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used to kill unwanted plants both in agriculture and in nonagricultural landscapes. Estimated use in the U.S. is between 19 and 26 million pounds per year.

Most glyphosate-containing products are either made or used with a surfactant, chemicals that help glyphosate to penetrate plant cells.

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, cardiac depression, gastrointestinal pain, vomiting, and accumulation of excess fluid in the lungs. The surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is yet more toxic.

In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors.

Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells, fruit flies, and onion cells.

Glyphosate causes reduced sperm counts in male rats, a lengthened estrous cycle in female rats, and an increase in fetal loss together with a decrease in birth weights in their offspring.

It is striking that laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate or glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing.

Two serious cases of fraud have occurred in laboratories conducting toxicology and residue testing for glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products.

————————————————

Advertised as herbicides that can "eradicate weeds and unwanted grasses effectively with a high level of environmental safety,"1 glyphosate-based herbicides can seem like a silver bullet to those dealing with unwanted vegetation. However, an independent, accurate evaluation of their health and environmental hazards can draw conclusions very different than those presented by these advertisements. The following summary of glyphosate’s hazards is intended to serve that purpose. It will appear in two parts: Part 1 discusses the toxicology of glyphosate, its metabolites, and the other ingredients of glyphosate products and Part 2 will discuss human exposure to glyphosate and its ecological effects.

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (Figure 1), is a post-emergent, systemic, and non-selective herbicide used to kill broad-leaved, grass, and sedge species.2 It has been registered as a broad spectrum herbicide in the U.S. since 1974 and is used to control weeds in a wide variety of agricultural, lawn and garden, aquatic, and forestry situations.3

Most glyphosate herbicides contain the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate. A related chemical, the sodium salt of glyphosate, acts as a growth regulator in sugar cane and peanuts and is marketed for that purpose. The monoammonium salt of glyphosate is also marketed as an herbicide and growth regulator.4

Glyphosate products are manufactured by Monsanto Company worldwide. The herbicide is marketed under a variety of trade names: Roundup (including Roundup D-Pak, Roundup Lawn and Garden Concentrate, and Roundup Ready-to-Use) and Rodeo are the most common U.S. trade names.2 The sodium salt is sold as Quotamaster. The monoammonium salt is sold as Deploy Dry.2 Other brand names used for the isopropylamine salt are Accord,5 Vision, Ranger, and Sting.2

As an herbicidal compound, glyphosate is unusual in that essentially no structurally related compounds show any herbicidal activity.6

Use

Glyphosate is the eighth most commonly used herbicide in U.S. agriculture and the second most commonly used herbicide in nonagricultural situations. Estimated annual use according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is between 15 and 20 million pounds in agriculture and between 4 and 6 million pounds elsewhere.7 The largest agricultural uses are in the production of soybeans, hay and pasture, corn, and oranges.4

About 25 million applications per year are made in U.S. households; most of these are made on lawns or outdoor areas where a total vegetation kill is wanted.8

In California, where pesticide use reporting is more comprehensive than in other states, about 3.4 million pounds were used in 1992; about 25 percent of this was used along rights-of-way, while 15 percent was used on almonds and 10 percent was used on grapes.9

Mode of Action

The mode of action of glyphosate is "not known at this time,"4 according to EPA. However, "herbicidal action probably arises from the inhibition of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids."10 These amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan) are used in the synthesis of proteins and are the essential for growth and survival of most plants. One particular enzyme important in aromatic amino acid synthesis, called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3- phosphate synthase, is inhibited by glyphosate.10 Glyphosate also "may inhibit or repress"4 two other enzymes, chlorismate mutase and prephrenate hydratase, involved in other steps of the synthesis of the same amino acids. These enzymes are all part of what is called the shikimic acid pathway, present in higher plants and microorganisms but not in animals.11

Two of the three aromatic amino acids (tryptophan and phenylalanine) are essential amino acids in the human diet because humans, like all higher animals, lack the shikimic acid pathway, cannot synthesize these amino acids, and rely on their foods to provide these compounds. Tyrosine is synthesized in animals through another pathway.12

Glyphosate can affect enzymes not connected with the shikimic acid pathway. In sugar cane, it reduces the activity of one of the enzymes involved in sugar metabolism, acid invertase. This reduction appears to be mediated by auxins, plant hormones.13

Glyphosate also affects enzyme systems found in animals and humans. In rats, injection into the abdomen decreases the activity of two detoxification enzymes, cytochrome P-450 and a monooxygenase, and decreases the intestinal activity of the enzyme aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase (another detoxification enzyme).14

"Inert" Ingredients in Glyphosate-containing Products

Virtually every pesticide product contains ingredients other than what is called the "active" ingredient(s), those designed to provide killing action. Their purpose is to make the product easier to use or more efficient. These ingredients are called "inert," although they are often not biologically, chemically, or toxicologically inert. In general, they are not identified on the label of the pesticide product.

In the case of glyphosate products, many "inerts" have been identified. Roundup contains a polyethoxylated tallowamine surfactant (usually abbreviated POEA), related organic acids of glyphosate, isopropylamine, and water. Both Rodeo and Accord contain glyphosate and water.15 (However, label instructions usually require adding a surfactant during use.15) See "Toxicology of ‘Inert’ Ingredients of Glyphosate- containing Products," p. 17, for basic information about these "inert" ingredients.

Many of the toxicology studies that will be summarized in this factsheet have been conducted using glyphosate, the active ingredient, alone. Some have been conducted with commercial products containing glyphosate and "inert" ingredients. When toxicology testing is not done with the product as it is actually used, it is impossible to accurately assess its hazards.

We will discuss both types of studies, and will identify insofar as is possible exactly what material was used to conduct each study.

Acute Toxicity to Laboratory Animals

Glyphosate’s acute oral median lethal dose (the dose that causes death in 50 percent of a population of test animals; LD50) in rats is greater than 4,320 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight. This places the herbicide in Toxicity Category III (Caution).4 Its acute dermal toxicity (dermal LD50) in rabbits is greater than 2,000 mg/kg of body weight, also Toxicity Category III.4

If animals are given glyphosate in other ways, it is much more acutely toxic. When given intraperitoneally (the dose applied by injection into the abdomen), glyphosate is between 10 and 20 times more toxic to rats (with an LD50 between 192- 467 mg/kg)2,16 than it is when given orally. Intraperitoneal injection also caused fever, cessation of breathing, and convulsions.17 While this kind of exposure is not one that would be encountered under conditions of normal use, these studies indicate the kinds of effects glyphosate can potentially cause in mammals.

Commercial glyphosate-containing products are more acutely toxic than glyphosate alone. Two recent (1990 and 1991) studies compared the amount of Roundup required to cause death in rats with the amount of either glyphosate alone or POEA alone that would cause death. The studies found that in combination, the amount of glyphosate and POEA required to kill was about 1/3 of a lethal dose of either compound separately. The Roundup formulation tested was also more toxic than POEA alone.18,19

As with glyphosate alone, glyphosate-containing products are more toxic when administered other ways than orally. Inhalation of Roundup by rats caused "signs of toxicity in all test groups,"20 even at the lowest concentration tested. These signs included a dark nasal discharge, gasping, congested eyes, reduced activity, hair standing erect,21 and body weight loss following exposure.20 Lungs were red or blood-congested.21 The dose required to cause lung damage and mortality following pulmonary administration of Roundup Lawn and Garden Concentrate or Roundup-Ready-to-Use (the glyphosate product is directly forced into the trachea, the tube carrying air into the lungs) was only 1/10 the dose causing damage through oral administration.18

Effects on the Circulatory System: When dogs were given intravenous injections of glyphosate, POEA, or Roundup so that blood concentrations were approximately those found in humans who ingested glyphosate, a variety of circulatory effects were found. Glyphosate increased the ability of the heart muscle to contract. POEA reduced the output of the heart and the pressure in the arteries. Together (Roundup), the result was cardiac depression.22

Eye Irritation: Glyphosate is classified as a mild eye irritant by EPA, with effects lasting up to seven days4 although more serious effects were found by the World Health Organization. In two of the four studies they reviewed, glyphosate was "strongly irritating"2 to rabbits’ eyes and a third test found it "irritating."2 In tests of glyphosate- containing products, all eight products tested were irritating to rabbit eyes, and four of the products were "strongly" or "extremely" irritating.2

Skin Irritation: Glyphosate is classified as a slightly irritating to skin. Roundup is a "moderate skin irritant" and causes redness and swelling on both intact and abraded rabbit skin. Recovery can take more than two weeks.20

Acute Toxicity to Humans

The acute toxicity of glyphosate products to humans was first widely publicized by physicians in Japan who studied 56 cases of Roundup poisoning. Most of the cases were suicides or attempted suicides; nine cases were fatal. Symptoms of acute poisoning in humans included gastrointestinal pain, vomiting, excess fluid in the lungs, pneumonia, clouding of consciousness, and destruction of red blood cells.23 They calculated that the mean amount ingested in the fatal cases was slightly more than 200 milliliters (about 3/4 of a cup). They believed that POEA was the cause of Roundup’s toxicity.23 More recent reviews of glyphosate poisoning incidents have found similar symptoms, as well as lung congestion or dysfunction,24-26, erosion of the gastrointestinal tract,24,26 abnormal electrocardiograms,26 massive gastrointestinal fluid loss,27 low blood pressure,23,26 and kidney damage or failure.24,25,27

Smaller amounts of Roundup also cause adverse effects. In general these include the skin or eye irritation documented in animal studies, as well as some of the symptoms seen in humans following ingestion. For example, rubbing of Roundup in an eye caused swelling of the eye and lid, rapid heartbeat, palpitations, and elevated blood pressure. Wiping the face with a hand that had contacted leaky Roundup spray equipment caused a swollen face and tingling of the skin. Accidental drenching with Roundup (horticultural strength) caused recurrent eczema of the hands and feet lasting two months.25

Different symptoms have been observed when a different type of exposure has occurred. In Great Britain, a study compared the effects of breathing dust from a flax milling operation that used flax treated with Roundup with the effects of dust from untreated flax. Treated flax dust caused a decrease in lung function and an increase in throat irritation, coughing, and breathlessness.28

Subchronic Toxicity

Experiments in which glyphosate was fed to laboratory animals for 13 weeks showed a variety of effects. In experiments conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), microscopic salivary gland lesions were found in all doses tested in rats (200 – 3400 mg/kg per day) and in all but the lowest dose tested in mice (1,000-12,000 mg/kg per day). Both the parotid and submandibular salivary glands were affected in rats; in mice the lesions were confined to the parotid gland. Based on further experiments, NTP concluded the lesions were mediated by the adrenal hormone adrenalin.29

The NTP study also found evidence of effects on the liver: increases in bile acids as well as two liver enzymes were found in both males and females. Other effects found in this study were reduced weight gain in male and female rats and mice; diarrhea in male and female rats; and changes in the relative weights of kidney, liver and thymus in male rats and mice.29

Other subchronic laboratory tests found decreased weight gains (using doses of 2500 mg/kg per day)30 along with an increase in the weights of brain, hearts, kidney, and livers in mice.2 In rats, blood levels of potassium and phosphorus increased at all doses tested (60-1600 mg/kg/day) in both sexes. There was also an increase in pancreatic lesions in males.4

As in acute toxicity tests, glyphosate-containing products are more toxic than glyphosate alone in subchronic tests. In a 7 day study with calves, 790 mg/kg of Roundup caused labored breathing, pneumonia, and death of 1/3 of the animals tested. At lower doses decreased food intake and diarrhea were observed.2

Chronic Toxicity

Glyphosate is also toxic in long-term studies. The following effects were found in lifetime glyphosate feeding studies using mice: decreased body weight, excessive growth of particular liver cells, death of the same liver cells, and chronic inflammation of the kidney. Effects were significant only in males and at the highest dose tested (about 4800 mg/kg of body weight per day). In females, excessive growth of some kidney cells occurred.31 At a lower dose (814 mg/kg of body weight per day) excessive cell division in the urinary bladder occurred.2

Lifetime feeding studies with rats found the following effects: decreased body weight in females; an increased incidence of cataracts and lens degeneration in males; and increased liver weight in males. These effects were significant at the highest dose tested (900-1200 mg/kg of body weight per day).4 At a lower dose (400 mg/kg of body weight per day) inflammation of the stomach’s mucous membrane occurred in both sexes.2

Carcinogenicity

The potential of glyphosate to cause cancer has been a controversial subject since the first lifetime feeding studies were analyzed in the early 1980s. The first study (1979-1981) found an increase in testicular interstitial tumors in male rats at the highest dose tested (30 mg/kg of body weight per day).32 as well as an increase in the frequency of a thyroid cancer in females.33 The second study (completed in 1983) found dose-related increases in the frequency of a rare kidney tumor in male mice.34 The most recent study (1988-1990) found an increase in the number of pancreas and liver tumors in male rats together with an increase of the same thyroid cancer found in the 1983 study in females.35

All of these increases in tumor incidence are "not considered compound-related"35 according to EPA. In each case, different reasons are given for this conclusion. For the testicular tumors, EPA accepted the interpretation of an industry pathologist who said that the incidence in treated groups (12 percent) was similar to those observed in other control (not glyphosate-fed) rat feeding studies (4.5 percent).36 For the thyroid cancer, EPA stated that it was not possible to consistently distinguish between cancers and tumors of this type, so that the incidences of the two should be considered together. The combined data are not statistically significant.33 For the kidney tumors, the registrants reexamined slides of kidney tissue, finding an additional tumor in untreated mice so that statistical significance was lost. This was despite a memo from EPA’s pathologist stating that the lesion in question was not really a tumor.34 For the pancreatic tumors, EPA stated that there was no dose-related trend and no progression to malignancy. For the liver tumors and the thyroid tumors, EPA stated that pairwise comparisons between treated and untreated animals were not statistically significant and there was no progression to malignancy.35

EPA concluded that glyphosate should be classified as Group E, "evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans."35 They added that this classification "is based on the available evidence at the time of evaluation and should not be interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent will not be a carcinogen under any circumstances." 35 From a public health perspective, the results of the laboratory tests leave many questions unanswered. An EPA statistician wrote in a memo concerning one of the carcinogenicity studies, "Viewpoint is a key issue. Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data."36 Unfortunately, EPA has not taken that conservative viewpoint in its assessment of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential.

There are no studies available to NCAP evaluating the carcinogenicity of Roundup or other glyphosate-containing products. Without such tests, the carcinogenicity of glyphosate-containing products is unknown.

Mutagenicity

Laboratory studies of a variety of organisms have shown that glyphosate-containing products cause genetic damage:

* In fruit flies, Roundup and Pondmaster (an aquatic herbicide consisting of glyphosate and a trade secret surfactant)37 both increased the frequency of sex-linked, recessive lethal mutations. (These are mutations that are usually visible only in males because two damaged genes are required in order to be expressed in females.) In this study, the frequency of lethal mutations was between 3 and 6 times higher in fruit flies that had been exposed to glyphosate products during their larval development than in unexposed flies.38

* A laboratory study of human lymphocytes (one type of white blood cell) showed an increase in the frequency of sister chromatid exchanges following exposure to high doses of Roundup.39 (Sister chromatid exchanges are exchanges of genetic material during cell division between members of a chromosome pair. They result from point mutations.)

* In Salmonella bacteria, Roundup was weakly mutagenic at high concentrations. In onion root cells, Roundup caused an increase in chromosome aberrations.40

Glyphosate alone has rarely caused genetic damage in laboratory tests. None of the mutagenicity studies required for registration of glyphosate have shown it to be mutagenic. Tests included studies of mutations in hamster ovary cells, bacteria, and mouse bone marrow cells.4 Glyphosate was also not mutagenic in other studies of rats, mice,2 and onion cells40 but caused chromosome stickiness and fragmentation in water hyacinth root cells.41

Reproductive Effects

Laboratory studies have demonstrated a number of effects of glyphosate on reproduction, including effects on mothers, fathers, and offspring.

In rat feeding studiess, glyphosate reduced sperm counts (at the two highest doses tested) and lengthened the estrous cycle, how often a female comes into heat (at the highest dose tested).29 Other effects on mother rats in laboratory tests include soft stools, diarrhea, breathing rattles, red nasal discharge, reduced activity, growth retardation, decreased body weights, and increased mortality.2 Effects on offspring included an increase in fetal loss, a decrease in the number of embryos successfully implanted into the uterus, a decrease in the number of viable fetuses, a slight decrease in litter size, a decrease in fetal and pup weights, and an increase in problems with breast bone formation.2 Effects were observed at the highest doses tested (1500 and 3500 mg/kg of body weight per day).2

In a study of rabbits using doses that were lower than those used in the rat studies above, glyphosate caused diarrhea, nasal discharge, and death in mothers.2 The only effect on offspring was a decrease in fetal weight in all treated groups.42

A study in which glyphosate was fed to rats for three generations after which the offspring were examined for birth defects found kidney damage at a relatively low dose (30 mg/kg of body weight). However, a second study (only two generations long) did not find similar effects, and EPA called the damage in the first study "spurious."4 From a public health perspective, however, a new three generation study is crucial.

Toxicology of Glyphosate’s Major Metabolite

In general, studies of the breakdown of glyphosate find only one metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA).2 (See Figure 5.) Although AMPA has low acute toxicity (its LD50 is 8,300 mg/kg of body weight in rats)20 and is only slightly irritating to eyes,43 it causes a variety of toxicological problems. In subchronic tests on rats, AMPA caused decreased weight gain in males; an increase in the acidity of urine in both males and females; an increase in the activity of an enzyme, lactic dehydrogenase, in both sexes; a decrease in liver weights in males at all doses tested; and excessive cell division in the lining of the urinary bladder and in part of the kidney in both sexes.20 AMPA is much more persistent than glyphosate; studies in eight states found that the half-life in soil (the time required for half of the original concentration of a compound to break down or dissipate) were between 119 and 958 days.2

Quality of Toxicology Testing

Tests done on glyphosate to meet registration requirements have been associated with fraudulent practices.

Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly announced that a 1976 audit had discovered "serious deficiencies and improprieties" in toxicology studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT).44 Problems included "countless deaths of rats and mice that were not reported," "fabricated data tables," and "routine falsification of data."44

IBT was one of the largest laboratories performing tests in support of pesticide registrations.44 About 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products were performed by IBT, including 11 of the 19 chronic toxicology studies.45 A compelling example of the poor quality of IBT data comes from an EPA toxicologist who wrote, "It is also somewhat difficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a study when the IBT stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of male rabbits) for histopathological examination."46 (Emphasis added.)

In 1991, laboratory fraud returned to the headlines when EPA alleged that Craven Laboratories, a company that performed contract studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto, had falsified test results.47 "Tricks" employed by Craven Labs included "falsifying laboratory notebook entries" and "manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports."48 Roundup residue studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the tests in question.49

The following year, the owner/president of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. A number of other employees agreed to plead guilty on a number of related charges.50 The owner was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.48

Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been replaced, these practices cast shadows on the entire pesticide registration process.

References

1. Monsanto, the Agricultural Group. Undated. Roundup into the twenty-first century. St. Louis, MO.

2. World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization. 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria #159. Geneva, Switzerland.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Pesticide fact sheet: Glyphosate. No. 173. Washington, D.C.: Office of Pesticide Programs. (June.)

4. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs. Special Review and Reregistration Division. 1993. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED): Glyphosate. Washington, D.C. (September.)

5. Monsanto Company Agricultural Products. 1992. Accord label. St. Louis, MO. (December 1.)

6. Carlisle, S.M. and J.T. Trevors. 1988. Glyphosate in the environment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 39:409-420.

7. Aspelin, A.L. 1994. Pesticide industry sales and usage: 1992 and 1993 market estimates. U.S. EPA. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Programs. Biological and Economic Analysis Division. Washington, D.C. (June.)

8. Whitmore, R.W., J.E. Kelly, and P.L. Reading. 1992. National home and garden pesticide use survey. Final report, Vol. 1: Executive summary, results, and recommendations. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

9 California Environmental Protection Agency. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation. Information Services Branch. 1994. Pesticide use report: Annual 1992. Indexed by chemical. Sacramento, CA. (February.)

10. Cremlyn, R.J. 1991. Agrochemicals: Preparation and mode of action. Chichester, U.K: John Wiley & Sons. Pp.257-258.

11. Gilchrist, D.G. and T. Kosuge. 1980. Aromatic amino acid biosynthesis and its regulation. In Miflin, B.J. (ed.) The biochemistry of plants. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 507-513

12. Metzler, D.E. 1977. Biochemistry: The chemical reactions of living cells. Pp. 849-850. New York, NY: Academic Press.

13. Su, L.Y. et al. 1992. The relationship of glyphosate treatment to sugar metabolism in sugarcane: New physiological insights. J. Plant Physiol. 140:168-173.

14. Hietanen, E., K. Linnainmaa, and H. Vainio. 1983. Effects of phenoxy herbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta Pharma. et Toxicol. 53:103-112.

15. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. 1994. Glyphosate herbicide information profile. (October.)

16. Olorunsogo, O.O., E.A. Bababunmi, and O. Bassir. 1977 Proc. 1st Intern. Cong. of Toxicol. (Toronto, Canada). Cited in Olorunsogo, O.O., E.A. Bababunmi, and O. Bassir. 1979. Effect of glyphosate on rat liver mitochondria in vivo. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22:357-364.

17. Olorunsogo, O.O. 1976. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Cited in Olorunsogo, O.O., E.A. Bababunmi, and O. Bassir. 1979. Effect of glyphosate on rat liver mitochondria in vivo. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22:357-364.

18. Martinez, T.T., W.C. Long, and R. Hiller. 1990. Comparison of the toxicology of the herbicide Roundup by oral and pulmonary routes of exposure. Proc. West. Pharmacol. Soc. 33:193-197.

19. Martinez, T.T. and K. Brown. 1991. Oral and pulmonary toxicology of the surfactant used in Roundup herbicide. Proc. West. Pharmacol. Soc. 34:43-46.

20. Agriculture Canada. Food Production and Inspection Branch. Pesticides Directorate. 1991. Discussion document: Pre-harvest use of glyphosate. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. (November 27.)

21. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1982. Memo from William Dykstra, Toxicology Branch, to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. (April 29.)

22. Tai, T. 1990. Hemodynamic effects of Roundup, glyphosate and surfactant in dogs. Jpn. J. Toxicol. 3(1): 63-68. Cited in World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization. 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria #159. Geneva, Switzerland.

23. Sawada, Y., Y. Nagai, M. Ueyama, and I. Yamamoto. 1988. Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate. Lancet 1(8580):299.

24. Tominack, R.L. et al. 1991. Taiwan National Poison Center: Survey of glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ingestions. Clin. Toxicol. 29(1):91-109.

25. Temple, W.A. and N.A. Smith. 1992. Glyphosate herbicide poisoning experience in New Zealand. N.Z. Med. J. 105:173- 174.

26. Talbot, A.R. et al. 1991. Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide (‘Roundup’): A review of 93 cases. Human Exp. Toxicol. 10:1-8.

27. Menkes, D.B., W.A. Temple, and I.R. Edwards. 1991. Intentional self-poisoning with glyphosate-containing herbicides. Human Exp. Toxicol. 10:103-107.

28. Jamison, J.P., J.H.M. Langlands, R.C. Lowry. 1986. Ventilatory impairment from pre-harvest retted flax. Brit. J. Ind. Med. 43:809-813.

29. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. National Institutes of Health. NTP technical report on toxicity studies of glyphosate (CAS No. 1071-83-6) administered in dosed feed to F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. (NIH Publication 92-3135). Toxicity Reports Series No. 16. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program.

30. U.S. EPA. Office of Toxic Substances. 1980. EPA Reg. #524-308; glyphosate; 3-month mouse feeding study. Memo from William Dykstra, Health Effects Division, to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. Washington, D.C. (September 29.)

31. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1985. Glyphosate; EPA Reg.#524-308; Mouse oncogenicity study. Washington, D.C. (April 3.)

32. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1982. EPA Reg. #524-308; Lifetime feeding study in rats with glyphosate. Memo from William Dykstra, Health Effects Division to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. Washington, D.C. (February 18.)

33. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1983. Glyphosate; EPA Reg. #524-308; A lifetime feeding study of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats; a preliminary addendum to review dated 2/18/83. Memo to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. Washington, D.C. (February 15.)

34. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1985. Glyphosate Q Evaluation of kidney tumors in male mice. Chronic feeding study. Memo from L. Kasza, Toxicology Branch, to W. Dykstra, Toxicology Branch. Washington, D.C. (December 4.)

35. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1991. Second peer review of glyphosate. Memo from W. Dykstra and G.Z. Ghali, Health Effects Division to R. Taylor, Registration Division, and Lois Rossi, Special Review and Reregistration Division. Washington, D.C. (October 30.)

36. U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1985. Use of historical data in determining the weight of evidence from kidney tumor incidence in the glyphosate two-year feeding study; and some remarks on false positives. Memo from Herbert Lacayo to Reto Engler (both Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division). Washington, D.C. (February 26.)

37. Monsanto Co. 1988. Material safety data sheet: Pondmaster aquatic herbicide. St. Louis, MO. (April.)

38. Kale, P.G. et al. 1995. Mutagenicity testing of nine herbicides and pesticides currently used in agriculture. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 25:148-153.

39. Vigfusson, N.V. and E.R. Vyse. 1980. The effect of the pesticides, Dexon, Capton and Roundup on sister-chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes in vitro. Mutation Research 79:53-57.

40. Rank, J. et al. 1993. Genotoxicity testing of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate isopropylamine using the mouse bone marrow micronucleus test, Salmonella mutagenicity test, and Allium anaphase-telophase test. Mut. Res. 300:29-36.

41. Goltenboth, F. 1977. The effect of glyphosate and ametryn on the root tip mitosis of water hyacinth. Proc. Asian Pac. Weed Sci. 6th Conf. 2:255. Cited in Hess, F.D. 1989. Herbicide interference with cell division in plants. Chapter 5 of Bgez, P and Sandmann, G. (eds.) Target sites of herbicide action. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.

42. U.S. EPA. Office of Toxic Substances. 1980. EPA Reg. #524-308; glyphosate; submission of rat teratology, rabbit teratology, dominant lethal mutagenicity assay in mice. Memo from W. Dykstra, Health Effects Division, to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. Washington, D.C. (Undated.)

43. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1986. Guidance for the reregistration of pesticide products containing glyphosate as the active ingredient. Washington, D.C. (June.)

44. U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Government Operations. 1984. Problems plague the Environmental Protection Agency’s pesticide registration activities. House Report 98-1147. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

45. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1983. Summary of the IBT review program. Washington, D.C. (July.)

46. U.S. EPA. 1978. Data validation. Memo from K. Locke, Toxicology Branch, to R. Taylor, Registration Branch. Washington, D.C. (August 9.)

47. U.S. EPA. Communications and Public Affairs. 1991. Note to correspondents. Washington, D.C. (March 1.)

48. U.S. EPA. Communications, Education, And Public Affairs. 1994. Press advisory. Craven Laboratories, owner, and 14 employees sentenced for falsifying pesticide tests. Washington, D.C. (March 4.)

49. U.S. EPA. Communications and Public Affairs. 1991. Press advisory. EPA lists crops associated with pesticides for which residue and environmental fate studies were allegedly manipulated. Washington, D.C. (March 29.)

50. U.S. Dept. of Justice. United States Attorney. Western District of Texas. 1992. Texas laboratory, its president, 3 employees indicted on 20 felony counts in connection with pesticide testing. Austin, TX. (September 29.)

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

| Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides |

| P.O. Box 1393 Eugene, OR 97440 |

| Phone: (541) 344-5044 |

| email: ncap@igc.apc.org |

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

** Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) **

Phone: (415) 541-9140

Fax: (415) 541-9253

*For general information about PANNA, send an email: panna@panna.org

http://www.panna.org/panna/

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

Glyphosate Weedkiller in Our Food and Water?

Colin Todhunter
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

Historians may look back and write about how willing we are to sacrifice our children and jeopardize future generations with a massive experiment that is based on false promises and flawed science just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.” So said Don Huber in referring to the use of glyphosate and genetically modified crops. Huber was speaking at Organic Connections conference in Regina, Canada, late 2012.

Huber is an emeritus professor in plant pathology at Purdue University in the US and has worked with the Department of Homeland Security to reduce the impact of plant disease outbreaks. His words are well worth bearing in mind given that a new study commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE) and GM Freeze has found that people in 18 countries across Europe have been found to have traces of glyphosate in their urine (1).

Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned laboratory tests on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe and found that on average 44 percent of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany, the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland. All the volunteers who provided samples live in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests.

The Influence of the Biotech Sector on Safety and Regulation

Although ‘weedkiller in urine’ sounds alarming, Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, says the levels found are unlikely to be of any significance to health because they are 300 times lower than the level which might cause concern. Alison Haughton, head of the Pollination Ecology Group at Rothamsted Research, said that if FoE and GM Freeze want their work to have scientific credibility and provide a genuine contribution to the debate on pesticide residues, they should submit their work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Valid points, you might think. But FoE believes that there is sufficient evidence to suggest environmental and health impacts from glyphosate warrant concern. It wants to know how the glyphosate found in human urine samples has entered the body, what the impacts of persistent exposure to low levels of glyphosate might be and what happens to the glyphosate that remains in the body. New research published in the journal Entropy sheds disturbing light on such concerns (discussed later in this article).

In 2011, Earth Open Source said that official approval of glyphosate had been rash, problematic and deeply flawed. A comprehensive review of existing data released in June 2011 by Earth Open Source suggested that industry regulators in Europe had known for years that glyphosate causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals. Questions were raised about the role of the powerful agro-industry in rigging data pertaining to product safety and its undue influence on regulatory bodies (2).

In the same vein, FoE says there is currently very little testing for glyphosate by public authorities, despite its widespread use, and authorities in Europe do not test for glyphosate in humans and tests on food are infrequent. Glyphosate was approved for EU-wide use in 2002, but FoE argues that the European regulatory agencies did not carry out their own safety testing, relying instead on data provided by the manufacturers.

Of course there are certain scientists (usually with links to the agro-industry) who always seem to be strident in calling for peer-reviewed evidence when people are critical of the biotech sector, but then rubbish it and smear or intimidate the scientists involved when that occurs, as has been the case with Dr Arsad Pusztai in the UK or Professor Seralini in France. It is therefore quite revealing that most of the data pertaining to glyphosate safety came from industry studies, not from peer-reviewed science, and the original data are not available for independent scrutiny.

Increasing Use

With references to a raft of peer-reviewed studies, FoE also brings attention to the often disturbing health and environmental dangers and impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides throughout the world (1). The FoE study also highlights concerns around the increasing levels of exposure to glyphosate-based weed killers, particularly as the use of glyphosate is predicted to rise further if more genetically modified (GM) crops are grown. It is after all good for business. And the biggest producer of glyphosate is Monsanto, which sells it under the brand name ‘Roundup’.

“The figures don’t lie; GMOs drive glyphosate sales.” (3)

Despite its widespread use, there is currently little monitoring of glyphosate in food, water or the wider environment. The FoE commissioned study is the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the presence of the weed killer in human bodies. FoE Europe’s spokesperson Adrian Bebb argues that there is a serious lack of action by public authorities and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused.

This certainly needs to be addressed not least because the prediction concerning increasing exposure to glyphosate is not without substance. The introduction of Roundup Ready crops has already resulted in an increase of glyphosate use. Using official US government data, Dr Charles Benbrook, research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, states that since 1996 the glysophate rate of application per crop year has tripled on cotton farms, doubled in the case of soybeans and risen 39 percent on corn (4). The average annual increase in the pounds of glyphosate applied to cotton, soybeans, and corn has been 18.2 percent, 9.8 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively, since herbicide tolerant crops were introduced.

Glyphosate is used on many genetically modified crops. 14 new GM crops designed to be cultivated with glyphosate are currently waiting for approval to be grown in Europe. Approval of these crops would inevitably lead to a further increase of glysphosate spraying. In the US, biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canola and sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres annually.

Increasing Dangers

Evidence suggests that Roundup could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new peer-reviewed report, published recently in the scientific journal Entropy (5). The study also concluded that residues of glyphosate have been found in food.

These residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a science consultant. The study says that negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.

In 2010, the provincial government of Chaco province in Argentina issued a report on health statistics from the town La Leonesa. The report showed that from 2000 to 2009, following the expansion of genetically-modified soy and rice crops in the region (and the use of glyphosate), the childhood cancer rate tripled in La Leonesa and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province (6).

Professor Huber also notes the health risks associated with the (increasing) use of glyphosate. He says a number of plant pathogens are emerging, which when consumed could impact human health. Based on research that he alludes to (he refuses to make his research public or identify his fellow researchers, who he claims could suffer substantial professional backlash from academic employers who received research funding from the biotechnology industry), Huber notes that the use of glyphosate changes the soil ecology, killing many bacteria, while giving other bacteria a competitive advantage. This makes plants highly susceptible to soil borne diseases. At the same time, glyphosate has a negative effect on a number of beneficial soil organisms (7).

Huber’s concerns about the impact of long term use of glyphosate on soil sterility are similar to concerns expressed by Elaine Ingham, a soil ecologist with the Rodale Institute, and also research carried out in by Navdanya in India (8).

As for GM crops, Huber says they have lower water use efficiency, tend to be nutrient deficient, have increased bud and fruit abortion and are predisposed to infectious diseases and insect damage. He suggests that Roundup Ready crops, treated with glyphosate, have higher levels of mycotoxins and lower nutrient levels than conventional crops.

“… you could say that what you’re doing with glyphosate is you’re giving the plant a bad case of AIDS. You’ve shut down the immune system or the defense system.” Professor Ron Huber (7)

He concludes that, when consumed, the GM crops were more likely to cause disease, infertility, birth defects, cancer and allergic reactions than conventional crops.

Huber claims that consumption of food or feed that was genetically modified could bring the altered genes in contact with the microbes in the guts of the livestock or people who eat them. He feels this increases diseases, such as celiac disease, allergies, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, gluten intolerance, irritable bowel disease, miscarriage, obesity and sudden infant death syndrome.

While none of these findings conclusively prove that plant (or animal) diseases are caused by the glyphosate, Huber feels safety evaluations have been inadequate, suggesting that previous (GM sector) research was substandard and extremely misleading in its interpretation of results – or worse.

With some hugely powerful players involved here, many of whom have successfully infiltrated important government and official bodies (9), much of the science and the ensuing debate surrounding glyphosate is being manipulated and hijacked by vested interests for commercial gain.

“… publishing in this area can also be difficult. I know from the International Symposium on Glyphosate that they had to find a journal publisher outside this country (the US) to publish the research data and symposium proceedings. It’s pretty hard to get it published in the States. There are also some hazards to publishing if you’re a young researcher doing research that runs counter to the current popular concepts. A lot of research on safety of genetic engineering is done outside of this country because it’s difficult to gain access to the materials, or the statements you have to sign to have access to those materials stating that you won’t publish without permission of the supplier. I think the 26 entomologists who sent their letter to EPA in 2009 stated it aptly when they said that objective data wasn’t available to the EPA because the materials haven’t been available to them or that they’re denied the opportunity to publish their data.” Professor Ron Huber (7)

Notes

1) http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_media_briefing_glyphosate.pdf
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html
3) http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetic-engineering-and-corporate-agribusiness-gmos-and-the-impacts-of-glyphosate-herbicide/5337096
4) http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
5) http://www.nationofchange.org/study-links-monsanto-s-roundup-autism-parkinson-s-and-alzheimer-s-1367764115
6) http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-147561-2010-06-14.html
7) http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/don-huber-may2011-acres.pdf
8) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFarmers.php
9) http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

This original originally appeared at GlobalResearch.

%d bloggers like this: