Lose Them Pounds

The Billion Agave Project is a game-changing, ecosystem-regeneration strategy recently adopted by several innovative Mexican farms in the high-desert region of Guanajuato. With your support, we’ve been the primary group to donate to Organic Consumers Association supporting this crucial project that is now proven to green arid regions and provide both food and income for some of the world’s most challenged farmers.
This strategy combines the growing of agave plants and nitrogen-fixing companion tree species (such as mesquite), with holistic rotational grazing of livestock. The result is a high-biomass, high forage-yielding system that works well even on degraded, semi-arid lands. A manifesto on mesquite is available in English1 and Español.2
The system produces large amounts of agave leaf and root stem — up to 1 ton of biomass over the 8- to 10-year life of the plant. When chopped and fermented in closed containers, this plant material produces an excellent, inexpensive (2 cents per pound) animal fodder.
This agroforestry system reduces the pressure to overgraze brittle rangelands and improves soil health and water retention, while drawing down and storing massive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
The goal of the Billion Agave campaign is to plant 1 billion agaves globally to draw down and store 1 billion tons of climate-destabilizing CO2. The campaign will be funded by donations and public and private investments.
Why Agave?

Climate-Change Solution
Agave plants and nitrogen-fixing trees, densely intercropped and cultivated together, have the capacity to draw down and sequester massive amounts of atmospheric CO2.
They also produce more above-ground and below-ground biomass (and animal fodder) on a continuous year-to-year basis than any other desert or semi-desert species. Agaves alone can draw down and store above ground the dry-weight equivalent of 30 to 60 tons of CO2 per hectare (12 to 24 tons per acre) per year.
Ideal for arid and hot climates, agaves and their companion trees, once established, require no irrigation and are basically impervious to rising global temperatures and drought.
Livestock Feed Source
Agave leaves, full of saponins and lectins, are indigestible for livestock. However, once their massive leaves (high in sugar) are chopped finely via a machine and fermented in closed containers for 30 days, the end product provides a nutritious and inexpensive silage or animal fodder.
This agave/companion tree silage, combined with the restoration of degraded rangelands, can make the difference between survival and grinding poverty for millions of the world’s small farmers and herders.
Drought-Resistant
Agaves require little-to-no irrigation. They thrive even in dry, degraded lands unsuitable for crop production because of their Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) photosynthetic pathway.
The CAM pathway enables agave plants to draw down moisture from the air and store it in their thick leaves at night. During daylight hours, the opening in their leaves (the stomata) closes up, drastically reducing evaporation.
A New Agroforestry Model

A pioneering group of Mexican farmers is transforming their landscape and their livelihoods. How? By densely planting (1,600 to 2,500 per hectare), pruning and intercropping a fast-growing, high-biomass, high forage-yielding species of agaves among preexisting (500 per hectare) deep-rooted, nitrogen-fixing tree species (such as mesquite), or among planted tree seedlings.
When the agaves are 3 years old, and for the following five to seven years, farmers can prune the leaves or pencas, chop them up finely with a machine, and then ferment the agave in closed containers for 30 days, ideally combining the agave leaves with 20% of leguminous pods and branches by volume to give them a higher protein level.
In Guanajuato, mesquite trees start to produce pods that can be harvested in five years. By Year 7, the mesquite and agaves have grown into a fairly dense forest. In Years 8 to 10, the root stem or pina (weighing between 100 and 200 pounds) of the agave is ready for harvesting to produce a distilled liquor called mescal.
Meanwhile the hijuelos (or pups) put out by the mother agave plants are being continuously transplanted back into the agroforestry system, guaranteeing continuous biomass growth (and carbon storage).
In this agroforestry system farmers avoid overgrazing by integrating rotational grazing of their livestock across their rangelands. They feed their animals by supplementing pasture forage with fermented agave silage.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/14/the-billion-agave-project.aspx

While the two currently available COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. are based on novel mRNA technology — which in actuality are experimental gene therapies, not true vaccines — the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is a bit different. It uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector genetically engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein instead.
In the video above, James Corbett of The Corbett Report interviews1 Whitney Webb, a writer and researcher who covers intelligence, Big Tech, surveillance and civil liberties, about some of the basic differences between these vaccines.
They then delve into the curious ties between Oxford University, AstraZeneca and the British eugenics movement — a topic Webb covered in her in-depth December 26, 2020, investigative report “Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to U.K. Eugenics Movement,”2 co-written with Jeremy Loffredo.
The Corbett Report interview and this article offer only a cursory summary of the findings in that report, so I highly recommend reading Webb’s original article for a more detailed view.
The Not for Profit Myth
Webb points out that one of the reasons the AstraZeneca vaccine is being promoted for developing countries is because it doesn’t require the deep-freeze cold storage that mRNA vaccines do, so the logistics surrounding distribution are far less cumbersome and complex. As a result, GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, has partnered with AstraZeneca to bring the vaccine to the developing world, including Africa3 and Egypt.4
Now, while AstraZeneca has promised it will not make any profit from its vaccine, there’s a time limit on this pledge that most media pundits fail to note. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date. It could be as early as July 1, 2021, according to a company memo obtained by the Financial Times.5
As explained by Webb, the patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called Vaccitech, the investors of which include BRAAVOS (a capital investment company set up by a Deutche Bank executive), Google Ventures, the Wellcome Trust, the Chinese branch of Sequoia Capital, the Chinese drug company Fosun Pharma and the British government.

All of these investors stand to profit from this vaccine at some point in the near future, and Vaccitech has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 vaccine will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.
In her article, Webb quotes Vaccitech’s CEO Bill Enright, who promised that investors will receive “a big chunk of the royalties from a successful vaccine as well as ‘milestone’ payments if and when the pandemic is declared over and COVID-19 vaccines become a seasonal event.”6
Mapping the Players
The actual developer of the vaccine, Webb explains, is the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research, founded in 1995 as a public-private partnership between GlaxoSmithKline and the British government.
After a few years, a reorganization took place, turning the Jenner Institute into a partnership between the University of Oxford and the Pirbright Institute (previously known as the Institute for Animal Health). The Jenner Institute is also part of the Oxford Vaccine Group.
The AstraZeneca vaccine has also received U.S. funding. In 2020, the company received $1 billion in funding for its COVID-19 vaccine from the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which is part of the Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is among those who have promoted the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine will need to become an annual inoculation, which will allow Vaccitech and its investors to massively profit well into the future.
Among the profiteers will be The Wellcome Trust7 which, like other Vaccitech investors, is part of the technocratic globalist network. Wellcome is the largest charity in the U.K. that funds “innovative biomedical research.” It was formed in 1936 after the death of Sir Henry Wellcome, a pharmaceutical pioneer and progressive industrialist.
Their board consists of present or former bankers, insurance executives and investment board members. Sir Henry Wellcome, while still alive, founded the company that went on to become GlaxoSmithKline, so the Wellcome Trust is essentially the “philanthropic arm” of GSK.
Adrian Hill’s Ties to Eugenics

Adrian Hill is the director of the Jenner Institute and was a lead developer of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Hill also heads the U.K. Vaccine Network, a government entity that decides where to funnel funding and vaccine technology.
One of Hill’s bosses early on in his career, and his thesis adviser when he was a doctoral student, was the late David Weatherall, founder of the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, a research institute at the University of Oxford.
Weatherall was a member of the Galton Institute from a time when it was known as the U.K. Eugenics Society, and he remained a member until his death in 2018. Hill gave a lecture at Galton in 2008 for its 100-year anniversary. As noted in Webb’s article:8

“Arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK eugenics movement.

The latter organization, named for the ‘father of eugenics’ Francis Galton, is the renamed U.K. Eugenics Society, a group notorious for over a century for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to ‘improve racial stock’ by reducing the population of those deemed inferior.

The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with [Sarah] Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute’s past members have called for reducing population growth …

While the Galton Institute has attempted to distance itself from its past of promoting racial eugenics with surface-level public relations efforts, it has not stopped family members of the infamous racist from achieving leadership positions at the institute.

Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than David J. Galton, whose work includes ‘Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century.’

David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project, originally dreamt up by Galton’s former president Walter Bodmer, had ‘enormously increased … the scope for eugenics … because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.’

This new ‘wider definition of eugenics,’ Galton has said, ‘would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.’ In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to ‘whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.'”

Hill and the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics

Hill also holds a senior position at the Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genetics. One of his former students there was Sarah Gilbert, who served as program director for the Centre. Gilbert is also co-founder of Vaccitech and a lead researcher on the COVID-19 vaccine along with Hill.

At the Centre for Human Genetics, Hill’s focus has been “population genetics and race, particularly in Africa” Webb explains. In general terms, the Centre investigates race genetics and susceptibility to diseases and infertility. Hill’s specialty is genetics and respiratory illnesses. The Wellcome Trust is also the archivist for the Eugenics Society, now the Galton Institute. Webb writes:9

“The crossroads between race and genes is important in the center’s work, as an entire working group at the center, the Myers Group, is dedicated to mapping the ‘genetic impacts of migration events.’

The center also funded a paper that argued that so long as eugenics is not coercive it’s an acceptable policy initiative. The paper asks, ‘Is the fact that an action or policy is a case of eugenics necessarily a reason not to do it?’

According to Hill’s page on the Wellcome Trust site, race and genetics have long played a central role in his scientific approach, and his group currently focuses on the role genetics plays in African populations with regard to susceptibility to specific infectious diseases.”

As noted by Webb in her interview, eugenics never really disappeared. It was simply rebranded into more acceptable terms revolving around “public health.” This raises all sorts of questions, starting with: Why is the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which has such strong eugenics ties, being earmarked for and marketed specifically to developing countries?
Anti-Racism Agenda, or Eugenics?

Webb also points out how so-called “woke vaccine policy” is using systemic racism as a justification for making sure the COVID-19 vaccine is given to minorities first.
Such justifications become all the more questionable if not outright suspicious in light of the eugenics angle, which tends to be heavily focused on reducing populations of Blacks and various native groups.
In the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine, Webb suspects there’s an ulterior profit motive behind its not-for-profit pledge to developing countries. If the vaccine ends up being an annual inoculation, they may insist you keep getting the same brand. This way, if AstraZeneca ends up getting a majority share of the market from the start, Vaccitech and its investors will ultimately reap the greatest profits in years to come.
But in addition to the profit angle, there’s also the possibility that they might alter the vaccine at any point in the future to fit the eugenics agenda, and no one would be the wiser. As noted by Webb in her article:10

“There are plans in place to exercise what could reasonably be described as economic coercion to pressure people to ‘voluntarily’ get vaccinated. Such coercion will be obviously be more effective on poor and working communities, meaning communities of color will be disproportionately affected as well.

Considering these facts, and the case for scrutinizing the safety of Oxford-AstraZeneca’s ‘affordable’ vaccine option made above, any harm caused by vaccine allocation policy in the U.S. and beyond is likely to disproportionately affect poor communities, especially communities of color.

As such, the public should take all vaccine rollout policy assertions with a grain of salt, even when they come cloaked in language of inclusion, racial justice, and public health preservation.

As the cofounder of the American Eugenics Society (later renamed Society for the Study of Social Biology) Frederick Osborn put it in 1968, ‘Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.'”

Africans Leery of AstraZeneca’s ‘Gift’

Considering the history of Big Pharma using Blacks as guinea pigs, both in Africa and the U.S., it’s not surprising that Africans are leery about the gift of COVID-19 vaccines. As just one example, a 2009 Jenner Institute vaccine trial in South Africa killed seven infants. In her article, Webb writes:11

“An investigation conducted by the British Medical Journal found that the Hill-led Jenner Institute had … knowingly misled parents about the negative results of and questionable methods used in animal studies as well the vaccine being known to be ineffective.

The vaccine in question, an experimental tuberculosis vaccine developed jointly by Emergent Biosolutions and the Jenner Institute, was scrapped after the controversial study in infants confirmed what was already known, that the vaccine was ineffective.”

As reported by the Inquirer in the video below, concern among South Africans has been so widespread that the South African government, in early February 2021, temporarily paused its rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Google Ventures’ Conflict of Interest

As mentioned earlier, Google Ventures is another investor in Vaccitech. Considering Google has a vested stake in the success of a COVID-19 vaccine, its policy to censor “vaccine misinformation” is a clear conflict of interest that they really should be held accountable for, Webb says.
Indeed, it makes no sense that Google, which stands to profit from a COVID-19 vaccine, is allowed to suppress reporting on it. Disturbingly, Webb points out that, as far as she could tell, she’s the only one who has pointed out this link between Google and the AstraZeneca vaccine. 
The Gates Foundation

Not surprisingly, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation can also be found in this web of eugenics. Webb writes:12

“The Wellcome Centre regularly cofunds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with the Gates Foundation, a foundation that actively and admittedly engages in population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the widespread distribution of injectable long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).

The Wellcome Trust has also directly funded studies that sought to develop methods to ‘improve uptake’ of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda. As researcher Jacob Levich wrote in the ‘Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism,’ LARCs afford women in the Global South ‘the least choice possible short of actual sterilization.’

Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they ‘leave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.’ One example is Norplant, a contraceptive implant manufactured by Schering (now Bayer) that can prevent pregnancy for up to five years.

It was taken off the U.S. market in 2002 after more than 50,000 women filed lawsuits against the company and the doctors who prescribed it. Seventy of those class action suits were related to side effects such as depression, extreme nausea, scalp-hair loss, ovarian cysts, migraines, and excessive bleeding.

Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa by the Gates Foundation in conjunction with USAID and EngenderHealth. Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to ‘improve the biological stock of the human race.'”

Are Any of the COVID Vaccines Safe?

I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and suspected, if not inevitable, problems with COVID-19 vaccines, primarily the mRNA gene therapies since they are the two currently in use in the U.S. You can find them all using the search bar at the top of this page.
In addition to their high risk of allergic reactions, there’s compelling evidence to suggest they may trigger severe inflammation and immune dysregulation. Many scientists are also warning of the possibility for pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement, which will make subsequent infection with a coronavirus far more dangerous than were you not vaccinated.
In a paper13 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen also warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS.
Meanwhile, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, has expressed concern about mRNA vaccines’ ability to cause “microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”14
Around the world, reports are now also pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving these COVID-19 vaccines.15,16,17,18,19,20 In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.
As of February 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths.21 Pfizer’s vaccine has so far been responsible for 58% of deaths in the U.S. VAERS list, while Moderna’s vaccine accounts for 41%.
As of March 11, 2021, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg have all suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of blood clots.22
Austria has also suspended a particular batch of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in order to complete an investigation into the death of a 49-year-old woman who suddenly developed a severe coagulation disorder.23
Another Austrian vaccine recipient, a 35-year-old woman, developed acute lung disease from a dislodged blood clot. The same vaccine batch had reportedly been used in Denmark, where a 60-year-old woman died from a blood clot. According to a March 2, 2021, report24 by The Defender, U.K. data show the AstraZeneca vaccine has 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer vaccine.
To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.25
If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/13/oxford-astrazeneca-eugenics-links.aspx

While the casualties of government-imposed COVID-19 countermeasures are manifold, the biggest and most tragic of them all is the loss of individual freedoms. As noted by Jonathan Sumption in his February 15, 2021, Telegraph commentary:1

“What makes us a free society is that, although the state has vast powers, there are conventional limits on what it can do with them. The limits are conventional because they do not depend on our laws but on our attitudes.
There are islands of human life which are our own, a personal space into which the state should not intrude without some altogether exceptional justification.
Liberal democracy breaks down when frightened majorities demand mass coercion of their fellow citizens, and call for our personal spaces to be invaded. These demands are invariably based on what people conceive to be the public good. They all assert that despotism is in the public interest.”

A Fragile Freedom
As Sumption points out, “We cannot switch in and out of totalitarianism at will.” We either choose freedom, or we choose to live under authoritarian rule. Even if (and that’s a big if, at this point) restrictions are lifted, public attitude can place freedom on shaky ground, as public acceptance of overreach will allow for the same to occur again and again at a moment’s notice.
This is a serious problem, as there will always be other epidemics and pandemics. There is always the threat of terrorism and climate change. There will always be a public health calamity, be it obesity or diabetes, that can be used as justification for government intrusion into our private lives.

“A threshold has now been crossed,” Sumption writes.2 “A big taboo has gone. Other governments will say that the only question that matters is whether it works and whether they can ‘get away with it’ … We already have a striking example. The vaccine, which was supposed to make the lockdown unnecessary, has become a reason for keeping it in force …
Infections, hospitalizations and deaths are plunging, but millions who are at virtually no risk are being kept in house imprisonment. This is being done mainly because a selective regime of controls would be too difficult for the state to enforce. Coercion quickly becomes an object in itself.”

Personal Liberty Is Worth Fighting For
Personal liberty, as Sumption points out, is critically important, and perhaps most important of all, for our mental and physical health, is the freedom to interact with other human beings. It is an absolutely crucial and most basic of human needs. Infants robbed of physical interaction fail to thrive and are at increased risk of death.

But children, adolescents, adults and the elderly have no lesser need for it. We may tolerate it for longer without marked ill effect, but over time, it takes its toll on health, emotional stability and longevity. The fact that we’re allowing government to ban human interaction is a dire sign of a society at the brink of self-destruction.

“I do not doubt that there are extreme situations in which oppressive controls over our daily lives may be necessary and justified,” Sumption writes.3
An epidemic of Ebola, with a death rate of 50%, for example, might qualify. However, COVID-19 is nowhere near that serious a threat. As noted by Sumption, COVID-19 “is well within the range of perils which we have always had to live with, and always will.”
Data4 show the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio is 0.26%. People under the age of 40 have a mere 0.01% risk of dying from the infection. The vast majority that test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, and most do not get seriously ill.
We Must Relearn to Accept the Inevitabilities of Life

What’s more, the average age of death from COVID-19 is somewhere between 76.9, according to one study,5 and 82, according to U.K. government data cited by Sumption.6
Either way, this is right around the average age of death from any cause anyway, and therefore not an outrageous threat to public health. Yet, the public willingly relinquishes the freedom to live a normal life, somehow oddly convinced that by trading in their freedom, people at the end of their life will be spared the pain of death. They won’t. None of us will.
The answer, if we really want to protect the masses, is to educate and promote healthy living at all stages of life. Improving your health through a healthy lifestyle, sunshine, fresh air and real food, is the best way to protect the most people.
The inevitabilities of life — which include uncertainty, moment-to-moment risk and the surety of death — demand that we not require people to cease living in order to “save” others from the ramifications of ill health, regardless of their age. It’s as inhumane as it is illogical.
Rather, the answer, if we really want to protect the masses, is to educate and promote healthy living at all stages of life. Improving your health through a healthy lifestyle, sunshine, fresh air and real food, is the best way to protect the most people. Quarantining and shunning human interaction are probably the worst things you can do for yourself and society at large.
And let’s not go down the road of all the psychological devastation caused by teaching children to fear their own hands, other people, the air they breathe, and that their very presence poses a lethal threat to others.
The Press Has Become an Instrument of Control
Historically, the press has been viewed as a crucial instrument for a well-informed public, and thus supportive of a free and democratically-run society. Indeed, this is why journalists and news outlets were known as “the Fourth Estate.” It was an acknowledgement of their societal influence. To be effective, the press had to develop a certain amount of public trust. Today, trust in mainstream media has dramatically eroded, and for good reason.

Time and again, reporters and entire news outlets have been caught peddling fake news, and when the press misleads rather than informs the public of the facts, they become tools for tyranny. Their viewers become more ignorant by the day rather than more informed, and thus more easily controlled and manipulated.

In a recent substack article,7 independent journalist Matt Taibbi addresses the attempt by UCLA professor and co-leader of the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, Sarah Roberts, to shame readers away from substack. “Substack is a dangerous direct threat to traditional news media,” Roberts tweeted.

According to her half-baked reasoning, journalists who leave mainstream newsrooms for substack and other independent portals are taking unfair advantage of the trust they earned while gainfully employed within the Fourth Estate. Then, once on their own, they can print whatever they want without having to go through the onerous chore of fact checking and other standard checks and balances.

“To imply that trust is a thing that can only be conferred by a mainstream newsroom is beyond insulting, especially since mainstream news organizations already long ago started to become infamous for betraying exactly those hallowed ‘norms’ to which Roberts refers,” Taibbi writes.8
“Why did a source like former NSA contractor Edward Snowden choose to come forward to Glenn Greenwald in particular? He surely wasn’t bothered by the fact that Glenn didn’t come up through the ranks of a paper like the New York Times or Washington Post.
The answer connects to one of the primary reasons audiences are moving to places like Substack: the perception that traditional news outlets have become tools of the very corporate and political interests they’re supposed to be overseeing.
Roberts complains about lines between opinion and reporting being blurred at Substack (an absurd comment on its own, but that’s a separate issue), but the ‘blurring’ problem at those other organizations is far more severe. Are newspapers like the New York Times checks on power, or agents of it?”

A Century of Controlled Media
As detailed in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign,” infiltration and manipulation of the media has been a routine occurrence since 1915, when J.P. Morgan interests, including the steel and shipbuilding industries, purchased editorial control of 25 of the most influential newspapers, thereby allowing them to control news about military preparedness, financial policies and other stories deemed crucial to their private and corporate interests.

Then, in 1948, the CIA launched Operation Mockingbird, a clandestine media infiltration campaign that allowed the agency to control and inject its own propaganda into the mainstream press. Today, several decades later, it’s clear that Operation Mockingbird never ceased. As noted by Taibbi:9

“The major ‘traditional’ cable networks, as well as many of the bigger daily newspapers, have for years now been engaged in mad hiring sprees of ex-spooks, putting whole nests of known perjurers and Langley goons on their payrolls as contributors, where they regularly provide ‘commentary’ on news stories in which they themselves have involvement.”

The modern propaganda machine also includes Big Tech, which allows for previously unthinkable information control through automated censorship across a much broader spectrum of sources.

Literally overnight, an individual or company involved in the dissemination of truthful information that goes against the status quo can have their website shadow banned by search engines, their social media accounts eliminated, their web hosting and email services canceled and their online payment systems shut down. From one day to the next, you, your thoughts, opinions and all your hard work can be effectively erased.
Political Powerbrokers Call for Massive Censoring

We’re now even seeing politicians starting to throw their weight around, demanding censoring of political opponents and news outlets that fail to properly toe the political line.
U.S. House Democrats from California — Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney — went so far as to send a letter to a dozen cable, satellite and streaming TV companies, basically telling them to censor or remove Fox News, Newsmax and OANN. As noted by Glenn Greenwald in an article10 on the rapid escalation of government calls for censorship:

“Democrats’ justification for silencing their adversaries online and in media — ‘They are spreading fake news and inciting extremism’ — is what despots everywhere say … Since when is it the role of the U.S. Government to arbitrate and enforce precepts of ‘journalistic integrity’?
Unless you believe in the right of the government to regulate and control what the press says — a power which the First Amendment explicitly prohibits — how can anyone be comfortable with members of Congress arrogating unto themselves the power to dictate what media outlets are permitted to report and control how they discuss and analyze the news of the day?”

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has strongly denounced the Democrats’ actions, calling it a “marked departure from First Amendment norms,” adding that the demands are “a chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys … No government official has any business inquiring about the ‘moral principles’ that guide a private entity’s decision about what news to carry.”11
To What Aim Control?
It’s important to realize that authoritarian dictators are not, in fact, trying to help you. They’re trying to change you. Censorship does not protect the public. It’s a control mechanism, as you are unlikely to rebel against an injustice that you don’t even know exists, or if you know about it, your understanding of the problem is diametrically opposed to the truth; hence, you’ll support a “solution” that will perpetuate or deepen the problem.

At an even deeper level, censorship and information suppression is an effort to alter your cognitive faculties, because how do you even define people and things that you are not allowed to criticize? As noted by Taibbi, Big Tech and media are tools for politicians, corporations and the intelligence industry, the interests of which are frequently diametrically opposed to that of the people.

Chemical companies cannot sell their toxic wares if an informed public shuns them. The fake food industry cannot flourish if the public understands the basics of health. Technocracy cannot be implemented if an informed public opposes the agenda, and so on.

What we see clearer than ever these days, is the schism in journalism where the old-school norms of gathering data and then delivering it to the audience and allowing them to make up their own minds as to whether it’s good or bad has been replaced by subjective interpretation of the data.

Essentially, most mainstream reporters now tell you how to think about a given topic. They even tell us how to think about people who refuse to think the way they’re instructed to think. That way, the public ends up doing the dirty work of censoring, canceling and dehumanizing the undesirables for them.
Rule Through Medicine
While the rise of dictatorships has historically involved the use of armed forces to subdue an unruly public, the budding dictatorship of today relies heavily on weaponized medicine and the control of information. If you’ve taken the time to familiarize yourself with the concept of technocracy, which has a distinct transhumanist component to it, you will see why this makes perfect sense and was, in fact, entirely predictable.

By tying the issue of health care into the digital surveillance apparatus, you end up with a very robust platform for automated mass control. The use of fear also works well in this scenario, since most are keen to stay alive and don’t want their loved ones to die. So, they fall for lies like “we have to shut down the world and sequester indoors for months on end or else we all die.”

A leading figure in this medical dictatorship scheme is Bill Gates, who now wields a dominating influence over not just Big Tech but also global health policy, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies,12 surveillance, education and media.
As reported by The GrayZone:13

“Beyond the public relations bonanza about Gates lies a disturbing history that should raise concerns about whether his foundation’s plans for resolving the pandemic will benefit the global public as much as it expands and entrenches its power over international institutions.
The Gates Foundation has already effectively privatized the international body charged with creating health policy, transforming it into a vehicle for corporate dominance. It has facilitated the dumping of toxic products onto the people of the Global South, and even used the world’s poor as guinea pigs for drug experiments.
The Gates Foundation’s influence over public health policy is practically contingent on ensuring that safety regulations and other government functions are weak enough to be circumvented … Strong evidence suggests that the Gates Foundation functions as a Trojan horse for Western corporations, which of course have no goal greater than an increased bottom line.”

Indeed, as reviewed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” Gates donates billions to private companies, and is invested in the very products and businesses he donates money to and otherwise promotes as solutions to the world’s problems, be they hunger, disease, pandemic viruses or climate change.

As suggested by The GrayZone, Gates’ global health empire is more about building an empire for himself and his technocrat cronies than promoting public health.14
The Great Reset — A Plan to Capitalize on COVID-19 Pandemic
For a time, there was so much uncertainty about SARS-CoV-2 and the infection it causes, you’re forgiven if you opted to err on the side of caution. Now, however, a full year later, it’s become obvious that this pandemic was never as serious as portrayed by the media, and that it is being used (whether preplanned or not) as a convenient vehicle for a radical overhaul of just about every aspect of life. And not for the better.

In a recent report, independent journalist Johnny Vedmore delved into the professional history and personal background Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, who wrote the books “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2016), “Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2018) and “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” thereby cementing his role as a leading figurehead for the modern technocracy movement. Vedmore writes:15

“As the driving force behind the World Economic Forum … Schwab has courted heads of state, leading business executives, and the elite of academic and scientific circles into the Davos fold for over 50 years.
More recently, he has also courted the ire of many due to his more recent role as the frontman of the Great Reset, a sweeping effort to remake civilization globally for the express benefit of the elite of the World Economic Forum and their allies …
Like many prominent frontmen for elite-sponsored agendas, the online record of Schwab has been well-sanitized, making it difficult to come across information on his early history as well as information on his family.
Yet, having been born in Ravensburg, Germany in 1938, many have speculated in recent months that Schwab’s family may have had some tie to Axis war efforts, ties that, if exposed, could threaten the reputation of the World Economic Forum and bring unwanted scrutiny to its professed missions and motives …
Digging even deeper into his activities, it becomes clear that Schwab’s real role has long been to ‘shape global, regional and industry agendas’ of the present in order to ensure the continuity of larger, much older agendas that came into disrepute after World War II, not just nuclear technology, but also eugenics-influenced population control policies …
Is Klaus Schwab trying to create the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or is he trying to create the Fourth Reich?”

Is Depopulation Part of the Agenda?
Gates’ family history is also heavy on eugenics,16 as is the Club of Rome’s agenda,17 another technocratic power center. The United Nation’s Agenda 21 also hints at the need for a dramatic reduction in population size in the coming decade.18

The idea that eugenics might make a comeback may seem like a remote possibility, but considering the history of using vaccinations to secretly inhibit fertility in native populations, it would be naïve to dismiss the possibility out of hand. As reported in a 2014 paper written by researchers at the University of Louisiana and the University of British Columbia:19

“Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing a ‘birth-control’ vaccine.
Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant DNA.
WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable ‘less developed countries.’ By November 1993 Catholic publications appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a tetanus prophylactic.
In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such a program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus vaccine being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present …
Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya ‘anti-tetanus’ campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction.”

Certain vaccines have also been found to cause infertility as an unexpected side effect. For example, a 2018 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health20 found that women who received HPV vaccinations suffered higher rates of infertility.

According to this study, “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million.” After “skeptic” critics of scientific evidence that vaccines have significant health risks publicly attacked the study, the paper was withdrawn by the publisher.21
What We Lose Is Exponentially Harder to Get Back
Safeguarding our Constitutional rights and civil liberties against unlawful government overreach is essential. Yet many are willingly giving up freedoms that, once gone, may be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. Vaccine passports are just one example.

By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, through a digital certificate or app on your phone, the hope is that you can once again board an airplane and travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.

Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s a loss of personal liberty that you once had, one that disappeared right before your eyes and one that’s setting the stage for even more intrusive surveillance and privacy erosion.

While government has a duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, this duty must be balanced against the loss of individual rights and liberties. Right now we’re facing a battle of freedom versus tyranny. Long term lockdowns are clearly not in the public’s best interest. Rather, it’s tantamount to abuse.
Will You Obey or Fight for Freedom?
It is vital to understand that the vast majority of information you are exposed to in mainstream media is carefully designed propaganda crafted from nearly two decades of stolen personal data collected from you.

This data is then run through very sophisticated and advanced deep learning algorithms that are then able to accurately predict what will trigger your emotions to achieve their desired behavior.

As I have carefully identified in many previous articles, this plan will result in progressive loss in your freedom and liberty that eventually results in tyranny and slavery. So, be ever vigilant and seek the truth so you can understand reality well enough to distinguish between fact and a fictional narrative that promises to offer you liberation but, rather, eventually enslaves you.

In my newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” I investigate the origins of this virus and how the elite use it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. I’ll also show how you can protect yourself against this disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< My book will be available April 29, but you can preorder it now on Amazon. Why Amazon, you may ask? Well, this book talks in detail about pandemic profiteers, and by getting its ranking pushed up via one of the biggest Big Tech companies benefiting from this global pandemic — although I am not thrilled about associating with Amazon — we are actually using their platform against them!
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/11/impact-of-covid-19-on-freedom.aspx

Plastic is such a ubiquitous part of modern life that it’s hard to imagine a world without it. But in the grand scheme of things, plastics are still a new invention, and as noted by Pete Myers, Ph.D., the chair, founder and chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, in the video above, there’s a lot we don’t know about plastics and health — but then, there’s a lot that we do.

Particularly when it comes to the chemicals in plastics, much is known about the risks they pose to human health, including to future generations through intergenerational endocrine disruption. “It’s enough to give me great pause,” Myers says.

Endocrine disruptors, which are widespread in plastic products, are similar in structure to natural sex hormones such as estrogen, thereby interfering with their normal functions — and more. According to Myers, the future of humankind could ultimately be at risk:1

“Your hormones have been hijacked. Your body’s astonishing, finely calibrated signal system — a system that controls everything from your weight to your fertility to your mood — has been scrambled by loosely regulated chemicals manufacturers use in a myriad of ways including in consumer products.

These hijackers — known to scientists as ‘endocrine-disrupting chemicals’ — are threatening our existence as a species. Driving this problem are chemical companies focused only on cheap plastics and regulators unwilling to do anything about it.”

Male Fertility Is on the Decline, Could Reach Zero by 2045

Myers highlights the book “Count Down,” written by Shanna Swan, a reproductive epidemiologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine. It’s based on a 2017 study she co-wrote, which found sperm counts dropped by 59.3% from 1973 to 2011.2

The most significant declines were found in samples from men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, where many had sperm concentrations below 40 million/ml, which is considered the cutoff point at which a man will have trouble fertilizing an egg. Overall, men in these countries had a 52.4% decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3% decline in total sperm count (sperm concentration multiplied by the total volume of an ejaculate).

The book expands on what Swan describes as an impending fertility crisis; along with the dropping sperm counts, changes in sexual development pose a threat to human survival and, according to Swan, “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival.”3 In fact, she estimates that if current projections continue, sperm counts could reach zero in 2045.

Global fertility rates are also falling, reaching 2.4 births per woman in 2018, down from 5.06 in 1964. Fertility rates in about 50% of countries worldwide are at 2.1, which is below population replacement level, The Guardian reported.4

Human beings already meet three of the five criteria for what makes a species endangered, according to Swan, and while there are numerous factors involved — including contraception and costs of raising children — biological reasons, such as declining sperm counts, increasing miscarriage rates and genital abnormalities, are also driving down birth and fertility rates.

Endocrine-disrupting “everywhere chemicals” are a key culprit, she says: “Chemicals in our environment and unhealthy lifestyle practices in our modern world are disrupting our hormonal balance, causing various degrees of reproductive havoc.”5

Has the ‘Count Down’ to Infertility Begun?

“Count Down” brings some little-known findings into the spotlight, like the fact that a significant part of the global population may not be able to reproduce without technological assistance come 2050.6 And, the book suggests, men today have about half the number of sperm compared to their grandfathers.

“I’m half the man my grandfather was, and my grandsons will be half the man I am. In some countries, half of all couples seeking pregnancy require medical intervention,” Myers wrote.7 There appears to be a synergy occurring as well, which the book dubs “the 1% effect,” because sperm count, testosterone and fertility are dropping, and testicular cancer and miscarriage are rising, all at about 1% per year.8

Environmental chemicals, particularly endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), are another common thread, linked to increasing problems in women’s fertility as well as men’s. “Studies are finding correlations between EDC exposure and a rise in miscarriages and birth defects, and a decline in egg quality and quantity. EDCs can even affect a baby in utero if exposed during pregnancy,” Sustainable Pulse reported.9

Chemical exposure during pregnancy has been found to affect both masculinization and long-term fertility in males. In the wild, fish, frogs and reptiles are also increasingly being born with both ovaries and testes.10

Environmental Chemicals Causing Fertility Declines

A number of chemicals are wreaking havoc with human fertility. EDCs interfere with endogenous hormones, and it’s been found that some effects of exposure persist in future generations, even among males that weren’t directly exposed.11

Research published in PLOS Genetics, for instance, found that exposing male mice to ethinyl estradiol, a synthetic sex hormone found in birth control pills, causes developmental problems in the reproductive tract, thereby lowering sperm counts (men may be exposed to birth control pills through contaminated water and other sources). The generational effects of EDCs were also revealed. Environmental Health News reported:12

“They observed adverse effects starting in the first generation of mouse lineages where each generation was exposed for a brief period shortly after birth. The impacts worsened in the second generation compared to the first, and by the third generation the scientists were finding animals that could not produce sperm at all.

This latter condition was not seen in the first two generations exposed. Details of the experimental results actually suggested that multiple generations of exposure may have increased male sensitivity to the chemical.”

Adding further support that environmental chemicals are involved in fertility declines is research showing similar declines in sperm quality in dogs living in human households, with sperm motility declining by 30% over a 26-year period.13

In the canine study, the researchers linked certain environmental chemicals to sperm problems and suggested they could also be responsible for the sperm quality declines in humans — a notion supported by a study published in Scientific Reports.14

Researchers from the University of Nottingham used sperm samples from 11 men and nine dogs from the same U.K. region. They exposed the sperm to doses of two types of environmental chemicals, diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and polychlorinated biphenyl 153 (PCB153), currently found in the environment. The result was reduced sperm motility and increased DNA fragmentation.

The researchers believe dogs may act as a “sentinel” for declines in male fertility and that manmade chemicals used widely in home and work environments are the likely culprit. A previous study even detected such chemicals in dog sperm and some dog food.15

Top Sources of Endocrine Disruptors

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) named the following 12 chemicals in their “dirty dozen” list of EDCs:16

Bisphenol-A (BPA)
Dioxin
Atrazine

Phthalates
Perchlorate
Fire retardants

Lead
Mercury
Arsenic

Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)
Organophosphate pesticides
Glycol ethers

Such chemicals are ubiquitous, being found in everything from food, drinking water and household goods to personal care products, cleaning products, nonstick cookware and plastics. Others, like atrazine, are banned in the European Union but still widely used in the U.S.

Early research by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., an integrative biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, hypothesized that atrazine turned on an enzyme (aromatase) that caused testosterone to be converted into estrogen. If you’re a male, this means that you won’t make sperm, but you will make estrogen, even though you shouldn’t.

According to Hayes and colleagues in research published in Nature in 2002, exposure to water-borne atrazine contamination led to “gonadal abnormalities such as retarded development and hermaphroditism” in 10% to 92% of male wild leopard frogs. Hayes published another study in 2010 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which had similar findings.17

Phthalates, another class of chemicals on the list, are linked to hormone changes and triggering “‘death-inducing signaling’ in testicular cells, making them die earlier than they should,” EWG noted.18 And this is just one of their toxic effects (they’ve also come under fire for impairing brain development, increasing children’s risk of learning, attention and behavioral disorders19).

It’s important to remember that everything from antidepressants20 and inactivity to your dietary choices and EMF exposure can affect your fertility. I’ve previously compiled some tips for increasing sperm count here.

As for reducing exposure to toxic phthalates and other EDCs that may “hijack your hormones” with disastrous consequences on fertility and more, the following steps may help, but you can see more tips for avoiding EDCs here.

Avoid plastic containers and plastic wrap for food and personal care products. Store food and drinks in glass containers instead.

Avoid plastic children’s toys. Use toys made of natural substances, such as wood and organic materials.

Read labels on your cosmetics and avoid those containing phthalates.

Avoid products labeled with “fragrance,” including air fresheners, as this catch-all term may include phthalates commonly used to stabilize the scent and extend the life of the product.

Read labels looking for PVC-free products, including children’s lunch boxes, backpacks and storage containers.

Do not microwave food in plastic containers or covered in plastic wrap.

Frequently vacuum and dust rooms with vinyl blinds, wallpaper, flooring and furniture that may contain phthalates as the chemical collects in dust and is easily ingested by children.

Ask your pharmacist if your prescription pills are coated to control when they dissolve as the coating may contain phthalates.

Eat mostly fresh, raw whole foods. Food packaging is often a source of phthalates.

Use glass baby bottles instead of plastic. Breastfeed exclusively for the first year, if you can, to avoid plastic nipples and bottles altogether.

Remove your fruit and vegetables from plastic bags immediately after coming home from the grocery store and wash before storing them; alternatively, use cloth bags to bring home your produce.

Cash register receipts are heat printed and often contain BPA. Handle the receipt as little as possible and ask the store to switch to BPA-free receipts.

Use natural cleaning products or make your own.

Replace feminine hygiene products with safer alternatives.

Avoid fabric softeners and dryer sheets; make your own to reduce static cling.

Check your home’s tap water for contaminants and filter the water if necessary.

Teach your children not to drink from the garden hose, as many contain plasticizers such as phthalates.

Use reusable shopping bags for groceries.

Take your own non-plastic leftovers container to restaurants. Avoid disposable utensils and straws.

Bring your own mug for coffee and bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water.

Consider switching to bamboo toothbrushes and brushing your teeth with coconut oil and baking soda to avoid plastic toothpaste tubes.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/11/endocrine-disruptors-and-fertility.aspx

Evidence suggests that eating ultraprocessed foods may have a negative effect on bone strength and increase the risk for fracture.1 Osteoporosis is the medical term that describes a loss of bone density and quality of bone as people age. It is a widespread and serious condition that increases the risk of a bone fracture, which is especially problematic for older people.

Evidence suggests that individuals who have an osteoporotic hip fracture have a higher risk of mortality in the following years.2 Researchers have found variables that increased the risk of mortality included age over 75, mild to severe liver disease, heart failure, diabetes and hearing impairment. Statistically, of the people over age 50, about 50% of women and 25% of men will suffer a fracture at some point before the end of their life.3

According to the National Osteoporosis Foundation, “For women, this is equal to the risk of getting ovarian, breast and uterus cancers combined.” There are many factors that contribute to the development of osteoporosis, including age, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption and a suboptimal diet.4 Bone loss is a side effect of some medications or can result from the loss of hormones after menopause.

Other modifiable risk factors include a vitamin D deficiency and a lack of exercise. Eating a diet high in ultraprocessed foods is the very definition of a suboptimal diet. A study5 published in BMJ Open found that ultraprocessed foods made up 57.9% of all calorie intake and 89.7% of calories that came from added sugar.

Not only do ultraprocessed foods increase the risk for obesity,6 but they also raise your risk for other conditions including cancer7 and diabetes. Yet, food manufacturers have discovered that many people eating a Western diet cannot get enough of them. However, the effect ultraprocessed foods have on bone development is a relatively new discovery.

Ultraprocessed Food May Slow Growth and Weaken Bones

In a 2021 study published in Bone Research,8 scientists investigated the effect ultraprocessed foods would have on skeletal development using an animal model. There were two study groups, one which received a diet similar to the standard Western diet high in ultraprocessed foods and soft drinks, and the other, a standard rat diet.

The animals were given unlimited access to food and drink for six weeks, during which the researchers measured body weight and total body, femur and lumbar vertebral length. The animals were 3 weeks old when the trial started, which represented the six-week growth period before sexual maturation.

The results revealed that weight gain was lower, and total body and leg lengths were also significantly shorter, in the group eating ultraprocessed foods as compared to the control group. Although growth was underdeveloped in the experimental group, these animals ate significantly more calories. This suggested to the researchers that an ultraprocessed diet stunts growth, but not because of a caloric deficiency.

The NOVA classification system9 splits food into four different categories beginning with unprocessed or minimally processed foods. These are foods you would typically find around the outside aisle at the grocery store such as vegetables, fruits, meat and dairy products. They are the basis of what you would use to make food at home.

Group 2 includes processed culinary ingredients that you would use to season or add to unprocessed foods. For example, this group includes honey, salt and oils. Group 3 includes processed foods that have two or three ingredients that may be used to season or preserve the product. For instance, they include canned and bottled vegetables, salted nuts, cured meats and cheeses.

Finally, Group 4 contains ultraprocessed food and drink products, which are the majority of foods found in convenience stores. These typically have five or more ingredients and include carbonated drinks, ice cream, chips, breakfast cereals, energy bars, powdered or fortified meals, and ready-to-eat products such as pizza, chicken nuggets and instant soups and desserts.

Exposure in Adulthood May Increase Risk of Fracture

Additionally, the vertebra and femoral bones were scanned to examine trabecular and cortical bone properties.10 They found that the trabecular bone parameters in the experimental group were inferior when compared to the control group.

Bone volume fraction had decreased significantly when measured at six weeks and again at nine weeks during the intervention. The mean trabecular number and thickness in the femoral bone were also lower. Additionally, they found that trabecular separation was significantly higher in the experimental group when measured at six weeks and nine weeks during the intervention.

This number represents the mean distance between the trabeculae. These findings indicated an increased risk of fracture from poor bone development, and interestingly are some of the same findings in aging bone. The role of trabecular atrophy, as indicated by the reduction in number, thickness and increased separation, has a direct relationship on the strength of the bone and the resistance to fracture.11

In one study where researchers evaluated trabecular bone in older adults, they concluded it was “unlikely that treatment would replace trabeculae that have been removed or would restore biomechanical strength to the skeleton.”12 In the human skeleton, the trabecular bone is surrounded by a dense outer shell of cortical bone.

The proportion of the two varies depending on the location in the body. The trabecular bone has a network of rods and plates that are integral to bone strength. In fact, this architecture is “significantly stronger than an equal mass of solid bone.”13

Although the featured animal study demonstrated poor structural development of the trabecular bone in the femur and vertebra during growth before sexual maturity, it is important to note that new trabecular bone formation continues until a peak bone mass is achieved from age 30 to 40 years in men and women.14 This raises the question of how ultraprocessed foods affect the risk of osteoporosis in older adults.

Ultraprocessed Foods Impair Your Gut Microbiome

Ultraprocessed foods are aggressively marketed by food producers as they are highly profitable. Yet, as outlined in The BMJ following the release of two studies finding an association between ultraprocessed foods and the risk of death and cardiovascular diseases:15

“… packaged baked goods and snacks, fizzy drinks, sugary cereals, ready meals containing food additives, dehydrated vegetable soups, and reconstituted meat and fish products — often containing high levels of added sugar, fat, and/or salt, but lacking in vitamins and fiber … account for around 25-60% of daily energy intake in many countries.”

Past studies have also linked this food group to an increased risk of metabolic syndrome, obesity, high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases.16 These are comorbid conditions that increase your risk of severe disease with COVID-19.17 The basis for these metabolic and health changes may reside in the gut.18

Science continues to reveal the vital effect that your diet has on your gut microbiome, and your gut microbiome’s ability to ward off disease.

Gut microbiome diversity with healthy microorganisms is better able to support your immune system. This has become increasingly important according to Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College in London, as COVID-19 has spread across the world. Writing in The Conversation, Spector says:19

“The immune system is complex and highly responsive to the world around us, so it’s not surprising that many factors affect its function. What’s important to know is that most of these factors are not hard-coded in our genes but are influenced by lifestyle and the world around us.

As well as mounting a response to infectious pathogens like coronavirus, a healthy gut microbiome also helps to prevent potentially dangerous immune over-reactions that damage the lungs and other vital organs. These excessive immune responses can cause respiratory failure and death …

The fine details of the interactions between the gut microbiome and the immune system are not fully understood. But there seems to be a link between the makeup of the microbiome and inflammation — one of the hallmarks of the immune response. Gut bacteria produce many beneficial chemicals.”

Mexico Uses a Unique Strategy to Lower Obesity Risk

As I mentioned, individuals with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity are at greater risk of severe COVID-19 illness. And, the evidence clearly indicates that a diet rich in ultraprocessed, convenience foods contributes to those conditions. In late 2020, parts of Mexico took an unprecedented stance in protecting their youth.

Lawmakers in several states pushed legislation that would ban the sale of junk food to anyone under 18. The first legislature to pass the ban was in Oaxaca, followed closely by Tabasco.20 Magaly López, a lawmaker in Oaxaca’s Congress, commented on the move to a reporter from NPR,21 “I know it can sound a bit drastic, but we had to take action now. The damage of this kind of diet is even more visible because of the pandemic.”

It’s interesting paradox that an infectious disease that disproportionately affects those with obesity and cardiovascular disease is what may lead to better recognition and action against ultraprocessed foods when these same conditions have contributed over the past decade to many of the top 10 leading causes of death.22

Mexico also instituted a food warning label on packaged foods that are high in sugar, trans fats, saturated fat and calories. Businesses had only until December 1, 2020, to add those warning labels to avoid fines.23

As Reuters reports,24 these new warning labels and bans on junk food met with “super-sized opposition” from the U.S. and EU. Mexico consumes more processed foods than any other Latin American country and is the fourth largest consumer in the world.

Mexico took the labeling law one step further, saying that any product “containing caffeine and sweeteners must bear warning labels that they should not be consumed by children, and products with warning labels cannot include children’s characters, animations, cartoons, or images of celebrities, athletes or pets on their packaging.”25

Ultraprocessed Foods Raise Risk of Death

In the first of two studies26 published in The BMJ that linked ultraprocessed foods with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death, researchers concluded that consuming four or more servings of ultraprocessed foods daily was independently associated with a 62% relative increase in the risk of death from all causes and for every additional serving the risk rose again by 18%.

In the second study,27 data revealed eating ultraprocessed food increases your risk of cardiovascular disease, even after adjusting for known confounding factors and second analysis.28 Through a variety of mechanisms, junk food can destroy your metabolism and affect your appetite control.

As detailed in “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food,” your body is designed to naturally regulate how much you eat and the energy you burn. However, manufacturers have figured out how to override your intrinsic control by engineering foods that are hyper rewarding.29

This stimulates such a strong response in your brain that it becomes easy to overeat. Some of the most addictive junk foods on the market are potato chips, which hit all three bliss points: sugar from the potato (and sometimes from added sugar), salt and fat.30

It is likely not a coincidence that as ultraprocessed foods have become a norm for many Americans, so have chronic illnesses. The food you eat is a key factor that determines health and longevity. I believe that eating a diet of 90% real food and 10% processed foods is achievable for most and it could make a significant difference in your weight and overall health, including your bones.

To help you get started, you’ll find more information and suggestions in “Processed Foods Lead to Cancer and Early Death.” To address your gut microbiome, in addition to eliminating ultraprocessed foods and eating primarily whole foods, traditionally fermented foods and probiotics are the best routes to optimal microbiome health.

Healthy fermented choices include lassi (an Indian yogurt drink), fermented, grass fed organic milk (kefir), fermented soy or natto and different types of pickled fermentations of cabbage, turnips, eggplant, cucumbers, onions, squash and carrots. For more information and tips on how to make fermented foods at home, see “Flavorful Fermented Foods Have Healing Properties.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/12/ultraprocessed-foods.aspx

The Billion Agave Project is a game-changing, ecosystem-regeneration strategy recently adopted by several innovative Mexican farms in the high-desert region of Guanajuato. With your support, we’ve been the primary group to donate to Organic Consumers Association supporting this crucial project that is now proven to green arid regions and provide both food and income for some of the world’s most challenged farmers.
This strategy combines the growing of agave plants and nitrogen-fixing companion tree species (such as mesquite), with holistic rotational grazing of livestock. The result is a high-biomass, high forage-yielding system that works well even on degraded, semi-arid lands. A manifesto on mesquite is available in English1 and Español.2
The system produces large amounts of agave leaf and root stem — up to 1 ton of biomass over the 8- to 10-year life of the plant. When chopped and fermented in closed containers, this plant material produces an excellent, inexpensive (2 cents per pound) animal fodder.
This agroforestry system reduces the pressure to overgraze brittle rangelands and improves soil health and water retention, while drawing down and storing massive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
The goal of the Billion Agave campaign is to plant 1 billion agaves globally to draw down and store 1 billion tons of climate-destabilizing CO2. The campaign will be funded by donations and public and private investments.
Why Agave?

Climate-Change Solution
Agave plants and nitrogen-fixing trees, densely intercropped and cultivated together, have the capacity to draw down and sequester massive amounts of atmospheric CO2.
They also produce more above-ground and below-ground biomass (and animal fodder) on a continuous year-to-year basis than any other desert or semi-desert species. Agaves alone can draw down and store above ground the dry-weight equivalent of 30 to 60 tons of CO2 per hectare (12 to 24 tons per acre) per year.
Ideal for arid and hot climates, agaves and their companion trees, once established, require no irrigation and are basically impervious to rising global temperatures and drought.
Livestock Feed Source
Agave leaves, full of saponins and lectins, are indigestible for livestock. However, once their massive leaves (high in sugar) are chopped finely via a machine and fermented in closed containers for 30 days, the end product provides a nutritious and inexpensive silage or animal fodder.
This agave/companion tree silage, combined with the restoration of degraded rangelands, can make the difference between survival and grinding poverty for millions of the world’s small farmers and herders.
Drought-Resistant
Agaves require little-to-no irrigation. They thrive even in dry, degraded lands unsuitable for crop production because of their Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) photosynthetic pathway.
The CAM pathway enables agave plants to draw down moisture from the air and store it in their thick leaves at night. During daylight hours, the opening in their leaves (the stomata) closes up, drastically reducing evaporation.
A New Agroforestry Model

A pioneering group of Mexican farmers is transforming their landscape and their livelihoods. How? By densely planting (1,600 to 2,500 per hectare), pruning and intercropping a fast-growing, high-biomass, high forage-yielding species of agaves among preexisting (500 per hectare) deep-rooted, nitrogen-fixing tree species (such as mesquite), or among planted tree seedlings.
When the agaves are 3 years old, and for the following five to seven years, farmers can prune the leaves or pencas, chop them up finely with a machine, and then ferment the agave in closed containers for 30 days, ideally combining the agave leaves with 20% of leguminous pods and branches by volume to give them a higher protein level.
In Guanajuato, mesquite trees start to produce pods that can be harvested in five years. By Year 7, the mesquite and agaves have grown into a fairly dense forest. In Years 8 to 10, the root stem or pina (weighing between 100 and 200 pounds) of the agave is ready for harvesting to produce a distilled liquor called mescal.
Meanwhile the hijuelos (or pups) put out by the mother agave plants are being continuously transplanted back into the agroforestry system, guaranteeing continuous biomass growth (and carbon storage).
In this agroforestry system farmers avoid overgrazing by integrating rotational grazing of their livestock across their rangelands. They feed their animals by supplementing pasture forage with fermented agave silage.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/07/the-billion-agave-project-mar-2021.aspx

Unbeknown to most, Bill Gates has been buying up farmland across the U.S. through various subsidiary companies. At present, he owns about 242,000 acres of farmland, plus another 27,000 acres of nonagricultural land.
While many media outlets claim this makes Gates the biggest farmland owner in the U.S.,1 that may be an exaggeration, seeing how there are at least 50 other families that own far greater landmasses, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.2 According to a USA Today investigation3 published in November 2019, Bezos owns a respectable 420,000 acres, most of it located in Texas.
Is Bill Gates Too Powerful?

Either way, Gates certainly owns a sizeable chunk of U.S. farmland, which places him, yet again, in a position to have a significant impact on the direction of American agriculture and food production. In the video above, Russell Brand reviews some of these controversies.
Were Gates a proponent of organics, his land ownership would probably be seen as a good thing, but he’s anything but. On the contrary, not only is he a longtime proponent of GMOs and toxic agricultural chemicals, he’s also gone on record urging Western nations to switch to 100% synthetic lab-grown imitation beef, and has railed against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled, since that will slow down public acceptance.4
He’s also in favor of transitioning to other fake and unnatural food sources, such as a microbe found in a Yellowstone geyser. Rich in protein, this microbe can “be turned into a variety of foods with a small carbon footprint,” Gates says.5 Not surprisingly, Gates is financially invested in many of his proposed “solutions” to the world’s problems, be it hunger, disease, viral pandemics or climate change.
As noted in a long and detailed article by The Defender about several of Gates’ more questionable endeavors:6

“Thomas Jefferson believed that the success of America’s exemplary struggle to supplant the yoke of European feudalism with a noble experiment in self-governance depended on the perpetual control of the nation’s land base by tens of thousands of independent farmers, each with a stake in our democracy.

So at best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue. At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex.”

Master and Commander of Failed Agriculture
The Defender goes on to detail Gates’ “long-term strategy of mastery over agriculture and food production globally,” starting with his support of GMOs in 1994. Ever since that time, Gates’ “philanthropic” approaches to hunger and food production have been built around his technology, chemical, pharmaceutical and oil industry partners, thereby ensuring that for every failed rescue venture, he gets richer nonetheless.

“As with Gates’ African vaccine enterprise, there was neither internal evaluation nor public accountability,” The Defender writes.7 “The 2020 study8 ‘False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)’ is the report card on the Gates’ cartel’s 14-year effort.

The investigation concludes that the number of Africans suffering extreme hunger has increased by 30 percent in the 18 countries that Gates targeted. Rural poverty has metastasized dramatically …

Under Gates’ plantation system, Africa’s rural populations have become slaves on their own land to a tyrannical serfdom of high-tech inputs, mechanization, rigid schedules, burdensome conditionalities, credits and subsidies … The only entities benefiting from Gates’ program are his international corporate partners.”

Gates Is a Corporate Globalist, Not a Philanthropist

AGRA was launched in 2006 with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. However, while touting a “green revolution” approach to ease hunger in Africa, it’s hard to imagine a less sustainable or destructive solution. As reported in “False Promises”:9

“[AGRA] promised to double the agricultural yields and incomes of 30 million small-scale food producer households by 2020, thus halving both hunger and poverty in the focus countries. To achieve these goals, AGRA received over one billion U.S. dollars — mainly from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but also from governments like the U.S., U.K. and Germany.

The study issues AGRA a decidedly negative report card: yield increases for key staple crops in the years before AGRA were just as low as during AGRA. Instead of halving hunger, the situation in the 13 focus countries has worsened since AGRA was launched …

AGRA in fact harms small-scale food producers, for example by subjecting them to high levels of debt. In Zambia and Tanzania, small-scale food producers were unable to repay the loans for fertilizer and hybrid seeds after the first harvest.

AGRA projects also restrict the freedom of choice for small-scale food producers to decide for themselves what they want to grow. This has dramatic effects on crop diversity. AGRA’s focus is on the one-sided cultivation of maize. Traditional climate-resistant and nutrient-rich crops have thus declined …

Moreover, AGRA lobbies governments on behalf of agricultural corporations to pass legislation that will benefit fertilizer producers and seed companies instead of strengthening small-scale food production and alternative structures.”

Rescue Technologies That Aren’t

It’s these kinds of self-serving endeavors that have earned Gates the unofficial title of the most dangerous philanthropist in the world. As noted by AGRA Watch,10 Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., and others, Gates’ philanthropy creates several new problems for each one he promises to solve, and can best be described as “philanthrocapitalism.”
As noted in the AGRA Watch article, “Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity,” philanthrocapitalists:11

“… often expect financial returns or secondary benefits over the long term from their investments in social programs. Philanthropy becomes another part of the engine of profit and corporate control. The Gates Foundation’s strategy for ‘development’ actually promotes neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalization.”

In the featured video, Brand also quotes Shiva, co-founder of Regeneration International, who had the following to say about Gates’ efforts to improve farming in India:

“When Bill Gates forced his ‘rescue’ technologies on Indian farmers, the only one to benefit was Gates and his multinational partners. He gave money to the government and a company called Digital Green, and made extravagant promises to digitally transform Indian agriculture.

Then, with the cooperation of his purchased government officials, Gates put cameras and electronic sensors in the homes and fields of Indian farmers. He used their cell phones, which he gave them for free, and his fiber optic and 5G installations, which he persuaded the Indian Telecom Company to finance — to catalogue, study and steal farmers’ crop data, indigenous practices and agricultural knowledge for free.

Then he sold it back to them as new data. Instead of digitally transforming farms as he promised, he transformed Indian farmers into digital information. He privatized their seeds and harvested the work of the public system.

He ripped out their knowledge assets and heirloom genetics, and installed GMO seeds and other ridiculous practices. His clear agenda was to drive small farmers from the land and eventually mechanize and privatize food production.”

Sustainability and Globalism Are at Odds
Again and again, Gates’ globalist approach to farming has had devastating consequences for food and environmental sustainability in general and local food security in particular. India and Africa are just two of the most obvious examples. It just doesn’t work. It is profitable for Gates and his corporate allies, though, and furthers the technocratic plan to control the world by owning all the world’s resources.
The Gates-funded World Economic Forum, founded by technocrat figurehead Klaus Schwab, is just one of the global nongovernmental agencies that help promote Gates’ destructive agricultural and fake food agenda. As reported by The Defender, the Great Reset was officially unveiled during a World Economic Forum summit in May 2020:12

“It is a vision for transferring the world into a totalitarian and authoritarian surveillance state manipulated by technocrats to manage traumatized populations, to shift wealth upward, and serve the interests of elite billionaire oligarchs.”

Every conceivable aspect of life and society is scheduled to be “reset” according to their plan, including global food policies. Leading that charge is an organization called the EAT Forum, which describes itself as the “Davos for food.” EAT Forum is co-founded by the Wellcome Trust, an organization funded by and strategically linked to GlaxoSmithKline, a vaccine maker in which Gates himself is financially invested.
The EAT Forum’s largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system as a whole. Project partners in this venture include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and Google. According to The Defender, “The EAT Forum works with these companies to ‘add value to business and industry’ and ‘set the political agenda.’”
If sustainability and food security is the goal — not to mention individual freedom and liberty — then we must dismantle the globalist machine and return to historically proven methods that are sustainable and productive.
EAT also collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia, and helps the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) create updated dietary guidelines.

“According to Frederic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels, EAT network is working closely with some of the biggest imitation meat companies, including Impossible Foods and other biotech companies, to replace wholesome nutritious foods with Gates’ genetically modified lab concoctions,” The Defender writes.13

Dismantle the Globalist Machine That Undermines Success
If sustainability and food security is the goal — not to mention individual freedom and liberty — then we must dismantle the globalist machine and return to historically proven methods that are sustainable and productive. As noted by The Defender:14

“African agricultural practices have evolved from the land over 10,000 years in forms that promote crop diversity, decentralization, sustainability, private property, self-organization and local control of seeds. The personal freedom inherent in these localized systems leaves farm families making their own decisions: the masters on their lands, the sovereigns of their destinies.

Continuous innovation by millions of small farmers maximized sustainable yields and biodiversity. In his ruthless reinvention of colonialism, Gates spent $4.9 billion dollars to dismantle this ancient system and replace it with high-tech corporatized and industrialized agriculture, chemically dependent monocultures, extreme centralization and top-down control.

He forced small African farms to transition to imported commercial seeds, petroleum fertilizers and pesticides. Gates built the supply chain infrastructure for chemicals and seeds and pressured African governments to spend huge sums on subsidies and to use draconian penalties and authoritarian control to force farmers to buy his expensive inputs and comply with his diktats.”

The end result should have been foreseeable, yet Gates forged ahead nonetheless. By replacing traditional nutritious crops with industrial cash crops — staples in processed food manufacturing, such as corn and soy — global commodity traders and junk food manufacturers profited while locals had little to eat.
On top of that, the heavy focus on chemicals destroyed the soils, resulting in a decline in both nutrition and productivity. All the while, organizations that are actually succeeding in furthering agricultural strategies with proven sustainability have not received a single dime from Gates.
At the same time that Gates is promoting the destruction of our natural climate systems with his foolhardy agricultural policies, he has invested in a variety of climate change technologies aimed at reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth,15,16 the side effects of which have the potential to wreak far more damage on global agriculture than anything we’ve seen so far.
Regenerative Food and Farming Is the Answer

As noted by Shiva, “Regenerative agriculture provides answers to the soil crisis, the food crisis, the climate crisis and the crisis of democracy.”17 So, just what is regenerative farming? In the words of Ronnie Cummins, founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association:

“Regenerative agriculture and animal husbandry is the next and higher stage of organic food and farming, not only free from toxic pesticides, GMOs, chemical fertilizers, and factory farm production, and therefore good for human health; but also regenerative in terms of the health of the soil, the environment, the animals, the climate, and rural livelihoods as well.”

A leading organization for this movement is Regeneration International,18 which currently has 400 affiliates in more than 60 countries. They’re working to identify “best practices” around the globe to facilitate the scale-up of regenerative farming everywhere.
Ultimately, the goal is to have regenerative agriculture be the norm rather than a niche alternative to the chemical-based degenerative food, farming and land use system that’s currently dominating.
You can contribute to and speed this process by being selective about where you buy your food and the kinds of foods you buy, and/or by starting your own regenerative garden. For gardening tips and general guidance, see “Regenerative Gardening and Living, an Online Program.”
Regeneration International has a handy regenerative farm map that can help you find local producers of various foodstuffs around the globe. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can also help you find local sources of farm-fresh foods.

• Demeter USA — Demeter-USA.org provides a directory of certified Biodynamic farms and brands.
• Weston A. Price Foundation — Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
• The Cornucopia Institute — The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.
• American Grassfed Association (AGA) — The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.
Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100% forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; and born and raised on American family farms.
• Grassfed Exchange — The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/12/farmer-bill-and-the-great-reset.aspx

By C.J. Hopkins

So, good news, folks! It appears that GloboCap’s Genetic Modification Division has come up with a miracle vaccine for Covid! It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!

OK, technically, it hasn’t been approved for use — that process normally takes several years — so I guess it’s slightly “experimental,” but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have issued “Emergency Use Authorizations,” and it has been “tested extensively for safety and effectiveness,” according to Facebook’s anonymous “fact checkers,” so there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.

This non-experimental experimental vaccine is truly an historic development, because apart from saving the world from a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or, more commonly, no symptoms whatsoever) in roughly 95% of those infected, and that over 99% of those infected survive,1 the possibilities for future applications of messenger-RNA technology, and the genetic modification of humans, generally, is virtually unlimited at this point.

Imagine all the diseases we can cure, and all the genetic “mistakes” we can fix, now that we can reprogram people’s genes to do whatever we want — cancer, heart disease, dementia, blindness, not to mention the common cold! We could even cure psychiatric disorders, like “antisocial personality disorder,”2 “oppositional defiant disorder,”3 and other “conduct disorders”4 and “personality disorders.”5

Who knows? In another hundred years, we will probably be able to genetically cleanse the human species of age-old scourges, like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, etcetera, by reprogramming everyone’s defective alleles, or implanting some kind of nanotechnological neurosynaptic chips into our brains.

Humans Irrationally Resistant to Corporate Redesign

The only thing standing in our way is people’s totally irrational resistance to letting corporations redesign the human organism, which, clearly, was rather poorly designed, and thus is vulnerable to all these horrible diseases, and emotional and behavioral disorders. But I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

The important thing at the moment is to defeat this common-flu-like pestilence that has no significant effect on age-adjusted death rates,6 and the mortality profile of which is more or less identical to the normal mortality profile,7 but which has nonetheless left the global corporatocracy no choice but to “lock down” the entire planet, plunge millions into desperate poverty, order everyone to wear medical-looking masks, unleash armed goon squads to raid people’s homes, and otherwise transform society into a pathologized-totalitarian nightmare.

And, of course, the only way to do that (i.e., save humanity from a flu-like bug) is to coercively vaccinate every single human being on the planet Earth!8

OK, you’re probably thinking that doesn’t make much sense, this crusade to vaccinate the entire species against a relatively standard respiratory virus, but that’s just because you are still thinking critically. You really need to stop thinking like that. As The New York Times just pointed out, critical thinking isn’t helping.9

In fact, it might be symptomatic of one of those “disorders” I just mentioned above.10 Critical thinking leads to “vaccine hesitancy,” which is why corporations are working with governments to immediately censor any and all content that deviates from the official Covid-19 narrative11 and deplatform the authors of such content,12 or discredit them as “anti-vax disinformationists.”13

For example, Children’s Health Defense14 has been reporting on so-called “adverse events” and deaths in connection with the Covid vaccines, despite the fact that, according to the authorities, “there are no safety problems with the vaccines”15 and “there is no link between Covid-19 vaccines and those who die after receiving them.”16

In fact, according to the “fact-checkers” at Reuters, these purported “reports of adverse events” “may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable”!17

Death Reports Lure People Into ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’

Yes, you’re reading between the lines right. The corporate media can’t come right out and say it, but it appears the “anti-vax disinformationists” are fabricating “adverse events” out of whole cloth and hacking them into the VAERS database18 and other such systems around the world.

Worse, they are somehow infiltrating these made-up stories into the mainstream media in order to lure people into “vaccine hesitancy” and stop us from vaccinating every man, woman, and child in the physical universe,19 repeatedly, on an ongoing basis, for as long as the “medical experts” deem necessary. Here are just a few examples of their handiwork:

In Norway, 23 elderly people died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.20 However, according to Reuters’ “fact-checkers,” it turns out, old people just die sometimes, especially in nursing homes, from a variety of causes, unless they haven’t been vaccinated, in which case they definitely died of Covid, regardless of what they actually died of.
For example, a 99-year-old man suffering from dementia and emphysema, who tested negative for the virus three times, was added to the “Covid deaths” figures21 because a nursing home doctor “assumed” it was Covid (which GloboCap has expressly instructed22 him to do).

In Germany, 13 of 40 residents of one nursing home died after being vaccinated,23 but this was just a “tragic coincidence,” which had absolutely nothing to do with the vaccine.

In Spain, in another “tragic coincidence,” 46 nursing home residents who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine died within the course of one month.24 A further 28 of the 94 residents and 12 staff members subsequently tested positive.

In Florida, a healthy middle-aged doctor died from an unusual blood disorder two weeks after receiving the vaccine,25 but, according to the experts, the sudden onset of this rare immunological blood disorder (i.e., immune thrombocytopenia) “should not be interpreted as linked to the vaccine,” and was probably just a total coincidence.

In California, a 60-year-old X-ray technologist received a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. A few hours later he had trouble breathing. He was hospitalized and died four days later.26 His widow says she’s not ready at this point to link her husband’s death to the vaccine. “I’m not putting any blame on Pfizer,”27 she said, “or on any other pharmaceutical company.” So, probably just another coincidence.

A 78-year-old woman in California died immediately after being vaccinated,28 but her death was not related to the vaccine, health officials assured the public.
“(She) received an injection of the Covid-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer around noon. While seated in the observation area after the injection, [she] complained of feeling discomfort and while being evaluated by medical personnel she lost consciousness.” Despite the sudden death of his wife, her husband intends to receive a second dose.

A former Detroit news anchor died just one day after receiving the vaccine,29 but it was probably just a coincidental stroke, which the “normal side effects of the vaccine may have masked.”

Also in Michigan, a 90-year-old man died the day after receiving the vaccine,30 but, again, this was just a tragic coincidence. As Dr. David Gorski explained, “the baseline death rate of 90-year-olds is high because they’re 90 years old,” which makes perfect sense, unless, of course, they died of Covid, in which case their age and underlying conditions make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

In Kentucky, two nuns at a monastery died, and more than two dozen others tested positive, in a sudden “Covid-19 outbreak” that began two days after the nuns were vaccinated.31 The monastery had been completely closed to visitors and Covid-free up to that point, but the nuns were old and had “health issues,” and so on.

In Virginia, a 58-year-old grandmother died within hours after receiving the vaccine,32 but, as Facebook’s “fact checkers” prominently pointed out, it had to be just another coincidence, because the “vaccines have been tested for safety extensively.”

Source: off-guardian.org

And then there are all the people on Facebook sharing their stories of loved ones who have died shortly after receiving the Covid vaccine, who the Facebook “fact checkers” are doing their utmost to discredit with their official-looking “fact-check notices.” For example:

Source: off-guardian.org

OK, I realize it’s uncomfortable to have to face things like that (i.e., global corporations like Facebook implying that these people are lying or are using the sudden deaths of their loved ones to discourage others from getting vaccinated), especially if you’re just trying to follow orders and parrot official propaganda — even the most fanatical Covidian Cultists33 probably still have a shred of human empathy buried deep in their cold little hearts.

But there’s an information war on, folks!34 You’re either with the Corporatocracy or against it! This is no time to get squeamish, or, you know, publicly exhibit an ounce of compassion. What would your friends and colleagues think of you?!

No, report these anti-vaxxers to the authorities, shout them down on social media, switch off your critical-thinking faculties, and get in line to get your vaccination! The fate of the human species depends on it! And, if you’re lucky, maybe GloboCap will even give you one of these nifty numerical Covid-vaccine tattoos for free!

Source: off-guardian.org

C.J. Hopkins is an award-winning playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/09/covid-19-vaccine-disinformation.aspx

My usual response to the question “What is Regenerative Food and Farming?” goes something like this: Regenerative agriculture and animal husbandry are the next and higher stage of organic food and farming, not only free from toxic pesticides, GMOs, chemical fertilizers and factory farm production, and therefore good for human health, but also regenerative in terms of the health of the soil, the environment, the animals, the climate and rural livelihoods as well.
Or, as my fellow steering committee member for Regeneration International, Vandana Shiva, puts it: “Regenerative agriculture provides answers to the soil crisis, the food crisis, the climate crisis, and the crisis of democracy.”1
In 2010 Olaf Christen stated, “Regenerative agriculture is an approach in agriculture that rejects pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and is intended to improve the regeneration of the topsoil, biodiversity and the water cycle.”2,3 This corresponds almost exactly with the stated principles of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) or Organics International.
Since 2014, the Rodale Institute, IFOAM, Dr. Bronner’s, Dr. Mercola, Patagonia, the Real Organic Project, the Biodynamic Movement, the Organic Consumers Association, Regeneration International, Navdanya and others have also been discussing and implementing organic standards, practices and certification, which incorporate regenerative principles. According to Australian regenerative pioneer Christine Jones:

“Agriculture is regenerative if soils, water cycles, vegetation and productivity continuously improve instead of just maintaining the status [quo]. The diversity, quality, vitality and health of the soil, plants, animals and people also improve together.”4

Changing the Conversation: Regenerative Food and Farming

In September 2014 when a group of us, including Vandana Shiva, Andre Leu, Will Allen, Steve Rye, Alexis Baden-Meyer and staff from Dr. Bronner’s, Dr. Mercola, Organic Consumers Association and the Rodale Institute, organized a press conference at the massive climate march in New York City to announce the formation of Regeneration International, we set for ourselves a simple, but what seemed like then ambitious, goal.
We all agreed we needed to fundamentally change the conversation on the climate crisis in the U.S. and around the world — then narrowly focused on renewable energy and energy conservation — so as to incorporate regenerative and organic food, farming and land use as a major solution to global warming, given its proven ability to drawdown and sequester massive amounts of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil, forests and plants.
Now, less than a decade later, I believe our growing Regeneration Movement has achieved this goal. Regeneration is now the hottest topic in the natural and organic food and farming sector, while climate activists including the Sunrise Movement and 350.org in the U.S. regularly talk about the role of organic and regenerative practices in reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
More and more people now understand that we can achieve, through enhanced photosynthesis and drawdown, the “Net Zero” emissions goal in 2030 to 2050 that nearly everyone now agrees will be necessary if we are to avoid runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
Identifying Regenerative and Organic ‘Best Practices’

Inside Regeneration International, which now includes 400 affiliates in more than 60 countries,5 our conversation has shifted to identifying regenerative and organic “best practices” around the globe.
Our goal is to strategize how we can help qualitatively expand and scale up regenerative best practices so that organic and regenerative becomes the norm, rather than just the alternative, for the planet’s now degenerative multitrillion-dollar food, farming and land use system.
Our discussions and strategizing are not just an academic exercise. As most of us now realize, our very survival as a civilization and a species is threatened by a systemic crisis that has degraded climate stability, our food and our environment, along with every major aspect of modern life.
This mega-crisis cannot be resolved by piecemeal reforms or minor adjustments such as slightly cutting our current levels of fossil fuel use, reducing global deforestation, soil degradation and military spending.
Either we move beyond merely treating the symptoms of our planetary degeneration and build instead a new system based upon regenerative food, farming and land use, coupled with renewable energy practices and global cooperation instead of belligerence, or we will soon (likely within 25 years) pass the point of no return.
A big challenge is how do we describe the crisis of global warming and severe climate change in such a way that everyday people understand the problem and grasp the solution that we’re proposing, i.e., renewable energy and regenerative food, farming and land use?
Enhanced Photosynthesis Is All-Important

The bottom line is that humans have put too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases (especially methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere (from burning fossil fuels and destructive land use), trapping the sun’s heat from radiating back into space and heating up the planet.
And, unfortunately, because of the destructive food, farming and forestry practices that have degraded a major portion of the Earth’s landscape, we’re not drawing down enough of these CO2 emissions through plant photosynthesis to cool things off.
In a word, there’s too much CO2 and greenhouse gas pollution blanketing the sky (and saturating the oceans) and not enough life-giving carbon in the ground and in our living plants, trees, pastures and rangelands.
Increasing plant and forest photosynthesis (accomplished via enhanced soil fertility and biological life, as well as an adequate amount of water and minerals) is the only practical way that we can draw down a significant amount of the excess CO2 and greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that are heating up the Earth and disrupting our climate.
Through photosynthesis, plants and trees utilize solar energy to break down CO2 from the atmosphere, release oxygen and transform the remaining carbon into plant biomass and liquid carbon.
Photosynthesis basically enables plants to grow above ground and produce biomass, but also stimulates growth below ground as plants transfer a portion of the liquid carbon they produce through photosynthesis into their root systems to feed the soil microorganisms that in turn feed the plant.
From the standpoint of drawing down enough CO2 and greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and sequestering them in our soils and biota to reverse global warming, qualitatively enhanced photosynthesis is all-important.
Agave Power: Greening the Desert

As my contribution to the global expansion of regenerative and organic food and farming practices, I have spent the last several years working with Mexican farmers and ranchers, consumer organizations, elected political officials (mainly at the local and state level), and socially and environmentally-concerned “impact investors.”
Our goal is to develop and qualitatively expand what we believe is a game-changer for much of the 40% of the world’s pasturelands and rangelands that are arid and semi-arid, areas where it is now nearly impossible to grow food crops, and where it is too overgrazed and degraded for proper livestock grazing.
We call this Mexico-based agave and agroforestry/livestock management system Agave Power: Greening the Desert, and are happy to report that its ideas and practices are now starting to spread from the high desert plateau of Guanajuato across much of arid and semi-arid Mexico.
We now are receiving inquiries and requests for information about this agave-based, polyculture/perennial system from desert and semi-desert areas all over the world, including Central America, the Southwestern U.S., Argentina, Chile, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Australia, Myanmar and Oman.
You can learn more about this Agave Power system on the websites of Regeneration International6 and the Organic Consumers Association.7
Primary Drivers of Regeneration and Degeneration

What I and others have learned “on the ground” trying to expand and scale-up regenerative and organic best practices is that there are four basic drivers of regenerative (or conversely degenerative) food, farming and land use.
The first is consumer awareness and market demand. Without an army of conscious consumers and widespread market demand, regenerative practices are unlikely to reach critical mass. Second is farmer, rancher and land stewardship innovation, including the development of value-added products and ecosystem restoration services.
The third driver is policy change and public funding, starting at the local and regional level. And last but not least is regenerative finance — large-scale investing on the part of the private sector, what is now commonly known as “impact investing.”
In order to qualitatively expand organic and regenerative best practices and achieve critical mass sufficient to transform our currently degenerative systems, we need all four of these drivers to be activated and working in synergy.
Let’s look now at four contemporary drivers of degeneration, degenerative food, farming and land use, in order to understand what the forces or drivers are that are holding us back from moving forward to regeneration.

1. Degenerated grassroots consciousness and morale — When literally billions of people, a critical mass of the 99%, are hungry, malnourished, scared and divided, struggling to survive with justice and dignity; when the majority of the global body politic are threatened and assaulted by a toxic environment and food system; when hundreds of millions are overwhelmed by economic stress due to low wages and the high cost of living; when hundreds of millions are weakened by chronic health problems, or battered by floods, droughts and weather extremes, regenerative change — Big Change — will not come easily.
Neither will it happen when seemingly endless wars and land grabs for water, land and strategic resources spiral out of control, or when indentured politicians, corporations, Big Tech and the mass media manipulate crises such as COVID-19 to stamp out freedom of expression and participatory democracy in order to force a “Business-as-Usual” or “Great Reset” paradigm down our throats.
Disempowered, exploited people, overwhelmed by the challenges of everyday survival, usually don’t have the luxury of connecting the dots between the issues that are pressing down on them and focusing on the Big Picture.
It’s the job of regenerators to connect the dots between the climate crisis and people’s everyday concerns such as food, health, jobs and economic justice, to globalize awareness, political mobilization and, most of all, to globalize hope.
It’s the job of regenerators to make the connections between personal and public health and planetary health, to expose the truth about the origins, nature, prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and chronic disease, and to mobilize the public to reject a so-called Great Reset disguised as fundamental reform, but actually a Trojan Horse for a 21st Century Technocracy that is profoundly antidemocratic and authoritarian.
Regenerators have to be able to make the connections between different issues and concerns, identify and support best practitioners and policies and build synergy between social forces, effectively lobby governments (starting at the local level), businesses and investors for change, all the while educating and organizing grassroots alliances and campaigns across communities, constituencies and even national borders.
But this of course will not be easy, nor will it take place overnight. Our profoundly destructive, degenerative, climate-destabilizing food and farming system, primarily based upon industrial agriculture inputs and practices, is held together by a multibillion-dollar system of marketing and advertising that has misled or literally brainwashed a global army of consumers into believing that cheap, artificially flavored, “fast food” is not only acceptable, but “normal” and “natural.”
After decades of consuming sugar, salt, carbohydrate-rich and “bad fat”-laden foods from industrial farms, animal factories and chemical manufacturing plants, many consumers have literally become addicted to the artificial flavors and aromas that make super-processed foods and “food-like substances” so popular.
2. Degenerate “conventional” farms, farming and livestock management — Compounding the lack of nutritional education, choice, poverty, inertia and apathy of a large segment of consumers, other major factors driving our degenerative food and farming system include the routine and deeply institutionalized practices of industrial and chemical-intensive farming and land use (monocropping, heavy plowing, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, GMOs, factory farms, deforestation, wetlands destruction) today.
These soil-, climate-, health- and environmentally-destructive practices are especially prevalent on the world’s 50 million large farms, which, in part, are kept in place by global government subsidies totaling $500 billion a year.
Meanwhile, there are few or no subsidies for organic or regenerative farmers, especially small farmers (80% of the world’s farmers are small farmers), nor for farmers and ranchers who seek to make this transition.
Reinforcing these multibillion-dollar subsidies for bad farming practices are a global network of chemical- and agribusiness-controlled agricultural research and teaching institutions, focused on producing cheap food and fiber (no matter what the cost to the environment, climate and public health) and agro-export agricultural commodities (often pesticide-intensive GMO grains).
What we need instead are subsidies, research and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to produce healthy, organic and regenerative food for local, regional and domestic markets, rewarding farmers with a fair price for producing healthy food and being a steward, rather than a destroyer, of the environment.
Monopoly Control — Another driver of degeneration, holding back farmer adoption of regenerative practices and determining the type of food and crops that are produced, is the monopoly or near-monopoly control by giant agribusiness corporations over much of the food system, especially in industrialized countries, as well as the monopoly or near-monopoly control by giant retail chains such as Walmart and internet giants like Amazon.
The out-of-control “Foodopoly” that dominates our food system is designed to maximize short-term profits and exports for the large transnational corporations, preserve patents and monopoly control over seeds, and uphold international trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO) that favor corporate agribusiness and large farms over small farms; factory farms over traditional grazing and animal husbandry; and agro-exports instead of production for local and regional markets.
Food and farming is the largest industry in the world with consumers spending an estimated $7.5 trillion a year on food. In addition, the largely unacknowledged social, environmental and health costs (i.e., collateral damage) of the industrial food chain amounts to an additional $4.8 trillion a year.8
3. and 4. Degenerate public policy and public and private investments — Agriculture is the largest employer in the world with 570 million farmers and farm laborers supporting 3.5 billion people in rural households and communities.9 In addition to workers on the farm, food chain workers in processing, distribution and retail make up hundreds of millions of other jobs in the world, with over 20 million food chain workers in the U.S. alone (17.5% of the total workforce).
This makes public policy relating to food, farming and land use very important. Unfortunately, thousands of laws and regulations are passed every year, in every country and locality, that basically prop up conventional (i.e., industrial, factory farm, export-oriented, GMO) food and farming, while there is very little legislation passed or resources geared toward promoting organic and regenerative food and farming.
Trillions of dollars have been, and continue to be, invested in the so-called “conventional” food and farming sector, including trillions from the savings and pension funds of many conscious consumers, who would no doubt prefer their savings to be invested in a different manner, if they knew how to do this.
Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of public or private investment is currently going toward organic, grass fed, free-range and other healthy foods produced by small and medium-sized farms and ranches for local and regional consumption.
Healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy animals, healthy people, healthy climate, healthy societies — our physical and economic health, our very survival as a species, are directly connected to the soil, biodiversity and the health and fertility of our food and farming systems. Regenerative organic farming and land use can move us back into balance, back to a stable climate and a life-supporting environment.
It’s time to move beyond degenerate ethics, farming, land use, energy policies, politics and economics. It’s time to move beyond “too little, too late” mitigation and sustainability strategies. It’s time to inspire and mobilize a mighty global army of Regenerators, before it’s too late.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/09/regenerative-food-and-farming-the-road-forward.aspx

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest charitable foundation in the world,1 has an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control — interests that undermine regenerative, sustainable, small-scale farming. One of the key players in this agenda is the widespread adoption of synthetic meat.

Imitation meat company Impossible Foods was co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates,2 and Gates has made it clear that he believes switching to synthetic beef is the solution to reducing methane emissions that come from animals raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).3

The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 2021.4 In an interview with MIT Technology Review, he goes so far as to say that people’s behaviors should be changed to learn to like fake meat and, if that doesn’t work, regulations could do the trick.5

Gates, by the way, invests in fake meat companies and is buying up U.S. farmland at a frenzied pace. Ultimately, as you can hear in the interview above between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and social justice advocate Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., the Gates empire “will own everything.”6

Gates Invests in Fake Meat Companies

According to Gates, in order to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, fake meat will “be required.” He told MIT Technology Review:7

“In terms of livestock, it’s very difficult. There are all the things where they feed them different food, like there’s this one compound that gives you a 20% reduction [in methane emissions]. But sadly, those bacteria [in their digestive system that produce methane] are a necessary part of breaking down the grass.

And so I don’t know if there’ll be some natural approach there. I’m afraid the synthetic [protein alternatives like plant-based burgers] will be required for at least the beef thing.”

He then mentions Memphis Meats, which is producing synthetic meat in a lab via mass culturing stem cells from animals, often in a solution containing bovine serum, hormones, growth factors and other food additives.8 PR campaigns have gone so far as to call lab-grown meat “clean meat,” but research published in Environmental Science and Technology suggested it could actually require more intensive energy use compared to conventional meat.9

Gates says he thinks Memphis Meats will be too expensive to become widespread, “But Impossible and Beyond have a road map, a quality road map and a cost road map, that makes them totally competitive.” He’s referring to Impossible Foods, a leader in the fake meat industry that is producing plant-based “meat.”

Impossible Foods holds 14 patents, with at least 100 more pending.10 Beyond Meat is another leading producer of fake “beef,” “pork” and “chicken” products, which announced in 2020 that it would start producing some of its products in China.11

What many aren’t aware of, however, is that Gates is either personally invested in, or invested in via Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Beyond Meats, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and other companies he actively promotes.12 Gates told MIT:13

“As for scale today, they [Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat] don’t represent 1% of the meat in the world, but they’re on their way. And Breakthrough Energy has four different investments in this space for making the ingredients very efficiently …

Now I’ve said I can actually see a path. But you’re right that saying to people, ‘You can’t have cows anymore’ — talk about a politically unpopular approach to things.”

Gates isn’t stopping at fake meat, though. He’s also recently backed a biotechnology start-up company called Biomilq, which is developing lab-cultured breast milk.14

Gates: All Rich Countries Should Eat 100% Fake Beef

Whether or not it’s “unpopular” doesn’t matter, apparently, as Gates said he thinks rich countries should be eating all fake meat. When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could “be the full solution to the protein problem globally,” he says that, in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used” to it:15

“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.

So for meat in the middle-income-and-above countries, I do think it’s possible. But it’s one of those ones where, wow, you have to track it every year and see, and the politics [are challenging]. There are all these bills that say it’s got to be called, basically, lab garbage to be sold. They don’t want us to use the beef label.”

The irony of Bill Gates — who lives in a 66,000-square-foot mansion and travels in a private jet that uses up 486 gallons of fuel every hour16 — talking about how to save the environment isn’t lost on everyone.

The Nation criticized Gates’ contradictions, including the fact that, as a result of buying staggering amounts of farmland, he’s a major contributor to carbon emissions.17 His jet-setting lifestyle also makes him a carbon “super emitter”:18

“According to a 2019 academic study19 looking at extreme carbon emissions from the jet-setting elite, Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter. In the list of 10 celebrities investigated — including Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey — Gates was the source of the most emissions.”

Gates Is the Largest Farmland Owner in the US

Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased a total of 242,000 acres — much of it considered some of the richest soil in the U.S. — in the past few years.20 Conventional agriculture represents one of the greatest sources of pollution on the planet.

An estimated 80% of soil carbon in heavily farmed areas has already been lost,21 due to destructive plowing, overgrazing and the use of soil-destructive, carbon-depleting chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The jet-travel study alone pointed to Gates as one of the most problematic carbon emitters, and that without considering agricultural emissions. The Nation noted:22

“The study only looked at Gates’s jet travel, but might have also considered Gates’s emissions from his farmland, which includes large tracts of corn and soybeans, which typically goes to feed animals (often on factory farms) — a particularly carbon-intensive model of agriculture.”

Christine Nobiss, founder of the Great Plains Action Society, which is led by Indigenous people, accused Gates of colonization: “Bill Gates is smart enough to understand — he’s smart, he can do the math — that no one single person needs that amount of land. He’s basically participating in the never-ending cycle of colonization.”23

She’s among those who have suggested Gates give away his farmland as an act of reparations and as a way to ensure it’s used for sustainable food production, but as The Nation noted, that’s not going to happen:24

“Not that Gates is going to give up his vast farmland. Nor is he going to sell any of his houses — including his 66,000-square-foot mansion outside Seattle. He’s also not going to get rid of his private jet — a Bombardier BD-700 Global Express that consumes 486 gallons of fuel each hour. But, Bill Gates writes, he is going to start buying ‘sustainable jet fuel.’”

No Private Property for Americans, Except Gates

So what does Gates intend to do with all that farmland? That remains to be seen, but it’s worth noting that when you own the land, you also own the water that’s beneath it, and with his vast amounts of land, he can grow all the genetically engineered soy necessary to create the fake meat he’s so heavily pushing.

For those who control resources like food and water, power is limitless, and control of the food supply is part of “building back better.” Founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Klaus Schwab first started circulating the idea of The Great Reset, of which “build back better” is an integral part of.

WEF has partnered with the EAT Forum, which will set the political agenda for global food production. The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline.

EAT collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods.25 Gates is also a supporter of The Great Reset,26 which is curious since his massive accumulation of wealth and land is the opposite of what The Great Reset promotes.

In truth, wealthy technocrats will not redistribute their own wealth during the reset, but will only continue to grow their financial empires as the rest of the world consents to giving up their privacy and ownership of all property.27

In fact, EAT developed a Planetary Health Diet that is designed to be applied to the global population and entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil.28 As Summit News reported:29

“[While] billionaire philanthropists and technocrats are acquiring land at an accelerating speed, they appear to be telling the general public that in the future private property will virtually cease to exist. In his books, World Economic Forum founder and globalist Klaus Schwab makes clear that the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ or ‘The Great Reset’ will lead to the abolition of private property.

That message is echoed on the WEF’s official website, which states, ‘Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city — or should I say, ‘our city.’ I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.’

Apparently, you won’t be allowed to own any private property and your only recourse will be to live in a state of permanent dependency on a small number of rich elitists who own everything. That used to be called feudalism, which is a form of slavery.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/10/synthetic-fake-meat.aspx