Monsanto Lawsuit Blacked out by Media

monsanto media black out

monsanto media black out

What happens when one courageous attorney and a few citizens try to take down Monsanto? The MSM doesn’t cover it, for starters.

Efforts to publicize a class action lawsuit against Monsanto for false advertising it’s best-selling herbicide Roundup filed in Los Angeles County Court on April 20, 2015 have been rejected by almost every mainstream media outlet.

It’s no different than Fox, NBC, CNN, or ABC refusing to cover the DARK ACT which would give Monsanto legal immunity and disallow states to demand GMO labeling.

You would think that coverage of something the whole world wants to see – the first step toward the successful downfall of Monsanto –would be a hot news item; a newsworthy tidbit that every paper, radio station, and blog would want to spread across their pages with double bold headlines. But wait. . . just six corporations own ALL of the media in America, so there isn’t much luck there.

That’s why you have to go to sites like Russia Insider or Al Jazeera to find real news outside of certain alternative news channels in the US, and even those are white-washed from Facebook pages, and given secondary ratings on Google pages.

Matthew Phillips, the attorney suing Monsanto in California for false advertising on Roundup bottles, has asked the LA Times, New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, and Reuters, one of the world’s largest news agencies to report on the lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942), and most enforced a total media blackout.

When I spoke with Phillips over the phone, he said that he has tried posting the suit in Wikipedia’s Monsanto litigation section, but it keeps ‘disappearing.’ He says that he has also noticed posts on Facebook about this lawsuit get removed.

Phillips points out that as long as Monsanto can keep this lawsuit off of most of America’s radar, then his client base would be relegated to just the citizens of California.

If other attorneys were to follow his template-style lawsuit, which he wrote in English, devoid of extraneous legal-speak to encourage others to also take action against Monsanto, then suddenly the plaintiff count could be closer to several million. That is if you were to tally up all the citizens in the US who have purchased a bottle of Roundup from their local DIY store (Lowe’s, Home Depot or Ace Hardware, for example) in the last four years, not suspecting it could demolish their gut health.

Another possibility, according to Phillips, is that Monsanto could try to bump the case up to federal court in order to try to side-step a likely adverse judgment. But in this case the class action suit would also be open to residents other than those of just California. This is surely an idea that Monsanto doesn’t want seeded in the American psyche.

Phillips is extremely confident he has the goods on Monsanto in this case, and barring a sold out judge:

“This is a slam-dunk lawsuit that exposes Monsanto for LYING about Roundup. Contrary to the label, Roundup does indeed target and kill enzymes found in humans — in our gut bacteria — and this explains America’s chronic indigestion!”

His enthusiasm is palpable, as many well-known scientists and professors emeritus have offered to be key witnesses in this suit when it goes to trial. The attorney says he refuses to ‘settle’ the case and hopes that 49 additional attorneys in 49 states use his case as an example. He joked:

“When we allege that Roundup’s targeted enzyme is found in humans, it’s like alleging that the Golden Gate Bridge is found in California.”

The facts of the case really are that obvious.

Phillips also states that ‘false advertising’ and ‘misleading’ are synonyms in California law, so the fact that Monsanto has stated that there are enzymes in its product that don’t target humans – well that’s beyond just misleading. This obvious misjudgment by Monsanto is a well-known secret among many anti-GM scientists. This enzyme is definitely found in humans.

Here is how ‘misleading’ Monsanto’s statement that, “Round Up targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals,” truly is:

EPSP synthase, also known as (3-phosphoshikimate 1-carboxyvinyltransferase) is found in the microbiota that reside in our intestinal tracts, and therefore the enzyme is “found in humans and animals.” It is partly responsible for immunity activation and even helps our gut and our brains communicate with one another.

EPSP synthase is among other beneficial microbes that produce neurometabolites that are either neurotransmitters or modulators of neurotransmission.

“These could act directly on nerve terminals in the gut or via ‘transducer’ cells such as enterochromaffin cells present throughout the intestinal tract and are accessible to microbes and in contact with afferent and efferent nerve terminals. Some of these cells may also signal and therefore modulate immune cell activity.”

Furthermore, although this will not be addressed in Phillip’s lawsuit:

“There is increasing evidence that exposure to Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, may be an underlying cause of autism spectrum disorders (see [19]).  Glyphosate, the active ingredient, acts through inhibition of the 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS synthase) enzyme in the shikimate pathway that catalyses the production of aromatic amino acids. This pathway does not exist in animals, but it does exist in bacteria, including those that live in the gut and are now known to be as much a part of our body as our own cells. A widely accepted dogma is that glyphosate is safe due to the lack of the EPSPS enzyme in our body. This however does not hold water now that the importance of our microbiota to our physiology is clear.”

Though Monsanto is only being sued for false advertising in this case, it is an important precedent to set in order to eventually take down one of the biotech giants that is poisoning the planet. It should send a clear message to Dow, Bayer, Cargill, and Syngenta as well.

 

Source:  Globalresearch.ca

Babies using Smart Phones

baby using smart phones

baby using smart phones

More than one-third of babies are tapping on smartphones and tablets even before they learn to walk or talk, and by 1 year of age, one in seven toddlers is using devices for at least an hour a day, according to a study to be presented Saturday, April 25 at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in San Diego.

The American Academy of Pediatrics discourages the use of entertainment media such as televisions, computers, smartphones and tablets by children under age 2. Little is known, however, when youngsters actually start using mobile devices.

Researchers developed a 20-item survey to find out when young children are first exposed to mobile media and how they use devices. The questionnaire was adapted from the “Zero to Eight” Common Sense Media national survey on media use in children.

Parents of children ages 6 months to 4 years old who were at a hospital-based pediatric clinic that serves a low-income, minority community were recruited to fill out the survey. Participants were asked about what types of media devices they have in their household, children’s age at initial exposure to mobile media, frequency of use, types of activities and if their pediatrician had discussed media use with them.

Results from 370 parents showed that 74 percent were African-American, 14 percent were Hispanic and 13 percent had less than a high school education. Media devices were ubiquitous, with 97 percent having TVs, 83 percent having tablets, 77 percent having smartphones and 59 percent having Internet access.

Children younger than 1 year of age were exposed to media devices in surprisingly large numbers: 52 percent had watched TV shows, 36 percent had touched or scrolled a screen, 24 percent had called someone, 15 percent used apps and 12 percent played video games.

By 2 years of age, most children were using mobile devices.

Lead author Hilda Kabali, MD, a third-year resident in the Pediatrics Department at Einstein Healthcare Network, said the results surprised her.

“We didn’t expect children were using the devices from the age of 6 months,” she said. “Some children were on the screen for as long as 30 minutes.”

Results also showed 73 percent of parents let their children play with mobile devices while doing household chores, 60 percent while running errands, 65 percent to calm a child and 29 percent to put a child to sleep.

Time spent on devices increased with age, with 26 percent of 2-year-olds and 38 percent of 4-year-olds using devices for at least an hour a day.

Finally, only 30 percent of parents said their child’s pediatrician had discussed media use with them.

Source:  disinformation.com

Jewish Predatory Agenda

jewish manipulation

jewish manipulation

 

Richard Dawkins recently remarked that the Israel Lobby controls American foreign policy, Daniel Finkelstein, a Jewish editor of the London Times “Comments” section heard Nazi storm troopers banging on his door. “So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power.” Finkelstein sighed. “And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened. All I can manage is, Oh My God.” Finkelstein’s outburst is ironic. Here is a Jewish opinion gatekeeper, employed by a Jewish press magnate (Rupert Murdoch), shocked at the mention of Jewish power, persuading the public that the very suggestion is in bad taste. He cannot be accused of objectivity. The Times is not just any newspaper. It has been the voice of the British establishment for more than 100 years. Along with Chatham House (the RIIA) and Tavistock, it is a principal instrument of the cabal that governs England and most of the world. That cabal consists of Jewish central bankers and British (European and American) aristocracy united by money, marriage and a belief in the occult (Freemasonry.) I object to the term “the Jews” when obviously we are talking about very rich and powerful Jews who have intermarried with rich and powerful Gentiles. Sid the tailor does not control the world. I do not control the world.We are talking about rich Jews who most other Jews wouldn’t even recognize: they are Freemasons. They worship Lucifer and think God is evil. I represent that silent majority of average Jews, who have assimilated, and support the national interest. Rich Jews will want ordinary Jews to take the fall when opposition grows to their predatory agenda and anti-Semitism increases. Anti-Semitism never made any headway in Europe in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century until rich Jews decided to sponsor it. There is no way Hitler would have come to power without the backing of world finance. Hitler was Time Magazine “Man of the Year” in 1938. Stalin, another Freemason created by the Money Power, took the honor in 1939. Hey let’s have a war between the two! The central bankers owned I.G. Farben, the backbone of the Nazi war machine. Max Warburg was a Director until 1938. In March 1941 the Warburg family and employees were spirited out of Nazi Europe by the SS. Hitler so hated the Jewish bankers that he had them escorted to safety in a private train. Assimilated and religious Jews who did not serve the bankers’ interests were the main victims of Nazi persecution. Zionists, on the other hand, were spared. These same Zionists put ordinary Jews on trains to Auschwitz telling them they were being “resettled.” If the past is a guide, in an economic or social breakdown, the bankers will focus blame on their pawns, Zionists or neo nons, or preferably Jews in general. This is why patriotic Jews must disassociate from the bankers and their minions now. What is Anti-Semitism? Anti-Semitism might be called anti-imperialism. At heart, it is opposition to the plan of the central bankers, based in the City of London, to “gradually absorb the wealth of the world” and establish a masked “world government” dictatorship. This involves stupefying and degrading society through faux education, porn and violence; and bankrupting and brutalizing us through war, pandemics and domestic repression. It involves destroying “all collective forces except our own” which means destroying all race, religion, (God), nation and family. They use social engineering like diversity, feminism, multiculturalism and homosexuality to accomplish these aims. (I like homosexuals & different races; I just don’t think they should be used as a weapon.) The bankers place cooperative Jews in positions of control. The stigma attached to anti-Semitism is a form of mind control used to immunize their agents and their agenda against criticism. The Holocaust is callously used for this purpose. If we think of anti-Semitism in terms of opposition to the bankers’ political and cultural policy rather than to a race, it can be justified. The key is to distinguish between Jews who advance the New World Order and those who do not.

 

jewish supremacy

jewish supremacy