The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon




By: Christina Sarich

“Non-GMO is More Profitable.”

This is the rising sentiment among farmers of the US as a confluence of factors urges them to become pro-organic. From falling GMO grain prices to a rising tide of public distrust of genetically modified ingredients, failing GMO traits, higher GMO seed prices, and the premium prices that people willingly pay for quality food over toxic junk,

The conventional farmer is changing his tune when it comes to Big Ag practices.

Even if profit is the cornerstone on which this change is based, it is still telling. After all, experts project over $35 billion in sales for organic, non-GMO foods in 2015, and as GMO corn, soy and other GM grain prices rise, along with the costs to grow them (associated with more pesticide and herbicide use to control super weeds, for example) farmers are looking past the GMO propaganda which promised higher yields and more cash for farmers who grew their poison crops.

This phenomenon is explained clearly in  “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science” (full text available for download here) published in The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.

Gilbert Hostetler, president of Illinois-based Prairie Hybrids commented:

“Our non-GMO seed sales are significantly higher than last year.”

Mac Ehrhardt, president of Minnesota-based Albert Lea Seed reports that he is selling more conventional (he describes conventional corn as non-GMO) corn seed by the end of November than he did all of last year.

He says that farmers are turning to non-GMO to cut costs and to earn more money for their non-GMO yields.

Ehrhardt says:

 “There is a continued increased demand for non-GMO.”

His observations are corroborated by Wayne Hoener, vice president of sales for eMerge, an Iowa-based seed company, as well as Tim Daley, an agronomist at Stonebridge, Ltd., an Iowa-based buyer of non-GMO soybeans who are also seeing a marked demand for non-GMO seed by farmers.

Daley says:

“Some companies have seen a 50 percent increase in sales of non GMO seed, and some have said they’ve sold more non-GMO seed this year than in the last five.”

Oddly, Morrie Bryant, senior marketing manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred, which sells non-GMO corn and soybean seeds but sells more GMO seeds says he doesn’t see a big difference.

 “On (non-GMO) corn, we’ve got a slight increase on sales over last year,” he says. “Non-GMO has emerged as the new niche. It’s about 4-5 percent of total corn production.”

If consumer demand for organic is any indication, farmers would be smart to step up their organic seed purchasing, and ditch Monsanto, Dow and Syngenta seeds completely.


Related: Monsanto Earnings Fall 34% as Farmers Reject GMO Crops

Non-GMO Economics

Farmers find non-GMO seed appealing this year for several reasons, but mostly economics. Grain prices are low with corn selling at about $4 per bushel and soybeans aren’t goin g for much higher at around $10. Conversely, a premium is being shelled out for non-GMO corn and soybeans.

 “(Non-GMO) seed costs less, and there are premiums for non-GMO corn and soybeans in some areas,” Daley says.

“Some farmers don’t want to pay technology fees (for GMO seeds) and non-GMO gives them a marketing opportunity,” Bryant says.

Failing GMO Crops

Other farmers are considering the switch because they are tired of super-weeds. One corn breeder who preferred to remain anonymous for a recent interview stated:

“The insect and herbicide traits are losing effectiveness with increased resistant rootworm and weed species. Growers are tired of paying for input costs that are reduced in efficacy and funding additional forms of crop protection.”

Iowa State University weed specialist Bob Hartzler seconds that sentiment in an interview with Iowa Farmer Today.

“You have people questioning the value of the Roundup gene. How many are doing it (making the switch) because of that concern, I don’t know.”

Non-GMO Outperform GMO Seeds

Non-GMO seeds are also producing more competitive yields.

“The yield performance of non-GMO hybrids is similar to or greater than traited (GMO) hybrids,” says the corn breeder.

Is this why mega company, General Mills, purchased organic food company Annie’s Homegrown for nearly $1 billion. And other large food corporations are looking to swallow up smaller organic food companies?

 “There is continual and accelerating growth in organic,” he says.“

“There has been more conversion to organic by farmers recently than I’ve ever seen.”


Christina SarichAbout the Author: Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.


TLB recommends you visit Natural Society for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

images (4).jpg460

By Mary Carmel (TLB)

As the world keeps spinning faster, and events are unfolding rapidly regarding technology, the elite NWO secret agenda becomes very clear through the machines they are using against humanity. It is most important to keep yourself informed with as much as you can. CERN is one of the projects that has been most secretive, but I believe very high on their priority list. While we are occupied with the threat of war, many other events regarding the attack on mankind, and perhaps it’s future, stay alert on this one. It’s capabilities are the unthinkable for us, perhaps their supreme end goal.

Nikola Tesla would be most unhappy with the USE of this technology, as he never meant it to be used as a weapon. He unleashed the power of this energy, for the good of the world, only to have it snuffed out. No corporation was interested in free or clean energy. The elite have hidden his work from those they deemed not worthy to have it. College graduates should be asking for a refund due to the fact that it has been denied to them, and at this point everyone affected by the dark use of it should be filing the largest class action suit in history. This is evident in his quote below.

It would be nice to have gotten Nikola Tesla’s notes released, do not give up yet. Perhaps their disappearance, as in the alleged charred library of Egypt sits under our noses in the Vatican Vault… I cannot see what Ceasar had to gain from burning this treasure, for he was too wise in my opinion. In fact, the followers of the ancient occult have turned to Egypt as their primary source of knowledge, as well as scientists through the ages. We now know there were more than stones left behind. Nikola Tesla had entry to that vault, when his father took him there to study during his visits to Rome.

Please see the video here showing the subliminal use in the media and Hollywood to condition us for the use of this machinery that is capable of literally taking us into an abyss… through portals they call ‘the light in the darkness’. We know what light they refer to, as the Illuminati has long been known to seek the light of Lucifer, without the consent of the rest of the world! They often give us signals as to what they are up to. It is blatant in the intertwined logo of the 666 as well as the other symbols for CERN.

It does not matter what you believe, it is a matter of keeping your feet on the ground, a natural born right and they could care less about anyone else’s agenda it seems.

Many are convinced that there is high probability of the recent plane crash in the French Alps connected to CERN, due to the recently scheduled use of this machine, and as well the location. It is not the first flight that causes suspicion.

For more information about CERN, please see the following video.

Published on Mar 16, 2015

CERN turned on a few days ago, but some people are still skeptical that this “scientific” endeavor has anything to do with the occult rituals, or opening portals. But anyone who does any research will find that the entire operation is full of occult symbolism. In this video, I share the words of the physicists themselves, who say they are trying to open portals. And we speak to Kris from End Times News Matrix, as she discusses her research into the occult realm from the Biblical Worldview. She has found that the zodiac, Mythra, the Ankh and many other Egyptian symbolism is all over CERN and the LHC. There is just no way to deny now, that CERN has a lot to do with the occult, to open up a portal, to let through, according to Kris, the 8 spirits who are the 7 fallen angels. (Standard You Tube license)




4ae1c28ae23445e4c35f1cb4ed4e2ac4 (1).jpg 460





California drought

In California’s epic drought, wars over water rights continue, while innovative alternatives for increasing the available water supply go untapped.

By TLB Contributor: Ellen Brown

Wars over California’s limited water supply have been going on for at least a century. Water wars have been the subject of some vintage movies, including the 1958 hit The Big Country starring Gregory Peck, Clint Eastwood’s 1985 Pale Rider, 1995’s Waterworld with Kevin Costner, and the 2005 film Batman Begins. Most acclaimed was the 1975 Academy Award winner Chinatown with Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway, involving a plot between a corrupt Los Angeles politician and land speculators to fabricate the 1937 drought in order to force farmers to sell their land at low prices. The plot was rooted in historical fact, reflecting battles between Owens Valley farmers and Los Angeles urbanites over water rights.

Today the water wars continue on a larger scale with new players. It’s no longer just the farmers against the ranchers or the urbanites. It’s the people against the new “water barons”  – Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Monsanto, the Bush family, and their ilk – who are buying up water all over the world at an unprecedented pace.

A Drought of Epic Proportions

At a news conference on March 19, 2015, California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon warned, “There is no greater crisis facing our state today than our lack of water.”

Jay Famiglietti, a scientist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, California, wrote in the Los Angeles Times on March 12th:

Right now the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly disappearing. California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain.

Maps indicate that the areas of California hardest hit by the mega-drought are those that grow a large percentage of America’s food. California supplies 50% of the nation’s food and more organic food than any other state. Western Growers estimates that last year 500,000 acres of farmland were left unplanted, an amount that could increase by 40% this year. The trade group pegs farm job losses at 17,000 last year and more in 2015.

Farmers with contracts from the Central Valley Project, a large federal irrigation system, will receive no water for the second consecutive year, according to preliminary forecasts. Cities and industries will get 25 percent of their full contract allocation, to ensure sufficient water for human health and safety. Besides shortages, there is the problem of toxic waste dumped into water supplies by oil company fracking. Economists estimate the cost of the drought in 2014 at $2.2 billion.

No Contingency Plan

The massive Delta water tunnel project, designed to fix Southern California’s water supply problems by siphoning water from the north, was delayed last August due to complaints from Delta residents and landowners. The project remains stalled, as the California Department of Water Resources reviews some 30,000 comments. When or if the project is finally implemented, it will take years to complete, at an estimated cost of about $60 billion including financing costs.

Meanwhile, alternatives for increasing the water supply rather than fighting over limited groundwater resources are not being pursued. Why not? Skeptical observers note that water is being called the next commodity boomChristina Sarich, writing on, asserts:

Numerous companies are poised to take advantage of the water crisis. Instead of protecting existing water supplies, implementing stricter regulations, and coming up with novel ways to capture rainwater, or desalinizing seawater, the corporate agenda is ready, like a snake coiled, to make trillions off your thirst.

These coiled snakes include Monsanto and other biotech companies, which are developing drought-resistant and aluminum-resistant seeds set to take over when the organic farmers throw in the towel. Organic dairy farmers and ranchers have been the hardest hit by the drought, since the certified organic pasture on which their cows must be fed is dwindling fast.

Some critics suggest that, as in Chinatown, the drought itself is man-made, triggered not only by unprecedented carbon emissions but by “geo-engineering” – spraying the skies with aluminum and other particulates, ostensibly to shield the earth from global warming (though there may be other motives). On February 15, 2015, noted climate scientist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute for Science at Stanford asserted that geo-engineering was the only way to rapidly cool the earth. He said:

A small fleet of airplanes could do what large volcanos do — create a layer of small particles high in the atmosphere that scatters incoming sunlight back to space. Cooling the Earth this way, could be fast, cheap and easy.

That technique also suppresses rainfall. According to U.S. patent #6315213, filed by the US military on November 13, 2002:

The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitate to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the cloud’s ability to rain.

Suspicious observers ask whether this is all part of a larger plan. Christina Sarich notes that while the state thirsts for water, alternatives for increasing the water supply go untapped.

Chemical Engineers at MIT have indeed figured out how to desalinate water – electrodialysis having the potential to make seawater potable quickly and cheaply without removing other contaminants such as dirt and bacteria, and there are inexpensive nanotech filters that can clean hazardous microbes and chemicals from drinking water. Designer Arturo Vittori believes the solution to the water catastrophe lies not in high technology but in a giant basket that collects clean drinking water from condensation in the air.

Tapping Underground Seas

Another untapped resource is California’s own “primary” water — water newly produced by chemical processes within the earth that has never been part of the surface hydrological cycle. Created when conditions are right to allow oxygen to combine with hydrogen, this water is continually being pushed up under great pressure from deep within the earth and finds its way toward the surface where there are fissures or faults. This water can be located everywhere on the planet. It is the water flowing in wells in oases in the desert, where there is neither rainfall nor mountain run-off to feed them.

study reported in Scientific American in March 2014 documented the presence of vast quantities of water locked far beneath the earth’s surface, generated not by surface rainfall but from pressures deep within. The study confirmed “that there is a very, very large amount of water that’s trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth… approaching the sort of mass of water that’s present in all the world’s oceans.”

In December 2014, BBC News reported the results of a study presented at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which researchers estimate there is more water locked deep in the earth’s crust than in all its rivers, swamps and lakes together. Japanese researchers reported in Science in March 2002 that the earth’s lower mantle may store about five times more water than its surface oceans.

Dramatic evidence that earthquakes can release water from deep within the earth was demonstrated last August, when Napa was hit with a 6.0 quake. Solano County suddenly enjoyed a massive new flow of water in local creeks, including a reported 200,000 gallons per day just from Wild Horse Creek. These increased flows are still ongoing, puzzling researchers who have visited the area.

Where did this enormous waterflow come from? If it were being released from a shallow aquifer, something would have to replace that volume of withdrawal, which was occurring at the rate of over 1,000 gallons per minute – over 10 times the pre-quake flow. Massive sinkholes or subsidence would be expected, but there were no such reports. Evidently these new waters were coming from much deeper sources, released through crevices created by the quake.

So states Pal Pauer of the Primary Water Institute, one of the world’s leading experts in tapping primary water. After decades of  primary water studies and successful drilling projects, Pauer has demonstrated that this abundant water source can be accessed to supplement our current water supply. Primary water may be tapped directly, or it may be found commingled with secondary water (e.g. aquifers) fed from atmospheric sources. New sophisticated techniques using airborne geophysical and satellite data allow groundwater and primary water to be located in rock through a process called “fracture trace mapping,” in which large fractures are identified by thorough analysis of the airborne and satellite data for exploratory drilling.

Pauer maintains that a well sufficient to service an entire community could be dug and generating great volumes of water in a mere two or three days, at a cost of about $100,000. The entire state of California could be serviced for about $800 million – less than 2% of the cost of the very controversial Delta water tunnels – and this feat could be accomplished without robbing the North to feed the South.

The Water Wars Continue

California officials have been unresponsive to such proposals. Instead, the state has undertaken to regulate underground water. In September, a trio of bills were signed establishing a framework for statewide regulation of California’s underground water sources, marking the first time in the state’s history that groundwater will be managed on a large scale. Water has until now been considered a property right. The Los Angeles Times reported:

[M]any agriculture interests remain staunchly opposed to the bill. Paul Wenger, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, said the bills “may come to be seen as ‘historic’ for all the wrong reasons” by drastically harming food production.

. . . “There’s really going to be a wrestling match over who’s going to get the water,” [Fresno Assemblyman] Patterson said, predicting the regulation plans will bring a rash of lawsuits.

And so the saga of the water wars continues. The World Bank recently adopted a policy of water privatization and full-cost water pricing. One of its former directors, Ismail Serageldin, stated, “The wars of the 21st century will be fought over water.”

In the movie Chinatown, the corrupt oligarchs won. The message seemed to be that right is no match against might. But armed with that powerful 21st century tool the Internet, which can generate mass awareness and coordinated action, right may yet prevail.


TLB Note: This article was contributed to TLB, and published with permission. It may not be reproduced in any form without direct permission from the author.


About the author:

Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her websites are Web of Debt, Public Bank Solution, and Public Banking Institute.


TLB recommends you visit Ellen at Web of Debt for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

Fish Fukushima

By: Roger Landry (TLB)

Fukushima radiation, Navy exercises using depleted uranium ammunition, Geo-engineering, state sized garbage islands, continuous toxic dumping, etc… The oceans are dying off in ever increasing catastrophes, including the massive die-off of ocean plankton (produces over 60% of total global oxygen).

This planet is in serious trouble, but even more so humanity, because over many millennia the oceans will possibly heal themselves … BUT when the oceans die … So Does Humanity.

Yet where are the government alarm bells? Where is the massive push for research and solutions? Aren’t we a nation used to doing the impossible such as putting a man on the moon, defeating communism, splitting the atom etc…? But here we are facing an ever increasing, VERY REAL, threat to ALL life on this planet and we are stuck in neutral!

The Dying Oceans

Could this inaction by corrupted global governments be intentional? Could there actually be those among us so evil that they perpetrate and perpetuate this scenario? Do you have a better answer for the almost total inaction to this catastrophic reality?

Here is a Blatant example of government complicity, corruption or sheer ineptitude (I don’t really believe the last one) …

Our governments reaction to ever increasing levels of radiation in the pacific sea life we eat … is to increase, by a large percentage, the allowable (legal) level of radiation in the food we put on our, and our children’s, dinner table (with no announcement or fanfare). Wait, wasn’t there a very valid health reason for setting the original limits? This is pure unadulterated Madness!

Fukushima Update -The largest mass die offs of Sea Life ever recorded” now underway on West Coast

Plankton, sea lions, seals, starfish, anchovies and a massive amount of all large fish or mammals including Porpoise and Wales (which are Sentient Species) … these are but a few of the continuing die-offs we can see with our own eyes, with no information required from our criminally inactive governments.

Inaction is the recipe for the utter collapse of the biosphere and thus humanity, and we are watching this unfold, in an accelerating fashion, right before our very eyes!

Our Oceans Are Dying ~ 90% of Big Fish Are GONE ~ What Are WE Doing?

There is no place to run or hide from this, try as you may. Our only recourse is to wake up to this blight and force our complicit governments into action, or bequeath a dying or dead planet to our children …


Just do any research … PLEASE … and you will find ongoing catastrophic events continuing to unfold, and not in the shadows, but right under our noses.

With all the information that is available to you, as well as what The Liberty Beacon project has already presented to you, if you chose to say, or do nothing … how can you look your doomed children or grandchildren in the eyes and tell them …

“I LOVE YOU” ???

Monsanto openly disagrees

by Mike Barrett

Are the full body protective suits not enough of a tip off that pesticides are toxic? If not, consider this: Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide – the most widely used and best-selling herbicide in the U.S. and one of the world’s most popular weed-killers – has been labeled a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The decision was made by IARC, the France-based cancer research arm of the World Health Organization, which considered the status of five insect and weed killers including glyphosate, which is used globally in industrial farming.

As reported by The Lancet:

“In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (table). These assessments will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.”


After analysis, it was determined that glyphosate falls into the 2nd level of concern (mainly at industrial use) of 4 levels for possible cancer-causing substances. The 4 levels are:

  • Known carcinogens,
  • Probable or possible carcinogens (where glyphosate stands)
  • Not classifiable
  • Probably not carcinogenic

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would consider the French agency’s evaluation. But given US government agencies’ decisions and political ties, hope is dismal that they will do anything to limit its use. The EPA’s 2012 assessment of glyphosate concluded that it met the statutory safety standards and that the chemical could “continue to be used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment.”

Read: Study Finds Roundup Chemicals Lethal in Small Doses

Though the agency analyzed numerous weed killers, glyphosate, being one of the most popular, is of greater concern. This active ingredient found in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide currently holds the highest production volumes of any herbicide, used in more than 750 different products. Unfortunately, its use has skyrocketed in recent years due to the development of herbicide-resistant genetically modified crops – made to withstand copious amounts of herbicide spraying.

pesticide_mask_chemical_crop - CopyThough the ill effects from glyphosate exposure are most said to be concerning for occupational workers, tests revealing how ubiquitous the chemical really is should pave way for widespread concern.

Not only has  been detected in the air, in the water, and in our food, but it is also showing up in humans – despite the claims from Monsanto that the chemical is excreted from our bodies. Numerous studies have shown that not only is it causing numerous health problems, but it is showing up in urine samples, blood samples, and even breast milk. This is concerning.

“Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate to aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans. Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro. The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.

Needless to say, Roundup creator and biotech giant Monsanto strongly disagreed with the decision.

“All labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health,” said Phil Miller, a Monsanto spokesman, in a statement.

Additional Sources:

Article image from: GMOEvidence

About Mike Barrett:
Mike Barrett  Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.


Read featured article here

TLB recommends you visit Natural Society for more great articles and pertinent information.


smart meter

March 23, 2015 | By Professor James Tracy

James Tracy’s story, “Health Impact of RF Radiation: Media Blackout on Smart Meter Dangers,” published at Memory Hole Blog and by Professor Michel Chossudovsky, editor of Global Research, in January 2014, was nominated by student researchers and faculty evaluators working with Project Censored at San Francisco State University and Sonoma State University in spring 2014.

The story was voted into Censored’s Top 25 at Number 14 out of a field of over 230 nominations, alongside a related article, “Two Important New Papers Show Mobile Phone Use Does Cause an Increase in Brain Tumours,” first appearing at power Both stories were featured in Project Censored’s 2015 yearbook,Censored 2015: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2013-2014, published in October 2014.

Story nominations by Tracy’s undergrad students at [censored] University for 2014 also received recognition from Project Censored judges (here, here, here, and here).

Tracy won a Project Censored award in 2013 for the story, “Wireless Technology: A Looming Health Crisis,” published at Memory Hole and Global Research, also voted Number 14, and featured inCensored 2014: Fearless Speech in Fateful Times.

Tracy’s original January 21, 2014 article is reposted below.

Health Impact of RF Radiation: Media Blackout on Smart Meter Dangers

By James F. Tracy

Major power utilities continue to deploy “smart” electrical meters on businesses and private residences throughout the United States and Canada. Yet those in North America and elsewhere remain in the dark on the negative health effects of such devices that systematically blast their homes with radio-frequency (RF) radiation on a minute-by-minute, round-the-clock basis.

In 2009 the Obama administration partnered with utilities by allocating $3.4 billion in federal stimulus funds toward building a nationwide “smart grid,” where smart meters figure centrally.[1] The project is part of President Obama’s “Climate Action Plan” that under United Nations auspices seeks to reduce US carbon emissions 20% by the year 2020.[2]

There is more than ample research available that has associated negative health effects of RF radiation emitted by smart meters [3] for regulatory authorities to place restrictions on power utilities and compel them to abide by the precautionary principle. Such restrictions would require power providers to refrain from wide scale installation of smart meters until a sufficient body of scientific research demonstrating the safety of such devices has been produced and rigorously evaluated.

Yet in the US and elsewhere the imperative of having a “smart grid,” the prospect of a carbon trading scheme, lax (and in at least some cases corrupt) state and federal regulatory bodies, and the sheer power of the utilities combine to jeopardize the long term health of the entire population.

In a purportedly democratic society news outlets play a decisive role in such an impending health crisis. By failing to report on the dubious health research of smart meters and the fact that the public is being involuntarily subjected to such technology, news media are a key factor in the citizenry’s continued ignorance and inaction.

In May 2011 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer categorized “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless cellphone use.”[4] Despite this warning from a well-recognized source, the utilities stubbornly insist that all residences must be equipped with a smart meter issuing dangerous electropollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ceased studying the health effects of radiofrequency radiation when the Senate Appropriations Committee cut the department’s funding and forbade it from further research into the area.[5] Thereafter RF limits were codified as mere “guidelines” based on the EPA’s tentative findings and are presently overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

These weakly enforced standards are predicated on the alleged “thermal effect” of RF to which the FCC subscribes. In other words, if the energy emitted from a wireless antenna or device is not powerful enough to heat the skin or flesh then no danger is posed to human health.[6]

smart_meterTo this day power utilities cling to this severely outmoded and unscientific standard when confronted with the formidable body of research linking RF to cancer, destruction of DNA, and other negative health effects. News media seldom question the FCC policy when it is cited by utilities and regulators alike to underline the supposed overall safety of smart meters.[7]

An electronic LexisNexis search of newspaper articles referencing “smart meters” appearing between May 31, 2011, the date WHO classified RF a Class 2B carcinogen, and June 19, 2014, yields close to 839 pieces published in English language papers. Yet for the same time span only one tenth of the sample (82 articles) mentions “smart meters” and “carcinogen” or “carcinogenic” in the same report. Of these, 65 of the articles appeared in Canadian, and to a much lesser degree Australian or UK papers. Note that each sample includes guest editorials and letters to the editor penned by concerned citizens.

Using parameters from the date May 31, 2011, the date WHO declared RF a Class 2B carcinogen, to January 19, 2014, of 93 newspaper articles referencing “smart meter” and “World Health Organization,” 76 were published in Canadian, and to a much lesser degree UK, Australian, Malaysian or New Zealand outlets.

As the above suggests, the extremely limited awareness especially in the US of the potential health consequences of exposure to the continual RF emitted by smart meters is primarily because the issue is being blacked out in the press. When such dangers are reported, they are tempered by the refrain of the FCC’s “thermal effect” policy, which in light of the abundant countervailing research amounts to disinformation.

In December 2013 I contacted the reporter at the local metro-dailyPalm Beach Post covering the state power utility, Florida Power and Light, and its smart meter policy to remind her of the bevy of public health and medical research documenting the likely consequences of sustained RF exposure. I also directed her to the WHO statement classifying RF as potentially carcinogenic.

To the Post’s credit a subsequent story highlighting Florida Power and Light’s “opt out” policy referenced the WHO statement. Yet the piece appeared deep in the business section of the paper, and the WHO warning was accompanied by the Florida Public Service Commission’s familiar rejoinder.

In 2011 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields such as those emitted by cellular phones, microwaves and smart meters as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

The PSC has said its authority does not extend to health issues related to meters. Smart meters are certified for compliance with radio frequency emission standards by the Federal Communications Commission, and the FCC has deemed that meters in compliance with the standards do not have adverse health impacts.[8]

While one or more hidden agendas likely exist to keep the public unaware of the health dangers associated with RF and smart meters (again, think carbon trading, in addition to the social control possibilities via energy rationing and surveillance soon to be realized through the “smart grid,”) a more immediate cause for such censorship is simply profit and continued media monopoly control of public opinion and discourse.

The telecommunications industry whose services are largely predicated on RF has recently exhibited the largest growth in advertising outlays, which are surely recognized in bottom line terms by the news and media industries.[9] With potential continued revenue growth on this scale, raising questions and relaying information that can safeguard public health and allow citizens to ask intelligent questions concerning the health of themselves and their loved ones simply constitutes poor business practice.


[1] “President Obama Announces $3.4 Billion Investment to Spur Transition to Smart Energy Grid,” The White House, October 27, 2009.

[2] Ed King, “Obama Promises to Cut Carbon Pollution in Climate Action Plan,” Responding to Climate Change, June 26, 2013.

[3] See, for example, the American Association of Environmental Medicine EMF-RF Reference List (PDF) and AAEM’s April 12, 2012 Press Advisory (PDF).

[4] World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, “IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic,” May 31, 2011.

[5] Susan Luzzaro, “Field of Cell Phone Tower Beams,” San Diego Reader, May 18, 2011,

[6] FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, See also James F. Tracy “Wireless Technology and the Accelerated Toxification of America,”, July 7, 2012.

[7] When this author obtained documents through a public records request from the Florida Public Service Commission on Florida Power and Light’s smart meter campaign–a very simple and routine endeavor for any journalist–it was evident that no human health impact studies on statewide smart meter deployment were ever considered. The PSC merely accepted FPL’s rationale and related public relations literature.

[8] Susan Salisbury, “Media Opt-Out Fee to Be Considered, PSC Staff Proposes Enrollment, Monthly Cost for Device For Device Foes,” Palm Beach Post, January 3, 2014, B4.

[9] “Ad Spend By Sector: Consumer Goods and Telecom Take the Cake in 2012,”, April 25, 2013.

Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at


See article here:


TLB recommends that you read other great/pertinent articles at:


GMO Dangers 2

Writer and researcher Colin Todhunter responds to Dr. Anthony Trewavas below.

The following is in response to an open letter published on the AgBioWorld Facebook page by Professor Tony Trewavas of Edinburgh University. He wrote it after reading my article “So You Want to Help Africa Mr Paterson? Then Stop Promoting Ideology and Falsehoods to Push GMOs” published by Global Research. 

Professor Trewavas is a prominent supporter of GMOs in Britain.

His original letter is provided in full below Colin Todhunter’s response.


Dear Professor Trewavas

I find your response to my piece disappointing. You failed to address many of the issues I discussed (not least that the world can feed itself without GMOs and that hunger and poverty are due to structural factors and not a lack of food, which GMOs have merely exacerbated) and have decided to indulge in the same type of smear-scare tactics that Owen Paterson employed in his Pretoria speech.

You forward the baseless assertions that GMOs are safe, even though there has not been one long-term epidemiological study conducted to show this.

While condemning Greenpeace and other groups for somehow being authoritarian and anti-choice, you say nothing about agribusiness corporations whose financial clout has brought them political influence that allows them to exert huge control over the WTO and capture regulatory bodies and public research institutions. These corporations have had a key role in driving trade policies from India to Europe, not least in terms of the secretive Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture and the world’s largest secretive, pro-corporate trade deal, the proposed TTIP.

Where is the choice and democracy here?

You have nothing to say on that but proceed to lecture me on the virtues of choice and democracy.

In your opening paragraph alone, you make four fallacious assertions.

First of all, I did not say GMOs would be a disaster for “any” farmer. In India’s Punjab state, for example, some farmers have done quite well from the introduction of petrochemical farming (‘green revolution’). But water tables are falling drastically, pesticides have contaminated the water supply, there is a big cancer problem and many farmers are experiencing economic distress. In Punjab, this form of agriculture is unsustainable. There is now an agrarian crisis and it is a health, environmental and social disaster. My point is that GMOs would similarly be bad for agriculture in general and would have a systemic, detrimental impact on the environment and human health.

Second, you claim that I fear GMOs will not be a disaster for African farmers but a success. Not true. You have ignored the fact that a number of GMO projects in Africa to date have indeed been failures and in my article I provided a link to a report to highlight this (which you go on to conveniently dismiss as a “biased” source).

Third, you say that the word “choice” is conspicuously absent from my article. Any objective reader would appreciate that the concept is central to it, not least where I discuss the “choices” imposed on Ethiopia via the West’s ‘structural adjustment’ of agriculture (which I refer to at the end of the article). That was not a case of farmers “choosing” to restructure their agriculture, but a case of policies being forced on them at a macro policy level. And this is one of the issues that I have with GMOs.

Although you conveniently do not mention that part of my piece, Michel Chossudovsky’s analysis takes account of the way by which agribusiness conglomerates can and do set rules at the WTO, manipulate market forces and restructure agriculture in foreign countries for their own ends. That is very much related to “choice” and its denial. You talk a great deal about “democracy” but fail to address how this situation fits with your ideas of giving choice to farmers and not imposing authoritarian agendas on people.

You say I should buy a farm and exert my choice to farm as I wish. Talk about exercising such a choice to the people in South America who Helena Paul wrote about (described in my piece). They are being driven out as agribusiness and the planting of GMOs (mainly for export) takes hold. She describes this as ecocide and genocide. Tell it to the peasant farmers who are being forced from their lands by speculators and corporations as described by reports by GRAIN and the Oakland Institute last year. These are the people who feed 80 percent of the “developing world”, without GM technology, yet are being squeezed out. Where is choice and democracy? Certain words are used cheaply by some.

The issue of choice not only concerns the options made available to people, but those which have been closed off. Owen Paterson’s claims that “primitive, inefficient” farming techniques would condemn “billions” to hunger, poverty and underdevelopment is ridiculous. He engages in hyperbole in order to denigrate credible alternatives that are forwarded by the groups he is attacking and thus trying to deny those alternatives.

Fourth, nowhere do I say that only agroecological farming should be implemented to feed the world, as you claim I do. However, there are many studies and official reports that demonstrate the efficacy of organic and agroecological approaches that are well publicised. In my article, I referred to some of these studies and reports. But rather than regurgitating references, I would say that no matter what data is presented, certain people seek to marginalise agroecological approaches and prefer to focus on external input-intensive ‘solutions’ and proprietary technologies, such as GMOs.

I find it strange that supporters of GMOs talk so much about choice when the GMO biotech industry has spent £100 million in the US to deny choice by preventing labelling of GM food.

Where is the choice for the farmer who uses non-GM crops but has his field contaminated by GMOs? Where was the choice when parts of the US wheat crop were contaminated as a result of open-field trials or when contamination took place because of Liberty Link 601? Where is the choice in West Bengal where GMOs from Bangladesh have been found?

Where is the choice for farmers when the only ones that end up on the market are company seeds, or where thousands of varieties have been reduced to a relative handful?

In my piece, Daniel Maingi and Mariam Mayet mentioned the squeezing out of alternatives as a result of the impact of Western agribusiness in Africa. Are they to be dismissed as “biased”  sources too?

You say the following:

“Most objectors in this area have a political programme not a scientific one but they like to bend science to their own political point of view. Science is by its nature not politics or political propaganda or anything like it. It deals with evidence not superstition, or political or social philosophies. If you have a political programme then please stop trying to justify it by claiming it has scientific support, it does not.”

First of all, I provided valid references which referred to peer-reviewed science in the article (and have again below), but all you can say is that my “political programme” has “no scientific support”. I say to you: please stop justifying your own pro-GMO stance by smearing critics and rejecting any evidence because it does not fit your own agenda. Please do not talk about “choice” and “democracy” when your own agenda is to support powerful corporations who via the distortion of science and the capture of strategic national and international bodies deny choice.

Your view of science is either deliberately misleading or simply naïve. And for someone in your position, I find it difficult to believe it could be the latter. From acquiring funding and formulating the questions to be addressed, to conducting research, interpreting findings and peer review, politics are present in science throughout. The manufacture of scientific knowledge involves a process driven by various sociological, methodological and epistemological conflicts and compromises, both inside the laboratory and beyond. Writers in the field of the sociology of science have written much on this. I refer you to the following link, which contests your lofty view of science and scientists: Monsanto wants to know why people doubt science.

The very fact you have responded to me in a certain manner discredits your view of scientists, not least because it becomes difficult to appreciate where the line between science and lobbying is in your case.

There is an authoritarian, political agenda behind the GMO project – not set by some environmental group (as you say) that you like to use as a whipping boy – but by the agribusiness concerns behind GMOs and petro-chemical industrial agriculture. Focusing on Greenpeace with its supposed agenda serves as a convenient diversion.

It is not NGOs, groups, activists, and campaigners that have failed to provide convincing arguments. And, by the way, to conflate such groups with intolerance, authoritarianism, and killings by brutal regimes or groups is ludicrous and smacks of desperation on your part. You are a scientist but are using all the cheap smears and tactics of a lobbyist!

When peer-reviewed science is provided by critics to support their claims, the onslaught by the GMO agritech industry and its mouthpieces against those who legitimately and scientifically contest the claims about the efficacy of GMOs is relentless. Just ask Arpad Pusztai, P. M. Bhargava, Judy Carman, Terje Traavik, Andrés Carrasco, Ignacio Chapela, Allison Snow, Marc Lappé, Britt Bailey, Bela Darvas, and G. E. Seralini.

These scientists have all either been threatened, smeared, or hindered in their work because their research called into question the safety and/or efficacy of GMOs or associated products.

The hypocrisy of those from the pro-GMO lobby who call for sound science to inform the debate on GMOs is glaringly obvious. Those who argue against GMOs are accused of not having science or facts on their side and of engaging in propaganda, while it is clear the pro-GMO lobby that hurls such allegations is itself guilty of all such things. This tactic goes hand in glove with a strident populist agenda whereby the pro-GMO lobby portrays itself as on the side of the people, while its opponents are “elitists” and are “stealing food from the bellies of the poor”.

If you really do value democracy as much as you say and wish to call to account those who show contempt for it, you would do better by reading Steven Druker’s new book “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth”. Instead of attacking Greenpeace and other groups, you should be more even handed (and employ just a little “scientific objectivity” in your approach) by looking at the fraudulent practices and processes in US government departments that led to the commercialisation of GMOs in that country.

As far as your point on there being a scientific consensus is concerned, it has been well established in recent months by over 300 scientists in a peer reviewed journal that there is no consensus. Furthermore, you bring the issue of climate change into the debate. If I am to accept your claim that there is overwhelming consensus on climate change then I certainly reject your assertion that the same applies to the GMO issue.

What you claim to be “biased” sources have demonstrated that the claims made on the back of many studies on GMOs are not supported by the evidence and that in many instances certain findings are marginalised as not being significant when they actually are (I supply these two links which provide reference to support my claims, the first of which you have already dismissed as being from a biased source, without addressing the issues raised therein:  An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of GM crops and food and Adverse impacts of transgenic crops/food: a compilation of scientific references with abstracts).

Moreover, climate change is fundamentally different to the GMO issue. Climate change may or may not be anthropogenic, but scientists are deliberately genetically engineering food and adopting a wait and see attitude towards the impact. Wouldn’t it be better to prove safety beforehand?

But let’s get one thing clear, as Druker shows, GMOs were placed on the commercial market due to political arm twisting and official bodies in the US ignoring science that pointed out the dangers of this technology. The decision to commercialise GMOs was not based on scientific evidence; in fact, it ignored such evidence. Yet you are still placing the onus on scientists to prove that GMOs are safe – and when they show they are not, they are attacked. It seems science is only called on when it suits.

Releasing GMOs onto the commercial market is not like boarding a plane, as you suggest. The genetic engineering of food affects every member of the population. It presents a widespread, systemic risk to the human population. Most planes are safe and have been tested. Moreover, we have a choice to board a plane. We have no other choice than to eat (unlabelled) food. GMO food has not been proven safe.

The GMO biotech industry carries out inadequate, short-term studies and conceals the data produced by its research under the guise of “commercial confidentiality”, while independent research highlights the very serious dangers of its products. It has in the past also engaged in fakery in India, bribery in Indonesia, smears and intimidates those who challenge its interests and distorts and censors science by restricting independent research. If science is held in such high regard by the GMO agritech sector, why engage in such practices and why in the US did policy makers release GM food onto the commercial market without proper long-term tests?

Despite its claims to the contrary, the sector cannot win the scientific debate, so it resorts to co-opting key public bodies or individuals to propagate various falsehoods and deceptions. Part of the deception is based on emotional blackmail: the world needs GMOs to feed the hungry, both now and in the future. This myth has been blown apart. In fact, the organisation GRAIN highlights that GMOs have thus far have actually contributed to food insecurity!

You say:

“If agroecological approaches can currently match yield that can be attained by using modern farming methods then by all means use it.”

Why doesn’t Paterson adopt this attitude? He denigrates such alternatives, and you deem it necessary to jump to his defence by responding this way.

“But if not and my understanding is that currently it cannot, then they should not be the farming method of recommended choice at present.”

Perhaps you need to do some more reading and consult a few more UN and scientific reports.

You say that:

“No-one with any concern for humanity or the welfare of its population should currently consider any other alternative. The groups that campaign for this kind or that kind of farming method and destroy crops to try and bounce others into their point of view have lost that fundamental concern for their own species.”

Why do you persist in attacking those who clearly do have compassion? Environmental groups have not engaged in decades of massive criminality, in decades of cover ups and serious environmental pollution. You would do better by focusing on one particular leading company whose record clearly shows that it has no regard whatsoever for humanity, yet which claims it wants to ‘feed the word’ with altruistic intent.

If you really do believe in dispassionate, objective discourse, then adopt an even-handed approach. You talk so much about democracy and choice yet there is no mention whatsoever of the crimes, cover ups, and decades of environmental pollution that a certain company that forms part of the Pro-GMO lobby has been involved in.

You talk about choice and democracy but say nothing about how big agribusiness has at international and national levels captured policy making bodies to effectively impose ‘choice’ on US consumers and poorer nations and devastate local economies. Where is your condemnation? Where is your condemnation of “big list” studies and fallacious claims made by the likes of Jon Entine about safety and efficacy on the back of them? Or are your condemnations, attacks, misrepresentations and ridiculous assertions reserved for those who flag up such things?

While powerful corporations have instant access to policy makers who work closely together, ordinary people and groups have to resort to Freedom of Information legislation to ascertain what happens behind closed doors. They have to rely on whisteblowers or leaked documents or must go through the courts to gain access to studies that formed the basis of regulatory bodies’ approvals for commercial agribusiness products. And you talk to me about democracy and of how I or some campaign group have scant regard for it?

Your response is full of warm sounding notions about democracy and choice and some high-minded words about science and scientists (of course, only the science that fits your paradigm). Rhetoric, platitudes and clichés do not constitute a considered response. Projecting the Pro-GMO lobby’s deficiencies onto its critics is not valid. It’s disappointing from a scientist.

You indulge in cheap, fallacious attacks on critics, which is symptomatic of a very transparent and predictable propaganda campaign aimed at critics.

In finishing, I would like to make clear that I do not belong to any environmental or campaign group. I received no payment for the article you responded to. This is why I refer to myself as an ‘independent’ (not freelance) writer.

I wonder how many scientists can claim such a level of independence from for-profit corporate entities.

With kind regards,
Colin Todhunter


Open letter from Professor Trewavas

Dear Mr Todhunter

I read your article against GM crops (So You Want to Help Africa Mr Paterson? Then Stop Promoting Ideology and Falsehoods to Push GMOs; but I searched in vain for one small word, ‘choice’.  It seems never to enter the commentaries of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or WWF or the other odd environmentalist/activist groupings that appear now and again. Your claim is that Africa can do very well just on agroecology. Well, put your money where your mouth is. Buy a farm in Africa and farm it in the way that you want. But allow others to farm as they wish and if they wish to use GM crops that is their right to do so just as it yours, not to. According to you any African farmer using GM crops will be a disaster so in that case they will stop using them. If it’s not a disaster, which I suspect is what you fear most, then they will reap the benefit and perhaps persuade you in due course to farm like them. Do you want to impose your opinions on others without allowing them to make their own minds up and choose how they wish to farm?

It is an unfortunate situation that in our present world many environmentalist groups have become typically authoritarian in attitude. Greenpeace notably decides its opinions must prevail regardless of others, so it arrogates to itself the right to tear up and destroy things it doesn’t like. That is absolutely typical of people who are unable to convince others by debate and discussion and in the last century such attitudes, amplified obviously, ended up killing people that others did not like. But the same personality type the authoritarian, ‘do as I tell you’, was at the root of it all. Such groups therefore sit uneasily with countries that are democracies. It would be nice if you could say you are a democrat and believe that argument is better than destruction but argument that deals with all the facts and does not select out of those to construct a misleading program. Misleading selection of limited information is causing considerable problems in various parts of the world that leads some into very violent behavior, particularly in religious belief. I am sure you agree that this is not a good way forward.

There is a consensus amongst scientists, at least those that have made themselves aware of all reasonable scientific facts, that GM is both safe for consumption and with appropriate regulations for the environment too. Do you agree with that consensus or not? There is another scientific consensus over climate change that is impelling governments to take action. The consensus over GM food safety is stronger amongst scientists than that over climate change, according to a current survey. I assume you accept the one over climate change, most do. But science and scientific fact is not a pick and mix situation, if you accept a scientific consensus on one than you have to accept it for the other. I am sure you will be aware that there are minorities of scientists, different in both cases, that object to both. But I have found that those that do object to the consensus on GM crops always fail to provide an acceptable balance of information in their objections. They select out only the very limited data they consider supports their view and neglect everything else that does not. That is not science that can be used to construct policy. It’s like claiming flying is unsafe because several planes a year crash whilst ignoring the hundreds of thousands every day that haven’t. If you want unbiased information on GM crops go to the many university personnel who can provide it for you. But please do not quote the so obviously-biased publication which you have, as though it were scientific fact.

Most objectors in this area have a political program not a scientific one but they like to bend science to their own political point of view. Science is by its nature not politics or political propaganda or anything like it. It deals with evidence not superstition, or political or social philosophies. If you have a political program then please stop trying to justify it by claiming it has scientific support; it does not.

All human activities have costs and benefits, that will include agroecological approaches that you apparently favor, but at the start both costs and benefits have to be drawn up to see what is appropriate to the particular circumstance. Given the rapidly increasing African population I would say that currently yield is crucial but that can change just as farming methods are changing in Europe towards increasing environmental concerns. Farming methods that do both such as no-till or integrated farm management currently offer the best compromise. Malawi, I understand, subsidizes minerals for crop growth and has turned the country from a food importer into a food exporter. That seems an excellent approach at present to solve a pressing problem.

If agroecological approaches can currently match yield that can be attained by using modern farming methods then by all means use it. But if not and my understanding is that currently it cannot, then they should not be the farming method of recommended choice at present.

When Africa has got its population increases under control and producing sufficient to feed everybody then alternatives like agroecology may come to the fore. No-one with any concern for humanity or the welfare of its population should currently consider any other alternative. The groups that campaign for this kind or that kind of farming method and destroy crops to try and bounce others into their point of view have lost that fundamental concern for their own species.

I am not dogmatic about the methods that farmers use since I consider that decision is the province of individual farmers themselves. Whatever their choice is their right in the framework of their country but they must be allowed to make that decision in full knowledge of all the scientific information and advice, not the tiny amount available to support alternative points of view. That is the nature of every democracy that I hope all will finally live under.

Good science is not set in stone or concrete, the current view on GM crops is simply based on the wealth of the factual and reproducible evidence that all good scientists recognize. But if the evidence indicates change then scientists change with it. Why not join those whose job it is to provide farmers and the populace with unbiased evidence constructed by independent university personnel? You have nothing to lose but the constraints of closed thinking and everything to gain that comes from reasoned and open scientific debate.

With my best wishes
Professor Tony Trewavas FRS
University of Edinburgh


About the author: Colin Todhunter

Originally from the northwest of England, Colin Todhunter has spent many years in India. He has written extensively for the Bangalore-based Deccan Herald, New Indian Express and Morning Star (Britain). His articles have also appeared in many other newspapers, journals and books. Visit his East by Northwest site.


TLB recommends you visit Global Research for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

World 1

Contributed to TLB by: Rebel Siren

Wei Hock “Willie” Soon, Harvard Smithsonian solar physicist, is yet another example of an outspoken “climate skeptic” that turns out has failed to disclose he is funded by BIG OIL (Exxon, Koch Industries, et al.). Just like Marc Morano, Soon, is associated with The Heartland Institute, also exposed for being funded by Big Oil, tobacco, and the pharmaceutical industries. Below is an excerpt from the Boston Globe outlining Soon’s failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest for which he has been skewing data in the direction of his funders’ interests, rather than on fact.

According to Polluter Watch, The Political Economy Research Institute ranks Koch Industries as the fourteenth worst air polluter in the U.S. in their Toxic Release Inventory, above oil giants like BP, Shell and Chevron and large coal utilities like American Electric Power and Duke Energy. CARMA reports that Koch releases about 200,000 tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide annually.

Photo Credit: Greenpeace

Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon apparently failed to disclose conflicts of interest in a new paper, according to a complaint.

Source: The Boston Globe – Climate change skeptic accused of violating disclosure rules

By Sylvan Lane Globe Correspondent January 26, 2015

WASHINGTON — A climate-change skeptic at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has relied on grants from fossil-fuel energy interests apparently failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest in a newly released paper, according to a complaint by a climate watchdog group.

The paper by Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon and three other climate-change skeptics contends that the UN panel that tracks global warming uses a flawed methodology to estimate global temperature change. Soon and his co-authors claim to have a simpler, more accurate model that shows the threat of global warming to be exaggerated.

The Chinese journal that published the paper, Science Bulletin, imposes a strict conflict of interest policy on authors, obligating contributors to disclose any received funding, financial interests, honors, or speaking engagements that might affect their work.

In a note at the end of the paper, all four authors claimed no conflicts of interest on the published study. But Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, an organization based in Virginia, said …

Soon’s long track record of accepting energy-industry related grants indicates otherwise and might constitute a violation of Science Bulletin’s disclosure policy.

In a letter to Science Bulletin, Davies points to the more than $1 million Soon has received from companies and interests supporting studies critical of climate change.

“At the end of the article under the heading ‘Conflict of interest’, there is this statement: ‘The authors declare that they have no conflict.’ This simply cannot be true,” Davies wrote. “I am concerned that Dr. Soon has not disclosed his funding sources or his outside consulting fees when submitting this article for publishing in your journal, and I am worried that such failure to disclosure may impact the reputation and credibility of both the journal and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”

Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian, and Science Bulletin did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Science Bulletin said in a letter dated Saturday to Davies that it will “look into the matter as appropriate.”


Soon, Dr. Willie
Phone: 617-495-7488
Room: R-306
Fax: 617-496-7708



The Guardian – Work of Prominent Climate Change Denier Willie Soon Funded by Energy Industry aka BIG OIL

Documents: Koch brothers foundation among groups that gave total of $1.25m

Greenpeace CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

This investigation shows that Dr. Soon has received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for most of his scientific career and heavy corporate funding in the last decade.

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

The Koch Brothers: Funding $67,042,064 to groups denying climate change since 1997.

Willie Soon | DeSmogBlog

U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his (Soon’s) research

Crooks and Liars: NY Times Climate Denier Fakexpert Willie Soon

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

Polluter Watch – Koch Industries: Petroleum, Pipelines, COAL, OIL, GAS, Funding Climate Denial

Koch Industries and the Koch family spend millions of dollars on lobbyists to fight climate and energy legislation, millions more on politicians, and still more millions on organizations denying climate change. Through the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation as well as Koch Industries and the other Koch family foundations, numerous and substantial donations go to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which has spent over $27.4 million on skeptic groups since 1998, foundations linked to Koch Industries have spent over $70 million in traceable contributions to the same network of organizations, with addition untraceable funding funneled through organizations like Donors Trust.

Climate Change Denier Senator James Inhofe Also Funded By Koch Industries

If company sponsored PACs were combined with employee contributions, Koch Industries would be Inhofe’s largest contributor, with $90,950 according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Inhofe Admits Global Warming Is No Hoax

Senator Jim Inhofe once infamously declared that global warming is the ” greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. This week, however, Inhofe has signed his name as a cosponsor to S. 228, a Senate bill that acknowledges the reality of climate change, of which global warming is a part. Very quietly, Inhofe has finally admitted that he was wrong, and that global warming is not a hoax mysteriously crafted by some ill defined secret environmentalist elite.

Marc Morano Climate Denier Connected To Senator Inhofe ALSO Funded by Big Oil

Morano’s blog Climate Depot focuses on disproving man-made global warming, while being heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry. Additionally, Morano has NO scientific expertise.

Willie Soon Be Gone? Posted on Mar. 06, 2015 by Donald Prothero PhD

Soon has done something worse that conducting bad science: he committed ethics violations. It has been well known for years that all of Soon’s funding comes from energy companies like ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers, and from the denialist fronts that they fund. This is itself is serious problem, because it clearly presents “conflict of interest” problems if Soon is cranking out research that is biased to please his funders.

To determine how corrupt any entity is, follow the funding.


TLB recommends you visit Disinformation Directory for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

IMG_2366 (1)

By: Glen M. Sutphin A.P.P.

Press Correspondent # 59465SUT

Let me give you a little more information about myself that will help to understand how I know about these things. Before I had my heatstroke and up till the time of the heatstroke I was employed as a rod chain man/ Instrument man/ Draftsman. I got to crawl around in swaps neck deep in filth and crap to survey house projects and such for two companies. The First one was Dewberry & Davis, the other being Bengsten Debell Elkin & Titus. Most all I did was Wetland and Non Tidal-wetland locations and house location surveys. So I am very familiar with wetlands and what they entail and what they look like. As well as housing developments having worked on several from the wetlands to the housing complexes finished.

In an earlier article I introduced you to Barbara Tipton Long

I now bring you another story very closely related. She brought this piece to my attention and I decided to try and help them anyway I can even if it’s just to write about what they have already done.

Now first I’m going to make up a story then fit that made up story to real life. I will base my made up story on things from my life that have happened then will show how this story fits in to a real life story.

“It sounded like the typical scam, the site was a site of some toxic chemical dump that they got for a song and dance. Figure if they throw enough trash into the swamp then fill it in with dirt they can build on it. The place was built on wetlands and floods when it rains. It’s a mud pit. Gives off noxious fumes after it rains with stuff bubbling up from the ground. Trash out in the woods covering up old sewer pipes. Buildings in disrepair, Repairs not up to code. People getting sick from mold that has built up in the basements and crawl spaces of the buildings because their foundations cracked because of corners being cut when they were built. Pay offs got stuff done. And who cares that they are now endangering lives.“

Now you wouldn’t want to live in a place like I just described, would you? But yet as you will see this place does exist and it has a name… The name of the place is Hidden Valley Condominium Association. There is so much that has happened here I don’t even know where to begin. From what I have gathered the problems started out back when the place was first developed. How do you go about investigating a place that doesn’t seem to exist?

While surveying I heard a lot of things about dirty deals and corruption. How they would hide properties and make them a money grab. What happen is a bunch of con’s wants some dough so they came up with a “condo” and they rip people off with them.

One thing you will notice if you pull this address up on Google Earth or Mapquest it comes up in the middle of the road no where near the condos. And on some it shows a pool or a pit, which in a way is a subconscious slip of reality, because from what I have heard it is a pit. And this isn’t even a problem compared to what you will see is wrong with these condos.

Let me start to address the problems that are here by first having you read about what Several people have put together on their website which I encourage you to go to and sign up to help them. Here is their quote from their webpage:


• Electrical shorts and spark

• Discolored water- (rotten egg like odor)

• Sewage back up in every area that water protruded

• Heavy soot

• Mold and mildew

The unit owner’s battle for safe and livable conditions has been ongoing since 2000. Fourteen years later the issues remain unresolved. The owner is being sued for HOA fees and has been forced into litigation for being vocal about unsafe, unsanitary and unlivable conditions. It is the owners belief that the condominium as a whole has severe issues which are being concealed and are endangering people’s health and safety. No one should have to live with their safety in question because of these conditions, many which are visible. We are requesting that you review the documentation and pictures carefully and decide for yourself.

(Electric and valves were turned off – due to safety concerns)

Why should someone be forced to live in deplorable conditions? Oh, you’re not being forced – you can move. You are free to move out of your condo that is paid in full – except for your HOA fees. THOSE you will still have to pay. WHY? Why should anyone have to pay dues on something that they cannot live in, rent or sell in good conscience. So you do what you think is the right thing and you contact who you think will help you. You show them everything that is wrong; you show them all of the code violations; you show them the disgusting and unsafe conditions that you’re living in. You live with worrying if people are going to get mad at you and retaliate for finally getting sick and tired of putting up with being sick and tired.

You don’t know who you can trust, who you can even talk to, who you can ask to help you. When you think you’ve finally taken a step forward, you’re forced 10 steps back. You have no choice but to move and get sued for the unpaid HOA dues that you refused to pay until the things that were wrong are fixed, if that’s even possible. Your name is dragged through the mud and you can’t even live in your own home. You already have medical issues and being exposed to mold that you’re told “you’re always going to have a problem with” will make the medical problems worse quicker than someone else. I remember a movie over 10 years ago where people were getting sick because of contamination and one unknown woman wouldn’t give up and found justice for them….sound familiar? I’m not saying I’m another Erin Brockovich, but when I see something that is being done to someone that is wrong, I feel compelled to help. That is what this site is all about. Trying to help. Hoping that getting the word out that this is just wrong -plain and simple- will get the people that ARE supposed to be helping to ACTUALLY HELP– do their job & do what’s right. Has everyone forgotten that?? Just doing what’s right, no matter what?

We as a democracy, vote in political & judicial leaders, believing what they tell us – that they’re there for us. And when they fail us, where do WE go? Who do we turn to? When someone you love dies-not from natural causes or a car accident or because they smoked-but because of that special kind of cancer called mesothelioma (asbestos exposure), you tend to start becoming a bit more aware of how there are hidden contaminates all around us that we’re unaware of. You get mad because it shouldn’t be there – your loved one should not have died like that – that special person that would’ve done anything for anybody succombs to a hidden evil.

Contamination is an ongoing problem not just in your town or your state, but the world. It’s always going to be there. But when it’s made aware to the appropriate people and still nothing is done, that’s where your adrenaline kicks in and you wonder WHY. That’s where your anger kicks in and your desire to get the right thing done-no matter what. You stick your neck out to do the right thing….just one unknown woman….



The above quote sums up better what I can put in words. I often get criticized for quoting and using things exactly as they are written but people don’t understand what I am doing. You have to quote someone word for word or it’s not a quote. I also get criticized for paraphrasing stuff which is when I take what someone says and change it around and add words to it to make it my own. But it doesn’t matter, the truth must be told and it doesn’t much mind how it gets told, as long as it’s told. I am only observing this from afar not right up on it. I wish I could go up and see for myself, but they have photos and videos up on their site and they show the truth as the videos and photo’s don’t lie. Having been in places like this I know how bad things can be.

I was asked to comment on what I saw and the first video I saw I did comment on. I’ll include it here for those to lazy to go look for yourself, everything is up on their blog all the comments and such and my communications with them. And I say them because there are several people who I am typing and chatting with. So some of this will be a repeat for some of you and it will be brand new to others. Anyway back to what I was saying. My comment on the first video.

“If that was in my yard the city would have my house condemned. What happened to the EPA? Are they on vacation up there? As a member of the media I am looking into this and I urge any other media that’s truly media to cover it. This is the second story I am following from up there. And is that Non-Tidal Wetlands that stuff is on? Think some things need to be looked at up there. Wish I lived closer. I am trying to find the laws about this, because that looks like it’s also illegal and the property owner needs to be taken to court. I’m going to see if I can get someone I know to look into this for me, and see what I can do.”

So as you can see my made up story is fitting pretty close to what is going on in Hidden Valley. I am having a hard time finding out anything that doesn’t conflict with itself out about this condo complex. Seems that every lead turns into a conflicting turn back on itself or dead ends. Which usually amounts to shady deals done under the table that people don’t want found out. Yeah this rabbit hole is getting deep.

In the next part I’ll be naming some of the players in this drama and telling more about what is going on as there is so much to tell about. You can go to their blog and find out more and talk to the people going through this yourself just follow the links.

Let me just briefly tell you a few things that have happened and try to keep it short. Since I have commented on the wooded area here’s a comment about the conditions, “In the wooded area adjacent to the unit owners wall there is a non maintained wooded area. In that area there are sewer lines and a sinkhole surround with sever overgrowth of trees, various plywood panels are layered across the grounds and is covered with sandbags, concrete bricks, macadam, tires and other forms of rubbish.”

Some of these people have been fighting this battle for over 14 years. That’s a long time for nothing to be done. These problems and others have been going on since before 2000 and some have gotten worse as you can imagine after 14 years of nothing being done about it. Some unit owner’s have gotten sick from the mold and such. Major cracks in the exterior walls as well as the foundations and interior walls. Water and sewage backs up into the cracks during heavy rains and such and then the mold starts. And has gotten worse over the years. There’s also sink holes and such that have been reported as well. So the earth around there seems to be unstable at best. Which would cause the buildings to sink unevenly and crack the foundations.

If they could prove that the builders knew it was unsafe to build on they might have a case, I have told them to get a lawyer as I am just a guy telling a story. I have no law training. All I am trying to do is get people to hear what is going on. Covering that which the MAIN STAIN MEDIA refuses to cover.

Three questions were asked on their blog let’s see if I can answer them here.

Do you see code violations? Not being up on the code and not knowing what the codes are, some of what is going on might actually be allowed by code. It’s a tricky question to ask. I would assume that if there is raw sewage being dumped then that is a code violation.

Do you have safety concerns? If a wall fell down already and was put back up then I would have concerns about the stability of that wall as well as the structural integrity of the units effected.

Do you think it’s livable? If the conditions are as bad as you say they are then no I do not feel it would be livable under those conditions.

I would say they need some lawyers and some experts to go check things out up there and see if there are code violations and such. We use to have this thing called the EPA that would look into these types of things, but somewhere in AMERIKA they no longer seem to do their job or exist. I’m going to contact them and see what they say about all this.

So Stay Tuned for the next follow up on this I’ll be putting names out as well as contacting the EPA.

You can read the original article here:


By: Glen M. Sutphin A.P.P.
Press Correspondent # 59465SUT

The video is not in order and a mess. This thing has been a nightmare from the get go. Sorry for the mess.

Due to the heat and health issues this article is not timed close to the event and I apologize for that but the information I found out needs to be out there so people can see if maybe they are being mislead. Also I will probably get a few hate mails about this article and that’s fine. I understand that when you tackle an issue that people are behind they will get agitated and will come after you for the truth. Everything I will show in this article was taken directly from two websites and is in plain view it’s just not looked at the way I will present it.

I attended the March Against Monsanto rally here in Richmond,VA again this year. Several things were different this year from last. First and foremost there were not nearly as many people who showed up this years as opposed to last year. Last year there were at least 400+ people there, this year there were maybe 100. Next up was the police presence at this rally. I swear they had almost as many police as there were people in attendance, maybe that’s an exaggeration. There were a lot of police around and in the public space where the rally was being held. And it was strictly for the rally nothing else. When the marchers left so to did the police. Nice to have a police escort everywhere you want to go.

The city must have a huge budget to employ all those police for the simple fact of standing around and watch nothing going on. And you bet they were armed and making their presence known. I have a few photos of them all over the place and some of it is on video as well.

The march itself really wasn’t as impacting as it was last year. And all my equipment was also failing as well. Batteries were dying left an right in my equipment as too did my laptop which I was going to use to do the live feed. So it was just a crappy day.

There were some things that came up at the rally that I was going to address in a different article but since I’m here may as well talk about it here. I will state this now, I am fully against MONSANTO. I do not believe we should be forced to eat their poisons and there crap needs to be banned from the planet. I fully support the movement to get rid of GMO’s and such so this piece I’m about to write is not against the people standing up and getting rid of this crap. I’m of two minds as I write this, on the one hand I believe people need to know what they are supporting and the truth, on the other there’s is it doing good in the community.

But in the interest of the truth people need to be made aware of some facts that are out there in plain site but are being mislead or maybe the people just don’t know what their organization does at the top. Maybe they are compartmentalized, I get the feeling that it’s the other they know and are intentionally lying and hiding stuff in plain view because they know you won’t go look. Well I look and I check my facts before I say something. Let me try to explain as best as I can. My intention is to bring the truth out to people not put down organizations, but at the same time if organizations are misleading people they need to be brought out for their misleading people. And a lot of what I am finding really makes me think. I will also show what lead up to my receiving a nicely worded letter in my in box for something that happened while I was there which I will explain after which I will share some facts. First the nicely worded letter in my in box on fedbook from John R. F. Lewis.

“Please get your facts straight before you approach my mother with misinformation. My position at the Richmond Behavioral Health Authority as Prevention Specialist was partially funded by the Virginia Tobacco Settlement, a settlement suit won by the US attorney General with the four largest tobacco companies in the United States settling those state suits to recover billions of dollars in costs associated with treating smoking-related illnesses. Our tobacco prevention and tobacco cessation programs were funded by that settlement which had connections to Philip Morris’ and Altria’s debt to the American public suffering from smoke related lung cancer. Renew is the nonprofit I run that has no ties to Philip Morris or Altria. You heard what you wanted to here. Fact check before you try to discredit an organization that doesn’t receive any corporate or gov funds because we work on donations and fundraising through food sales. We are not big and we are not tied to corporate entities. It hurts me that you would put us out there like that when all we do is grow food and give it to people who have no access to it…. That’s it. We grow food and provide people with education about sustainable practices. If you checked us out you would know that. But you didn’t, you went off something you thought you heard and now you wish to attack your peers who working to empower the people with food instead of going after the real entities negatively impacting the people… Why would you feel that you need to discredit someone/organization doing nothing but giving their blood sweat and tears working toward something positive??? What do you have to gain? Why not support your peers instead of working against them? I can’t make you stop picking on a nonprofit org that can’t defend itself because it answers to the people to help and serve the people, but I can remind you that if you say these things without any facts to back it up then you are a hypocrite, a false speaker, a poor journalist and researcher and a liar… for the benefit of yourself and your personal vendetta against someone planting vegetables.

If you don’t care about what I have to say then maybe you care about your conscience or maybe your credibility as a messenger of the people to relay the truth.

oh sorry, wrong person lol

My bad, ignore the above”

This nicely worded letter was meant for Chris Dorsey I’m sure. But since it came into my box I will take it personally and take it as a challenge to do my best to show your words are untrue and down right lies.. I will continue this after I say a few words about the video Chris put up about the incident.

Thanks Chris Dorsey for this up close look at what happened.

Saying someone attacked someone when all that happen was people were talking to one another, grow up. Circling around Chris Dorsey like sharks ready to strike for no reason other then you don’t like what he says is childish at best. I was standing right there I saw what happened. And if speaking to someone is attacking them, what do you call sending me that nicely worded message telling me to get my facts straight before I go off on someone, then saying you sent it to the wrong person? What do you call that. And yes I do check my facts before I say anything. So since this is me saying things now and checking facts here we go let’s find out what I have uncovered.

And using that straw man tactic of changing what it is we are talking about won’t work either. This is about lies told to the public, not about if I’m against farms and people growing their own food. I am 110% behind people being self sufficient. My grandfather had a few acres he farmed most of his life, so I am all for small farms. I am 200% behind people being what they say they are and doing what they say they are doing. This is about lies or omissions of truth. If your project is doing good for the community that is the only saving grace for you. But with all the things I have found out and I’m not even scratching the surface from what I have been told where does that leave us. For me I will go on continuing to fight Monsanto and not support them in any way. I want this crap off my planet, not to be content with it just being labeled because it mutates and infects regular crops as well. Not going along to get along and compromise. NO I WANT GMO’s AND GM Humans banned from the planet.

The March Against Monsanto rally here in Richmond,VA was organized by the HandsOn Greater Richmond and Renew Richmond. Let’s start by taking a look at Renew Richmond first. On the Renew Richmond website they proudly say they support 4H. And they have help from HandsOn Greater Richmond. I have been checking my facts and will now show what I have found. Brace yourself for this is where the bottom falls out and you hear the truth backed up by their own website and words.. If you don’t want to hear the truth stop reading and call me a nut… Go ahead I’ll wait.


Bank of America – YES

Exelis – ?

Hasbro – YES

JPMorgan chase & CO. – YES

Target – YES

UPS – ?

Disney – YES.

Allstate – YES

Altria – YES

Belk – ?

Fidelity – YES

Google – Government owned… – YES

Hilton worldwide – ?

PWC charitable foundation – Yes believe so

Capital One – ?

Points Of Light – YES and government run

Generation On – YES

Americorps alums – YES on this one I believe

Hands On Network- YES*

4H – YES

Renew Richmond – YES *

*TOO MANY STRIKES MEANS THEY ARE. For those counting that’s 5 ? and 16 YES votes.

So how many links do you need to have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these two organizations are linked to Monsanto and possibly funded or owned by them as well.. Okay I hear you say well just putting words up doesn’t prove a damn thing.. Okay you are correct let’s see where I got this information from..

I will provide links to websites and screen captures..

First here’s HandsOn Greater Richmond’s webpage footer.

[1] see content below article for removed parts

[1] see content below article for removed parts

[2] see content below article for removed parts

[2] see content below article for removed parts


List at the top of their page showing they are connected and supported by these organizations which are all connected to MONSANTO.

List at the top of their page showing they are connected and supported by these organizations which are all connected to MONSANTO.

Notice the 4H… Oh by the way 4H is MONSANTO OWNED. So proudly flying that banner on your site means you except Monsanto. A good 90% of HandsOn Greater Richmond and Renew Richmond is Monsanto owned and government operated just by the websites alone. This is what is known as facts. Cold hard facts. I do not care what your pretty words say, or how you pretend your this sophisticated little man pretending your act. The truth is that your whole facade is coming down. And Yes I do check my facts.

And for all you people telling me all I do is repeat crap off fedbook is beyond funny. If all I did was sit and repeat crap on fedbook then what the HELL is this article which no one has said crap about? And saying that because I don’t get paid I can’t be believed, if I was getting paid you idiots out there that attack me would say I was bought and saying what the person who paid me wanted me to say. So I don’t win either way. Sure I would love to get paid for all the hours I put into researching and digging for facts that I present to you, that others steal and make themselves look big. Trust me I’m the first one who would be happy if I got paid. I do this because I care about the truth and what is presented to the public. I hate being lied to, I also hate working my butt off telling people stuff and then finding out I was lied to makes me go off and I have to tell the truth at that point to redeem and prove myself. And then comparing me to CNN, yes they make more money then me, they are also government funded and George Soros bought, have 100’s of employees who do their work for them and have a big budget to do lots of stuff. I on the other hand have me, get no money and do as much as them, I wish I had their money then yes I would be a big success. I thank people for the comparison but I’m not that big yet, I’m working on it. Everything I do I do myself, no help, no overhead, just me doing all this research and putting my time and effort into it. If you cared so much maybe you should support me and my effort instead of telling me how I’ll never be as big as CNN which by the way is dying. So yes one day I will be as big as them. I get tore apart for bringing people the truth, they tear into me because they either are jealous, or they have an inferiority complex that makes them lash out, or their hiding the truth. All I do is try to get the truth out to as many as I can and hope that one day it will change the way we do things.

To sum this article up, be careful who you support. Don’t take things at face value, and do some research. I don’t know if John R. F. Lewis is a government operative, a shill or just stupid. From what little I have found out so far without digging too deep he’s a fraud at best. And by fraud I mean he is not what he appears to be portraying. He has lied, told inaccuracies and misrepresented himself so he is fraudulent. Learn the meanings of words and stop buying what they sell you.

Is he doing any good for the community, as I said that would be the only saving grace for them. But since everything they seem to be connected with by what they show is MONSANTO owned and funded, are they really doing any good for the community. This seems to be more and more a straw-man operation or a PSYOP, paid opposition so it appears that there is resistance to MONSANTO to lead the gullible away from the truth to learn to except GMO’s and to compromise away your rights to be taken over by MONSANTO. Push for labeling not banishment. Try to keep the controversy in their own little game court so they can control the game. Then some crazy nut cases come in and upset the wagon.

Well I’m one of those nut cases and I’m overturning the wagon and raining on the parade. I refuse to support MONSANTO or any company that supports MONSANTO. And since I have found this out about these two organizations, I can not with a clear conscious support them in any way and advise you to do the research and open your own eyes. And you people need to start looking into things yourself and listen to both sides of the argument.

The crazy people and nut jobs might not actually be crazy. The just appear crazy because your conditioned to only hear the lies. So they appear crazy to you, when they might actually be the only ones who are seeing it clearly. I’ll end it on this note. I will be doing more on this later but I gave you enough to chew on for the moment. I wish to thank those who helped me with some of the research and gave me direction and ways to go with this story. Thanks to those nameless info-warriors who stand for truth and don’t get paid to do this. As always Stay Tuned.

[1] Here’s some links to who some of these sponsors are. Some are listed in this next website that shows who contributes to Monsanto.

Here’s a list of Monsanto investors.
Notice the little Points Of Light symbol on the Monsanto page as well as the presidents service awards page.

Notice the 4 H and the GenerationOn symbol.. HUM.. seems they are all over Monsanto’s web pages and all this support from Monsanto. Doesn’t that appear to be at best a conflict of interests? Does any of this seem to be maybe what Chris Dorsey was saying all along?

Update to this story:

Vinny Eastwood covered this story on his show. I was a guest on there the podcast is available here:

Read the original article here:

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 734 other subscribers