FDA approves experimental GMO salmon for human consumption

Just as we predicted, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has brazenly betrayed the public’s trust by approving the world’s first genetically modified (GM) animal in direct defiance of science – a transgenic salmon branded “AquAdvantage” that has never been proven safe for human consumption or the natural environment.

The New York Times (NYT) reports that AquAdvantage, a product of AquaBounty Technologies, has received official FDA approval after years of fierce lobbying by its manufacturer in favor of open approval. Despite repeated warnings from detractors that AquAdvantage poses serious threats to aquatic ecosystems and humans, the FDA has determined that this GM fish is completely safe for everything and everyone on the planet.

Many of the claims made about AquAdvantage by its manufacturer have been debunked, including the lie that this “Frankenfish” grows more quickly than natural salmon and is less prone to disease – both of which claims are patently false. AquAdvantage was also said to pose no threats to aquatic environments because it is supposedly sterile, but this, too, has been called into question by independent scientific review.

The FDA has repeatedly ignored all petitions from consumer watchdog groups to take a closer and more unbiased look at GM salmon to determine its true safety, including whether or not it is even needed. Consumers have overwhelmingly indicated that they don’t want to eat this or any other GM animal, yet the FDA now plans to allow its entrance into the food supply – unlabeled, of course. …

FDA Pushes Involuntary Abortions on Clueless Pregnant Women

FDA Prepares to Fast Track New Vaccines Targeting Pregnant Women

Following is a public comment made by Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC Co-founder & President, at the Nov. 13, 2015 meeting of the FDA Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on proposed changes to FDA requirements for licensure of vaccines intended for use during pregnancy

Pregnancy Health Concerns

Birth defects, chromosomal damage, premature birth, low birth weight, pregnancy complications and sudden infant death syndrome, not infectious diseases, are the leading causes of death for about 23,000 infants dying before their first birthday in the US every year, with half of those deaths occurring on the first day of life. 1 2  Women getting pregnant and delivering babies in America today have more than twice the risk of dying during pregnancy, childbirth or within one year of giving birth than they did three decades ago, with heart failure, high blood pressure and stroke, diabetes, and blood clots being among the leading causes of death. 3 4

In 2006, CDC officials directed doctors to give all pregnant women a flu shot 5  and, in 2011, a Tdap shot during every pregnancy, no matter how little time has elapsed between pregnancies. 6   Prior to FDA licensure, influenza, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines were not tested in or proven safe and effective for pregnant women in large clinical trials when given during every pregnancy either singly or simultaneously. 7 8

Categorized by FDA as Pregnancy Category B and C biologicals 9   because it is not known whether the vaccines are genotoxic and can cause fetal harm or can affect maternal fertility and reproduction, administering influenza and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women is an off-label use of these vaccines. 10 11 12   It is a policy that assumes maternal vaccination is necessary, safe and effective without proving it. 13

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/November-2015/fda-to-fasttrack-vaccines-targeting-pregnant-women.aspx

You want proof of safety?  How about proof of the opposite: http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2013/03/cdc-lying-about-safety-of-tetanus-vaccine-in-pregnancy/

Hang Onto Your Wallets: Negative Interest, the War on Cash and the $10 Trillion Bail-in

Remember those old ads showing a senior couple lounging on a warm beach, captioned “Let your money work for you”? Or the scene in Mary Poppins where young Michael is being advised to put his tuppence in the bank, so that it can compound into “all manner of private enterprise,” including “bonds, chattels, dividends, shares, shipyards, amalgamations . . . ”?

That may still work if you’re a Wall Street banker, but if you’re an ordinary saver with your money in the bank, you may soon be paying the bank to hold your funds rather than the reverse.

Four European central banks – the European Central Bank, the Swiss National Bank, Sweden’s Riksbank, and Denmark’s Nationalbank – have now imposed negative interest rates on the reserves they hold for commercial banks; and discussion has turned to whether it’s time to pass those costs on to consumers. The Bank of Japan and the Federal Reserve are still at ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy), but several Fed officials have also begun calling for NIRP (negative rates).

The stated justification for this move is to stimulate “demand” by forcing consumers to withdraw their money and go shopping with it. When an economy is struggling, it is standard practice for a central bank to cut interest rates, making saving less attractive. This is supposed to boost spending and kick-start an economic recovery.

That is the theory, but central banks have already pushed the prime rate to zero, and still their economies are languishing. To the uninitiated observer, that means the theory is wrong and needs to be scrapped. But not to our intrepid central bankers, who are now experimenting with pushing rates below zero.

Locking the Door to Bank Runs: the Cashless Society

The problem with imposing negative interest on savers, as explained in the UK Telegraph, is that “there’s a limit, what economists called the ‘zero lower bound’. Cut rates too deeply, and savers would end up facing negative returns. In that case, this could encourage people to take their savings out of the bank and hoard them in cash. This could slow, rather than boost, the economy.”

Again, to the ordinary observer, this would seem to signal that negative interest rates won’t work and the approach needs to be abandoned. But not to our undaunted central bankers, who have chosen instead to plug this hole in their leaky theory by moving to eliminate cash as an option. If your only choice is to keep your money in a digital account in a bank and spend it with a bank card or credit card or checks, negative interest can be imposed with impunity. This is already happening in Sweden, and other countries are close behind. As reported on Wolfstreet.com:

The War on Cash is advancing on all fronts. One region that has hogged the headlines with its war against physical currency is Scandinavia. Sweden became the first country to enlist its own citizens as largely willing guinea pigs in a dystopian economic experiment: negative interest rates in a cashless society. As Credit Suisse reports, no matter where you go or what you want to purchase, you will find a small ubiquitous sign saying “Vi hanterar ej kontanter” (“We don’t accept cash”) . . . .

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/20/hang-onto-your-wallets-negative-interest-the-war-on-cash-and-the-10-trillion-bail-in/