US Dept. of Agriculture scientists under the gun; explosive details
“Anybody can fake scientific results. But to be believed, you want a prestigious organization behind you with a billion-dollar budget and access to compliant reporters. You want to manipulate technical language. You want to keep saying how much you care about people. And then you also want to get down and dirty when you have to, and threaten and coerce your in-house scientific dissenters who won’t go along with the fakery. Cut their pay, demote them, fire them, ruin their careers and lives. This is all standard procedure in the major leagues of science. I’ve watched it happen.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Wonder how a federal agency as large as the USDA can keep claiming pesticides like Roundup are safe?
Wonder how the truth can be kept from leaking out?
Wonder how this agency, tasked with protecting the public from unsafe food, can turn fake science into “real science” like clockwork?
Government scientists who believe in exposing the truth are being targeted.
Ten scientists at the US Dept. of Agriculture are on such a target list, because their research findings would harm big-corporate agriculture. (See Common Dreams, 5/5/15, “Suppressing Science for Monsanto?”)
PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a non-profit group, knows who these scientists are, but they aren’t talking. Not yet. They’re trying to gain protection for the researchers.
“Scientists within the U.S. Department of Agriculture are subjected to management pressure and retaliation for research threatening agribusiness interests…”
“PEER has received reports concerning USDA scientists ordered to retract studies, water down findings, remove their name from authorship and endure long indefinite delays in approving publication of papers that may be controversial. Moreover, [USDA] scientists who are targeted by [big-Ag] industry complaints find themselves subjected to disruptive investigations, disapprovals of formerly routine requests, disciplinary actions over petty matters and intimidation from [USDA] supervisors focused on pleasing ‘stakeholders’.”
The “stakeholders,” of course, would include huge biotech companies. Like Monsanto.
“The USDA Scientific Integrity Policy actively enables [USDA] agency managers to suppress and alter scientific work products for their policy implications, regardless of their technical merit. It also appears clear that agribusiness interests, such as Monsanto Corporation, have access to top [USDA] agency managers and are invited to lodge complaints and concerns about the published work of [USDA] agency scientists. Significantly, the [USDA] Policy lacks any mechanism to effectively challenge this political manipulation of science.”
The PEER petition goes on to describe what truth-telling USDA scientists face:
“USDA scientists have been subjected to Directives not to publish data on certain topics of particular sensitivity to [big-Agriculture] industry;
“Orders to rewrite scientific articles already accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal to remove sections which could provoke [big-Ag] industry objections;
“Summons to meet with [USDA] Secretary Vilsack in an effort to induce retraction of a paper that drew the ire of [big-Ag] industry representatives;
“Orders to retract a paper after it had been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper could only be published if the USDA scientist removed his authorship thus leaving only the names of authors unassociated with USDA;
“Demotion from supervisory status and a reprimand after the scientist provided testimony before Congress that did not reflect [USDA] agency preferences;
“Disruptive and lengthy internal investigations to search out any irregularity that could be used for management leverage against the targeted scientist;
“Suspensions without pay and other disciplinary actions for petty matters, such as minor irregularities in travel paperwork;
“Inordinate, sometimes indefinite, delays in approving submission for publication of scientific papers that may be controversial;
“Restrictions on topics that USDA scientists may address in conference presentations;
“Threats by USDA managers to damage the careers of [USDA] scientists whose work triggers [big-Ag] industry complaints.”
“USDA scientists working on topics with direct relevance to [big-Ag] industry interests are under constant pressure not to do anything to upset these important ‘stakeholders.’ Rather than shield staff scientists from [big-Ag] industry influence, USDA managers amplify it.”
This is a witch hunt.
The notion of believing anything the USDA says or publishes is absurd.
Claims that the USDA is serving the public interest?
A fairy tale.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
Recently, Dr. Andrew Wakefield spoke at a Moms In Charge event to introduce a new documentary about CDC and vaccine whistleblowers and the consequences of repeated disregard. No one knows how better to handle blowing the whistle than Wakefield himself.
His name is synonymous with “discredited” and “debunked” – an oft repeated line that lets you know when a mainstream journalist is either incredibly lazy and obtuse or is knowingly following lockstep with orders like a good corporate sycophant. Such adjectives are nothing compared to the ones leveled at vaccine skeptics of all walks and stations. When a man like Wakefield is stripped of everything for unwittingly questioning a connection – not going to “war on vaccines” like the media regurgitates – he now has nothing to lose by igniting the truth.
Here, Wakefield briefly alludes to his own story and shines light on media and corporate tactics of deception. The power to crush someone’s reputation for questioning vaccines is paramount. However, so is the power to blow the lid on the whole illusion. As you see from his information, vaccines are not prompted by genuine care for children, but rather steamroll on despite full knowledge of deadly and devastating risks.
The people who wish to acquiesce in order to be on the “winning” team because they themselves don’t see the damages, need to understand that they are running toward a tsunami that will destroy them with hundreds of vaccines planned for a newly compulsory pipeline. What can you do when you find out the truth too late and can no longer say “no”? There is only so much money in Viagra – vaccines are where the real profits lie.
Here, you will get an inside look in the precise timing and coordination needed by whistleblowers so that they and their information doesn’t go out with the tide:
What would happen if you switched from conventionally grown food to organic-only? One family of five found out after participating in an experiment run by Swedish grocery chain, Coop, and the Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
During the first week of the 21-day experiment, the Palmberg family ate a conventional diet and then each member submitted a urine sample to the SERI laboratory, where analysts found a number of insecticides, fungicides and plant growth regulators. Then, the family switched to an organics only diet, including soaps and personal care items, for two weeks. During the organics phase, the researchers took daily urine samples.
The results were dramatic: The pesticide loads in the family members’ bodies dropped in ways that were observable after a single day, according to the report. And by the end of the two weeks, there was very little evidence of the pesticides and other compounds in their follow up urine samples.
Previous research has established that organic food can pack more nutrients into the same piece of produce than conventionally farmed foods. A recent study from Newcastle University found that concentrations of antioxidants like polyphenolics in organic produce can be 18 to 69 percent higher than in their non-organic counterparts. But according to the Mayo Clinic, one of the main considerations in choosing organic food isn’t the increased nutritional value, but rather the reduction in pesticide exposure. Organic food does indeed pose a much smaller pesticide consumption risk, but what that means for health is still up for debate.
At the beginning of the video, Anette Palmberg explains how her family has chosen to eat conventional because it’s less expensive for their big family. However, she said she was reevaluating that tradeoff by the end of the experiment. “When you hear this, you think about your children,” she said, according to a translation. “There were a whole number of chemicals removed from my kids’ bodies, and I don’t want them back.”
It is important to note that the experiment was commissioned by a for-profit food company, with an eye toward storytelling rather than rigorous science: Just one family was evaluated. And yes, organic food is typically more expensive than conventional food, so Coop stands to gain from a consumer base that eschews “conventional” fare in favor of the pricier stuff. What’s more, the initial pesticide levels found in this family were considered well within the range of what is considered safe for humans, the researchers noted.
That said, we don’t know a great deal about long-term pesticide exposure and human health: “We know very little about the long-term effects of eating food treated with pesticides,” says Jorgen Magner, a researcher at SERI, in the video above. “Especially if you consider that chemicals can be much more harmful when combined together than they are on their own.”
A recent meta-analysis of studies looking at the effects of heavy metal cadmium on the human body and the contaminated produce that often carry it revealed that organic crops (as opposed to conventionally grown varieties) have almost 50 percent less of the harmful substance. James DiNicolantonio, a cardiovascular research scientist at St. Luke’s Hospital, then evaluated this new data with potential health effects of this difference in mind.
“We predicted that this reduction in consumption of cadmium (with organic crops versus conventional) may lead to a 20 percent reduction in mortality (due to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer),” DiNicolantonio told The Huffington Post in an email. “We also predicted a 35 percent reduction in cardiovascular risk based on the flavonoid content. While we were unable to find evidence to calculate the health benefits of lower pesticide residue, it is likely that this will also lead to better health outcomes. This is not to say that conventional crops aren’t healthy, but that organic crops are probably that much healthier.”
While we are unsure of the potential role cadmium played for the family tested in the video above, this research provides a clear example of the ways in which pesticides from food can, in fact, prove harmful to human health.