Monday, 21 November 2011

MONSANTO'S MINIONS: The White House, Congress, and the Mass Media

Hamlet Act 1, Scene 4
'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'

There's a reason he says "state of Denmark" rather than just Denmark: the fish is rotting from the head down—all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy. Fast forward a few hundred years and substitute USA for Denmark.

For those readers interested in the close links between President Obama, his administration and Monsanto the following paras give the details - at

The United States is rapidly devolving into what can only be described as a Monsanto Nation. Despite Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton's) campaign operatives in 2008 publicly stating that Obama supported mandatory labels for GMOs, we haven't heard a word from the White House on this topic since Inauguration Day. Michele Obama broke ground for an organic garden at the White House in early 2009, but after protests from the pesticide and biotech industry, the forbidden "O" (organic) word was dropped from White House PR. Since day one, the Obama Administration has mouthed biotech propaganda, claiming, with no scientific justification whatsoever, that biotech crops can feed the world and enable farmers to increase production in the new era of climate change and extreme weather.

Like Obama's campaign promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; like his promises to bring out-of-control banksters and oil companies under control; like his promises to drastically reduce greenhouse gas pollution and create millions of green jobs; Obama has not come though on his 2008 campaign promise to label GMOs. His unilateral approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa, overruling the federal courts, scientists, and the organic community, offers the final proof: don't hold your breath for this man to do anything that might offend Monsanto or Corporate America.

Obama's Administration, like the Bush and Clinton Administrations before him, has become a literal "revolving door" for Monsanto operatives. President Obama stated on the campaign trail in 2007-2008 that agribusiness cannot be trusted with the regulatory powers of government.

But, starting with his choice for USDA Secretary, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has let Monsanto and the biotech industry know they'll have plenty of friends and supporters within his administration. President Obama has taken his team of food and farming leaders directly from the biotech companies and their lobbying, research, and philanthropic arms:

Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods. Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Islam Siddiqui, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the Agriculture Negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative. Rajiv Shah former agricultural-development director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served as Obama's USDA Under-Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID. Elena Kagan, who, as President Obama's Solicitor General, took Monsanto's side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, is now on the Supreme Court. Ramona Romero, corporate counsel to DuPont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the USDA.

Of course, America's indentured Congress is no better than the White House when it comes to promoting sane and sustainable public policy. According to Food and Water Watch, Monsanto and the biotech industry have spent more than half a billion dollars ($547 million) lobbying Congress since 1999. Big Biotech's lobby expenditures have accelerated since Obama's election in 2008. In 2009 alone Monsanto and the biotech lobby spent $71 million. Last year Monsanto's minions included over a dozen lobbying firms, as well as their own in-house lobbyists.

America's bought-and-sold mass media have likewise joined the ranks of Monsanto's minions. Do a Google search on a topic like citizens' rights to know whether our food has been genetically engineered or not, or on the hazards of GMOs and their companion pesticide Roundup, and you'll find very little in the mass media. However, do a Google search on the supposed benefits of Monsanto's GMOs, and you'll find more articles in the daily press than you would ever want to read.

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. In a decade of Congressional lobbying, the OCA has never seen more than 24 out of 435 Congressional Representatives co-sponsor one of Kucinich's GMO labeling bills. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the outrageous "Citizens United" case gave big corporations like Monsanto the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Keep in mind that one of the decisive Supreme Court swing votes in the "Citizen's United' case was cast by the infamous Justice Clarence Thomas, former General Counsel for Monsanto.

Learn more:

Tuesday, 8 November 2011

Sigh! Flu jab... here we go again. Flu Vaccine Rebranding job to make lots more pennies

Consumer products, particularly branded products, need 'refreshing' from time to time to make sure that the client base doesn't forget them or get bored with them. As we all know, a salesman's nightmare is not having any new story to tell those he needs to sell to, to convince them to stock his product. Pharmaceutical drugs are no exception, many of them having the added problem that when their patent period expires generic competitor manufacturers will pile in with a cheaper "me too" version. Sometimes the efficacy of the old product therefore has to be downplayed, or even trashed, to tell a convincing story which will pump up the attractiveness of the new refreshed product. Remember the pronouncement of Dr Allen Roses of GlaxoSmithKline, in Dec 2003 the worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, who noted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them - "The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people"? This was the scene setting for the new story which was that in future drugs would be designed to target just those patients who can benefit most from each medication (called pharmacogenomics)(The Independent. UK. 8 December 2003). And would there be any accountability for all the years the public purse had shelled out for 'useless' drugs, or for the side effects of drugs given to those they would never have worked on? You can bet your bottom dollar not.

So, when we hear the 'new story' for a 'universal flu jab' in place of the old annual flu jab (see NaturalNews below), why should we not yawn?

First, because the researchers in question seem to have decided to try to steal a message which historically has legitimately been the unique preserve of the natural, 'holistic' healthcare community viz. natural remedies are ultimately better for you because they support the body's immune system, not suppress or fight against it, with natural, not artificial substances. For any vaccine to make the same claim, if, as has been the case to date, it contains a laundry list of primary substances and adjuvants which are basically toxic to the body's immune system, and which will be injected in a place which bypasses much of the body's front-line IgA immune system (nose and mouth through to the gastrointestinal tract), would be hogwash - quite apart from the points that NaturalNews feature story by Ethan Huff makes below.

Secondly, because we have heard something like this before. Remember how the adjuvant squalene was added into swine flu vaccine in Europe to boost the immune response/creation of antibodies and how previously it had been in jabs given to Gulf War soldiers? Squalene as an oil molecule consumed normally would have been no problem for the immune system. But injected it had devastating effects on Gulf War veterans and contributed to the cascade of documented reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome".

The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud's phenomenon, Sjorgren's syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.

So, when we hear of another compound which has been found to "stimulate our own (immune) response ...and boost it to fight and infection", what's the betting that it will turn out to be "hogwash with side effects" for the human guinea pigs who participate in this annual experiment?


(NaturalNews) The medical community is in the process of unveiling a "universal" influenza vaccine that it claims will prevent all flu strains with a single jab. The only problem is that, in the process, the system has inadvertently admitted that current flu shots are medically useless because they fail to target the correct flu strain in many cases, and they do not stimulate a natural flu-fighting immune response even when the strain is a match.

A recent report by CBS 11 News in Dallas / Fort Worth explains that researchers from the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas have identified a compound they say spurs the growth of a key protein known as REDD-1, which prevents cells from becoming infected. By injecting this compound into patients, REDD-1 will increase, say the researchers, and thus effectively prevent any strain of flu from taking hold.

But what about current flu vaccines? Dr. Beatrice Fontoura, one of the head researchers involved with the new universal flu shot, explained to CBS 11 that it works differently than current flu shots because it "stimulates our own (immune) response which is already there and boost[s] it to fight an infection."

In other words, flu shots being sold today at pharmacies across the country do not actually promote natural immunity at all, which begs an important question. If current flu shots do not boost the immune response, then what, exactly, are they good for?

Not much, according to a recent study published in The Lancet. Though the mainstream media widely reported that the study's findings showed an effectiveness rate of 60 percent for flu shots, actual data in the study reveal that flu shots help about 1.5 out of every 100 adults. This, of course, translates into a measly 1.5 percent effectiveness rate (

And yet, for years, medical professionals everywhere have been hounding the public to get their flu shots or else face horrific sickness and even death. And those who continue to avoid the flu shot based on concerns about its safety and effectiveness have been routinely dubbed "anti-science," or worse.

Ironically, the CBS 11 piece about the universal flu shot also contains an interview with a woman who admits that she stopped getting the flu shot because it made her sick every single year. Once she stopped getting flu shots, she stopped getting the flu. So why, again, do we even need a universal flu shot?

Learn more: