In the last 7 years there has been a quiet redefinition taking place in the USDA National Organic Program that oversees organic standards. Large scale industrial producers have insinuated themselves into organic certification to transform what the green and white label stands for.
Original organic was based on a simple equation:
Healthy soil = healthy plants = healthy animals = healthy planet.
This equation leaves out the discussion of WHY these things are true, but it is a good roadmap for what organic agriculture is all about. The first given is always “healthy soil.” As we look deeper, we cannot study these parts separately, because plants and animals are integral parts of healthy soil system. No plants means no healthy soil. The same is true with animals. Soil and plants coevolved for 350 million years, and neither can be healthy in isolation from the other. The dance between plants, microbial life, and animal life in the soil is necessary for all.
Western soil science got started with the work of Justus von Liebig (1803-1873). From Liebig’s perspective, soil was a passive storage bin for plant nutrients. However, in Charles Darwin’s 1881 book The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, these ideas were challenged by a vision of the soil as a living ecosystem. But Liebig’s viewpoint dominated Western soil science until the 1980’s when the role of organisms in soil formation became better understood. Liebig himself even turned away from his “storage bin” paradigm in the later part of his life, but our agricultural sciences continued to follow his earlier writings.
If we take away plants, soil can no longer be living. Plants provide the energy via photosynthesis for all animal and microbial life in the soil. These photosynthates are provided first as root exudates that feed the fungi and bacteria in exchange for which they gain the minerals that in turn feed the plants. The visible life forms are as important as the invisible microbial community. Soil animals go from burrowing woodchucks and gophers to snails, slugs and elongate animals such as earthworms, flatworms, nematodes, soil mites, springtails, ants, termites, beetles and flies. All of these species together create a community that is often called the soil food web.
Organic farming is based on protecting and enhancing this web of life. By cultivating the diversity of life, we create a stable ecosystem in the soil. Diseases or pestilence are symptoms of a loss of balance. So the organic farmer’s first job is to enhance the diversity of life in the soil community. This is done by providing materials and techniques to help build a soil carbon sponge.
Conventional agriculture is based on a very different strategy of control and simplification. By making systems that are as simple as possible, it becomes easy to control the inputs and outputs. The inputs are processed offsite to provide plant available nutrients. “Soil” becomes a device for holding roots. It is thus easier to make these systems replicable, much like the model of a McDonald’s restaurant. McDonald’s simplifies their systems as much as possible to serve the same hamburger to every customer around the world. In such a system the expertise is contained in the corporate staff who design the processes and provides the raw materials. The problem is a loss of nutrition in the final product. McDonald’s serves lots of calories that soothe customers’ cravings, but they fail at providing a healthy diet. The end result is the phenomena of customers who are simultaneously malnourished and obese.
Similarly, in a conventional agriculture system, the yields are high per acre, but, as Vandana Shiva has said, the yield of health per acre is low. As it turns out, we are part of that co-evolution of soil and plants and animals. Human nutritional needs are complex and beyond our full understanding at this point. But organic farmers believe that by embracing those natural systems, we can feed ourselves well, even if we never fully understand why.
As Einstein once said, there is a simplicity that comes before complexity that is worthless, but there is a simplicity beyond complexity that is priceless.
These simplified conventional systems have been promoted by an industry that profits by selling remedies to the unintended consequences of such crude simplicity. Their high yields are unsustainable without the liberal use of poisons. Plants grown in a soil devoid of biological complexity are very vulnerable to disease and insect attack. And of course, the more we use such poisons, the less healthy the soil becomes, so more pesticides are needed, and on and on.
In livestock production, the epitome of conventional agriculture is a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) where animals are isolated from the land. Their food is grown far from where they live, so their manure is lost to the production system. There is no honoring of Albert Howard’s Law Of Return.
In vegetables and berries, the epitome of conventional agriculture is hydroponic production. Hydroponics is a system that relies entirely upon processed inputs to feed the plants. The old organic adage is, “Feed the soil, not the plant.” The guiding principle of conventional agriculture is: “Feed the plant, not the soil.” Obviously, hydroponic production is the most extreme example of this philosophy.
The practices of organic farming are ancient, but not all traditional farming systems could be called organic by the definition of such pioneers as Albert Howard. Some traditional agriculture was not sustainable and ultimately led to the downfall of civilizations. But organic principles have been practiced in the intensive farming of southeast Asia for over 4000 years. They were learned by Howard in India and subsequently taught in the West. Since then, soil science has confirmed Howard’s ideas to an astonishing degree. Every day we learn more and more about how soil communities function and about why such a system need not depend on pesticides to thrive. Every day we learn more about the connections between the soil microbiome and our own microbiome.
From this logic we derive a conclusion that is important to remember: that the absence of pesticides in a successful organic system is the result of how we farm, not the definition of it.
The organic movement has long believed that food grown in a healthy soil is the foundation of human health. In recent years it has become clear that agriculture is also deeply involved in the climate crisis, both as the problem and as the solution. Conventional agriculture contributes directly to the destruction of the living soil, leading to the spread of deserts and the warming of the planet. We have the skills and understanding to farm without chemicals in a way that will build a soil carbon sponge that can cool our warming planet. Our impediment to achieving this is social and political, not technical.
The inclusion of hydroponics in organic certification is thus not an example of innovation and improvement. It is an example of conquest and colonization. It is simply a hostile takeover of organic by economic forces. It has been widely resisted by the organic community, but the USDA continues to embrace hydroponics as organic just as they embrace CAFOs as organic. Their redefinition of organic is in opposition to the law and to international norms. The US once again becomes the rogue nation throwing away our mutual future so somebody can make a buck.
At this time, huge quantities of hydroponic berries, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, and greens are being marketed as “Certified Organic” in partnership with the USDA. And there is no way of identifying what is hydroponic in the organic label.
The Real Organic Project was created to challenge this process. Our efforts include the creation of an add-on label so that real organic farmers and eaters might be able to find one another in a deceptive marketplace.
To learn more, please visit us at realorganicproject.org.
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.
This website blog shows supporting evidence proving how vaccines are helping to propagate cancer and many other diseases through the use of contaminated cell lines starting in the very birth of virology.
Human cell lines, and animal cell lines, and a mixture of the two have been widely used in laboratory-based research, especially in the research and production of vaccines and in the research of cancer. A significant proportion of this research is misleading, because the cell lines being used are of a different origin to that being claimed. Cross-contamination of cell lines is a grave and chronic longstanding problem and a repeated and frequent cause of scientific misrepresentation, as well as a way to spread disease. Vaccines are actually implicated in most common diseases today, including cancer.
My findings are not of the conspiracy nature, but one mostly of the scientific evidence and collected evidence that supports my theory from the pharmaceutical medical initiators themselves. If you just look, most of this terribly disturbing information is readily available to the public in plain view. The Vaccine and Cancer Industry, I now see, are one in the same. I feel understanding cell line contamination, especially regarding HeLa cells, is a crucial piece to this understanding, so I am spreading the word far and wide to all who will hear and I strongly encourage you to research as much as you can too. Also, see the link on this site entitled: “Sites/Movies/Books” to find many others who also understand the grave consequences of cell line contamination of which is being ignored entirely from the criminals touting vaccinations.
Every article or website posted here in this blog is supporting evidence that vaccines and virology have been created from contaminated cell lines perpetuating and causing cancer in humans since before the 1950’s and still this terrible injustice to humanity continues today because the accepted research we have been relying on is actually false and void. And I want to highlight the point that polio vaccine (which introduced the SV40 CANCER VIRUS) used HeLa cells. These HeLa cells were the first ever cloned human cancer cell and trillions upon trillions of these IMMORTAL cancer cells were used in research for innumerable research projects as well as in vaccines, gene mapping and cloning projects. This HeLa cell line is known as a laboratory ‘weed’ and has gotten out of control and has contaminated research and vaccinations globally and have completely invalidated what we assumed was reputable medical science which actually turns out to be scientific fraud. And this SV40 Cancer Virus was only ONE of the many polyomaviruses that vaccines are spreading! (Study about SV40 !!)
A leader in speaking out about cell line contamination is Dr. Walter Anthony Nelson-Rees who I have highlighted in this blog. Dr. Rees ran the National Cancer Institute’s Cell Culture Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. Unfortunately, Dr. Rees passed away in 2009 and much of his incredible work has been ‘swept under the rug’, but many of his research findings have been documented here in this blog. This blog is also an attempt to preserve his vision and continue to spread his, and his colleagues, work to all who will listen. A book entitled: A Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman’s Immortal Legacy (HeLa) and the Medical Scandal it Caused – written by Michael Gold documents Dr. Nelson-Rees work and clearly shines a light on the scientific fraud vaccines are built upon. I think if we can follow this work and follow the contaminated cell lines it will be very telling. (And remember, start from the point of the HeLa cells.)
With the cancer epidemic rising each moment, I intend to help people awaken to the fact virology and many cell research projects calling themselves science do not deserve our blind trust and vaccines are absolutely not safe and are in fact spreading the cancer virus and documented other viruses. We have been lied to about what cancer actually is and we have been lied to about vaccines being safe and for our public health.
‘A vaccination is a contaminated injection of neurotoxins, retroviruses and foreign animal proteins.’
Here I show the facts that we have been severely lied to in the biggest medical scandal in history. Its with a great amount of clarity, and profound sadness, I bring you this ‘vaccine cancer connection’ information today….
The gene-editing of DNA inside living cells is considered by many to be the preeminent technological breakthrough of the new millennium. Researchers in medicine and agriculture have rapidly adopted it as a technique for discovering cell and organism functions. But its commercial prospects are much more complicated.
Gene-editing has many potential uses. These include altering cells to treat human disease, altering crops and livestock for breeding and agriculture. Furthermore, in a move that has been widely criticised, Chinese researcher He Jiankui claims to have edited human babies to resist HIV by altering a gene called CCR5.
For most commercial applications gene-editing’s appeal is simplicity and precision: it alters genomes at precise sites and without inserting foreign DNA. This why, in popular articles, gene-editing is often referred to as ‘tweaking’.
The tweaking narrative, however, is an assumption and not an established fact. And it recently suffered a large dent. In late July researchers from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analysed the whole genomes of two calves originally born in 2016. The calves were edited by the biotech startup Recombinetics using a gene-editing method called TALENS (Norris et al., 2019). The two Recombinetics animals had become biotech celebrities for having a genetic change that removed their horns. Cattle without horns are known as ‘polled’. The calves are well-known because Recombinetics has insisted that its two edited animals were extremely precisely altered to possess only the polled trait.
However, what the FDA researchers found was not precision. Each of Recombinetics’ calves possessed two antibiotic resistance genes, along with other segments of superfluous bacterial DNA. Thus, apparently unbeknownst to Recombinetics, adjacent to its edited site were 4,000 base pairs of DNA that originated from the plasmid vector used to introduce the DNA required for the hornless trait.
The FDA finding has attracted some media attention; mainly focussed on the incompetence of Recombinetics. The startup failed to find (or perhaps look for) DNA it had itself added as part of the editing process. Following the FDA findings, Brazil terminated a breeding program begun with the Recombinetics animals.
But FDA’s findings are potentially trivial besides another recent discovery about gene-editing: that foreign DNA from surprising sources can routinely find its way into the genome of edited animals. This genetic material is not DNA that was put there on purpose, but rather, is a contaminant of standard editing procedures.
These findings have not been reported in the scientific or popular media. But they are of great consequence from a biosafety perspective and therefore for the commercial and regulatory landscape of gene-editing. They imply, at the very least, the need for strong measures to prevent contamination by stray DNA, along with thorough scrutiny of gene-edited cells and gene-edited organisms. And, as the Recombinetics case suggests, these are needs that developers themselves may not meet.
Understanding sources of stray DNA
As far back as 2010 researchers working with human cells showed that a form of gene-editing called Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN) could result in the insertion of foreign DNA at the editing target site (Olsen et al., 2010). The origin of this foreign DNA, as with Recombinetics’ calves, was the plasmid vector used in the editing process.
Understanding the presence of plasmid vectors requires an appreciation of the basics of gene-editing, which, confusingly, are considerably distinct from what the word ‘editing’ means in ordinary English.
Ultimately, all DNA ‘editing’ is really the cutting of DNA by enzymes, called nucleases, that are supposed to act only at chosen sites in the genome of a living cell. This cut creates a double-stranded break that severs (and therefore severely damages) a chromosome. The enzymes most commonly used by researchers for this cutting are the Fok I enzyme (for TALENS type editing), Cas9 (for CRISPR), or Zinc Finger Nucleases (for ZFN).
Subsequent to this cutting event the cell effects a repair. In practice, this DNA repair is usually inaccurate because the natural repair mechanism in most cells is somewhat random. The result is called the ‘edit’. Researchers typically must select from many ‘edits’ to obtain the one they desire.
Like virtually all enzymes these nucleases are proteins. And like most proteins they are somewhat tricky to produce and relatively unstable once made. Typically, therefore, rather than produce the DNA cutting enzymes directly, researchers introduce vector plasmids into target cells. These vector plasmids are circular DNA molecules that code for the desired enzyme(s). (vector plasmid DNA may also code for the guide RNA that CRISPR editing techniques require). What this means, in practice, is that TALENS, Cas9 and the other cutting enzymes end up being produced by the target cell itself.
Introducing DNA rather than proteins is thus much easier, research-wise, but it has a downside: non-host (i.e. transgenic) DNA must be introduced into the cell that is to be edited and this DNA may end up in the genome.
Plasmid vectors are not simple. As well as specifying the nucleases, the vector plasmid used by Recombinetics contained antibiotic resistance genes, plus the lac Z gene, plus promoter and termination sequences for each of them, plus two bacterial origins of replication. Each of these DNA components comes from widely diverse microbes.
As Olsen et al. and the FDA showed, using both TALENS and ZFN types of DNA cutters can result in plasmid vector integration at the target site. In 2015 Japanese researchers showed that DNA edits made to mouse zygotes using the CRISPR method of gene editing are also vulnerable to unintended insertion of non-host DNA (Ono et al., 2015).
Since then, similar integrations of foreign DNA at the target site have been observed in many species: fruitflies (Drosophila melanogaster), medaka fish (Oryzias latipes), mice, yeast, Aspergillus (a fungus), the nematode C. elegans, Daphnia magna, and various plants (e.g. Jacobs et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015; Gutierrez-Triana et al., 2018).
Other sources of stray DNA
The vector plasmids themselves are not the only source of potential foreign DNA contamination in standard gene-editing methodologies.
Earlier this year the same Japanese group showed that DNA from the E. coli genome can integrate in the target organisms’ genome (Ono et al. 2019). Acquisition of E. coli DNA was found to be quite frequent. Insertion of long unintended DNA sequences occurred at 4% of the total number of edited sites and 21% of these were of DNA from the E. coli genome. The source of the E. coli DNA was traced back to the E. coli cells that were used to produce the vector plasmid. The vector plasmid, which is DNA, was contaminated with E. coli genome DNA. Importantly, the Japanese researchers were using standard methods of vector plasmid preparation.
Even more intriguing was the finding, in the same paper, that edited mouse genomes can acquire bovine DNA or goat DNA (Ono et al., 2019). This was traced to the use, in standard culture medium for mouse cells, of foetal calf serum; that is, body fluids usually extracted from cows. This serum contains DNA from whichever animal species it happened to have been extracted from, hence the insertion in some experiments of goat DNA (which occurred when goat serum was used instead of calf serum).
Even more worrisome, amongst the DNA sequences inserted into the mouse genome were bovine and goat retrotransposons (jumping genes) and mouse retrovirus DNA (HIV is a retrovirus). Thus gene-editing is a potential mechanism for horizontal gene transfer of unwanted pathogens, including, but not limited to, viruses.
Other potential sources of unwanted DNA also exist in cell cultures used for gene editing. In 2004 researchers observed that when cells from a hepatoma cell line were caused to have DNA breaks, some of these breaks were filled by hepatitis B virus sequences (Bill and Summers, 2004). In other words, pathogens contaminating the foetal serum, such as DNA viruses, should also be a source of concern.
Furthermore, the insertion of superfluous DNA from other species is likely not restricted to the intended target site. As is becoming appreciated, gene-editing enzymes can act at unwanted locations in the genome (e.g. Kosicki et al., 2018). Accidentally introduced DNA can also end up at such sites. This has been shown for human cells and also plants using CRISPR (Kim and Kim 2014; Li et al., 2017; Jacobs et al., 2015). There is every reason to suppose that the more exotic DNAs mentioned above can integrate there as well, but this has not been specifically tested for….
Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube have announced today that their Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), a consortium that’s dedicated to preventing “extremist” and “terrorist” content online, will be expanding.
According to Facebook, as part of the expansion, GIFCT will become an independent organization with dedicated staff, dedicated technology, and an executive director. Amazon, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp will also be joining the forum.
Going forward, GIFCT’s efforts will be focused on preventing, responding to, and learning from “extremist” and “terrorist” content on digital platforms.
According to the announcement, GIFCT has already reached its 2019 goal of “collectively contributing more than 200,000 hashes, or unique digital fingerprints, of known terrorist content into our shared database, enabling each of us to quickly identify and take action on potential terrorist content on our respective platforms.”
Last week, digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warned that the frantic push to crush “extremist” speech online will hurt innocent users the most. The EFF argued that because tech giants have consistently failed to explain how they define “extremist” or “terrorist” content, their approach creates the unintended consequence of censoring innocent users such as those documenting human rights abuses.
The EFF’s warning about the lack of clarity when big tech companies attempt to moderate “extremist” or “terrorist” content is one of many recent concerns that have been raised about how the companies involved in GIFCT moderate content on their platforms.
Many of these concerns revolve around Facebook and the way bias and subjectivity often seep into its content moderation decisions. For example, Facebook recently admitted in court filings that it subjectively labels users as “dangerous” and then uses this opinion to ban users and their content from its platforms. Last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also admitted that there “clearly was bias” in a recent high profile “fact-check” on the platform.
YouTube creators have also raised concerns over the way YouTube’s “hate speech” policies often impact innocent creators such as model makers, history channels, and independent journalists. Despite the collateral damage caused by these rules, YouTube removed 5x more content for “hate speech” last quarter.
Digital rights groups are concerned that the expansion of GIFCT is going to infringe on speech.
What was practiced in the shadows is now pushed onto the masses.
The Epstein scandal has revealed the dark underbelly of the global elite. Powerful men and women are trafficking children, and they enjoy destroying innocence.
In order for these people to survive, the rest of humanity needs to be twisted into adopting their satanic mindset.
These sick individuals have a vested interest in maintaining a morally bankrupt, defeated people that will not revolt against the rape and murder of innocent children.
Temple of Satan co-founder Lucien Greaves said recently,
“At this point there seems to be an inherent, intuitive grasp of what Satan can mean in a heroic context…”
Many of the recent mass shooters have been open satanists. The Dayton shooter wrote that he wanted to “Strike fear into the hearts of children of God; Show them the hell that waits below.”
Andrew M. Lobaczewski’s 1998 book entitled Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes) discusses in depth the nature of psychopaths and their exploits when in positions of power.
These types are threatened by normal people in a moral society.
“The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country creating a “new class” within that nation. This privileged class feels permanently threatened by the “others”, i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man.”
“Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of this majority of normal people is a “biological” necessity to the pathocrats.”
Your stand as an independent human with a conscience is the last firewall against this evil.