In part 1 of this series, we looked at a recent Rockefeller policy document calling for transformative change in food production and how that ties in with the new food agenda. In part 2, we examined the shady history of modern agribusiness and some of the wealthy elites and institutions promoting genetically modified crops and dangerous gene drive technologies.
In part 3, we will examine the real environmental crises affecting humanity every day yet ignored by many so-called activists and “philanthropists”. Starting with…
For decades, esteemed scientists and thinkers have warned us about the impact of poor nutrition on health. Among them are Sir Robert McCarrison, Dr Lawrence Plaskett, Weston Price and two-time Nobel prize winner, Dr Linus Pauling. Over the years, their warnings have either been ignored, subverted or discredited. One need only glance at the mainstream media to find claims along the lines of “vitamin supplements are nothing but expensive urine”.
Added to this is the fact that doctors (even those specializing in the gut) receive little to no education in nutrition. As is stated in the introduction to A Physician’s Handbook on Orthomolecular Medicine, “There is a wide spectrum of uninformed inexpert opinion regarding the practical importance of quality nutrition in our daily lives.” That was written in 1977 and sadly, it would appear still true to this day.
In 2002, researchers at Harvard Medical School published a paper titled Vitamins for Chronic Disease Prevention. Although their findings may have been obvious to orthomolecular practitioners decades prior, their conclusions were no less important, acknowledging the fact that most people do not consume an optimal amount of all vitamins by diet alone, and (albeit cautiously) advocating for the use of vitamin supplements for all adults.
Even more importantly, the researchers acknowledged the widespread health effects of suboptimal vitamin intake (even above the standard requirements).
“… Insufficient vitamin intake is apparently a cause of chronic diseases. Recent evidence has shown that suboptimal levels of vitamins, even well above those causing deficiency syndromes, are risk factors for chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis. A large proportion of the general population is apparently at increased risk for this reason.”(emphasis added)
Despite important findings like these, action is rarely taken to ensure that people are getting adequate amounts of nutrients. For example, it appears that hundreds of thousands of deaths could have been prevented in the UK alone, had the government acted on the compelling evidence for the benefits of folic acid.
Folic acid lowers levels of homocysteine, an amino acid that is related to heart attacks and strokes. Suboptimal levels of folic acid can also cause neural tube defects and contribute to cervical dysplasia, cancer, osteoporosis, and mental depression.
The recommended daily amount of most nutrients is arguably too low, failing to account for the benefits of optimal intakes. Furthermore, having one requirement for every person fails to take into account the uniqueness of each individual.
Vitamin D has been in the media recently because of research indicating that its effective at treating “Covid-19”. However, the importance of vitamin D, not just for preventing respiratory illnesses, but for treating a range of chronic diseases, has been known for at least 20 years. Despite this, vitamin D deficiency remains widespread.
According to researchers Vasquez, Cannell and Manso,
“Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency is an epidemic in the developed world that has heretofore received insufficient attention from clinicians despite documentation of its prevalence, consequences, and the imperative for daily supplementation at levels above the current inadequate recommendations of 200–600 IU.”
The reason for this is two-fold; first of all, physicians are working from an outdated understanding, seeing vitamin D as nothing but a bone nutrient (research indicates this is clearly not the case). And secondly, lab tests measuring vitamin D levels are set too low, under-appreciating the physiologic requirement for higher vitamin D levels.
The seriousness of vitamin D deficiency (a deficiency that can be easily righted through supplementation or education on the importance of sun exposure), has led some researchers to question the ethics of failing to treat such a widespread issue.
“Given the depth and breadth of the peer-reviewed research documenting the frequency and consequences of hypovitaminosis D, failure to diagnose and treat this disorder is ethically questionable (particularly in pregnant women) and is inconsistent with the delivery of quality, science based Healthcare.”
As with vitamin D, despite voluminous research showing its enormous benefits, magnesium deficiency is still widespread. Although we are rarely educated on the importance of this mineral, magnesium is essential for most bodily processes and suboptimal levels can result in a wide range of unpleasant (and sometimes fatal) symptoms.
The importance of magnesium is explained in a paper titled Magnesium in Prevention and Therapy,
“Magnesium is the fourth most abundant mineral in the body. It has been recognized as a cofactor for more than 300 enzymatic reactions, where it is crucial for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) metabolism. Magnesium is required for DNA and RNA synthesis, reproduction, and protein synthesis.”
“Low levels of magnesium have been associated with a number of chronic diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, insulin resistance and type-2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease (e.g., stroke), migraine headaches, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”
In her illuminating book The Magnesium Miracle, Dr Carolyn Dean devotes over 600 pages to the importance of this rarely-mentioned mineral. She also highlights the important, yet often overlooked, link between magnesium deficiency and mental illness.
“People do not get anxiety, panic attacks, or depression because they have a deficiency of Valium or Prozac. Our bodies do not require these substances for essential metabolic processes. However, we can develop a myriad of psychological symptoms because of a deficiency of magnesium, a nutrient our bodies do require.”
According to Dr Dean, commercial farms fail to replenish the depleted soil, and the magnesium that’s left cannot be absorbed by plants due to high potassium fertilizers or pesticide residues. Research has shown that Glyphosate, for example, binds with magnesium, preventing absorption.
As it turns out, the roots of many nutrient deficiencies can be traced back to the soil in which much of our food is grown.
Life Extension Magazine compared USDA food tables from 1963 to the present time and found a startling drop in nutrient content. Some vitamins have declined by up to 40%. For example, the amount of vitamin A in apples has declined from 90mg to just 53mg. The amount of potassium and magnesium in collard greens has dropped from 400mg to 170mg and from 57mg to 9mg respectively.
A similar trend is seen across virtually all other vegetables and fruits indicating that fruits and vegetables are losing their nutrient content at a rapid rate. More concerning is the fact the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) refuses to act. When Organic Gardening Magazine contacted the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service asking if they were concerned that Americans may not be getting adequate nutrients, they responded with indifference.
“The USDA is apparently unconcerned and not interested in the vitamin drain, despite its mandate to ensure high quality safe foods. In her letter to Organic Gardening, Ms. Johnson said that the nutritional content of produce is not as important as things like appearance and big yield.”
Lest one think that nutrient depletion is a crisis reserved for Americans, the same has been found to be true in the UK.
Mineral expert and Fellow of the Geological Society, David Thomas analysed the 6th edition of McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods and found a severe drop in nutrient content in most foodstuffs in the UK over the last 60 years. According to Thomas,
“McCance & Widdowson provide the most detailed and sophisticated historical records of the nutrient values of foods available to any nation worldwide.”
This makes the findings of his study all the more alarming. Thomas’ study is also not limited to fruits and vegetables. His analysis has revealed a drastic drop in nutrient content (especially essential minerals) across almost all food groups (this includes meat and dairy produce).
“Over the past 60 years there have been fundamental changes in the quality and quantity of food available to us as a nation. The character, growing method, preparation, source and ultimate presentation of basic staples have changed significantly to the extent that trace elements and micronutrient contents have been severely depleted.”
The primary criticism of Thomas’ research is that analytical methods were less accurate in the past and therefore, it’s invalid to compare nutrient contents. However, this appears to be a false claim as McCance and Widdowson themselves maintain that although analytical methods used in the past are now regarded as ‘primitive’, they were no less accurate than more modern methods of analysis.
The second criticism is that crop varieties have changed over the years, rendering any like-for-like comparison meaningless. However, this argument, too, misses the mark, for, even if crop varieties have changed, this does not change the fact that the nutritive value of the average person’s diet has decreased substantially.
Thomas sums up the severity of this nutrient crisis in the conclusion to his 2007 paper:
“What a dilemma we have found ourselves in. Research from all over the world has demonstrated the reality of the loss of micronutrients from our foods and provides evidence that micronutrient deficiencies significantly undermine our health, contributing towards chronic physiological and psychological illnesses in people of all ages.”
The manufacturing industry is responsible for emitting massive amounts of toxic chemicals into the environment and the effects of many of these are completely unknown.
The EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Protection (OCSPP) is the organization responsible for protecting people from the risks of pesticides and toxic chemicals exposures. The OCSPP does tests to assess tolerance levels of various chemicals and decides on the max levels of pesticide residues allowed on food.
However, as John Kepner of BeyondPesticides.com rightly argues,
“Pesticide exposures in the real world are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are a string of incidents marked by combinations of exposures”.
He goes on to say that,
“Scientists have argued for years that toxic exposures to pesticides should be measured as they would normally occur, in combination with one another. Yet, current federal law does not require this type of testing for pesticides on the market, except in very limited instances.”
Shockingly, according to the American Chemical Society (ACS),
“No one, not even the Environment Protection Agency, knows how many chemicals are in use today”.
If the EPA doesn’t even know how many chemicals are in use today, how can they assess their effects on people’ health? The answer is that they can’t. And the reasons for this stem from the EPA’s existing regulatory systems, which are set up to serve corporate interests over the health of the population. This is outlined extensively by Dawn Lester and David Parker in their book What Really Make You Ill,
“Existing regulatory systems… increasingly favour industry over the consumer; they allow the swift release of products onto the market but involve many difficulties for the removal of products after the discovery of any adverse effects.”
As if failing regulatory systems weren’t bad enough, whistleblowers within the EPA have recently revealed the huge pressure placed on scientists within the agency to minimize or remove evidence pointing to potential adverse effects of various chemicals. Some of these adverse effects include neurological disorders, birth defects and cancer.
According to The Intercept,
“On several occasions, information about hazards was deleted from agency assessments without informing or seeking the consent of the scientists who authored them. Some of these cases led the EPA to withhold critical information from the public about potentially dangerous chemical exposures.”
Some of these chemicals can disrupt the endocrine system. The endocrine system is what regulates all of the body’s biological processes. This includes the development of the brain and nervous system, the functioning of the reproductive system, blood sugar levels and much more.
The endocrine system relies on keeping a fine balance of different hormones, some of which are only present in trace amounts. “The dose makes the poison” is still the accepted dogma regarding the safety or toxicity of most chemicals. However, decades of research into the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have proven this theory incorrect. In fact, EDCs can have effects at low doses that aren’t predicted at higher doses.
Even more alarming is the fact that, for many years, no tests have existed to assess chemicals for possible endocrine-disrupting effects. As a result, none of the many thousands of chemicals in use today have been screened for such effects. According to a 2003 paper by Dr Theo Colborn,
“The list is growing of known endocrine disruptors having a wide range of mechanisms of action that can interfere with brain development.”
For nearly three decades, Dr Theo Colborn dedicated herself to studying the harmful effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals on biological life and the environment. In 2003, Dr Colborn founded The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), a nonprofit organization that, for 16 years, sought to “reduce the production and use of chemicals that interfere with healthy hormone function.”
Her research was fueled, in part, by the relatively recent explosion in many endocrine-related diseases, including autoimmune disorders, autism, asthma, diabetes, thyroid disease, ADHD and some forms of cancer. Last updated in September 2018, the TEDX list of known endocrine disruptors includes some 1,482 chemicals.
While seemingly a small percentage of all chemicals in use, this list only includes those chemicals that have shown signs of endocrine disruption in scientific research. As stated earlier, the vast majority of chemicals have not been tested for such properties. Therefore, we can be reasonably confident that the true number of endocrine disrupting chemicals in our environment is much higher.
Much of Dr Colborn’s findings are echoed in the research of Joseph Thornton, a researcher at Columbia University’s Earth Institute who specializes in the devastating effects of organochlorine pollution. Organochlorines are organic molecules that contain at least one covalently bonded chlorine atom. An example of a well-known organochlorine is DDT, a highly-toxic pesticide used widely during the 1940s and 1950s.
In his book, Pandora’s Poison, Thornton writes that,
“The production of chlorine gas from salt sets the stage for the purposeful and accidental production of a vast number of novel chemicals that disrupt natural systems at their most fundamental level. The practice of chlorine chemistry has unleashed a host of unintended chemical and ecological consequences that our most sophisticated technologies are not capable of preventing.”
Many organochlorines resist natural degradation and can build up in the environment. Some, such as dioxin do not break down at all and will remain in the environment almost indefinitely. This is incredibly worrying considering that organochlorines are released into the environment in immense quantities (the chlorine industry produces about 40 million tons of chlorine gas every year!).
As Thornton explains, many organochlorines are more soluble in fat than in water. This leads to them accumulating in the fatty tissues of living organisms, especially those near the top of the food chain (i.e. humans). According to Thornton,
“Species high on the food chain, such as humans, serve as living reservoirs where these contaminants accumulate in higher and higher concentrations.”
Due to their long lifetimes, organochlorines travel on wind currents, forming a global blanket of atmospheric contamination with grave consequences for human health and wellbeing. Thornton’s book outlines how the production of toxic chemicals has become one of the “most insidious environmental problems of our time”, contributing to infertility, immune suppression, cancer, and developmental disorders.
As mentioned earlier, endocrine disruptors can affect the fetal development of the reproductive system, which can sometimes lead to hermaphroditism. Indeed, research has found that an increasing number of children are being born with “intersex variation” (i.e. ambiguous genitalia).
In his book, Revolve: Man’s Scientific Rise to Godhood, Aaron Franz raises the disturbing possibility that the widespread environmental contamination with EDCs may be a deliberate act, one aimed at furthering the transhumanist goal of creating an androgynous man.
“Both male and female strength have been targeted for destruction. Not only have our gender roles been confused, we have actually been chemically bombarded as well. Chemical warfare has been waged on us to destroy our biological gender.”
As Franz explains in his book, transhumanists are quite serious about the need to transcend gender, a concept researchers refer to as “postgenderism”. Transhumanists see gender as something that limits us and they seek to move beyond it using technological means.
Another environmental contaminant that can affect the endocrine system is electromagnetic radiation.
In response to the planned EU and US rollout of 5G coverage in 2018, Martin Pall (Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University), compiled a detailed report, outlining eight likely pathophysiological effects that would be observed as a result of increased exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
These effects include neurological effects, endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, DNA mutations, reduced fertility and cancer. Professor Pall summed up his thoughts on the 5G rollout by calling it “the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”
The concern over 5G came in part due to the fact that the new technology did not undergo a single test of safety. Concerns surrounding increasing exposure to electromagnetic radiation are well-founded, considering the broad evidence we have to suggest that such exposure causes biological harm. In fact, Professor Pall estimates that there are over 14,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies showing adverse effects from EMFs at levels below the safety guidelines.
Studies have already proven that mobile phone radiation alone can reduce sperm counts and motility in men. A 2017 meta-analysis found an alarming decrease in sperm counts among men in technologically advanced nations. The researchers write that “research on the causes of this continuing decline is urgently needed”. However, if the cause emanates from a technology promoted by one of the richest and most powerful industries in the world, it’s unlikely that any further research will be conducted.
Studies have shown that EMFs can cause oxidative stress. It is hypothesized that this can in turn lead to the onset of a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders, some of which have seen growing prevalence in our modern society. This includes insomnia, fatigue, headaches, depression, anxiety, irritability, or worse, autism.
Another known effect of EMF exposure is an increased risk of cancer. A 25 million dollar study conducted by the National Toxicological Program (NTP) found an increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMFs below the ICNIRP “safety” guidelines. Eventually, even the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a branch of the World Health Organization) was forced to classify radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.
Research suggests that EMFs are also contributing to the decline of insect and bird populations around the world. In his illuminating book, The Invisible Rainbow, Arthur Firstenberg documents the rapid decline of many insect and bird species, including the humble house sparrow.
“A study conducted by zoologist Sainudeen Pattazhy in Kerala, India during 2008 and 2009 found that house sparrows were virtually extinct there…Pattazhy’s conclusion is the same as Balmori’s: cell towers are leaving sparrows no place to live.”
He then quotes Pattazhy as follows:
“Continuous penetration of electromagnetic radiation through the body of birds affects their nervous system and their navigational skills. They become incapable of navigation and foraging. The birds which nest near towers are found to leave the nest within one week.”
Bee populations are also declining in certain areas around the world. While the reason for this may be multi-faceted, research suggests that one of the causes may be electromagnetic radiation. A 2019 paper published in Science of The Total Environment found that chronic radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure significantly reduced the hatching of honey bee queens. Other studies have found disturbing behavioural changes in bees exposed to EMFs.
Despite all of this evidence pointing to biological harm, little has been done to reduce people’s exposure to harmful RF radiation. This increasingly serious environmental crisis could have been prevented had authorities put in place adequate safety measures. However, as with Big Pharma and Big Agribusiness, Big Wireless is a multi-billion dollar industry that puts profit and control above what’s ethically and morally right.
In a 2018 article, Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Professor of Electromagnetic Toxicology at McGill University, spells out the corruption lurking within the regulatory bodies that set and oversee the safety guidelines for RF radiation.
“…Aware of the enormous potential of this market [i.e. the wireless industry], engineers managed to have these radiations characterized harmless, through 50 years of sustained efforts, by infiltrating and monopolizing standardization committees.”
The so-called “safety guidelines” are set by The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an organization that claims its aim is to “protect people and the environment against adverse effects of non-ionizing radiation (NIR)”. However, in a report titled The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G by Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi, they come to a rather different conclusion regarding the nature of the ICNIRP.
“ICNIRP presents itself, and is described by the European Commission and in the media, as an independent international commission that gives advice based on scientific evidence. We believe that there are various reasons to question this (self)-image.”
An important finding of Buchner and Rivasi is that the majority of ICNIRP scientists have completed or are currently doing research funded (at least in part) by industry. They also found that the new RF safety guidelines published by the ICNIRP in 2020 were a result of cooperation with the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and the ICES (International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety), two organizations that work closely with large telecom companies.
In 2014, the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. However, 5 out of 6 members of the Core Group in charge of the draft were affiliated with the ICNIRP, a flagrant conflict of interest. A 2017 article describes a later meeting at the WHO where officials showed little interest in collaborating with scientists who were invited to present evidence on the adverse health effects of EMFs. The article concludes as follows:
“In view of the huge economic interests built into the ICNIRP guidelines, and several of its expert members’ ties to industry, no doubt this is a large conflict of interest that will seriously undermine not only the credibility of the Monograph on RF radiation but also the credibility of WHO as a protector of world health”.
The increasing density of electromagnetic radiation on the ground pails in comparison to the impending bombardment from space. In his January 2022 newsletter, Arthur Firstenberg tallies up the number of operating, approved and proposed low-orbit satellites, arriving at the startling figure of 441,449 satellites. Included in this total are over 40,000 SpaceX satellites (almost 12,000 of which have already been approved), planned to form part of Elon Musk’s “Starlink” network, providing 5G access worldwide. Firstenberg writes that,
“While the attention of a terrified world has been riveted on a virus, and while concern about radiation has been focused on 5G on the ground, the assault on the heavens has reached astronomical proportions.”
Reports have emerged asserting that the FCC, in granting Musk permission to launch so many satellites, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), by failing to assess the environmental impact of deploying so many satellites into low-earth orbit.
According to Firstenberg, the environmental impact will be catastrophic. It is well known that the emissions from rocket launches damage the ozone layer, but what Firstenberg is most worried about is the effect on the ionosphere.
“What everyone is completely blind to is the effect of all the radiation from satellites on the ionosphere, and consequently on the life force of every living thing… The circuit that is generated by the ionosphere and that flows perpetually between the Yang (positive) heaven and the Yin (negative) earth. The circuit that connects us to earth and sky and that flows through our meridians giving us life and health. A circuit that must not be polluted with frequencies emitted by a hundred thousand satellites, some of whose beams will have an effective power of up to ten million watts. That is sheer insanity, and so far no one is paying attention.”
The Climate Crisis: It’s Not What You Think
While much emphasis is put on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and billions of dollars are funnelled into shady climate funds, it appears that none of the global “elite” have an interest in combating the above-mentioned crises.
We must ask ourselves: what is being done to replenish the nutrient content of our food? What steps are environmental protection agencies taking to ban toxic chemicals and remove organochlorines from the atmosphere? What is being done to reduce our exposure to harmful electromagnetic radiation and establish safer methods of communication?
Make no mistake, the real environmental crises are not spoken about at the G20 Summit, they are not reported on in the mainstream media and they will not be solved for us by governments, bankers, philanthropists, or technocrats.
 Roger J. Williams and Dwight K. Kalita. A Physician’s Handbook on Orthomolecular Medicine. 1977.
 Carolyn Dean, M.D, N.D. The Magnesium Miracle. 2003.
 Food Standards Agency (2002) McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods, Sixth summary edition. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. (see the foreword to the 5th edition).
 Dawn Lester, David Parker. What Really Makes You Ill: Why Everything You Thought You New About Disease Is Wrong. 2019.
 Joseph Thornton. Pandora’s Poison: Chlorine, Health and a New Environmental Strategy. 2001.
 Aaron Franz. Revolve: Man’s Scientific Rise to Godhood. 2012.
 Interview with Martin L. Pall, PhD, “How Wireless Causes Harm”. 5G Summit. 2019.
 Arthur Firstenberg. The Invisible Rainbow, a History of Electricity and Life. 2017.