Translate

GPA Store: Featured Products

Showing posts with label SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. Show all posts

Thursday, December 2, 2010

US deploys 'game-changer' weapon to Afghanistan

"Soldiers! Don't give yourselves to brutes — men who despise you — enslave you — who regiment your lives — tell you what to do — what to think and what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men — machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your heart. You don't hate! Only the unloved hate — the unloved and the unnatural!"---Charlie Chaplin in "The Great Dictator"

WASHINGTON (AFP) – It looks and acts like something best left in the hands of Sylvester Stallone's "Rambo," but this latest dream weapon is real -- and the US Army sees it becoming the Taliban's worst nightmare.


The Pentagon has rolled out prototypes of its first-ever programmable "smart" grenade launcher, a shoulder-fired weapon that uses microchipped ammunition to target and kill the enemy, even when the enemy is hidden behind walls or other cover.
After years of development, the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System, about the size of a regular rifle, has now been deployed to US units on the battlefields of Afghanistan, where the Army expects it to be a "game-changer" in its counterinsurgency operations.
"For well over a week, it's been actively on patrols, and in various combat outposts in areas that are hot," said Lieutenant Colonel Chris Lehner, program manager for the XM25.
The gun's stats are formidable: it fires 25mm air-bursting shells up to 2,300 feet (700 meters), well past the range of most rifles used by today's soldiers, and programs them to explode at a precise distance, allowing troops to neutralize insurgents hiding behind walls, rocks or trenches or inside buildings.

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

PureWaterFreedom

Friday, November 19, 2010

Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth

PreventDisease
November 19, 2010
On the tails of a recent TED conference where Bill Gates stated that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures, he added more to this insanity last week with a keynote address at the mHealth Summit, an annual gathering whose supposedly focuses on improving health care through mobile technology.
Gates told an audience of more than 2,000 that if we could register every worldwide birth on a cell phone, we could ensure that children receive the proper vaccines. He also said the key to controlling population growth is to save the lives of children under 5; and the next big thing in technology is robots.
Gates said computing technology has been great for health care, and there are plenty of opportunities to use the cell phone in clinic settings. Although he noted that some places which need mhealth technology the most may not be able to fully benefit from it.
“We have to approach these things with some humility,” he said. “There’s not Internet connections back there. Often [patients are too sick] for some cell phone thing to do something for them.”
Gates said the key health care metric that we as a society should be trying to improve is one that is in the front of his mind all the time–the number of children who die before age 5. Today, he said the number is 8.5 million; in 1960 it was 20 million.
“About one-third [of that improvement] is by increasing income,” he said. “The majority has been through vaccines. Vaccines will be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phone—get fingerprints, get a location—then you could [set up] systems to make sure the immunizations happen.”
Gates said he’d like to see a birth registration system, and because it’s a new technology, “we should let 1,000 new ideas blossom.”
He said vaccination rates in poorer areas, such as northern Nigeria and northern India, are below 50 percent, and mobile technology could make a significant difference.
“When I think about the biggest impacts, I think aobut patient reminders,” Gates said. He explained that technology could help remind people to take the TB drugs regularly or remind mothers to do certain things in their child’s first year of life.
He also said technology will be important in monitoring the supply chain (i.e. making sure there aren’t counterfeits among vaccinations and medications) as well as saving lives on the ground. “Malaria and TB are going to be the first things where you say, ‘Wow, without this mobile application, all these people would have died.’”
Gates told the audience that there is no such thing as a healthy, high-population growth country. “If you’re healthy, you’re low-population growth,” he said.
While most of us assume that saving the lives of children will contribute to overpopulation, Gates said the contrary is true.
“The key thing, the most important fact that people should know and make sure other people know: As you save children under 5, that is the thing that reduces population growth. That sounds paradoxal. The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have less children.
“As the world grows from 6 billion to 9 billion, all of that population growth is in urban slums,” he said. “Slums is a growing businesses. It’s a very interesting problem.”
He said no matter what we care about—the environment, schools, nutrition, conflict—the issues are insoluble at 3 percent population growth per year. “Nobody can handle that type of situation, so the best thing you can do is avoid those deaths.”
He said we are in a tough time for foreign aid, and governments are cutting their budgets in response to the financial climate. “The U.K. is quite exemplary,” he said. “They set aside their aid budget and are on track to keep their commitment. It will grow while they cut the rest of their budget. I hope it doesn’t get cut here in the U.S., but I’ll say I’m quite concerned that it will be.”
Gates said he has resorted to pleading for money. “I’m a beggar now,” he said. “I go around and beg governments for the final [millions of dollars] needed to eradicate polio. The financial component may be why it doesn’t get done.”
When asked what’s next in our technological advancement, Gates said there’s no doubt it’s robots. “If you don’t want to go to a convention,” he said, “just send a robot. “When we look at something like infant mortality, there’s a certain level you can’t get below if you can’t do C-sections.” He said doing a caesarean section delivery requires a sterile environment, but Gates said it’s fairly routine, so it could be done by a robot.
He said that we are moving from computers sitting idle while we type; to those that can see us and have high-end applications; to computers that allow us to move and connect with other users in applications like Xbox.
“Computers are learning to see, learning to talk ,learning to listen, learning to move around,” Gates said. “The dexterity things are maybe five years behind.” But he said once a robot learns a task, “it doesn’t forget how to do it. It can do it 24 hours a day.”
Gates used an example in South Africa to illustrate how health education doesn’t always lead to behavior change. He said the Gates Foundation partnered with the Kaiser Family Foundation to educate young people about HIV, with several types of outreach, including billboards. When interviewed, there was no question that the young people understood what caused HIV, but there were not significant behavior changes, because in their minds, the disease was in the distant future.
“If AIDS killed you immediately, things would be better because you’d see these piles of bodies outside bars [and think], ‘I don’t want to go in there… looks suspicious.’ It’s these discontinuities that are the problem,” Gates said. “If all the poor people lived in your neighborhood we wouldn’t have problems with foreign aid.”
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with David Rockefeller’s Rockefeller Foundation, the creators of the GMO biotechnology, are also financing a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) headed by former UN chief, Kofi Annan. Accepting the role as AGRA head in June 2007 Annan expressed his “gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.” The AGRA board is dominated by people from both the Gates’ and Rockefeller foundations.
Sources:




Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

PureWaterFreedom

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

"Overpopulation" Talk Is Pandering to Prejudice

Old_woman_shoe
A few weeks back, the old-school anti-fertility group Optimum Population Trust issued its index of "overpopulated" nations. It names 77 countries which, it says, are "consuming more resources than they are producing and are dependent on other countries, and ultimately the Earth a whole, to make good the difference." Singapore is ranked Number 1, the most overpopulated state, on their list. That's the same Singapore that, as The Economistreported last month, works hard to get its citizens to have more children. Which is a nice illustration of the difference between political reality and a fantasy of "stabilization and gradual population decrease". Among policymakers and social scientists, this idea is about as dead as the Soviet Union. It's politically absurd and scientifically unjustified. Yet, as the Trust's existence demonstrates, the notion persists in a certain kind of environmentalist.
In this and the next few posts, I'll describe what I think is the real state of the debate about population and the environment. (After all, it's "women and power" time here at Big Think, and all attempts to control fertility depend on how much power women have over their own bodies.)
First, though, let's look at the real-world consequences of this fervent supposedly "green" belief that the world is being ruined by the sheer raw number of people on it. Some environmentalists clearly have closed their minds to any evidence to the contrary, and that makes life awkward for environmental organizations. As I've said elsewhere, to be a political advocate for sound science is hard—you work between the open-mindedness of your mission and the close-mindedness of your "base."
This post and its successors are a case in point: I gathered this material for an article commissioned by OnEarth, the magazine of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the sleekest, smartest and most effective of environmental advocacy groups. The editors proposed the topic because, they told me, population growth was the single largest source of letters from their readers. They wanted an article that would clue those readers into the latest thinking and data on the issue—to bring them out of their 1970's mindset (my words, not theirs, but that was the spirit).
We would, we decided, do this with some care: The article I wrote didn't trumpet that familiar "population control" beliefs were wrong; it reported, truthfully, that other people, including some of the best minds at work in the field, had other ideas.
Did that article appear, sparking a lively and instructive debate? Reader, it did not.
The magazine's publisher, I learned, decided the organization's 1.2 million members couldn't bear such news. Maybe he was right. What would have been the point of sending people word that their prejudices might be mistaken, if that only caused them to shut their ears (and, more importantly, their checkbooks)? I will say this, though: If you're an NRDC member who fervently and angrily believes "overpopulation" is the key to all our troubles, please—please!—preach to me about the narrow-mindedness and ignorance of Tea Partiers and climate deniers. I love a good laugh as much as the next guy.
Related Article:

Climate Change: A Failed Attempt To Establish "Scientific Dictatorship"


Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

PureWaterFreedom

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Landmark case could allow injured persons to once again sue vaccine makers

Ethan A. Huff
NaturalNews
October 13, 2010
Vaccines are implicated in causing all sorts of health damage, from neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimer’s disease to intestinal problems like ulcerative colitis and Chron’s disease — and everything in between. And a vaccine injury case currently before the Supreme Court could be the landmark decision that once again allows those injured by vaccines to sue vaccine manufacturers for damages, a course of action that has been barred since 1986 because of special federal protections enacted to immunize vaccine manufacturers against having to abide by the rule of law.
Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages caused by their vaccines. The Act established an entirely new “legal” system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special “vaccine court” that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted.
The Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, for instance, the “vaccine courts” can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated.
But all that could change, depending on how the Supreme Court handles a case currently before it involving a young lady whose parents say she became permanently injured by a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine called Tri-Immunol that she received when she was a child. The Bruesewitz’s say that Wyeth, the manufacturer of the DTP vaccine, knew about a safer version of the vaccine, but continued to sell the dangerous one anyway. Now their daughter Hannah requires costly, specialized care for the rest of her life.
The case was first rejected in “vaccine court” when just a month before the case was to be heard, the court removed all the reported severe injuries from the list of compensatory items. After then taking the case to civil courts, the Bruesewitz’s were told that the case was automatically invalid because of the federal Vaccine Act. So now the case sits before the Supreme Court where, if determined in the Bruesewitz’s favor, will set a new precedent whereby vaccine manufacturers will no longer be able to avert the rule of law.
The illegitimacy of ‘vaccine court’
Much like the phony Internal Revenue Service (IRS) “tax courts”, “vaccine courts” have no justifiable basis anywhere in the law. They serve as nothing more than a way for drug companies to avoid having to bear responsibility for the harm caused by their vaccines. Any other person or company must go through the standard legal process, but the federal Vaccine Act literally grants special legal immunity to vaccine makers that nobody else receives.
There are a few cases where “vaccine courts” have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but such cases are likely just a ploy to trick the public into thinking such courts are legitimate and lawful. Most cases are rejected by “vaccine court” and, even though plaintiffs can then take the case to civil courts, the process has been made very difficult because of the federal Vaccine Act.
Even though $154 million was paid in 2010 for “vaccine court” cases, that amount is a mere fraction of the overall profits vaccine companies rake in every year. And truth be told, vaccine manufacturers do not even pay such settlements.
Vaccine companies don’t even injury settlements, the public does!
Of the few cases that are actually ruled in favor of injured plaintiffs in “vaccine courts”, not a single one of them is paid for by the vaccine manufacturers that cause the harm. A special excise tax is collected when vaccines are sold to the public, which is later used as settlement compensation. This means that insurance companies and ultimately the public end up paying for vaccine settlements while the vaccine manufacturers get off scot-free!
So not only are vaccine manufacturers essentially exempted from the real legal system, but the mock legal system set up in their favor actually guards them from having to pay a single cent for damages caused by their products.
It’s time to end the vaccine racket
Proponents of special legal protection for vaccine manufacturers say that it is necessary to protect them from “undue” litigation. But that is precisely what the real court system is for in the first place: to evaluate cases and determine whether or not a defendant is liable for damages. Setting up special “vaccine courts” that bypass due process is tyranny in the name of medicine, and it is simply unacceptable.
Because of “vaccine courts”, the idea that vaccines are in any way related to causing autism has been dismissed all across the board, even though numerous studies and research data continue to suggest a connection (http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_a…). And in the case of Hannah Bruesewitz, the system permits gross negligence on the part of vaccine manufacturers to go unpunished, unless of course the Supreme Court decides to do the right thing.
Sources for this story include:



Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Are you ready to evacuate?

Supreme Court Weighs Whether Vaccine Makers Can Be Sued



RELATED ARTICLES:


The Government Has An Appetite For Your Blood



Latest Vaccine Propaganda: It Prevents Heart Attacks



It's a swine mess



CDC Allegedly Falsifies Reports – Ignoring up to 3,587 Miscarriages From H1N1 Vaccine



Twins Die Minutes After Measles Vaccination



Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction


Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Are you ready to evacuate?

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Feds deploy mobile X-ray fleet to radiate, scan Americans

Ethan A. Huff 
NaturalNews
October 3, 2010
backscatter2.jpg
The encroaching Big Brother nightmare has escalated even further with a recent announcement that the U.S. government has purchased mobile X-ray vans to scan people and vehicles at sporting events, road stops and even at random. The initiative is part of alleged counter-terror efforts that include improving the ability to detect bombs, weapons and other contraband that may potentially be used in a terrorist attack.
The custom-made radiation vans are produced by American Science & Engineering, a Billerica, Mass.-based company that has already sold more than 500 Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs, to both U.S. and foreign governments. The radiating technology installed in the vans is the same as that found in full-body airport scanners, which were also fuel for recent controversy over their encroachment of personal freedoms.
“This really trips up the creep factor because it’s one of those things that you sort of intrinsically think the government shouldn’t be doing,” Frederick Lane, author of American Privacy, is cited as saying in a recent Yahoo! News article. “[L]egally, the issue is the boundary between the government’s legitimate security interest and privacy expectations we enjoy in our cars.”
According to the report, U.S. law enforcement officials have already deployed many of these ZBVs in cities across the country, including in a recent operation near Atlanta, Ga., where the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used vans to scan random vehicles.
Many are concerned not only about the technology’s blatant and unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but also about the health effects of blasting large doses of ionizing radiation at people and vehicles without warrant. Since such activity is technically physical assault, criminal and civil lawsuits against federal and state authorities that engage in it are likely to arise.
To read more about the negative health impacts of ionizing radiation, check out this earlier NaturalNews.com article about airport body scanners:
“Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of national security…you have to be realistic that this is another way in which the government is capturing information,” Lane went on to say. “I just have some real problems with the idea of even beginning a campaign of rolling surveillance of American citizens, which is what this essentially is.”
Sources for this story include:



Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Are you ready to evacuate?

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Authorities Plan To Trawl Phone Calls And E Mails For Signs Of “Resentment Toward Government”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 30, 2010
Authorities Plan To Trawl Phone Calls And E Mails For Signs Of Resentment Toward Government  300910top
Photo: Pal Berge
Do you resent the government for enforcing Obamacare or raising your taxes? Write about it in an email or talk about it on the phone and you could be placed under surveillance as a potential terrorist, if frightening new technology being shopped to law enforcement agencies is implemented.
Forget pre-crime and get ready for face-crime, Big Brother is set to unleash a new wave of shockingly invasive and Orwellian technology on the American people if a recent symposium in Hamburg New York is anything to go by. Federal agencies, police departments and others were all in attendance to see a demonstration of a system that trawls phone conversations, emails and instant messages to detect “resentment toward government,” alerting authorities to potential “terrorists” who are then placed under surveillance.
The technology was demonstrated to law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, and military representatives at a recent International First Responder-Military Symposium held at Hilbert College.
“A Swiss professor working with a Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who heads the Mind Machine Project there outlined how this program operates through computerized scanning of phone calls and electronic messages sent through e-mail and social networking mechanisms,” reports the Buffalo News.
The system works by detecting “resentment in conversations through measurements in decibels and other voice biometrics,” more specifically the emotional spikes that characterize “hatred and deep resentment toward government.”
“As for written transmissions scrutinized by the computer program, it can detect the same patterns of fixation on specified subjects,” states the report.
Once an individual has been identified as harboring “resentment toward government,” the information can be “passed along to authorities so surveillance can begin.”
Besides law enforcement applications, the program is also designed to aid mental health professionals to help “war veterans” become emotionally stable, chillingly implying that distrust or hatred of government, which was hailed by the founding fathers as a vital virtue, is now considered a mental illness.
Of course, this technology completely violates the 4th amendment, but by introducing it as a tool to fight terrorism, authorities hope to skirt around the issue – the problem being that, as we have exhaustively documented, the federal government now sees any political activity whatsoever, be it anti-war protesters on the left, or anti-big government activists on the right, as potential domestic terrorists.
The technology is rationalized by its adherents, who claim that it will help stop terrorists in their tracks, while also being used against ‘troubled veterans and first responders’.
However, the introduction of a program that closely resembles George Orwell’s “facecrime” in 1984 has little to do with fighting extremist Muslims hiding in caves in central Asia, this is all about targeting the American people with total panopticon-style surveillance, while also creating a chilling atmosphere and reminding people that their every conversation, instant message or email is being scanned by super-computers for any sign of extremism or “resentment toward government”.
As we have seen from the MIAC report, the spying case in Pennsylvania, and a host of others in recent years, the federal government defines “terrorist propaganda” as any material critical of the state, therefore any dissent against Big Brother in a phone conversation or an email would automatically trigger the new technology.
This is not only a constitution killer, it represents a hammer blow to free speech. The Internet as a forum of open discourse and free exchange of ideas will be fundamentally damaged if people live in constant fear of being raided by the feds at any minute because they sounded off about the government in an e mail or a posting on a comment board.
Of course, with distrust towards the state touching all time highs, there are millions of Americans who “harbor hatred and deep resentment toward government,” but that doesn’t mean they plan on bombing federal buildings.
The technofascism blog dug up a couple of quotes from George Orwell’s 1984 that almost precisely describe the exact same technology being used in the legendary dystopia about a totalitarian society that constantly hounds, harasses, and surreptitiously spies on its citizens.
“It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself–anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face…; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…”
-George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5
“Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom.”
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 6
Rather than an improper facial expression or nervous tic, which was more within the purview of the equally ludicrous “gait analysis” division of Admiral John Poindexter’s Total Information Office, a program that claimed to be able to identify terrorists by the way they walk, the facecrime technology defines “abnormality” as being critical of the authorities, a frightening throwback to the Soviet psikhushkas — mental hospitals — which were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally.
Indeed, the establishment media has intensified its dissemination of talking points that attempt to categorize distrust of authority as a mental disorder.
Although it survives under a number of different names with private sector funding, Total Information Awareness was mothballed by Congress in 2003 after widespread criticism that it would lead to the implementation of a “mass surveillance system”. Facecrime goes a step further, it not only creates a mass surveillance system of all our communications, it also corrodes and corrupts people’s confidence in being able to exercise their first amendment right to express “hatred and resentment toward government,” without being harassed and targeted as domestic terrorists.
Facecrime technology is illegal, immoral, anti-American and something that needs to be ditched permanently if the United States and indeed any free country is to heed George Orwell’s warning and resist the descent into totalitarianism.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.



Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Are you ready to evacuate?

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

White House Science Czar Questioned The Right of Unborn Child to Live Inside Womb

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 28, 2010

Holdren believes that children during the early years after birth cannot yet be considered human beings.
It is almost tiresome, but yet another writing by White House science czar John P. Holdren has surfaced- this time questioning the right of a “potential human” to live and grow in the womb of an “actual woman”. One could fill a medium-sized library with the writings by this Malthusian monster, denouncing humans and their right to live under the sun.
In 1972, John P. Holdren and his old buddy Paul Ehrlich wrote an article in “The Canadian Nurse”. The article is entitled “Abortion and Morality”. The subtitle reads as follows: “Has a potential human the right to live inside an actual woman without her consent?”
The article goes on to list the well-known arguments for abortion, such as “If abortion is needed by individuals and by society, is medically safe, and is not patently immoral, it is difficult to be sure exactly what is accomplished in subjecting the procedure to restrictive government scrutiny”, Holdren and Ehrich say.
“Infants”, the two continue, “are entitled to due process and equal protection under the Fouteenth Amendment to the (US) Constitution, but fetuses are not. Because of this distinction, the relaxation of abortion laws could scarcely imperil the rights of infants or of elderly and otherwise dependant people. (…) Repeal of abortion laws is long overdue.”
These were not some isolated comment by two overzealous eco-fascists. In the 1973 publication Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote quite candidly about their basic view on life, providing us with yet another peek at the decaying undergrowth out of which the Ecoscience document has emerged- proposing among other things a “planetary regime” to assume command of matters of life and death.
In chapter 8 of the ‘Human Ecology’-document, page 235, Holdren gives us his definition of human life:
The fetus“, Holdren writes, “given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birthwill ultimately develop into a human being.”
In other words, Holdren not only argues, as he did in 1972, that the unborn may not be considered human- he believes that children during the early years after birth, cannot yet be considered human beings. Given this presumption by Obama’s science adviser, it may not come as a surprise that he does not shy away from coercive abortion policies or other such measures to scale back the population. After all, if an infant cannot be construed as a human being, as Holdren argues, God-given rights do not apply to them nor does constitutional protection- and therefore they can be deemed as completely at the government’s mercy.




Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Are you ready to evacuate?

Monday, September 27, 2010

FDA refuses to require labeling of genetically modified salmon

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
September 27, 2010
As the FDA stands poised to approve genetically modified (GM) salmon safe for public consumption, the next logical question concerns how GM salmon would be labeled. Would the fish come with a large red warning that says, “Genetically modified salmon”?
The FDA has already gone on the record stating
it will not require any special labeling of genetically
modified salmon. Photo: Woodley Wonderworks.

As it turns out, no. In fact, the FDA has already gone on the record stating it will not require any special labeling of genetically modified salmon. You, the consumer, just have to take a wild guess because you’re not allowed to know what you’re really eating.
The biotech industry takes this absurdity one step further by claiming that labeling GM foods would just “confuse” consumers. David Edwards, the director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, explained it in this way: “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” he says. “It differentiates products that are not different.”
Except that they are different. If they were really no different, then AquAdvantage company wouldn’t be growing them. The whole point of genetically modified salmon is that they are modified with extra growth hormone genes to make them grow more quickly. I don’t know where David Edwards is getting his information, but in the rest of the world, when something is different, that means it’s different.
If it’s no different, then why are so many GM salmon processes patented? If it’s no different, there would be nothing to patent. The entire purpose of a patent is to make a legal claim that “we invented something different” and we own the monopoly rights to it.
The GM salmon industry can’t have it both ways, you see. They can’t claim it’s so unique that their technologies and animals should be proprietary or patented, yet when it comes to food labeling, they claim there are no differences. It’s either different or it isn’t, and in the case of GM salmon, only an outright liar would look you in the eye and claim GM salmon is identical to regular farmed salmon or wild-caught salmon.
FDA insists on keeping people in the dark
The FDA, for its sad part in this saga, claims that it would be against the law to require the honest labeling of GM foods. This agency claims that since GM salmon is identical to regular salmon (it’s “no different” once again, they say), they can’t require it to be labeled any differently.
Except, of course, it is different. The genetic code of GM salmon is provably different, and since that genetic code is imprinted in every cell of the fish flesh, consumers are buying genetically modified fish with a different genetic code whose sole purpose was to alter the biochemistry of that fish so that it would grow larger more quickly. Thus, the physical expression of GM salmon is, by definition, different from the physical expression of regular salmon.
When you eat genetically modified salmon, you are eating something that’s different from regular (natural) salmon.
Word game trickery
What the FDA and biotech industries are doing with the GM salmon issue is playing word games, trying to confuse consumers with sleight-of-mouth language intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. They’ve already decided they want to approve GM salmon and they don’t want it to be accurately labeled. In essence, they want to trick consumers into buying GM salmon by making them think it’s natural salmon.
The trouble with this FDA hucksterism is that the people aren’t as stupid as the FDA thinks, and they aren’t going to be fooled by this genetically engineered salmon. That’s because the minute the FDA approves this Frankenfish, NaturalNews.com and a long list of other websites are going to alert the whole world to the simple truths of the matter:
Truth #1) Genetically engineered salmon is different from regular salmon.
Truth #2) The FDA is going out of its way to make sure GM salmon isn’t accurately labeled.
This is a Frankenfood cover-up, pure and simple, and the public is going to be outraged that the FDA would introduce a genetically engineered fish into the food supply without even requiring it to be accurately labeled!
Watch NaturalNews for more breaking coverage of this issue
We’ll be watching this issue very closely, waiting for the FDA’s final decision. If the FDA decides to yet again betray the American public over this issue, we won’t be at all surprised. But we will be vigilant, and we will ask for your help to spread the word and take action to demand that genetically modified salmon be accurately labeled so that consumers know what they’re actually buying.
Gee, you would think the FDA might be interested in food labeling honesty. But of course, the more you learn about the FDA, the more you realize every decision the agency makes is a political decision that betrays the rights and safety of the American people.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to eat genetically modified salmon. And I don’t want the FDA shoving this down my throat by making me try to guess which salmon is real versus artificially engineered. This Frankenfood shell game must end!
Watch for more news updates on this issue from NaturalNews.com.
Sources for this story include:




Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Are you ready to evacuate?
Jasper Roberts Consulting - Widget