Monday, September 26, 2016

Has your DNA been altered by GMOs?   ~ hehe can anybody say ...alchemy human transmutationPicture

by David Gutierrez,
(NaturalNews) If you are eating genetically modified foods – including essentially any product containing corn or soy that has not been certified organic or free from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – the modified genes in those GMOs might be negatively influencing your body's own DNA.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has warned that studies have linked consumption of GMOs with health problems, including reproductive dysfunction (including infertility), organ damage, immune dysfunction, insulin disorders and accelerated aging. The mechanisms by which such harms occur remain unclear, but at least some of them might come from changes that GMOs cause to the DNA of organisms other than those deliberately "modified" by genetic engineers.

GMO DNA passes into your blood

The biggest question is this: Does eating GMOs modify your DNA? The short answer is: Possibly. No one really knows.

GMOs are produced through horizontal gene transfer, which involves splicing genes from an external source (either another organism, or a synthetic gene engineered in a lab) into the genome of a living creature. This process is so new that it remains unclear if this horizontally transferred DNA might behave in ways different from traditional, "vertically transferred" DNA (that is, inherited from one's ancestors).

Some bacteria have been shown to horizontally transfer DNA between species; it is unclear if this can occur among more complex organisms, as well. If so, there could be biological pathways in place allowing engineered DNA from GMOs to move into the human genome.

This concern remains mostly theoretical, but at least one study showed that DNA from GMOs can indeed leave your food and enter your bloodstream. Could it be taken up from there by some of your cells and incorporated into your genome?

A 2014 paper in PLOS One analyzed the results of four prior independent studies on more than 1,000 human participants who had eaten GMO foods, including derivatives such as high-fructose corn syrup, soy protein, or meat from animals fed GMOs. The researchers found that DNA fragments derived from GMO plants were indeed found in the bloodstream, rather than being broken down as GMO companies claim.

"In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA," the researchers wrote.

The DNA found was "cell-free DNA," which floats outside of cells and is not known to play any physiological role. Thus, the study does not prove that the human genome is being modified by GMOs – but it does refute a main claim of GMO proponents, and raises some important concerns.

GMOs hijack beneficial bacteria

In at least one area, however, a diet containing GMOs has been shown to lead to genetic changes: in the beneficial bacteria that inhabit the human gut. These roughly 100 trillion organisms – collectively known as the microbiome – play important and complex roles in regulating everything from metabolism to immune function to mood and cognition. Microbiome dysfunction has even been linked with autism.

Studies have shown that DNA from GMO foods can pass into human gut bacteria. For example, gut bacteria have been shown to incorporate the insecticide-producing Bt gene found in many GMO foods, thereby producing pesticides within the human body.

Small changes to the microbiome can produce big changes. A 2015 study found that emulsifiers (common food additives) caused changes to the gut microbiome that caused inflammation associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and metabolic syndrome.

Prior research has shown that people with IBD and metabolic syndrome both have different makeups to their microbiomes than people without those diseases. Notably, both diseases have increased dramatically in prevalence since the mid-20th century, suggesting environmental causes.

Sources for this article include:

More Jobs Shipped Out Of The Country: Ford Moves All Small Car Production To Mexico

Posted by George Freund on September 20, 2016

By Michael Snyder, on September 14th, 2016

What is going to happen when America finally doesn’t have any manufacturing jobs left at all? On Wednesday, we learned that Ford Motor Company is shifting all small car production to Mexico. Of course the primary goal for this move is to save a little bit of money. This hits me personally, because my grandfather once worked for Ford. He was loyal to Ford all his life, and he always criticized other members of the family when they bought a vehicle that was not American-made. When I was young I didn’t understand why making vehicles in America is so important, but I sure do now. By shipping jobs overseas, we are destroying jobs, we are destroying small businesses and we are destroying our tax base. If we want to be a wealthy nation, we have got to make things here, and hopefully we can get the American people to start to understand this.

In 1914, Henry Ford decided to start paying his workers $5.00 a day, which was more than double the average wage for auto workers at the time.

One of the reasons why he did this was because he felt that his workers should be able to afford to buy the vehicles that they were making. This is what he wrote in 1926…

“The owner, the employees, and the buying public are all one and the same, and unless an industry can so manage itself as to keep wages high and prices low it destroys itself, for otherwise it limits the number of its customers. One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers.”

These days Ford is going in the complete opposite direction. Pretty soon, Ford won’t be making any more small vehicles in the United States at all…

Ford is shifting all North American small-car production from the U.S. to Mexico, CEO Mark Fields told investors today in Dearborn, even though its plans to invest in Mexico have become a lightning rod for controversy in this year’s presidential election.

“Over the next two to three years, we will have migrated all of our small-car production to Mexico and out of the United States,” Fields said.

Could Ford keep jobs in America?

Of course they could. During the second quarter of 2016, Ford reported a net income of 2,000,000,000 dollars.

But if they move production to Mexico they can boost that profit just a little bit higher.

Shame on them.

Needless to say, Donald Trump is quite upset about this move by Ford. This was his response…

“We shouldn’t allow it to happen. They’ll make their cars, they’ll employ thousands of people, not from this country and they’ll sell their car across the border,” Trump said. “When we send our jobs out of Michigan, we’re also sending our tax base.”

And he is exactly right about all of this. We can’t afford to lose more good paying jobs, we can’t afford for the middle class to shrink any more than it already has, and we certainly can’t afford our tax base to continue to deteriorate.

We may think that we can live on borrowed money indefinitely, but that is going to catch up with us in a major way at some point.

Sadly, Ford is not the only auto company doing this. Just like Ross Perot once predicted, there is a giant sucking sound as good paying auto jobs leave the United States and head to Mexico…

Ford isn’t alone. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles said earlier this year it will end production of all cars in the U.S. by the end of this year as it discontinues production of the Dodge Dart in Belvidere, Ill. and the Chrysler 200 in Sterling Heights, Michigan.

In recent years, automakers that include General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota and Volkswagen have all announced plans to either expand existing plants or build new ones in Mexico.

The bad news for American workers won’t end once all of our manufacturing jobs are gone.

Today there are millions of Americans that make their living by driving, but the revolution in self-driving vehicles threatens to make large numbers of those jobs obsolete.

Ford, General Motors, Tesla, Google, Apple and a whole host of other big corporations have been feverishly working on this technology, and many of the tests have gone very well so far.

Once this technology starts being rolled out on a widespread basis, the job losses could be absolutely staggering. Just consider the following numbers which come from Wolf Richter…

1.8 million heavy-truck and tractor-trailer long-haul drivers in 2014, expected to grow 4% a year (BLS), with a median pay of $40,260 in 2015. At this growth rate, there will be 1.94 million long-haul drivers by the end of this year.

1.33 million delivery truck drivers in 2014, expected to grow 4% a year (BLS), with a median pay of $27,800 in 2015. They’re picking up and/or delivering packages and small shipments within the city or region, driving a vehicle of 26,000 pounds or less, usually between a distribution center and businesses or households. At this growth rate, there will be 1.44 million drivers by the end of this year.

233,700 taxi drivers and chauffeurs in 2014, growing at 13% annually (BLS). They earned a median pay of $23,510 in 2015. One in five worked part time. This doesn’t – or doesn’t fully – reflect the “rideshare” drivers working for Uber, Lyft, and the like.

“Over 500,000” rideshare drivers are estimated to ply the trade in the US. It’s a high-growth sector: the number of Uber drivers in the US doubled in 2015 from the prior year to 327,000. Half of them worked 15 hours or less per week.

In order to have a thriving middle class, we have got to have middle class jobs.

Unfortunately, big corporations have become absolutely obsessed with finding ways to eliminate expensive American workers by sending jobs overseas or by replacing them with technology altogether.

The elite will always need people to cut their hair and wait on them at restaurants, but those aren’t the kinds of jobs that can support middle class families.

As I noted yesterday, for the first time ever the middle class in America has become a minority and poverty is on the rise all over the nation. The long-term trends that are eviscerating the middle class are accelerating, and there doesn’t appear to be any quick fix which will turn things around dramatically any time soon.

So the middle class is going to get smaller and smaller and smaller, and that has dramatic implications for the future of this country.

GM in Oshawa, Ontario is on the verge of moving out of plants that have been operating 100 years. There are 4,800 direct jobs on the line and 20,000 support jobs at risk. Part of the middle class dilemma is the fact they are lured into pop culture and fail to grasp the broader dynamics at play. The only reason a middle class prospered was by strenuous effort of the impoverished to aspire to more. That requires continuous effort.

Maximizing profit is the goal of corporations. It is a battle of wits. For many long years the working class sat on its laurels while the ruling class sawed the legs off our chairs. Even a cursory examination of these horrendous free trade deals should have been cause for mass protest and removal from office of the lecherous fifth column we call government. Tarring and feathering as well as the pitch fork and torch assembly were the parliamentary traditions that established the middle class, but you've got to know hunger to get that motivated. That may not be too long in the distant future.

Will we stand firm on the Trans Pacific Partnership and allow another leg to be sawn from our comfy chair or get off our asses and fight for the status earned by prior generations. The race goes to the swift. The elite rich are swift and devious. We have given up the race and expected benefit. Get a good tent and be ready to join others as your return to peasant status is assured. God forbid you use your skills in literacy to read a book on a complex issue. The investor dispute mechanism in these deals allows corporations to change your laws and loot your treasuries. We have no one to blame but ourselves because we blithely stood by and let it happen. And even after feeling the effect, we still don't comprehend the method.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Yet Another Report Says More Innovation, Rather Than More Enforcement, Reduces Piracy

from the the-data-keeps-flowing dept

It's not like many of us haven't been saying this for years: but fighting piracy through greater copyright enforcement doesn't work. It's never worked and it's unlikely to ever work. A year ago, we released our big report, The Carrot or the Stick? that explored at a macro level what appeared to lead to reduced levels of piracy -- enforcement or legal alternatives -- and found overwhelming evidence that enforcement had little long-term impact (and a small short-term impact), but that enabling legal alternatives had a massive impact in reducing piracy. This should sound obvious, but it was important to look at the actual data, which backed it up.

Now, there's a new and different study that further supports this idea. Researchers at the University of East Anglia, Lancaster University and Newcastle University have a new report saying that promoting legal alternatives is much more effective in stopping piracy than the threat of legal consequences.
The researchers say that in order to compete with unlawful file sharing (UFS), easy access to information about the benefits of legal purchases or services should be given in a way that meets the specific benefits UFS offers in terms of quality, flexibility of use and cost.

The team looked at the extent to which the unlawful sharing of music and eBooks is motivated by the perceived benefits as opposed to the legal risks. Involving almost 1400 consumers, the research explored people's ability to remain anonymous online, their trust in the industries and UK legal regulators such as Ofcom, and their downloading behaviour.
It's a very different approach to our own research, but the conclusions remain almost identical. In short, the researchers found that for people who really "trust" regulators, then the threat of punishment was effective. The problem, however, is that not that many people actually trust regulators. That leaves officials with two choices: increase trust in regulators, or... figure out ways to incentivize more legal, innovative alternatives. And, of course, one way to destroy trust in regulators is to support policies like expanding copyright enforcement.
Co-author Dr Piers Fleming, from UEA's School of Psychology, said: "It is perhaps no surprise that legal interventions regarding UFS have a limited and possibly short-term effect, while legal services that compete with UFS have attracted significant numbers of consumers.

"Our findings suggest that it may be possible to diminish the perceived benefit of UFS by increasing risk perception, but only to the extent that UFS is considered emotionally, and users trust industry and regulators. Increasing trust in industry and regulators may be one route toward encouraging UFS to be considered in emotional rather than rational terms. However, given the limited impact of risk perception upon behaviour, a better strategy would be to provide a desirable legal alternative."
So, that's common sense and two very different studies with very different approaches -- all suggesting the same thing. And yet, politicians, regulators and legacy industry folks still insist that ratcheting up enforcement is the way to go. What will it take for them to actually follow what the evidence says, rather than continuing with faith-based copyright policies?

Monsanto Merges with Bayer, “Their Expertise is War”. Shady Historical Origins, IG Farben, Part of Hitler’s Chemical Genetic Engineering Cartel

Crimes agains Nature and Humanity

Vandana Shiva
Award Winning Author and Scientist Dr. Vandana Shiva
India is steeped in synthesised controversy, created by Monsanto on the first GM crop supposedly-approved for commercialisation in India. Engaged in litigation on many fronts, Monsanto is trying to subvert our Patent Law, our Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, our Essential Commodities Act , our Anti Monopoly Act (Competition Act). It is behaving as if there is no Parliament, no Democracy, no Sovereign Laws in India to which it is subject. Or, it simply does not have any regard for them.
In another theatre, Monsanto and Bayer are merging. They were one as MOBAY (MonsantoBayer), part of the Poison Cartel of IG Farben. Controlling stakes of both Corporations lies with the same private equity firms.

I.G. Farben board member Fritz ter Meer (fifth from right) explains to Adolf Hitler the significance of synthetic rubber, Berlin, 1936, © National Archives, Washington, DC (image right)
The expertise of these companies are those of war. IG Farben – Hitler’s economic power and pre-war Germany’s highest foreign exchange earner – was also a foreign intelligence operation. Herman Shmitz was President of IG Farben, Shmitz’s nephew Max Ilgner was a Director of IG Farben, while Max’s brother Rudolph Ilgner handled the New York arm of the ‘VOWI‘ network as vice president of CHEMNYCO.
Paul Warburg – brother of Max Warburg (Board of Directors, Farben Aufsichsrat) – was one of the founding members of the Federal Reserve System in the United States. He was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Max Warburg and Hermann Schmitz played a central role in the Farben empire. Other “guiding hands” of Farben Vorstand included Carl Bosch, Fritz ter Meer, Kurt Oppenheim and George von Schnitzler. Every one of them were adjudged ‘War Criminals’ after World War II, except Paul Warburg.
Monsanto and Bayer have a long history. They made explosives and lethally poisonous gases using shared technologies and sold them to both sides in both  World Wars. The same war chemicals were bought by the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers, from the same manufacturers, with money borrowed from the same federated reserve bank.

MOBAY (MonsantoBayer) supplied ingredients for Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. 20 million gallons of MOBAY defoliants and herbicides were sprayed over South Vietnam. Children are still being born with birth defects, adults have chronic illnesses and cancers, due to their exposure to MOBAY’s chemicals. Monsanto and Bayer’s cross-licensed Agent Orange Resistance has also been cross-developed for decades.
Wars were fought, lives were lost, countries carved into holy lands – with artificial boundaries that suit colonisation and resource grab – while Bayer and Monsanto sold chemicals as bombs and poisons and their brothers provided the loans to buy those bombs.
More recently, according to Monsanto’s website Bayer CropScience AG and Monsanto Co. have “entered into a series of long-term business and licensing agreements related to key enabling agricultural technologies”. This gives Monsanto and Bayer free access to each other’s herbicide and the paired herbicide resistance technology. Through cross licensing agreements like these, mergers and acquisitions, the biotech industry has become the IG Farben of today, with Monsanto in the cockpit.
The Global Chemical and GMO industry – Bayer, Dow Agro, DuPont Pioneer, Mahyco, Monsanto and Syngenta – have come together to form Federation of Seed Industry of India (FSII)  to try and become bigger bullies in this assault on India’s farmers, the environment , and democratically framed laws that protect the public and national interest.This is in addition to the lolly-group ABLE, the Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises, which tried to challenge India’s Seed Price Control order issued under the Essential commodities Act, in the High Court of Karnataka. The case was dismissed.
The new Group is not “seed Industry”, they produce no seeds. And they try to stretch patents on chemicals to claim ownership on seed, even in countries where patents on seeds and plants are not allowed by law. This is the case in India, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and many other countries.
All the Monsanto cases in India are related to Monsanto un-scientifically, illegally and illegitimately claiming patents on seed, in contempt of India’s laws, and trying to collect royalties from the Indian seed industry and Indian farmers. The FSII is an “IG Farben 100 Year Family Reunion”, a federation is a coming together of independent and autonomous entities.
The Farben family chemical cartel was responsible for exterminating people in concentration camps . They embody a century of ecocide and genocide, carried out in the name of scientific experimentation and innovation. Today the poison cartel is wearing G-Engineering clothes, and citing the mantra of “innovation” ad nauseum. Hitlers concentration camps were an “innovation” in killing. 100 years later, the Farben Family are carrying out the same extermination, silently, globally, much more efficiently.
Monsanto’s “innovation” of collecting illegal royalties and pushing Indian farmers to suicide is also an innovation in killing without liability, indirectly. Just because there is a new way to kill does not make killing right, or a right. “Innovation” like every human activity, has limits – limits set by ethics, justice, democracy, the rights of people, the rights of nature.

I G Farben was tried at Nuremburg. We have national laws to protect people, their right to life and public health, and  the environment. India’s Biosafety laws and Patent, and Plant Variety Act are designed to regulate greedy owners of corporations – with a history of crimes against nature and humanity.
Industry is getting ready to push its next “gene” the  GM-Mustard (DMH-11). The GM mustard being promoted as a public sector “innovation” is based on barnase/barstar/ gene system to create male-sterile plants and a bar gene for Glufosinate Resistance.In 2002 Pro-Agro’s (Bayer) application for approval for commercial planting of GM Mustard based on the same system was rejected.
Although banned in India, Bayer finds ways to sell Glufosinate, to the tea gardens of Assam and the apple orchards of Himachal Pradesh, illegally. Sales agents show the Glufosinate sales under the ‘other’ category to avoid regulation. These chemicals are finding their way into the bodies of our children without government approval. Essentially all key patents related to the bar gene are held by Bayer Crop Science which acquired Aventis Cropscience, which itself was created out of the Genetic Engineering divisions of Schering, Rhone Poulenc and Hoechst. Then Bayer acquired Plant Genetics Systems, and entered into cooperation agreement with Evogene – which has patents on genome mapping.
Before any approval is granted to the Genetically Engineered Mustard, the issue of limits to patentability needs to be resolved on the basis of Indian law, patents on plants and seeds and methods of agriculture must not be allowed, because they are not allowed.
Pental, a retired professor and GM-Operative, will not commercialise GM Mustard seed. His Commanding Officers at Bayer/Monsanto/MOBAY will.
Given our experience with GMO cotton, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is considering the option of putting in place guidelines for socio-economic assessment to judge proposed GM varieties on the basis of factors such as economy, health, environment, society and culture.
At the core of socio economic assessment is the issue of monopolies and cartels and impact on small farmers. Even though patents on seeds are not allowed, for more that one and a half decade Monsanto has extracted illegal royalties from Indian farmers, trapping them in debt, and triggering an epidemic of farmers suicides. Monsanto’s war on India’s foot soldiers – farmers – is a war being waged by the Farben Family, on our Earth Family.

Saturday, September 17, 2016


As I said in last Thursday's News and Views from the Nefarium when I commented on the strange article titled "Vladimir Putin: George Soros wanted 'Dead or Alive,'" this has been one of the very strangest weeks I've ever had running this website and receiving articles from readers and listeners. As most people who are regular readers here are already aware, my blogs are largely "community driven," i.e., they're commentaries on articles that people find and send me. This week I've been receiving some of the strangest collection of articles in the years I've been doing this. And as often happens, occasionally articles that people send me will cluster around "themes and memes."
This week was one of the strangest in this respect as articles have tended to cluster around a number of bizarre stories involving technology, space, and so on, and within this subset, so many people sent articles about police roadblocks stopping people and then taking swabs of their DNA, under obvious duress and implied use of force, that one has to wonder what is going on and why, so my high octane speculation of the day (really high, as we'll see in a moment) is focused on this strange phenomenon.
Here's just a few versions of the stories people sent (and again, a big thank you to all of you sending and sharing articles):
By Claire Bernish Without laws to guide them, police around the country have begun collecting people’s DNA — even when no crime has been committed … Continue reading Forget “Stop and Frisk” — Cops Across US Collecting DNA of Innocent People in “Stop and Swabs”
Here's another:
Of course, there's the disturbing trend of just stopping people and asking them to "voluntarily" supply their DNA, which is then entered into what has become an increasing trend: local police DNA databses:
Over the last decade, collecting DNA from people who are not charged with — or even suspected of — any particular crime has become an increasingly routine practice for police in smaller cities not only in Florida, but in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina as well.
While the largest cities typically operate public labs and feed DNA samples into the FBI’s national database, cities like Melbourne have assembled databases of their own, often in partnership with private labs that offer such fast, cheap testing that police can afford to amass DNA even to investigate minor crimes, from burglary to vandalism.
This is clearly a fourth amendment issue, for the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to recognize and acknowledge an individual's God-given right to be secure in their property and person from unwarranted "seach and seizure." Obviously, a man in a uniform representing the power of the state, armed with billy clubs, guns, and tazers, and asking for a sample of your DNA is intimidating, to say the least. Notably, as the articles point out, the targets, for the moment, seem to be teenagers.
Additionally, the articles imply that part of this collection activity is in aid not only of solving crimes, but in aid of solving crimes not yet even committed, invoking Philip K. Dick's nightmarish scenario of a "Department of Pre-Crime", made a film with actor Tom Cruise and veteran Swedish actor Max von Sydow, Minority Report. Let's face it, a teenager being confronted by police asking to donate some DNA is not acting without duress, regardless of all the niceties that and rationalizations that are offered to justify the practice.
But could there be another, even deeper agenda here, one that they're not talking about?
My penchant for high octane speculation suspects there is, and it is even suggested by the father of one teenaged boy who "consented" to allow police to take a DNA sample:
When Adam’s father found out the police had taken his son’s DNA, he immediately contacted the Melbourne Police Department to ask what the department intended to do with the sample and on what legal basis it had been taken. As a doctor, he understood what had happened could have far-reaching implications.
“My concern, being in the medical field, is that it’s not just Adam’s DNA,” he said. (ProPublica is withholding his name to protect the privacy of his son.) “It’s my DNA, it’s my wife’s DNA, and our parents. Not to sound bad, but you just get nervous. There’s some collateral damage there.” (Emphasis added)
Precisely: a  build-out of hundreds if not thousands of "local law enforcement DNA databases" would give enormous insight into the history of various genotypes and haplogroups, in short, unique insight into various bloodlines, genetic pre-dispositions to certain types of diseases, and provide an enormous pool of information not only for medical treatments, but for its opposite: genetically-targeted bio-weapons.
But there is, I suspect, an even deeper layer and this is where our high octane speculation goes "orbital" and gets "way out there." As I've said publicly on a number of occasions, most recently at last year's "Secret Space Conference" in Bastrop, Texas, the proliferation of genetic sequencing technologies and the development of "in-the-field" sequencing technologies gives yet a new twist to the phenomenon. For the spread of the practice suggests that they are "looking for something," and that something, I suspect and suggest, are genetic markers that would confirm, or deny, those ancient stories of the "gods" mingling with "men" and producing modern man. Those ancient texts suggest that we have (or at least, had) "genetic cousins" out there, and moreover, suggest that in some respects at least "they" look like us walk like us and talk like us. There are even indications in some of those texts that some of "them" stayed behind to "watch" humanity.
If one wanted to test this hypothesis, or if one suspected its truth and wanted to track potential "candidates" for such "genetic infiltration," compiling such databases would be essential, and random stops would be the way to do it. Additionally, if one suspected hostile intention from such individuals against the human population, or conversely, wanted to invent a targeted genetic weapon against them, again such a database would be essential.
Of course, all of this is wild and woolly speculation, and the fourth amendment and department of "pre-crime" issues alone are enough to make one question the practice. But I strongly suspect there is much more going on here than meets the eye, or the easy-breezy "law enforcement" explanations we've been given. After all, if one wanted to compile a global database for more occulted purposes, then the way to do it without raising suspicion would be to do it at a local level, without apparent coordination, as if this were just the latest thing in law enforcement.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Plunges to Record Low, Gallup Poll           ~  hehe no shit ?


In yesterday’s post, The Death of Mainstream Media, I noted:
At the end of the day, I have concluded that my focus on Hillary as of late (vs. Trump) has as much to with my disgust for the mainstream media as anything else. To see these organs, which have destroyed this country by keeping the people uninformed for decades, now rally around a sickly, corrupt, oligarch coddling politician as the empire enters the collapse stage is simply too much to stomach…
The only positive thing to happen during this election season is the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed, there is no coming back. 
Then today, we learned the following from Gallup:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Here’s a chart.
If that’s not a trend, I don’t know what is.
Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans’ trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.
While it is clear Americans’ trust in the media has been eroding over time, the election campaign may be the reason that it has fallen so sharply this year. With many Republican leaders and conservative pundits saying Hillary Clinton has received overly positive media attention, while Donald Trump has been receiving unfair or negative attention, this may be the prime reason their relatively low trust in the media has evaporated even more. It is also possible that Republicans think less of the media as a result of Trump’s sharp criticisms of the press. Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14% from 32% a year ago. This is easily the lowest confidence among Republicans in 20 years.
Meanwhile, if there is any hope for the future, it can be found here.
Older Americans are more likely than younger Americans to say they trust the media, but trust has declined among both age groups this year. Currently, 26% of those aged 18 to 49 (down from 36% last year) and 38% of those aged 50 and older (down from 45%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media.
In 2001, younger Americans (55%) were more likely than older Americans (50%) to express trust and confidence in mass media. This gap emerged again in 2005 when 53% of 18- to 49-year-olds had trust and 45% of those 50 and older expressed the same sentiment. Yet in the past decade, older Americans have mostly had more confidence than younger Americans, and this year, the gap between these age groups is 12 points. And 2016 marks the first time that confidence among older Americans has dropped below 40% in polling since 2001.
Before 2004, it was common for a majority of Americans to profess at least some trust in the mass media, but since then, less than half of Americans feel that way. Now, only about a third of the U.S. has any trust in the Fourth Estate, a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public.

Vaccines found to be tainted with Monsanto's Roundup?Glyphosate

by Vicki Batts

(NaturalNews) If you aren't already outraged by the contents of vaccines, this new discovery might just change your mind. Research scientist Dr. Anthony Samsel has recently found that Monsanto's most prolific herbicide is actually present in most vaccines, according to his test results.

[Editor's note: This is a science note from Mike Adams. I urge caution in interpreting these data, because the analytical method cited in this study is not a mass spec method. In my professional opinion as a leading laboratory scientist who develops and runs analytical methods using mass spec instrumentation, I personally have not been able to verify glyphosate testing results conducted using the ELISA method or other methods. The necessary analytical method to end any guesswork about all this would be a mass spec method, which requires some very complex sample introduction technology due to the difficulty in ionizing the glyphosate molecule. To date, there is no published, accepted method for mass spec glyphosate quantitation analysis. Until that day comes, I do not fully trust other numbers. So take all this news with a degree of skepticism until we can further verify these claims.]

Roundup's key ingredient, glyphosate, has been blasted repeatedly by just about every independent news website and natural health advocate on the internet. Even the World Health Organization has declared that this chemical is a potential carcinogen. Since Roundup's surge in popularity began in the 1990s along with seeds that were genetically-modified to be its perfect match, it has become a ubiquitous facet of the agricultural industry.

Following his discovery, Dr. Samsel wrote a letter to his congressional senator, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. He gave his express permission for Senator Shaheen to share his laboratory data on the vaccines tainted with glyphosate not just with all of Congress, but with the public as well. Whether or not Shaheen will have the bravery and conscience to act on this information remains to be seen. Hopefully, the senator will stand alongside U.S. Congressman Bill Posey and stand up for what is right. As The Daily Sheeple reports, Posey went before Congress in 2015 to ask for a "congressional investigation into the science, fraud and collusion regarding the MMR vaccine." His call for action followed CDC epidemiologist Dr. William Thompson's exposure of the fraudulent science that surrounded the vaccine.

Glyphosate is an innately harmful chemical; its sole purpose is to kill things, though Monsanto seems to have spent every effort trying to convince people otherwise. Eco Watch reports, "Monsanto has falsified data on Roundup's safety, and marketed it to parks departments and consumers as 'environmentally friendly' and 'biodegradable, to encourage its use it on roadsides, playgrounds, golf courses, schoolyards, lawns and home gardens.'" By doing this, they have created a literal monster out of the chemical, and now it is everywhere. It is no surprise that it has made it's way into vaccines.

Exposure to glyphosate has already been linked to a myriad of adverse effects. Birth defects, attention deficit disorder, Alzheimer's disease, gastrointestinal disorders and a number of different cancers are just a few of the many horrible side effects attributed to glyphosate. Neural tube defects have been seen in newborn babies that were born to women living within 1,000 meters of areas sprayed with pesticides; investigations showed glyphosate was associated with the defects. As noted by Eco Watch, "Congenital defects quadrupled in the decade after Roundup Ready crops arrived in Chaco, a province in Argentina where glyphosate is used roughly eight to ten times more per acre than in the U.S." The organization also states that even here in the United States, elevated levels of glyphosate and subsequent birth defects have been documented.

Imagine the disastrous results if we continue to allow this poison to be injected into children, if these are the effects of exposure to glyphosate merely in the air or soil. The residues found on our food, in the air we breathe and in the water we drink are already harmful enough. There is no reason for glyphosate to be injected into our bodies.