Organic consumers

Syndicate content
Updated: 13 hours 26 min ago

Bill Gates Food Tracker

Wed, 2021-04-14 22:43
Politics & GlobalizationStacy MalkanU.S. Right to KnowMarch 9, 2021 maize-1200x630.jpg

This series of articles by Stacy Malkan examines Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation’s agricultural development program and political influence over global food systems. Why are we tracking Gates? Read our introductory post. And please sign up for our free newsletter to receive updates. You can email tips to

Planning documents for the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit shed new light on the agenda behind the controversial food summit that hundreds of farmers’ and human rights groups are boycotting. The groups say agribusiness interests and elite foundations are dominating the process to push through an agenda that would enable the exploitation of global food systems, and especially Africa. 

The documents, including a background paper prepared for summit dialogues and a draft policy brief for the summit, bring into focus “plans for the massive industrialization of Africa’s food systems,” said Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), who provided the documents to U.S. Right to Know.

Six Months To Prevent a Hostile Takeover of Food Systems, and 25 Years To Transform Them

Wed, 2021-04-14 22:24
Genetic Engineering, Politics & GlobalizationNick JacobsCommon DreamsApril 7, 2021 herbicide-1200x630.jpg

A misguided technological revolution is about to sweep through food systems, but civil society and social movements can stop it in its tracks.

Imagine a world where algorithms are used to optimize growing conditions on every fertile square metre of land. Where whole ecosystems are re-engineered. Where drones and surveillance systems manage the farm. Where farmers are forced off the land into e-commerce villages.

Imagine a world where food is treated like a strategic asset and food transit routes are militarized. Where powerful governments and their flag-bearer corporations control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors.

Imagine a world where many foods are grown in petri dishes, vats, and bioreactors. Where people's eating habits are invisibly nudged using reams of metadata they have unknowingly surrendered via digital wallets. Where AI assistant apps decide on people’s food intake based on genetic information, family history, mood, and data readings from inside their waste bins and digestive systems.

Glyphosate Hacks Hormones of Baby Girls After Exposure in the Womb - New Groundbreaking Pilot Study

Wed, 2021-04-14 22:11
Health IssuesSustainable PulseSustainable PulseApril 7, 2021 baby-1200x630.jpg

A group of international scientists from the U.S. and EU have released a peer-reviewed pilot study that suggests the anogenital distance of baby girls is becoming more male-typical, due to their mothers being exposed to glyphosate when they are in the womb.

The Study, which was published on Monday, in the well-respected Elsevier peer-reviewed Journal ‘Environmental Pollution’, is a major breakthrough in our understanding of glyphosate as a hormone hacker (endocrine disruptor).

Prof. Shanna Swan and Prof. Jia Chen, who are two of the Study authors and are both Professors at Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, sent the statement below to Sustainable Pulse:

“In this pilot (N=100), we examined the concentration of glyphosate and its breakdown product (AMPA) in urine collected in mid-pregnancy in relation to anogenital distance at birth. 

Federal Agencies Plan To Investigate Links Between PFAS Exposure and Viral Illness

Wed, 2021-04-14 21:58
COVID-19Brett WaltonCircle of BlueApril 8, 2021 industry-1-1200x630.jpg

Two federal health agencies intend to scrutinize connection between two hot-button health issues.

Two federal health agencies are planning to investigate potential links between exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals and susceptibility to viral illnesses like Covid-19.

The study would build on federally funded investigations of PFAS exposure in nine communities near U.S. military bases where the chemicals were found in drinking water. Researchers hope to enroll 4,075 people from those previous investigations in the new assessment.

A collaboration between the National Center for Environmental Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the study will be based on health questionnaires sent to people who have already had blood samples drawn for the PFAS exposure assessments.

Laurel Schaider, a senior scientist at Silent Spring Institute, told Circle of Blue that the agencies can leverage their data on PFAS levels in blood serum to provide valuable insights on the connection between chemical exposure and disease.

Zogby Poll: 32% Say Fauci Looking Out for Big Pharma, Not Public

Wed, 2021-04-14 21:47
COVID-19Children's Health Defense Team Children's Health DefenseApril 8, 2021 virus-1200x630.jpg

The nationwide poll conducted by Zogby Strategies also showed almost 40% of Americans believe vaccine manufacturers shouldn't have liability protection for injuries and deaths following COVID vaccination.

In a new nationwide online poll conducted by John Zogby Strategies, 32% of respondents said they believe Dr. Anthony Fauci has the “pharmaceutical industry’s best interest at heart,” not the public’s.

Among three specific groups, the percentage was even higher: 18- to 29-year-olds (41%), Hispanics (42%) and Blacks (38%).

Between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 26, 2021, 50,861 injuries, including 2,249 deaths, were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccinations with COVID-19 vaccines. (Reports of death and injuries to VAERS following vaccination do not require further investigation before a causal link can be established).

Amid ever-increasing calls from government officials that the entire U.S. population be vaccinated against COVID, the poll also asked participants about their viewpoints on the legal immunity granted by Congress to vaccine manufacturers that protects them from lawsuits relating to deaths and injuries following vaccination.

Seed Monopolies: Who Controls the World's Food Supply?

Wed, 2021-04-14 21:39
Politics & GlobalizationCharli ShieldDWApril 8, 2021 agriculture-1200x630.jpg

Seed laws criminalizing farmers for using diverse crops that stand a better chance of adapting to climate change are threatening food security. Seed sovereignty activists want to reclaim the right to plant.

For thousands of years of human agriculture, the intrinsic nature of a seed — the capacity to reproduce itself — prevented it from being easily commodified. Grown and resown by farmers, seeds were freely exchanged and shared. 

All that changed in the 1990s when laws were introduced to protect new bioengineered crops. Today, four corporations — Bayer, Corteva, ChemChina and Limagrain — control more than 50% of the world's seeds. These staggering monopolies dominate the global food supply.  

"Seeds are ultimately what feed us and the animals we eat," Jack Kloppenburg, a rural sociologist and professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said. "Control over seeds is, in many ways, control over the food supply. 

California School District Partners With Nonprofit To Deliver Weekly Meal Boxes Brimming With of Whole, Organic Ingredients

Wed, 2021-04-14 21:29
All About Organics, Environment & ClimateJennifer CrainFood ManagementApril 9, 2021 salad-1200x630.jpg

Each box contains a total of 28 meals: seven breakfasts, lunches, snacks and dinners.

When Barbara Jellison, food services director for West Contra Costa Unified School district, reached out to Judi Shils to ask if the district could purchase 130,000 pounds of local organic produce every week, neither of them knew if it was possible.

Shils runs Conscious Kitchen, a local nonprofit program. When she contacted local producers asking if they thought they could comply, they reacted with disbelief. Then elation.

“Nobody had seen quantity like this. Organic companies have not been invited into the institutional supply chain in any regular way,” Shils says. Talking with business owners, she realized that “these purchases could save businesses in our community.”

Like many districts across the country, West Contra Costa had to find its footing during the early days of the pandemic. They started by supplying families with pre-portioned meals at curbside pickups. 

Khanna Criticizes Biden for Proposing Pentagon Budget Larger Than Trump's

Wed, 2021-04-14 21:15
Politics & GlobalizationJake JohnsonCommon DreamsApril 9, 2021 cost-1200x630.jpg

"It's disappointing that President Biden would propose a budget of $715 billion for the Pentagon."

Congressman Ro Khanna of California was the first House Democrat to speak out Friday against President Joe Biden's request for a $715 billion Pentagon budget for Fiscal Year 2022, an increase from the current $704 billion level approved under former President Donald Trump.

"At a time when his own Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, recently criticized a federal budget that is basically 'military and pensions' without building our productivity capability here at home, it's disappointing that President Biden would propose a budget of $715 billion for the Pentagon, an increase of 1.6% over Trump's $704 billion budget, instead of working toward returning to the Obama-Biden era spending levels," Khanna said in a statement.

While applauding Biden's proposed elimination of the overseas contingency operations (OCO) account—an off-budget war funding pool that critics have decried as a "slush fund"

'No Thanks' to Bill Gates Plan to Block Sun With Chalk Dust, Scandinavia Says

Wed, 2021-04-14 21:05
Environment & ClimatePatrick MazzaChildren's Health DefenseApril 9, 2021 sky-1200x630.jpg

Three Swedish environmental groups joined the Saami Council, which defends the rights of the reindeer-herding people from Norway to Russia, in opposing the Gates-funded project to release chalk dust from a balloon 12 miles up in the atmosphere to block solar radiation.

The first stratospheric test of geoengineering research technology, funded by Bill Gates, has been suspended under pressure from the indigenous people over whose heads it would take place, the Saami of northern Scandinavia. It may be moved back to the United States.

At the recommendation of the project’s Advisory Committee, the scheduled June test has been called off. That became public March 31.

When Bill Gates’ $4.5 million investment in geoengineering research came to light in 2010, one of the scientists he put in charge of the project, Ken Caldeira, said the money was not funding any field experiments. But as the project has grown and moved to Harvard, that line was crossed.

How Bill Gates Premeditated COVID Vaccine Injury Censorship

Wed, 2021-04-07 03:00
COVID-19Dr. Joseph MercolaMercola.comMarch 30, 2021 censored-1200x630.jpg

In 2000, everything about Bill Gates’ public persona changed. He morphed from a hardnosed and ruthless technology monopolizer into a soft, fuzzy and incredibly generous philanthropist when he and his wife launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.1

It was a public relations coup. May 18, 1998, the U.S. Justice Department, in collaboration with 20 state attorneys, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.2 At that time, the company was 23 years old and was ruling the personal computer market. The Seattle Times described the fallout from the antitrust lawsuit:3

The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.

How would the world be different today if the company had been split? Yale law professor George Priest described the antitrust lawsuit as “one of the most important antitrust cases of its generation.”4 In 2002, a court settlement placed restrictions on Microsoft to curb some of its practices for five years.

It was later extended twice and then expired May 12, 2011. The lawsuit had a dramatic effect on “the emergence of an entirely new field called IP (intellectual property) antitrust,” Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp told the Seattle Times.5

Later, large sums donated from the foundation made the news multiple times, including $9.5 million to GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines), a second $7.5 million to GAVI and $6.8 million to the World Health Organization in 2017.6

By June 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, the Gates Foundation’s donations totaled 45% of WHO’s funding from nongovernmental sources.7 Once mainstream media’s attention was no longer on Gates’ antitrust activities and focused on the philanthropist actions of the foundation, Gates publicly turned his attention to vaccinating the world, long before COVID-19.8

Event 201: A Preplanned Pandemic

In a deep dive into the Gates Foundation’s charitable donations, The Nation found there were $250 million in grants to companies where the foundation held corporate stocks, including Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Medtronic. The money was directed at supporting projects “like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.”9

What Gates had discovered was an easy path to political power, allowing him to shape public policy without being elected to office. In other words, favorable headlines could be bought with charitable contributions.10 One event that Gates has personally supported and participated in was Event 201.11

Writing in The Defender, Robert Kennedy Jr. describes the exercise that Gates organized in October 2019. Many high-ranking men and women with governmental authority participated in Event 201, which coincidentally simulated a worldwide pandemic triggered by a novel coronavirus, just months before SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, changed the world.12

They included representatives from the World Economic Forum, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Johns Hopkins University Population Center, the World Bank, the Chinese government and vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson. During the event, the group developed strategies to control a pandemic, the population and the narrative surrounding the event.

At no time did they investigate using current therapeutic drugs and vitamins or communicating information about building immune systems. Instead, the aim was to develop and distribute patentable antiviral medications and a new wave of vaccines.

As Kennedy reports, Gates spoke to the BBC13 April 12, 2020, and claimed these types of simulations had not occurred, saying "Now here we are. You know we didn't simulate this; we didn't practice, so both the health policies and economic policies … we find ourselves in uncharted territories."

Yet, videos of the event are available14 and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a statement naming the Gates Foundation as a partner in sponsoring the pandemic simulation.15 It seems strange and alarming that a man with the responsibility of running the Gates Foundation and the powerful influence he has over global public policy decisions had forgotten an exercise he organized only six months before the interview.16 Or was it deception?

Uncanny Prediction or Planned Event?

During the pandemic exercise, the global experts “modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic.”17 After questions arose about whether the exercise had “predicted the outbreak in China,” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a thinly supported statement, saying:18

… the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic … Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we use for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.

Kennedy characterizes the fourth simulation in Event 201, writing that “the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media.”19

The transcript of the fourth simulation shows that the participants discussed communication strategies using dissemination of information and censorship on social media.20,21 Communication strategist Hasti Taghi, who works for a major media company and leads strategic initiatives with the World Economic Forum,22 said:

So, I think a couple of things we have to consider are even before this began, the anti-vaccine movement was very strong and this is something specifically through social media that has spread.

So, as we do the research to come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we're creating?

The question the group undertook wasn’t how to communicate the truth about the vaccine development, manufacture and distribution, but rather how to “communicate the right information to ensure the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”

The issue of gaining public trust to take a vaccine was significant in this simulation, even though the U.S. population is well indoctrinated in the perceived value of annual flu shots and childhood vaccinations. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a list of 26 different types of vaccines currently in use in the U.S.

In addition to the long list of recommended childhood vaccinations, there are adult vaccines against shingles, tetanus and pneumococcal pneumonia that are routinely given. Why, then, did the global experts in communication and control believe communicating the “right information” would be necessary to “ensure the public trust”?

What Happened in Wuhan? Why Questions Still Linger on the Origin of the Coronavirus

Wed, 2021-04-07 02:41
COVID-19Lesley StahlCBS NewsMarch 28, 2021 question-mark-1200x630.jpg

A lack of transparency from Chinese officials and looming geopolitical consequences have damaged the credibility of a WHO-led inquiry into how the virus that causes COVID-19 originated. Lesley Stahl reports.

This past Friday, a long-anticipated — and much-debated — report by the World Health Organization was delayed again. It was supposed to be a kind of post mortem on a trip to China by a WHO-led team of international scientists which took place earlier this year.

The question: how did SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, originate? Among the leading theories examined: was it accidentally leaked from a lab in Wuhan or did it come from infected animals in a wet market there?

The WHO inquiry was far from comprehensive, because, as it has done since the beginning of the outbreak, the Chinese government withheld information.

Jamie Metzl: I wouldn't really call what's happened now an investigation. It's essentially a highly-chaperoned, highly-curated study tour.

COVID-19 Vaccines Likened To 'Software Updates' for Your Body

Wed, 2021-04-07 02:30
COVID-19Dr. Joseph MercolaMercola.comMarch 31, 2021 vaccine-1200x630.jpg

I've discussed why COVID-19 vaccines are in fact gene therapies and not vaccines in several previous articles, including "COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines," "COVID-19 'Vaccines' Are Gene Therapy" and "How COVID-19 'Vaccines' May Destroy the Lives of Millions."

However, despite being a recognized form of gene therapy since its inception, vaccine makers are now frantically trying to deny that this mRNA technology is gene therapy. One reason for this, suggested by David Martin, Ph.D.,1 might be because as long as they're considered "vaccines," they will be shielded from liability.

Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. Another reason might be because they fear people won't line up for experimental gene therapy. It has a very different connotation in people's minds (as it should).

A third possibility is that they know full well that you cannot, ethically, mandate gene therapy in the way you can mandate vaccines. Mandatory public health measure directives are typically based on the idea that it's acceptable for some individuals to be harmed as long as the measure benefits the collective.

Well, the COVID-19 "vaccines" are only designed to lessen symptoms of COVID-19. They do not prevent infection or spread, and since the vaccinated individual is the only one receiving a potential benefit, "the greater good" argument falls apart.

Who knows, there may be other factors at play that we've not realized as of yet, but whatever the reason, they really do not want you to think of these injections as gene therapy. They want you to accept them as any other conventional vaccine.

mRNA-Based Medicines Designed to Not Irreversibly Alter DNA

Try as they might, though, they cannot get rid of mRNA's gene therapy label. For starters, Moderna describes its product as "gene therapy technology" in its SEC filings. On page 70, they also provide the following specifics:2

Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism.

In other words, it's a form of gene therapy, but one that doesn't enter and permanently alter your actual DNA. Instead, the mRNA stays in the cellular fluid where ribosomes read the code and create the protein per the mRNA's coding.

The difference between vaccine mRNA and your natural mRNA is that your natural mRNA resides in the nucleus of the cell where your cellular DNA resides — it can be likened to a reverse photocopy of your DNA — and exits the nucleus when a protein needs to be made.

This is in stark contrast to mRNA from vaccines, which is synthetic and enters the cell from the outside and is not designed to enter the nucleus. Additionally, your own mRNA is rapidly degraded by enzymes, but the one from the vaccine is protected in a liposome that will protect it from degradation and keep on producing spike proteins. How long? No one knows because it has never been tested.

Can Vaccine mRNA Reverse-Transcribe Into Genome?

However, some doctors still worry that mRNA injections might be able to reverse-transcribe into your genes and alter your DNA on a permanent basis. One is Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist, who shared his concerns on a December 2020 episode of The Shepard Ambellas Show.3,4

He claimed the mRNA of retroviruses (which are part of our genome) have been shown to have the ability to transcribe into your DNA, and if it can do that, vaccine mRNA might be able to do this as well. According to Urso, if this turns out to be correct, the result of mRNA vaccination might be lifelong COVID-19.

Another skeptic is Dr. Doug Corrigan, who in a March 16, 2021, blog reviewed the findings of recent research5,6 showing SARS-CoV-2 RNA can reverse-transcribe into the human genome:7

In my previous blog, 'Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA?'8 I laid out several molecular pathways that would potentially enable the RNA in an mRNA vaccine to be copied and permanently integrated into your DNA.

I was absolutely not surprised to find that the majority of people claimed that this prospect was impossible … After all, we've been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because 'RNA doesn't work that way.'

Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, 'RNA does work that way'… Specifically, a new study9,10 by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA.

This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome.

They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.

And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized …

To be fair, this study didn't show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps.

A January 2020 article,11 "Modified RNA Has a Direct Effect on DNA," also notes that "it has now been revealed that RNA has a direct effect on DNA stability," and this too may or may not play a role in mRNA therapy for COVID-19.

'It's Not a Border Crisis,' Says Ocasio-Cortez. 'It's an Imperialism Crisis... a Climate Crisis... a Trade Crisis.'

Wed, 2021-04-07 01:49
Politics & GlobalizationJessica CorbettCommon DreamsMarch 31, 2021 border-1200x630.jpg

The New York Democrat also explained how the U.S. carceral system and foreign policy relate to the nation's immigration system.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to social media Tuesday night with a detailed reminder of the root causes of Central Americans and other migrants seeking asylum at the United States' southern border.

The New York Democrat is known for engaging with constituents and critics alike on social media. One Instagram user asked the congresswoman: "Why are you not addressing the border crisis and the kids in cages like you used to?" She responded in a series of what are called "stories," which disappear from the platform after 24 hours—though recordings of her comments are now circulating elsewhere online.

"Are you for real?" Ocasio-Cortez said, visibly frustrated by the claim. "So let's talk about this because so much of our national conversation, which is not a conversation, about immigration is driven by people who could not care less about immigrants."

What if the Former CDC Director Is Right About the Wuhan Labs?

Wed, 2021-04-07 01:30
COVID-19Josh RoginThe Washington PostApril 1, 2021 corona-1-1200x630.jpg

Ingrained narratives are hard to correct. In his biographical essay “Why Orwell Matters,” Christopher Hitchens quotes George Orwell on the “power of facing unpleasant facts.” Orwell knew it was difficult but important to pull back from our political affiliations, biases and past conclusions to reckon with uncomfortable realities and potentially explosive questions — questions such as: What if Robert Redfield is right about the Wuhan labs?

Before Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the coronavirus outbreak, endorsed it, the mere discussion of the still-unproven theory that the covid-19 outbreak might have been connected to human error at a research laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan was considered taboo. The issue of the virus’s origin has been horrendously politicized, by both the right and the left. 

Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study

Wed, 2021-04-07 01:18
COVID-19Office of the SpokespersonU.S. Department of StateMarch 30, 2021 who-1200x630.jpg

The Governments of Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the World Health Organization (WHO), international experts who have a vital mission, and the global community to understand the origins of this pandemic in order to improve our collective global health security and response. Together, we support a transparent and independent analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, we join in expressing shared concerns regarding the recent WHO-convened study in China, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of working together toward the development and use of a swift, effective, transparent, science-based, and independent process for international evaluations of such outbreaks of unknown origin in the future.

Fighting Climate Change with Plants: An Inefficient Solution from the Salk Institute

Wed, 2021-03-31 17:41
March 31, 2021Moms Across AmericaZen HoneycuttEnvironment & Climate nativegrass2_1200x630.png

Excerpt from a book in progress

On March 22, 2021, The Del Mar Garden Club of Southern California held an informational session called “Fighting Climate Change with Plants”. As a person who is extremely concerned about the looming apocalyptic events due to climate chaos, but not extremely well informed about what we can do to prevent them, I signed up.

I quickly realized that the presentation was not going in the direction that I had hoped, meaning extolling the innate virtues of plants that have the ability to sequester carbon if we just let Mother Nature do her job. No. Featured speaker Joanne Chory, a plant geneticist from the Salk Institute, based in San Diego, CA shared how she and her team were genetically engineering plants to have bigger roots, longer roots, and roots that sequester more carbon by manipulating the gene that makes suberin to make more suberin and therefore hold more carbon, and then put those genes into crop plants. They were going to start with Sorghum. (I will talk about why that is interesting later.) She showed slides depicting what would be manipulated and how the roots were in fact growing longer in preliminary trials. I actually considered that it might be a good idea. For about a second.

Then I remembered, and she confirmed, that the goal was to get these seeds into the hands of every farmer in America. That means to sell for a profit. With a technology premium of course. She claimed that the genetic engineering that she just said was genetic engineering was not considered by the FDA to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). This is because other species (like fish DNA) were not being introduced into the test subject plants (like GMO tomatoes). In these plants, their own genes were being manipulated. This type of genetic engineering has been classified (wrongly) as a hybrid by our FDA. She confirmed that the seeds would need to be repurchased by farmers (instead of saving them for free) every year.

Chory was very clear that the goal was to get the seeds planted on 500 million hectares, which is 1.2 billion acres. To put this in context we currently only have 896 million acres of farmland in America. My blood began to boil as I realized their goal was to take over all agriculture and push GMO seeds even on organic and biodynamic farmland. I am not asserting that their intention is to maliciously wipe out organic farmland. She made it very clear that their intention was to draw down 4-8 gigatons of carbon per year and play a major role in reversing climate change and saving the planet. The end result, however, which should not be ignored, would be that all of the acres that are currently being farmed as organic or biodynamic would need to be converted to GMO farming in order for them to meet their goals. And you can be sure anyone interested in funding their work, whether it be a San Diego philanthropist or the government, would be invested in Salk meeting their goals.

Chory mentioned that they had an advantage, however, with the technology, because the ag industry has farm subsidies (ie: tax pay dollars) and farmers would be supported to plant these crops. (My question is will they NOT be supported if they don’t?) In addition, Chory pointed out that the Carbon Bank was projected to be in place by 2030 and corporations would be able to pay farmers for sequestering the carbon they produce. So instead of being innovative and creating methods to reduce carbon emissions, or use technology that runs on renewable, clean energy, corporations can go on their merry way utilizing fossil fuels and just pay someone else to clean up their mess. Hmmm...

The Salk Institute scientist showed how they currently have 4 test sites in America and plan to have 20 by the end of the year, to test the suberin enhanced, carbon-absorbing plants in different types of soils. They also needed to confirm that the plants did in fact sequester more carbon. For some reason, she mentioned that the soil in Yuma, where one of the GMO test plots lies, “is almost completely devoid of nutrients in the soil.” Interesting. So GMO farming made the soil completely devoid of nutrients (and its ability to sequester carbon) and now they want to use GMOs to fix this problem? She additionally admitted that Agriculture (and the predominant form of agriculture in the USA is GMO) is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. Exactly.

She said “Are are on an aggressive timeline to meet the climate crisis change,” leaving out the fact that GMO scientists and farmers helped create the climate crisis by monocropping, factory farming, and the wholesale destruction of our topsoil.

Then the question and answer period started and a person asked, “Are there any native plants that already do this?”

Chory answered, “I don’t know.” She had not researched native plants! I was shocked. Product development 101; before you invest any time or energy into making anything - is to do your research and see if that product already exists! Geez, Louise.

Someone asked her if she gardened, as it was a gardening club after all, and she responded, “You know my daughter likes to say that I know a plant better on the inside than the out. So if you put a canola plant in front of me I probably wouldn’t know.” Excuse me? A person who wants every farmer in America to buy her company’s products cannot identify a canola plant? My mother taught me to see the good in everyone but my brain was telling me that this was just not good on any level.

To confirm or dispel my suspicions I turned to an expert, one of our Moms Across America advisors, Dr. Don Huber. A 60+ year plant pathologist and Professor Emeritus at Purdue University, a verified expert on plants and soil. He pointed out the following issues with the Salk project, in summary, below.

1. If they wanted the suberin to sequester more carbon they would have to stop spraying all glyphosate. Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway and Suberin is formed in the shikimate pathway. Glyphosate, and some other herbicides, are strong mineral chelators that immobilize iron (Fe), a critical co-factor for peroxidases and other enzymes so suberin and lignin production in the roots can be stopped because adequate Fe is not available for it to be formed.

2. Focusing on the gene that produces suberin in the roots is myopic. That means only focusing on one aspect, not the whole. Suberin is produced through secondary metabolism.  Photosynthesis is the best way to sequester carbon, and that requires every cell of the whole plant.

3. If they truly want to increase carbon sequestration they should look at how to make all plants healthier for more efficient photosynthesis. The best way to make the plants healthier is to stop using glyphosate and other agrochemicals because they damage the necessary physiological pathways of the plant and therefore reduce its ability to sequester carbon.

4. Getting rid of glyphosate use in agriculture would accomplish many things that improve the health of plants including increase nutrient density of the plant, increase disease resistance, increase carbon sequestration and increase yield. The organic regeneratively tended soil would also increase in organic matter and absorb tons of carbon per acre separately from the plant. The increased organic matter in the soil will absorb more water, reduce drought and erosion, and minimize the potential dust-bowl effects of climate change.

5. Diverting energy to make the roots larger through suberization would compromise nutrient density and yield of the rest of the plant. Root growth is dependent on critical micronutrients such as manganese (Mn), calcium (Ca), and boron (B) whose availabilities are disrupted by various agricultural and environmental factors that are already often in short supply for primary growth.

6. Using the sorghum plant is an interesting trial choice because it is already one of the leading plants that sequester carbon. Claiming that it was only the genetic manipulation that led to the carbon sequestration will be something to look out for. Comparative studies will need to be done not only with the same species of plants but with other native plants, perennial grasses, maize (corn), and sugar cane (a high carbon-absorbing plant), or other c4 highly photosynthetically efficient plants as well.

7. Focusing on sequestering only carbon does not fix the problem. Nitrous Oxide is just as much of the climate problem (heat being retained in our atmosphere) and it can be addressed through nitrogen-fixing plants like legumes, or nitrification inhibiting plants (climax ecosystem species) which can be used in regenerative organic farming as cover crops.

8. Focusing on the roots also means creating a landfill so to speak, of carbon. Huber explained that we don’t want a dump of carbon. We want the carbon working for us to produce an abundance of nutrient-dense, safe food at an affordable price. We can do that by maintaining the health (eliminating toxic agrochemicals) and growth of the plant through photosynthesis.

Here’s the problem (for them). The Salk Institute, Bayer, Dow/Dupont, or other major conglomerates cannot patent photosynthesis (yet, anyway) and make money off of it. Mother Nature created that a long time ago. The idea to genetically engineer the gene that produces suberin, while an interesting concept that may be successful in its own singular intended outcome in a lab setting, is overall an inefficient plan for reversing climate change. There are plants existing now, and methods that exist now, for sequestering carbon and we don’t have to wait another 15-20 years for the trial testing and implementation for planting 1.2 billion acres with these GMO plants for 4-8 gigatons of carbon sequestration per year.

Where is the money coming from to fund this project?

One more issue that must be acknowledged is the funding. This project will take dozens of brilliant scientists 10 years of development at Salk and then hundreds more people for marketing and sales. Hundreds of thousands or millions of farmers and their resources will be needed to implement the project and absorb the carbon for another 10 years. Those resources need to be spent on other issues that are far more efficient and necessary.

Instead of spending countless hundreds of millions, much of it likely taxpayer dollars, on genetically engineered plants, why not direct that funding to farmers to transition to regenerative organic, and start sequestering carbon right now? Or how about providing homes for our homeless, evicted by Covid repercussions or severe weather, innovation education for our children, school lunches that won’t make them sick, or giving care to veterans and elderly that leaves them with at least an iota of dignity? Why not put the money somewhere that will take care of thousands or millions of underserved people right now instead of to a few dozen scientists in a lab in Southern California? It simply is an injustice to spend money on a “pipedream” as Dr. Huber classified it, rather than the harsh reality millions are facing right now and the available solutions, like regenerative organic agriculture.

According to Regeneration International:

Just transitioning 10 percent of agricultural production to best practice regenerative (organic) systems will sequester enough CO2 to reverse climate change and restore the global climate.

Ten percent of agricultural lands under BEAM (Biologically Enhanced Agricultural Management- a process developed by Dr. David Johnson of New Mexico State University, that uses compost with a high diversity of soil microorganisms) would sequester 18.4 gross tonnages (GT) of CO2/yr. Ten percent of grasslands under regenerative grazing would sequester 9.8 Gt of CO2/yr. This would result in 28.2 Gt of CO2/yr being sequestered into the soil which is just under double the amount of sequestration needed to draw out more CO2 than is currently being emitted.

This plan is not a pipedream, it is doable. Farmers are transitioning to regenerative organic agriculture right now. Consumers are seeing the benefits, and they want food that is not only good for their families but good for the soil and planet as well. We already have the solution, and it is biodiverse, beautiful, healthy, and rewarding. It is regenerative organic agriculture.

Moms Across America requests that the Salk Institute reinvest their funding for this suberin genetic engineering into supporting farmers transition to organic. We request that philanthropists and the government also invest in nonprofits and groups who are supporting the transition to organic such as Rodale Institute, Savory Institute, Regeneration International, Farmer’s Footprint, and Kiss the Ground; and consumers organizations who are educating the public about the benefits of these foods (because after all, someone needs to buy the food) such as the Organic Consumers Association, Green America, and Moms Across America. Thank you.

Censorship Bytes

Tue, 2021-03-30 15:58
March 30, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationCOVID-19, Genetic Engineering, Politics & Globalization fb_1200x630.png

OCA readers who are not email subscribers to Organic Bytes, but who are among our 1.2 million followers and friends on Facebook may have noticed that we now, for the first time in 20 years, are being forced to publish two different editions of Organic Bytes, one that is uncensored (for our email subscribers), and one that is censored, for our Facebook readers and social media followers. You can find the uncensored versions of Organic Bytes (including back issues) on our website along with our ongoing comprehensive coverage of COVID-19.

In the recent Facebook-censored versions of Organic Bytes you won’t find anything substantive about COVID-19, its origins, nature, virulence, prevention, or treatment. Why? Because Facebook has warned OCA that we have “two strikes against us”—one for linking to scientifically-validated studies such as those that show that optimally boosting our body’s Vitamin D levels (through sunshine, healthy organic food, and dietary supplements) can strengthen our natural immune system, ward off chronic disease, and likely prevent the lab engineered and highly transmissible COVID-19 virus from triggering an underlying medical condition that could land us in the hospital or even kill us. Another forbidden topic for OCA is talking about the preponderance of evidence (now even admitted by many in the mass media, including the Washington Post, USA Today, and Newsweek) that COVID-19 apparently came from an accidental Wuhan, China lab leak of SARS-CoV-2, a souped-up coronavirus jointly developed by US and Chinese scientists during the Obama and Trump administrations, financed by Anthony Fauci’s NIAID and the Eco-Health Alliance, utilizing genetic engineering, animal passaging, and/or synthetic biology. Recently FB wouldn’t let us circulate an expose entitled “The Great Reset: Is Bill Gates too powerful?”

What comes next, will our digital overlords tell us we can’t talk about the dangers of GMOs and toxic pesticides, and the nutritional hazards of the Impossible Burger, since Bill Gates and Silicon Valley are in bed with the Gene Engineers? How long before we are deplatformed for talking about the beneficial impacts of organic and regenerative foods and natural health remedies and the dangerous side effects of many Big Pharma products?

Don’t hold your breath for the Biden Administration and the Big Pharma/military industrial-indentured members of Congress to pressure Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram to fire their Big Pharma/Bill Gates fact-checkers and reinstate free inquiry on matters surrounding COVID-19, The Great Reset, and the controversial WARP Speed, often genetically engineered experimental drugs and vaccines that they claim will save us.

This week several Silicon Valley tycoons, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (Google), and Jack Dorsey (Twitter)—all now heavily invested in Big Pharma—dutifully testified before Congress that they would step up their efforts to censor “dangerous misinformation” on COVID-19, such as examining vaccine safety, advocating natural and low-cost preventive measures, and questioning official statistics relating to deaths directly attributable to the coronavirus.

As we pointed out last week, dissidents and independent investigators are being forced into a situation that can only be described as “Biofascism.” For decades we have struggled against the Biotechnocrats, both Democrats and Republicans, hell-bent on controlling our public policies, food choices, and foreign policy. These biotechnocrats, aided and abetted by indentured scientists and media, have allowed corporations and shady military contractors to play God and biological Russian Roulette by genetically engineering food and crops, viruses, bacteria, vaccines, and by building bioweapons, essentially GMO, nano-sized, synbio weapons of mass destruction.

We have never used the word, Biofascism, to describe the US political system up until now, feeling this would have been hyperbolic, since the word fascism traditionally has meant, as defined by Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and others, total control and domination by Big Government and Big Business, institutionalized suppression of dissent and civil liberties, media censorship, constant government and media panic-mongering, and 24/7 surveillance. Unfortunately, the time has come to start using the term, Biofascism, and to do everything in our power to stop biomedical-driven totalitarianism before it metastasizes further. Help us fight back against censorship. Please tell all your friends and associates to subscribe to the uncensored email newsletter of Organic Bytes.

The COVID Cover-up Collapses - Lab Leak Goes Mainstream

Mon, 2021-03-29 15:27
March 29, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAndré Leu and Ronnie CumminsCOVID-19, COVID-19 Origins, OCA on COVID-19 lab-_1200x630.png

The supposed World Health Organization-Chinese government “investigation” into the origins of COVID-19 is becoming widely exposed in the global media as a sham, orchestrated by Chinese Communist officials, WHO bureaucrats (funded by the US, China, and Bill Gates), complicit scientists who carry out dangerous lab engineering of viruses, and US funders of the Wuhan Lab disaster including Anthony Fauci from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Peter Daszak from the Eco-Health Alliance.

What most of the mass media are still downplaying or concealing however is that this disastrous but predictable lab accident and cover-up by the Chinese government is being aided and abetted by a US and international cabal who are desperate to keep us in the dark about what actually happened in Wuhan: Big Pharma drug and vaccine companies, Silicon Valley, global gene engineers, the military industrial-biological weapons complex, Bill Gates-funded media, and members of the Trump and Biden administrations, including Anthony Fauci. After a year, proponents of the official story, who denounce as “conspiracy theorists” anyone who dares to call attention to the increasingly obvious evidence that this was a lab leak, still haven’t found any credible evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, jumped naturally from a bat, crossed with other wild animals, and then began to spread among humans, leaving behind no genetic or epidemiological evidence whatsoever.

China initially claimed that COVID-19 came from slaughtering and eating wild bats in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Marketin Wuhan. This story was dutifully regurgitated 24/7 in the global mass media for months despite criticisms by independent investigators (including Chinese scientists and doctors who were quickly silenced or disappeared) that no bats were sold in the seafood markets, that a number of initial victims of COVID-19 had no connection to the seafood market, and that SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be lab engineered or pre-adapted to spread readily into humans. Once the “bats in the seafood market” explanation was no longer credible, Chinese officials then began pushing the even more preposterous idea that COVID must have originated in another country and then was imported into China via frozen food imports. No credible scientist or journalist buys this latest attempt to cover up the truth.

The cracks in the cover-up started appearing early last year when two Chinese scientists published a paper showing that a laboratory escape was the most logical reason for the pandemic. The Chinese government forced the paper to be deleted from the website and silenced the researchers.

However, despite silencing researchers, blocking independent researchers from fact-finding missions, deleting key databases with thousands of coronaviruses, publishing papers carefully vetted by the Chinese Communist Party so they comply with their propaganda, and punishing Australia with trade sanctions for proposing an independent inquiry into the origins, the cracks in the COVID cover-up have now turned into a flood. The dam of lies and intimidation, that the Chinese government and military have built to hold back the flood of information has collapsed.

All roads lead to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). It is the only place in Wuhan with a collection of live coronaviruses, live bats, and scientists carrying out “Gain of Function” research that genetically modified these viruses to make them more infectious to humans.

March 2021 - the Global Media Embraces Lab Leak Origin

March 2021 will be seen as the turning point when the mainstream media around the world began to embrace the concept that a lab leak is credible and should not be ruled out.

Rowan Jacobsen wrote an article in Newsweek on March 25 proposing that WIV researchers brought the virus to Wuhan, not animals.

“The WIV had spent years identifying the caves where the scary ones [coronaviruses] lurked. Over a four-year period, it visited one cave in Yunnan repeatedly and brought back 1,322 samples, including at least nine of SARS-CoV-2's close relatives. Overall, the effort brought more than 15,000 bat samples back to Wuhan, which included more than 400 coronaviruses new to science and at least 50 of the variety that can infect people. And we know almost nothing about this cache.”

Most significantly the WIV was actively genetically modifying these coronaviruses through Gain of Function (GOF) research to make them more infectious to humans. The WIV researchers have published numerous scientific papers on this research showing how they modified the spike proteins, the part of the virus that infects cells. This research was funded in part by Anthony Fauci’s NIAID who channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, to WIV. Daszak was a coauthor on several of the WIVs published papers on their GOF research. He specifically did the final editing so he had an intimate knowledge of this research. Daszak was part of the widely discredited WHO team that stated that a lab leak was highly unlikely.

Besides the Newsweek article, USA Today, The Washington Post, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Sun, New York Magazine, and an number of other mass media outlets and scientific journals are now openly questioning the “official story” on the origins of COVID-19.

On March 26 the former Director of the CDC, Robert Redfield, told CNN that he believed that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a Wuhan Lab.

Scientists are now supporting the Lab Leak Origin

A peer reviewed scientific paper was published on March 25 in Environmental Chemistry Letters by Rossana Segreto, Yuri Deigin and colleagues titled: Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID‑19?

Segreto, a virologist, and her scientist colleagues, clearly dismantled the data free opinions for a natural transmission from animals (zoonotic) to humans. They go into great detail about the GOF research that the WIV and many other researchers have been doing on coronaviruses. They show how SARS-CoV-2 has a unique insert in the spike protein, the part of the virus that infects people, called a Furin Cleavage Site. The composition of this spike is unlike any other coronavirus. This unique Furin Cleavage Site gives SARS-CoV-2 the ability to bind to the ACE2 receptor which is found in many different parts of the human body. The ACE2 receptor then assists the virus to infect the cells of the human host.

Very significantly they show detailed evidence how SARS-CoV-2 was better adapted to infect humans than any other animals, including bats, from the beginning of the pandemic, when it was first identified. Previous coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS evolved in stages over time before they were able to infect people. In the beginning they were better adapted at infecting their host animals than humans and became more infectious to people as they mutated over time. This is not the case with SARS-CoV-2. It was strongly adapted to infect humans from day one which is why it spread so quickly around the world to create this pandemic. This evidence makes natural evolution highly unlikely.

The other animals that SARS-CoV-2 is strongly adapted to are the humanized, genetically engineered mice found in virology laboratories.  The researchers present compelling evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was allowed to evolve in humanized genetically engineered mice. These are mice that have been engineered to have human-like lungs and other organs with human ACE2 receptors. Gain of Function scientists use a technique called serial passaging to change a virus so it can infect new species. This involves infecting a different animal species from the normal host animal with a disease. They collect the infectious agent after infecting the new species and then infect a new animal of that species with it. They do this many times until the disease has mutated enough to become highly infectious to the new animal species.  It has now gained a new function. GOF scientists have been using this technique with genetically modified mice with humanized ACE2 receptors so that a virus can evolve a function of being able to infect people. The Furin Cleavage Spike on SARS-CoV-2 is uniquely adapted to bind to the human ACE2 receptor and this is why it causes damage to many parts of the human body.

Segreto et al. explain why options A & B of a natural (zoonotic) infection of people are highly unlikely based on the evidence. The evidence for option C, that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of Gain of Function research and a lab escape, is the most compelling.

Segreto and her colleagues concluded: “The combination of binding strength, human and mouse peptide mimicry, as well as high adaptation for human infection and transmission from the earliest strains might suggest the use of humanized mice for the development of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory environment. The application of mouse strains expressing human ACE2 for SARS-CoV-related research is well documented.”

In a video interview that was originally taken on Dec. 9, 2019, Peter Daszak states that researchers at WIV were genetically modifying coronaviruses and then infecting humanized mice and human cells with them. This is just weeks before the media started reporting about the new coronavirus disease in Wuhan. Daszak’s statements confirm the scientists' research conclusions and are strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was developed at WIV using humanized mice.

How Likely is a Lab Escape?

So how likely is an escape from a lab of a GOF function experiment where a virus has been modified to infect people?

USA Today published an in depth well researched article on March 22 titled “Could an accident have caused COVID-19? Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory shouldn't be dismissed”.

The article’s author, Alison Young, exposes a litany of lab leaks and their cover-ups.

“According to documents I obtained recently using the federal Freedom of Information Act, U.S. laboratories reported more than 450 accidents during 2015 through 2019 while experimenting with some of the world’s most dangerous pathogens – those subject to federal regulation because they “pose a severe threat” to health and also have the potential to be turned into bioweapons. These pathogens, which the U.S. government calls “select agents,” include anthrax, Ebola, plague, deadly strains of avian influenza and types of the SARS coronaviruses.”

The article details the numerous escapes of deadly diseases and the many lab workers who have been infected, including how the original SARS escaped from labs in China and other countries and infected people.

Josh Rogin writing in Politico on March 3 gave further details about his earlier 2020 Washington Post article where US State Department officials sent a cable to Washington DC detailing the dangers of poor labs safety systems at the WIV in 2017 and 2018. 

He stated: “When they sat down with the scientists at the WIV, the American diplomats were shocked by what they heard. The Chinese researchers told them they didn’t have enough properly trained technicians to safely operate their BSL-4 lab. The Wuhan scientists were asking for more support to get the lab up to top standards. [The diplomats] also warned that the WIV researchers had found new bat coronaviruses could easily infect human cells, and which used the same cellular route that had been used by the original SARS coronavirus.”

Rogin concludes: “Taken together, those two points—a particularly dangerous groups of viruses being studied in a lab with real safety problems—were intended as a warning about a potential public-health crisis, one of the cable writers told me. They kept the cables unclassified because they wanted more people back home to be able to read and share them, according to the cable writer. But there was no response from State Department headquarters and they were never made public. And as U.S.-China tensions rose over the course of 2018, American diplomats lost access to labs such as the one at the WIV.”

The above tweet from the Chinese government managed China Daily shows the top seal of the refrigerator that stores viruses is broken and leaking. The staff member is wearing a basic cloth face mask. These masks do not prevent virus infections. This tweet clearly showed the poor safety standards at WIV and how easily staff can be infected with viruses. The tweet was taken down after this was pointed out in the international media.

An article by Joe Hoft on March 24 in Gateway Pundit shows that the greatest concentration of people seeking medical help for COVID-19 symptoms in Wuhan before January 18, 2020, were close to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Researchers used data published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau that showed that the early phase of the COVID outbreak occurred in the residential areas along Huanghelou and Ziyang streets. These streets are located within the four miles of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

A diagram from the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau publication, slightly modified to show the locations of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV, black star) and the Biological Preparations Institute (BPI, yellow square), shows that the highest concentration of help seekers before January 18, 2020, were in the areas between those two research institutions. Note that the Seafood Market that was originally pushed as the source does not have nearly as many people ill with COVID-19 symptoms.

This data showing the highest concentration of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the Wuchang District has been further confirmed by a peer reviewed scientific paper published in Nature Communications by Shiyi Cao et al.

The researchers conducted a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 testing program between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan, 5 weeks after the lockdown had finished. They produced a map of the districts with the number of people who were positive for the virus, even though they were asymptomatic. The map shows that six months after the start of the outbreak, the highest concentration of people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were in the Wuchang District where the WIV is situated.

Most significantly the researchers stated that this data was consistent with the earlier data for people with the symptoms of COVID-19. They wrote: “We found that asymptomatic positive rates in different districts of Wuhan were correlated with the prevalence of previously confirmed cases. This is in line with the temporal and spatial evolution (especially the long-tailed characteristic) of infectious diseases.” This peer reviewed scientific data clearly shows that the Wuchang District of Wuhan where the WIV is based, is the epicenter of the of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This map by Shiyi Cao et al, shows The Wuchang District, colored deep red, because it has the highest concentration of people infected with SARS-CoV-2. The number of infections decrease as they move away from Wuchang. This clearly shows that the Wuchang District is the epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic that started in Wuhan. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is in Wuchang.


This data shows that Wuchang District of Wuhan was the epicenter at the start of the pandemic. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is situated in the Wuchang District. The evidence shows that the WIV had a collection of hundreds, possibly thousands of coronaviruses. They published numerous papers on the various types of Gain of Function research they were doing with coronaviruses including making then more infectious to humans. The scientific evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 was highly adapted to infecting humans from the beginning. Segreto and colleagues presented compelling evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically modified in humanized genetically engineered mice through GOF serial passaging in a peer reviewed scientific paper. Josh Rogin presents clear evidence that WIV contained dangerous coronaviruses in a lab with major safety problems.

The preponderance of evidence makes it clear that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered utilizing Gain of Function manipulations to make a coronavirus that readily infects humans and unfortunately that this supercharged virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The final word comes from Josh Rogin. He wrote that the US State Department diplomats said: “We were trying to warn that that lab was a serious danger,” one of the cable writers who had visited the lab told me. “I have to admit, I thought it would be maybe a SARS-like outbreak again. If I knew it would turn out to be the greatest pandemic in human history, I would have made a bigger stink about it.”

Hindsight is useless unless we learn from it. We have to accept the reality of the credible evidence and ban all Gain of Function research to stop the next pandemic.

Please sign our petition to ban dangerous Gain of Function experiments and circulate this petition it to all your friends to sign as well:

Andre Leu is the International Director for Regeneration International. To sign up for RI's email newsletter, click here.

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.

Regenerative Grazing - Increased Production, Biodiversity Resilience, Profits and a Climate Change Solution

Sat, 2021-03-27 16:14
March 27, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAndré Leu and Ronnie CumminsEnvironment & Climate cows_grazing_cattle_field_sunrise_1200x630.jpg

Around 68 percent of the world’s agricultural lands (eight billion acres as compared to four billion acres of croplands) are used for grazing. The majority of these landscapes are unsuitable for cropping. They are home to over a billion people who are dependent on the livestock that graze on them for their living.  These landscapes are often some of most degraded lands on the planet due to deforestation and inappropriate grazing practices.

The good news is that there are a range of grazing systems that are proven to regenerate these ecosystems, increasing ground covers, biodiversity, soil organic matter, water holding capacity, and production outcomes.

Adaptive Multi-paddock (AMP) Grazing 

One of the most successful methods of managing weeds and improving the productivity of pastures is called adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing. In many of the current grazing systems, where the animals are not rotated across pastures and rangelands, the animals tend to overgraze on the species that they prefer and continuously eat them all the way down to the ground, even pulling them out by the roots. This devastates the most nutritious grasses and allows weeds and invasive species to proliferate. Too many grazing systems allow the stock to overgraze, leaving bare, exposed soil that ends up being eroded by wind and water. Much of the environmental degradation in arid and semi-arid areas(which currently comprise 40% of the Earth’s lands) is due to degenerative grazing practices.

Image Courtesy of Richard Teague

AMP rotates a large number of livestock across smaller paddocks or delineating grazing areas for short periods, forcing them to thoroughly graze all the edible plants. Being massed together (mob grazing) forces the livestock to eat all the edible plants, not just their preferred species, resulting in a more efficient use of the pasture.

The higher stock density also ensures that weeds are crushed and trampled and that the manure is kicked and scattered across the ground, fertilizing the soil. The animals are then moved to another pasture or paddock and the process is repeated. There is a continuous rotation of controlled grazing in different pastures, and animals only return to the original paddock when the grasses and groundcover has regrown.

The key to AMP systems is intense, short periods of grazing that ensure that fewer than 50 percent of the available forage is eaten. This means that ground covers will not shed too many roots and will consequently recover more quickly. Research shows that these systems produce much more feed per hectare, are better at efficiently using rainfall, and significantly improve soil health and fertility. Farms managed with AMP systems can carry more stock per acre than those with fixed stocking systems.

Image Courtesy of Christine Jones and Acres USA

Another very important benefit of these rotational systems is better control of internal parasites. Starting with clean stock is important. Most stock get infected from the eggs of the parasites in the bare soil. By always ensuring that less that 50 percent the leaf area is eaten, ranchers can prevent the mouths of livestock from being in contact with the eggs of the parasites. The other important management technique is to know the length of the lifecycle of the parasites and to not return the stock to a paddock/cell until the life cycle has finished. In some cases this will require a period of up to three life cycles to ensure that the paddock/cell is clean.

Image Courtesy of Richard Teague

Researchers have demonstrated that the appropriate time-managed grazing systems will not kill a single plant and will increase the biodiversity of native plants, animals, insects, and microorganisms in the farm ecosystem.

Some of the most successful examples of AMP use multiple species in succession, such as grazing cattle followed by sheep followed by poultry, as each will tend to eat different species.

AMP grazing with sheep (courtesy of Google Pictures).

Rotational grazing is also being use with many poultry species for both eggs and meat. Following cattle with chickens is a great way to spread cattle manure and to reduce pests and weeds, since chickens eat the bugs and weed seeds. Geese can also be very useful in managing weeds. Young Chinese geese can be trained to eat specific weeds by feeding these weeds to goslings when they are very young. They develop a taste for these weeds and they become their preferred forage. The geese will actively seek them out and graze them down.

AMP grazing with young poultry (courtesy of Google Pictures).

The published evidence shows that correctly managed pastures can build up soil organic matter faster than many other agricultural systems, and this carbon is stored deeper in the soil.

Research by Machmuller and and others show that regenerative grazing practices canregenerate soil and ground covers in three years. The ranches studied increased their cation exchange capacity (nutrient availability) by 95 percent and increased their water holding capacity by 34 percent.

These grazing systems are some of the best ways to increase soil organic matter levels. Machmuller et al. noted that they sequestered 29,360 kg of CO2  per hectare per year. This is an enormous amount of carbon dioxide being taken out of the air by photosynthesis and converted into organic matter to feed the soil microbiome.  Several studies show that the amount of CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere is greater than greenhouse gas emissions from livestock systems showing that scaling up regenerative grazing can help to reverse climate change. There are several soil carbon credit schemes that are paying farmers and ranchers for increasing soil organic matter levels.

Regenerative grazing can turn livestock production from being one of the major contributors to climate change into one of the largest solutions to climate change.

There are many farming and research organizations involved in scaling up regenerative grazing systems on every arable continent. There is now a considerable body of published science and evidence-based practices showing that these systems regenerate degraded lands and increase pasture species diversity thereby improving productivity, water holding capacity, and soil organic matter levels. There are numerous excellent books, websites, online social groups, and organizations that can provide detailed information on the most effective systems.

Some of the resource links are provided below

Regeneration International


Acres USA is a great online bookstore for Regenerative Agriculture

Another excellent publisher of books on regenerative and organic food and farming is Chelsea Green Publishers.

Chelsea Green published Ronnie Cummins’ 2020 book on Regenerative and Organic food and farming as a solution to Climate Change: Grassroots Rising: A Call to Acion on Climate, Farming, Food, and a Green New Deal.

Professional Trainers/Consultants

Savory Hubs

Facebook groups - there are many more than these - search to find local groups


Regenerative Agriculture Group

Regenerative Agriculture to Reverse Global Warming

Soils For Life

Innovation in Agriculture

Andre Leu is the International Director for Regeneration International. To sign up for RI's email newsletter, click here.

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.


Analysis: What Vanden Bossche Got Right—and Wrong—About Mass Vaccination

Wed, 2021-03-24 19:35
COVID-19Rob Verkerk, Ph.DChildren's Health DefenseMarch 18, 2021 vaccinate-1200x630.jpg

Robert Verkerk, Ph.D., of Alliance for Natural Health International, weighs in on the recent debate sparked by Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., concerning immune escape and mass vaccination during a pandemic.

When someone who appears to have devoted most of their career to developing and helping roll out vaccines globally decides to blow the whistle on the current global mass vaccination program, only an incautious person would choose to ignore it. That’s of course just what the mainstream media has done so far — an indicator of just how incautious this communication vehicle has become.

This is actually an important consideration because it is the scientific community and those responsible for deciding how we should respond who really need to engage with Dr. Vanden Bossche and his arguments.