Connect with us

Alternative News

Humanity Has Become One Massive Genetic Experiment: What Everyone Should Know About GMOs

Published

on

Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today. 

advertisement - learn more

In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.

Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.

Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.

The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.

advertisement - learn more

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” 

– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification

Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”

This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.” 

There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.

Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based

Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.

In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.” 

Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”

Druker explains:

Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.

How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?

These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”

Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.

Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.

How can a scientist make such a statement?

What do we have as a result? As Druker says:

Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.

Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for the biological constraints. . . . It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.

More Differences

This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “

Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.

A portion of the letter reads as following:

We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”

In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.

Druker says in response:

Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.

Randomness

According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”

When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life.   Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,”  a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.

As Druker explains:

This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.

He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.

Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.

Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:

This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However,  although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.

This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.

Druker goes on:

Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.

This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.

As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:

The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

RELATED CE ARTICLES: 

Below are a few of many articles we’ve published on GMOs, if you’re interested in reading more please browse through our website.

Reviewed Science Loosing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Wikileaks Cables Reveal The US Government Planned To Retaliate Cause & Cause Pain On Countries Refusing GMOs

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

New Study Links GMOs To Cancre, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Why Bill Nye Is Not A Science Guy: What He Gets Wrong About GMOs

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Another Actor Calls Out “Satanic” Hollywood Pedophiles – ‘See Corey, I Didn’t Need $10 Million’

Published

on

It’s truly shocking just how many revelations have come to light with regards to the physical and sexual abuse of children within the realm of the global elite. The big four areas where this activity seems to be most prevalent nowadays is within politics, the Vatican, the military industrial complex and inside of Hollywood. Within each section, there are numerous examples to pull from.

In politics, especially within the last couple of years, information is hitting the mainstream like it never has before, one example would be the fact that an NBC news report implicated Hillary Clinton in covering up a massive pedophile ring in the heart of the State Department, another would be multiple ex-high ranking political officials claiming that both the Clinton’s engage in sex with minors, pointing towards their close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein (who also has Royal Family connections). Epstein is now a registered sex offender. When it comes to the Vatican, there are always disturbing acts going on. Right now, the Pope’s right-hand man, George Pell, is in court for sexual assault, and a massive pedophile ring has been exposed where hundreds of boys were tortured and sexually abused, Pope Benedict’s brother was at the forefront of that controversy. As far as the military industrial complex goes, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney grilled Donald Rumsfeld on DynCorp about it, a private military contractor with ties to the trafficking of women and children. Years later, a top U.S. General who was the liaison between DynCorp and the U.S. Military was implicated in the sexual assault of teenaged girls. The list goes on and on, and it’s a long one. Oh yeah, let’s not forget about PizzaGate…

Keep in mind, above are only a few examples in each sector but there are many more to choose from.

When it comes to Hollywood, perhaps here is where we’ve seen the most revelations, and it goes far beyond Harvey Weinstein and his sexual assault of women, but into ritualistic-type practices where children are not only tortured and sexually abused but also killed (sacrificed). An ex-Director of the FBI, Ted Gunderson, was one of many who investigated these crimes. He found shocking evidence of elite level pedophile rings using satanic practices, with the people involved being connected to higher powers. We’re talking about the owners of major mainstream media networks, political ‘leaders’, and the people who have some of the largest influence with regards to our planet and the direction it takes.

In Hollywood, the door was kicked open by Corey Feldman, who hasn’t named any names (he said he wanted to raise $10 million for the production of a documentary that would expose everything) but has been very open about the fact that the biggest problem in Hollywood is child pedophilia. Perhaps the latest revelations (hard to tell because they are always happening), come from Smallville actress, Allison Mack, who has been outed as a member of a cult who worked in a management position. She worked for a man named Keith Raniere, who ran a company that supposedly offered “executive success programs,” whatever that means. He is accused of raping girls as young as 12, imprisoning a woman for 18 months and more, and is currently in federal custody in New York.

Clare Bronfman was also recently arrested and tied to the same cult as the Smallville actress. Clare’s a philanthropist, youngest daughter of the billionaire philanthropist Edgar Bronfman, who was president of the World Jewish Congress and also closely connected to the Rothschilds.

advertisement - learn more

There are many people involved in this, and someone has to take the blame, perhaps to protect the others?

Keep in mind, Allison was likely brainwashed, but who really knows? Many of the victimizers are also victims themselves, but that’s something society fails to see at the moment. Right now, we’re constantly judging and punishing, instead of really looking into things deeper in order to solve the real problems here. Abuse begets abuse.

This and many other points were recently brought up in the video below, by Isaac Kappy, an actor and writer known for his work on Terminator Salvation, Thor, Beerfest, Fanboys, among others.

Shortly after he released these videos, mainstream outlets like TMZ (establishment mouthpieces) and others, instantly accused him of chocking Paris Jackson, apparently, he’s being investigated by the Los Angeles police for that, as well as accusing Seth Green of pedophilia. In the video below, he calls out more names, like Tom Hanks, and director Steven Spielberg, among others.

Hard to tell what’s really going on, which is why for the most part, I stick to what people actually say and what comes out of their own mouths, and try to present that to the public.

Below is a tweet from Sarah Ruth Ashcraft, a supposed MK Ultra child sex slave victim,


Related CE Article:

MK Ultra Survivor Shares How Her Multiple Personalities Were Used By The Global Elite 


Things can really get confusing, and we can never really know the truth or exactly who is involved. That being said, we know this is a reality, and to turn a blind eye and not really address nor investigate is unethical. Furthermore, the silence of the accused doesn’t help, if one is innocent, one should be able to openly come forth and speak openly in their defence, especially if there is no evidence… Or is there?

Steven Spielberg is a pedophile, yup, see how easy that was Corey, and I didn’t need 10 million dollars, I just said it… When you’re talking about really elite levels, the name of the game is blackmail, so, they want something on you that they can hold over your held so they can basically own you and tell you what to do…And they film it…and then, they own you. So, that’s what runs the whole system basically, they want compromised people because they’re easy to control. And a lot of people, they’ll go along with it and do whatever just for fame and money…Some people are just like, really into the evil shit…Tom Hanks is a pedophile…It’s time that this comes out into the open because we are going to change the way everything works, because at the top levels, these people are just sick and psycho. Look into the Rothschilds family… The higher you go the more sick it gets…This is what really hurts about the situation, because a lot of people are kind of born into this, they grow up in it, they’re abused and through the abuse especially as a child you can break someones subconscious mind, if you’re not aware of any of this stuff, look into MK Ultra. – Isaac Kappy (from the video below) 

He is not the only Hollywood actor to mention MK Ultra, Roseanne Barr once said, “MK Ultra rules in Hollywood.”

You can watch the full video below. He goes on to talk about Seth Green, McCauley Culkin, and many more. How they grow up in this system, then comes the money and the fame, and then they themselves end up repeating exactly what they went through. He expressed remorse for them, and a feeling of empathy.

He has been connected to the ‘QAnon’ phenomenon by the mainstream media, but they did not do an adequate job in covering the story. You can read more about that here.

An Important Question To Ask is, Why Would They Be Lying? 

Again, the reality of this type of behaviour is well-documented and has been exposed, but with regards to who may be involved is not. It seems like a lot of people, and some of the world’s greatest ‘humanitarians’ might be engaged in those ‘good’ activities in order to cover for what really goes on behind the scenes. The fact that so many people in Hollywood, like Bryan Singer (director of the x-man series) and more, have all faced legal issues is another important thing to consider.

The point is, this is happening, and we have to talk about it because the trafficking and abuse of women and children is happening in these areas and they have no voice, even if they are starting to speak out more and more. The sad thing about it is, with all of the censorship on the internet, nobody is really seeing this. But at the same time, they are, because mainstream media always seems to respond and give a completely different narrative in order to protect their interests. We’ve seen this in multiple realms, RussiaGate is a great example, PizzaGate was another.

This is why the global elite are shutting down alternative media completely and are still in the process.

Why would Hollywood actors pretty much end their careers by speaking out like this? They’re within the industry, they have connections, and they are directly in the middle of these circles. Only a few are brave enough to speak out. Sure, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg may not be involved, but then again they may be.

It’s time for all to come out in the open for a public discussion, it just makes it more suspicious that they don’t.

It’s time to ask ourselves, who are we idolizing? Why do we idolize them? What type of activities are our ‘leaders’ engaged in and do they really care for the best interests of the human race?

Truth is hitting the world, in all areas where humanity attention seems to be focused, and it’s going to keep on coming, it can’t be stopped.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

Federal Court Rules In Favour of Big Pharma & Determines That CBD Has No Medicinal Value

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Despite a tremendous amount of research proving that CBD has medicinal value, the DEA still insists it is categorized as a Schedule 1 Substance in the Controlled Substances Act. The Supreme court recently decided that it has no medicinal value.

  • Reflect On:

    Many have absolutely sworn by CBD for assisting with issues of chronic pain and for stopping seizures, when other illicit drugs such as cocaine and meth are in a less harmful category, it would seem that there are some other interests at hand here.

Last week the hemp industry in the United States faced a roadblock after the federal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to list cannabidiol or CBD as a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. It’s worth pointing out that CBD has no psychoactive effects and is not the same as THC, the active ingredient that gets you high when smoking marijuana. The definition of a Schedule 1 controlled substance is as follows,

Schedule 1 (I) drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined by the federal government as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule 1 (I) drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence.

Let that sink in for a moment. Keep in mind that methamphetamine aka crystal meth, cocaine, fentanyl, and oxycodone all fall under the Schedule 2 category in the Controlled Substances Act. I don’t know about you, but to me, something feels off about this.

Back in 2016, the hemp industry brought a lawsuit against the government when the DEA issued a “clarifying rule” that claimed CBD was in fact, an illicit drug, simply because it was a byproduct of cannabis flowers. A report released by the Denver Post explained,

Represented by Denver-based cannabis law firm Hoban Law Group, the Hemp Industries Association and other hemp businesses challenged the DEA’s rule and alleged the agency overstepped its bounds by essentially scheduling substances — notably cannabinoids — that were not classified as illicit in the Controlled Substances Act. Additionally, they argued, the hemp-derived extracts rich in CBD, or cannabinol, are protected under state laws and Farm Bill provisions.

The rule could be misinterpreted by other federal and local agencies, leading to unlawful product seizures and chill a booming multibillion-dollar hemp products industry, Hoban attorneys had said.

advertisement - learn more

The DEA responded by claiming that they had simply provided clarification to the existing law, and stated that their decision, “makes no substantive change to the government’s control of any substance.”

Again, the DEA is failing to acknowledge the major difference between industrial hemp, which by the way, provided the paper for the original declaration of independence to be written on, and it contains virtually no psychoactive properties. THC, on the other hand, does produce strong psychoactive effects, so the DEA maintains their stance by saying that because CBD comes from the flowering parts of the cannabis plant and cannabinoids “are found in the parts of the cannabis plant that fall within the … definition of marijuana, such as the flowering tops, resin, and leaves.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to the DEA’s decision to clarify that CBD is therefor a “marijuana extract.” Thankfully, producers of CBD vowed to appeal the decision.

We will be appealing, and we will be funding that appeal,” said Michael Brubeck, CEO of Centuria Natural Foods and a plaintiff in the case. Centuria was joined in its challenge by the Hemp Industries Association.

During the decision-making process, the panel consisting of three judges said the plaintiffs had failed to comment during the DEA’s rulemaking process, which is what inevitably nullified the majority of their challenge to the upstanding classification.

Attorney Bob Hoban, in a statement on Wednesday, said his clients are weighing whether to request a rehearing due to concerns about the safety and security of those who make and sell hemp extracts, including CBD.

“Though we appreciate the court’s finding in favor of the legitimacy of the Farm Bill’s hemp amendment, we are still disappointed with the court’s findings that the final rule does not interfere with lawful, hemp-related business activities, as even 29 members of Congress confirmed in their Amicus Brief to the Court,” Hoban wrote. “Given the pervasive confusion and irreconcilable conflicts of the law that have led to product seizures, arrests and criminal charges against those involved in the lawful hemp industry, the petitioners believe that the final rule must be invalidated, absent the court clarifying and further resolving these conflicts and their severe consequences.”

CBD Does Have Medicinal Value

The reason this is so frustrating is that CBD certainly does have medicinal value and has been a godsend for millions of people who suffer from chronic pain. In fact, an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved pharmaceutical grade cannabidiol (CBD) medicine as a treatment method for severe epilepsy. How can a Schedule 1 Substance, which is supposed to have no medicinal value, be FDA approved, as a treatment?

People with cancer have also utilized cannabis, as multiple studies in the lab showed it completely destroys cancer cells.

Thankfully, the truth continues to come out and before long CBD, and hopefully, cannabis altogether will be completely removed from the Schedule 1 Controlled substances act. How could something be fully legal for recreational use in some states, and soon will be all of Canada, yet regarded as such a “bad drug” in most of the United States? C’mon America, get with the times! Legalize.

Please check out these related CE Articles For More Information

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

Robotic Dove-Shaped Drones Are Now Spying On People From Above

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    30 military and government agencies have deployed the birdlike drones and related devices in at least five provinces in China recent years. They are in operation and are spying on people from above. There are also plans to weaponize them.

  • Reflect On:

    Reflect on the mass-surveillance state. Why do we have no privacy? Is it really for "national security" reasons? Or are there other motives here? What's really going on with the need for FULL control?

Fascism has been approaching the developed world for a long time. It comes in the form of governments that can read every single email, GPS you at any time, track your every move, every step, know your internet habits better then you do. If they decide, they can put a bunch of information together and use it against you, especially if you become “an enemy of the state,” one who threatens the interests of the global elite.

This is what it’s like to live in North America, and more people became aware of it with the Edward Snowden leaks. There were many who blew the whistle before him as well, some who did not live long after the fact.

What is happening here is extremely wrong. National security measures continue to heighten as a direct result of ‘terrorism’ in many forms, from attacks and bombings to mass shootings. All of these continue to increase like never before, especially in the United States. When it comes to terrorism in general, events like 9/11 have served as a mass wake up call for the citizenry, making them aware of ‘false flag’ terrorism, where a group of powerful people orchestrate an event for their ulterior motives and blame it on another.

Wake-Up Call

This is exactly what many people believe is happening with these events, including school shootings, that there is some form of mind-control going on here, an effort to make these type of events more common to justify heightening up national security measures, like global surveillance, for example. Many politicians, academicians, researchers, whistleblowers, and high ranking military personnel have been raising awareness about this for years, and we also have hard evidence in so many different forms, with so many different examples.

The last one I wrote about was with regards to fake intelligence, as well as plagiarized quotations that were found in an official intelligence report pertaining to Iraq’s WMDs presented to the UN Security Council by Secretary of State Colin Powell, on February 5th, 2003. You can read more about that here. Mark Twain summed up how this works quite nicely (source):

“The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”

advertisement - learn more

Our world might not actually be as bad as how it’s constantly being presented to us. Most people are good, and the majority of people, in America at least, have opposed the action of their government for years when it comes to global conflict. False flag terrorism, deception, and the creation of events to heighten the national security state is nothing new.

Dove-Shaped Drones Over China

Some of the latest news when it comes to surveillance is coming out of China, where robotic dove-shaped drones are spying on people from above. As the South China Morning Post reports,

The idea might seem far fetched, but robotic birds are very much a reality, and China has been using them to surveil people across the country.

Sources told the South China Morning Post that more than 30 military and government agencies have deployed the birdlike drones and related devices in at least five provinces in recent years.

One part of the country that has seen the new technology used extensively is the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region in China’s far west. The vast area, which borders Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, is home to a large Muslim population and has long been viewed by Beijing as a hotbed for separatism. As a result, the region and its people have been subjected to heavy surveillance from the central government.

The new “spy birds” programme, code-named “Dove”, is being led by Song Bifeng, a professor at Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xian, capital of northwestern China’s Shaanxi province.

Each robotic bird has a GPS system, a high-definition camera and a flight control system linked with satellites which allow for its remote control. They are also equipped with an electric motor to power its flight. “Once equipped with weapons, unmanned small combat vessels can attack the enemy in large numbers, similar to drones,” Li Jie, a Chinese naval expert.

That doesn’t sound too good.

The True Goal Of Surveillance

So, if it’s not for national security purposes, and it’s not to protect us from danger, what is mass surveillance all about? For the answer to this question, I turn your attention to William Binney, a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA). He is one of the highest placed intelligence officials to ever blow the whistle on insider NSA ‘knowing.’ He made headlines when he resigned in 2001 after 9/11, having worked more than thirty years for the agency. He was a leading code-breaker against the Soviet Union during the Cold war and was repulsed by the United States massive surveillance programs. He claims the ultimate goal of the NSA is “total population control.” You can access that interview and read more about it here.

While on the topic of China, it’s also important to read this from an article by The Intercept:

Google bosses were scrambling to contain leaks and internal anger Wednesday after the company’s confidential plan to launch a censored version of its search engine in China was revealed by The Intercept.

Just a few hundred of Google’s massive 88,000-strong workforce had been briefed on the project prior to the revelations, which triggered a wave of disquiet that spread through the internet giant’s offices across the world.

Company managers responded by swiftly trying to shut down employees’ access to any documents that contained information about the China censorship project, according to Google insiders who witnessed the backlash.

“Everyone’s access to documents got turned off, and is being turned on [on a] document-by-document basis,” said one source. “There’s been total radio silence from leadership, which is making a lot of people upset and scared. … Our internal meme site and Google Plus are full of talk, and people are a.n.g.r.y.”

Awakening In Progress

The good news is that more and more people across the globe are starting to wake up to all of the misinformation being spread on a daily basis, and that includes the agenda of those behind it. Even a decade ago, the mass populace was not as aware that all is not as it seems. As a result of this recent mass awakening, our perception, our thoughts, and our collective consciousness are beginning to shift. We no longer see the world the way it has been presented to us, and we are starting to realize that simply waking up to all of the propaganda that surrounds us is creating big problems for the global elite. The very first step to changing a problem is to first recognize that problem, and we are still in that process.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!