Your EPA in Action

>

 

 

It’s been common knowledge for years that the EPA knew at least since the early 1980s that glyphosate causes cancer, and has been helping Monsanto cover up this fact ever since. Glyphosate doesn’t work in practice, and the brain-dead cult of it is driven only by profit and power.

 

The flood of cancer lawsuits now ongoing against Monsanto is providing more information about the EPA’s pattern of crime. In one of the suits the plaintiffs’ experts are reviewing one of Monsanto’s own original studies which found evidence of glyphosate’s cancerousness.

 

This 1983 study, entitled “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice”, was conclusive enough that in 1984 EPA toxicologist William Dykstra wrote in a memo: “glyphosate is oncogenic…in a dose-related manner.” Other EPA scientists concurred over the next year. In 1985 they officially signed a consensus review classifying glyphosate as Category C, “possibly carconogenic to humans.”

 

In response, Monsanto cadre George Levinskas, the company’s cover-up artist who previously led the campaign to lie about the devastation wrought by PCBs, suborned doctor and academic Marvin Kuschner to whitewash the evidence. Levinskas assured colleagues that Kuschner’s testimony was in the bag even before Kuschner actually looked at the slides. Sure enough, Kuschner claimed to find a tumor in the control group which previous researchers, including Monsanto’s own, had not located.

 

At the same time as this alleged control group tumor was being “discovered”, Monsanto sent the EPA a secret report which blamed the tumors found among the experimental group on how the study allegedly used “aged mice”. Why, praytell, would a scientific toxicology study use “aged” experimental subjects such that tumor evidence, if found, would be overdetermined? Precisely for that reason – so that in the event of experimental trouble Monsanto could dismiss the evidence as caused by the age of the subjects. In other words, this is Monsanto openly admitting that its study was a deliberately designed to be a fraud, because they intentionally used experimental subjects which could not provide legitimate scientific evidence. In legitimate science, of course, the goal of experimental design is to isolate the experimental variable(s) and control for every other variable. Legitimate researchers therefore select their experimental subjects in order to prevent any overdetermination of the results. In a cancer study, the subjects would be selected from the demographic which has the least actuarial incidence of cancer. But if you select older mice who are statistically more prone to tumors in general, you’re intentionally designing a fraudulent study. Here we have Monsanto openly avowing that it perpetrated such a fraud, and claiming that therefore the evidence of its own study should be dismissed.

 

Any society which respected science would drive them out with a whip. But we see how things function in a system of establishment science dedicated to the corporate science paradigm.

 

Monsanto also bombarded the EPA with “historical control data”, a standard methodological fraud. Standard in industry tests, this tactic is designed to generate irrelevant noise in order to drown out any toxicity or cancer signal which does arise.

 

 

These Monsanto lies gave the EPA enough of a pretext to reclassify glyphosate into Category D – “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” But they still asked Monsanto to repeat the study, which Monsanto refused to do, thus implicitly validating the original results. In other words, Monsanto believed that even with all its chicanery and fraud, a new study would still produce evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. If the company didn’t think that, it would happily perform the study. The same goes for the fact that the GMO corporations have absolutely refused ever to perform a single safety study upon any GMO. This proves that the corporations and governments believe that such studies would produce evidence of the health harms of GMOs.

 

In 1989 the EPA dropped its request for a new study. The EPA was warming up to its whitewashing role. In 1991 the agency finally performed a complete inversion, dubbing glyphosate Category E – “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans” – a bald-faced lie.

 

The EPA has held fast to this pro-glyphosate line ever since, reaffirming it most recently in 2013.

 

Meanwhile the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), one of the few public bodies dedicated to legitimate science*, has deemed this same study, along with a 1981 study finding evidence that glyphosate causes testicular cancer in rats, as evidence that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”.

 

 

Since at least the early 1980s Monsanto and the EPA have known that glyphosate causes cancer. Every US president, agriculture secretary, and other government officials also have known this at least since then. All of them have systematically covered up this fact ever since. They are all complicit in mass murder by poisoning. This is indelibly what the EPA and other regulatory agencies are, just as it’s indelibly what the Corporate One-Party is, regardless of its fake “Democrat” and “Republican” groups. There is no path forward for humanity with these criminal organizations. The regulatory agencies are dedicated in principle to “managing” the infliction of deadly poisons upon the people, and in principle are supposed to keep the number of deaths and injuries at a politically tolerable level, thus the regulatory concept of “tolerances”. But in practice they make no attempt even to manage the death toll, but strive to maximize the use of every kind of deadly agricultural poison. This is indelibly what they are.

 

There is no path forward for humanity in seeking to “co-exist” with these poisons and poisoners. The only solution is total abolition. Therefore there is no path forward in trying to “reform” these indelibly poisonist agencies. They too must be abolished along with the vile poisons they inflict upon us.

 

 

 

*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-Monsanto, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation.

 

Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.

 

The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant “science” ideology which dogmatically views cancer as arising either from genetic determinism or “bad luck”, and which considers the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist cures supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This ideology is driven by the need of the poison-peddling corporations to obscure and deny the fact that profitable products like glyphosate are in fact major cancer drivers. The corporate flacks are abetted by scientism’s religious zealots who refuse to hear any evil spoken of their technological rabbits’ feet.

 

 

 

Help propagate the abolitionist idea.

 

 

 

 

A Monolithic Political Climate, Committed to Maximum Change of the Physical Climate

>

 

 

Judging by internet commentary, there’s a gathering consensus, including among “radicals”, that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord is “evil”, as one headline today at the leftist site Counterpunch puts it.

 

The alternative is to condemn the Paris accord as the climate-denying fraud it is and to recognize that Trump’s abrogation of it, and the liberal shrieking over this abrogation, is nothing but a squabble between the two kinds of climate deniers. But as the climate crisis intensifies, along with its companion environmental crises of the extreme energy civilization, we see how “leftists” and liberals, rather than diverging, are coming together while the Earth burns.

 

This, more than anything, proves that there’s a consensus in support of the climate-destroying system, a consensus on Trump (whether one is a de jure supporter or a constructive critic, one supports the system of which he is the logical product; those who oppose Trump in the name of any of the system’s lies, for example its fraudulent climate change treaties, are peas out of the same pod), and that all existing factions are committed to total environmental destruction. There are no alternatives within the framework of existing politics. Or as I’ve written before, Politics is Dead.

 

There’s only a handful of people, sane and honest, who recognize that there’s one and only one solution to avert the worst of climate chaos and adapt to the level of crisis already locked in:

 

1. Greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Stop destroying carbon and nitrogen sinks. 3. Rebuild sinks on a mass scale.

 

All else is a lie. This is a physical fact: Any mitigation of the climate crisis, or the poison crisis, or the water crisis, or the biodiversity crisis, is incompatible with the extreme energy civilization. These are mutually exclusive. It’s incompatible with “growth”. Incompatible with capitalism, and with corporate rule. It’s incompatible with the personal car, and with so much else that’s worthless and destructive.

 

But of course climate chaos is by now a deliberate campaign of disaster capitalism, driven by the corporations which profit off the actions of extreme emission and destruction of sinks, and who also try to profit off the rising tide of climate disaster itself. The same goes for every other environmental crisis. And as we see, every faction into which the people have let themselves be organized supports this campaign of destruction. That’s how a patent fraud like the COP21, which self-evidently was designed not to be put into action, and which would be pathetically insufficient even if it were carried out to the letter, can become such a fetish among both “supporters” and “detractors”. These are simply the two symbiotic factions of climate denial – the “conservative” de jure deniers, and those liberals who cry crocodile tears, fraudulently pretending to care about the climate crisis even as they’re every bit as unwilling to do what’s necessary as their conservative counterparts. (As for the imbecile notion that Paris was supposed to be a transitional step, 1. there’s no longer time for that, as anyone sane and honest would acknowledge, and 2. we know that alleged “transitions” are never anything but scams meant to buy time and keep the sheep herded until it’s time for the next scam. No one supported Obamacare because they really saw it as a step toward single payer. As we saw during the 2016 campaign, they supported it because they actively revile single payer and everything it stands for. Meanwhile something like single payer is a real example of something which, while insufficient in itself, could be part of a constructive transitional program. That’s why the corporate liberals revile it, precisely because it offers a much better alternative to corporate domination. They apply the same logic to the climate crisis and other environmental crises. Only scams designed to burn time and escalate the crises are acceptable.)

 

 

Probably the most temperate response I could expect to this would be, “How pointless to even think like that. Given that it’s true, everyone is so committed to wanting the products of the extreme energy binge that there’s no way civilization will give them up, and therefore no way civilization will take any real mitigation action, short of total physical energy collapse.”

 

Yes indeed, the elites and fanboys of the extreme energy civilization won’t give up anything, no matter how worthless and destructive, but like Hitler they’ll hunker in the bunker, ever more deranged, unto the bitter end. That’s the core of their will to total destruction. Deep down they know this, which is why their ongoing cultural and socioeconomic campaigns, such as poison-based agriculture and eugenics, have maximal destruction as an implicit goal. All their actions prove this.

 

But why do people, and not just elite profiteers, want all this? It’s self-evident that the products of productionism and extreme energy consumption never made anyone happy, never made anyone feel more secure, only less, never improved our health, our well-being, the prospects of our children. Everyone knows this. Their actions and mindset – the surging stress and anxiety and fear and anger and hatred – prove it.

 

So I wonder. Why won’t anyone decide to stop being deniers and commit to whatever action is possible on behalf of the truth? Does it look hopeless to oppose the extreme energy civilization? But what could be more pointless than to support it. In case you didn’t notice, the system doesn’t care whether or not you support it; it intends to liquidate you just the same either way. So with the system you have nothing, not even self-respect. While with the truth you at least have the truth.

 

And if enough people committed to the truth, we’d have so much more.

 

 

 

 

 

The Regulator/Corporate Interest vs. the People’s Interest

>

 

 

The Greens/EFA faction of the European Parliament is suing the EFSA because the agency refuses to release secret documents from its 2015 glyphosate review. The EFSA always has proclaimed openly that it depends upon secret documents it is fed by the corporations. In other words, the regulator openly admits that it uses no science in its reviews, but only corporate innuendo. This is in complete contrast to the WHO’s IARC cancer research agency, whose guidelines require it to use only published studies. The IARC requires itself to stay within the bounds of legitimate science, while the EFSA and EPA explicitly disavow science and stay within the bounds of secret corporate decrees.

 

Under public pressure the EFSA did release a fragmentary, heavily redacted version of the corporate materials, and did find collaborators willing to provide political cover for this fraudulent “disclosure”. The EFSA now says no public interest would be served by full disclosure. In addition to being an explicit abdication of the canons of science, which by definition requires public perusal, this is the EFSA’s open admission that it does not view itself as acting in the public interest, since it explicitly avows that the public interest, at best, must be limited by the corporate interest. The Greens/EFA statement partially endorses this, agreeing that there’s a “balance that should be struck.” We abolitionists of course recognize no such fraudulent “balance”, but will never settle for anything less than the full public interest and the full publicity of anything claiming to represent “science”.

 

 

Once again we have the standard state of things:

 

1. The myth of the public interest regulator.

 

2. The reality of the regulator controlled by the corporation and ideologically committed to serving the corporation.

 

3. The regulator lies, claiming to be trying to “strike a balance”. This already partially abrogates the myth of the public interest. In reality, the regulator recognizes no public interest at all, except insofar as this may trickle down from corporate domination.

 

4. “Reformers” have already surrendered that far, and they abet that extent of the lie. So we can assume that over time they’ll continue to surrender ground and abet further lies as the corporate assault advances.

 

 

As the piece points out, the EFSA could, if it really were under legal constraint with regard to publicizing its alleged data, ask the court to order it to publish the data. But of course no regulator would ever make such a request, because they lie about being under such constraint. No regulator ever has its hands tied by intellectual property law. On the contrary, they ardently, actively, ideologically support the poisoner project and all its elements. This includes the “secret science” the regulators require in order to perform their sham reviews.

 

 

As I’ve written many times before, this strong regulator bias on behalf of the corporations and against the public good and against science does not arise primarily from superficial venal corruption. It arises from a far more profound existential corruption, a corruption of all canons of human morality and reason. While de jure corruption is common, it’s epiphenomenal compared to the overall ideological and methodological framework of technocracy and the corporate science paradigm. Cadres of an agency like the EFSA or ECHA, or the US EPA, FDA, and USDA, operate according to the corporate/technocratic template. Its three components are:

 

1. The corporate power/profit project is normative. It is the primary purpose of civilization. Under no circumstance can any other value or alternative project be allowed significantly to hinder the corporate project.

 

This has profound implications for actions like a pesticide cancer review. For technocratic regulators to acknowledge the fact that all synthetic pesticides cause widespread cancer would significantly hinder the corporate project. Therefore even the prospect of such acknowledgement is ruled out a priori. By definition it cannot be part of the review. Only the most grossly excessive and obvious cancerousness on the part of a particular chemical could be acknowledged even in principle. When outfits like the US EPA or the EU’s EFSA claim to believe that glyphosate is not cancerous, this is not according to any rational or scientific canon of evidence, and reformers who interpret it this way make a mistake about the fundamental character of these organizations.

 

Rather, technocratic regulators apply the canon of the corporate paradigm. According to this canon “causes cancer” is defined as: “So grossly carcinogenic that it’s politically impossible to deny it, to the point that lack of action would in itself be significantly bad for business.” For the government, just as much as for the corporation, cancer is purely political.

 

This leads to the template’s second component.

 

2. Given the strictures of (1), the regulator may if absolutely necessary impose limits on the most excessive harms and worst abuses. More often, it only pretends to do even this. Which leads to the template’s third component.

 

3. The regulator then puts its imprimatur on the corporate project as having been sufficiently regulated for safety. According to the ideology of technocracy and bureaucracy, the people are supposed to believe implicitly in the competence, rigor, and honesty of the regulator. They’re supposed to believe this for all measures of safety, public and environmental health, political and socioeconomic benefit and lack of harm.

 

All this is based on a Big Lie, since as we described above the regulator actually functions only according to the normative values of corporate power. But it fraudulently claims, always implicitly and very often explicitly, that it has acted on behalf of human values and to protect and serve the people. Therefore, the ideology goes, the people should repose implicit trust in the regulator rather than assert themselves democratically in any kind of grassroots way. Most of all, the people must not start to think in any political terms which would be based on fundamentally different values and goals, values and goals opposed to those of corporate rule and technocracy.

 

Thus we see how technocracy is an ideology, method, and form of government which is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-political as such since it is dedicated to the proposition that the people should relinquish all political activity and passively receive and believe the judgements of technocratic regulators. This system is based fundamentally on the Big Lie that it actually is a form of democracy and a form of society which encourages the political participation of the people. But in fact it conjures only sham versions of these and seeks aggressively to discourage and suppress any true politics.

 

This ideology and method is especially critical for the poisoner campaign, whose continued domination depends upon the people’s opposition remaining strait-jacketed within the bonds of regulator-based reformism. It’s essential that no significant number of people attain an abolitionist consciousness and commit to the abolitionist goal.

 

We see how the corporate state and technocracy, along with their allied economic ideology of neoliberalism, exist as species within the same genus as classical fascism. This is the genus of pseudo-democratic forms bled of all real political content which then stand as cultural facades behind which exists only state tyranny. Today’s corporate state is the most fully evolved form of this tyranny.

 

 

 

Help propagate the abolitionist idea.

 

 

 

Abolition Movement Part Three – The Daily Action of Pioneers

<

 

 

Parts one and two.

 

The first step in building a movement is to form pioneer organizations which assemble a solid core of people who are fully conscious of a coherent set of ideas and who are committing their lives to fighting for these ideas. I’ve committed my life to abolishing corporate agriculture.

 

I’m not saying “MY writings = abolitionism”, in the sense that I personally claim to be some great writer or anything. But the principles and deductions I write about, and the organizational, tactical, and communications standards I insist upon, comprise the necessary ideas and actions upon which any such movement has to be built.

 

 

1. For any activism to be worthwhile it has to fight for the necessary goal. The uncompromising goal: The total abolition of poison-based agriculture, in particular pesticides and GMOs (for starters). Strategy and tactics then follow from this goal. Partial steps could be acceptable, but only on the vector toward total abolition, never counter to it. Therefore the basic necessity at all times is to develop and express the firm, disciplined, cumulative abolitionist philosophy and goal.

 

What this group might do.

 

2. Research and reporting to the group: We must master all existing knowledge on poison-based agriculture and keep up with it in real time as new knowledge is found. Group members would divide the research and reporting labor. Learn it all inside and out – its health harms, its environmental devastation, its agronomic failure (the pesticide/GMO treadmill), its physical unsustainability, its malign effect on farming consolidation and farming economics, the way it distorts politics and economies, the way it has hijacked and discredited science, corporate lies, fraud, and secrecy, regulator dereliction, cover-ups and lies, everything. This research is done always toward the goal of applying all knowledge to the abolition fight.

 

If the expertise and means are at hand, we shall create knowledge ourselves. Original study and reporting.

 

We do the research necessary for all of this according to a division of labor. All the facts to date have been compiled by various sources. Our job is to take all this raw material and deploy it according to the abolitionist idea. We’ll then want to keep abreast of all the new information. We do this according to assigned jobs. Each member commits to research and writing on a specific aspect, all according to the abolitionist analysis. E.g. one person can be in charge of reporting on superweeds/bugs; another on GM contamination; health harms; political and regulatory developments; scientific fraud, etc.

 

3. We need our own writers. The existing system is not abolitionist, and writers within it are still part of the corporate/consumerist system and still are committed to reform and “co-existence” with Monsanto. They comprise a loyal opposition, “constructive criticism”. Therefore we need original writing on all the main topics. The writing is the abolitionist analysis and call to action.

 

In everything, we need to move from passive reception of information to active combination, deployment, and propagation of it. Most of all we the people need our own organizations, our own writers.

 

4. We must propagate our own abolitionist writing. Propagation is a group responsibility. We’ll help one another propagate this writing across the broader media, through submitting pieces for publication and/or linking them everywhere. For starters, mostly websites: Those with anti-GMO/pesticide focus, those with focus on organic and local food, amenable political sites, religious, etc. We have to get our writings published as far and wide as possible, all under a clearly recognizable abolition banner. We need relentless, disciplined publicity for our “brand”, online and where applicable through fliers etc.

 

The pioneer organization must organize all the facts and truths into a comprehensive, politically potent, relentlessly propagated campaign. Members need to commit to specific research and writing tasks, and the organization needs unified action to propagate its writings, first in the “alternative” media, eventually toward the mainstream, and counterattack the enemy in the mainstream media. This should focus especially on the targeted demolition of fraudulent scientists and journalists.

 

5. We’ll organize ourselves as an online wolfpack. This will be planned, synchronized group commentary at mainstream media comment threads and at other important sites. We must stop letting the organized liars face only disorganized, often less-knowledgeable ad hoc opposition. We’ll counterattack them with the fully erudite, philosophically coherent, organized, disciplined truth. We must reply in a strong, organized way to corporate media pro-poison propaganda and hatchet jobs on campaigners, scientists, and scientific bodies like the IARC.

 

The wolfpack will have a coherent line of counterattack against each type of lie so we’ll all be on message with the best evidence in the most tactically effective communication styles. The group will be ready with the best links, preferably to our own abolitionist publications, to resources refuting the particular lies as well as resources explaining why and how the mainstream media is inherently untrustworthy and always lies, and why and how government regulators are inherently untrustworthy and always lie.

 

In the same way, we’ll always present the affirmatives of agroecology and food sovereignty. Even the most cogent criticism of an entrenched, still intact status quo is bound to be ineffective unless it’s coupled with an attractive, compelling alternative affirmative vision.

 

So we’ll have planned wolfpack actions against media pieces which exalt poisonism and/or attack critics, especially where the comment threads are dominated by pro-poison activists.

 

Propagandists are of great importance to the enemy. Therefore we can also have planned actions where we counterattack a specific propagandist, a false scientist or journalist. These are the fraudulent cadres who must be discredited. We must condemn false scientists and false journalists for all their lies and all their crimes. We’ll research and demolish them.

 

We can discuss possible actions, vote if necessary, then commit to the coordinated action, each member with a particular responsibility. One person can focus on the target’s specific lies, another on the money they’ve been paid by the cartel, another on demolishing the fraudulent “environmental” or other groups which amplify the propaganda, etc.

 

We agree ahead of time who has responsibility for which aspect, though we all speak the same line. During an action we focus on particular points and stay on point.

 

6. As we recruit pioneers within our localities and extend the organizations into real space, we can start public discussion groups with monthly meetings, hold public meetings, give lectures and presentations, always from the abolitionist perspective.

 

7. In all these publicity endeavors the three goals are: To educate the public about poisonism; to force into the public consciousness the idea of the need for abolition and how easily doable it is, getting people to be aware of this idea and to remember it, whether or not they initially agree with it; and then to convince people to agree with, support, and fight for the abolition goal. See Part Two.

 

8. We can participate in pressure campaigns on municipalities, manufacturers, and retailers, and launch such campaigns ourselves. Friends of the Earth and other campaign groups have shown what can be done through their campaigns to get retailers to pledge not to sell GM salmon or not to use GM potatoes and apples, or to stop using neonics on their products. Recently such cities as Barcelona and Edinburgh have responded to campaigns with pledges to phase out glyphosate use. Same for some retailers in France and Germany. Germany banned the surfactant POEA from glyphosate formulations sold within the country. (It’s still included in Roundup everywhere else.) If they can be driven to ban POEA, they can be driven to ban glyphosate as such.

 

Abolitionists support these campaign goals in themselves, and a dedicated abolition group would also always use every such campaign as an occasion to publicize the need for total abolition.

 

9. In all these endeavors, the group seeks as much as possible to speak directly to the people. When the group speaks to establishment media it does so in a way calculated to be channeled as clearly to the general public as possible. While we welcome the adherence or sympathy of any kind of professional or establishment type, we do so only on an abolitionist basis, never in terms of modifying ourselves to be more “respectable” or “acceptable” to any element of the establishment. This doesn’t mean chaos, on the contrary it means an organized, disciplined adherence to ecological philosophy and science, the abolitionist philosophy, and the abolitionist goal.

 

***

 

So there’s a brief sketch of the kind of small, grassroots action group which could launch itself with minimal resources except for the time, energy, and commitment of its members. If it did its job well then growth and greater resources would follow, but it must never drift from its grassroots nature rooted in ecology, democracy, positive freedom, and abolitionism.

 

This template could be applied to other kinds of abolitionist campaigns.

 

For many reading this, this wouldn’t require them to leave their computer screens nor to take extra time from where they’re already reading about GMOs and pesticides anyway. It would only require a change of focus, to a more organized, focused, active, disciplined, cumulative mode. This will be an evolutionary step forward for the movement. If you’re spending several hours a day as it is, spend those hours this way.

 

I’ve thought of starting my own FB group which would require the active participation of members, each member committing to taking on a particular responsibility for research, writing, propagation, and/or online action.

 

But we need a website for this. It can’t be organized primarily through social media. No organization has ever gotten started on social media. Social media is a death zone for any kind of organizational work. On the contrary, social media can be only a supplement to a coherent organization based in a more stable, substantive format. So we need to get a website going as home base for publication and for real, substantive discussion (which never happens on social media). It’ll link to all relevant resources and include on every page prominent links to our most basic manifestos: Why Abolitionism is Necessary; the Great Agroecological Transformation; as well as refutations of the most virulent big lies of poisonism, especially GMOs Cannot “Feed the World”, GMOs = Famine and Pandemics, GMOs Have Nothing to Do With Science; GMOs are Anti-Science, etc.

 

 

So there’s some ideas on how to get started. All the great movements of history had similar small beginnings, and all began by propagating a new idea.

 

 

 

Help propagate the abolition need.

 

 

 

Fighting the CRISPR Lie

>

Meet the new GM, same as the old GM.

 

 

Here’s the latest addition to the already substantial evidence of the danger and shoddiness of the CRISPR “gene editing” technique. In a medical research study the researchers wanted to find out how many mutations CRISPR really causes. Therefore they sequenced the entire genomes of the mice subjects instead of the usual procedure of sampling them according to a computer algorithm which predicts where mutations are likely to be. They found thousands of mutations not predicted by the algorithm.

 

The algorithm procedure is typical crackpot reductive science with little or no validity for the real world:

 

“These predictive algorithms seem to do a good job when CRISPR is performed in cells or tissues in a dish, but whole genome sequencing has not been employed to look for all off-target effects in living animals,” says co-author Alexander Bassuk, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Iowa….

“Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations,” Dr. Tsang says. “Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact.”

 

We see how different the result is when the study focuses on something closer to reality, the whole genomes of test subjects.

 

 

Here’s the takeaways and talking points.

 

1. This is just the latest proof that gene editing causes an extreme number of mutations and therefore is unsafe.

 

The health dangers of the “new” GMOs are the same as for the old GMOs. Scrambled genomes, insertional and tissue culture mutations, and the effects of these: A gene producing too much or too little of a protein with toxic or other ill effects, producing the wrong protein with toxic effect, producing a misfolded protein with toxic effect (Mad Cow disease is caused by a misfolded protein), toxically excessive or foreign metabolites, gene or cell damage leading to cancer or any number of other severe and lethal diseases.

 

2. This is just the latest proof of how gene editing is highly imprecise.

 

Once again we see how any claim to precision will never be anything more than one of the standard lies of genetic engineering. And make no mistake – this is a willful, deliberate campaign of lying on the part of the scientific establishment, government regulators, and the mainstream media. We’re far past the point of it being possible to be honestly mistaken about any of this. Everyone knows “precision” was a lie from the beginning, so even those who willfully choose not to look at the specific evidence in the case of CRISPR still knows its alleged precision is being touted by the same old liars. We’re long past the point where it’s possible to have good faith trust in any corporation, or to advocate such trust. On the contrary, anyone from government or media who says or implies that we the people should trust any corporation is acting in the worst of bad faith.

 

3. In both these ways the “new” GMOs are nothing new. On the contrary they’re the same old GMOs. That’s why we should call them retread GMOs.

 

4. As in every other case, retread GM products like the Simplot potato and the botox apple are nothing but an inferior, more complex and expensive, less safe version of already existing non-GM varieties which are better, safer, and less expensive. Those are RNAi products; any future CRISPR products would be no different. We see how the retread GMOs, just like all previous GMOs, have no redeeming agronomic or social purpose. On the contrary their only purpose is corporate profit and control, and to feed the idiot fantasies of the scientism cult which worships inferior high-maintenance technology for its own sake. They believe because it’s absurd.

 

5. We must stress that there is nothing at all “unintended” about these effects. The effects of genetic engineering are grossly unpredictable, but this unpredictability is known and embraced ahead of time. “Unpredictable” has nothing conceptually in common with “unintended.” We can compare the typical operations of poison-based agriculture to spinning a roulette wheel where the various colors and numbers indicate various chaotic effects, many of them to be a surprise. Which number will come up is unpredictable, but one spins the wheel with full malice aforethought, full intent to trigger the chaos.

 

Genetic engineers and breeders involved in developing GM crops for commercial release have full knowledge of their inability to predict anything, therefore they intend chaotic results, just as they do with their broader mandate to drive climate change and pump as much synthetic poison into ecosystems as possible. The pro-GMO activists simply lie about all this when they make any claim to “precision” or predictability. No one who wanted stable, predictable results would still be working with genetic engineering. Where it comes to our food, agriculture, and environment, we’re not just spinning the roulette wheel. We’re playing Russian roulette, as Black Swan author Nassim Taleb put it.

 

Therefore I recommend to anyone interested in conceptual and terminological discipline that we discard the whole false notion of “unintended” effects of GMOs, pesticides, climate change, etc. This is factually wrong and morally far too lenient. Chaos is the predictable effect of genetic engineering, therefore the pro-GM activists intend chaos. That’s one of the purposes of this massive uncontrolled human feeding experiment, to log the unpredictable effects of the globally promiscuous deployment of GMOs in the environment and diet. They premeditate the chaos so they can hope someday to understand it, toward vastly further-reaching eugenic goals.

 

6. As a group the retread GMOs must be seen and publicly branded as nothing but a propaganda campaign trying to revamp the tattered image of GMOs, which are increasingly being seen in their true light as a shoddy, backward, regressive, reactionary technology dedicated to propping up the antiquated, proven failure of the paradigm of pesticide-based agriculture. Objectively, the retread campaign adds nothing new in any way at all.

 

The retreads also enable the legalistic and propaganda campaign of regulators like the USDA who want to abdicate all responsibility for GMO oversight. Lately I’ve been writing often about the need to relinquish all faith in government regulators and that this movement has the task of demolishing all public trust in regulatory agencies. Here’s yet more proof that the regulators are not on our side, serve no constructive purpose, and that we don’t need them: By the regulators’ own testimony they have no reason for being, since they themselves openly abdicate all responsibility for GM oversight.

 

 

 

Help propagate the abolitionist ideas.