From: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN Subject: We Will Rock You Date: Nov 17, 2020 at 10:21 PM
Thank You, Pat Benatar…anddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd…Cued and on Loop during these elegant, graceful, and completely conscious moments “painted” (energetic and more) NOW: Linda Ronstadt’s cover of WE WILL ROCK YOU…
This is one of the few videos of David’s which I actually watched live, from start to finish. Excellent, excellent, excellent history and summary of elections and election manipulations that has been done for decades (and centuries). Well worth the viewing, from my point of view.
I was able to download the audio (as mp3; 83 MB) and video (as mp4; 476 MB). Please remember these are property of David Wilcock (or Divine Cosmos or DivineCosmos.com or whatever company DW may have set up for this) and the mp3 / mp4 are for personal download and use only (not for reposting to YouTube or anywhere else).
In 2018, the baby bottle market across the world was valued at $2.6 billion. The plastic segment accounted for 44.1% of the overall share,1 but if you’re currently using plastic bottles for your baby, you may want to switch to glass after research revealed concerning microplastics may be released into their contents.2
Overall, it appears we have an addiction to plastic. In nearly every corner of your local store, products are covered in or made with plastic. Not only is it difficult to get rid of plastic without damaging the environment, but it appears our addiction is to all things disposable.
Across the world, 299 million tons of plastic were produced in 2013, much of which ended up in the oceans, threatening wildlife and the environment.3 In 2017, the U.S. alone generated 35.4 million tons of plastic and sent 26.8 million tons to landfills, which accounted for 13.2% of all municipal solid waste.4
Chemicals found in plastic products are known to act as endocrine disruptors, the most pervasive and well-known of which includes phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA).5
Endocrine disruptors are similar in structure to natural sex hormones, and they interfere with the normal functioning of those hormones in your body.6 This poses a particular problem for children who are still growing and developing.
According to Pete Myers, Ph.D., adjunct professor of chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University and founder, CEO and chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, there is evidence that plastic chemicals are harming the health of future generations through intergenerational endocrine disruption.7
He points out that no plastic has ever been thoroughly tested for safety, and that testing currently used is based on “16th-century principles.” As researchers continue to measure the amount and type of plastic we are ingesting, one team analyzed the number of microparticles that may be released in plastic baby bottles.
Plastic Baby Bottles Release Microparticles During Use
John Boland, Ph.D., Trinity College Dublin, and colleagues analyzed the release of microplastics from plastic baby bottles to which infants may be exposed while consuming formula.8
To collect their data, the scientists initially cleaned and sterilized new polypropylene bottles. Once the bottles had air-dried, the scientists added heated purified water that had reached 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit). This is the temperature for making formula recommended by the World Health Organization.9 The bottles were then added to a mechanical shaker for one minute.
The team filtered the water and analyzed the contents, discovering the bottles leaked a wide range of particles per liter of water, numbering up to 16.2 million plastic particles. The average number in the bottles tested reached 4 million particles for every liter of water. The experiment was repeated with baby formula and the results were the same. Boland commented on the study:10
“We were surprised by the quantity. Based on research that has been done previously looking at the degradation of plastics in the environment, we had a suspicion that the quantities would be substantial, but I don’t think anyone expected the very high levels that we found.”
The data also revealed the number of microplastics shed was dependent on water temperature and mechanics. The higher the temperature of the water when it reached the bottle, the more microplastics were released.
When the temperature was higher, the bottles released up to 55 million particles of microplastic.11 The experiment also demonstrated that shaking the bottles increased the number of microplastics released. Boland continued:12
“When we saw these results in the lab we recognized immediately the potential impact they might have. The last thing we want is to unduly alarm parents, particularly when we don’t have sufficient information on the potential consequences of microplastics on infant health.”
Infants May Ingest Up to 4.5 Million Particles a Day
The researchers predicted that, globally, infants up to 12 months old may be exposed to 14,600 to 4.55 million microplastic particles a day, depending on region, which is higher than previously recognized due to the widespread usage of polypropylene baby bottles.13
Whether or not this exposure poses a risk to infants’ health presents an “urgent need,” they added, and made several recommendations for parents who continue to use plastic baby bottles to help reduce the amount of microplastics their baby ingests.
The suggestions include reducing the bottle’s exposure to heat and shaking by preparing the formula in a glass container and transferring it to the baby bottle after it has cooled.14 Breastfeeding, if possible, would be an even better alternative that eliminates the need for bottles; however, glass baby bottles are also available.
For the study, the researchers used purified water and not standard drinking water. This means they may have even underestimated the number of plastic particles babies are exposed to. A study from the University of Newcastle looked at the “existing but limited” literature estimating the average amount of plastic ingested by humans.15
Calculations were made based on 33 studies of the consumption of plastic from food and beverages. The researchers estimated that the average person consumes 1,769 plastic particles from drinking water each week.16 Plastic particles are found in many water sources. In the U.S., 94.4% of all tap water samples contained plastic fibers, as did 82.4% of samples from India and 72.2% from Europe.
DARPA Awards Grant to Make Food From Plastic
If the inadvertent consumption of plastic is not enough, the abundance of manufactured plastic has turned the eyes of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) toward how to make plastic into food. DARPA awarded Iowa State University and partners a $2.7 million grant to make food from plastic and paper waste.17
They intend to use the resulting “food products” to improve military logistics in the field. The idea is to help with short-term nourishment for soldiers in the field and improve logistics for long missions. By the end of the project, they estimate the grant may reach $7.8 million.
Other partners include the American Institute of Chemical Engineers RAPID Institute, the University of Delaware and Sandia National Laboratories. The idea is to convert paper waste into sugars and plastics into fatty acids and fatty alcohols. The byproducts of these would then be processed into single cell biomass in the field.
Other examples of single cell proteins include Vegemite and nutritional yeast. Although DARPA has initiated the project for use by the military, it is not a stretch to think that such a system would be proposed as a means of providing inexpensive foodstuffs for others.
As explained in the press release from Iowa State University, the process could “go a long way toward solving looming problems of plastic disposal and ensuring a viable global food chain.”18
Principle investigator Robert Brown explained that the process under investigation would speed biodegradation of plastics “by raising the temperature a few hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The cooled product is used to grow yeast or bacteria into single cell protein suitable as food.”19
Lifetime Average Consumption of Plastic Is Shocking
Although drinking water is the largest source of microplastics in food and beverages, it is not the only source. Bottled water may contain even more plastic than tap water, and research has suggested those who drink bottled water exclusively “may be ingesting an additional 90,000 microplastics annually, compared to 4,000 microplastics for those who consume only tap water.”20
After testing 259 bottles of 11 bottled water brands, researchers found on average 325 pieces of microplastic per liter.21 The brands tested included Aquafina, Evian, Dasani, San Pellegrino and Nestle Pure Life. Based on findings from the World Wildlife Fund International study, Reuters created an illustration demonstrating how much plastic a person would consume over time.22
According to these estimations, you may consume 44 pounds of shredded plastic over 79 years. To put this in perspective, one car tire weighs about 20 pounds.23 So a lifetime supply of plastic consumption would be like slowly eating 2.2 car tires.
The long-term health risks of ingesting plastic particles are unknown. However, there is reason to be concerned. For instance, microplastics used for textile fibers make up 16% of the world’s plastic production.24 These plastics contain contaminants such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic, causing DNA damage that can lead to cancer.
The plastics also contain dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to toxic effects, including carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity. Since humans are exposed to a heavy toxic burden, it’s difficult to link health problems back to microplastics.
However, many of the chemicals used in their manufacture are also known to disrupt hormones and gene expression and cause organ damage. Research has also linked them to obesity,25 heart disease26 and cancer.27 To read more about the risks associated with plastic ingestion, see “How Do We Stop Our Dangerous Addiction to Plastic?”
Would You Like Some Plastic With Your Tea?
If you are working to reduce your exposure to plastics in your food and beverages, it may be surprising to learn where plastics are also lurking. Tea has been an important beverage in many cultures around the world and recognized for centuries for the dramatic and positive effects it has on health.
A soothing cup of hot tea may be just what your body needs to boost phytochemicals and other nutrients. But did you know that you may also be drinking 11.6 billion microplastic pieces and 3.1 billion nanoplastics with every cup of tea? Researchers from McGill University analyzed plastic pollution released from tea bags and found when the leaves were removed, the tea did not have plastic microparticles.28
However, the empty bags dumped billions of particles into the hot water, which researchers found at levels thousands of times greater than reported with other food and beverages. There are a significant number of health benefits in tea, so it is wise to continue drinking it, but consider substituting loose leaf tea for tea bags.
Yet another everyday item that carries more microplastics than you may have anticipated is sea salt. One study looked at salt sampled from around the world to analyze the geographical spread of microplastics and the correlation to where the pollution is found in the environment.
Only three brands from Taiwan, China and France did not have microplastic particles in the sea salt. Data showed the highest quantity of plastics were found in salt gathered off the coast of Asian countries.29
Research has also found tiny plastic particles in fruits and vegetables. The data showed apples had an average of 195,500 plastic particles in each gram. Pears came in second with 189,500 particles per gram. Earlier studies had demonstrated plants are absorbing nanoplastics through the roots, and fruits and vegetables can accumulate these microplastics. Greenpeace campaigner Sion Chan explained:30
“When we take a bite of an apple, we are almost certainly consuming microplastics along with it. To mitigate plastic pollution, corporations should enforce a reduction of plastic usage and waste in their supply chains. Supermarkets have gone pretty far with all the plastics! The faster we reduce our plastic footprint, the fewer microplastic we consume.”
What You Can Do to Reduce Your Use
Considering research confirms that environmental estrogens have multigenerational effects,31 it is wise to take proactive steps to limit your exposure. This is particularly important for younger people who have more years to accumulate plastic pollution and may be more vulnerable to its effects during development.
While it’s virtually impossible to steer clear of all sources, you can minimize your exposure by keeping some key principles in mind. Start the process slowly and make the changes a habit in your life so they stick.
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 or can settle on your food plates.
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. 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 all together.
Remove your fruit and vegetables from plastic bags immediately after coming home from the grocery store and wash before storing them.
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 are made from plasticizers such phthalates.
Use reusable shopping bags for groceries.
Take your own 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.
With more than 180 COVID-19 vaccines currently in development1 — 53 of them undergoing clinical trials in humans2 — manufacturers are racing to be the first to reach the market. Pfizer, in a joint venture with Germany-based BioNTech, may have just taken the lead, with an announcement that their mRNA-based vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, was “more than 90% effective” in a Phase 3 trial.3
BNT162b2 was selected to move forward to a Phase 2/3 trial after an earlier version of the vaccine, BNT162b1— another mRNA-based vaccine candidate — resulted in considerable adverse events,4 including fever, which occurred in 50% of individuals who received the highest dose (100 micrograms), fatigue, headache and chills.
Side effects were even more common following the booster dose, after which more than 70% of participants experienced a fever at the mid-range (30 microgram) dose. In fact, those in the high-dose group didn’t even get the booster dose after the side effects were deemed to be potentially too severe.
While the vaccines are similar, with the BNT162b2 vaccine, mRNA encodes the full-length spike protein. A spike protein is a glycoprotein protruding from the envelope of a coronavirus that allows entry into the cell.5 In an earlier study, while BNT162b2 appeared to cause fewer side effects, antibody titers were lower in a group of older individuals, ranging in age from 65 to 95 years, than in younger individuals.6
Geometric mean titers (GMTs), which are used as a measure of immune response, were about 40% lower among older individuals given Pfizer’s BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine than they were in younger age groups, a concerning finding considering it’s the older individuals who are most at risk from severe COVID-19.
Is Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine Really 90% Effective?
In a Phase 3 efficacy trial, a vaccine is given to thousands of people, while researchers wait to see how many end up infected compared to those given a placebo.7 Pfizer’s Phase 3 clinical trial began July 27, 2020 and enrolled 43,538 participants8 to date ranging in age from 12 years to over 55, with a minimum of 40% of participants in the over 55 age range.9
Participants received either a two-dose series of BNT162b2, given at the 30-microgram dose 21 days apart, or a placebo. Initially an interim analysis was set to be conducted after 32 COVID-19 cases, but “after discussion with the FDA,” they increased it to after a minimum of 62 cases. According to Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and CEO, in a press release:10
“Upon the conclusion of those discussions, the evaluable case count reached 94 and the DMC (Data Monitoring Committee) performed its first analysis on all cases.
The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a 2-dose schedule.”
Bourla added the caveat, “As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary.” In fact, there are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the reported 90% efficacy rate.
While Pfizer did release a clinical protocol of its trial,11 data for the interim analysis have not been released. “This is science by public pronouncement,” William Haseltine, an infectious disease expert and former Harvard medical professor, told Business Insider.12
COVID-19 Vaccine Trials ‘Designed to Succeed’
In September 2020, Haseltine criticized COVID-19 vaccine trials, including Pfizer’s, saying their protocols reveal that they’re “designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal.”13
He points out that prevention of infection is a critical endpoint in a normal vaccine trial, but prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for COVID-19 vaccines in development by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson. According to Haseltine:14
“Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines.
In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.”
He also explains that while most people expect that a vaccine will prevent serious illness in the event they’re infected, “Three of the vaccine protocols — Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca — do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.”15
Pfizer Didn’t Release Key Vaccine Data
While Pfizer is touting its vaccine as more than 90% effective based on 94 cases in their trial, “There are many, many outstanding questions which are left unanswered,” Haseltine said.16
One of the main unanswered questions has to do with asymptomatic infections, which aren’t regularly being tested for in Pfizer’s trial. It’s possible, then, that those who have been vaccinated could still be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19, spreading the disease to others.
“That’s a major point that I don’t think most people appreciate,” Haseltine told Business Insider. “It doesn’t mean an end to the epidemic.”17 It’s also unknown whether the vaccine reduced the number of cases of serious disease, hospitalizations and deaths, as no distinction was made between serious COVID-19 cases and those causing only minor symptoms.
Also missing from Pfizer’s press release is how the vaccine fared in different age groups, a key data point since older people are those most at risk of serious disease outcomes. It also remains to be seen how long any protection offered by a vaccine may last, as the study just began in July.
As for side effects, Pfizer’s Bourla said, “The DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns and recommends that the study continue to collect additional safety and efficacy data as planned.”18 Again, however, it’s far too soon to know whether the vaccine is safe. The timeline of the experimental COVID-19 vaccine is unprecedented as, on average, it can take 10 to 12 years for a vaccine to be developed and go through the normal licensing process.19
“We don’t know anything about groups they didn’t study, like children, pregnant women, highly immunocompromised people and the eldest of the elderly,” Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, told NBC News.20
As for potential adverse effects, in their clinical protocol Pfizer listed the following, noting that the first five participants in each group in phase 1 would be monitored for four hours after vaccination to assess adverse effects, while others would be observed for “at least 30 minutes.”21
Injection site redness, swelling and pain
Unknown adverse effects and laboratory abnormalities associated with a novel vaccine
Potential for increased exposure to SARS-CoV-2 because of the requirement to visit health care facilities during the trial
COVID-19 enhancement, stating, “Disease enhancement has been seen following vaccination with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), feline coronavirus, and Dengue virus vaccines.”
Coronavirus Vaccines May Enhance Disease
Even Pfizer acknowledged in their clinical protocol that COVID-19 disease enhancement is a real risk following certain vaccinations.22 In what’s known as antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, or sometimes called paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE). In these scenarios rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.23
Th2 immunopathology, in which a vaccine induces a faulty T cell response, triggering allergic inflammation, poorly functional antibodies and airway damage, is another serious risk.
Both ADE and Th2 immunopathology occurred in the 1960s when a vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was being developed, resulting in the death of two toddlers and serious illness in several other children who received the experimental vaccine.24
Similar concerns again surfaced in testing for a potential vaccine against another coronavirus, SARS, about 20 years ago. At the time, even long-time pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, was shaken. According to a feature published in PNAS:25
“When SARS, also a coronavirus, appeared in China and spread globally nearly two decades ago, Hotez was among researchers who began investigating a potential vaccine.
In early tests of his candidate, he witnessed how immune cells of vaccinated animals attacked lung tissue, in much the same way that the RSV vaccine had resulted in immune cells attacking kids’ lungs. ‘I thought, ‘Oh crap,’’ he recalls, noting his initial fear that a safe vaccine may again not be possible.”
Despite years of additional research and alternative development strategies, immune enhancement concerns remain, and, as explained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in our 2020 interview, coronavirus vaccines remain notorious for creating paradoxical immune enhancement.
mRNA Is a Novel Vaccine Technology
Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is relying on novel mRNA technology that has never previously been used in vaccines.26 It essentially instructs your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is what attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. This is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells.
The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will be stimulated to produce antibodies, without making you sick in the process. However, another key question that needs to be answered is which of two types of antibodies are produced through this process.
Coronaviruses produce both neutralizing antibodies,27 also referred to as immoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, that fight the infection, and binding antibodies28 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection. Instead of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies can trigger an abnormal immune response like ADE or PIE.
In trials of Moderna’s experimental COVID mRNA vaccine, 25 participants who received two doses of its low or medium dose vaccine had levels of binding antibodies — the type that are used by the immune system to fight the virus but do not prevent viral infections — at levels approximating or exceeding those found in the blood of patients who recovered from COVID-19.29
Data for the more significant neutralizing antibodies, which stop viruses from entering cells, were reported for only eight people.
Pfizer Has $1.95 Billion Deal With US Government
While the results of Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial remain murky, as part of Operation Warp Speed the drug giant has already struck a $1.95 billion deal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense to provide Americans with 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine after it is licensed — at no cost to recipients — with an option for 500 million additional doses.30 The agreement is part of Operation Warp Speed.
Pfizer and BioNTech also have a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million initial doses.31 The FDA’s guidance for a vaccine to receive Emergency Use Authorization requires only a median of two months of safety data following the second dose, which Pfizer expects to have by the third week of November.
At that point, they’re hoping to bring the experimental vaccine to market, with promises to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses, globally, in 2021.32 Upon Pfizer’s announcement that their vaccine showed 90% effectiveness, shares rose 16%. The next day, CEO Bourla sold 62% of his stock, an amount worth about $5.6 million.33
Does the Pfizer CEO know something we don’t? If and when the vaccine does become available, be sure to carefully weigh the risks versus the benefits before making a choice of whether or not to receive it.
It may help in your decision to know that 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 infection34 — and you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible and vitamin D replete.
“The Great Reset is about maintaining and empowering a corporate extraction machine and the private ownership of life.” — Vandana Shiva
By Jeremy Loffredo,
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) The Great Reset includes a plan to transform the global food and agricultural industries and the human diet. The architects of the plan claim it will reduce food scarcity, hunger and disease, and even mitigate climate change.
But a closer look at the corporations and think tanks the WEF is partnering with to usher in this global transformation suggests that the real motive is tighter corporate control over the food system by means of technological solutions.
Vandana Shiva, scholar, environmentalist, food sovereignty advocate and author, told The Defender, “The Great Reset is about multinational corporate stakeholders at the World Economic Forum controlling as many elements of planetary life as they possibly can. From the digital data humans produce to each morsel of food we eat.”
The WEF describes itself as “the global platform for public-private cooperation” that creates partnerships between corporations, politicians, intellectuals, scientists and other leaders of society to “define, discuss and advance key issues on the global agenda.”
According to WEF’s founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, the forum is guided by the goal of positioning “private corporations as the trustees of society” to “address social and environmental challenges.”
In July, Schwab published a 195-page book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” in which he challenged industry leaders and decision makers to “make good use of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste.”
TIME magazine (whose owner Marc Benioff is a WEF board member) recently partnered with the WEF to cover The Great Reset and to provide a “look at how the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to transform the way we live.”
The Great Reset is meant to be all-encompassing. Its partner organizations include the biggest players in data collection, telecommunications, weapons manufacturing, finance, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and the food industry.
The WEF’s plans for the “reset” of food and agriculture include projects and strategic partnerships that favor genetically modified organisms, lab-made proteins and pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals as sustainable solutions to food and health issues.
For example, WEF has promoted and partnered with an organization called EAT Forum. EAT Forum describes itself as a “Davos for food” that plans to “add value to business and industry” and “set the political agenda.”
EAT was co-founded by Wellcome Trust, an organization established with funds from GlaxoSmithKline and which still has strategic partnerships with the drugmaker. EAT collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia. The organization also assists the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in the “creation of new dietary guidelines” and sustainable development initiatives.
According to Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels, EAT network interacts closely with some of the biggest imitation meat companies, including Impossible Foods and other biotech companies, which aim to replace wholesome nutritious foods with genetically modified lab creations.
“They frame it as healthy and sustainable, which of course it is neither,” Leroy told The Defender.
Impossible Foods was initially co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. Recent lab results showed the company’s imitation meat contained glyphosate levels 11 times higher than its closest competitor.
EAT’s biggest initiative is called FReSH, which the organization describes as an effort to drive the transformation of the food system. The project’s partners include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and even tech giant Google.
“Companies like Unilever and Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies are already chemical processors — so many of these companies are very well positioned to profit off of this new food business which revolves around processing chemicals and extracts needed to produce these lab-made foods on a global scale,” Leroy said.
In Schwab’s book, he discusses how biotechnology and genetically modified food should become a central pillar to repairing global food scarcity issues, issues which COVID has revealed and exacerbated.
He writes “global food security will only be achieved if regulations on genetically modified foods are adapted to reflect the reality that gene editing offers a precise, efficient and safe method of improving crops.”
Shiva disagrees. She told The Defender that the “WEF is parading fake science,” and “for Mr. Schwab to promote these technologies as solutions proves that The Great Reset is about maintaining and empowering a corporate extraction machine and the private ownership of life.”
EAT developed what it refers to as “the planetary health diet,” which the WEF champions as the “sustainable dietary solution of the future.” But according to Leroy, it’s a diet that’s supposed to replace everything else. “The diet aims to cut the meat and dairy intake of the global population by as much as 90% in some cases and replaces it with lab-made foods, cereals and oil,” he said.
Shiva further explained, “EAT’s proposed diet is not about nutrition at all, it’s about big business and it’s about a corporate takeover of the food system.”
According to EAT’s own reports, the big adjustments the organization and its corporate partners want to make to the food system are “unlikely to be successful if left up to the individual,” and the changes they wish to impose on societal eating habits and food “require reframing at the systemic level with hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration and other economic and structural measures.”
But Shiva said this is the wrong approach, because “all of the science” shows that diets should be centered around regional and geographical biodiversity. She explained that “EAT’s uniform global diet will be produced with western technology and agricultural chemicals. Forcing this onto sovereign nations by multinational lobbying is what I refer to as food imperialism.”
Observers were shocked at a now viral video that shows environmental activist Greta Thunberg being unable to answer a basic question without a script. Thunberg has been lauded by the media establishment for her thunderous speeches denouncing world leaders who don’t take climate change seriously enough. However, when the teenage campaigner was asked a question […]
14 November 2020 RUSSIA TODAY — Richard Stengel, the point man on state-owned media for Joe Biden’s transition team, has said protection of hateful speech that can provoke violence is a “design flaw” in the Constitution […]