The Man Who Told The Truth JFK youtube MUST WATCH AND PASS FAR AND WIDE

Aspartame Dumbing Down, Poison, Monsanto, Searle, Rumsfeld youtube

All Jacked up -Short Clip about Aspartame youtube

All Jacked up The Economics of Junk Food (Health Ranger)youtube

Jennifer Mattox 'All Jacked Up' youtube

Faerie Films page

All Jacked Up - Interview Part 1 of 4

All Jacked Up - Interview Part 2 of 4

All Jacked Up - Interview Part 3 of 4

All Jacked Up - Interview Part 4 of 4

Super Size Me (SSM)1 video
SSM part 2 video
SSM part 3 video
SSM part 4 video
SSM part 5 video
SSM part 6 video
SSM part 7 video
SSM part 8 video
SSM part 9 video
SSM part 10 video

A Poisoned World Sweet Misery
EXCERPT:
"They had animal tissues that had obvious tumors in it that were reported normal." "In my estimation, there was an effort to cover up what was being found so that they [Searle] could get [FDA] approval."

Russell L. Blaylock, M.D., Neurosurgeon

There's a little box on some of these videos that say 6-8 have repeated beginnings of the first 50 seconds........ I found it was at least 4-8.
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 1 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 2 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 3 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 4 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 5 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 6 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 7 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 8 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 9 of 10
Aspartame - Sweet Misery - Part 10 of 10

Tony Coehlo's involvement (he wrote the diability law act and now this
EXCERPT:
Concerned, Monsanto President Robert B. Shapiro called Coehlo for help. Coehlo is a former California Congressman and house majority whip who left that post in 1989 amid accusations that he had improperly used his political contacts to arrange and finance a $100,000 junk-bond investment for himself. Coehlo had become a New York investment banker and, because he remained very well-connected, President Clinton selected him as chief strategist for the Democratic National Committee in 1994.

Coehlo called the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to find out who was blocking approval of rBGH. He spoke with Espy's senior aide, Kim Schnoor. Coehlo has strong ties at USDA. Now disgraced, then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy won his first race for Congress in 1986 with substantial financial help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which was then headed by Coehlo. Further, President Clinton's selection of Espy as Agriculture Secretary came at Coehlo's recommendation. And before the just-appointed Espy picked his new staff, Coehlo proposed that Espy take Kim Schnoor, Choehlo's former Congressional aide as Espy's senior aide. Schnoor had been providing Monsanto officials with critical information regarding White House and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) strategy regarding rBGH.

One memorandum obtained by FET, written by Dr. Virginia V. Weldon of Monsanto, entitled, "Coehlo Talking Points for Espy Dinner," and dated Sept. 21, 1993, advised other Monsanto officials that, based on information provided to the company by Schnoor, Monsanto had drafted appropriate talking points for Coehlo to present to Espy at a dinner. The Weldon memo also said that Coehlo should "ask Espy to talk personally with Mr. (Leon) Panetta (then-OMB head and another Coehlo friend) to persuade him to duck {Congress'} request to study the 'social impact' of BST.

JFK defended India against his own people
EXCERPT:
Stephen Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and an expert on India, Pakistan and South Asian security, said Thursday: "The context is that Kennedy was very, very pro-India. He saw India as a natural balance to China. That was not true of his advisers.

JFK and Iran
EXCERPT:
Kennedy emphasized on Iran's national independence, reaching beyond any ideology or national power. He appreciated Iran's efforts to maintain its national independence century after century. Kennedy added that the interests of both countries were the same: to maintain freedom and peace, and to provide a better life for their people.

The US declared a war on Indian rice in the early 1960s
EXCERPT:
The United States of America declared a war on Indian rice and food security already in the early 1960s when India's No 1 scientist mole, Dr M.S. Swaminathan, stole the gene bank of rice, evolved over decades by Dr Riccharia, and passed it over to the Americans. Activists say that Monsanto, operating through its Indian Joint Venture partners Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Corporation or Mahyco, have committed crimes against humanity with the full connivance of officials of the Department of Biotechnology and members of GEAC, and that therefore several Ministries are also involved, chiefly, the Minister of Agriculture & the Ministry of Environment & Forestry.

Monsanto and Searle drug company
EXCERPT:
Until the acquisition by Monsanto in 1985, the firm's chairman
was William L. Searle, a Harvard graduate, Naval reservist
and-a grim irony in view of aspartame's adverse effects-an officer
in the Army Chemical Corps in the early 1950s, when the
same division tested LSD on groups of human subjects in concert
with the CIA. (8) The chief of the Chemical Warfare Division
at this time was Dr. Laurence Laird Layton, whose son Larry
was convicted for the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan at
Jonestown ("Come to the pavilion! What a legacy!").
Jonestown, of course, bore a remarkable likeness to a concentration
camp, and kept a full store of pharmaceutical drugs.
(The Jonestown pharmacy was stocked with a variety of behavior control
drugs: qualudes, valium, morphine, demerol and 11,000 doses of
thorazine-a better supply, in fact, than the Guyanese
government's own, not to mention a surfeit of cyanide. (9) )

The death of India by Monsanto
EXCERPT:
12 December 2001

Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Hon’ble Prime Minister, New Delhi-110 001.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED COTTON ---- PUSHING FARMERS INTO A DEATH TRAP ?

Respected Prime Minister,

The Ministry of Environment and Forests as well as the Department of Biotechnology under the Ministry of Science & Technology is currently reviewing the procedural norms for the controversial genetically modified cotton, popularly called Bt cotton. The decision on its commercial approval, expected to be formalised by February 2002, will have profound consequences for farmers, human health and environment.


MS Swaminathan
EXCERPT:
Controversy
A scientific paper in which Swaminathan and his team claimed to have produced a mutant breed of wheat by gamma irradiation of a Mexican variety (Sonora 64) resulting in Sharbati Sonora, claimed to have a very high lysine content led to a major controversy. The case was discussed as a classic example of scientific misdemeanor and was claimed to be an error made by the laboratory assistant.[28] The episode was also compounded by the suicide of an agricultural scientist.[29][30][31][32][33] Recent workers have also studied it as part of a systemic problem in Indian agriculture research.[34]

Monsanto pollution lake The aim is to avoid killing streams just to save them.
EXCERPT:

"We support efforts to reduce selenium discharges to the creek, but we have serious concerns about the methods Monsanto is using, which is drying up the creek," said Mark Ryan, a federal Clean Water Act attorney for the EPA in Boise, on Wednesday. "We want to see it (the water) treated and put back into the creek where it belongs."

Is Monsanto a Monopoly
EXCERPT:
MONSANTO'S RR MONOPOLY

Factsheets and background on Monsanto's RoundupReady Patents

Monsanto's patents on genetically engineered plants resistant to its herbecide Roundup Ready are a major piece in Monsanto's strategy with which it aims to controll farmers around the world.

Monsanto needs to be broken up
FEBRUARY 6, 2010 12:05PM
Monsanto's Business: Ethically Less Than Sum of its Parts
Rate: 5 Flag Email.Click "Submit Abuse" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish. Cancel
Monsanto is widely considered to be Public Enemy #1 by critics of the biotech industry. But most who've heard complaints about Monsanto don't know much more than what's contained in the single-sentence slogans.

But if you're going to form an opinion, it's good to know a little more. As a start, here's a good story by Christopher Leonard, writing for the Associated Press (and coming to you via The Atlanta Journal-Constitution), Monsanto seed biz role revealed. I strongly recommend the whole article. But here's a taste:

Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.
With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts....
Here's a particularly interesting bit:
Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws....

At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies....
This got me thinking: is Monsanto the Microsoft of the biotech world? How so?

Well, consider:
•Like Microsoft, Monsanto makes a product that is increasingly part of the basic infrastructure.
•Like Microsoft, it has a big enough market share to border on monopoly.
•Like Microsoft, Monsanto's behaviour has been unseemly enough to make it a magnet for criticism, particularly criticism claiming that the company has too mcuh power.
•And, like Microsoft, Monsanto just might be a candidate for a government-forced breakup.
But the problem with Monsanto, it seems to me (and maybe with Microsoft too), isn't in each individual action or even each practice, taken in isolation. The problem is actually an emergent feature of Monsanto's business activities, taken as a whole. Consider each of the individual business practices for which Monsanto is known:
•Making seeds for plants with novel, useful traits available to farmers? Nothing wrong with that.
•Licensing your technology to other companies that find it useful? Seems fine.
•Attaching "strings" (contractual limits) to the use to which other companies put the technology they license from you? Sure!
•Protecting your intellectual property rights — ones entrenched in law — against encroachment? What business wouldn't do that?
But a thousand perfectly ethical actions don't necessarily add up to a practice that is ethically OK. And the same principle applies from a legal point of view. So, maybe the point here is that Monsanto should be broken up. Not because they've necessarily done anything spectacularly unethical (for the sake of argument), but just because the net result of their business practices is bad, namely an unhealthy domination of the seed industry.

[This was originally published on my Biotech Ethics Blog, in December.]