(Grifter Alert) BLM teeters on the brink of insolvency after an $8.5 million loss in 2022

May 27, 2023 Winter Watch Around the Web, Crime 1

American Insight | May 24, 2023

Financial disclosures reveal that the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF), the global parent for all BLM, ran an $8.5 million deficit while they continued to give out seven-figure salaries and contracts to relatives of the founder Patrisse Cullors.

According to the organization’s 2022 tax returns, one of those family members was Paul Cullors, Patrisse’s brother, who was paid a $126,000 salary as the head of security. The bodyguard with no previous experience made a total of $1.6M between him and his two security companies.

(***)

Post a Comment

America’s state media: The blackout on Biden corruption is truly ‘Pulitzer-level stuff’

The Hill | May 13, 2023

This week, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) tried to do the impossible. After he and his colleagues presented a labyrinth of LLC shell companies and accounts used to funnel as much as $10 million to Biden family members, Donalds tried to induce the press to show some interest in the massive corruption scandal. “For those in the press, this easy pickings & Pulitzer-level stuff right here,” he pleaded.

The response was virtually immediate. Despite showing nine Biden family members allegedly receiving funds from corrupt figures in Romania, China and other countries, The New Republic quickly ran a story headlined “Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden.”

Last year, I wrote a column about how the media were preparing a difficult “scandal implosion” to protect the Bidens and themselves from the backlash from disclosures of this influence peddling operation.

(***)

Unhinged leftist who threatened NY Post reporter with MACHETE surrenders to NYPD

Image: Unhinged leftist who threatened NY Post reporter with MACHETE surrenders to NYPD

(Natural News) An unhinged leftist who threatened a reporter from the New York Post with a machete has surrendered to the New York City Police Department (NYPD).

The Post reported that Shellyne Rodriguez, 45, turned herself in at the NYPD’s 43rd Precinct in the morning of May 25. The former Hunter College adjunct professor wore black sunglasses while flanked by a handful of supporters. She was later escorted out of the precinct located in The Bronx just after 11 a.m. of the same day.

Two days earlier, on May 23, Rodriguez threatened veteran reporter Reuven Fenton by holding a machete against his throat. He politely knocked on the door of her apartment on the morning of that day, informing Rodriguez that he was from the Post. Fenton wanted to ask her about her comments on a viral video of an incident she was involved in.

“Get the f**k away from my door, or I’m [going to] chop you up with this machete,” she threatened from inside. The unhinged leftist barged out seconds later, put the machete to Fenton’s neck and told the reporter to leave, before retreating and slamming the door shut. At this point, Fenton and his accompanying photographer Robert Miller – who recorded Rodriguez’s outburst – immediately left.

However, Rodriguez wanted blood and quickly followed the two. She threatened to use the bladed weapon on both the moment she sees them on the block one more time. Unsatisfied, she chased down Miller and kicked him in the shins before finally returning to her apartment.

Hunter College terminated the leftist when news of the attack on Fenton and Miller surfaced. Vince DiMiceli, a spokesman for the institution, confirmed Rodriguez’s firing in the afternoon of May 23.

Brighteon.TV

“[The college] strongly condemns the unacceptable actions of Shellyne Rodriguez and has taken immediate action,” he told the Post. “[She] has been relieved of her duties at Hunter College effective immediately, and will not be returning to teach at the school.” (Related: Lunatic left-wing pro-abortion NYC college professor fired after wielding machete against reporter.)

Rodriguez plays the victim card

The leftist’s woes began when a video from a May 2 incident at the college surfaced. The footage posted on Twitter by Students for Life of America featured Rodriguez raining profanities at pro-life students who set up an information table.

“You’re not educating s**t. This is f**king propaganda,” she blurted out to the pro-life students that were informing people of the truth about abortion. “What are you going to do? [Is] anti-trans next?”

A male student behind the table clarified that they were talking about abortion, and apologized for “triggering” her students. In reply, the erstwhile professor blasted the student – telling him he couldn’t be sorry “because [he] can’t even have a f**king baby.” Rodriguez then tossed the students’ pamphlets before leaving.

Rodriguez broke her silence on May 24, a day after threatening Fenton, and played the victim card. In a statement given to ARTnews magazine, the leftist blasted her former place of employment for capitulating to “racists, white nationalists and misogynists.”

According to Rodriguez, the incident has “taken a toll on [her] mental health.” It has also reportedly robbed her of her “sense of safety” and created a “reasonable fear” that people will “show up at [her] home to cause physical harm.” She also slammed “right wing media organizations” for “weaponizing and sensationalizing this case to further their agenda.”

One unnamed student expressed their concerns to the Post: “I’m concerned about the people they’re hiring as educators here. What process are they going through?” This same student also attested how teachers in Hunter College are “biased” and “very much against critical thought.”

An unnamed professor at the same institution commented on the now-fired Rodriguez: “She’s nutty, [and] she’s not alone. We’ve got plenty of nuts here.”

Watch the New York Post‘s Reuven Fenton recounting to Fox News‘ Sean Hannity how Shellyne Rodriguez threatened him and his cameraman.

This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Transgender activists attack biological females at pro-woman event in Washington state.

Trump-supporting women attacked by Left-wing lunatics at swanky D.C. affair who called them “c**ts” and Nazis.

WATCH: Aggressive pro-abortion professor vandalizes table at Hunter College, accuses pro-life students of ‘violence.’

Sources include:

NYPost.com 1

NYPost.com 2

ARTnews.com

NYPost.com 3

Brighteon.com

RFK Jr. to enrich workers and protect American industries by passing tariffs on foreign imports

Image: RFK Jr. to enrich workers and protect American industries by passing tariffs on foreign imports

(Natural News) Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has vowed to enrich the American working class and to sustain American industries by imposing tariffs on foreign imports.

In a series of posts on Twitter revealing another part of his platform, Kennedy lamented how the country’s very top earners – the billionaire elites – are seeing their share of income grow exponentially, while the share of income among working and middle-class Americans has steadily declined. (Related: BOLD LEADERSHIP: RFK Jr blasts Biden in latest campaign speech – “My mission … will be to end the corrupt merger of state and corporate power.”)

“The top share of income going to the top 10 percent has increased from 35 percent in 1945 to more than 45 percent today,” wrote Kennedy. “Capitalism only functions equitably if workers … can claim a fair share of the economic pie.”

To rectify this decline in the income growth of the American working and middle classes, Kennedy said that, as president, he would consider imposing tariffs on foreign imports and using the proceeds to protect workers and industries.

“As president, I will protect American labor and American industry. One thing I will consider: Tariffs on imports from countries that allow exploitation of workers,” he wrote. “American industries should not be forced to offshore to low-wage areas as nations compete with each other to sacrifice wages and working conditions in a ‘race to the bottom.’”

American middle class being systematically destroyed – by COVID-19 lockdowns, warmongering

Since the beginning of his campaign, Kennedy has talked about how the American middle class is being weakened. Late last month, right after he announced his bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, he noted how the American middle class was “systematically” wiped out as a result of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdowns.

Brighteon.TV

“The strength of a nation comes from a strong economy and a vibrant middle class, and we have wiped out the middle class in the country systematically,” said Kennedy during an interview on Fox News.

He pointed out how lockdowns were exceptionally costly on the middle class and how they only truly benefited the wealthy.

In another interview, Kennedy called Democrats the “party of war” as he lamented how billions of dollars are being sent overseas at the expense of taxpayers, especially middle class ones.

“The Democratic Party at this point has become the party of war,” he said. “We’ve sent $113 billion to Ukraine.”

Kennedy added that a lot of Americans are tired of the “forever wars” at a time when more than half of Americans can’t even “put their hands on $1,000 if they have an emergency.”

“Our real national strength is going to come from economic power and a robust economy and a robust middle class and not from projecting military power abroad,” he added. “[Biden] says that the economy is humming along, but that’s not what I hear when I’m out in western Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida. I see people really living in a state of desperation that I never thought I would see in the United States of America.”

The American middle class, as of 2021, is made up of approximately 77.4 million U.S. households who have an annual income of between $27,000 to $141,000. The top one percent of income earners in the country holds more wealth than all of these people combined.

Learn more about the race to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for president at VoteDemocrat.news.

Watch this clip from InfoWars featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discussing how the globalists are waging an economic war against the middle class.

This video is from the InfoWars channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

RFK Jr. tied with Biden in primary poll, 20% of Democrats say they’d vote for Kennedy or Trump over Biden.

Mike Adams interviews Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Border security, election integrity, America’s energy supply and healing America’s fractured society.

RFK Jr. commits to making America an EXEMPLARY DEMOCRACY again in 2024 presidential bid.

Climate change is being exploited by “mega billionaires” to tyrannize the planet, warns RFK Jr.

Sources include:

Breitbart.com

TheHill.com

FoxNews.com

Brighteon.com

Just Say No to Statins

  • Widespread myths about lowering your cholesterol with statins to improve your heart health still permeate modern medicine

  • A comprehensive review of the literature, published in 2018, found that LDL cholesterol does not cause heart disease, so statins’ ability to lower LDL is of dubious value

  • Over a five-year period, taking a statin once you’ve had a heart attack will only increase your life expectancy by four days

  • Just like COVID-19, they manipulated the statistics and grossly exaggerated statin benefits by conflating relative and absolute risks. If you take a statin, your chance of a heart attack is only 1.1% lower than if you’re not taking it: that is your absolute, not relative, risk

  • Even though public health perpetuates the notion that lower LDL cholesterol is better, there’s no consistent relationship between lowering LDL with statins and death, heart attack or stroke

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

In the U.S. alone, 40 million adults take statin cholesterol-lowering medications in the mistaken belief that this will reduce their risk of heart disease.

But lowering your cholesterol is not the panacea to heart health that you’ve been led to believe.

On “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Dr. Aseem Malhotra, an interventional cardiologist consultant from the U.K., speaks out about the overprescribing of statins for heart disease — and the widespread myths about cholesterol and your heart that still permeate modern medicine.

The Framingham Study, which began in 1948, involved 5,209 people from Massachusetts.

It was instrumental in starting the myth that high total cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, but what many people don’t realize is the correlation only existed if cholesterol was over 300 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl). “Very few people have total cholesterol that high,” Malhotra says.

Further, he believes, your cholesterol levels are 80% genetics. In your body, cholesterol is necessary for maintaining cell membranes and it plays a role in the immune system and synthesizing hormones and vitamin D.

In the Framingham Study, the majority of people with cholesterol levels over 300 mg/dl had a genetic condition called familial hyperlipidemia, which leads to very high levels of cholesterol. About 1 in 250 people have this condition, according to Malhotra.

What also wasn’t widely publicized about the Framingham Study was what occurred in people who were in their 50s, 60s and beyond. In this age range, as cholesterol dropped, mortality rate increased. “So, the association of cholesterol and heart disease is quite weak, first and foremost,” Malhotra says.

Malhotra and colleagues conducted a study to determine if a correlation exists with lowering LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol and preventing heart attacks and strokes, and no clear correlation was found. “This is based upon randomized, controlled trial data, so this is the most robust evidence you can get,” he says.

In the context of statins, Malhotra says, they do lower LDL cholesterol, but they also have anti-inflammatory and anti-clotting properties, and this is where any benefit comes in for preventing heart attacks and strokes. However, if you’re at low risk of heart disease, this benefit amounts to only about 1%. Among those who’ve had a heart attack, the benefits aren’t much better. Malhotra explains:

“What are those benefits when you break them down in absolute terms? … Over a five-year period, if you take your statin religiously and don’t get side effects — because … the trials took out people with side effects — the best-case scenario is 1 in 83 for saving your life and 1 in 39 in preventing a further heart attack. Now, a lot of people find that quite underwhelming.”

He also points out that, over that five-year period, taking a statin once you’ve had a heart attack will only increase your life expectancy by four days.

Further, a comprehensive review of the literature, published in 2018, found that LDL cholesterol does not cause heart disease, so statins’ ability to lower LDL is of dubious value:

“For half a century, a high level of total cholesterol (TC) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been considered to be the major cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), and statin treatment has been widely promoted for cardiovascular prevention.

However, there is an increasing understanding that the mechanisms are more complicated and that statin treatment, in particular when used as primary prevention, is of doubtful benefit.”

The review delved into three reviews published by statin advocates, which claimed to support the LDL cholesterol-heart disease link.

However, the authors noted, serious errors were involved in their research, along with other “obvious falsification of the cholesterol hypothesis … the conclusions of the authors of the three reviews are based on misleading statistics, exclusion of unsuccessful trials and by ignoring numerous contradictory observations.”

They further stated:

“The idea that high cholesterol levels in the blood are the main cause of CVD is impossible because people with low levels become just as atherosclerotic as people with high levels and their risk of suffering from CVD is the same or higher.”

Despite the questions surrounding their safety and effectiveness, statins are recommended for four broad patient populations:

  1. Those who have already had a cardiovascular event

  2. Adults with diabetes

  3. Individuals with LDL cholesterol levels ≥190 mg/dL

  4. Individuals with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk ≥7.5% (based on algorithm that uses your age, gender, blood pressure, total cholesterol, high density lipoproteins (HDL), race and history of diabetes to predict the likelihood you’ll experience a heart attack in the coming 10 years)

Even though statins are prescribed for these sizeable groups, and “target” cholesterol levels have been achieved, a systematic review of 35 randomized, controlled trials found that no additional benefits were gained. An analysis in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine by Malhotra and colleagues revealed:

“Recommending cholesterol lowering treatment based on estimated cardiovascular risk fails to identify many high-risk patients and may lead to unnecessary treatment of low-risk individuals. The negative results of numerous cholesterol lowering randomized controlled trials call into question the validity of using low density lipoprotein cholesterol as a surrogate target for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.”

Even in the case of recurrent cardiovascular events — and despite an increase in statin use from 1999 to 2013 — researchers writing in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders noted, “there was only a small decrease in the incidence of recurrent CVD, and this occurred mainly in older patients without statins prescribed.”

Rory Collins heads up the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) collaboration, a group of doctors and scientists who analyze study data and report their findings to regulators and policymakers.

Collins coauthored a 2008 study

that claims statins lower your risk of heart attack by 36%.

Table 4

in this study shows the rate of heart attack in the placebo group was 3.1% while the statin group’s rate was 2% — a 36% reduction in relative risk. However, the absolute risk reduction — the actual difference between the two groups, i.e., 3.1% minus 2% — is only 1.1%, which isn’t very impressive.

In the real world, if you take a statin your chance of a heart attack is only 1.1% lower than if you’re not taking it, as Malhotra told Joe Rogan. Just like COVID-19, the drug companies manipulated their statistics and grossly exaggerated statin benefits by conflating relative and absolute risks.

Collins is also noteworthy, as he spearheaded an attack against Malhotra by contacting the British Medical Journal and demanding it retract one of Malhotra’s studies, which cited a statistic that statins cause side effects in 18% to 20% of people who take them.

Rather than retract the study, an independent panel reviewed the study, calling only for a correction to be added:

“The corrections explain that, although the 18-20% figure was based on statements in the referenced observational study by Zhang et al — which said that “the rate of reported statin related events to statins was nearly 18%,” the articles in The BMJ did not reflect necessary caveats and did not take sufficient account of the uncontrolled nature of the data of Zhang et al.”

Malhotra pointed out that, had the article been retracted, it would have been career-destroying for him, as it would have damaged his credibility. “I was on trial, essentially, for two months,” he says, “and it was very tough.” But when the panel came back, it voted 6-0, unanimous in favor of Malhotra’s study. “There was no call for retraction.”

Other research has also found unimpressive results for statin treatment, including a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 trials

using similar criteria to the CTT.

One of the authors, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., explained the study “found no consistent relationship between lowering LDL-C with statins and death, heart attack or stroke,” even though the “public health mantra about cholesterol has always been ‘the lower the better.’”

It also once again highlighted the misleading nature of using relative risk reduction in place of absolute risk:

“Statins are very effective at lowering LDL-C, but in some trials, that did not necessarily translate into a meaningful benefit for the patient. This contradicts the prevailing view, promoted by the CTT, that there is a strong “linear” relationship between lowering LDL-C and cardiovascular outcomes from statin therapy.

Our analysis also highlighted the significant difference in the relative risk reduction (RRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of statin therapy on death, heart attack and stroke.

For example, if your baseline risk of having a heart attack is 2% and taking a drug reduces that risk to 1%, then in relative terms you halved your risk (50% RRR) which sounds impressive, but in absolute terms, you have only reduced your risk by 1% (ARR).

Our analysis showed that trial participants taking a statin for an average of 4.4 years, showed a 29% RRR in heart attacks, but the ARR was only 1.3%. If this is not effectively communicated to a patient, can they make a fully informed decision about their treatment?”

In short, statin drugs have not derailed the rising trend of heart disease, and instead have put users at increased risk of health conditions linked to their use, such as diabetes,

dementia

and others, including:

  • Cancer

  • Cataracts

  • Musculoskeletal disorders, including myalgia, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, rhabdomyolysis and autoimmune muscle disease

  • Depression

In the event you’re taking statins, be aware that they deplete your body of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) and inhibit the synthesis of vitamin K2. The risks of CoQ10 depletion can be somewhat offset by taking a coenzyme Q10 supplement or, if you’re over 40, its reduced form ubiquinol. But ultimately, if you’re looking to protect both your brain and heart health, avoiding statin drugs and instead optimizing your diet.

If you’re interested in learning more about your individual heart disease risk, don’t rely on total cholesterol or LDL on their own. You can get a more accurate idea of your risk of heart disease with the following tests:

  • Omega-3 index

  • HDL/total cholesterol ratio

  • Fasting insulin level

  • Fasting blood sugar level

  • Triglyceride/HDL ratio

  • Iron level

I personally would never take or prescribe a statin drug as there are far better options that directly address the underlying and foundational causes of high cholesterol. The primary one, as most of you know, is to radically reduce and ideally eliminate all processed foods.

This is because nearly all processed foods contain seed oils and processed sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup, both of which contribute strongly to virtually every chronic degenerative disease, including the most common ones of heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Scientists Create Lab-Grown Frankenfish

  • An Israeli deep-tech food company developed a system to 3D print fish they claim has the same taste and texture as real fish; the process starts with harvesting cells from grouper fish, cultivating them in bioreactors and loading the raw material into a 3D printer

  • Cultivated meat and fish cells can get infected with bacteria or viruses, and since the cells have no immune system, producers will likely use antibiotics and fungicides to control pathogen growth

  • Experts believe the claim that mass production will be possible by 2030 is not based on science and is likely being used to funnel taxpayer dollars, a strategy fully supported by the White House, that announced biotech will be used to improve food security, sustainability and agricultural innovation

  • Synthetic meat is the epitome of ultraprocessed food, and it seems naive to think it won’t have similar health effects on you as other ultraprocessed junk foods, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and depression

  • Ultimately, the answer to food safety and security lies not in a biotech-centered food system controlled from the top down, but rather in a decentralized system that connects communities with farmers who grow real food in sustainable ways and distribute that food locally

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

The foundation for food manufacturers’ promotion of “Frankenfood” is the claim that lab-grown, plant-based, or 3D-printed meat and fish are humane, sustainable and environmentally friendly methods of food production. Yet, what the industry never talks about are the energy and water consumption required for these laboratory creations and the possible effects on human health.

What the fake meat industry doesn’t tell you is that their products are not healthy alternatives to natural meat, but are just another name for ultraprocessed food, filled with genetically engineered and pesticide-laden ingredients designed to look as much like meat as possible. Scientific evidence demonstrates that consuming ultraprocessed food can shorten your lifespan and increase your risk for chronic disease.

One of the key players in this agricultural agenda is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates’ desire for the widespread adoption of synthetic meat is tied to controlling the food supply. When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could be a global solution to protein, he said that in poor countries “we’ll have to use animal genetics,” and in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used” to it.

Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased 270,000 acres — much of it considered some of the richest soil in the U.S. — in the past few years.

The future of that farmland remains to be seen. Currently, Gates acts as a landlord and lets the farmers continue to work the land, “even if those practices are ruinous to the environment.”

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 wants the world to be eating.

For those who control resources like food and water, control of the food supply is part of “building back better,” and the power is limitless. Fake meats are not about your health or the environment; they are a tool to phase out farmers, ranchers and fishermen and replace them with a controllable ultraprocessed food product.

Not only is ultraprocessed lab-grown meat not a healthy choice, but its production is plagued with environmental and contamination concerns. Ironically, the real wave of the future won’t be found through technology, but through the return to regenerative farming practices that have been time-tested and valued across the ages.

Study Finds

calls the most recent fake meat product “Faux-let o’fish,” referring to the first cultivated fish filet produced through 3D printing technology by Israeli firm Steakholder Foods. The company boasts that production does not harm the environment or marine species and still has the taste and texture of real fish. The company uses the same propaganda statements as other fake meat companies, claiming it is a “sustainable” solution that will protect food security.

Mihir Pershad, CEO of Umami Meats, called the product “the world’s first whole filet cultivated fish.”

The reference to cultivated meat has been used to describe lab-grown products using cellular agriculture. During this process, “meat” is produced by first extracting a small tissue sample from the animal, which is then placed in a controlled environment and provided nutrients.

The cells are allowed to grow and multiply, eventually developing into muscle tissue that is processed into meat products. The company calls it a “slaughter-free solution” to produce seafood products and “an alternative to industrialized farming and fishing.”

The company celebrated the production of 3D-printed fish with a tasting that included the CEO of Steakholder Foods Arik Kaufman, CEO of Umami Meats Mihir Pershad, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Both Pershad

and Netanyahu

are members of the World Economic Forum.

Steakholder Foods claims production of the 3D-printed grouper is just one step in the path to using bioink and bioprinting technologies to facilitate the printing of a variety of species. The company does not make claims about the nutritional value of the Frankenfish filet.

3D printing is also called additive manufacturing, since the process constructs a three-dimensional object by adding layers of material to form a tangible, solid product. In the case of 3D food printing, nearly anything in a paste or liquid state can be used to 3D print food. In 2023,

most 3D-food printers are used in gourmet restaurants to produce intricate accents; bakers may also use them to produce edible wedding cake decorations.

Alt-Steak has produced plant-based 3D-printed meat, using “alt-muscle” (plant protein from peas and soybean), “alt-fat” (plant fats) and “alt-blood” (colors and flavors labeled as “natural” by the manufacturer, although they don’t say what all those “natural” ingredients might be), which are printed simultaneously.

 Stakeholder Foods cultivated grouper cells harvested by Umami Meats as the raw material for the 3D-printed faux-let o’fish.

David Humbird is a UC Berkeley-trained chemical engineer who spent over two years researching the cell culture process.

Speaking to a reporter from The Counter, he discussed the type of sterile environment these cells require to prevent cell and tissue loss from bacteria and viruses.

“[Animal cells] “grow so slowly that if we get any bacteria in a culture — well, then we’ve just got a bacteria culture. Bacteria grow every 20 minutes, and the animal cells are stuck at 24 hours. You’re going to crush the culture in hours with a contamination event.”

“There are documented cases of, basically, operators getting the culture sick. Not even because the operator themselves had a cold. But there was a virus particle on a glove. Or not cleaned out of a line. The culture has no immune system. If there’s virus particles in there that can infect the cells, they will. And generally, the cells just die, and then there’s no product anymore. You just dump it.”

The U.S. Armed Forces use the Department of Defense’s Combat Feeding Directorate to develop military rations that are tailored to optimize a soldier’s performance.

At the Food Engineering and Analysis Lab, scientists are using 3D-printed bars to address the nutritional requirements of individual soldiers.

The U.S. Armed Services hypothesizes that these printers may one day be synchronized with wearable sensors that determine a person’s nutritional needs in real-time and then create supplementary rations as needed. Hod Lipson from Columbia University believes they may allow people to customize their own culinary experiments at home creating tastes and textures that have never been sampled before.

In 2019,

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced the ReSource project they hoped would convert military waste, including plastic, into food and water. In November 2021,

they announced Phase 1 had been completed.

The ReSource program manager commented on the work, saying, “Part of what makes DARPA special is that we de-risk technologies to enable scientific innovation.” It should come as no surprise that since the military is willing to feed their soldiers plastic and refuse, that they embrace 3D-printed animal, vegetable and fish cells.

In November 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat,

claiming cultured meat could be economically feasible by 2030. Several experts have countered this claim with concerns that range from production to cost.

In an in-depth exposé by Joe Fassler,

The Counter’s deputy editor, he compares the science behind lab-grown or cultivated meat and the industry’s claims about the cells needed to produce 3D-printed meat or fish. Contamination is one issue. Fassler writes:

“If even a single speck of bacteria can spoil batches and halt production, clean rooms may turn out to be a basic, necessary precondition. It may not matter if governments end up allowing cultured meat facilities to produce at food-grade specs, critics say — cells are so intensely vulnerable that they’ll likely need protection to survive.”

Cost is another issue. Humbird spent two years preparing an analysis of the challenges faced by the industry. If a facility produced roughly 6.8 kilotons per year, it could not reach a cost-competitive price. According to the analysis, the cultivated meat would cost $17 per pound when produced in a 20,000-liter reactor and $23 per pound for a smaller reactor.

However, $17 a pound is for the single-celled slurry, which is only used for ground meat-style products. Humbird estimates that by the time ground meat-style product reaches the grocery store it would be $40 a pound, and approximately $100 for a quarter pounder hamburger at a restaurant.

Humbird’s analysis was countered by the GFI analysis, which used secret and proprietary data provided by 15 private companies and showed the industry could lower the production costs from $10,000 per pound in 2023 to roughly $2.50 per pound in the next nine years.

The GFI report makes it appear as if cultured meat is ready to be on grocery store shelves within the next decade. Fassler spoke with Paul Wood, a former pharmaceutical industry executive, who was outraged by GFI’s TEA report, which “did little to justify increased public investment” and “trafficked more in wishful thinking than in science.”

Wood hired Huw Hughes, a former Pfizer colleague and private consultant who’s worked on multiple sites to culture cells at scale, to analyze GFI’s analysis.

According to Fassler:

“Hughes concluded that GFI’s report projected unrealistic cost decreases, and left key aspects of the production process undefined, while significantly underestimating the expense and complexity of constructing a suitable facility.”

In his review,

Hughes wrote that “a finished product fit for consumption is not defined, and so estimating a cost for an acceptable consumer product is challenging.” Still, he estimated that the cost of 1 kilogram of cell culture product for human consumption would cost in excess of $8,500 to $3,600 per kilogram. “By comparison,” he wrote, “the wholesale price of trimmed chicken meat in the U.S. is $3.11.”

September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”

The order makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government, which they state will be used to “improve” food security, sustainability and agricultural innovation in the U.S.

In late March 2023, Biden, also a member of the World Economic Forum,

 expanded the plan in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report.

According to the report, the food industry is now to be led by biotech, and the “improvements” we can look forward to are more lab-grown meats and bioengineered plant foods.

In other words, the taxpayers will now be paying for the government to fund private corporations involved in the production of fake food. You only have to look at farm subsidies to recognize that the end result is predictable. Farm subsidies are used almost exclusively for large monoculture farms growing genetically engineered basic ingredients used in processed food.

This means the processed food industry is government-funded and grown on taxpayer dollars, all while public health dramatically deteriorates. The same will happen when the government subsidizes the next processed food industry — cultivated and 3D-printed meat and fish.

As the U.S. government moves at full speed to approve lab-grown meats, a Food Hazards Identification report

by the British Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland, published in March 2023, warns there are “considerable gaps in knowledge” when it comes to cell-based meat production. As reported by Food Safety News:

“The FSA report found there are several stages of development for producing cultured meat and at each one, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives, and supplements are used. The contamination risk of each input needs to be assessed, as any undesirable components that remain in the final product need to be at an acceptable exposure level or be food-grade and safe.”

Potential problem areas identified by the FSA included contamination, use of antibiotics or chemicals during production that are toxic to human health, cross-contamination of one cell line into another, new diseases and/or allergic reactions to new proteins and, most importantly, nutritional deficiencies.

Synthetic meat is the epitome of ultraprocessed food, and it seems naive to think it won’t have similar health effects as other ultraprocessed junk foods, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and depression.

Although proponents of the fake food industry claim it is sustainable and environmentally friendly, a 2022 review of the industry found ultraprocessed food:

“ … accounted for between 17 and 39% of total diet-related energy use, 36–45% of total diet-related biodiversity loss, up to one-third of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions, land use and food waste and up to one-quarter of total diet-related water-use among adults in a range of high-income countries.”

The industry claims that by expanding the manufacturing and consumption of more ultraprocessed food, it could magically lower greenhouse gas emissions despite currently being a large producer of the same emissions. As noted in a September 2022 Journal of Cleaner Production paper:

“Ultraprocessed foods are fundamentally unsustainable products; they have been associated with poor health and social outcomes and require finite environmental resources for their production … are responsible for significant diet-related energy, [and] greenhouse gas emissions.”

Increasing consumption of processed foods will worsen economic inequalities, as it redirects money away from small farmers to transnational corporations that rely on underpaid workers. Claims of food security and equity are not supported by reality, all of which will be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Ultimately, the answer to food safety and food security lies not in a biotech-centered food system that is controlled from the top down, but rather in a decentralized system that connects communities with farmers who grow real food in sustainable ways and distribute that food locally.

Strategies that can get us there were covered in the Children’s Health Defense’s March 4, 2023, Attack on Food symposium.

Food Sovereignty was primarily covered beginning at three hours and 45 minutes.

This section included helpful strategies on how to grow and preserve your own food, how to bolster local farmers and farmers’ markets, and larger legislative solutions to fight back against the war on food. This included comments by U.S. Rep Thomas Massie who highlighted core vulnerabilities in the food supply, which became blatantly evident during the pandemic.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.