April 29, 2011
April 28, 2011
“..Monsanto researchers encountered enormous diffculties in introducing [a mutant gene] into soybean cells… In the face of this resistance from nature, [they] decided to bring out..a “gene gun” invented by two Cornell University scientists…When John Sanford and his colleague Ted Klein came up with the idea for this last-ditch weapon, they were considered crazy, even though laboratories at the time were prepared to do anything to force the desired DNA to penetrate the target cells… But nothing was working. The gene gun is now the insertion tool most frequently used by the ‘artillerymen’ of genetic engineering. It works by attaching genetic constructs to microscopic gold or tungsten* bullets and shooting them into a culture of embryonic cells… As Arnold Apotheker points out..,’In their determination to subjugate nature, humans use the technologies of war to force cells to accept genes of other species’.” [pp140-141] >>>Monsanto found its pesticide-resistant mutant gene near its most highly glyphosate-contaminated production plant. So what about us? Is the purpose of forced healthcare to search for mutant DNA?
..”The New York Times was able to get its hands on a draft of a secret document, dated October 13, 1986, in which the company’s directors established a veritable battle plan to impose GMOs in the United States. Among the primary objectives were ‘creating support for biotechnology at the highest U.S. policy levels’, and ‘working to gain endorsements..in the presidential platforms..in the 1988 election’… On June 2, 1987..Monsanto researchers conducted their first field test of transgenic crops in Jerseyville, Illinois… George H.W. Bush assumed the presidency in January 1989… Dan Quayle..presented American policy on GMOs…’We are taking this step as part of the President’s regulatory relief initiative..’ [and published by the FDA as] its regulatory policy on ‘foods derived from new plant varieties..developed by methods of genetic modifications are regulated within the existing framework..utilizing an approach identical to that applied to foods developed by traditional plant breeding.’ ” [p143-145] “..the techniques of genetic manipulation have absolutely nothing to do with the genealogical selection that has been practiced by breeders since the..mid-nineteenth century… genealogical selection is based on natural laws”.. [p136, The World According to Monsanto, 2008, Marie-Monique Robin]
Spying on our cells – “Gold, DNA Mix Could Result in Biological Nano Spies” http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-07/gold-dna-mix-could-result-biological-nano-spies; A current use of nanogold is “laser-guided” treatment: NanoPulse Biosciences: “We at NanoPulse Biosciences harness the power of optically excited nanomaterials by pulsed lasers to develop some of the most precise targeted-therapeutic technologies available… NPB’s diverse product portfolio and intellectual capital is based on two scientific technologies: noble-metal nanoparticles and short-pulsed lasers. Currently, NPB is working with The University of Texas at Austin to obtain exclusive licensor of the ‘Plasmonic Laser Nanoablation Methods’ patent… Disease-specific targeting of functionalized gold nanoparticles enables highly selective and precise treatment.” http://nanopulsebio.com; NanoPulse cofounder Daniel Eversole wrote: “Gold nanoparticles have shown great potential as in-vivo, optically-active, biospecific probes with highly controllable and tunable optical properties for simultaneous molecular imaging and phototherapy. The strong plasmon resonance has led to the development of a variety of nanoparticle-based cancer therapies we term Plasmonic Laser Phototherapy (PLP). “ http://www.linkedin.com/in/dseversole
“So it was at Stanford, not in St. Louis, that the first genetic manipulations took place. In 1972, as Monsanto was preparing to launch Roundup, Paul Berg succeeded in ‘recombining’ DNA– that is, putting together two fragments of DNA from different species into a hybrid molecule. A little later, his colleague Stanley Cohen announced that he had succeeded in transferring a frog gene into the DNA of a bacterium… These discoveries, which broke a law that had been considered inviolable, the impossibility of crossing what was known as the ‘species barrier’, created great excitement, along with deep concern, in the international scientific community. The worries turned into an uproar when Paul Berg announced his intention to insert a carcinogenic virus, SV40, from a monkey into an E.coli cell*, a bacterium that colonizes the human digestive tract. Some scientific authorities, such as Robert Pollack, a cancer virus specialist, worried: “What will happen if the manipulated organism inadvertantly escapes from the laboratory?” The general outcry led to a temporary moratorium on genetic manipulation and, on February 25, 1975, the first international conference on recombinant DNA… But, at no point did they broach ethical questions, which were excluded from the outset. It was as though the biologists had already decided to ‘limit the involvement of the public and the government in their affairs to the minimum’. The message was soon received loud and clear by the future world leader in biotechnology.” [pp133-134, The World According to Monsanto]
*Berg’s “success” was a done deal long before 1972. SV40 was the “cancer-causing” virus transferred to polioviruses used in the Salk and Sabin vaccines –viruses known to have been cultured on human HeLa cells (immortalized cancer cells). Berg’s original work with SV40 seems to parallel its discovery in 1960 and its public outing as a vaccine contaminant in 1963. While Berg supposedly perfected his recombinant techniques using SV40 as a carrier ‘mule’, Maxine Singer was on a year’s sabbatical at the Weizmann Institute (1971-72) while Albert Sabin was its president (1970-72), working on SV40 research which proved that the host cell transferred its genes into the SV40 virus (creating a defective virus that was still able to replicate and pass on its genes ). The polio vaccines of the 1950s and 60s were not just a radiation experiment, or an anti-cancer vaccine as the government insiders may have believed, but in fact an unacknowledged transgenic alteration of the human population, presented as an after-the-fact occurrance in scattered, stepwise scientific studies.
“Transgenic: Having genetic material (DNA) from another species. This term can be applied to an organism that has genes from another organism. It is understood that the foreign genes are in the transgenic animal’s germ-cell DNA and so can be transmitted from one generation to the next.” http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11295 “
“Transfection: The introduction of DNA into a recipient eukaryote cell, and its subsequent integration into the recipient cells chromosomal DNA..” http://www.lexic.us/definition-of-/transfection
1994– FDA approved Flavr Savr tomato on May 17, 1994: “The tomato was fed in laboratory trials to mice who, normally relishing tomatoes, refused to eat..and had to be force-fed by tubes… seven of forty mice died within two weeks.” http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful ; “a significant number of them..developed stomach lesions…The cultivation of the transgenic tomato..turned out to be a catastrophe: yields in California were so low that the inventors decided to move production to Florida…Flavr Savr was then shifted to Mexico… [and]‘Since 1996, Flavr Savr tomatoes have been taken off the fresh produce market in the United States. The manipulation..had unintended consequences such as soft skin, strange taste and compositional changes…In the interim, Calgene* had fallen into the pocket of Monsanto, which had definitely buried the doomed tomato.” [p149, World According to Monsanto]*”.. produced by the Californian company Calgene and submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1992″ http://www.answers.com/topic/flavr-savr ; the Fish Tomato “was created when a tomato plant..was infected with bacteria containing recombinant DNA” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_tomato
April 13, 2011
April 8, 2011
Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy
MARCH 29, 2011
By DAN GAINOR
From the Media Research Center
Two years ago, George Soros said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start – and no one seems to have noticed.
On April 8, a group he’s funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros’s goal for such an event is to “establish new international rules” and “reform the currency system.” It’s all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for “a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.”
The event is bringing together “more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders’ to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Soros wants a new ‘multilateral system,” or an economic system where America isn’t so dominant.
More than two-thirds of the slated speakers have direct ties to Soros. The billionaire who thinks “the main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat” is taking no chances.
Thus far, this global gathering has generated less publicity than a spelling bee. And that’s with at least four journalists on the speakers list, including a managing editor for the Financial Times and editors for both Reuters and The Times. Given Soros’s warnings of what might happen without an agreement, this should be a big deal. But it’s not.
What is a big deal is that Soros is doing exactly what he wanted to do. His 2009 commentary pushed for “a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII international financial architecture.” And he had already set the wheels in motion.
Just a week before that op-ed was published, Soros had founded the New York City-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), the group hosting the conference set at the Mount Washington Resort, the very same hotel that hosted the first gathering. The most recent INET conference was held at Central European University, in Budapest. CEU received $206 million from Soros in 2005 and has $880 million in its endowment now, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
This, too, is a gathering of Soros supporters. INET is bringing together prominent people like former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Soros, to produce “a lot of high-quality, breakthrough thinking.”
While INET claims more than 200 will attend, only 79 speakers are listed on its site – and it already looks like a Soros convention. Twenty-two are on Soros-funded INET’s board and three more are INET grantees. Nineteen are listed as contributors for another Soros operation – Project Syndicate, which calls itself “the world’s pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries” reaching “456 leading newspapers in 150 countries.” It’s financed by Soros’s Open Society Institute. That’s just the beginning.
The speakers include:
•Volcker is chairman of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board. He wrote the forward for Soros’s best-known book, ‘The Alchemy of Finance’ and praised Soros as “an enormously successful speculator” who wrote “with insight and passion” about the problems of globalization.
•Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute and longtime recipient of Soros charity cash. Sachs received $50 million from Soros for the U.N. Millennium Project, which he also directs. Sachs is world-renown for his liberal economics. In 2009, for example, he complained about low U.S. taxes, saying the “U.S. will have to raise taxes in order to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education, and relief for the poor.”
•Soros friend Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics. Stiglitz shares similar views to Soros and has criticized free-market economists whom he calls “free market fundamentalists.” Naturally, he’s on the INET board and is a contributor to Project Syndicate.
•INET Executive Director Rob Johnson, a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, who is on the Board of Directors for the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute. Johnson has complained that government intervention in the fiscal crisis hasn’t been enough and wanted “restructuring,” including asking “for letters of resignation from the top executives of all the major banks.”
Have no doubt about it: This is a Soros event from top to bottom. Even Soros admits his ties to INET are a problem, saying, “there is a conflict there which I fully recognize.” He claims he stays out of operations. That’s impossible. The whole event is his operation.
INET isn’t subtle about its aims for the conference. Johnson interviewed fellow INET board member Robert Skidelsky about “The Need for a New Bretton Woods” in a recent video. The introductory slide to the video is subtitled: “How currency issues and tension between the US and China are renewing calls for a global financial overhaul.” Skidelsky called for a new agreement and said in the video that the conflict between the United States and China was “at the center of any monetary deal that may be struck, that needs to be struck.”
Soros described in the 2009 op-ed that U.S.-China conflict as “another stark choice between two fundamentally different forms of organization: international capitalism and state capitalism.” He concluded that “a new multilateral system based on sounder principles must be invented.” As he explained it in 2010, “we need a global sheriff.”
In the 2000 version of his book “Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism,” Soros wrote how the Bretton Woods institutions “failed spectacularly” during the economic crisis of the late 1990s. When he called for a new Bretton Woods in 2009, he wanted it to “reconstitute the International Monetary Fund,” and while he’s at it, restructure the United Nations, too, boosting China and other countries at our expense.
“Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations, especially membership of the Security Council,’ he wrote. ‘That process needs to be initiated by the US, but China and other developing countries ought to participate as equals.”
Soros emphasized that point, that this needs to be a global solution, making America one among many. “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active supporters.”
And that’s exactly the kind of event INET is delivering, with the event website emphasizing “today’s reconstruction must engage the larger European Union, as well as the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia.” China figures prominently, including a senior economist for the World Bank in Beijing, the director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the chief adviser for the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations.
This is all easy to do when you have the reach of George Soros who funds more than 1,200 organizations. Except, any one of those 1,200 would shout such an event from the highest mountain. Groups like MoveOn.org or the Center for American Progress didn’t make their names being quiet. The same holds true globally, where Soros has given more than $7 billion to Open Society Foundations – including many media-savvy organizations just a phone call away. Why hasn’t the Soros network spread the word?
Especially since Soros warns, all this needs to happen because “the alternative is frightening.” The Bush-hating billionaire says America is scary “because a declining superpower losing both political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is a dangerous mix.”
The Soros empire is silent about this new Bretton Woods conference because it isn’t just designed to change global economic rules. It also is designed to put America in its place – part of a multilateral world the way Soros wants it. He wrote that the U.S. “could lead a cooperative effort to involve both the developed and the developing world, thereby reestablishing American leadership in an acceptable form.”
That’s what this conference is all about – changing the global economy and the United States to make them “acceptable” to George Soros.
- Iris Somberg contributed to this commentary
Mr. Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture.
April 7, 2011
The NBIC report [Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno] http://www.forbiddengate.com/NBIC_report.pdf : “The integration and synergy of the four technologies (nano-bio-info-cogno)originate from the nanoscale, where the building blocks of matter are established… Convergence of diverse technologies is based on material unity at the nanoscale and on technology integration from that scale… Revolutionary advances at the interfaces between previously separate fields of science and technology are ready to create key transforming tools for NBIC technologies… many of these visions could be addressed within 20 years’ time… Scientific leaders and policymakers across a range of fields prepared written statements for a December 2001 workshop, evaluating the potential impact of NBIC technologies on improving human capabilities at the microscopic, individual, group and societal levels.. as an outstanding opportunity at the interface and frontier of sciences and engineering… Highest priority was given to “The Human Cognome Project”, a multidisciplinary effort to understand the structure, functions, and potential enhancement of the human mind… The recommendatons of this report are far-reaching and fundamental, urging the transformation of science, engineering and technology at their very roots… This report sets goals for..transformation…
“On the surface, silicon seems like an ideal substitute for carbon in another living system. Theoretically, silicon has bonding chemistry identical to that of carbon, and like carbon, can combine with four other elements to construct an incredible range of different macromolecules. So why not silicon-based life?” >>>This article goes on to briefly explain the “not” although science has no firm explanation of “life” as expanded capacities and criteria are changing concepts. Astrobiologist Lou Allamandola says, “..chances are there aren’t a whole lot of silicon species out there because there really isn’t that much silicon [compared to carbon] except on planets like this. If we’re going to find something that’s alive and silicon-based it’s probably going to be right here because we have an awful lot of silicon here, more than on average in the universe.” http://nai.nasa.gov/astrobio/feat_questions/silicon_life.cfm?video=lou [bold emphasis added]
“Studies were conducted on mouse embryo cells and fetal lung cells, with essentially complete abatement of cytotoxicity when the mineral fibers/whiskers are treated with a silicone.”  http://www.patents.com/us-5587241.html Silicone, explained: “Silicone is often mistakenly referred to as “silicon.” Although silicones contain silicon atoms, they are not made up exclusively of silicon, and they have completely different physical characteristics from elemental silicon…” http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Silicone
“High-energy radiation can break chemical bonds and disrupt molecular machines. Living cells once again show that solutions exist: they operate for years by repairing and replacing radiation-damaged parts.” –K. Eric Drexler [p15]
2003 — “Weizmann Institute scientists have found what makes the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans the most radiation-resistant organism in the world: the microbe’s DNA is packed tightly into a ring… The red bacterium can withstand 1.5 million rads –a thousand times more than any other life form on Earth… Its healthy appetite has made it a reliable worker at nuclear waste sites, where it eats up nuclear waste and transforms it into more disposable derivatives… Since DNA is the first part of a cell to be damaged by radiation and the most lethal damage is the breakage of both DNA strands, scientists have focused on DNA repair mechanisms to find the answer to the microbe’s resilience. Cells, including human cells, can mend only very few such breaks in their DNA. Microbes, for example, can repair only three to five. Yet D. radiodurans can fix more than 200. Thus scientists believed that the microbe must possess uniquely effective enzymes that repair DNA. However, a series of experiments showed that the microbe’s repair enzymes were very similar to those existing in ordinary bacteria… Russian scientists [are] saying it originated on Mars, where radiation levels are higher… Deinococcus radiodurans was discovered decades ago in canned food that was sterilized using radiation. ” http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/wi-ror010203.php
Here’s more on Soros’s pharmaceutical investments http://citizen2009.wordpress.com/george-soros-biotech/ and an article on a biological degradation tool, “heat-shock protein” called ubiquitin, that Soros (among many others, oc) funds. http://citizen2009.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/molecule-of-the-month/