Posts Tagged Monsanto
November 11, 2014
Back in 2011, we declared Monsanto to be the worst company of the year for threatening both human health and the environment at large. Our decision was met with massive support, even amid the still growing climate of understanding when it came to what Monsanto and mega biotech at large were truly doing to the food supply. In 2014, however, the global resistance is making even greater strides.
Now, a relatively new poll from Nielsen found that Monsanto’s reputation ranked 3rd worst among 60 high-profile companies, right behind oil juggernaut BP (responsible for the worst oil spill in U.S. history) and Bank of America (known for being a key player in the meltdown of the financial market).
Monsanto, a major biotech corporation responsible for genetically modifying and taking over many of the nation’s crops, isn’t necessarily a consumer-facing company. Yet it faces public opposition unlike no other.
As reported by 247Wallst:
> Reputation score: 57.27
> 2013 Reputation score: 61.70
…few businesses have had such a long-running negative public perception. The company’s promotion of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been controversial because many consumers remain suspicious about crop engineering. Monsanto has also actively worked to protect seed patents, including suing farmers who have used its seeds without permission and proper payments. The company’s opposition to proposed GMO labeling laws, which require that foods sold to consumers containing GMOs include a label, has also not helped its image.”
November 9, 2014
The new documentary Bought dives deeply into the inner workings of the industries at the core of our food and healthcare system, exploring the truth about how vaccines and drugs are developed and rushed to market and the ongoing secrecy behind the genetic engineering of our food supply.
For a limited time proceeds from renting or purchasing this film will be donated to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a non-profit organization advocating for vaccine safety and informed consent protection in the public health system.
Filmmaker Jeff Hays believes, as I do, that you have a right to the truth so that you can make educated decisions about your health, food, and medicine. Unfortunately, the truth is not easy to come by today.
Like the banks, the food and drug industries have grown more powerful and less transparent over time, and profit has become the primary motive. Hays may be best known for his 2012 documentary “Doctored,” which exposes how the medical and drug industry conspire to control the health care system.
Hays’ new film peels back the layers to show how the drug, vaccine, and chemical technology industries have joined forces as one supervillain, with its “undisclosed location” smack-dab in the middle of the White House.
You can’t effectively address one industry without addressing them all, as they are now inextricably linked. Until enough people raise their voices, nothing is likely to change. According to Hays:1
“From opiates, to statins, to a blizzard of psychotropic medications that do far more harm than good, the film covers how our entire health care system, from education to practice has been Bought… three story lines converge on Wall Street, in a tale of corruption, greed and shocking lack of conscience.”
Federal Vaccine Court: Designed Specifically to Clean Up the Trail of Destruction Left by Vaccines
Vaccines are a $30 billion per year industry. Today, four dominate the world market (Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, and GlaxoSmithKline). Given the furor that erupts when anybody publicly questions vaccine safety, you would assume that the US government considers vaccines completely safe.
But in reality, that’s not the case as evidenced by the establishment of a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) where vaccine injury claims are decided in a Federal Vaccine Court2 to compensate vaccine victims, but in reality protects the vaccine industry from lawsuits. The official line by federal health officials is that vaccines are safe and never cause autism.
However, the fact is that for many years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice and the Federal Vaccine Court have been quietly settling cases of brain inflammation and permanent brain damage (encephalopathy) that included symptoms of autism.
These VICP awards have been made to cover treatments related to autism. The VCIP was established in 1986 when Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,3 which protected vaccine manufacturers, pediatricians and other vaccine providers from nearly all civil liability for injuries and deaths caused by government recommended and mandated vaccines.
If vaccines are so safe, then why has the government set up a federal compensation program specifically to manage the damage they cause? In Bought, families who have won and lost in Vaccine Court share their heartbreaking stories.
These parent and health care professionals speaking out about their experiences are articulate, knowledgeable, and compelling witnesses to the damage that vaccines and one-size-fits-all vaccine policies have done. They are not part of some anti-vaccine campaign—in fact, the reason they were in Vaccine Court is because of what happened when they DID vaccinate their children!
Most Vaccine Reactions Are Never Connected to Vaccines
Proving causation is extremely difficult with vaccine injuries in part because there are huge gaps in vaccine safety science and, also, unless a vaccine reaction is immediate and obvious, parents may not connect their child’s deterioration in health to the shots the child was given.
When parents report their child’s regression into chronic poor health following vaccination to their child’s pediatrician, they are typically told the illness couldn’t possibly be related to the vaccine or vaccinations the child was given.
Sometimes reactions occur within hours or days of vaccination and are dramatic and life threatening and the child is taken to the emergency room and the vaccine reaction symptoms are recorded in the child’s medical record. Usually, only the most clear cut and identifiable vaccine reactions end up in Vaccine Court—the ones where the “dots” are easily connected.
Unfortunately, at that point the damage is done and the child may be left with lifelong chronic illness and disability. The vast majority of vaccine adverse reactions are never reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Still, CDC’s VAERS database4 lists 8,000 different adverse vaccine reactions, from localized swelling and anaphylactic shock to autism, coma, and death.5
Because of the factors already discussed, the actual number of reactions is probably much higher than the database reports. As vaccine safety advocate Dawn Loughborough said in “Bought:”
“We used to have this idea we were protecting children from infectious diseases. And we created the National Vaccine program with children in mind, but somewhere in time protecting the program became more important than what’s happening to our children.”
November 9, 2014
As we get closer to the holidays, many people look for ways to cut back on sugar and other indulgences so that when the New Year rolls around, they won’t have to work so hard to lose those extra pounds. While it is a good idea to avoid sugar altogether, using the artificial sweeteners Splenda or Aspartame might be even worse. There are numerous reasons you should avoid the stuff in little yellow packages (or pink, or blue). Here is why.
Donald Rumsfeld, the very same politician who supports GMOs, is perhaps the singular man who got Splenda onto the market after the FDA initially refused it. If you have gotten sick from consuming this toxic substance, you can thank him, along with its makers. Splenda was created by the British company Tate & Lyle along with the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson.
Perhaps you remember when the Coca-Cola company launched its ad campaign to fight obesity back in the early 80s? This was all part of a ploy to begin the use of aspartame, whose patent was once owned by none other than Monsanto! Ironically, there are numerous studies that show this stuff causes obesity. It doesn’t prevent obesity.
Before they started selling you Splenda, it was called NutraSweet. In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet, as well as Splenda and many other artificial sweeteners. Is Splenda safe? It depends who you ask.
Let’s look at a little timeline, shall we?
- 1901: Monsanto Chemical Works is formed.
- 1976: When Ford loses the 1976 election, Rumsfeld returns to private business life, and is named president and CEO of the pharmaceutical corporation G. D. Searle & Company, during which time he leads the legalization of Aspartame.
- 1977: Monsanto stops producing PCBs.
- 1997: Monsanto businesses are spun off as Solutia Inc.
- 1999: John Hunter is named chairman and CEO.
- 2000: Monsanto’s Pharmaceutical Services Division is created. Monsanto also merges with the drug-maker Pharmacia & UpJohn Inc., which took control of the Searle pharmaceutical operations, and the current Monsanto Co. was incorporated as a subsidiary in October 2000.
- 2002: PCB trial results in sharp drop in stock price.
November 5, 2014
Biotech Covers Up GMO Devastation Of Farmland
The European Association for bio-industries, EuropaBio, wants you to believe that “GM crops can protect soils from erosion through less ploughing, conserving soil moisture, too. GM herbicide tolerant crops reduce the need to plough fields in preparation for planting crops. This saves fuel because less tilling is necessary. GM insect resistant crops require less treatments with insecticides, which also decreases the need for tractor use.” But these statements are completely false.
This is essentially the requisite lie told by all of biotech – including:
- Monsanto – Known for creating or helping to create 13 highly carcinogenic and toxic products including saccharin, PCBs, Polystyrene, DDT, the atom bomb, nuclear weapons, dioxin, Agent Orange, Petroleum based fertilizers, Round Up, rGBH, aspartame, GMOs, and terminator seeds. Monsanto sues everyone to keep dealing their dirty products, but the most recent suit, involving Dustin Barca, a surfer-turned mixed martial arts fighter in Hawaii is of special note. He is taking it personally that Monsanto poisons him, and bringing activism to a new level.
- Dow Chemical Company (also Union Carbide) – This wonderful company helped toreleased methyl isocyanate and other chemicals in 1984 by their pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, causing one of the worst industrial disasters in history. They are also one of the five corporationscompletely dominating the seed market, making food sovereignty precarious for farmers and families around the world. Along with three other companies they also helped to create Dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a known carcinogen, reproductive toxin, and endocrine disruptor that contaminates ground water. They continued to produce and sell DBCP even after it was banned due to strong evidence linking the chemical to sterility.
- Syngenta – Known for suing Kaui’i County when they wanted to keep herbicide and pesticide spraying away from their school children, homes and hospitals, and also for covering up the true toxicity of Atrazine. This company has also been implicated with colony collapse disorder, killing off our bees, and other important pollinators.
by: Christina Sarich
November 3, 2014
There is a good reason that Kellogg’s spent over $1,012,552 on media propaganda in California & Washington to defeat voter ballot initiatives that would have required the labeling of GMO foods, and now are contributing again to the defeat of labeling initiatives in Oregon (contributing $250,000).
A consumer recently sent a box of Froot Loops to a lab for genetic testing and found that the corn and soy used in the cereal are 100% RoundUp Ready GMO. So is the sugar. Never mind the other toxic ingredients in the cereal. This means that in one box of Kellogg’s cereal (and likely all their cereals contain similar GMO products), you are dining on a double dose of glyphosate and Bt toxins – glyphosate being patented as an ‘antibiotic’ by Monsanto in 2011.
Kellogg’s has been making cereal since 1898, but I seriously doubt its founders ever thought it would be poisoning the world at breakfast every morning.
Not only is the corn in Froot Loops sprayed with RoundUp, but it is a pesticide in its own right, registered with and regulated by the EPA. But it isn’t just Froot Loops that is of concern, for all of you who avoid sugar-laden cereals. The ‘healthful’ Kellogg’s brands are full of the stuff, too.
by: Christina Sarich
October 30, 2014
For how long will we need to go back and forth in this GMO battle before a sound conclusion is finally met? If you have been following the GMO debate at all, you probably realize that this issue will likely never rest, as numerous studies on both sides of the spectrum (one side showing safety and the other showing danger) will continue to surface. What’s more, this research as well as opinions will be born out of lies or false substantiation. You’ve likely read headlines like these lately and scoffed:
- 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable
- GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left
- Study of 1 Billion Animals Finds GMOs Safe
Or how about comments like this one:
“I used to think that nothing rivaled the misinformation spewed by climate change skeptics and spinmeisters.
Then I started paying attention to how anti-GMO campaigners have distorted the science on genetically modified foods. You might be surprised at how successful they’ve been and who has helped them pull it off.”
Or if you trust one of the most hated companies on the planet, you can go straight to Monsanto’s site and read: An Overview of the Safety and Advantages of GM Foods.
Monsanto openly admits “after 30” whole “years of research” that they are convinced GMOs are safe. Just one type of pine tree lives more than 5000 years, but yea – Monsanto has all of Mother Nature figured out in its 30 years of tinkering with genes.
It’s amazing how many people have been boondoggled by biotech or are simply paid shills to keep the misinformation train choo-chooing along.
Former Biotech Scientist Speaks Out
Vrain will be the first to admit that Monsanto has conducted a lot of studies showing that GMOs are safe, but he changed his own tune about ten years ago when he started reading scientific journals from other countries.
“I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.”
Monday, February 06, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] Correction: The original version of this article stated that some U.S. Department of Agriculture certified organic products may contain neotame. Since the publishing of this article, NaturalNews has obtained a letter from the USDA’s National Organic Program Deputy Administrator, Miles McEvoy, explaining that neotame is NOT permitted for use in products labeled certified organic, or in products that contain the label “made with organic [specified ingredient or food group]. You can view a copy of this letter here:
And while Monsanto was the original creator of neotame back when it owned the NutraSweet Company, J.W. Childs Equity Partners II, L.P. today owns the NutraSweet Company, which includes ownership of neotame as well.
It could be lurking in the foods you eat every single day and you would never even know it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that one of Monsanto’s creations, a synthetic sweetener chemical known as neotame, does not have to be labeled in food products, including even in organic food products.
A modified version of aspartame with even more added toxicity, neotame received quiet and unassuming FDA approval back in 2002, even though no safety studies have ever been conducted on the chemical (http://www.neotame.com/pdf/neotame_fda_US.pdf). In fact, an investigation conducted by Feingold.org found only four studies relating to neotame in the MEDLINE database.
Two of these “studies” were not studies at all, and the other two were actually one duplicate study conducted by NutraSweet, the company that produces and sells neotame.
So just like with aspartame, the FDA has once again approved for use a dangerous sweetener chemical that metabolizes into formaldehyde when consumed. Except this time, the chemical contains added 3-dimethylbutyl, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed as one of the most hazardous known chemicals, and it does not have to be labeled on any of the products to which it is added.
“Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame,” writes HolisticMed.com on its page about neotame. “Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid” (http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html).
The FDA, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) all consider neotame to be safe for use, despite the fact that WHO actually published a paper seeking to establish acceptable daily intake levels for neotame. If neotame is so safe that it does not even have to be labeled, according to the FDA, then why do acceptable daily intake levels have to be established? And what is the point of establishing them in the first place?
This dog and pony show of special interest regulatory corruption is a travesty that will have global negative health consequences. Like most other toxins added to foods, neotame will most likely cause chronic damage over a long period of time, which means mainstream health authorities will get away with never having to admit that neotame is a dangerous toxin.
Sources for this article include:
by: Lisa Garber
August 7, 2012
Yet another study has concluded that feeding animals GMOs results in higher rates of infant mortality and causes fertility problems. Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov and other researchers fed Campbell hamsters (which have fast reproduction rates) Monsanto GM soy for two years. It should be noted that hamsters do not evolutionarily eat soy—just as cows fed Monsanto corn are actually ruminants and would not naturally eat corn.
“Originally, everything went smoothly,” Surov told broadcasting service The Voice of Russia. Surov and the researchers fed the same diet to three generations of the hamsters, and that’s when they noticed things going awry.
GMO Causes Fertility Problems, Slow Growth, Hair Growth in Mouths
“We noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.” By the third generation, the hamsters were infertile.
Many animals on the GM diet even displayed rare, strange pathologies like hair growing in recessed pouches inside their mouths. “Some of these pouches contained single hairs,” said Surov in Doklady Biological Sciences, “others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of mucous.” Surov and other authors concluded that because rates of hairy mouths occurred more frequently in third-generation GM-fed animals, the condition may have resulted of the GM feed. Surov says contaminants and herbicide residue (like Roundup) could be to blame as well.
Other Victims of GMOs
Other than fertility problems, the GMO phenomenon has been noticed elsewhere—even in our own United States. Farmers using GM feed have reported infertile pigs and cows. Other incidents involving GMOs include:
- Austrian researchers reporting 4th generation “Frankencorn”-fed mice totally infertile.
- Thousands of dead sheep, buffalo, and goats in India after grazing on GM cottonseed.
- Offspring of mother rats fed GM soy dead within three weeks and recorded smaller sizes.
- Cooked GM soy with up to 7 times the amount of a soy allergen.
- Organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, and changed enzyme levels.
- Excessive cell growth in the stomach lining of GM-potato-fed rats, potentially leading to cancer.
- GMO corn contributing to human obesity and organ disruption.
by: Mike Adams
August 6, 2012
[NaturalNews] It is time for the truth to be told about Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The organization is, flatly stated, engaged in fraud. Funded by drug companies and mammogram manufacturers, the organization preys upon women in order to grow its own financial power while feeding female victims into the conventional cancer industry grinder.
All across America, men and women participate in “run for the cure” events, raising tens of millions of dollars each year that go into the hands of Komen for the Cure. What these people don’t know is that much of that money is spent on “free” mammograms. Those mammograms, in turn, actually cause breast cancer because they subject women to high doses of ionizing radiation.
The Susan G. Komen scam, in essence, is to raise money that’s used to give women cancer and create a financial windfall for the very same companies that financially support Komen in the first place. “The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca,” reports Tony Isaacs at NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/027307_cancer_breast_ACS.html).
“DuPont, another huge chemical company and major polluter, supplies much of the film used in mammography machines. Both DuPont and GE aggressively promote mammography screening of women in their 40s, despite the risk of its contributing to breast cancer in that age group. And while biotech giant Monsanto sponsors Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s high profile event, the Race for the Cure, it continues to profit from the production of many known carcinogens.” (http://www.tbyil.com/breast-cancer-deception.htm)
Komen’s corporate partners include General Mills, Zumba Fitness, Walgreens, The Republic of Tea, REMAX, New Balance, American Airlines, Bank of America, Ford Motor Company, Dell and many more (http://ww5.komen.org/corporatepartners.aspx).
The bottom line? Komen deceives women while powerful corporations rake in the profits. This isn’t merely my own opinion. Two prominent doctors, in an article published in the British Medical Journal, have sharply condemned Komen for the Cure for lying about the “benefits” of mammograms.
Komen ads are false, say scientists
“The world’s largest breast cancer charity used misleading statistics and deceptive statements about mammography to promote breast cancer awareness and screening,” stated scientists. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/34030)
Their names? Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, directors of the Center for Medicine and the Media at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire.
They join a growing number of other doctors and medical professionals who now see Komen for the Cure as a fundraising fraud and are going public with detailed accusations against Komen’s deceptions.
In the recently published BMJ article, Woloshin and Schwartz accused Komen of lying in its promotional propaganda for the 2011 Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In advertising, Komen falsely claimed the 5-year survival rate when breast cancer is caught early is 98%, while only 23% when not “caught early.” This is how Komen tricks women into getting more mammograms which cause more cancer — by claiming “early detection saves lives.” But it’s not science; it’s pure propaganda. (See below.)
According to study authors Woloshin and Schwartz, Komen willfully ignored “a growing and increasingly accepted body of evidence [showing] that although screening may reduce a woman’s chance of dying from breast cancer by a small amount, it also causes major harms.”
Here’s an image published by the British Medical Journal, detailing how Komen for the Cure is lying about mammography:
Here’s what the data actually say
Komen for the Cure is in the business of fear mongering. They want everyone to be scared out of their minds that breast cancer is going to strike down all the women in their life. And in order to deal with the fear, all you have to do is give more money to Komen.
It’s sort of like an old-school evangelical group that asks for donations and says you’ll be healed if you just “believe,” but instead of claiming to heal people with the power of faith, the Komen cult claims to heal women with the power of ionizing radiation.
In reality, the actual 10-year risk of a 50-year-old woman dying of breast cancer is about half a percent: 0.53% (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/34030).
With mammograms used to detect breast cancer tumors, that 10-year risk of dying from breast cancer moves ever so slightly downward to 0.46%.
In other words, the real risk reduction of dying from breast cancer by receiving mammograms is only 0.07% — seven women out of 10,000.
How mammograms kill women
Seven out of 10,000 is a far cry from the fear-mongering levels that Komen propagandizes. It’s not quite the cancer apocalypse that Komen makes it out to be, huh? And in the mean time, Woloshin and Schwartz explain that anywhere from 20% to 50% of women who receive mammograms for a decade of their lives will have at least one “false alarm.”
These false alarms often lead to women being treated with deadly chemotherapy cocktails. These expensive drugs enrich the very same drug companies that donate money to Komen for the Cure. This is all part of the cycle of fraud that exploits women’s bodies for profit, all while conducting this sick fraud with the message of “finding a cure,” emblazoned with pink ribbons. The magnitude of the deception in all this is pathological… even criminal.
“The Komen advertisement is deceptive in another way: it ignores the harms of screening,” say Woloshin and Schwartz. “Between 20% and 50% of women screened annually for a decade experience at least one false alarm requiring a biopsy. Most importantly, screening results in overdiagnosis. For every life saved by mammography, around two to 10 women are overdiagnosed. Women who are overdiagnosed cannot benefit from unnecessary chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. All they do experience is harm,” they write.
That harm often comes in the form of unnecessary chemotherapy that poisons women but financially benefits the drug companies. Here’s another article on NaturalNews which also supports this conclusion:
Also read my previous article, “10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You’re Not Supposed to Know”
“Women need much more than marketing slogans about screening,” wrote Woloshin and Schwartz. “They need — and deserve — the facts. The Komen advertisement campaign failed to provide the facts. Worse, it undermined decision making by misusing statistics to generate false hope about the benefit of mammography screening. That kind of behavior is not very charitable.”
The article goes on to emphasize that mammograms are a wash, offering no net benefit to women’s health:
The benefits and harms [of mammography] are so evenly balanced that the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a major US network of patient and professional organizations, “believes there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against universal mammography in any age group of women.”(http://www.knowbreastcancer.org/controversies/mammography-screening/)
Bill Gates, Monsanto, & Eugenics: How One Of The World’s Wealthiest Men Is Actively Promoting A Corporate Takeover Of Global Agriculture
by: Ethan A. Huff
August 6, 2012
After it was exposed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the philanthropic brainchild of Microsoftfounder Bill Gates, purchased 500,000 shares in Monsanto back in 2010 valued at more than $23 million, it became abundantly clear that this so-called benevolent charity is up to something other than eradicating disease and feeding the world’s poor (http://www.guardian.co.uk).
It turns out that the Gates family legacy has long been one of trying to dominate and control the world’s systems, including in the areas of technology, medicine, and now agriculture.
The Gates Foundation, aka the tax-exempt Gates Family Trust, is currently in the process of spending billions of dollars in the name of humanitarianism to establish a global food monopoly dominated by genetically-modified (GM) crops and seeds. And based on the Gates family’s history of involvement in world affairs, it appears that one of its main goals besides simply establishing corporate control of the world’s food supply is to reduce the world’s population by a significant amount in the process.
William H. Gates Sr., former head of eugenics group Planned Parenthood
Bill Gates’ father, William H. Gates Sr., has long been involved with the eugenics group Planned Parenthood, a rebranded organization birthed out of the American Eugenics Society. In a 2003 interview with PBS‘ Bill Moyers, Bill Gates admitted that his father used to be the head of Planned Parenthood, which was founded on the concept that most human beings are just “reckless breeders” and “human weeds” in need of culling .
Gates also admitted during the interview that his family’s involvement in reproductive issues throughout the years has been extensive, referencing his own prior adherence to the beliefs of eugenicist Thomas Robert Malthus, who believed that populations of the world need to be controlled through reproductive restrictions. Though Gates claims he now holds a different view, it appears as though his foundation’s initiatives are just a modified Malthusian approach that much more discreetly reduces populations through vaccines and GMOs.
Gates Foundation has invested heavily in converting Asian, African agricultural systems to GMOs
William Gates Sr.’s association with Planned Parenthood and continued influence in the realm of “population and reproductive health” is significant because Gates Sr. is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/leadership/Pages/william-gates-sr.aspx). This long-time eugenicist “guides the vision and strategic direction” of the Gates Foundation, which is currently heavily focused on forcing GMOs on Africa via its financing of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).