TPP, TTIP, Bilderberg Fixers, And Human Evolution.

Posted on May 31, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“The basis of our political system  is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government.”

– GEORGE WASHINGTON (1732-1799) 1st President of the United States

398-2-1If it weren’t for that doggone elephant-in-the-room Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) thing…

For men and women around the Earth opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) the verdict is unanimous: ISDS really, really sucks.

One need not have earned a degree in international relations/law, economics, or political science to understand that. First, governments (you know, elected representatives of the people) will be sued by corporations and their owners for any changes made/laws passed by those elected representatives which have become determined by corporate attorneys as having a negative effect on any particular corporation’s (owner’s) profits, potential or actual.

Imagine when the science catches up on Roundup and its dangerous consequences for the human body, then Monsanto suing a small nation signatory of either TPP or TTIP when, because the science is proven, that small nation bans the use of Roundup by passing a law with a final vote of, say, 126-3 (the only three left those who took Monsanto bribes). Now, this is just one possible scenario among an endless and seemingly infinite number of similar scenarios where a corporation and its owners would pull the ISDS trigger.

How about we attempt to nail down the real reasons for the Investor-State Dispute Settlement thing in TPP and TTIP?

There are a number of reasons, but perhaps the first and most relevant is that the world’s people are becoming extremely well-informed after turning off their televisions on a massive scale around the Earth. This is the reality which has compelled corporation owners to include the legalese-fine print of Investor-State Disputes in TPP and TTIP. Men and women know for certain that ISDS is one of the major topics in many discussions going on now at this year’s Bilderberg meeting in the Netherlands.

Looking at this in the broadest sense, humanity, at least the 99.9% who are not owners of negative-consequences corporations, has turned to the internet for truthful information – and away from television media corporations whose Boards of Directors include owners of negative-consequences firms, in what the author of “Media Monopoly” Ben Bagdikian termed “interlocking directorates.” These television news firms will not report on the negative consequences of any activities by firm(s) represented on its Board of Directors or who advertise and, because the world’s people are now completely aware of this and moving away from corporate news in droves, their credibility continues to drop like a rock.

What has occurred – and continues to increase in intensity and numbers – is what can safely be described as a world-changing phenomenon: humanity has become aware of what is really happening on the ground both for and against people’s health and well-being physically, economically, spiritually, and psychologically. Because of this world-changing truthful information revolution/evolution, people everywhere – in every nation on Earth – are demanding nothing less than complete transparency in actions which have a real effect on their lives.

As the phenomenon of greater awareness of the world’s people has progressed from its beginning, more and more actions which resulted in negative, deleterious effects for people, animals, and the environment have become identified. Once identified, men and women have joined together across national boundaries and over vast regions, and with that combined “people power” have taken action that addresses the negative results. When considering the broad implications of ISDS language in TPP and TTIP, the corporations and owners involved in negative-consequences corporate activities are the ones who pushed for the language.

Bottom line for TPP/TTIP debate(s) is the battle to successfully deal with negative-consequences business activities on Earth. Although attorneys, economists, political scientists/politicians, business CEOs, and others may offer complex and academic arguments in TPP/TTIP debates and discussions, the back and forth between pro and anti TPP/TTIP advocates boils down to simple philosophical tenets. The basic and most relevant point of ISDS language is that pro-ISDS language people want to continue their negative-consequences business activities without penalty, and anti-ISDS people want to prevent or stop business activities that negatively affect the health and well-being of people, animals, and the environment.

The debate is all about choices resulting in varying levels of good and bad outcomes for humanity – now and into the future. Being a person who believes that states in America should establish their own banks following the highly successful publically-owned Bank of North Dakota model, would the private owners of banks transacting business with the State of California, if TTIP ISDS language remains in a potentially passed agreement, have the right to sue the State of California for “loss of profits” because California’s elected officials decided to create and run a public bank – a Bank of California?

If ISDS legalese is not removed from a potentially passed either TPP or TTIP trade agreement, the number of lawsuits against governments from – one can visualize – virtually every sector/market/product niche or monopoly status business group would be eligible to sue elected, representative governments who take actions small and large effecting business. Would a book-publishing company have grounds to sue a small city or country which took action to improve their citizens’ broadband access to the internet because the sale of real books would fall – resulting in “lost profits” for the publisher?

What about a signatory nation to TPP or TTIP when its government decides to significantly reduce spending on weapons, guns, bombs, military uniforms, or ammunition? Do the firms which previously supplied that nation with those items now have the right to sue for “lost profits” because the elected representatives of the nation agreed to redirect financial resources from military to, say, solar energy projects or university education for all or better agriculture sciences?

Then, would there be a tremendous increase in the number of Investor-State Dispute Settlement cases when a nation or nations belonging to TPP or TTIP make successful efforts at recovering taxes evaded by large transnational corporations and their owners stashed in one or more of the world’s more than 70 tax havens? Such successful efforts would decrease profits, right?

How would private-prison corporations react if a nation decided to nationalize their prison system after corrections experts came to conclude that private-prisons have been a failure? How would privately owned, giant health insurance companies react if a nation’s people voted for a national health care plan? Lost profits… Private drinking water companies would react how after the people’s elected government made water a God-given right for all people?

And on and on and on and on and on and on it goes…

Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses in TPP and TTIP – if not completely removed – will surely place a straight-jacket on one magnificent human invention-idea called representative democracy and – most importantly – effectively place a roadblock in the way of humanity’s moral and ethical positive advancement, beneficial development, and evolutionary peaceful path.

****

(Thank you to CEOwebtv @ YouTube)

Canadian Scientist Links GMO, Roundup, Depression.

Posted on May 29, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

keyboard7After university studies in North Carolina, Thierry Vrain began his scientific career as a soil biologist before entering the field of genetic engineering in the late 1980’s and early 90’s. This was the “heyday” of genetic engineering, and not only was Thierry Vrain a believer in the new technology, but a very committed enthusiast. He spent many years in Canada’s government agriculture department before retiring around twelve years ago.

A few years post-retirement he began to become concerned about GMO technology and Roundup/glyphosate herbicides, after becoming aware of uncertainties revealed in scientific studies that have been published since those “heydays.” In the interview with “Food Integrity Now” he does an outstanding job of explaining for those without scientific training the process of creating GMOs, in what he assures listeners is “more simple than most people realize.” The woman host does a fine job by asking short, straightforward questions then allowing Dr. Vrain to fully answer. All through the interview she never interrupts her guest, in the best of interviewing styles.

Genetic modification technology is changing a living organism through forcing bacterial genes into animal and plant chromosomes, basically taking new proteins (enzymes) and introducing them in cells, producing a new function – like herbicide resistance. If you want to modify, you look for bacteria that are resistant to Roundup through experimentation then, after finding a suitable one, insert that Roundup resistant bacteria into corn, soy etc., and you have a patentable product that won’t be killed/harmed by Roundup spraying.

The Roundup-resistant bacteria are shot into plant cells as the gene from that resistant bacteria enters the nucleus of the plant’s cells, similar to stem-cell technology, whereupon the “new” plant now has the foreign bacteria gene in every cell. If you want the “new” plant to become antibiotic-resistant, the same process of finding antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the lab is copied, as well as the same insertion process as that used to introduce Roundup-resistant genes.

Then you have created a plant that is both Roundup-resistant and antibiotic-resistant, which can then be patented. When bacteria that match the criteria you are looking for become identified during lab testing, then inserted into the target plant for modification, Dr. Vrain and genetic scientists call this a “successful event.”

The initial dream for genetic engineering of plants/crops was elimination of farmers’ need for pesticides. “BT” crops represent 10-15% of current GMOs over 500,000,000 acres on Earth, which are genetically engineered with bacteria, producing proteins in every plant cell that kill insects when they try to feed on the plant. Unfortunately, just as those in the medical profession have seen with antibiotic-resistant disease bacteria, insects have become resistant to the killing effects of BT crops, so after a few seasons pesticides became necessary to apply.

The other 85% of those 500 million acres of GMOs are Roundup-ready, by far Monsanto’s biggest “success” story, as Roundup is the world’s largest-selling pesticide/herbicide. So much Roundup gets applied to farmers’ crops/fields that glyphosate (Roundup’s active ingredient) residues are now found everywhere in the environment – polluting water, food, rain, soil, animals, and humans. In America’s supermarkets, 80% of the food products contain significant residues of glyphosate.

Thierry Vrain explains that there are certain “myths” which have grown up around the industry-touted benefits of GMOs. Industry sales claims about “increased yields” are what Vrain considers “having no bearing on genetic modification, a play on words, and not real.” Marketing slogans such as “feeding the world” he finds “pie-in-the-sky.”

Regarding anti-GMO activists’ worries and concerns, Dr. Vrain then mentions what he calls “genetic pollution”, where the two kinds of genes in every cell of GMO plants – antibiotic-resistant and/or herbicide/Roundup-resistant – are moving unabated in the natural environment. These genes/DNA are now everywhere in nature, raising more and more concern from both environmentalists and those in the medical profession.

Environmentalists’ concerns are clear and obvious, including spread of possibly toxic, dysfunctional proteins with unknown, because unstudied, negative health consequences. The medical establishment has concerns because intestinal bacteria of humans are perfectly capable of picking up technological byproducts of genetic engineering.

Thierry Vrain believes glyphosate is more dangerous and harmful than GMOs

While genetic engineering technologies have evolved with regard to understanding initially unidentified negative consequences from approval to production in the environment, Dr. Vrain feels that, although there have emerged uncertainties about GMOs, glyphosate – the molecule which makes Roundup “effective” – has a far greater potential of harming living things, and that includes men, women, and children.

Glyphosate is a very small molecule chemical which was first patented as an effective descaling agent. It became discovered that glyphosate also kills bacteria, then Monsanto patented it as a herbicide in 1969. When genetically modified organisms became approved for production, sale, and release into the environment on farmland in 1996, Roundup with glyphosate quickly became the largest volume selling pesticide in the world.

Glyphosate remove metal ions from plant proteins which are necessary for the protein – the plants – to survive. When Roundup gets sprayed/applied it kills every plant but the Roundup-resistant ones which are genetic engineered, not only killing plants but also all enzymes of every living cell. This has led Thierry Vrain to believe that glyphosate is more dangerous – perhaps much more dangerous – to life than GMO crops themselves.

Glyphosate in doses as low as 1 or 2 parts per million (PPM) kill exactly like an antibiotic, according to Vrain killing only the good bacteria in human digestive tracts, while having no effect on the bad ones in the gut which cause disease. This may explain the rising concerns in the medical professions over antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria recently. Medical research in the past 10 to 20 years is telling us that the bacteria in our intestines are not just there for a ride and being fed, are not parasitic at all, and are actually absolutely needed for good health.

The bacteria in our gut are now known as so important that a new name has been given for this newly discovered organ in our bodies – the “Microbion”. Each person has one hundred trillion bacteria in their Microbion, ten times the number of human cells in the body. These bacteria are responsible for many, many aspects of our functioning – of our health. They are responsible for our immune systems. If the Microbion gets damaged, through eating glyphosate for example, the person is going to get very sick because of a compromised immune system.

The Microbion is also responsible for our mental health

Bacteria in our guts are responsible for synthesizing and creating almost all the serotonin in our systems – our brains. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the brain – one of the important ones. A damaged Microbion equals a damaged mental state, and low levels of serotonin lead to depression. Can you say anti-depressant? If serotonin levels become lower still, persons will suffer from mental illness like schizophrenia etc.

“This is very real” said Thierry Vrain in this interview.

“The Microbion is primary; it’s just as important as your brain, heart, or liver. It is extremely important. Basically, to make it very simple, the toxicity of engineered crops is not necessarily from the engineered crops themselves, but is from the pesticide that is applied on all engineered crops. This is where the conversation should be. Food in stores is contaminated with residues of a pesticide that is incredibly toxic to the Microbion. This is reality.”

****

(Thank you to Food Integrity Now at YouTube)