The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy: How the New World Order, Man-Made Diseases, and Zombie Banks Are Destroying America

by Jim Marrs

  GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

  ANOTHER PUBLIC CONCERN HAS been over nontraditional, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods. Such organisms have had their genes altered by scientists in a laboratory to help the crop resist weeds, insects, and diseases; increase its nutrients; or lengthen its shelf life.

  Beginning in 2006, more than twelve hundred lawsuits were filed against Bayer CropScience AG claiming damages caused by the firm’s genetically modified (GM) rice seeds. Although the rice was not approved for human consumption, Bayer—along with Louisiana State University—had been testing the rice for resistance to the company’s Liberty herbicide. Farmers in five states claimed the modified rice had escaped and contaminated commercial rice supplies in more than 30 percent of America’s ricelands. When the USDA announced that trace amounts of the GM rice had been found in U.S. long-grain rice stocks, there was a 14 percent decline in rice futures, which meant lower prices paid for crops. Growers claimed this cost them $150 million.

  “Bayer did not keep track of its genetically modified seed,” argued attorneys for the rice growers. “This is a living, growing organism. That’s why you have to be so careful.”

  But a major focal point of concern in the debate over GMOs is Monsanto. Headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri, this multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation is the world’s leading producer of GM seeds as well as pesticides. In 2005, Monsanto was reaching into other areas of food. The company applied for two patents with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva for exclusive ownership of GM pigs.

  “If these patents are granted, Monsanto can legally prevent breeders and farmers from breeding pigs whose characteristics are described in the patent claims, or force them to pay royalties,” warned Greenpeace researcher Christoph Then. “It’s a first step toward the same kind of corporate control of an animal line that Monsanto is aggressively pursuing with various grain and vegetable lines.”

  Some semblence of sanity was brought to this issue on March 29, 2010, when U.S. district court judge Robert W. Sweet struck down two patents on human genes that had been linked to ovarian and breast cancer. This decision sent a chill through the multibillion-dollar corporations that today claim patent rights on about 20 percent of human genes. Judge Sweet’s 152-page decision, involving gene patents of the Myriad Genetics company, stated the patents were “improperly granted” as they involved a “law of nature.” He agreed with gene patent opponents, who argued that the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable was merely “a ‘lawyer trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”

  Some researchers see Monsanto as attempting to dictate what farmers will grow and what consumers will eat. The agricultural giant produces patented seeds (termed “Terminator” seeds) designed to not reproduce, meaning farmers each year will have to buy more Monsanto seeds. Several recent court cases involved Monsanto attorneys suing farmers who illegally, or even unknowingly thanks to the winds, ended up with Monsanto’s patented crops growing in their fields. Such activity has made Monsanto a prime target for antiglobalization and environmental activists.

  Interest in modifying genetic material increased after a March 2009 report was released that stated that South African farmers lost millions of dollars when eighty-two thousand hectares of Monsanto GM corn failed to produce hardly any seeds. Although the manufacturer, Monsanto, offered compensation for the losses, Mariam Mayet, director of the Africa Centre for Biosecurity in Johannesburg, demanded an immediate ban on all GM foods and a government investigation.

  But at least in this case only crops were lost. During 2008, an underreported epidemic took place in India, when thousands of desperate farmers were driven to suicide when they could not get out of debt. While Monsanto claimed that their weevil-resistant cotton would produce larger crops, they failed to mention they would require much more water, an ingredient in short supply. In 2003, more than seventeen thousand Indian farmers had committed suicide. The numbers have simply grown ever since, creating both mystery and controversy. Although the suicides were caused primarily by bankruptcy, many believe these bankruptcies in part came as a result of the promotion of Monsanto GM seeds.

  Though the suicide epidemic seems complex to those studying it, there has been more and more scrutiny directed at the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the biochemical firm Monsanto. Curiously, the suicides began around 1998, the same year the WTO allowed corporate giants like Monsanto into India’s seed market. Nonrenewable genetically modified crops soon replaced the self-sustainable farming system that India had used for thousands of years. Farmers were obligated to purchase not only GM seed but also the chemical pesticides produced by Monsanto for those crops.

  According to Jessica Long of Montreal’s nonprofit Centre for Research on Globalization, “Seventy-five percent of cultivable Indian land exists in dry zones. Non-GM rice utilizes 3,000 liters of water in order to produce one kilo, while non-renewable hybrid rice requires 5,000 liters per kilo!…Continuous GM cotton crop failures resulted in the state of Andrha Pradesh, the seed capital of India, prohibiting the sales of [Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium used as a pesticide] cotton varieties by Monsanto.”

  Due to the ongoing controversy over the use of GM seeds, in 2008 the Indian government forced Monsanto to reduce royalties received from its patented seeds.

  “The economic disparity of Indian farmers only increases as they try to keep up with the lowest import prices. It is estimated that they are losing $26 billion annually,” stated Long. “While 90 percent of farm loans come from money lenders, they are charged anywhere from 36–50 percent interest, placing them in a cyclical mode of poverty. Surely poverty alone cannot be responsible for such massive amounts of bloodshed! After all, poverty has always existed, so what is it about current conditions that have led to all this bloodshed? The fact is that mass suicides have transformed these farmers into agrarian martyrs for peasants everywhere.”

  Monsanto officials denied that their firm was behind the deaths, explaining on the company website: “The reality is that the tragic phenomena of farmer suicides in India began long before the introduction of Bollgard [Monsanto’s herbicide] in 2002. Farmer suicide has numerous causes with most experts agreeing that indebtedness is one of the main factors. Farmers unable to repay loans and facing spiraling interest often see suicide as the only solution.” Although bankruptcy was the obvious cause of most of India’s suicides, many blamed Monsanto’s genetically modified crops, which required more water than traditional crops, as well as Monsanto’s herbicides for farmers’ losses.

  “By claiming global monopoly patent rights throughout the entire food chain, Monsanto seeks to make farmers and food producers, and ultimately consumers, entirely dependent and reliant on one single corporate entity for a basic human need. It’s the same dependence that Russian peasants had on the Soviet Government following the Russian revolution. The same dependence that French peasants had on Feudal kings during the Middle Ages. But control of a significant proportion of the global food supply by a single corporation would be unprecedented in human history,” warned Brian Thomas Fitzgerald of Greenpeace.

  In January 2010, a study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences reported that researchers, after analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, linked Monsanto’s GM corn to kidney and liver damage in rats. Monsanto officials were quick to state that the research was “based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products.” However, the study’s author, Gilles-Eric Séralini, responded, “Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the o
nly careful reanalysis of Monsanto’s crude statistical data.”

  Awareness about GMOs in foods can be traced back as early as 2002. Although the FDA, EPA, and USDA all have stated that their research shows no long-term health risks from GMO foods, Dr. Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and one of Scotland’s leading experts in tissue diseases, warned in a report to a government health committee that eating GM food could cause cancer. In a report to a government health committee, Ewen expressed “great concern” about the use of the cauliflower mosaic virus as a “promoter” in GM foods that could increase the risk of stomach and colon cancers. Ewen wrote that the infectious virus is used like a tiny engine to drive implanted genes to express themselves and could encourage the growth of polyps in the stomach or colon. “The faster and bigger the polyps grow, the more likely they are to be malignant,” he wrote, adding, “It is possible cows’ milk will contain GM derivatives that can be directly ingested by humans as milk or cheese. Even a lightly cooked, thick fillet steak could contain active GM material.”

  Cancer was only one of some fifty harmful effects of GMO foods and growth hormones listed in a research article by nutritionist Nathan Batalion that included a warning from Harvard biology professor Dr. George Wald, a Nobel Laureate in Medicine.

  “Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. This direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics,” stated Wald.

  Monsanto’s growth hormone IGF-1 has been linked to increased risk of human colorectal and breast cancer in studies both in the United States and Canada. However, the FDA downplayed the significance of such studies.

  Reflecting concern over the safety of GMOs, the UN’s Food Safety Agency, representing 101 nations worldwide, in 1999 ruled unanimously to continue a 1993 European moratorium on Monsanto’s genetically engineered hormonal milk (rBGH). This ban was not reported in the American media, further indicating the extent of Monsanto’s influence in the media.

  Award-winning journalists Steve Wilson and Jane Akre both were fired when they tried to expose the cover-up of such studies as well as the ban on growth hormones in Europe. According to the Goldman Environmental Prize website, “As investigative reporters for the Fox Television affiliate in Tampa, Florida, [Wilson and Akre] discovered that while the hormone had been banned in Canada, Europe and most other countries, millions of Americans were unknowingly drinking milk from rBGH-treated cows. The duo documented how the hormone, which can harm cows, was approved by the government as a veterinary drug without adequately testing its effects on children and adults who drink rBGH milk. They also uncovered studies linking its effects to cancer in humans. Just before broadcast, the station cancelled the widely promoted reports after Monsanto, the hormone manufacturer, threatened Fox News with ‘dire consequences’ if the stories aired. Under pressure from Fox lawyers, the husband-and-wife team rewrote the story more than eighty times. After threats of dismissal and offers of six-figure sums to drop their ethical objections and keep quiet, they were fired in December, 1997.”

  The addition of unsafe, even toxic, chemicals to food and water may be attributed to laxity and greed on the part of producers, but when coupled with the public statements of leading globalists concerning the desire to reduce the human population, which will be discussed later, it takes on a much darker aspect.

  CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

  ONE WOULD THINK THAT a good diet with plenty of vitamins might help prevent disease and malnutrition, but even here the New World Order may interfere.

  The World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948 with the goals of setting global standards of health and helping governments to strengthen national health programs. The WHO and the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) work together in committees, conferences, and commissions. One of their most significant joint efforts is the Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “food code”) Commission, which sets standards for food commodities, codes for hygiene and technology, pesticide evaluations, and limits on pesticide residues. It also evaluates food additives and veterinary drugs and sets guidelines for contaminants. Approximately 170 nations accept its standards and codes.

  In recent years, controversy had grown over the application of food standards to traditional vitamins and mineral supplements. A major cause for concern by nutritionists is that the Codex Alimentarius list is recognized by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is feared that the WTO will use Codex Alimentarius standards in disputes over the classification of vitamins as food.

  Such fears are not irrational since in 1996 the German delegation to the Codex Alimentarius Commission advocated a ban on herbs, vitamins, and minerals sold for preventative or therapeutic reasons and advanced a position that supplements should be classified as drugs with attendant restrictions and physician prescriptions. Though the commission agreed, there was an aftermath of such public protest that passage of the new classifications was postponed. As protests waned in mid-2005, the commission quietly adopted guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements, allowing member countries to regulate dietary supplements as drugs or other categories. Although the new classifications do not yet ban supplements outright, they do subject them to labeling and packaging requirements, set criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and require that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources.

  Should supplements become as inaccessible as prescription drugs, John Hammell, founder of International Advocates for Health Freedom (IAHF), believes that the average consumer will lose out on the benefits of simple remedies like herbs, vitamins, minerals, homeopathic remedies, and amino acids. “The name of the game for Codex Alimentarius is to shift all remedies into the prescription category so they can be controlled exclusively by the medical monopoly and its bosses, the major pharmaceutical firms,” said Hammell.

  Despite government denials that this could occur, the Codex Alimentarius proposals are today law in Norway and Germany, where the entire health-food industry has literally been taken over by the drug companies. Hammell explained that in these countries, vitamin C above 200 mg is illegal as is vitamin E above 45 IU, vitamin B1 over 2.4 mg, and so on. “The same is true of ginkgo and many other herbs, and only one government-controlled pharmacy has the right to import supplements as medicines which they can sell to health food stores, convenience stores or pharmacies,” he added.

  Opponents paint the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a “shady, secretive organization [that is] the thinly-veiled propaganda arm of the international pharmaceutical industry that does everything it can to promote industry objectives whilst limiting individual options to maintain health (which would diminish members’ profits).”

  Behind the Codex Alimentarius Commission is the UN and the WHO. According to critics, both organizations are working for multinational pharmaceutical corporations and international banks whose owners support reducing the human population through such means as reducing the availability of necessary minerals in the human diet. This, in turn, could increase the occurrences of various debilitating diseases such as cancer and diabetes, the number three cause of death in adults in the United States.

  Citing a study at the University of Vancouver Medical School, naturopathic physician and author Dr. Joel D. Wallach indicated that vanadium, a soft white metallic element found in certain minerals, could replace insulin in adult onset diabetics, a condition representing 85 percent of all diabetics.

  In a 2005 speech, Wallach said, “I’ve seen it work on hundreds and hundreds of people. Now to me this is criminal. If you write to Hills Packing Company that makes Science Diet dog food…high tech foods for animals…and say, ‘How many minerals, exactly, is in Science Diet dog food?’ They’ll write back there’s 40 minerals. You write Checkerboard Square in St. Louis, Ralston Puri
na, and say ‘Just how many minerals are in your rat pellets for laboratory rats?’ They’ll say there are 28 minerals. I’ll give anybody…a crisp new $100 bill if you can find me a human infant formula in a grocery store that has more than 11 [minerals]…. So dogs get 40 minerals, rats get 28 minerals, and human infants get 11. Is that fair? No! Doesn’t matter if you’re talking about SMA, Similac, Isomilk, ProSoyB. In fact, that’s why they call Similac, Similac, because it lacks everything.”

  While efforts in the United States to curtail vitamins and supplements have been stymied by public opposition, proponents found another ally in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has now made Codex a trade issue. At the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (which created the World Trade Organization), the United States agreed to submit its laws to the international standards, which included the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s standards for dietary supplements. What this means is that now Codex Alimentarius is enforced by the WTO, whose international standards could supersede domestic laws without the American people’s consent or vote in the matter.

  According to Hammell, if a country disagrees with or refuses to follow Codex standards, the WTO can apply pressure by withdrawing trade privileges and imposing crippling trade sanctions.

  The WTO was established with the understanding it was to push the world toward greater economic integration. However, according to many, the WTO has ended up politicizing trade by putting the stamp of officialdom on some very bad policies and promotes further loss of American sovereignty to supranational organizations. According to Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., president and founder of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, “The WTO has the power to order Congress to change any U.S. law the WTO deems a ‘barrier to free trade.’ If Congress does not obey the WTO, then American businesses and consumers will face trade sanctions. Congress has already changed America’s tax laws in response to WTO commands. It is possible that the WTO will force America to adopt the restrictive regulations of foods and dietary supplements endorsed by the UN’s CODEX commission.”