Monday 17th of May 2021

triffidations...

triffidationstriffidations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and an assortment of high-profile figures and policymakers are pushing for unregulated gene-editing technologies, the rollout of bio-synthetic food created in laboratories, the expanded use of patented seeds and the rollback of subsidies and support for farmers in places like India.

 

By Colin Todhunter

 

 

These neoliberal evangelists despise democracy and believe that state machinery and public money should only facilitate the ambitions of their unaccountable mega-corporations.

Corporations are jumping on the ‘sustainability’ bandwagon by undermining traditional agriculture and genuine sustainable agrifood systems, and packaging this corporate takeover of food as some kind of humanitarian endeavour.

The watchdog organisation Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) notes that the European Commission has committed to a fundamental shift away from industrial agriculture. With a 50 per cent pesticide reduction target and a 25 per cent organic agriculture goal by 2030, CEO argues that business as usual is no longer an option. In effect, this creates an existential crisis for corporate seed suppliers and pesticide manufacturers like Bayer, BASF, Corteva (DowDupont) and Syngenta (ChemChina).

However, these corporations are fighting back on various fronts, not least by waging an ongoing battle to get their new generation of genetic engineering techniques excluded from European regulations. They do not want plants, animals and micro-organisms created with gene-editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas to be subject to safety checks, monitoring or consumer labelling. This is concerning given the real dangers that these techniques pose.

For example, a new paper published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, authored by Dr Katharina Kawall, indicates the negative effects on ecosystems that can result from the release of gene-edited plants. These unintended effects come from the intended changes induced by genome editing, which can affect various metabolic processes in the plants.

The new paper adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed research that calls into question industry claims about the ‘precision’, safety and benefits of gene-edited organisms.

Recent research by the Greens and the European Free Alliance in the European Parliament indicates that 86 per cent of Europeans who have heard of genetically engineered (GE) food want products containing GE organisms to be labelled as such. Some 68 per cent of respondents that have heard of new genetic engineering methods demand that food produced with these techniques, such as CRISPR, to be labelled as GE. Only three per cent agreed with the industry’s proposal to exempt these products from safety testing and labelling.

Regardless, with the help of 1.3 million euros from the Gates Foundation, the industry is paving the way for deregulation by widespread lobbying of policy makers and promoting these technologies on the basis of them protecting the climate and ‘sustainability’. Through greenwashing, the industry hopes its ‘save-the-planet’ products can dodge regulation and gain public acceptance in an era of ‘climate emergency’.

Not for the first time, the lobbying that the Gates Foundation is engaging in displays complete contempt for democratic processes or public opinion. In 2018, The European Court of Justice ruled that new genetic engineering technologies should be regulated. As described by Marie Astier and Magali Reinert in the French publication Reporterre, Gates is very much at the centre of trying to bypass this ruling.

Of course, it is not just the European agrifood sector that is being targeted by Bill Gates and global agrifood players. India has very much been in the news in recent months due to the ongoing mass protest involving farmers who want three recent farm acts repealed.

Environmentalist Vandana Shiva has described on numerous occasions how the Gates Foundation through its ‘Ag One’ initiative is pushing for one type of agriculture for the whole world. A top-down approach regardless of what farmers or the public need or want. The strategy includes digital farming, in which farmers are monitored and mined for their agricultural data, which is then repackaged and sold back to them.

Along with Bill Gates, this is very much the agrifood model that Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and Cargill have in mind. The tech giants recent entry into the sector will increasingly lead to a mutually beneficial integration between the companies that supply products to farmers (pesticides, seeds, fertilisers, tractors, drones, etc) and those that control the flow of data (on soil, weather, pests, weeds, land use, consumer preferences, etc) and have access to digital (cloud) infrastructure. A system based on corporate concentration and centralisation.

Those farmers who remain in the system will become passive recipients of corporate directives and products on farms owned by the Gates Foundation (now one of the largest owners of farmland in the US), agribusiness and financial institutions/speculators.

The three pieces of farm legislation in India (passed by parliament but on hold) are essential for laying the foundation for this model of agriculture. The legislation is The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act.

The foreign and home-grown (Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani) billionaires who have pushed for these laws require a system of contract farming dominated by their big tech, big agribusiness and big retail interests. Smallholder peasant agriculture is regarded as an impediment to what they require: industrial-scale farms where driverless tractors, drones and genetically engineered seeds are the norm and all data pertaining to land, water, weather, seeds and soils is controlled by them.

It is unfortunate that prominent journalists and media outlets in India are celebrating the legislation and have attempted to unjustifiably discredit farmers who are protesting. It is also worrying that key figures like Dr Ramesh Chand, a member of NITI (National Institute for Transforming India) Ayog, recently stated that the legislation is necessary.

When these figures attack farmers or promote the farm acts, what they are really doing is cheerleading for the destruction of local markets and independent small-scale enterprises, whether farmers, hawkers, food processers or mom and pop corner stores. And by implication, they are helping to ensure that India is surrendering control over its food.

They are doing the bidding of the Gates Foundation and the global agrifood corporations which also want India to eradicate its buffer food stocks. Some of the very corporations which will then control stocks that India would purchase with foreign exchange holdings. At that stage, any notion of sovereign statehood would be bankrupt as India’s food needs would be dependent on attracting foreign exchange reserves via foreign direct investment or borrowing.

This would represent the ultimate betrayal of India’s farmers and democracy as well as the final surrender of food security and food sovereignty to unaccountable global traders and corporations.

The farm legislation is regressive and will eventually lead to the country relying on outside forces to feed its population. This, in an increasingly volatile world prone to conflict, public health scares, unregulated land and commodity speculation and price shocks.

MSP, MALNUTRITION AND HELPING FARMERS

Consider that India has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured that, in theory at least, there is enough food available to feed its entire population. Yet hunger and malnutrition are still major issues.

Initial results from the National Family Health Survey round 5 (NFHS-5) released in January indicate a stagnation or deterioration in most factors related to the nutrition status of the Indian population. These findings have not accounted for the effects of the COVID-19 lockdown, which could see severe long-term adverse impacts on poverty, health and nutrition.

The survey findings suggest that people’s ability to access good quality diets has been impacted by the economic slowdown in recent years and a subsequent deterioration in poverty and consumption. Such a conclusion might not be too far off the mark given the findings of the consumption expenditure survey of the National Statistical Office (2017-18).

In a December 2019 article, economist S Subramanian writes:

 

 

Employing the modest Rangarajan Committee poverty line… we find that the… proportion of the population in poverty, has climbed up from 31% to 35%, thus inverting a long trend of declining poverty ratios. If the poverty line is raised by 20% to a less modest but still modest level, then we find… [poverty]… rises precipitously from 42% to 52%.”

 

Supporters of the farm legislation are fond of saying the impact will be higher income for farmers and greater efficiency in food distribution. They fail to acknowledge that the neoliberal policies they have backed over the years have driven many farmers out of agriculture, into debt or to the edge of bankruptcy. They are now pushing for more of the same under the banner of helping farmers.

These policies mainly stem from India’s foreign exchange crisis in the 1990s. In return for up to more than $120 billion in World Bank loans at the time, India was directed to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies, run down public agriculture institutions and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops to earn foreign exchange.

The plan involves shifting at least 400 million from the countryside into cities. We have seen the running down of the sector for decades, spiralling input costs, withdrawal of government assistance and the impacts of cheap, subsidised imports which depress farmers’ incomes. The result is an acute agrarian crisis.

Through the new farm laws, the Modi government is now trying to accelerate the planned depopulation of the countryside by drastically reducing the role of the public sector in agriculture to that of a facilitator of private capital.

There is a solution to poverty, hunger and rural distress. But it is being side-lined in favour of a corporate agenda.

The Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE) notes that minimum support prices (MSP) via government procurement of essential crops and commodities should be extended to the likes of maize, cotton, oilseed and pulses. At the moment, only farmers in certain states who produce rice and wheat are the main beneficiaries of government procurement at MSP.

RUPE says that since per capita protein consumption in India is abysmally low and has fallen further during the liberalisation era, the provision of pulses in the public distribution system (PDS) is long overdue and desperately needed. RUPE argues that the ‘excess’ stocks of food grain with the Food Corporation of India are merely the result of the failure or refusal of the government to distribute grain to the people.

(For those not familiar with the PDS: central government via the Food Corporation of India (FCI) is responsible for buying food grains from farmers at MSP at state-run market yards or mandis. It then allocates the grains to each state. State governments then deliver to the ration shops.)

If public procurement of a wider range of crops at the MSP were to occur – and MSP were guaranteed for rice and wheat across all states – it would help address hunger and malnutritional as well as farmer distress.

Instead of rolling back the role of the public sector and surrendering the system to foreign corporations, there is a need to further expand official procurement and public distribution. This would occur by extending procurement to additional states and expanding the range of commodities under the PDS.

Of course, some will raise a red flag here and say this would cost too much. But as RUPE notes, it would cost around 20 per cent of the current handouts (‘incentives’) received by corporations and their super-rich owners which do not benefit the bulk of the wider population in any way.

Furthermore, if policymakers were really serious about ‘sustainability’ and boosting the rural economy, they would reject the fake high-tech corporate-controlled ‘sustainability’ agenda and a reliance on rigged and unstable global markets. They would embrace an approach to agriculture based on agroecological principles, short supply chains and local markets. 

If the last 12 months have shown anything, it is that decentralised regional and local community-owned food systems are now needed more than ever.

But a solution that would genuinely serve to help address rural distress and malnutrition does not suit the agenda of the Gates Foundation and its corporate entourage.

Colin Todhunter is an independent journalist who writes on development, environmental issues, politics, food and agriculture. In August 2018 he was named as one of 400 Living Peace and Justice Leaders and Models by Transcend Media Services, in recognition of his journalism. Join him on Twitter.

 

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2021/04/07/four-words-gates-and-his-pals-despise-democracy-minimum-support-price/

bill, the GM farmer...

 Bill Gates buys big on a farmland shopping spree

 

The third-richest man on the planet, Bill Gates, is also one of the largest private owners of farmland in the US. He is known for supporting environmental innovation, but his farming plans have been secretive until now.

 

In January, US magazine The Land Report — which tracks land transactions and produces an annual list of the 100 biggest US landowners — revealed that Bill and Melinda Gates have one of the largest portfolios of private farmland in the US, with assets totaling more than $690 million (€590 million). 

The Land Report gives top spot to Liberty Media Chair John Malone, who owns 2.2 million acres (8,094 square kilometers) of ranches and forests. CNN founder Ted Turner ranked third with 2 million acres of ranch land, while Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is in 25th spot with ownership of 420,000 acres, mainly in west Texas. Gates is in 49th spot but rising.

The magazine editor, Eric O’Keefe, was researching a purchase of 14,500 acres of prime Washington State farmland and found that the buyer was a small company in Louisiana, acting on behalf of Cascade Investments, the investment firm that manages most of the huge fortune belonging to Gates.

Gates’ holdings, it turns out, include large tracts in Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, California and a dozen other states. With the Washington State acreage and other recent additions to his portfolio, O’Keefe calculated that Gates owns at least 242,000 acres of American farmland, the largest holdings in Louisiana (69,071 acres), Arkansas (47,927 acres), and Arizona (25,750 acres).

 

Follow the money

Most things Gates gets involved with have been appropriated by one conspiracy theory or another, and this is no different. Some argue that Gates is buying up land to indulge in futuristic experiments in urban dwelling or the creation of new food.

But the reason for the move may in fact be more prosaic: It’s a good investment, with low volatility, not closely tied to the stock market and can be deployed as an inflationary hedge.

Gates has spent years diversifying his $129 billion fortune through Cascade Investments. Michael Larson runs the Washington-based asset manager, as well as supervising the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s $50 billion endowment. "The arrangement is simple," The Wall Street Journal wrote in a 2014 profile. "Mr. Larson makes money, and Mr. Gates gives it away." 

"Land has been an attractive investment for many years, producing dependable returns for investors and owners over a long cycle, with a primary focus on delivering food, fiber and fuel to a resource-hungry world," Emily Norton, director of Rural Research at real estate firm Savills, told DW.

"Investors are now showing appetite for the next paradigm of economic thinking, where land is managed in a way to give back as much (if not more) than we take from it," she adds.

Climate mitigation is another key motivation, with investors plowing money into an asset class where long-term gains from productivity increases are expected as population growth pushes up demand for more and higher quality food.

The farmland sector has been heating up in the wake of the news. The farmland real estate investment trust (REIT) Farmland Partners, which owns 156,500 acres in 16 US states, has seen its traded value more than double since November and is trading near an all-time high since its 2014 IPO. Gladstone Land, another farmland REIT that owns 127 farms comprised of 94,000 acres, trades at an all-time high.

Farmland in the area of Washington State where Gates made his latest purchase is valuable, with prices between $10,000 and $15,000 per acre, above the state average of about $2,000. Globally, the Savills Global Farmland Index indicates an 11% compound annual growth rate from 2002 to 2019. Farmland funds raised $5.7 billion in 2019 before inflows fell to $2 billion in 2020, according to Preqin data. 

"Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, has an alter ego," O’Keefe wrote: "Farmer Bill, the guy who owns more farmland than anyone else in America." Gates — who stepped down from day-to-day involvement Microsoft in 2008 — has long been looking for ways to help the world’s poorest and to address the planet’s environmental challenges. 

  Not related to climate change

 

When asked during a discussion on Reddit why he’s buying up so much farmland, Gates said it wasn't connected to climate change, adding that seed science and biofuel development were the major drivers of the acquisitions. 

"The agriculture sector is important. With more productive seeds we can avoid deforestation and help Africa deal with the climate difficulty they already face. It is unclear how cheap biofuels can be, but if they are cheap it can solve the aviation and truck emissions," he wrote.

But the decision, he said, came from his investment group. Cascade Investment is also is a shareholder in the plant-based protein companies Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods as well as farming equipment manufacturer John Deere.

 

 

Good for the goose, good for the gander? 

 

In January, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced it was creating a nonprofit entity called Gates Ag One that it said would "speed up efforts to provide smallholder farmers in developing countries, many of whom are women, with access to the affordable tools and innovations they need to sustainably improve crop productivity and adapt to the effects of climate change."

But the process of consolidation of land ownership in the US appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Many farmers lease at least some of the land they cultivate. Very large farms, which number almost 200,000, produce 63% of agricultural products in the US, but there are 1.9 million small family farms. 

According to Bruce Sherrick, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, about 60% of row-crop farmland in the Midwest is leased. The landowners include investors like Gates. Although the global farmland market is still highly fragmented, investment by financial institutions and wealthy individuals has risen since the financial crisis.

Others suggest Gates’ move is also motivated by the need to buy carbon neutrality across his portfolio.

Investment firms argue the farmlands will meet carbon-neutral targets for sustainable investment portfolios while also increasing agricultural productivity and revenue.

Analysts expect measures of carbon emissions and biodiversity to become more formalized, with the possible introduction of new carbon taxes.

"Farmland offers an excellent means to diversify a tech-heavy portfolio," O’Keefe told Crosscut. "It’s a sound counterbalance with proven rates of return. In addition, given the scale of Bill Gates’ investments, he has ample opportunity to build a team of superior agricultural managers, which is precisely what one sees at Gates’ farmland firm, Cottonwood Ag Management."

 

Read more:

https://www.dw.com/en/bill-gates-buys-big-on-a-farmland-shopping-spree/a-57134690

return to eden...

 Rediscovering ancient crop varieties

 

Old and diverse crop varieties are packed full of nutrients and adapted to local environmental conditions. But since the 1900s, some 75% of plant genetic diversity has been lost with big implications for food security.

 

Gravenstein: Available since 1669


Shoppers will usually find six kinds of apples in German supermarkets — all of which have a long shelf-life. Yet the country has around 2,000 regional apple varieties. Allergy sufferers tend to better tolerate older varieties, most likely because they contain high levels of polyphenol. The micronutrient is undesirable in supermarket apples because it causes brown spots when slicing the fruit.

 

Read more:

https://www.dw.com/en/old-varieties-fruit-vegetables-grains-rice-nutrients-regional-seeds-food-security-climate-change/g-57120541

 

See also: https://www.dw.com/en/seed-diversity-under-threat/av-57108528

 

Read from top 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

marriage problems?...

 

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and wife Melinda Gates have announced their plans to divorce in a joint post on Twitter, but say they plan to continue working together. 

"After a great deal of thought and a lot of work on our relationship, we have made the decision to end our marriage," their statement said. 

"Over the last 27 years, we have raised three incredible children and built a foundation that works all over the world to enable all people to lead healthy, productive lives. 

"We continue to share a belief in that mission and will continue to work together at the foundation, but we no longer believe we can grow together as a couple in this next phase of our lives."

According to its website, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent $US53.8 billion on philanthropic projects since 2000.

 

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-04/bill-and-melinda-gates-divorce/100113716

 

 

Read from top

 

assange2assange2

mozzie-boom...

 

Despite strong resident protests, the US Environmental Protection Agency and Florida agencies have approved controversial release of millions of genetically-modified or “gene edited” killer mosquitoes into the Florida Keys. At the same time the controversial Presidential Science Adviser nominee of Biden is involved in development of the CRISPR technology being used to genetically modify everything from the mosquitoes to the Pfizer and Moderna coronavirus mRNA “vaccines” to gene-edited salmon. How Bill Gates, the Pentagon and the eugenics lobby come together now is alarming to put it mildly. 

On April 30 the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District and the Oxitec biotechnology company announced they will begin release of what will ultimately be some 750 million genetically manipulated or gene-edited Aedes Aegypti mosquitos using CRSPR gene editing technology. The Aedes Aegypti makes up only about 4% of the mosquito population in the Keys. The release is bitterly opposed by residents and environmental groups who demanded a referendum in last year’s election ballot, but which the Mosquito Control Board refused, curiously. Oxitec and the Board claim the release is to kill off the presence of the Aedes Aegypti mosquito which is believed to carry dengue fever, Zika and other diseases.

The project, which sounds positive in the press statements, is alarming in many respects. First, the refusal to allow a citizen vote on the controversial GMO release. Second, there exists no cost-benefit analysis of the risks versus benefits of releasing millions of mosquitoes whose genetic traits are mutating in often unpredictable ways. Is it worth the risk that an ever more robust variety of mosquito will mutate from the project? No one can say. Traditional mosquito control techniques have worked well until now. 

The CEO of Oxitec, Grey Frandsen, has a dark history with the US State Department in the Balkans, as an advisor to the US Navy, and as a Fellow of the George Soros’ International Crisis Group that played a key role in the destruction of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. With no previous experience in biotechnology, Frandsen appears as CEO of Oxitec in 2017. Oxitec, a UK company, is now owned by Third Security, a US venture capital firm in Radford, Virginia headed by Randal J. Kirk who also owns the gene-edited salmon producer, AquaBounty.

Brazil failure 

At another trial by Oxitec for the same Aedes Aegypti gene-edited mosquito in Bahia, Brazil, in a test to see if the gene-edited mosquitoes would mate with local mosquitoes carrying Zika, malaria or other mosquito-borne diseases, following an initial reduction of the target population of mosquitoes, after some months the “population which had been greatly suppressed rebounded to nearly pre-release levels,” according to a study published in Nature Reports journal. A team of scientists from Yale University and several scientific institutes in Brazil monitored the progress of the experiment. What they found was that after an initial period in which the target mosquito population markedly declined, after about 18 months the mosquito population recovered to pre-release levels. Not only that, the paper noted that some of the mosquitos likely have “hybrid vigor,” in which a hybrid of the natural with the gene-edited created “a more robust population than the pre-release population” which may be more resistant to insecticides, in short, resistant “super mosquitoes.” That Brazil Oxitec study concluded, “It is unclear how this may affect disease transmission or affect other efforts to control these dangerous vectors.”

In short, the genetic mutations were unpredictable. Another 2020 scientific study revealed that the “sterile” insects revert back to being fertile, resulting in resistant GMO populations persisting in the environment. The study, published by scientists in China, Germany and the USDA in the United States, shows that spontaneous mutations in laboratory flies can arise, leading to genetic resistance to the intended trait. In other words, “super flies,” or mosquitoes.

Moreover, it is not as if the incidence of dengue fever or Zika in the Florida Keys is a grave problem. According to the official CDC report, there was not one incidence in all the US in 2020 of Zika from the indigenous population and only 4 from foreign travelers. As to the far milder and rarely fatal dengue fever, with symptoms similar to flu, in 2020 there were some 26 cases in the Florida Keyes. That was the first outbreak in almost ten years. Suspiciously, it was a small outbreak of dengue fever in 2010 that Oxitec used to argue for release of its gene edited mosquito in Florida. The new outbreak in 2020 was also suspiciously convenient for Oxitec’s effort to release the gene edited mosquitoes in Florida, which was approved in 2020. 

Oxitec, Gates and DARPA 

What further draws suspicions about the entire gene edited mosquito release in Florida is the fact that the Oxitec project is being supported by two highly controversial agencies—The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA. Gates— not only a major financial backer of the gene-edited COVID-19 “vaccines” of Pfizer and Moderna, and the largest private donor to the WHO–has funded gene-editing research for more than a decade. Gates is well aware of the malevolent potential of gene-editing technology. It can be used as a bioweapon maker. In 2016 Gates declared, “the next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus.” In July 2017, John Sotos, of Intel Health & Life Sciences, stated that gene editing research could “open up the potential for bioweapons of unimaginable destructive potential.”

In 2016 Gates’ foundation gave $1.6 million to the PR firm, Emerging Ag, to block a broad effort to get a UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) moratorium on gene drive technology until its safety could be established. According to emails obtained by ETC Group, Emerging Ag recruited more than 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA official, and scientists who had received DARPA funding. They were successful.

Entomological Warfare?

DARPA has been working for several years on genetic editing of mosquitoes. Through its “Insect Allies” program, DARPA has been working, using CRISPR gene-editing and gene drive technologies, on manipulating the Aedes Aegypti mosquito. The US Department of Defense has spent at least $100 million in the controversial technology known as “gene drives” making the US military a top funder and developer of the gene-modifying technology. “Gene drives are a powerful and dangerous new technology and potential biological weapons could have disastrous impacts on peace, food security and the environment, especially if misused,” said Jim Thomas, co-director of ETC Group, an environment safety group. “The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field.”

Entomological warfare is a type of biological warfare that uses insects to transmit diseases. The Pentagon, using DARPA research, has allegedly performed such entomological tests secretly in the Republic of Georgia and Russia. Is the DARPA development, together with Gates’ foundation and Oxitec, of the gene edited mosquitoes a covert program in entomological warfare?

The Pentagon presently has top security bio laboratories in 25 countries across the world funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program– Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP). They are in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa. Among their projects, Phlebotomine sand fly species were collected under the heading, “Surveillance Work on Acute Febrile Illness,” in which all (female) sand flies were tested to determine their infectivity rate. A third project, also including sand flies collection, studied the characteristics of their salivary glands. This is weaponization research.

The controversial person picked by the Biden Administration to become the first Cabinet-level science advisor, Eric Lander, came from the MIT-Harvard Broad Institute. Lander is a specialist in gene drive and gene editing technologies and played a major role in the flawed US Human Genome Project. This is not the kind of science we need to be supporting. It is rather part of what is obviously a larger eugenics agenda and Bill Gates is again playing a key role. 

 

 

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

Read more:

https://journal-neo.org/2021/05/11/why-are-gates-and-pentagon-releasing-gmo-mosquitoes-in-florida-keys/

 

 

Read from top.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]@@@@!!!