Showing posts with label Gates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gates. Show all posts
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Did Gates Know Polio Vaccine Would Paralyze Children?
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation created the GAVI alliance to push vaccinations on the poorest parts of the developing world in the name of “saving lives” and stopping disease.
In particular, Bill Gates expects to take credit for wiping out polio worldwide by making it one of his primary issues. But at what cost?
In April 2012, I reported on a disturbing claim in the Indian medical press that some 47,500 children had been paralyzed as a direct result of the polio vaccination campaign that had swept through their populous country. India’s National Polio Surveillance Project found that a sharp rise in the cases of non-polio paralysis correlated with areas where doses of oral polio vaccine were also increased.
Worse, children afflicted with polio vaccine-derived non-polio paralysis “were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection,” according to Indian officials.
Bill Gates has publicly denied that his vaccination campaign harmed anyone after being confronted by Truthstream Media’s Melissa Melton.
n June 2013, a ten-month old baby in India made headlines after it was paralyzed from receiving a polio vaccine, all while Bollywood celebrities, reportedly hired by the Gates Foundation, were used to urge the public to accept the vaccinations.
Perhaps the worst part of this tragic backlash in what is meant to be a campaign to improve public health is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UN’s World Health Organization knew that oral polio vaccines caused paralysis – but they thought the trade-off was worth it. The claim rings as hollow as when former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed that some half a million Iraqis killed by sanctions was also “worth it.”
After years of controversy in the United States, the use of oral polio vaccine (OPV) was discontinued in 2000 due to its proven link with vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV), and in the UK circa 2004.
The use of an injected and inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) replaced its usage in the Western world, while oral polio vaccine continues to be used in the developing world.
Wikipedia notes that the WHO “considers the benefits of vaccination to far outweigh the risk of vaccine derived polio.” A statement on the World Health Organization addressing the issue of vaccine-derived polio updated in April 2013 claims, “The small risk of cVDPVs pales in significance to the tremendous public health benefits associated with OPV.”
While that risk may be statistically negligible from the bureaucratic point of view of the United Nations and agenda-driven philanthropy, the vaccine-derived paralysis has ruined at least 47,500 real human lives in India, in children who would have likely never contracted paralyzing polio but instead were paralyzed and permanently harmed by the so-called “cure” – all while an alternate vaccine not linked with paralysis has long been available.
Who carries the burden for those wrecked lives, and why does no one in the mainstream corporate media address this issue or attempt to hold anyone accountable? I guess there are no political points to be scored, so it won’t be appearing on your TV screen.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Scientists Warn Geo Engineering Can Kill Billions
Geo-engineering is an umbrella term for deliberate climate
intervention that includes spraying the sky with aerosols to reflect
solar radiation away from Earth in order to cool the planet and to save
the environment and humanity from the effects of supposedly man-made
global warming. There is evidence that this program has already been
implemented for many years using unidentified chemical aerosols, known
as chemtrails.
A geo-engineering/ chemtrails experiment using a balloon to spray sulfur particles into the sky to reflect solar radiation back into space is planned for New Mexico within a year by scientist David Keith. Keith manages a multimillion dollar research fund for Bill Gates. Gates has also gathered a team of scientist lobbyists that have been asking governments for hand-outs to for their climate manipulation experiments with taxpayer money.
Geo-engineering is touted as a last-ditch effort to save people and the planet from global warming. But the truth is that geo-engineering can alter rain cycles leading to droughts and famine that could result in billions of deaths!
Therefore, Bill Gates appears to be using his concern over global warming to cloak his real intent of controlling weather and/or depopulation.
Mount Pinatubo Model for Geo-Engineering Drought, Famine & Death
The Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. A 2008 study from Rutgers University based a model on Mount Pinatubo sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and applied it to geo-engineering; the scientists said that they expected overall global cooling, but some regions would experience an increase in greenhouse gases and warming, as was recorded after Pinatubo erupted.
Based on the SO2 volcanic model, the scientists reported that geo-engineering aerosols sprayed in tropical or Arctic regions are likely to disrupt African and Asian/Indian summer monsoons, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people!
A geo-engineering/ chemtrails experiment using a balloon to spray sulfur particles into the sky to reflect solar radiation back into space is planned for New Mexico within a year by scientist David Keith. Keith manages a multimillion dollar research fund for Bill Gates. Gates has also gathered a team of scientist lobbyists that have been asking governments for hand-outs to for their climate manipulation experiments with taxpayer money.
Geo-engineering is touted as a last-ditch effort to save people and the planet from global warming. But the truth is that geo-engineering can alter rain cycles leading to droughts and famine that could result in billions of deaths!
Therefore, Bill Gates appears to be using his concern over global warming to cloak his real intent of controlling weather and/or depopulation.
Mount Pinatubo Model for Geo-Engineering Drought, Famine & Death
The Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. A 2008 study from Rutgers University based a model on Mount Pinatubo sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and applied it to geo-engineering; the scientists said that they expected overall global cooling, but some regions would experience an increase in greenhouse gases and warming, as was recorded after Pinatubo erupted.
Based on the SO2 volcanic model, the scientists reported that geo-engineering aerosols sprayed in tropical or Arctic regions are likely to disrupt African and Asian/Indian summer monsoons, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people!
Additional negative consequences include ozone depletion,
reduced strength of hydrological cycles resulting in decreased river
flow and soil moisture.
While the scientists, led by Alan Robock, who performed the
experiments appear to believe in man-made global warming, they do have
stern warnings against the dangers of geo-engineering.
2012 Geo-Engineering Study
The Max Planck Institute conducted a study of geo-engineering
models based on volcanoes, but the study was unrealistic because it used
climate models with 400% more carbon dioxide than the pre-industrial
era. However, their results showed that geo-engineering will cause a
strong decrease in rainfall (a 15% loss in North America and Eurasia and
a 20% decrease in South America). Overall, global rainfall would be
reduced by 5%.Unless one considers the financial benefits (government
and private grants), it is bewildering why the academia would support
geo-engineering.http://www.egu.eu/home/geoengineering-could-disrupt-rainfall-patterns.html
Geo-Engineering Can Cause WarmingGeo-engineering
can actually cause global warming when tampering with clouds in the
upper atmosphere/stratosphere. The Gates-funded scientist lobbyists
propose spraying sulfur dioxide 30 miles above Earth and the New Mexico
experiment proposes spraying 15 miles above surface- both of these fall
within the parameters of the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.
The troposphere is the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere,
extending an average of 4 to 12 miles above surface. Clouds that are in
the lower troposphere are generally thick white clouds with a high rate
of albedo or reflectivity of the sun’s rays away from Earth that
produce a cooling effect. However, the experiments are to be conducted above this level in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.
The upper atmosphere is called the stratosphere and extends as high
as 31 miles above the Earth’s surface. The clouds in the higher
stratosphere are generally thin, have a lower albedo reflective rate and
act like a blanket that traps heat.
Both experiments propose dumping SO2 in the upper
atmosphere/stratosphere, creating a heat-trapping blanket that would
theoretically increase warming. This is the opposite of Gates’ stated
goal to cool the planet.(Note: most long-distance planes fly at 6 miles
above surface, in the lower atmosphere/troposhere)
What About the EPA?Given that the EPA claims that sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissionscause
health problems and early death and that they are shuttering coal
plants over emissions, you may be wondering why the EPA isn’t screaming
bloody murder over Gates’ SO2 aerosol-spraying experiments.The answer
can be found on the EPA’s own websitewhere
they promote giving regulatory power over geo-engineering/chemtrails to
the UN and/or developed countries that fund the programs.
The EPA is abdicating power to international interests.Bill Gates’ failure to address the EPA’s dire warnings of the dangers of SO2 is proof that he is aware that the EPA’s claims are grossly overstated or that he doesn’t really care about the environment and has ulterior motives.
Global Warming and UN Control
Global warming is a ruse that claims that life on planet Earth is in grave danger- this alarmism is used for political gain. Global warming is a hoax based on manipulated science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UN currently is assuming control over geo-engineering through its Convention on Biological Diversity treaty that declared a moratorium on experiments, except in some cases.
Conclusion
Geo-engineering is either a risky adventure to test ignorant theories or a scheme to control weather, water and food supplies.
Bill Gates’ record as a depopulation enthusiast supports the argument that geo-engineering is a weather domination scheme that may be used as a weapon threatening the lives of billions of people.
The EPA is abdicating power to international interests.Bill Gates’ failure to address the EPA’s dire warnings of the dangers of SO2 is proof that he is aware that the EPA’s claims are grossly overstated or that he doesn’t really care about the environment and has ulterior motives.
Global Warming and UN Control
Global warming is a ruse that claims that life on planet Earth is in grave danger- this alarmism is used for political gain. Global warming is a hoax based on manipulated science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UN currently is assuming control over geo-engineering through its Convention on Biological Diversity treaty that declared a moratorium on experiments, except in some cases.
Conclusion
Geo-engineering is either a risky adventure to test ignorant theories or a scheme to control weather, water and food supplies.
Bill Gates’ record as a depopulation enthusiast supports the argument that geo-engineering is a weather domination scheme that may be used as a weapon threatening the lives of billions of people.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation "Vaccines Reduce Population Growth"
Right from the horses mouth, Bill Gates states that “vaccines reduce population growth.” Few can now deny what anti-vaccine advocates have been saying for years, specifically that vaccines directly and negatively impact fertility. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will only be too willing to oblige future generations.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committing 10 billion dollars over the next ten years to make it the most aggressive decade ever to roll out new vaccines to poor nations around the world. The commitment will also effectively create widespread fertility problems across vaccinated populations.
Home > Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Vaccines Reduce Population Growth”
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Vaccines Reduce Population Growth”
October 26, 2012 | By admin | 1 Reply
Dave Mihalovic, Prevent Disease
Waking Times
Right from the horses mouth, Bill Gates states that “vaccines reduce population growth.” Few can now deny what anti-vaccine advocates have been saying for years, specifically that vaccines directly and negatively impact fertility. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will only be too willing to oblige future generations.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committing 10 billion dollars over the next ten years to make it the most aggressive decade ever to roll out new vaccines to poor nations around the world. The commitment will also effectively create widespread fertility problems across vaccinated populations.
In the video below, Bill Gates states at 0:11:
“Over this decade, we believe unbelievable products can be made both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get to all the children that need them.”
At 0:20 he continues:
“We could cut the number of children who die every year from about 9 million to half of that if we have success on it.”
Now here is the statement straight from the source which should not leave any doubts on the intention of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Listen carefully at 0:28:
“The benefits are in terms of reducing sickness, reducing the population growth. It really allows a society to take care of itself once you’ve made that intervention.”
Now why would Bill Gates state that vaccines could cut the number of children who die every year in half and then also state literally a few breaths later in the same segment, that vaccines could reduce population growth. Are those two not contradictory? If vaccines were to cut the number of child deaths in half, then this would only increase population growth since these children would presumably then grow to become fertile adults. Ahhhh…do you see the problem? The only way they could not become fertile adults is if the vaccines were to make them infertile. Then it wouldn’t matter how many children were saved since they could not reproduce, hence the assertion of reducing population growth. See how it all works?
Vaccine ingredients have been known to cause infertility for some time. Two common vaccine ingredients Polysorbate 80 and Octoxynol 10 both have the ability to damage fertility.
Fertility has been declining rapidly since the 1950s in all countries of the world and the start of the change coincided with the introduction of the first mass vaccination programs. For instance, in the UK in 1947, a mass DPT vaccine campaign was initiated and in 1958, the first polio and diphtheria vaccines were brought in on a mass scale for all people under 15 years old.
Vaccines contain many ingredients that are potentially damaging to fertility including detergents like triton X-100, also known as octoxynol 10 which is a known spermicide and has been used in experiments to “strip” sperm so that they are no longer capable of fertilizing an egg. In a 1977 study in the Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, triton X-100 was listed in a table of “most potent spermicides” that would produce 100% stripping of human sperm and the dosages needed for such an effect.
Another ingredient that is problematic is polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80) that is in numerous vaccines including the Pediacel five-in-one vaccine given to infants and the gardasil HPV vaccine. Polysorbate 80 is a known sterility causing agent in rats. It caused changes to the vagina and womb, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles and this impaired the rats’ ability to reproduce.
Interestingly enough it is also an emulsifier used in popular brands of ice cream.
Some medical professionals argue that it has only been found to cause infertility in rats, not humans, but the Depo-Provera contraceptive shot also contains polysorbate 80 and it has been added to experimental animal contraceptive injections as one of the ideal sterilizing ingredients.
Baby female rats who were injected with polysorbate 80 at days 4-7 after birth had caused changes to the vagina and womb lining, hormonal changes, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles.
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception. A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is Polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80). As it is a preferred ingredient, scientists are obviously aware of its ability to cause infertility.
Far from being mere anecdotal reports, scientists are aware that an ideal sterilizing recipe is polysorbate 80 and squalene oil together, as they demonstrated in this patent for an animal contraceptive vaccine:
“In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80.”
This is exactly what some vaccines contain. In fact, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System lists 25 pages of teenage girls and women who had miscarriages after being injected with Gardasil when pregnant, and that is just for one type of vaccine.
So if you’re considering having a vaccine or giving your child one, don’t have any if you intend to get pregnant within three months of the vaccine and avoid any vaccines that contain polysorbate 80, octoxynol 10 (Triton X-100) or squalene (known as adjuvant AS04).
According to Professor Iles, of Middlesex University, a new cancer vaccine being developed in conjunction with U.S. firm Celldex Therapeutics will rev up the immune system, directing it to destroy Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) which is made by around half of bladder and pancreatic-cancers. Perhaps an ulterior motive was the driving force behind such irresponsible research since scientists have known for decades that any attempts to depress or destroy hCG may lead to permanent infertility in women.
Ironically, the hCG hormone the researchers are trying to destroy is actually used during female infertility treatments in order to stimulate the release of eggs from the ovaries. Temporary depression and disruption of hCG causes a range of hormonal imbalances and is considered a leading cause of miscarriages. Consequently, many once infertile women may suddenly conceive with repeated injections of hCG.
One of the primary reasons that women who abuse cocaine can no longer conceive is because of hCG disruption. Cocaine inhibits hCG concentrations in maternal circulation which affects secretion by the placenta required to maintain pregnancy.
Almost three years ago Bill Gates told a TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions. Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”
Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.
Can any of us doubt any longer the intentions of vaccines and specifically the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. When it’s coming from the horse’s mouth, what more evidence do we need?
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Who's Behind The Doomsday Seed Vaul?
One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can’t be accused of is sloth.
He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while
still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the
world’s richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft,
a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in
software systems for personal computers.
In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status.
A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization.
So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.
No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).
On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.
The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. It’s almost ready for ‘business’ according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government.
Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault’s relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity.
Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.’ What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?
Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it’s worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things.
The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change.
CGIAR and ‘The Project’
As I detailled in the book, Seeds of Destruction1, in 1960 the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III’s Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, the Philippines. By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation’s IRRI, along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR).
CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation’s George Harrar, Ford Foundation’s Forrest Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family’s international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation’s decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of racial purity, what has been called The Project.
To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank. Thus, through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the beginning of the 1970’s was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And shape it did.
Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to ‘master’ the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO ‘Gene Revolution’ in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture.
Genetically engineering a master race?
Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race.
The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing.
The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.
2 The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace.
The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same.
In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’
Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later.
John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950’s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.”
He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then— a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer.
3 A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation.
That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder’s authorization.
It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen. If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto’s Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution.
4 In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign, mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process.
Under the Green Revolution Agribusiness was making major inroads into markets which were previously of limited access to US exporters. The trend was later dubbed “market-oriented agriculture.” In reality it was agribusiness-controlled agriculture.
Through the Green Revolution, the Rockefeller Foundation and later Ford Foundation worked hand-in-hand shaping and supporting the foreign policy goals of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and of the CIA.
One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in desperate search for work. That was no accident; it was part of the plan to create cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures, the ‘globalization’ of recent years.
When the self-promotion around the Green Revolution died down, the results were quite different from what had been promised. Problems had arisen from indiscriminate use of the new chemical pesticides, often with serious health consequences. The mono-culture cultivation of new hybrid seed varieties decreased soil fertility and yields over time. The first results were impressive: double or even triple yields for some crops such as wheat and later corn in Mexico.
That soon faded.
The Green Revolution was typically accompanied by large irrigation projects which often included World Bank loans to construct huge new dams, and flood previously settled areas and fertile farmland in the process. Also, super-wheat produced greater yields by saturating the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer per acre, the fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum, commodities controlled by the Rockefeller-dominated Seven Sisters major oil companies.
Huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides were also used, creating additional markets for the oil and chemical giants. As one analyst put it, in effect, the Green Revolution was merely a chemical revolution. At no point could developing nations pay for the huge amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
They would get the credit courtesy of the World Bank and special loans by Chase Bank and other large New York banks, backed by US Government guarantees.
Applied in a large number of developing countries, those loans went mostly to the large landowners. For the smaller peasants the situation worked differently. Small peasant farmers could not afford the chemical and other modern inputs and had to borrow money.
Initially various government programs tried to provide some loans to farmers so that they could purchase seeds and fertilizers.
Farmers who could not participate in this kind of program had to borrow from the private sector. Because of the exorbitant interest rates for informal loans, many small farmers did not even get the benefits of the initial higher yields. After harvest, they had to sell most if not all of their produce to pay off loans and interest. They became dependent on money-lenders and traders and often lost their land. Even with soft loans from government agencies, growing subsistence crops gave way to the production of cash crops
5 Since decades the same interests including the Rockefeller Foundation which backed the initial Green Revolution, have worked to promote a second ‘Gene Revolution’ as Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway termed it several years ago, the spread of industrial agriculture and commercial inputs including GMO patented seeds.
Gates, Rockefeller and a Green Revolution in Africa
With the true background of the 1950’s Rockefeller Foundation Green Revolution clear in mind, it becomes especially curious that the same Rockefeller Foundation along with the Gates Foundation which are now investing millions of dollars in preserving every seed against a possible “doomsday” scenario are also investing millions in a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.
AGRA, as it calls itself, is an alliance again with the same Rockefeller Foundation which created the “Gene Revolution.” A look at the AGRA Board of Directors confirms this.
It includes none other than former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as chairman. In his acceptance speech in a World Economic Forum event in Cape Town South Africa in June 2007, Kofi Annan stated,
‘I accept this challenge with gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.’
In addition the AGRA board numbers a South African, Strive Masiyiwa who is a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. It includes Sylvia M. Mathews of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Mamphela Ramphele, former Managing Director of the World Bank (2000 – 2006); Rajiv J. Shah of the Gates Foundation; Nadya K. Shmavonian of the Rockefeller Foundation; Roy Steiner of the Gates Foundation. In addition, an Alliance for AGRA includes Gary Toenniessen the Managing Director of the Rockefeller Foundation and Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation.
To fill out the lineup, the Programmes for AGRA includes Peter Matlon, Managing Director, Rockefeller Foundation; Joseph De Vries, Director of the Programme for Africa’s Seed Systems and Associate Director, Rockefeller foundation; Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation. Like the old failed Green Revolution in India and Mexico, the new Africa Green Revolution is clearly a high priority of the Rockefeller Foundation.
While to date they are keeping a low profile, Monsanto and the major GMO agribusiness giants are believed at the heart of using Kofi Annan’s AGRA to spread their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, ‘bio-technology,’ the new euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds.
To date South Africa is the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan’s Ghana drafted bio-safety legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research into GMO crops.
Africa is the next target in the US-government campaign to spread GMO worldwide. Its rich soils make it an ideal candidate. Not surprisingly many African governments suspect the worst from the GMO sponsors as a multitude of genetic engineering and biosafety projects have been initiated in Africa, with the aim of introducing GMOs into Africa’s agricultural systems.
These include sponsorships offered by the US government to train African scientists in genetic engineering in the US, biosafety projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank; GMO research involving African indigenous food crops.
Monsanto, who has a strong foothold in South Africa’s seed industry, both GMO and hybrid, has conceived of an ingenious smallholders’ programme known as the ‘Seeds of Hope’ Campaign, which is introducing a green revolution package to small scale poor farmers, followed, of course, by Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds.
6 Syngenta AG of Switzerland, one of the ‘Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse’ is pouring millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi, to develop GMO insect resistant maize. Syngenta is a part of CGIAR as well.7
Move on to Svalbard
Now is it simply philosophical sloppiness? What leads the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to at one and the same time to back proliferation of patented and soon-to-be Terminator patented seeds across Africa, a process which, as it has in every other place on earth, destroys the plant seed varieties as monoculture industrialized agribusiness is introduced?
At the same time they invest tens of millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday vault near the remote Arctic Circle ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future’ to restate their official release?
It is no accident that the Rockefeller and Gates foundations are teaming up to push a GMO-style Green Revolution in Africa at the same time they are quietly financing the ‘doomsday seed vault’ on Svalbard. The GMO agribusiness giants are up to their ears in the Svalbard project.
Indeed, the entire Svalbard enterprise and the people involved call up the worst catastrophe images of the Michael Crichton bestseller, Andromeda Strain, a sci-fi thriller where a deadly disease of extraterrestrial origin causes rapid, fatal clotting of the blood threatening the entire human species. In Svalbard, the future world’s most secure seed repository will be guarded by the policemen of the GMO Green Revolution–the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, Syngenta, DuPont and CGIAR.
The Svalbard project will be run by an organization called the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT). Who are they to hold such an awesome trust over the planet’s entire seed varieties? The GCDT was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), an offshoot of the CGIAR.
The Global Crop Diversity Trust is based in Rome. Its Board is chaired by Margaret Catley-Carlson a Canadian also on the advisory board of Group Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, one of the world’s largest private water companies. Catley-Carlson was also president until 1998 of the New York-based Population Council, John D. Rockefeller’s population reduction organization, set up in 1952 to advance the Rockefeller family’s eugenics program under the cover of promoting “family planning,” birth control devices, sterilization and “population control” in developing countries.
Other GCDT board members include former Bank of America executive presently head of the Hollywood DreamWorks Animation, Lewis Coleman. Coleman is also the lead Board Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation, one of America’s largest military industry Pentagon contractors.
Jorio Dauster (Brazil) is also Board Chairman of Brasil Ecodiesel. He is a former Ambassador of Brazil to the European Union, and Chief Negotiator of Brazil’s foreign debt for the Ministry of Finance. Dauster has also served as President of the Brazilian Coffee Institute and as Coordinator of the Project for the Modernization of Brazil’s Patent System, which involves legalizing patents on seeds which are genetically modified, something until recently forbidden by Brazil’s laws.
Cary Fowler is the Trust’s Executive Director. Fowler was Professor and Director of Research in the Department for International Environment & Development Studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. He was also a Senior Advisor to the Director General of Bioversity International.
There he represented the Future Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in negotiations on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In the 1990s, he headed the International Program on Plant Genetic Resources at the FAO. He drafted and supervised negotiations of FAO’s Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources, adopted by 150 countries in 1996. He is a past-member of the National Plant Genetic Resources Board of the US and the Board of Trustees of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico, another Rockefeller Foundation and CGIAR project.
GCDT board member Dr. Mangala Rai of India is the Secretary of India’s Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), and Director General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR). He is also a Board Member of the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which promoted the world’s first major GMO experiment, the much-hyped ‘Golden Rice’ which proved a failure. Rai has served as Board Member for CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), and a Member of the Executive Council of the CGIAR.
Global Crop Diversity Trust Donors or financial angels include as well, in the words of the Humphrey Bogart Casablanca classic, ‘all the usual suspects.’ As well as the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, the Donors include GMO giants DuPont-Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta of Basle Switzerland, CGIAR and the State Department’s energetically pro-GMO agency for development aid, USAID. Indeed it seems we have the GMO and population reduction foxes guarding the hen-house of mankind, the global seed diversity store in Svalbard.
8 Why now Svalbard?
We can legitimately ask why Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation along with the major genetic engineering agribusiness giants such as DuPont and Syngenta, along with CGIAR are building the Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic.
Who uses such a seed bank in the first place? Plant breeders and researchers are the major users of gene banks. Today’s largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants.
Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called ‘Terminator’ or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits ‘suicide’ after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind existed.
This clever genetically engineered terminator trait forces farmers to return every year to Monsanto or other GMO seed suppliers to get new seeds for rice, soybeans, corn, wheat whatever major crops they need to feed their population. If broadly introduced around the world, it could within perhaps a decade or so make the world’s majority of food producers new feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed companies such as Monsanto or DuPont or Dow Chemical.
That, of course, could also open the door to have those private companies, perhaps under orders from their host government, Washington, deny seeds to one or another developing country whose politics happened to go against Washington’s. Those who say ‘It can’t happen here’ should look more closely at current global events. The mere existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not.
These private companies, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical hardly have an unsullied record in terms of stewardship of human life. They developed and proliferated such innovations as dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange. They covered up for decades clear evidence of carcinogenic and other severe human health consequences of use of the toxic chemicals.
They have buried serious scientific reports that the world’s most widespread herbicide, glyphosate, the essential ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that is tied to purchase of most Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, is toxic when it seeps into drinking water.9 Denmark banned glyphosate in 2003 when it confirmed it has contaminated the country’s groundwater.
10 The diversity stored in seed gene banks is the raw material for plant breeding and for a great deal of basic biological research. Several hundred thousand samples are distributed annually for such purposes. The UN’s FAO lists some 1400 seed banks around the world, the largest being held by the United States Government.
Other large banks are held by China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany and Canada in descending order of size. In addition, CGIAR operates a chain of seed banks in select centers around the world.
CGIAR, set up in 1972 by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation to spread their Green Revolution agribusiness model, controls most of the private seed banks from the Philippines to Syria to Kenya. In all these present seed banks hold more than six and a half million seed varieties, almost two million of which are ‘distinct.’ Svalbard’s Doomsday Vault will have a capacity to house four and a half million different seeds.
GMO as a weapon of biowarfare?
Now we come to the heart of the danger and the potential for misuse inherent in the Svalbard project of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundation. Can the development of patented seeds for most of the world’s major sustenance crops such as rice, corn, wheat, and feed grains such as soybeans ultimately be used in a horrible form of biological warfare?
The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy elite families such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920’s, has embodied what they termed ‘negative eugenics,’ the systematic killing off of undesired bloodlines. Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was all about the fact that, as she put it, ‘we want to exterminate the Negro population.’
11 A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile.
At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.
In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.
Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.
None of the women vaccinated were told.It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine.
12 Is it a coincidence that these same organizations, from Norway to the Rockefeller Foundation to the World Bank are also involved in the Svalbard seed bank project?
According to Prof. Francis Boyle who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, the Pentagon is ‘now gearing up to fight and win biological warfare’ as part of two Bush national strategy directives adopted, he notes, ‘without public knowledge and review’ in 2002.
Boyle adds that in 2001-2004 alone the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work, a staggering sum. Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright estimates that over 300 scientific institutions and some 12,000 individuals in the USA today have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare. Alone there are 497 US Government NIH grants for research into infectious diseases with biowarfare potential.
Of course this is being justified under the rubric of defending against possible terror attack as so much is today. Many of the US Government dollars spent on biowarfare research involve genetic engineering. MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the ‘growing bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population.’ King adds, ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’
13 Time will tell whether, God Forbid, the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Bank of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution, this involving the extinction of the Late, Great Planet Earth.
In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status.
A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization.
So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.
No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).
On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.
The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. It’s almost ready for ‘business’ according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government.
Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault’s relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity.
Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.’ What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?
Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it’s worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things.
The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change.
CGIAR and ‘The Project’
As I detailled in the book, Seeds of Destruction1, in 1960 the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III’s Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, the Philippines. By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation’s IRRI, along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR).
CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation’s George Harrar, Ford Foundation’s Forrest Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family’s international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation’s decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of racial purity, what has been called The Project.
To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank. Thus, through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the beginning of the 1970’s was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And shape it did.
Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to ‘master’ the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO ‘Gene Revolution’ in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture.
Genetically engineering a master race?
Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race.
The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing.
The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.
2 The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace.
The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same.
In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’
Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later.
John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950’s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.”
He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then— a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer.
3 A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation.
That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder’s authorization.
It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen. If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto’s Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution.
4 In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign, mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process.
Under the Green Revolution Agribusiness was making major inroads into markets which were previously of limited access to US exporters. The trend was later dubbed “market-oriented agriculture.” In reality it was agribusiness-controlled agriculture.
Through the Green Revolution, the Rockefeller Foundation and later Ford Foundation worked hand-in-hand shaping and supporting the foreign policy goals of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and of the CIA.
One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in desperate search for work. That was no accident; it was part of the plan to create cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures, the ‘globalization’ of recent years.
When the self-promotion around the Green Revolution died down, the results were quite different from what had been promised. Problems had arisen from indiscriminate use of the new chemical pesticides, often with serious health consequences. The mono-culture cultivation of new hybrid seed varieties decreased soil fertility and yields over time. The first results were impressive: double or even triple yields for some crops such as wheat and later corn in Mexico.
That soon faded.
The Green Revolution was typically accompanied by large irrigation projects which often included World Bank loans to construct huge new dams, and flood previously settled areas and fertile farmland in the process. Also, super-wheat produced greater yields by saturating the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer per acre, the fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum, commodities controlled by the Rockefeller-dominated Seven Sisters major oil companies.
Huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides were also used, creating additional markets for the oil and chemical giants. As one analyst put it, in effect, the Green Revolution was merely a chemical revolution. At no point could developing nations pay for the huge amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
They would get the credit courtesy of the World Bank and special loans by Chase Bank and other large New York banks, backed by US Government guarantees.
Applied in a large number of developing countries, those loans went mostly to the large landowners. For the smaller peasants the situation worked differently. Small peasant farmers could not afford the chemical and other modern inputs and had to borrow money.
Initially various government programs tried to provide some loans to farmers so that they could purchase seeds and fertilizers.
Farmers who could not participate in this kind of program had to borrow from the private sector. Because of the exorbitant interest rates for informal loans, many small farmers did not even get the benefits of the initial higher yields. After harvest, they had to sell most if not all of their produce to pay off loans and interest. They became dependent on money-lenders and traders and often lost their land. Even with soft loans from government agencies, growing subsistence crops gave way to the production of cash crops
5 Since decades the same interests including the Rockefeller Foundation which backed the initial Green Revolution, have worked to promote a second ‘Gene Revolution’ as Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway termed it several years ago, the spread of industrial agriculture and commercial inputs including GMO patented seeds.
Gates, Rockefeller and a Green Revolution in Africa
With the true background of the 1950’s Rockefeller Foundation Green Revolution clear in mind, it becomes especially curious that the same Rockefeller Foundation along with the Gates Foundation which are now investing millions of dollars in preserving every seed against a possible “doomsday” scenario are also investing millions in a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.
AGRA, as it calls itself, is an alliance again with the same Rockefeller Foundation which created the “Gene Revolution.” A look at the AGRA Board of Directors confirms this.
It includes none other than former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as chairman. In his acceptance speech in a World Economic Forum event in Cape Town South Africa in June 2007, Kofi Annan stated,
‘I accept this challenge with gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.’
In addition the AGRA board numbers a South African, Strive Masiyiwa who is a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. It includes Sylvia M. Mathews of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Mamphela Ramphele, former Managing Director of the World Bank (2000 – 2006); Rajiv J. Shah of the Gates Foundation; Nadya K. Shmavonian of the Rockefeller Foundation; Roy Steiner of the Gates Foundation. In addition, an Alliance for AGRA includes Gary Toenniessen the Managing Director of the Rockefeller Foundation and Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation.
To fill out the lineup, the Programmes for AGRA includes Peter Matlon, Managing Director, Rockefeller Foundation; Joseph De Vries, Director of the Programme for Africa’s Seed Systems and Associate Director, Rockefeller foundation; Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation. Like the old failed Green Revolution in India and Mexico, the new Africa Green Revolution is clearly a high priority of the Rockefeller Foundation.
While to date they are keeping a low profile, Monsanto and the major GMO agribusiness giants are believed at the heart of using Kofi Annan’s AGRA to spread their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, ‘bio-technology,’ the new euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds.
To date South Africa is the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan’s Ghana drafted bio-safety legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research into GMO crops.
Africa is the next target in the US-government campaign to spread GMO worldwide. Its rich soils make it an ideal candidate. Not surprisingly many African governments suspect the worst from the GMO sponsors as a multitude of genetic engineering and biosafety projects have been initiated in Africa, with the aim of introducing GMOs into Africa’s agricultural systems.
These include sponsorships offered by the US government to train African scientists in genetic engineering in the US, biosafety projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank; GMO research involving African indigenous food crops.
Monsanto, who has a strong foothold in South Africa’s seed industry, both GMO and hybrid, has conceived of an ingenious smallholders’ programme known as the ‘Seeds of Hope’ Campaign, which is introducing a green revolution package to small scale poor farmers, followed, of course, by Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds.
6 Syngenta AG of Switzerland, one of the ‘Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse’ is pouring millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi, to develop GMO insect resistant maize. Syngenta is a part of CGIAR as well.7
Move on to Svalbard
Now is it simply philosophical sloppiness? What leads the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to at one and the same time to back proliferation of patented and soon-to-be Terminator patented seeds across Africa, a process which, as it has in every other place on earth, destroys the plant seed varieties as monoculture industrialized agribusiness is introduced?
At the same time they invest tens of millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday vault near the remote Arctic Circle ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future’ to restate their official release?
It is no accident that the Rockefeller and Gates foundations are teaming up to push a GMO-style Green Revolution in Africa at the same time they are quietly financing the ‘doomsday seed vault’ on Svalbard. The GMO agribusiness giants are up to their ears in the Svalbard project.
Indeed, the entire Svalbard enterprise and the people involved call up the worst catastrophe images of the Michael Crichton bestseller, Andromeda Strain, a sci-fi thriller where a deadly disease of extraterrestrial origin causes rapid, fatal clotting of the blood threatening the entire human species. In Svalbard, the future world’s most secure seed repository will be guarded by the policemen of the GMO Green Revolution–the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, Syngenta, DuPont and CGIAR.
The Svalbard project will be run by an organization called the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT). Who are they to hold such an awesome trust over the planet’s entire seed varieties? The GCDT was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), an offshoot of the CGIAR.
The Global Crop Diversity Trust is based in Rome. Its Board is chaired by Margaret Catley-Carlson a Canadian also on the advisory board of Group Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, one of the world’s largest private water companies. Catley-Carlson was also president until 1998 of the New York-based Population Council, John D. Rockefeller’s population reduction organization, set up in 1952 to advance the Rockefeller family’s eugenics program under the cover of promoting “family planning,” birth control devices, sterilization and “population control” in developing countries.
Other GCDT board members include former Bank of America executive presently head of the Hollywood DreamWorks Animation, Lewis Coleman. Coleman is also the lead Board Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation, one of America’s largest military industry Pentagon contractors.
Jorio Dauster (Brazil) is also Board Chairman of Brasil Ecodiesel. He is a former Ambassador of Brazil to the European Union, and Chief Negotiator of Brazil’s foreign debt for the Ministry of Finance. Dauster has also served as President of the Brazilian Coffee Institute and as Coordinator of the Project for the Modernization of Brazil’s Patent System, which involves legalizing patents on seeds which are genetically modified, something until recently forbidden by Brazil’s laws.
Cary Fowler is the Trust’s Executive Director. Fowler was Professor and Director of Research in the Department for International Environment & Development Studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. He was also a Senior Advisor to the Director General of Bioversity International.
There he represented the Future Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in negotiations on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In the 1990s, he headed the International Program on Plant Genetic Resources at the FAO. He drafted and supervised negotiations of FAO’s Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources, adopted by 150 countries in 1996. He is a past-member of the National Plant Genetic Resources Board of the US and the Board of Trustees of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico, another Rockefeller Foundation and CGIAR project.
GCDT board member Dr. Mangala Rai of India is the Secretary of India’s Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), and Director General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR). He is also a Board Member of the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which promoted the world’s first major GMO experiment, the much-hyped ‘Golden Rice’ which proved a failure. Rai has served as Board Member for CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), and a Member of the Executive Council of the CGIAR.
Global Crop Diversity Trust Donors or financial angels include as well, in the words of the Humphrey Bogart Casablanca classic, ‘all the usual suspects.’ As well as the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, the Donors include GMO giants DuPont-Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta of Basle Switzerland, CGIAR and the State Department’s energetically pro-GMO agency for development aid, USAID. Indeed it seems we have the GMO and population reduction foxes guarding the hen-house of mankind, the global seed diversity store in Svalbard.
8 Why now Svalbard?
We can legitimately ask why Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation along with the major genetic engineering agribusiness giants such as DuPont and Syngenta, along with CGIAR are building the Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic.
Who uses such a seed bank in the first place? Plant breeders and researchers are the major users of gene banks. Today’s largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants.
Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called ‘Terminator’ or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits ‘suicide’ after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind existed.
This clever genetically engineered terminator trait forces farmers to return every year to Monsanto or other GMO seed suppliers to get new seeds for rice, soybeans, corn, wheat whatever major crops they need to feed their population. If broadly introduced around the world, it could within perhaps a decade or so make the world’s majority of food producers new feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed companies such as Monsanto or DuPont or Dow Chemical.
That, of course, could also open the door to have those private companies, perhaps under orders from their host government, Washington, deny seeds to one or another developing country whose politics happened to go against Washington’s. Those who say ‘It can’t happen here’ should look more closely at current global events. The mere existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not.
These private companies, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical hardly have an unsullied record in terms of stewardship of human life. They developed and proliferated such innovations as dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange. They covered up for decades clear evidence of carcinogenic and other severe human health consequences of use of the toxic chemicals.
They have buried serious scientific reports that the world’s most widespread herbicide, glyphosate, the essential ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that is tied to purchase of most Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, is toxic when it seeps into drinking water.9 Denmark banned glyphosate in 2003 when it confirmed it has contaminated the country’s groundwater.
10 The diversity stored in seed gene banks is the raw material for plant breeding and for a great deal of basic biological research. Several hundred thousand samples are distributed annually for such purposes. The UN’s FAO lists some 1400 seed banks around the world, the largest being held by the United States Government.
Other large banks are held by China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany and Canada in descending order of size. In addition, CGIAR operates a chain of seed banks in select centers around the world.
CGIAR, set up in 1972 by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation to spread their Green Revolution agribusiness model, controls most of the private seed banks from the Philippines to Syria to Kenya. In all these present seed banks hold more than six and a half million seed varieties, almost two million of which are ‘distinct.’ Svalbard’s Doomsday Vault will have a capacity to house four and a half million different seeds.
GMO as a weapon of biowarfare?
Now we come to the heart of the danger and the potential for misuse inherent in the Svalbard project of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundation. Can the development of patented seeds for most of the world’s major sustenance crops such as rice, corn, wheat, and feed grains such as soybeans ultimately be used in a horrible form of biological warfare?
The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy elite families such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920’s, has embodied what they termed ‘negative eugenics,’ the systematic killing off of undesired bloodlines. Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was all about the fact that, as she put it, ‘we want to exterminate the Negro population.’
11 A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile.
At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.
In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.
Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.
None of the women vaccinated were told.It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine.
12 Is it a coincidence that these same organizations, from Norway to the Rockefeller Foundation to the World Bank are also involved in the Svalbard seed bank project?
According to Prof. Francis Boyle who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, the Pentagon is ‘now gearing up to fight and win biological warfare’ as part of two Bush national strategy directives adopted, he notes, ‘without public knowledge and review’ in 2002.
Boyle adds that in 2001-2004 alone the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work, a staggering sum. Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright estimates that over 300 scientific institutions and some 12,000 individuals in the USA today have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare. Alone there are 497 US Government NIH grants for research into infectious diseases with biowarfare potential.
Of course this is being justified under the rubric of defending against possible terror attack as so much is today. Many of the US Government dollars spent on biowarfare research involve genetic engineering. MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the ‘growing bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population.’ King adds, ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’
13 Time will tell whether, God Forbid, the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Bank of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution, this involving the extinction of the Late, Great Planet Earth.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Gates Gives $10 Million To Support GMO Cereals
British scientists at the John Innes Center recently won a $10 million grant from the Gates Foundation. Where’s the money going? Not surprisingly, as Gates owns over 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock, the organization is putting even more money into genetically modified cereal crops (corn, wheat and rice, to name a few).
The pledge seems righteous at face value to some, but what the Gates Foundation failed to mention is that countries like Hungary, France, India, and Poland have battled GMOs because not only do GM seeds and pesticides decrease yields over time, but GM is bad news for farmers and consumers everywhere. Putting farmers in Africa in the pockets of the likes of Monsanto and other GM companies will only lead to crop monoculture, soil depletion, water contamination, pesticide-resistant insects, and a powerless local population of sick and impoverished farmers.
And this should be of no surprise to Bill Gates, who has openly stated that Monsanto’s GMOs are the ultimate ‘solution’ to world hunger yet continues to ignore the bounty of evidence showing that they do just the opposite — crushing soil yields and impoverishing local farmers.
Perhaps even more devastating is the rising suicide toll associated with the use of Monsanto’s seeds, with a farmer committing suicide every 30 minutes thanks in part due to GMO seeds.
Gates Foundation Ignores Fact that “GM is Failing to Deliver”
The John Innes Center’s aims include engineering crops capable of harnessing nitrogen from the air. Peas and beans do this naturally, but cereal crops—as raised by conventional farmers—require chemical ammonia spread upon the field.
Opponents of GM like Pete Riley, campaign director of GM Freeze, decry that “GM is failing to deliver.” He adds, “If you look in America, yields haven’t increased by any significant amount and often go down. Now we’re seeing real, major problems for farmers in terms of weeds that are resistant to the herbicides which GM crops have been modified to tolerate.”
This is old news to farmers in north India, where earlier this year the Maharashtra state government demanded compensation from a German seed company when unsatisfactory yields of their cotton hybrids disadvantaged small farmers.
“Productivity in north India is likely to decline because of the declining potential of hybrids; the emerging problem of leaf curl virus on the new susceptible Bt-hybrids; a high level of susceptibility to sucking pests,” said Keshav Raj Kranthi, head of the Central Institute for Cotton Research. In a paper published in June 2011, Kranthi added that GM crops consume more water and nutrients, depleting the soil and requiring farmers to purchase more fertilizers (putting more money in the hands of the likes of Monsanto).
The High Cost of GM
If the earth suffers, people suffer. In February, a court in Lyon, France railed against GMOs by finding Monsanto guilty of failing to put warning labels on Lasso weedkillers, the use of which caused neurological damage like memory loss and headaches. Dangers of GM end up literally on our—the consumers’—plates; consumption of GM crops has been linked to weight gain and organ disruption.
More courts across the world are fighting genetically modified food, but one wonders how much of an effect they will have in the face of behemoth agribusinesses.
The pledge seems righteous at face value to some, but what the Gates Foundation failed to mention is that countries like Hungary, France, India, and Poland have battled GMOs because not only do GM seeds and pesticides decrease yields over time, but GM is bad news for farmers and consumers everywhere. Putting farmers in Africa in the pockets of the likes of Monsanto and other GM companies will only lead to crop monoculture, soil depletion, water contamination, pesticide-resistant insects, and a powerless local population of sick and impoverished farmers.
And this should be of no surprise to Bill Gates, who has openly stated that Monsanto’s GMOs are the ultimate ‘solution’ to world hunger yet continues to ignore the bounty of evidence showing that they do just the opposite — crushing soil yields and impoverishing local farmers.
Perhaps even more devastating is the rising suicide toll associated with the use of Monsanto’s seeds, with a farmer committing suicide every 30 minutes thanks in part due to GMO seeds.
Gates Foundation Ignores Fact that “GM is Failing to Deliver”
The John Innes Center’s aims include engineering crops capable of harnessing nitrogen from the air. Peas and beans do this naturally, but cereal crops—as raised by conventional farmers—require chemical ammonia spread upon the field.
Opponents of GM like Pete Riley, campaign director of GM Freeze, decry that “GM is failing to deliver.” He adds, “If you look in America, yields haven’t increased by any significant amount and often go down. Now we’re seeing real, major problems for farmers in terms of weeds that are resistant to the herbicides which GM crops have been modified to tolerate.”
This is old news to farmers in north India, where earlier this year the Maharashtra state government demanded compensation from a German seed company when unsatisfactory yields of their cotton hybrids disadvantaged small farmers.
“Productivity in north India is likely to decline because of the declining potential of hybrids; the emerging problem of leaf curl virus on the new susceptible Bt-hybrids; a high level of susceptibility to sucking pests,” said Keshav Raj Kranthi, head of the Central Institute for Cotton Research. In a paper published in June 2011, Kranthi added that GM crops consume more water and nutrients, depleting the soil and requiring farmers to purchase more fertilizers (putting more money in the hands of the likes of Monsanto).
The High Cost of GM
If the earth suffers, people suffer. In February, a court in Lyon, France railed against GMOs by finding Monsanto guilty of failing to put warning labels on Lasso weedkillers, the use of which caused neurological damage like memory loss and headaches. Dangers of GM end up literally on our—the consumers’—plates; consumption of GM crops has been linked to weight gain and organ disruption.
More courts across the world are fighting genetically modified food, but one wonders how much of an effect they will have in the face of behemoth agribusinesses.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Gates & Monsanto Go After Raw Milk
Gates and Monsanto Go After Milk
David Peters Special to Salem-News.com
In the near future, human development can potentially be dictated by corporate America, through the Bill & Malinda [sic] Gates Foundation and their $8.3 U.C. Davis grant.
Bill Gates
Courtesy: alanmesher.com
(WASHINGTON DC) - Monsanto's head of the FDA's food safety division is threatening to get rid of raw (real) milk, and the real reason for this may have reared its ugly head.
The following is certainly not a scientific assessment of Gates' project but it is clear he is intending to genetically engineer milk and is looking at altering immunity itself.
BILL GATES PAYS FOR EXPERIMENTS TO GENETICALLY MODIFY HUMANS http://deathbyvaccination.com/
Bill Gates just gave an $8.3 million grant to develop GMO Designer Humans. By simply altering, deleting, or adding certain gut bacteria (genes) and fungi, corporations can create “Designer Human Consumers” in the near future, and Bill Gates wants to do just that, starting by “spiking” the milk that a toddler drinks. Gates and corporations he licenses, could potentially make a human short, tall, smart, dumb, submissive, aggressive, autistic, savant, healthy, or constantly in need of pharmaceutal [sic] drugs, or depend on WINDOWS computer based assistance for the rest of their life.
Worst of all, Gates could potentially control how long you live. In the near future, human development can potentially be dictated by corporate America, through the Bill & Malinda [sic] Gates Foundation and their $8.3 U.C. Davis grant. http://mills.ucdavis.edu/large-multicampus-gates-foundation-project-initiated
Are these genetically engineering people? And with what authority? With unlabeled GMOs, how would anyone defend themselves against their immune system being permanently deregulated by genetically engineered milk? What safe milk would be left if the FDA manages to ban raw milk, or should one say, non-industrial milk not contaminated by pesticides, GMOs, hormones, antibiotics, and the Crohn's bacterium? If GE-milk was approved, there could be constant changes to the milk, subjecting people to whatever genetically engineered unknowns Gates may wish to try out on people.
While Gates is looking to genetically engineer milk and perhaps gut bacteria itself, a significant study has just shown that normal bacteria-rich yogurt which supports the person's own gut bacteria (their immune system) equals or even outdoes AIDS drugs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056109/
Gates' work would genetically engineer the milk that goes into the yogurt (as well as into cheeses, ice cream, cottage cheese, cream, butter, cream cheese, etc) which might genetically engineer the bacteria that is in the gut (thus genetically engineering the person's immune system, which is primarily comprised of gut bacteria).
The yogurt study is tremendously good news for Africa and for all AIDS patients, both medically and financially, but the NIH article ends by mentioning Gates:
For such a change in mindset to occur [using an incredibly inexpensive and locally available simple food like yogurt to treat AIDS], and for data to be appropriately obtained to gauge the degree to which probiotic food can provide relief, governments (in developed and developing countries) and organizations such as WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation may have to take a lead role.
But the lead Gates is apparently taking is to undermine the yogurt [and potentially the people's immune systems], rather than just making sure people have healthy food. Gates' project might even rescue AIDS drugs by ruining yogurt and people's chances to simply get well on their own by supporting their immune system. Gates is likely aware that this is revolution that is occurring in health - the human body plus real food is curing diseases. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ad5HRNSzh8 Gates' project would impact both the body's ability to repair itself and a central food it uses to do so.
Here's the donation and the project will be led by Washington University in St. Louis - that's Monsanto territory. Jeff Gordon at Washington University will lead the work. http://gordonlab.wustl.edu/ Showing a photo of a poor African kid, once again.
"Researchers at the University of California, Davis, will join in an international research effort to develop new ways to diagnose, treat and prevent malnutrition in infants and children around the world."
Since when does one need a way to diagnose malnutrition? Or a complex biotech way to "treat" it? Or to find a way to prevent it? Beyond seeing thin children and extrapolating from that they need real food and making sure they get it? It is crucial to emphasize "real food" which is to say organic food, because genetically engineered "non-food" and processed "non-food chelates or bind the nutrients so they can't be used by the body but simply pass through.
This chelation of nutrients is argument enough for not genetically engineering milk but it also puts the lie to Gates' stated intention to deal with malnutrition since he would be increasing it. Countries could be sucked into paying large sums for Gates' special milk for malnourished children, only to find the children couldn''t get the nutrients out of it, couldn't be "nourished" by it. This would be truly MAL-nourished.
The WHO, funded by Gates, pushes AIDS drugs but has done nothing about clean water and good food. With Gates' project, they can subvert the same dairy product that shows promise to heal AIDS in Africa and can alter (?) the very immune systems of children (and thus people) who simply need food and water. (Africa is being squeezed dry of water with water mining and Gates who says he care about poor children, is involved in the move toward giant agribusiness plantations in Africa which are the primary users of that water.)
David Peters Special to Salem-News.com
In the near future, human development can potentially be dictated by corporate America, through the Bill & Malinda [sic] Gates Foundation and their $8.3 U.C. Davis grant.
Bill Gates
Courtesy: alanmesher.com
(WASHINGTON DC) - Monsanto's head of the FDA's food safety division is threatening to get rid of raw (real) milk, and the real reason for this may have reared its ugly head.
The following is certainly not a scientific assessment of Gates' project but it is clear he is intending to genetically engineer milk and is looking at altering immunity itself.
BILL GATES PAYS FOR EXPERIMENTS TO GENETICALLY MODIFY HUMANS http://deathbyvaccination.com/
Bill Gates just gave an $8.3 million grant to develop GMO Designer Humans. By simply altering, deleting, or adding certain gut bacteria (genes) and fungi, corporations can create “Designer Human Consumers” in the near future, and Bill Gates wants to do just that, starting by “spiking” the milk that a toddler drinks. Gates and corporations he licenses, could potentially make a human short, tall, smart, dumb, submissive, aggressive, autistic, savant, healthy, or constantly in need of pharmaceutal [sic] drugs, or depend on WINDOWS computer based assistance for the rest of their life.
Worst of all, Gates could potentially control how long you live. In the near future, human development can potentially be dictated by corporate America, through the Bill & Malinda [sic] Gates Foundation and their $8.3 U.C. Davis grant. http://mills.ucdavis.edu/large-multicampus-gates-foundation-project-initiated
Are these genetically engineering people? And with what authority? With unlabeled GMOs, how would anyone defend themselves against their immune system being permanently deregulated by genetically engineered milk? What safe milk would be left if the FDA manages to ban raw milk, or should one say, non-industrial milk not contaminated by pesticides, GMOs, hormones, antibiotics, and the Crohn's bacterium? If GE-milk was approved, there could be constant changes to the milk, subjecting people to whatever genetically engineered unknowns Gates may wish to try out on people.
While Gates is looking to genetically engineer milk and perhaps gut bacteria itself, a significant study has just shown that normal bacteria-rich yogurt which supports the person's own gut bacteria (their immune system) equals or even outdoes AIDS drugs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056109/
Gates' work would genetically engineer the milk that goes into the yogurt (as well as into cheeses, ice cream, cottage cheese, cream, butter, cream cheese, etc) which might genetically engineer the bacteria that is in the gut (thus genetically engineering the person's immune system, which is primarily comprised of gut bacteria).
The yogurt study is tremendously good news for Africa and for all AIDS patients, both medically and financially, but the NIH article ends by mentioning Gates:
For such a change in mindset to occur [using an incredibly inexpensive and locally available simple food like yogurt to treat AIDS], and for data to be appropriately obtained to gauge the degree to which probiotic food can provide relief, governments (in developed and developing countries) and organizations such as WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation may have to take a lead role.
But the lead Gates is apparently taking is to undermine the yogurt [and potentially the people's immune systems], rather than just making sure people have healthy food. Gates' project might even rescue AIDS drugs by ruining yogurt and people's chances to simply get well on their own by supporting their immune system. Gates is likely aware that this is revolution that is occurring in health - the human body plus real food is curing diseases. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ad5HRNSzh8 Gates' project would impact both the body's ability to repair itself and a central food it uses to do so.
Here's the donation and the project will be led by Washington University in St. Louis - that's Monsanto territory. Jeff Gordon at Washington University will lead the work. http://gordonlab.wustl.edu/ Showing a photo of a poor African kid, once again.
"Researchers at the University of California, Davis, will join in an international research effort to develop new ways to diagnose, treat and prevent malnutrition in infants and children around the world."
Since when does one need a way to diagnose malnutrition? Or a complex biotech way to "treat" it? Or to find a way to prevent it? Beyond seeing thin children and extrapolating from that they need real food and making sure they get it? It is crucial to emphasize "real food" which is to say organic food, because genetically engineered "non-food" and processed "non-food chelates or bind the nutrients so they can't be used by the body but simply pass through.
This chelation of nutrients is argument enough for not genetically engineering milk but it also puts the lie to Gates' stated intention to deal with malnutrition since he would be increasing it. Countries could be sucked into paying large sums for Gates' special milk for malnourished children, only to find the children couldn''t get the nutrients out of it, couldn't be "nourished" by it. This would be truly MAL-nourished.
The WHO, funded by Gates, pushes AIDS drugs but has done nothing about clean water and good food. With Gates' project, they can subvert the same dairy product that shows promise to heal AIDS in Africa and can alter (?) the very immune systems of children (and thus people) who simply need food and water. (Africa is being squeezed dry of water with water mining and Gates who says he care about poor children, is involved in the move toward giant agribusiness plantations in Africa which are the primary users of that water.)
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Gates Depopulation Foundation
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) are focusing on population control through their Global Health Development Programs. By using citizens in under-developed nations, like Africa and India, was Guinea pigs for their research and development for “new interventions such as vaccines, drugs and diagnostics”, these globalists hope to ensure their family planning schemes are effective.
Melinda Gates has made family planning and the population control agenda her personal mission . She justifies her cause by claiming that 100,000 women die in child birth from unintended pregnancies. Although this statistic has no scientific basis, since it sounds good and mainstream media do not check facts, it has helped the BMGF team up with the British government to raise more than $4 billion to fun depopulation programs under the guise of bringing contraceptives to under-developed nations.
The BMGF assert that by 2050 “the global population is expected to grow to over 9 billion people” and this is unacceptable to them. By applying pressure to social programs and resources, the BMGF want to use family planning as an investment for all national governments globally.
Strategies to accomplish their goals include:
Using financial influence to force governments and policymakers to implement their family planning schemes
Empower NGOs who promote family planning propaganda
Coerce the integration of family planning into all “humanitarian” efforts by using funds from the UN Global Fund
Pour money into efforts that further family planning through national policy controls that adhere to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals
BMGF has partnered with drug corporations like Shanghai Dahua Pharmaceuticals in China to develop implantable fertility controls that will be used in over 20 developing countries to curb population growth.
The injectable Depo-Provera is being sold to under-developed nations and being administered by healthcare workers and nonmedical providers, or by the women themselves. Policy and training systems are underway to ensure these drugs are utilized in areas like the sub-Saharan Africa. By using these areas as testing grounds for new fertility drugs, as well as forcible sterilization schemes, the BMGF are focusing on preventative situations over dealing with abortable pregnancies which become complicated.
On July 11th, the BMGF will attend the UK’s Department for International Development Family Planning Summit (FPS). Ministers of State and leaders from over 60 countries will join with major non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector to make firm commitments to addressing the global short-fall in family planning provision to be agreed upon so that population growth issues can be dealt with by the global Elite.
Prior to this summit, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the modern version of the eugenic program founded by Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates’ father in the 1950s, will focus their efforts on coercing young people into supporting their family planning scheme by debating teenage pregnancy, unwanted births and maternal morality as defined by the eugenics ideal.
According to the FPS agenda “young people have to be at the heart of driving forward the ambitious developments in family planning provision which the Summit sets out to stimulate.”
Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of the UN Population Fund, described the proposals at the FPS as the agenda to “transform” family planning into a global movement. Population control, with the assistance of the BMGF and their funders will build an army of coercive tactics that aim to reinvent the movement to ensure its success.
Osotimehin claims that family planning “enables women to take charge of their lives and for young people to plan their lives. It empowers a woman to do what they want to do in terms of the number of children they want to have and can afford.”
While an estimated 40% of pregnancies in the developing world are classified by BMGF as “unwanted” they are focusing on eventually eliminating this number to reduce the world’s population. Africa, a big focus for the BMGF is being targeted along with Muslim nations.
The BMGF are admonishing the global community to support their efforts with the backing of the UN. They want full commitments by which they can hold countries accountable if their guidelines are not fully carried out. While claiming to provide “voluntary” family planning, they assert that with fewer children to care for, the poverty rates in under-developed nations will lower.
However, they are simply advocating less people be available to use natural resources, which is a qualm of the global Elite.
Having hijacked a movement, the BMGF and the UN are successfully beginning the process of controlling population growth in under-developed nations. As their popularity grows and their agendas are met, those same measures will make their way to developing nations like the US. Right now, women in the US have control over their ability to procreate. And while organizations like Planned Parenthood are working to trick women in believing that the mark of a woman is to have the opportunity to abort an unborn child, the choice is still up to the individual woman.
If the BMGF have their way, that ability to choose will soon be revoked.
Melinda Gates has made family planning and the population control agenda her personal mission . She justifies her cause by claiming that 100,000 women die in child birth from unintended pregnancies. Although this statistic has no scientific basis, since it sounds good and mainstream media do not check facts, it has helped the BMGF team up with the British government to raise more than $4 billion to fun depopulation programs under the guise of bringing contraceptives to under-developed nations.
The BMGF assert that by 2050 “the global population is expected to grow to over 9 billion people” and this is unacceptable to them. By applying pressure to social programs and resources, the BMGF want to use family planning as an investment for all national governments globally.
Strategies to accomplish their goals include:
Using financial influence to force governments and policymakers to implement their family planning schemes
Empower NGOs who promote family planning propaganda
Coerce the integration of family planning into all “humanitarian” efforts by using funds from the UN Global Fund
Pour money into efforts that further family planning through national policy controls that adhere to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals
BMGF has partnered with drug corporations like Shanghai Dahua Pharmaceuticals in China to develop implantable fertility controls that will be used in over 20 developing countries to curb population growth.
The injectable Depo-Provera is being sold to under-developed nations and being administered by healthcare workers and nonmedical providers, or by the women themselves. Policy and training systems are underway to ensure these drugs are utilized in areas like the sub-Saharan Africa. By using these areas as testing grounds for new fertility drugs, as well as forcible sterilization schemes, the BMGF are focusing on preventative situations over dealing with abortable pregnancies which become complicated.
On July 11th, the BMGF will attend the UK’s Department for International Development Family Planning Summit (FPS). Ministers of State and leaders from over 60 countries will join with major non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector to make firm commitments to addressing the global short-fall in family planning provision to be agreed upon so that population growth issues can be dealt with by the global Elite.
Prior to this summit, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the modern version of the eugenic program founded by Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates’ father in the 1950s, will focus their efforts on coercing young people into supporting their family planning scheme by debating teenage pregnancy, unwanted births and maternal morality as defined by the eugenics ideal.
According to the FPS agenda “young people have to be at the heart of driving forward the ambitious developments in family planning provision which the Summit sets out to stimulate.”
Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of the UN Population Fund, described the proposals at the FPS as the agenda to “transform” family planning into a global movement. Population control, with the assistance of the BMGF and their funders will build an army of coercive tactics that aim to reinvent the movement to ensure its success.
Osotimehin claims that family planning “enables women to take charge of their lives and for young people to plan their lives. It empowers a woman to do what they want to do in terms of the number of children they want to have and can afford.”
While an estimated 40% of pregnancies in the developing world are classified by BMGF as “unwanted” they are focusing on eventually eliminating this number to reduce the world’s population. Africa, a big focus for the BMGF is being targeted along with Muslim nations.
The BMGF are admonishing the global community to support their efforts with the backing of the UN. They want full commitments by which they can hold countries accountable if their guidelines are not fully carried out. While claiming to provide “voluntary” family planning, they assert that with fewer children to care for, the poverty rates in under-developed nations will lower.
However, they are simply advocating less people be available to use natural resources, which is a qualm of the global Elite.
Having hijacked a movement, the BMGF and the UN are successfully beginning the process of controlling population growth in under-developed nations. As their popularity grows and their agendas are met, those same measures will make their way to developing nations like the US. Right now, women in the US have control over their ability to procreate. And while organizations like Planned Parenthood are working to trick women in believing that the mark of a woman is to have the opportunity to abort an unborn child, the choice is still up to the individual woman.
If the BMGF have their way, that ability to choose will soon be revoked.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Gates Polio Vaccine Causing 47,500 Paralysis Cases In India, Is That Really Population Control?
Polio vaccines are causing paralysis and death in India and the local press is reporting it (not the US press, of course). This article is from the largest circulation English language paper in South India.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and Bill Gates (PATH) are giving each other high-fives for supposedly eliminating polio in India. Meanwhile they are leaving behind a massive epidemic of vaccine-damaged children.
Here it is, transparent for all to see – the modus operandi of vaccinators: Cause medical-textbook-defined neurological damage in the name of disease eradication. It is particularly ironic that the symptoms caused by OPV polio vaccine adverse reactions are the same thing as polio.
Watch Gates and the WHO declare that the 47,500 kids paralyzed by their polio vaccine program in 2011 are all coincidences.
‘Dr. Jacob said the increase in the occurrence of non-polio AFP could be directly linked to the massive increase in the dosage of OPV in the name of eradication. Although, the increase in the non-polio AFP was known for quite some time, it was for the first time that a co-relation was established by collating the data of the national polio surveillance, he said.’
*************************************************************************************************
Rise in paralysis cases after polio vaccine
Deccan Chronicle – Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited is the publisher of largest circulated English Newspaper in South India
April 14, 2012
Cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis, better known as AFP, has sharply increased with the increase in the administration of oral polio vaccination (OPV) in the country under the much-acclaimed polio eradication programme.
According to a report by Dr. Neetu Vashisht and Dr. Jacob Puliyel, appearing in the April-June issue of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, the incidence of non-polio AFP had gone up by 12 times over and above the normal rates with the onset of the administration OPV 10 years ago. The report appeared at a time when Kerala is getting prepared for another round of OPV on April 15.
Dr. Jacob, also a member of the national technical advisory group on immunisation and of the working group on food and drug regulation in the 12th Five Year Plan, told DC on Friday that there was a definite co-relation between the increase in the number AFP and the irrational administration of OPV.
Normally, he said, the chances of children under the age of 15 getting affected by non-polio AFP are 1-2 per 100,000. But, the rate of non-polio AFP nationally “is now 12 times higher than expected.” In 2011, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralyzed, over and above the standard rate of 2 children per 100,000 non-polio AFP cases, says the paper in the journal.
Dr. Jacob said the increase in the occurrence of non-polio AFP could be directly linked to the massive increase in the dosage of OPV in the name of eradication. Although, the increase in the non-polio AFP was known for quite some time, it was for the first time that a co-relation was established by collating the data of the national polio surveillance, he said.
“It is sad that, even after meticulous surveillance, this large excess in the incidence of paralysis was not investigated as a possible signal.”
, nor was any effort made to try and study the mechanism for this spurt in non-polio AFP.”
According to Dr Jacob, the dream of eradicating polio will remain a mirage due to the existence of “residual samples of samples virus stored in laboratories, by vaccine-derived polioviruses or by poliovirus that is chemically synthesized with malignant intent”.
The increase in non-polio AFP might have been caused by the increase in OPV, leading to virus strains other than that of causing polio getting active, he said.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and Bill Gates (PATH) are giving each other high-fives for supposedly eliminating polio in India. Meanwhile they are leaving behind a massive epidemic of vaccine-damaged children.
Here it is, transparent for all to see – the modus operandi of vaccinators: Cause medical-textbook-defined neurological damage in the name of disease eradication. It is particularly ironic that the symptoms caused by OPV polio vaccine adverse reactions are the same thing as polio.
Watch Gates and the WHO declare that the 47,500 kids paralyzed by their polio vaccine program in 2011 are all coincidences.
‘Dr. Jacob said the increase in the occurrence of non-polio AFP could be directly linked to the massive increase in the dosage of OPV in the name of eradication. Although, the increase in the non-polio AFP was known for quite some time, it was for the first time that a co-relation was established by collating the data of the national polio surveillance, he said.’
*************************************************************************************************
Rise in paralysis cases after polio vaccine
Deccan Chronicle – Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited is the publisher of largest circulated English Newspaper in South India
April 14, 2012
Cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis, better known as AFP, has sharply increased with the increase in the administration of oral polio vaccination (OPV) in the country under the much-acclaimed polio eradication programme.
According to a report by Dr. Neetu Vashisht and Dr. Jacob Puliyel, appearing in the April-June issue of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, the incidence of non-polio AFP had gone up by 12 times over and above the normal rates with the onset of the administration OPV 10 years ago. The report appeared at a time when Kerala is getting prepared for another round of OPV on April 15.
Dr. Jacob, also a member of the national technical advisory group on immunisation and of the working group on food and drug regulation in the 12th Five Year Plan, told DC on Friday that there was a definite co-relation between the increase in the number AFP and the irrational administration of OPV.
Normally, he said, the chances of children under the age of 15 getting affected by non-polio AFP are 1-2 per 100,000. But, the rate of non-polio AFP nationally “is now 12 times higher than expected.” In 2011, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralyzed, over and above the standard rate of 2 children per 100,000 non-polio AFP cases, says the paper in the journal.
Dr. Jacob said the increase in the occurrence of non-polio AFP could be directly linked to the massive increase in the dosage of OPV in the name of eradication. Although, the increase in the non-polio AFP was known for quite some time, it was for the first time that a co-relation was established by collating the data of the national polio surveillance, he said.
“It is sad that, even after meticulous surveillance, this large excess in the incidence of paralysis was not investigated as a possible signal.”
, nor was any effort made to try and study the mechanism for this spurt in non-polio AFP.”
According to Dr Jacob, the dream of eradicating polio will remain a mirage due to the existence of “residual samples of samples virus stored in laboratories, by vaccine-derived polioviruses or by poliovirus that is chemically synthesized with malignant intent”.
The increase in non-polio AFP might have been caused by the increase in OPV, leading to virus strains other than that of causing polio getting active, he said.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Gates Backs GeoEngineering
Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climateA small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.
Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.
Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.
Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.
"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.
"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."
Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.
As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.
Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.
According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.
Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.
According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.
The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.
Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering and, according to a financial statement he gave the Royal Society, also works for Intellectual Ventures. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.
Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.
"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.
"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."
"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.
The scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."
"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.
"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.".
Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I."
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climateA small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.
Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.
Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.
Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.
"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.
"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."
Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.
As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.
Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.
According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.
Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.
According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.
The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.
Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering and, according to a financial statement he gave the Royal Society, also works for Intellectual Ventures. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.
Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.
"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.
"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."
"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.
The scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."
"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.
"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.".
Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I."
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Bill Gates Foundation From Hell?
'Reports commonly say Bill Gates– through his philanthropic foundation work– is ‘saving lives’ and ‘feeding the world’s poor.’ In fact, the billionaire is made out to be almost a saint.
But there’s no mistaking the genocidal undertones. Hundreds of millions if not billions are living on the edge of starvation at the start of the 21st Century, while a new era of GMO-proliferation and Big Agra domination pose other grave threats– both economic and vital. Thus, it is extremely important that we collectively decide on the best solutions for the future– or at least avoid the worst outcomes; it could prove far too costly in hindsight to pander to the wrong development.'
NOTE: Remember that Monsanto purchased Blackwater a year or so ago.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Does Gates Foundation Buy News?
While much of what the BMGF does and says is wrapped in philanthropic language and problem-solving rhetoric, many of its policies, including its support of mass vaccination and genetically-modified organisms (GMO), present a clear conflict of interest when the foundation's dollars get mixed up in what is ideally supposed to be unbiased journalism. And many are now questioning how severely these payoffs are influencing the media's handling of important and controversial issues.
According to the Seattle Times report, BMGF donates millions every year to media groups like ABC, The Guardian, The New York Times, PBS, and even The Seattle Times. BMGF also spends millions of dollars training journalists in how to properly advocate for foundation interests, and craft media messages in such a way as to further the foundation's agendas. So rather than presenting news, many BMGF-funded journalists now present carefully-crafted BMFG talking points to viewers and readers.
According to the Seattle Times report, BMGF donates millions every year to media groups like ABC, The Guardian, The New York Times, PBS, and even The Seattle Times. BMGF also spends millions of dollars training journalists in how to properly advocate for foundation interests, and craft media messages in such a way as to further the foundation's agendas. So rather than presenting news, many BMGF-funded journalists now present carefully-crafted BMFG talking points to viewers and readers.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Doomsday Seed Vault
So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.
No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole.
When Gates, Rockefeller and Agribusiness get together on a project, it is prudent to take notice. If past deeds are any indicator, those who have taken it upon themselves to locate and store seeds in this secure facility are not benevolent servants of humanity, nor the preservers of life.
This is organic seed, not their GMO terminator seed. Read more and share your comments.
No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole.
When Gates, Rockefeller and Agribusiness get together on a project, it is prudent to take notice. If past deeds are any indicator, those who have taken it upon themselves to locate and store seeds in this secure facility are not benevolent servants of humanity, nor the preservers of life.
This is organic seed, not their GMO terminator seed. Read more and share your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)