Glyphosate In Cereal And Oats

[Badger]

Economist Craig Paul Roberts does a great job in this column eviscerating a staple capitalist practice, as is used by Monsanto, of externalizing the real costs of its products, and the article is well worth reading just for the analysis of this facet alone:

For this article, the point is that if glyphosate is carcinogenic, the cost of the lost lives and medical expenses are not borne by Monsanto/Bayer. If these costs were not external to Monsanto, that is, if the corporation had to bear these costs, the cost of the product would not be economical to use. Its advantages would be out-weighed by the costs.


It is very difficult to find the truth, because politicians and regulatory authorities are susceptible to bribes and to doing favors for their business friends. In Brazil, lawmakers are actually trying to deregulate pesticide use and to ban the sale of organic food in supermarkets. https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18409-brazilian-lawmakers-seek-to-deregulate-pesticide-use-ban-sale-of-organic-food-in-supermarkets

But I copy/pasted some items he found pointing to the extreme dangers posed by Roundup and glyphosate to human health:

In Brazil tests have discovered that 83% of mothers’ breast milk contains glyphosate. https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Brazil-Poisonous-Agrotoxin-Found-Over-80-of-Breast-Milk-Samples-in-Urucui-20180809-0008.html

The Munich Environmental Institute reported that 14 of the most widely selling German beers contain glyphosate. https://sustainablepulse.com/2016/02/25/german-beer-industry-in-shock-over-probable-carcinogen-glyphosate-contamination/#.W3XKtC-ZOGQ

Glyphosate has been found in Mexican farmers’ urine and in Mexican ground water. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5486281/

Scientific American has reported that even Roundup’s “inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

A German toxicologist has accused the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and the European Food Safety Authority of scientific fraud for accepting a Monsanto-led glyphosate Task Force conclusion that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17307-german-toxicologist-accuses-eu-authorities-of-scientific-fraud-over-glyphosate-link-with-cancer

 

[zewe]

It is easy Condemning Monsanto With Bad Science

edit:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/04/30/is_glyphosate_poisoning_everyone

@General Orange: Concerning the author of your cited article,
I'll ask you to review his employers:

As of 2018 he was working at Novartis; formerly he had worked for 10 years at Vertex, 9 years at Bayer, and 8 years at Schering-Plough.[3][12][13]
Source:
Derek Lowe (chemist) - Wikipedia

Let's break it down.

Novartis: has business agreement with Bayer-Schering, a subsidiary of Bayer.

Vertex: I didn't find a marketing agreement with Bayer.

Bayer: this one's obvious.

Schering-Plough: has marketing agreement with Bayer.

I am assuming that you understand Bayer's connection with Monsanto, correct?

Now, consider what we know about Monsanto according to this:

How Monsanto Plants Stories, Suppresses Science & Silences Dissent to Sell a Cancer-Linked Chemical | Democracy Now!

SNIP:
AMY GOODMAN: Why is Roundup allowed in the United States? And also, aren’t—for example, Roundup soybeans—crops are made to work with this Roundup pesticide?

CAREY GILLAM: Right. What Monsanto did—they introduced glyphosate to the world in 1974, patented it and enjoyed quite a bit of success, because it was a very effective herbicide. It killed weeds very quickly, and Monsanto said it was so much safer than other herbicides on the market. But the patent was expiring in the year 2000, so Monsanto came up with a really brilliant strategy, which was, “Let’s genetically alter, let’s engineer special crops that can be sprayed directly over the top with glyphosate and they won’t die, but the weeds will.”

It was ingenious. It made farming so much easier for farmers who have to really keep their fields very clean of weeds. When you have fewer weeds, your crops are going to grow better. They’re going to get the nutrients and the moisture out of the soil and not compete with the weeds. So it really was a great thing and farmers loved it. And Monsanto called these crops Roundup-ready crops. The idea was that farmers would buy the special seeds and then they would spray the crops with Roundup. Monsanto would maintain its market share. Their investors would maintain that profit flow.

It all worked great except for people and the environment, because what happened was, as I said earlier, we went from about 40 million pounds a year of use in the 1990s to close to 300 million pounds a year now. Globally, that went from 123 million pounds to almost two billion pounds a year now. We are drenching our farming system in glyphosate and Roundup, and that is what has really caused all of these problems is this overuse that has made it so ubiquitous that we can’t escape it. That it is in our food and our body and our air and our water.

It also is what drew so much research. Because it was so widely used, independent scientists around the world really started studying it and looking at the impacts on human health and on environmental health. They have found an array of problems. But as Brent said earlier, Monsanto has not taken any of those concerns to heart. Instead what they have tried to do is discredit the scientists, harass the scientists, try to arm-twist regulators to deny this independent science and to only look at the industry science that declared it to be safe. It really has been, as I say in my book, a manipulation of science.

Even today, as we sit here talking, there are papers out there in published peer-reviewed journals that appear to be independent of Monsanto that we know from the evidence in the documents that we have, that we know Monsanto had a hand in writing, even though they look like they are independent. And this is the term that has come to be associated now with Monsanto, which is “ghostwriting.” We know that there are papers out there in the published literature that our regulators around the world have relied upon as being independent and authentic, and we know that Monsanto has ghostwritten them. Now, we don’t know how many more are out there. We know there are some, but God only knows how many might really be out there.

AMY GOODMAN: Monsanto tried to discredit you, Carey Gillam, as you exposed Monsanto?

CAREY GILLAM: Oh, yes. I am one of many journalists. They have gone after people at The New York Times. They’ve gone after Pulitzer Prize winners. They’ve gone after journalists at magazines and newspapers around the world. Really anyone—and scientists—anyone who doesn’t parrot the talking points, who tries to bring truth to light, who uncovers facts that are not beneficial to Monsanto, they’re going to go after you.

Luckily, through Freedom of Information Act requests, state record requests, we have obtained documents from regulators, from state universities and of course these internal Monsanto documents that have come to light. They really do show this ongoing decades—I call it decades of deception—very strategic efforts by Monsanto, others in the agrichemical industry, to own the science and to discredit anybody who tries to challenge them.
END SNIP

Derek Lowe and his blog are well known to certain readers and very well liked by some. However, considering his current and past employers, I cannot help but wonder if he has been "influenced" by Bayer/Monsanto

 

[General Orange]

@zewe

I am assuming that you understand Bayer's connection with Monsanto, correct?

Had no idea, thanks for pointing this out. Appreciate your reaction.

 

[dfspcc20]

Propaganda that's often repeated is that we need things like GMOs, glyphosate and other pesticides in order to "feed the world", and that modern agriculture is the most efficient way to do this. I think it's important for people to know that this is not true. Or, rather, it's only true if we take certain things for granted.

Modern agriculture is only more efficient per unit of human labor. We need fewer farmers to produce massive amounts of standardized food commodities. But the catch is many of these farmers need to finance multi-million dollar farm equipment and purchase a constant supply of patented seeds, pesticides and other chemical inputs, all while being dependent on subsidies.

It is not more efficient in terms of resource or land use. We can produce more food (and more varied and nutritious food) using methods mentioned earlier that also continuously improve soil fertility. The rub is that this would required a much higher percentage of the population involved in food production. But it doesn't need to be back-breaking labor (that's another piece of propaganda). And I'd bet most people are yearning for more meaningful work that connects them to land and community. This doesn't fit in with the current model of cutting labor costs (and often quality) in order to the maximize profits to feed the debt-based money system, but that's a much deeper rabbit hole.

 

[Peater Piper]

And I'd bet most people are yearning for more meaningful work that connects them to land and community.

I've actually thought farming (without the backbreaking labor) could be a wonderful job. It would certainly be preferable to many other jobs.

 

[InChristAlone]

I've actually thought farming (without the backbreaking labor) could be a wonderful job. It would certainly be preferable to many other jobs.

Farming can be romanticized but it is hard even if you have all the equipment. And most small farmers who aren't subsidized corn and soy farmers won't be able to afford the equipment.

One option is homesteading. You can have the garden, the goats, maybe a cow, pigs, chickens if you can do some physical work especially if you can somehow make a living doing it or have help from family. I've been following some YouTube channels for years that are all about growing food and caring for farm animals. It can help with the reality of farm life. It is so rewarding but very challenging.

Here are some I follow:
Praxxus55712 mainly gardening but I love his quirky nature he used to be into real estate until he had a major breakdown. Gardening saved his life.

ART and BRI Art and Bri homestead. Beautiful videography.

Justin Rhodes Rhodes homestead, they have a milk cow, lots of chickens and a garden. Their farm chores seem anything but easy!

Weed 'em & Reap suburban homestead, they raise milk goats, chickens and pigs. Seems easier than raising meat chickens and cows.

Many of these channels are getting a large portion of their income from YouTube but most need to either sell what they produce or have a real job.

 

[dfspcc20]

I've actually thought farming (without the backbreaking labor) could be a wonderful job. It would certainly be preferable to many other jobs.

In the current context, being able to break even in farming often means mountains of debt, subsidies, not to mention the occupational exposure to many know carcinogens and metabolic disruptors.

Trying to make a living at being a small, organic farmer is probably a stretch as well (in our current economic & monetary context, at least), unless you already have a lot of wealth currently you don't mind burning through.

Gardening and/or homesteading, with a separate source of reliable income, could work for some on the individual level, as @Janelle525 pointed out.

I really like the community-supported agriculture (CSA) concept. Members work/volunteer at a farm a few (or several) hours a week, receiving free (or discounted) products as compensation.

I think a worthy goal might be to have many local farms producing food for, say, 10 households nearby (similar to what it was prior to WWII), rather than the current model of a relative few centralized megafarms and feedlots producing foods for thousands of households. But we really need a sea change to get there.

 

[Peater Piper]

Farming can be romanticized but it is hard even if you have all the equipment. And most small farmers who aren't subsidized corn and soy farmers won't be able to afford the equipment.

Oh yeah, I know it can be difficult. My grandparents/great grandparents owned a farm, primarily dairy, but they also grew a number of crops and had their own small garden. They basically grew all of their own food, slaughtered their own animals, etc. They had a large family, and all of the kids had to help out. My mom speaks very highly of it, and regrets that her children didn't get the same experience. My mom, aunts, and uncles all ended up in careers outside of agriculture, so there was no one to pass on the legacy to. Now the land is rented out for corn.

Thanks for the channel links, I'll check them out!

In the current context, being able to break even in farming often means mountains of debt, subsidies, not to mention the occupational exposure to many know carcinogens and metabolic disruptors.

Trying to make a living at being a small, organic farmer is probably a stretch as well (in our current economic & monetary context, at least), unless you already have a lot of wealth currently you don't mind burning through.

I was thinking more in terms of what it could be (and what it used to be), not what it currently is. No doubt, being a farmer today is a huge burden, and as you say, a huge sea of change would be required, but it has the potential to be a much more rewarding job than working in a warehouse or at a fast food restaurant.

I've considered signing up for a garden share. I simply don't have the land for a decent garden, but there's farmland within 30-minutes of me and I've heard of people creating community gardens. I wouldn't mind helping out on the weekends and getting the rewards of the produce I helped to grow. Unfortunately it's an idea that always gets pushed to the back-burner.

 

[Travis]

" Lactobacillus species are preferentially killed by glyphosate, likely due in part because of their strong dependency on manganese, which glyphosate chelates, making it unavailable " wow~

This is a double no bueno for sauerkraut production.

 

[alywest]

This is a double no bueno for sauerkraut production.

Yes, I'm sure sauerkraut stock is plummeting as I write this...

 

[Travis]

Yes, I'm sure sauerkraut stock is plummeting as I write this...

I had sauerkraut on my mind because I had just got done making some. At the Amish store where I had bought the salt I had chosen the kosher brand not because I'm Jewish, but merely to promote nonracist behavior. [Yet the real reason had actually been the packaging, or more specifically that hip pastel six-pointed star mosaic on the box. This is saying quite alot, actually, because I do have a considerable proclivity for the yellow Morton salt umbrella lady.] I simply cannot imagine how the sauerkraut would turn-out without Lactobacillus brevis on the leaf. I actually now think this would greatly exceed double no bueno, perhaps requiring higher exponents.

 

[alywest]

I had sauerkraut on my mind because I had just got done making some. At the Amish store where I had bought the salt I had chosen the kosher brand not because I'm Jewish, but merely to promote nonracist behavior. [Yet the real reason had actually been the packaging, or more specifically that hip pastel six-pointed star mosaic on the box. This is saying quite alot, actually, because I do have a considerable proclivity for the yellow Morton salt umbrella lady.] I simply cannot imagine how the sauerkraut would turn-out without Lactobacillus brevis on the leaf. I actually now think this would greatly exceed double no bueno, perhaps requiring higher exponents. Considering the utter imcomprehesibility of non-Lactobacillus sauerkraut, at least one exponent would surely be a transcendental—e.g. = 2 × no bueno⁶ᵉⁱ

Certainly...

 

[dfspcc20]

I've considered signing up for a garden share. I simply don't have the land for a decent garden, but there's farmland within 30-minutes of me and I've heard of people creating community gardens. I wouldn't mind helping out on the weekends and getting the rewards of the produce I helped to grow. Unfortunately it's an idea that always gets pushed to the back-burner.

I hear ya. I somehow let myself get over-scheduled with life as well. I only have a tiny, often neglected garden, that somehow has managed to produce a few tiny melons, some zucchini and flowers. I try to get the rest of the yard healthy by not spraying anything, hand-pulling weeks when necessary and lots of mulching. I hate seeing how much leaves, grass clippings, brush, etc. gets put in plastic garbage bags to be taken to the garbage dump.

 

[achillea]

15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto's Roundup

 

[zewe]

Monsanto Attempts To Hide Their Ugly History Behind Merger With Bayer
By
Mike Papantonio
-
June 30, 2018
Transcript:

Mike Papantonio: Media outlets were buzzing recently about the news that Bayer Corporation and Monsanto won approval for a mega-merger from the U.S. Department of Justice. No surprise there, but as usual, the corporate media ignored the disgusting histories of both these companies, and instead focused on the consolidation of power and what it means for investors.

What’s been ignored by these media outlets is the fact that Monsanto is currently facing a tidal wave of lawsuits over the dangers that have been associated with their blockbuster weed-killer Roundup. Recently, documents were released that showed just how far Monsanto went in their efforts to undermine the scientific evidence showing that their chemicals were causing cancer, clear as day. These documents paint a very clear picture of a corporate cover-up that rivals that of tobacco companies and the asbestos industry decades ago.

One of the biggest targets of this Monsanto cover-up was the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The group classified Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, as a probable carcinogen. That happened several years ago. After that ruling, though, Monsanto’s executives put together an action plan to not only attack IARC but also get their spokespeople booked on media outlets to spread their propaganda.

Another line of attack the company engaged in involved hiring industry-friendly scientists to write phonied-up papers that ignore scientific evidence, and to tell us that glyphosate was almost safe enough to drink straight out of the bottle. They really did tell us that. Monsanto’s own documents tell the story that corporate media has ignored since day one, but it’s a story that’s about to be told in courtrooms all over this country.

Joining me to talk about this issue is Farron Cousins, executive editor of the Trial Lawyer magazine. Farron, let’s start with the Bayer-Monsanto merger. What’s going on? What’s this going to mean for consumers across the globe? What is your take on that?

Farron Cousins: It’s going to mean less choice for consumers all across the globe. I know Bayer says, “Hey, we’re going to sell off all of our seed business. We’re not going to create this consolidated consortium of seeds,” but they’re selling it all to one other company, BASF, that’s also joined at the hip with Bayer and Monsanto, because they’ve been helping to fund this GMO Answers program, which is out there to basically spread propaganda about GMOs and how they’re not tainted with things like Roundup. BASF gets all the seeds, so we don’t change the number of people that own most of the seeds throughout the planet. It really means nothing. Consumers are still going to have less choice. Bayer is going to have Monsanto, this agrochemical giant, and consumers are going to get the short end of the stick, as they always have, as they always do anytime there is a mega-corporate merger like this.

Mike Papantonio:Incredible to me is the media’s take. All they’re talking about is the numbers. It’s almost like they ignore the horrendous history of these two companies. Take both of those companies. They’re going to be in the top five or 10 internationally for being sued the most, for having the most fines, the most criminal events that have taken place. Monsanto and Bayer have this long, ugly history, but the corporate media, all they want to talk about, what does this mean for shareholders? Not, what does it mean for consumers that are affected by their products? How is this merger going to affect, for example, the litigation that’s coming up for Monsanto, or all the litigation that has existed for Bayer forever? How is this going to affect litigation?

Farron Cousins: On its face right now, this shouldn’t affect the litigation whatsoever, but if Bayer chooses to do what other companies have done in similar situations, it could. First and foremost, when you buy a company, when you absorb another company as Bayer is trying to do with Monsanto, you also absorb all of their liabilities. This includes any existing lawsuits, any future lawsuits. You own that now.

But, what we have seen companies do in the past, we’ve seen it all over the country, is that once they complete this merger, they may create a subsidiary or a spinoff company, and then put all of those liabilities into that particular company, and then have that company declare bankruptcy because they don’t ever fund it. They don’t give it money, and then suddenly when you’re facing billions of dollars in lawsuits for a company you just created yesterday, you have grounds to go to the government and say, “Oh, look. Look at all these lawsuits this little company has. They’re going to have to file for bankruptcy. That may affect whether or not all the people that have been killed along the way or gotten cancer along the way, that may affect their ability to get any kind of compensation for us poisoning them for decades.” Bayer may not do that, but we’ve seen it too many times.

Mike Papantonio: Let me be clear about that. There’s no question. Monsanto makes a product, Roundup, that causes cancer. The only question is what other diseases does it cause. Now, we saw DuPont and Dow, they made this merger. They put together this merger, but DuPont … Here’s where it really gets interesting. DuPont, after they left putrid toxic waste all over the planet, literally all over the planet from China to California, after they left their toxic waste everywhere, they then said, “We’re going to start another company, and we’re going to give them all of our liabilities.” They want to give them $300 million to cover all, which is not even a close call. They funded this company for one purpose, and that is so that company could say, “Well, we’re really not DuPont that caused all this mass toxic waste to be spread out all over the place. We’re a different company, and we have to declare bankruptcy because we don’t have enough money to pay for all the death and destruction that DuPont left along the way.”

That’s what we see happening here, if I hear you right. That would be my call exactly. We know from the documents, Farron, that Monsanto’s goal was to attack any science that was bad for Roundup. What prompted these attacks? How did all this begin where they phony up all this science? It’s fantasy, just fantasy talk. How did we get here with that?

Farron Cousins: This is something that Monsanto has been engaging in since at least the 1990s, possibly earlier, any time you have any kind of federal or international agency that comes out and says, “Hey, glyphosate in your Roundup is likely a human carcinogen.” The EPA did it in the ’90s. Monsanto fires back. They unleash their lobbyists. They unleash their gaggle of corporate-paid scientists to say, “No, no, no. You got it wrong.” The EPA backed off.

In 2015, IARC, as you had already pointed out, came forward, and they said, “Listen, based on everything we have seen, and we have all this science from around the globe, your Roundup glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.” Monsanto, obviously you can’t go and lobby IARC to take away this classification like they did the EPA. You can’t pay off politicians or scientists to argue with the IARC.

So, they went a different route this time. This time, they wanted to go the public relations route. They wanted to go out there and attack IARC, say that this was a political ploy by this non-political agency. They had their trolls out online, attacking anybody who wrote a blog post about Monsanto and Roundup, anybody who did an interview on it, which was rare considering that the corporate media doesn’t want to talk about this issue that’s been going on for several decades now. Monsanto was really prompted by IARC, and they just upped their game to a new level because they had nobody left to pay off.

Mike Papantonio: By the way, IARC is part of the World Health Organization. This isn’t some mom and pop operation. They looked at all the signs. They said, “Yeah, it causes cancer.” The only question is, does it cause neurological diseases? Plenty of scientists say it does. It causes birth defects. Plenty of scientists say it does, but they’re able to go out and hire these bottom-feeder scientists, these bottom-feeder professors that work at some of the best colleges in the country. The bottom-feeder scientist says, “I’m not being paid enough working as a professor. Give me that $300,000. As a matter of fact, you write the report, and I’ll sign it for you.” That’s how bad it is. Tell us about this group AgBioChatter that’s now surfacing. We’re seeing this thing about AgBioChatter. Why is Monsanto … How are they using it? How is DuPont, Dow Chemical, how are these big companies using AgBioChatter?

Farron Cousins: This was actually uncovered in a Monsanto document written on February 23rd of 2015. They want to use this group, this AgBioChatter. It is a listserv. Basically, it’s a massive email list of all kinds of academics, members of the media, and PR firms. What they do is they send out a message, let everybody know either one of two things. One, we wrote this paper saying that glyphosate is as safe as rainwater. Who wants to sign off on it? Let us know who the highest bidder is. Or two, they will go out there and say, “Listen, we need scientists to go out there and do an interview, and go out there in the media, and say that no, no, no, IARC got it wrong. The independent studies were also wrong. Everybody’s wrong except Monsanto. They got it right.”

They have this database of scientists, and PR firms, and everyone else who is willing to go out there and be a paid spokesman for these corporations when, in reality, they’re supposed to be impartial academics. They are respected in their fields. They’re respected at their universities, but they sell it all to go out there and get some of that sweet Monsanto or DuPont money.

Mike Papantonio: Farron, there’s this great video that’s on … You ought to go see it. It’s on YouTube, where one of the scientists is confronted with a journalist. A real journalist, unlike our corporate journalists in the United States. A real journalist confronts this corporate type that’s out selling the idea that this is safe, it’s safe enough to drink. The journalist says, “Really? It’s safe enough to drink? Well, we just happen to have some for you back here. Do you mind drinking it?” The guy says, “I’m not an idiot. I’m not going to drink that.” Minute one, he’s saying, “Safe enough to drink.” The journalist says, “Well, okay. Let’s see it on the air.” Guy gets up and he walks out of there. This is one of those AgBioChatter kind of what we call key opinion leaders that these companies actually go out and hire.

I’ve got to tell you, the corporate media has been completely silent about this. They’re going to remain silent. The advertising dollars are just too big for them. Farron, thanks for joining me. Stay on this story. It’s an important one.


Mike Papantonio
America's Lawyer Mike Papantonio
Mike Papantonio is an American attorney and television and radio talk show host. He is past president of The National Trial Lawyers, the most prestigious trial lawyer association in America; and is one of the few living attorneys inducted into the Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame. He hosts the international television show "America's Lawyer"; and co-hosts Ring of Fire Radio, a nationally syndicated weekly radio program, with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Sam Seder.

SOURCE:
Monsanto Attempts To Hide Their Ugly History Behind Merger With Bayer - The Ring of Fire Network

 

[nwo2012]

I had sauerkraut on my mind because I had just got done making some. At the Amish store where I had bought the salt I had chosen the kosher brand not because I'm Jewish, but merely to promote nonracist behavior. [Yet the real reason had actually been the packaging, or more specifically that hip pastel six-pointed star mosaic on the box. This is saying quite alot, actually, because I do have a considerable proclivity for the yellow Morton salt umbrella lady.] I simply cannot imagine how the sauerkraut would turn-out without Lactobacillus brevis on the leaf. I actually now think this would greatly exceed double no bueno, perhaps requiring higher exponents.

Firstly Jews are not a race, they are a religion. Secondly you are paying a tax on that item for some Rabbi to come and put 'blessings' on it. But that's another topic entirely.

My personal opinion regarding Monsanto and other corporations with regards to using toxic chemical is like this.
The inbreds at the top of the pyramid use 'scientists'AKA paid scum, to find some toxic substance that can do x to humans/animals. x, in this case, being the ability to chelate minerals, causing deficiencies and various disease. Then they find a commercial use for it, such as a pesticide, in the knowledge it will take decades to find out the toxicity and many decades more to have it banned. By then they have helped along the depopulation plan, whilst making billions from selling the product AND from the cancer/disease industry. Win win. They then have many other toxic crap waiting to replace it when it is banned.
Messed up world, we are allowing families of inbreds to do this.

 

[InChristAlone]

Firstly Jews are not a race, they are a religion. Secondly you are paying a tax on that item for some Rabbi to come and put 'blessings' on it. But that's another topic entirely.

My personal opinion regarding Monsanto and other corporations with regards to using toxic chemical is like this.
The inbreds at the top of the pyramid use 'scientists'AKA paid scum, to find some toxic substance that can do x to humans/animals. x, in this case, being the ability to chelate minerals, causing deficiencies and various disease. Then they find a commercial use for it, such as a pesticide, in the knowledge it will take decades to find out the toxicity and many decades more to have it banned. By then they have helped along the depopulation plan, whilst making billions from selling the product AND from the cancer/disease industry. Win win. They then have many other toxic crap waiting to replace it when it is banned.
Messed up world, we are allowing families of inbreds to do this.

Does your name mean New World Order?

How can anyone prove they are trying to profit off killing people though? I mean it was easy to charge the Holocaust perpetrators of human experimentation, but not so easy to convince anyone that those same chemical companies are still alive and well. Lots of people are in the 'know' but doesn't mean they survive cancer any better unfortunately. I guess it'd be hard to overcome cancer caused by Big Ag as the chemicals are in 90% of drinking water in the US. I have been using reverse osmosis water for a decade as I don't trust tap water.

 

[nwo2012]

Does your name mean New World Order?

How can anyone prove they are trying to profit off killing people though? I mean it was easy to charge the Holocaust perpetrators of human experimentation, but not so easy to convince anyone that those same chemical companies are still alive and well. Lots of people are in the 'know' but doesn't mean they survive cancer any better unfortunately. I guess it'd be hard to overcome cancer caused by Big Ag as the chemicals are in 90% of drinking water in the US. I have been using reverse osmosis water for a decade as I don't trust tap water.

Indeed that's NWO.
Yes exactly although there is plenty of proof if you join the dots, you wouldnt be able to make anything stick unless there's a massive awakening of the sleeping populace. I think we stand the best chance of dramatically reducing our cancer risk by minimizing toxins, emf exposure, having a robust metabolism, supplying all neccessary nutrients and reducing all stresses possible. Yes RO is helpful, we have a water distiller plumbed in, makes 24 lires per day for using in all cooking etc. Shower filters to reduce chlorine are useful too.
Employ all strategies possible including grounding, at beach if possible, meditation, red light therapy etc etc.

 

[Travis]

Firstly Jews are not a race, they are a religion. Secondly you are paying a tax on that item for some Rabbi to come and put 'blessings' on it. But that's another topic entirely.

You should listen to what Robert Anton Wilson has to say about that. He's convinced that there are seven separate definitions for the word 'Jew,' and race is one of them.

 

[nwo2012]

You should listen to what Robert Anton Wilson has to say about that. He's convinced that there are seven separate definitions for the word 'Jew,' and race is one of them.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Co-intel propaganda?