offguardian--2020-04-24--Toxic Agriculture and the Gates Foundation

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was launched in 2000 and has $ 46.8 billion in assets ( December 2018 ) .
It is the largest charitable foundation in the world and distributes more aid for global health than any government .
One of the foundation ’ s stated goals is to globally enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty .
The Gates Foundation is a major funder of the CGIAR system ( formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research ) – a global partnership whose stated aim is to strive for a food-secured future .
Its research is aimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security , improving human health and nutrition and ensuring sustainable management of natural resources .
In 2016 , the Gates Foundation was accused of dangerously and unaccountably distorting the direction of international development .
The charges were laid out in a report by Global Justice Now : ‘ Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good ?
’ According to the report , the foundation ’ s strategy is based on deepening the role of multinational companies in the Global South .
On release of the report , Polly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy at Global Justice Now , said : She added that this concentration of power and influence is even more problematic when you consider that the philanthropic vision of the Gates Foundation seems to be largely based on the values of ‘ corporate America ’ : The report ’ s author , Mark Curtis , outlines the foundation ’ s promotion of industrial agriculture across Africa , which would undermine existing sustainable , small-scale farming that is providing the vast majority of food across the continent .
Curtis describes how the foundation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an $ 8 million project to “ develop the soya value chain ” in southern Africa .
Cargill is the biggest global player in the production of and trade in soya with heavy investments in South America where GM soya monocrops ( and associated agrochemicals ) have displaced rural populations and caused health problems and environmental damage .
According to Curtis , the Gates-funded project will likely enable Cargill to capture a hitherto untapped African soya market and eventually introduce GM soya onto the continent .
The Gates Foundation is also supporting projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including DuPont , Syngenta and Bayer .
It is effectively promoting a model of industrial agriculture , the increasing use of agrochemicals and patented seeds , the privatisation of extension services and a very large focus on genetically modified crops .
What the Gates Foundation is doing is part of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ( AGRA ) initiative , which is based on the premise that hunger and malnutrition in Africa are mainly the result of a lack of technology and functioning markets .
Curtis says AGRA has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments ’ agricultural policies on issues like seeds and land , opening up African markets to US agribusiness .
More than 80 % of Africa ’ s seed supply comes from millions of small-scale farmers recycling and exchanging seed from year to year .
But AGRA is promoting the commercial production of seed and is thus supporting the introduction of commercial ( chemical-dependent ) seed systems , which risk enabling a few large companies to control seed research and development , production and distribution .
The report notes that over the past two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national seed law reviews , sponsored by USAID and the G8 along with Bill Gates and others , has opened the door to multinational corporations ’ involvement in seed production , including the acquisition of every sizeable seed enterprise on the African continent .
The Gates Foundation is also very active in the area of health , which is ironic given its promotion of industrial agriculture and its reliance on health-damaging agrochemicals .
This is something that has not been lost on environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason .
Mason notes that the Gates Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patented seeds .
She adds that the Gates Foundation is also reported to be collaborating in Bayer ’ s promotion of “ new chemical approaches ” and “ biological crop protection ” ( i.e .
encouraging agrochemical sales and GM crops ) in the Global South .
After having read the recent ‘ A Future for the World ’ s Children ?
A WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission ’ , Mason noticed that pesticides were conspicuous by their absence and therefore decided to write to Professor Anthony Costello , director of the UCL Institute for Global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the report .
In her open 19-page letter , ‘ Why Don ’ t Pesticides Feature in the WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission ?
’ , she notes in the Costello-led report that there is much talk about greater regulation of marketing of tobacco , alcohol , formula milk and sugar-sweetened beverages but no mention of pesticides .
But perhaps this should come as little surprise : some 42 authors names are attached to the report and Mason says that in one way or another via the organisations they belong to , many ( if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
The Gates Foundation is a prominent funder of the World Health Organization and UNICEF .
Gates has been the largest or second-largest contributor to the WHO ’ s budget in recent years .
His foundation provided 11 % of the WHO ’ s entire budget in 2015 , which is 14 times greater than the UK government ’ s contribution .
Perhaps this sheds some light onto why a major report on child health would omit the effects of pesticides .
Mason implies this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on toxics Baskut Tuncak said in a November 2017 article in the Guardian : Mason notes that in February 2020 , Tuncak rejected the idea that the risks posed by highly hazardous pesticides could be managed safely .
He told Unearthed ( GreenPeace UK ’ s journalism website ) that there is nothing sustainable about the widespread use of highly hazardous pesticides for agriculture .
Whether they poison workers , extinguish biodiversity , persist in the environment or accumulate in a mother ’ s breast milk , Tuncak argued that these are unsustainable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have been phased out of use long ago .
In his 2017 article , he stated : Tuncak added that paediatricians have referred to childhood exposure to pesticides as creating a “ silent pandemic ” of disease and disability .
He noted that exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects , diabetes , and cancer and stated that children are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals : increasing evidence shows that even at ‘ low ’ doses of childhood exposure , irreversible health impacts can result .
He concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry-funded studies , the exclusion of independent science from assessments and the confidentiality of studies relied upon by authorities must change .
However , it seems that the profits of agrochemical manufacturers trump the rights of children and the public at large : a joint investigation by Unearthed and the NGO Public Eye has found the world ’ s five biggest pesticide manufacturers are making more than a third of their income from leading products , chemicals that pose serious hazards to human health and the environment .
Mason refers to an analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s top-selling ‘ crop protection products ’ which revealed the world ’ s leading agrochemical companies made more than 35 % of their sales from pesticides classed as “ highly hazardous ” to people , animals or ecosystems .
The investigation identified billions of dollars of income for agrochemical giants BASF , Bayer , Corteva , FMC and Syngenta from chemicals found by regulatory authorities to pose health hazards like cancer or reproductive failure .
This investigation is based on an analysis of a huge dataset of pesticide sales from the agribusiness intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detailed market research all over the world and sells databases and intelligence to pesticide companies .
The data covers around 40 % of the $ 57.6bn global market for agricultural pesticides in 2018 .
It focuses on 43 countries , which between them represent more than 90 % of the global pesticide market by value .
While Bill Gates promotes a chemical-intensive model of agriculture that dovetails with the needs and value chains of agri-food conglomerates , Mason outlines the spiraling rates of disease in the UK and the US and lays the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations that Gates has opted to get into bed with .
She focuses on the impact of glyphosate-based herbicides as well as the cocktail of chemicals sprayed on crops .
Mason has discussed the health-related impacts of glyphosate in numerous previous reports and in her open letter to Costello again refers to peer-reviewed studies and official statistics which indicate that glyphosate affects the gut microbiome and is responsible for a global metabolic health crisis provoked by an obesity epidemic .
Moreover , she presents evidence that glyphosate causes epigenetic changes in humans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear .
However , the mainstream narrative is to blame individuals for their ailments and conditions which are said to result from ‘ lifestyle choices ’ .
Yet Monsanto ’ s German owner Bayer has confirmed that more than 42,700 people have filed suits against Monsanto alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto covered up the risks .
Mason says that each year there are steady increases in the numbers of new cancers and increases in deaths from the same cancers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the numbers ; at the same time , she argues , these treatments maximise the bottom line of the drug companies while the impacts of agrochemicals remains conspicuously absent from the disease narrative .
She states that we are exposed to a lifetime ’ s exposure to thousands of synthetic chemicals that contaminate the blood and urine of nearly every person tested – “ a global mass poisoning.
” As part of its hegemonic strategy , the Gates Foundation says it wants to ensure global food security and optimise health and nutrition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that the Gates Foundation seems happy to ignore the deleterious health impacts of agrochemicals while promoting the interests of the firms that produce them , but it facilitates many health programmes that help boost the bottom line of drug companies .
Health and health programmes seem only to be defined with certain parameters which facilitate the selling of the products of the major pharmaceutical companies which the foundation partners with .
Indeed , researcher Jacob Levich argues that the Gates Foundation not merely facilitates unethical low-cost clinical trials ( with often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Global South but also assists in the creating new markets for the “ dubious ” products of pharmaceuticals corporations .
As for food security , the foundation would do better by supporting agroecological ( agrochemical-free ) approaches to agriculture , which various high-level UN reports have advocated for ensuring equitable global food security .
But this would leave smallholder agriculture both intact and independent from Western agro-capital , something which runs counter to the underlying aims of the corporations that the foundation supports – dispossession and market dependency .
And these aims have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have seen the strengthening of an emerging global food regime based on agro-export mono-cropping linked to sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF ‘ structural adjustment ’ directives .
The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry , the consolidation of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas .
While Bill Gates is busy supporting the consolidation of Western agro-capital in Africa under the guise of ensuring ‘ food security ’ , it is very convenient for him to ignore the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1960s Africa was not just self-sufficient in food but was actually a net food exporter with exports averaging 1.3 million tons a year between 1966-70 .
The continent now imports 25 % of its food , with almost every country being a net food importer .
More generally , developing countries produced a billion-dollar yearly surplus in the 1970s but by 2004 were importing US $ 11 billion a year .
The Gates Foundation promotes a ( heavily subsidised and inefficient – certainly when the externalised health , social and environment costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the strengthening of a global neoliberal , fossil-fuel-dependent food regime that by its very nature fuels and thrives on , among other things , unjust trade policies , population displacement and land dispossession ( something which the Gates Foundation once called for but euphemistically termed “ land mobility ” ) , commodity monocropping , soil and environmental degradation , illness , nutrient-deficient diets , a narrowing of the range of food crops , water shortages , pollution and the eradication of biodiversity .
At the same time , the foundation is helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge .
For instance , since 2003 , CGIAR ( mentioned at the start of this article ) and its 15 centres have received more than $ 720 million from the Gates Foundation .
In a June 2016 article in The Asian Age , Vandana Shiva says the centres are accelerating the transfer of research and seeds to corporations , facilitating intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP laws and seed regulations .
Besides taking control of the seeds of farmers in CGIAR seed banks , Shiva adds that the Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) is investing heavily in collecting seeds from across the world and storing them in a facility in Svalbard in the Arctic — the ‘ doomsday vault ’ .
The foundation is also funding Diversity Seek ( DivSeek ) , a global initiative to take patents on the seed collections through genomic mapping .
Seven million crop accessions are in public seed banks .
Shiva says that DivSeek could allow five corporations to own this diversity and argues : She notes that the peasants who evolved this diversity have no place in DivSeek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not recognised , honoured or conserved : an enclosure of the genetic commons .
This process is the very foundation of capitalism – appropriation of the commons ( seeds , water , knowledge , land , etc . )
, which are then made artificially scarce and transformed into marketable commodities .
The Gates Foundation talks about health but facilitates the roll-out of a toxic form of agriculture whose agrochemicals cause immense damage .
It talks of alleviating poverty and malnutrition and tackling food insecurity but it bolsters an inherently unjust global food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insecurity , population displacement , land dispossession , privatisation of the commons and neoliberal policies that remove support from the vulnerable and marginalised , while providing lavish subsidies to corporations .
The Gates Foundation is part of the problem , not the solution .
To more fully appreciate this , let us turn to a February 2020 article in the journal Globalizations .
Its author , Ashok Kumbamu , argues that the ultimate aim of promoting new technologies – whether GM seeds , agrochemicals or commodified knowledge – on a colossal scale is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commodities , create dependency and bring all farming operations into the capitalist fold .
To properly understand Bill Gates ’ s ‘ philanthropy ’ is not to take stated goals and objectives at face value but to regard his ideology as an attempt to manufacture consent and prevent and marginalise more radical agrarian change that would challenge prevailing power structures and act as impediments to capitalist interests .
The foundation ’ s activities must be located within the hegemonic and dispossessive strategies of imperialism : displacement of the peasantry and subjugating those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global distribution and supply chains dominated by the Western agri-food conglomerates whose interests the Gates Foundation facilitates and legitimizes .
The full text of Rosemary Mason ’ s 19-page document ( with relevant references ) – ‘ Why Don ’ t Pesticides Feature in the WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission ?
’ – can be accessed via the academia.edu website ) You can read about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ’ s role in the current coronavirus pandemic here .

Colin Todhunter
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was launched in 2000 and has $46.8 billion in assets (December 2018). It is the largest charitable foundation in the world and distributes more aid for global health than any government. One of the foundation’s stated goals is to globally enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty.
The Gates Foundation is a major funder of the CGIAR system (formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) – a global partnership whose stated aim is to strive for a food-secured future. Its research is aimed at reducing rural poverty, increasing food security, improving human health and nutrition and ensuring sustainable management of natural resources.
In 2016, the Gates Foundation was accused of dangerously and unaccountably distorting the direction of international development. The charges were laid out in a report by Global Justice Now: ‘Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?’ According to the report, the foundation’s strategy is based on deepening the role of multinational companies in the Global South.
On release of the report, Polly Jones, the head of campaigns and policy at Global Justice Now, said:
The Gates Foundation has rapidly become the most influential actor in the world of global health and agricultural policies, but there’s no oversight or accountability in how that influence is managed.”
She added that this concentration of power and influence is even more problematic when you consider that the philanthropic vision of the Gates Foundation seems to be largely based on the values of ‘corporate America’:
The foundation is relentlessly promoting big business-based initiatives such as industrial agriculture, private health care and education. But these are all potentially exacerbating the problems of poverty and lack of access to basic resources that the foundation is supposed to be alleviating.”
The report’s author, Mark Curtis, outlines the foundation’s promotion of industrial agriculture across Africa, which would undermine existing sustainable, small-scale farming that is providing the vast majority of food across the continent.
Curtis describes how the foundation is working with US agri-commodity trader Cargill in an $8 million project to “develop the soya value chain” in southern Africa. Cargill is the biggest global player in the production of and trade in soya with heavy investments in South America where GM soya monocrops (and associated agrochemicals) have displaced rural populations and caused health problems and environmental damage.
According to Curtis, the Gates-funded project will likely enable Cargill to capture a hitherto untapped African soya market and eventually introduce GM soya onto the continent.
The Gates Foundation is also supporting projects involving other chemical and seed corporations, including DuPont, Syngenta and Bayer. It is effectively promoting a model of industrial agriculture, the increasing use of agrochemicals and patented seeds, the privatisation of extension services and a very large focus on genetically modified crops.
What the Gates Foundation is doing is part of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) initiative, which is based on the premise that hunger and malnutrition in Africa are mainly the result of a lack of technology and functioning markets. Curtis says AGRA has been intervening directly in the formulation of African governments’ agricultural policies on issues like seeds and land, opening up African markets to US agribusiness.
More than 80% of Africa’s seed supply comes from millions of small-scale farmers recycling and exchanging seed from year to year. But AGRA is promoting the commercial production of seed and is thus supporting the introduction of commercial (chemical-dependent) seed systems, which risk enabling a few large companies to control seed research and development, production and distribution.
The report notes that over the past two decades a long and slow process of national seed law reviews, sponsored by USAID and the G8 along with Bill Gates and others, has opened the door to multinational corporations’ involvement in seed production, including the acquisition of every sizeable seed enterprise on the African continent.
Gates, pesticides and global health
The Gates Foundation is also very active in the area of health, which is ironic given its promotion of industrial agriculture and its reliance on health-damaging agrochemicals. This is something that has not been lost on environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason.
Mason notes that the Gates Foundation is a heavy pusher of agrochemicals and patented seeds. She adds that the Gates Foundation is also reported to be collaborating in Bayer’s promotion of “new chemical approaches” and “biological crop protection” (i.e. encouraging agrochemical sales and GM crops) in the Global South.
After having read the recent ‘A Future for the World’s Children? A WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission’, Mason noticed that pesticides were conspicuous by their absence and therefore decided to write to Professor Anthony Costello, director of the UCL Institute for Global Health, who is the lead author of the report.
In her open 19-page letter, ‘Why Don’t Pesticides Feature in the WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission?’, she notes in the Costello-led report that there is much talk about greater regulation of marketing of tobacco, alcohol, formula milk and sugar-sweetened beverages but no mention of pesticides.
But perhaps this should come as little surprise: some 42 authors names are attached to the report and Mason says that in one way or another via the organisations they belong to, many (if not most) have received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Gates Foundation is a prominent funder of the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Gates has been the largest or second-largest contributor to the WHO’s budget in recent years. His foundation provided 11% of the WHO’s entire budget in 2015, which is 14 times greater than the UK government’s contribution.
Perhaps this sheds some light onto why a major report on child health would omit the effects of pesticides. Mason implies this is a serious omission given what the UN expert on toxics Baskut Tuncak said in a November 2017 article in the Guardian:
Our children are growing up exposed to a toxic cocktail of weedkillers, insecticides, and fungicides. It’s on their food and in their water, and it’s even doused over their parks and playgrounds. Many governments insist that our standards of protection from these pesticides are strong enough. But as a scientist and a lawyer who specialises in chemicals and their potential impact on people’s fundamental rights, I beg to differ. Last month it was revealed that in recommending that glyphosate – the world’s most widely-used pesticide – was safe, the EU’s food safety watchdog copied and pasted pages of a report directly from Monsanto, the pesticide’s manufacturer. Revelations like these are simply shocking.
Mason notes that in February 2020, Tuncak rejected the idea that the risks posed by highly hazardous pesticides could be managed safely. He told Unearthed (GreenPeace UK’s journalism website) that there is nothing sustainable about the widespread use of highly hazardous pesticides for agriculture.
Whether they poison workers, extinguish biodiversity, persist in the environment or accumulate in a mother’s breast milk, Tuncak argued that these are unsustainable, cannot be used safely and should have been phased out of use long ago.
In his 2017 article, he stated:
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most ratified international human rights treaty in the world (only the US is not a party), makes it clear that states have an explicit obligation to protect children from exposure to toxic chemicals, from contaminated food and polluted water, and to ensure that every child can realise their right to the highest attainable standard of health. These and many other rights of the child are abused by the current pesticide regime. These chemicals are everywhere and they are invisible.
Tuncak added that paediatricians have referred to childhood exposure to pesticides as creating a “silent pandemic” of disease and disability. He noted that exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects, diabetes, and cancer and stated that children are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals: increasing evidence shows that even at ‘low’ doses of childhood exposure, irreversible health impacts can result.
He concluded that the overwhelming reliance of regulators on industry-funded studies, the exclusion of independent science from assessments and the confidentiality of studies relied upon by authorities must change.
However, it seems that the profits of agrochemical manufacturers trump the rights of children and the public at large: a joint investigation by Unearthed and the NGO Public Eye has found the world’s five biggest pesticide manufacturers are making more than a third of their income from leading products, chemicals that pose serious hazards to human health and the environment.
Mason refers to an analysis of a huge database of 2018’s top-selling ‘crop protection products’ which revealed the world’s leading agrochemical companies made more than 35% of their sales from pesticides classed as “highly hazardous” to people, animals or ecosystems. The investigation identified billions of dollars of income for agrochemical giants BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC and Syngenta from chemicals found by regulatory authorities to pose health hazards like cancer or reproductive failure.
This investigation is based on an analysis of a huge dataset of pesticide sales from the agribusiness intelligence company Phillips McDougall. This firm conducts detailed market research all over the world and sells databases and intelligence to pesticide companies. The data covers around 40% of the $57.6bn global market for agricultural pesticides in 2018. It focuses on 43 countries, which between them represent more than 90% of the global pesticide market by value.
While Bill Gates promotes a chemical-intensive model of agriculture that dovetails with the needs and value chains of agri-food conglomerates, Mason outlines the spiraling rates of disease in the UK and the US and lays the blame at the door of the agrochemical corporations that Gates has opted to get into bed with. She focuses on the impact of glyphosate-based herbicides as well as the cocktail of chemicals sprayed on crops.
Mason has discussed the health-related impacts of glyphosate in numerous previous reports and in her open letter to Costello again refers to peer-reviewed studies and official statistics which indicate that glyphosate affects the gut microbiome and is responsible for a global metabolic health crisis provoked by an obesity epidemic. Moreover, she presents evidence that glyphosate causes epigenetic changes in humans and animals – diseases skip a generation then appear.
However, the mainstream narrative is to blame individuals for their ailments and conditions which are said to result from ‘lifestyle choices’. Yet Monsanto’s German owner Bayer has confirmed that more than 42,700 people have filed suits against Monsanto alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto covered up the risks.
Mason says that each year there are steady increases in the numbers of new cancers and increases in deaths from the same cancers, with no treatments making any difference to the numbers; at the same time, she argues, these treatments maximise the bottom line of the drug companies while the impacts of agrochemicals remains conspicuously absent from the disease narrative.
She states that we are exposed to a lifetime’s exposure to thousands of synthetic chemicals that contaminate the blood and urine of nearly every person tested – “a global mass poisoning.”
Gates Foundation in perspective
As part of its hegemonic strategy, the Gates Foundation says it wants to ensure global food security and optimise health and nutrition.
However, Rosemary Mason alludes to the fact that the Gates Foundation seems happy to ignore the deleterious health impacts of agrochemicals while promoting the interests of the firms that produce them, but it facilitates many health programmes that help boost the bottom line of drug companies.
Health and health programmes seem only to be defined with certain parameters which facilitate the selling of the products of the major pharmaceutical companies which the foundation partners with. Indeed, researcher Jacob Levich argues that the Gates Foundation not merely facilitates unethical low-cost clinical trials (with often devastating effects for participants) in the Global South but also assists in the creating new markets for the “dubious” products of pharmaceuticals corporations.
As for food security, the foundation would do better by supporting agroecological (agrochemical-free) approaches to agriculture, which various high-level UN reports have advocated for ensuring equitable global food security. But this would leave smallholder agriculture both intact and independent from Western agro-capital, something which runs counter to the underlying aims of the corporations that the foundation supports – dispossession and market dependency.
And these aims have been part of a decades-long strategy where we have seen the strengthening of an emerging global food regime based on agro-export mono-cropping linked to sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF ‘structural adjustment’ directives. The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry, the consolidation of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas.
While Bill Gates is busy supporting the consolidation of Western agro-capital in Africa under the guise of ensuring ‘food security’, it is very convenient for him to ignore the fact that at the time of decolonisation in the 1960s Africa was not just self-sufficient in food but was actually a net food exporter with exports averaging 1.3 million tons a year between 1966-70.
The continent now imports 25% of its food, with almost every country being a net food importer. More generally, developing countries produced a billion-dollar yearly surplus in the 1970s but by 2004 were importing US$ 11 billion a year.
The Gates Foundation promotes a (heavily subsidised and inefficient – certainly when the externalised health, social and environment costs are factored in) corporate-industrial farming system and the strengthening of a global neoliberal, fossil-fuel-dependent food regime that by its very nature fuels and thrives on, among other things, unjust trade policies, population displacement and land dispossession (something which the Gates Foundation once called for but euphemistically termed “land mobility”), commodity monocropping, soil and environmental degradation, illness, nutrient-deficient diets, a narrowing of the range of food crops, water shortages, pollution and the eradication of biodiversity.
At the same time, the foundation is helping powerful corporate interests to appropriate and commodify knowledge. For instance, since 2003, CGIAR (mentioned at the start of this article) and its 15 centres have received more than $720 million from the Gates Foundation.
In a June 2016 article in The Asian Age, Vandana Shiva says the centres are accelerating the transfer of research and seeds to corporations, facilitating intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP laws and seed regulations.
Besides taking control of the seeds of farmers in CGIAR seed banks, Shiva adds that the Gates Foundation (along with the Rockefeller Foundation) is investing heavily in collecting seeds from across the world and storing them in a facility in Svalbard in the Arctic — the ‘doomsday vault’.
The foundation is also funding Diversity Seek (DivSeek), a global initiative to take patents on the seed collections through genomic mapping. Seven million crop accessions are in public seed banks.
Shiva says that DivSeek could allow five corporations to own this diversity and argues:
Today, biopiracy is carried out through the convergence of information technology and biotechnology. It is done by taking patents by ‘mapping’ genomes and genome sequences… DivSeek is a global project launched in 2015 to map the genetic data of the peasant diversity of seeds held in gene banks. It robs the peasants of their seeds and knowledge, it robs the seed of its integrity and diversity, its evolutionary history, its link to the soil and reduces it to ‘code’. It is an extractive project to ‘mine’ the data in the seed to ‘censor’ out the commons.
She notes that the peasants who evolved this diversity have no place in DivSeek – their knowledge is being mined and not recognised, honoured or conserved: an enclosure of the genetic commons.
This process is the very foundation of capitalism – appropriation of the commons (seeds, water, knowledge, land, etc.), which are then made artificially scarce and transformed into marketable commodities.
The Gates Foundation talks about health but facilitates the roll-out of a toxic form of agriculture whose agrochemicals cause immense damage. It talks of alleviating poverty and malnutrition and tackling food insecurity but it bolsters an inherently unjust global food regime which is responsible for perpetuating food insecurity, population displacement, land dispossession, privatisation of the commons and neoliberal policies that remove support from the vulnerable and marginalised, while providing lavish subsidies to corporations.
The Gates Foundation is part of the problem, not the solution. To more fully appreciate this, let us turn to a February 2020 article in the journal Globalizations.
Its author, Ashok Kumbamu, argues that the ultimate aim of promoting new technologies – whether GM seeds, agrochemicals or commodified knowledge – on a colossal scale is to make agricultural inputs and outputs essential commodities, create dependency and bring all farming operations into the capitalist fold.
To properly understand Bill Gates’s ‘philanthropy’ is not to take stated goals and objectives at face value but to regard his ideology as an attempt to manufacture consent and prevent and marginalise more radical agrarian change that would challenge prevailing power structures and act as impediments to capitalist interests.
The foundation’s activities must be located within the hegemonic and dispossessive strategies of imperialism: displacement of the peasantry and subjugating those who remain in agriculture to the needs of global distribution and supply chains dominated by the Western agri-food conglomerates whose interests the Gates Foundation facilitates and legitimizes.
You can read about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s role in the current coronavirus pandemic here.


offguardian--2020-04-26--Three New Reads – April

Three New Reads – April

For weeks my political focus has narrowed almost exclusively to Covid-19 .
It ’ s not that I haven ’ t noted other things .
Increased Washington bellicosity over China , Iran and Venezuela has been hard to ignore , likewise the revelations of just how far the Labour Right went in their efforts to remove Corbyn .
I ’ ll write on these things soon .
Meanwhile , Reads 2 and 3 of my April selection concern aspects of the pandemic , Read 1 a boy on a motorbike in the wrong place at the wrong time .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times that so many former establishment figures are gamekeepers turned poacher .
[ 1 ] One such is Craig Murray , Blair ’ s man in Uzbekistan until he blew the whistle on its leader , Islam Karimov .
Dashed inconvenient of Murray to reveal – with Karimov allowing Coalition forces to use the former Soviet Republic ’ s airbases for strikes on Iraq – that the man not only treated the nation ’ s finances as his personal piggy bank , but boiled dissidents alive .
Followers of the Assange case will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serial abuses of British Justice to which this brave man has been subject , pending extradition to the USA , where he faces 175 years in jail for the crime of telling us the truth about the rather more substantial , and substantially detailed , crimes of our leaders .
Here his forensic attention to detail – ‘ Journalism is tough work if you do it properly , which is presumably why the media no longer even pretend to do it.
’ – is brought to bear on the starkly contrasting failure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who mowed down young Harry Dunn as she drove on the wrong side of the road .
The lies we are being told have little to do with protecting Sacoolas .
( Even Dunn ’ s family allow that hers was a tragic but understandable error , and the real crime her flight . )
Still less are they to do with diplomatic immunity .
Had her husband actually been a diplomat , it is likely that any diplomatic immunity would have been waived for a prima facie case of manslaughter .
NB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , I endorse Murray ’ s advice that an earlier 3500 worder , linked early on , be read first to make full sense of the lies surrounding this case .
One of the principal concerns of Undersecretary of Defense Lord , as she spelled out plans for the multibillion-dollar bailout of the arms industry , was the disruption of supply chains , particularly those originating in the maquiladora sweatshops just across the US border in Mexico .
She also mentioned problems in India .
Thousands of Mexican workers have struck … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … as back-to-work orders are shoved through .
At a plant in Ciudad Juárez owned by Michigan-based Lear Corporation , 16 workers have died from COIVD-19 , while area hospitals are overflowing with victims of the virus .
The Pentagon and US Ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau [ are ] demanding that the maquiladora workers be forced back into the plants as “ essential ” to US imperialism ’ s war machine … Lockheed relies on low-paid Mexican workers … to produce electrical wiring for Black Hawk and S-92 helicopters , and F-16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plant in Monterrey .
General Electric , Honeywell and other military contractors also profit off the labor of Mexican workers across the border .
The piece doesn ’ t back up that Mexican ‘ hospitals overflowing ’ claim .
Some , including credible experts in relevant disciplines , say the Covid-19 danger is overstated .
Others , including credible experts in relevant disciplines , say it isn ’ t .
Taken along with weak and highly confusing data , I find it too early to call but , that aside , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As it has with many other aspects of advanced capitalism , the pandemic exposes the internal contradictions of the profit imperative .
For the world ’ s foremost imperial power , armed might is an essential means of underwriting the extraction of super profits via exports of capital to the global south , where cheap labour and ‘ business friendly ’ regimes allow repatriation of profits over and above those achievable in the West .
But that armed might is itself a profit centre .
As I said a year ago in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : This piece touches on another aspect : outsourcing to the imperialised south of production not just of shirts for Primark and M & S , or smartphones for Apple , but even of the military means of enforcing that exploitation should push come to shove in the shape of a non compliant leader , or challenge from Eurasia .
I have in fact linked to this piece in another post but make no apology for doing so again here .
I ’ ve read scores , perhaps hundreds , of pieces on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one , it would be this from Planet of Slums author , Mike Davis .
It gives the biggest perspective , while being grounded in a thorough understanding both of imperialism – though he never once uses the term , preferring the ‘ super-capitalism ’ of the title – and relevant science .
Viruses hijack the genetic machinery of invaded cells to make copies of themselves .
Viruses based on DNA have a built-in proof-reading mechanism to ensure accurate replication , but RNA viruses don ’ t .
Influenza A , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is so error prone in reproduction it probably hovers on the edge of extinction , pushing rate of mutation to the limit , a million times faster than DNA-based viruses or cells .
Spitting out so many different and inaccurate versions of one ’ s genome has a huge advantage in resisting the human immune system .
This is why influenza A changes annually and continues to sicken humans despite many previous infections .
Mutations usually occur in the ‘ heads ’ of the two to three proteins on the virus ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dock ” on a human cell and then enter .
Those are the sites that annual vaccines target .
But the “ stalks ” of these proteins are stable and don ’ t mutate .
Virtually all researchers agree that the tools exist to fashion a broadband vaccine that incapacitates the invariant stalks thus conferring general immunity against all strains that might last for years .
The research is out there , but Big Pharma won ’ t develop or manufacture such a vaccine because it is not profitable .
( If given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lasts for a lifetime , would GM manufacture it ? )
For the full archive of Three New Reads , click here

For weeks my political focus has narrowed almost exclusively to Covid-19. It’s not that I haven’t noted other things. Increased Washington bellicosity over China, Iran and Venezuela has been hard to ignore, likewise the revelations of just how far the Labour Right went in their efforts to remove Corbyn. I’ll write on these things soon.
Meanwhile, Reads 2 and 3 of my April selection concern aspects of the pandemic, Read 1 a boy on a motorbike in the wrong place at the wrong time.
*
It’s a sign of our polarised times that so many former establishment figures are gamekeepers turned poacher.[1] One such is Craig Murray, Blair’s man in Uzbekistan until he blew the whistle on its leader, Islam Karimov. Dashed inconvenient of Murray to reveal – with Karimov allowing Coalition forces to use the former Soviet Republic’s airbases for strikes on Iraq – that the man not only treated the nation’s finances as his personal piggy bank, but boiled dissidents alive.
Followers of the Assange case will know Murray works indefatiguably to publicise the serial abuses of British Justice to which this brave man has been subject, pending extradition to the USA, where he faces 175 years in jail for the crime of telling us the truth about the rather more substantial, and substantially detailed, crimes of our leaders.
Here his forensic attention to detail – ‘Journalism is tough work if you do it properly, which is presumably why the media no longer even pretend to do it.’ – is brought to bear on the starkly contrasting failure of the UK to extradite Anne Sacoolas, who mowed down young Harry Dunn as she drove on the wrong side of the road.
The lies we are being told have little to do with protecting Sacoolas. (Even Dunn’s family allow that hers was a tragic but understandable error, and the real crime her flight.) Still less are they to do with diplomatic immunity. Had her husband actually been a diplomat, it is likely that any diplomatic immunity would have been waived for a prima facie case of manslaughter.
it is hard to understand why diplomatic immunity has been insisted on … the only explanation I can think of is that it was hoped … to avoid all scrutiny of Jonathon Sacoolas’ real job, which is to spy on British citizens’ communications for GCHQ …
NB though a relatively short piece at 1650 words, I endorse Murray’s advice that an earlier 3500 worder, linked early on, be read first to make full sense of the lies surrounding this case.
*
One of the principal concerns of Undersecretary of Defense Lord, as she spelled out plans for the multibillion-dollar bailout of the arms industry, was the disruption of supply chains, particularly those originating in the maquiladora sweatshops just across the US border in Mexico. She also mentioned problems in India. Thousands of Mexican workers have struck … against the deadly conditions inside these plants … as back-to-work orders are shoved through. At a plant in Ciudad Juárez owned by Michigan-based Lear Corporation, 16 workers have died from COIVD-19, while area hospitals are overflowing with victims of the virus. The Pentagon and US Ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau [are] demanding that the maquiladora workers be forced back into the plants as “essential” to US imperialism’s war machine … Lockheed relies on low-paid Mexican workers … to produce electrical wiring for Black Hawk and S-92 helicopters, and F-16 jets, while Boeing gets parts from a plant in Monterrey. General Electric, Honeywell and other military contractors also profit off the labor of Mexican workers across the border.
The piece doesn’t back up that Mexican ‘hospitals overflowing’ claim. Some, including credible experts in relevant disciplines, say the Covid-19 danger is overstated. Others, including credible experts in relevant disciplines, say it isn’t. Taken along with weak and highly confusing data, I find it too early to call but, that aside, the US Imperial War Machine continues apace.
As it has with many other aspects of advanced capitalism, the pandemic exposes the internal contradictions of the profit imperative. For the world’s foremost imperial power, armed might is an essential means of underwriting the extraction of super profits via exports of capital to the global south, where cheap labour and ‘business friendly’ regimes allow repatriation of profits over and above those achievable in the West.
But that armed might is itself a profit centre. As I said a year ago in a footnote to Profit and the Arms Economy:
There are those in arms geek circles who say Russia makes better weapons – SAMS, tanks and small arms in particular – because their primary purpose is to deter and if necessary kill, whereas the primary purpose of armaments in the USA is, one way or another, to make profits.
This piece touches on another aspect: outsourcing to the imperialised south of production not just of shirts for Primark and M & S, or smartphones for Apple, but even of the military means of enforcing that exploitation should push come to shove in the shape of a non compliant leader, or challenge from Eurasia.
A short but fascinating read.
*
I have in fact linked to this piece in another post but make no apology for doing so again here. I’ve read scores, perhaps hundreds, of pieces on Covid-19 but if forced to pick out just one, it would be this from Planet of Slums author, Mike Davis. It gives the biggest perspective, while being grounded in a thorough understanding both of imperialism – though he never once uses the term, preferring the ‘super-capitalism’ of the title – and relevant science.
Viruses hijack the genetic machinery of invaded cells to make copies of themselves. Viruses based on DNA have a built-in proof-reading mechanism to ensure accurate replication, but RNA viruses don’t. Influenza A, with 4 genes (corona has 8), is so error prone in reproduction it probably hovers on the edge of extinction, pushing rate of mutation to the limit, a million times faster than DNA-based viruses or cells. Spitting out so many different and inaccurate versions of one’s genome has a huge advantage in resisting the human immune system. This is why influenza A changes annually and continues to sicken humans despite many previous infections. Mutations usually occur in the ‘heads’ of the two to three proteins on the virus’s surface that allow it to “dock” on a human cell and then enter. Those are the sites that annual vaccines target. But the “stalks” of these proteins are stable and don’t mutate. Virtually all researchers agree that the tools exist to fashion a broadband vaccine that incapacitates the invariant stalks thus conferring general immunity against all strains that might last for years. The research is out there, but Big Pharma won’t develop or manufacture such a vaccine because it is not profitable. (If given a radical design for a car that lasts for a lifetime, would GM manufacture it?)
For the full archive of Three New Reads, click here
[1] To Murray’s name we can add those of: fellow British Ambassador Peter Ford, Reagan appointees Paul Craig Roberts and Stephen Cohen, UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, former CIA agent Philip Giraldi. This list of establishment renegades is from the top of my head and not offered as exhaustive.


offguardian--2020-04-26--This Week in The Guardian #5 – Coronavirus Special

This week we discover that female leaders are better at beating viruses , that censorship is good for your health and that not all scientists are created equal Our weekly feature rounding up the more shallow and vapid aspects of The Guardian ‘ s nonsense was one of the unnamed early victims of the coronavirus .
When all the headlines are about the same thing , there suddenly seems little point in highlighting the silliest examples .
Plus…there ’ s only so many hours in a day .
The initial plan was to try and move on , maybe talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but The Guardian proved uninterested in facilitating that .
Deploying some delightfully frightening , agenda-driven and hilarious headlines…but all concerning the coronavirus .
So , in the spirit of steering into the skid , we present This Week in the Guardian : The Coronavirus Special .
The Battle of the Sexes In the last couple of days , two separate articles have appeared talking about gender , leadership and how to correctly steer your country through a pandemic .
Apparently women are inherently better at doing this than men .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brutish , hairy male heads of state being awful and handling the pandemic badly .
And this one about compassionate , friendly , educated , nice-smelling female heads of state being lovely and doing all the right things .
It really is as reductionist as that .
The only thing any of the leaders have in common is their gender .
Though loosely described in the first article as ‘ populist ’ , the male leaders listed don ’ t all agree with each other , haven ’ t enforced the same policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way .
Strict authoritarian moves in Hungary and the Philippines are listed alongside the virus “ denial ” of Bolsonaro in Brazil .
Likewise , the women have nothing in common but their chromosomes .
They don ’ t all share policies or backgrounds or education .
Jacinda Ardern ’ s hard , early lockdown is listed alongside the less stringent measures of Merkel and the comparatively non-existent lockdown in Taiwan .
They all did “ the right thing ” , apparently , despite all doing different things , simply because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uterus .
Take away point : the really bad thing about populism is that men do it , but when women do it that makes it alright .
Just like everything else .
Another Guardian article from this week warns of “ pro-Kremlin outlets ” spreading “ coronavirus disinformation ” .
Nick Cohen has an “ op ed on the same subject , urging action against free speech so that “ Russian meddling ” doesn ’ t persuade us all to break quarantine and rush outside like lunatics .
He spent the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and now he ’ s arguing that Facebook and YouTube should do some Stalinist censoring of their platforms in line with government policy .
Has no one at Graun HQ even noticed that the Kremlin ( as well as China ) is actually in lockstep with the West on the issue of covid19 ?
Or does no whisper of reality percolate through their glassy walls any more ?
“ Pro-Kremlin ” and “ pro-China ” are labels which have literally lost all meaning in face of an almost totally unified global response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nick has his way , they will be used to destroy any semblance of alternative media in Western society His article ’ s headline “ Social media no longer tolerates toxic lies ?
Don ’ t believe a word of it “ , makes the intent plain .
He is returning to the theme that big tech companies have to do their part to make sure Russians and “ conspiracy theorists ” don ’ t harm our society .
But this time he is overtly demanding wrong-thinking people ( specifically David Icke in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barred from social media to “ protect public health ” .
At one point in his incoherent diatribe he even cites “ conspiracy theorists ” alleged “ antisemitism ” ( without any evidence to back it up ) .
A beautiful example of what Huey Long called “ fascism coming in the name of anti-fascism ” .
Nick doesn ’ t care about that .
He ’ s just here to promote authoritarianism and chew gum , and he ’ s all out of gum .
He ’ s a massive hypocrite .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Lionel Hutz ’ s infamous 2 kinds of truth , it seems there are also two kinds of scientist .
At least , according to this piece of “ journalism ” .
This article is a direct attack on the credibility of the recent California-based studies which found coronavirus antibodies to be far more widespread than previously estimated .
Lowering the infection-fatality rate by at least a factor of ten .
According to The Guardian , Scientists and Experts have criticised the study .
The fact the people who carried out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seem to matter .
By their questioning of the Virus they have been thrown out of the priest caste and are tainted with heresy .
The basic tools of bias are pretty evident .
Every “ expert ” calling the “ controversial ” studies into question is named , and their qualifications listed .
Only one of the authors of either of the research papers is even named – Dr John Ioannidis – and his qualifications are not listed , nor is he directly quoted .
Excepting his “ controversial opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apocalyptic problem we thought ” ( when THAT is the quote they trot out to make you look irrational , you ’ re a very rational man ) .
Nowhere does it mention that no expert anywhere questions that upwards of 80 % of coronavirus infections are thought to be asymptomatic ( right in line with these studies ’ results ) .
Nor does it mention any of the other studies showing that WHO ’ s “ official ” CFR is a significant over-estimated .
At one point the authors even accidentally argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact reported Covid19 deaths were recently found to have started in California in early February…without realising this is a major argument in favour of the studies ’ conclusion ( obviously , the earlier the disease reached the US , the more it will have spread by now ) .
But the most hilarious part is that criticism of antibody tests used in the research because they have a reported false-positive rate of 2 in 371 , or 0.53 % .
Hilarious because the PCR tests used to diagnose coronavirus infections ( despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never be used diagnostically ) , has a potential false-positive rate of 50 % , or even as high as 80 % .
But the Graun has no issue with this massive rate of uncertainty apparently .
Because false positives for terminal cancer patients are good for the fear porn business .
Whereas the population sampling , using an antibody test possibly over 100x more accurate , has to be discredited simply because it could be used as a counter-argument to a police state .
BONUS : Who Needs Juries Anyway ?
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jury trials , only to take it back within 24 hours due to the outcry , The Guardian has decided to push the issue again .
An opinion piece from a QC , and an article about the opinion piece , suggest England should give defendants the right to choose a bench trial over a jury trial to “ clear the backlog ” .
It ’ s not a concern , because they do it in Australia already and juries can be prejudiced and ill-informed , whilst Judges can ’ t .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end .
Who needs Magna Carta in the 21st Century ?
All told , a busy week for The Guardian .
As it turns out , they think the coronavirus means we should censor the internet , promote shallow gender-based politics , limit individual freedoms and demonise “ populists ” the world over .
Not really a surprise , those are their go-to solutions for pretty much everything .
Did we miss anything ?
Tell us about it in the comments below , and keep an eye out for articles that should go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the coronavirus ) .

This week we discover that female leaders are better at beating viruses, that censorship is good for your health and that not all scientists are created equal
Our weekly feature rounding up the more shallow and vapid aspects of The Guardian‘s nonsense was one of the unnamed early victims of the coronavirus. When all the headlines are about the same thing, there suddenly seems little point in highlighting the silliest examples. Plus…there’s only so many hours in a day.
But now we’re back.
The initial plan was to try and move on, maybe talk about something other than the pandemic, but The Guardian proved uninterested in facilitating that. Deploying some delightfully frightening, agenda-driven and hilarious headlines…but all concerning the coronavirus.
So, in the spirit of steering into the skid, we present This Week in the Guardian: The Coronavirus Special.
The Battle of the Sexes
In the last couple of days, two separate articles have appeared talking about gender, leadership and how to correctly steer your country through a pandemic.
Apparently women are inherently better at doing this than men.
There’s this one about terrible, mean, brutish, hairy male heads of state being awful and handling the pandemic badly.
And this one about compassionate, friendly, educated, nice-smelling female heads of state being lovely and doing all the right things.
It really is as reductionist as that. The only thing any of the leaders have in common is their gender.
Though loosely described in the first article as ‘populist’, the male leaders listed don’t all agree with each other, haven’t enforced the same policies or all handled the coronavirus outbreak in the same way. Strict authoritarian moves in Hungary and the Philippines are listed alongside the virus “denial” of Bolsonaro in Brazil.
Likewise, the women have nothing in common but their chromosomes. They don’t all share policies or backgrounds or education. Jacinda Ardern’s hard, early lockdown is listed alongside the less stringent measures of Merkel and the comparatively non-existent lockdown in Taiwan. They all did “the right thing”, apparently, despite all doing different things, simply because they all did them whilst having a uterus.
Take away point: the really bad thing about populism is that men do it, but when women do it that makes it alright. Just like everything else.
Censorship Saves Lives
Another Guardian article from this week warns of “pro-Kremlin outlets” spreading “coronavirus disinformation”.
Nick Cohen has an “op ed on the same subject, urging action against free speech so that “Russian meddling” doesn’t persuade us all to break quarantine and rush outside like lunatics.
He spent the last four years comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Stalin, and now he’s arguing that Facebook and YouTube should do some Stalinist censoring of their platforms in line with government policy.
Has no one at Graun HQ even noticed that the Kremlin (as well as China) is actually in lockstep with the West on the issue of covid19? Or does no whisper of reality percolate through their glassy walls any more?
“Pro-Kremlin” and “pro-China” are labels which have literally lost all meaning in face of an almost totally unified global response to Covid19, and yet, if Nick has his way, they will be used to destroy any semblance of alternative media in Western society
His article’s headline “Social media no longer tolerates toxic lies? Don’t believe a word of it“, makes the intent plain. He is returning to the theme that big tech companies have to do their part to make sure Russians and “conspiracy theorists” don’t harm our society. But this time he is overtly demanding wrong-thinking people (specifically David Icke in this instance) should be un-personed and barred from social media to “protect public health”.
At one point in his incoherent diatribe he even cites “conspiracy theorists” alleged “antisemitism” (without any evidence to back it up). A beautiful example of what Huey Long called “fascism coming in the name of anti-fascism”.
Nick doesn’t care about that. He’s just here to promote authoritarianism and chew gum, and he’s all out of gum.
He’s a massive hypocrite. Nothing more need be said.
There’s “scientists”, and then there’s “scientists”
Rather like Lionel Hutz’s infamous 2 kinds of truth, it seems there are also two kinds of scientist. At least, according to this piece of “journalism”.
This article is a direct attack on the credibility of the recent California-based studies which found coronavirus antibodies to be far more widespread than previously estimated. Lowering the infection-fatality rate by at least a factor of ten.
According to The Guardian, Scientists and Experts have criticised the study. The fact the people who carried out the research were also “scientists” doesn’t seem to matter. By their questioning of the Virus they have been thrown out of the priest caste and are tainted with heresy.
The basic tools of bias are pretty evident. Every “expert” calling the “controversial” studies into question is named, and their qualifications listed. Only one of the authors of either of the research papers is even named – Dr John Ioannidis – and his qualifications are not listed, nor is he directly quoted. Excepting his “controversial opinion” that Covid19 is “not the apocalyptic problem we thought” (when THAT is the quote they trot out to make you look irrational, you’re a very rational man).
Nowhere does it mention that no expert anywhere questions that upwards of 80% of coronavirus infections are thought to be asymptomatic (right in line with these studies’ results). Nor does it mention any of the other studies showing that WHO’s “official” CFR is a significant over-estimate.
At one point the authors even accidentally argue against their own point, citing the fact reported Covid19 deaths were recently found to have started in California in early February…without realising this is a major argument in favour of the studies’ conclusion (obviously, the earlier the disease reached the US, the more it will have spread by now).
But the most hilarious part is that criticism of antibody tests used in the research because they have a reported false-positive rate of 2 in 371, or 0.53%. Hilarious because the PCR tests used to diagnose coronavirus infections (despite the inventor of the test stating it should never be used diagnostically), has a potential false-positive rate of 50%, or even as high as 80%.
But the Graun has no issue with this massive rate of uncertainty apparently. Because false positives for terminal cancer patients are good for the fear porn business. Whereas the population sampling, using an antibody test possibly over 100x more accurate, has to be discredited simply because it could be used as a counter-argument to a police state.
BONUS: Who Needs Juries Anyway?
Just weeks after Scotland announced plans to scrap Jury trials, only to take it back within 24 hours due to the outcry, The Guardian has decided to push the issue again. An opinion piece from a QC, and an article about the opinion piece, suggest England should give defendants the right to choose a bench trial over a jury trial to “clear the backlog”.
It’s not a concern, because they do it in Australia already and juries can be prejudiced and ill-informed, whilst Judges can’t. So it will probably be fairer in the end.
Who needs Magna Carta in the 21st Century?
* * *
All told, a busy week for The Guardian. As it turns out, they think the coronavirus means we should censor the internet, promote shallow gender-based politics, limit individual freedoms and demonise “populists” the world over. Not really a surprise, those are their go-to solutions for pretty much everything.
Did we miss anything? Tell us about it in the comments below, and keep an eye out for articles that should go in the next issue (hopefully not about the coronavirus).


offguardian--2020-04-27--Lockdown Therapy for Capitalism

Lockdown Therapy for Capitalism

One might think that artists wouldn ’ t mind being isolated and having more time in studios on account of the current Coronavirus situation .
After all , we spend an enormous amount of time alone , and isolation allows us to have uninterrupted amounts of time to let our imaginations fly .
But there are other elements in play when we examine creativity .
For example , it is crucial that we feel safe to expose all our senses to our environment so that we ground our minds properly to our surroundings , harmoniously with all our channels open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was at an art residency in Cape Cod , Massachusetts .
I lived in a communal setting with twenty other artists and writers .
As soon as public spaces became inaccessible and “ social distancing ” became the norm at the residency , many of the fellow artists experienced lack of productivity .
I felt an immediate blockage to my making process .
Perhaps , since our society does not make artists ’ activities a priority , this might be the last thing one would consider as a serious “ problem ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a concern might be secondary to many artists themselves who will be subjected to enormous economic difficulties .
It is “ understood ” that this is a “ crisis ” and we must “ fight together “ against our “ common enemy ” which is the virus .
But who could blame those of us who are very much suspicious of such a momentum , as we hear “ decrees ” being issued to dictate our social activities while all instruments of state violence and repression are in place to regulate our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same society which has baselessly demonized Muslims while bombing , colonizing and destroying their countries in the name of “ war on terror ” .
Young black people have been openly demonized to justify gentrification , mass incarceration , exploitation through substandard labor conditions and so on and so forth in the name of “ war on drug ” and “ tough on crime ” .
We know that a “ crisis ” presents opportunities and tools for the ruling class to shape and perpetuate the social structure .
The system in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big to fail ” while oppressed people keep failing so that they are safely cornered into hopelessness , cynicism and complacency to the feudal order of money and violence .
It is not a speculation that there are people who prosper and even benefit during an economic crisis—as smaller business owners struggle , large corporations and banks benefit from huge government subsidies , giving them more power to buy failing small businesses , for example .
And it is a fact that many of those people have enormous economic power to shape the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a speculation that they would appreciate having strict measures of control against the people by limiting their freedom of speech , freedom of assembly , and freedom to travel , or by installing means of surveillance , checkpoints and official certifications for activities that might give freedom to the people beyond the capitalist framework .
It is not a speculation that they would benefit from moving our social interactions to the digital realm , which can commodify our activities as marketable data for the advertising industry , insurance industry and any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political institution , legal institution , and financial institution .
Such matters should be seen within the context of western history being shaped by unelected capitalists with their enormous networks of social institutions .
In fact , private foundations and NGOs are working with governmental organizations and global institutions to implement potentially dangerous policies of draconian measures as well as financialization of our activities for sometime .
According to researchers – Cory Morningstar , Alison McDowell and others – the potential impact of the transformation which is about to take place through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ etc .
under the banner of the fourth industrial revolution can be devastatingly inhumane to our species ’ path .
Examining those matters must not be subjected to being labeled as “ conspiracy ” and dismissed .
Needless to say , a draconian momentum against the capitalist hierarchy accelerates hardships of “ invisible people ” who struggle against economic deprivation and social repression .
How do homeless people “ stay home ” ?
How do people in jail practice “ social distancing ” ?
How are people vulnerable to domestic violence protected ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay in business ?
How do poor people survive while public services and spaces are eliminated , while affluent people are stockpiling in their generously equipped gated communities ?
How do people with addiction stay sober ?
How do people with suicidal tendency secure their dwindling connection to humanity ?
But those discussions are rare among us .
A hint of doubt can trigger those people who are “ fighting together ” .
Because once our creative minds learn to live safely in an authoritarian framework of draconian rules and decrees , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our minds get weaponized to uphold the authoritarianism as a path to “ democracy ” , “ freedom ” , “ justice ” and “ humanity ” , which have been mere euphemisms to describe blank checks given to the ruling class .
Once people turn into soldiers of the authoritarianism , the path to the ” solutions ” is paved by their relentless adherence to corporate political parties , official decrees and carefully concocted narratives within the capitalist framework .
Our discussions cease to be mutually respectful exchange , instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are vetted , attacked and eliminated .
A society that can ’ t sustain artists is a society that kills minds to care , understand , empathize and share .
A society that enforces its imperatives with fear instead of trust in humanity deprives a healthy mechanism to guide itself .
As I see how public sentiment is developing over the virus situation , I must mention one more thing .
There has been a proven method of silencing anti-capitalist voices within our society , used by media , political figures , corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few steps .
First , amplify the voices of people who willingly sacrifice those who they consider to hold lower positions than they do in demanding their righteous positions within the capitalist hierarchy .
The voices might come from racist nationalists , patriarchal misogynists , flag waving anti-immigrant activists or heartless Trump supporters demanding old people to die during the coronavirus pandemic .
Those people recognize that an aspect or a policy of the establishment will compromise their lives—after all they are also oppressed by the capitalist order .
However , they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They do not tolerate sharing their positions with people who they despise .
Second , claim that you are with victims of racism , misogyny or xenophobia , or old people who are vulnerable during the coronavirus pandemic .
Third , falsely equate an anti-capitalist perspective with that of those political villains .
Forth , dismiss those who are calling out the ruling class agenda as “ racist ” , “ misogynists ” , “ fascist worshiper ” and so on .
This method has been very effective .
I am sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalist domination can recall being labeled as what they actually oppose .
The method achieves a few things at the same time .
First , it obscures the mechanism of capitalist hierarchy .
Second , it divides people who should be fighting against the system together—obscuring the meaning of class struggle .
Third , it augments the capitalist hierarchy .
Forth , it vitalizes the political legitimacy of corporate political parties which utilize the division .
Needless to say , the narrative of division is actively generated by corporate political parties as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the predicaments of the people who are most oppressed within our society , while we firmly recognize the dynamics within the capitalist hierarchy , and stay away from being a part of the mechanism which safely turns our predicaments into driving forces of capitalism .
I hope above writing can generate much needed discussions on the topic among us .

Hiroyuki Hamada
One might think that artists wouldn’t mind being isolated and having more time in studios on account of the current Coronavirus situation. After all, we spend an enormous amount of time alone, and isolation allows us to have uninterrupted amounts of time to let our imaginations fly.
But there are other elements in play when we examine creativity. For example, it is crucial that we feel safe to expose all our senses to our environment so that we ground our minds properly to our surroundings, harmoniously with all our channels open.
When the “lockdown” started I was at an art residency in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. I lived in a communal setting with twenty other artists and writers. As soon as public spaces became inaccessible and “social distancing” became the norm at the residency, many of the fellow artists experienced lack of productivity. I felt an immediate blockage to my making process.
Perhaps, since our society does not make artists’ activities a priority, this might be the last thing one would consider as a serious “problem”. And to a lesser extent, such a concern might be secondary to many artists themselves who will be subjected to enormous economic difficulties.
It is “understood” that this is a “crisis” and we must “fight together“ against our “common enemy” which is the virus.
But who could blame those of us who are very much suspicious of such a momentum, as we hear “decrees” being issued to dictate our social activities while all instruments of state violence and repression are in place to regulate our behaviors.
After all we live in the same society which has baselessly demonized Muslims while bombing, colonizing and destroying their countries in the name of “war on terror”. Young black people have been openly demonized to justify gentrification, mass incarceration, exploitation through substandard labor conditions and so on and so forth in the name of “war on drug” and “tough on crime”.
We know that a “crisis” presents opportunities and tools for the ruling class to shape and perpetuate the social structure. The system in which they thrive is always “too big to fail” while oppressed people keep failing so that they are safely cornered into hopelessness, cynicism and complacency to the feudal order of money and violence.
It is not a speculation that there are people who prosper and even benefit during an economic crisis—as smaller business owners struggle, large corporations and banks benefit from huge government subsidies, giving them more power to buy failing small businesses, for example. And it is a fact that many of those people have enormous economic power to shape the policies that can benefit themselves.
It is not a speculation that they would appreciate having strict measures of control against the people by limiting their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to travel, or by installing means of surveillance, checkpoints and official certifications for activities that might give freedom to the people beyond the capitalist framework.
It is not a speculation that they would benefit from moving our social interactions to the digital realm, which can commodify our activities as marketable data for the advertising industry, insurance industry and any other moneyed social institutions Including education, political institution, legal institution, and financial institution. Such matters should be seen within the context of western history being shaped by unelected capitalists with their enormous networks of social institutions.
In fact, private foundations and NGOs are working with governmental organizations and global institutions to implement potentially dangerous policies of draconian measures as well as financialization of our activities for sometime.
According to researchers – Cory Morningstar, Alison McDowell and others – the potential impact of the transformation which is about to take place through the Internet, blockchain technology, artificial intelligence etc. under the banner of the fourth industrial revolution can be devastatingly inhumane to our species’ path. Examining those matters must not be subjected to being labeled as “conspiracy” and dismissed.
Needless to say, a draconian momentum against the capitalist hierarchy accelerates hardships of “invisible people” who struggle against economic deprivation and social repression.
How do homeless people “stay home”? How do people in jail practice “social distancing”? How are people vulnerable to domestic violence protected? How do small business owners continue to stay in business? How do poor people survive while public services and spaces are eliminated, while affluent people are stockpiling in their generously equipped gated communities? How do people with addiction stay sober? How do people with suicidal tendency secure their dwindling connection to humanity?
But those discussions are rare among us. A hint of doubt can trigger those people who are “fighting together”. Because once our creative minds learn to live safely in an authoritarian framework of draconian rules and decrees, the narrow framework restricts our thoughts and ideas. Our minds get weaponized to uphold the authoritarianism as a path to “democracy”, “freedom”, “justice” and “humanity”, which have been mere euphemisms to describe blank checks given to the ruling class.
Once people turn into soldiers of the authoritarianism, the path to the ”solutions” is paved by their relentless adherence to corporate political parties, official decrees and carefully concocted narratives within the capitalist framework. Our discussions cease to be mutually respectful exchange, instead, they become battlegrounds in which dissenting voices are vetted, attacked and eliminated.
A society that can’t sustain artists is a society that kills minds to care, understand, empathize and share. A society that enforces its imperatives with fear instead of trust in humanity deprives a healthy mechanism to guide itself.
As I see how public sentiment is developing over the virus situation, I must mention one more thing. There has been a proven method of silencing anti-capitalist voices within our society, used by media, political figures, corporate dissidents and others. It requires a few steps.
First, amplify the voices of people who willingly sacrifice those who they consider to hold lower positions than they do in demanding their righteous positions within the capitalist hierarchy. The voices might come from racist nationalists, patriarchal misogynists, flag waving anti-immigrant activists or heartless Trump supporters demanding old people to die during the coronavirus pandemic. Those people recognize that an aspect or a policy of the establishment will compromise their lives—after all they are also oppressed by the capitalist order. However, they do embrace the capitalist order in essence. They do not tolerate sharing their positions with people who they despise.
Second, claim that you are with victims of racism, misogyny or xenophobia, or old people who are vulnerable during the coronavirus pandemic.
Third, falsely equate an anti-capitalist perspective with that of those political villains.
Forth, dismiss those who are calling out the ruling class agenda as “racist”, “misogynists”, “fascist worshiper” and so on.
This method has been very effective. I am sure that anyone who has expressed a concern over capitalist domination can recall being labeled as what they actually oppose.
The method achieves a few things at the same time. First, it obscures the mechanism of capitalist hierarchy. Second, it divides people who should be fighting against the system together—obscuring the meaning of class struggle. Third, it augments the capitalist hierarchy. Forth, it vitalizes the political legitimacy of corporate political parties which utilize the division. Needless to say, the narrative of division is actively generated by corporate political parties as well.
It is imperative that we recognize the predicaments of the people who are most oppressed within our society, while we firmly recognize the dynamics within the capitalist hierarchy, and stay away from being a part of the mechanism which safely turns our predicaments into driving forces of capitalism.
I hope above writing can generate much needed discussions on the topic among us.


offguardian--2020-04-27--Coronavirus Fact-Check #4: “Why are so many healthcare workers dying?”

Media reports paint a picture of healthcare workers being hit very hard by the pandemic , but the statistics suggest otherwise Coronavirus Fact-Check # 4 : “ Why are so many healthcare workers dying ?
” The deaths of doctors , nurses and other medical workers has been a major talking point since the pandemic began .
It started in Italy , where a website was set up listing the deaths of doctors who “ died on the frontlines ” .
Despite being billed as “ frontline ” doctors , fifteen of the names are dentists .
There are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialists who obviously would not have been “ on the frontlines ” treating Covid19 patients .
When Swiss Propaganda Research noted that many of them were retired , and that average age was over sixty-nine , the dates of birth were removed .
As the pandemic has shifted focus from Italy to the UK , the deaths of NHS workers have started flooding the headlines .
A few days ago The Guardian ran a piece listing all of the NHS staff alleged to have died of Covid19 .
So did the Telegraph .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been released , we ’ ve received several e-mails and comments asking some variation of the following : To which our response is : How many healthcare actually are dying of Covid19 ?
Although we hear a lot of anecdotal evidence , and see a lot of headlines , we have no data suggesting an excessive impact on healthcare professionals .
A recent statistical study published in the Health Services Journal ( HSJ ) provides some important facts and context : Firstly , let ’ s establish the data : As of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” were reported to have died of Covid19 .
Thirteen of them were excluded from the study for being either retired or never confirmed to work for the NHS .
That left 106 NHS staff who died of alleged Covid19 .
Secondly , we should clear up the misconception that this represents just “ frontline ” healthcare workers .
It doesn ’ t .
This number includes 35 nurses , 18 doctors and 27 healthcare assistants ( HCAs ) , they are all “ frontline ” workers .
But it also includes 36 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , administrators , receptionists etc ) .
Finally , let ’ s put these numbers in some context : The NHS is the biggest single employer in the UK .
NHS England , NHS Scotland and NHS Wales employ roughly 1.5 million people ( Wikipedia estimates over 1.7 million ) .
That ’ s over 4 % of the 38 million working-age adults , or 2.5 % of the entire population of the UK .
As such , you would expect roughly 2.5 % of the Covid19 victims to be NHS employees ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 106 NHS employees represent only 0.58 % of the UK ’ s 18,200 total Covid19 casualties as of April 22nd .
To put it another way : • Any randomly selected citizen of the UK has a 1/39 chance of being employed by the NHS .
• But any randomly selected “ Covid19 related death ” has a 1/172 chance of being employed by the NHS .
In summary : In direct contradiction of the media coverage , healthcare workers are NOT being disproportionately affected by Covid19 .
They are actually substantially @ @

Media reports paint a picture of healthcare workers being hit very hard by the pandemic, but the statistics suggest otherwise
Coronavirus Fact-Check #4: “Why are so many healthcare workers dying?”
The deaths of doctors, nurses and other medical workers has been a major talking point since the pandemic began.
It started in Italy, where a website was set up listing the deaths of doctors who “died on the frontlines”.
Despite being billed as “frontline” doctors, fifteen of the names are dentists. There are also surgeons, psychiatrists, paediatricians and other specialists who obviously would not have been “on the frontlines” treating Covid19 patients.
When Swiss Propaganda Research noted that many of them were retired, and that average age was over sixty-nine, the dates of birth were removed.
As the pandemic has shifted focus from Italy to the UK, the deaths of NHS workers have started flooding the headlines.
A few days ago The Guardian ran a piece listing all of the NHS staff alleged to have died of Covid19. So did the Telegraph. And the BBC.
As these stories have been released, we’ve received several e-mails and comments asking some variation of the following:
If this is “just a normal flu”, why are so many healthcare workers dying?”
To which our response is: How many healthcare actually are dying of Covid19?
Although we hear a lot of anecdotal evidence, and see a lot of headlines, we have no data suggesting an excessive impact on healthcare professionals.
A recent statistical study published in the Health Services Journal (HSJ) provides some important facts and context:
Firstly, let’s establish the data: As of 22nd April, 119 “NHS workers” were reported to have died of Covid19. Thirteen of them were excluded from the study for being either retired or never confirmed to work for the NHS.
That left 106 NHS staff who died of alleged Covid19.
Secondly, we should clear up the misconception that this represents just “frontline” healthcare workers. It doesn’t.
This number includes 35 nurses, 18 doctors and 27 healthcare assistants (HCAs), they are all “frontline” workers. But it also includes 36 others (dentists, psychiatrists, porters, administrators, receptionists etc).
Finally, let’s put these numbers in some context:
The NHS is the biggest single employer in the UK. NHS England, NHS Scotland and NHS Wales employ roughly 1.5 million people (Wikipedia estimates over 1.7 million). That’s over 4% of the 38 million working-age adults, or 2.5% of the entire population of the UK.
As such, you would expect roughly 2.5% of the Covid19 victims to be NHS employees (assuming proportionate distribution).
However, the 106 NHS employees represent only 0.58% of the UK’s 18,200 total Covid19 casualties as of April 22nd.
To put it another way:
Any randomly selected citizen of the UK has a 1/39 chance of being employed by the NHS.
chance of being employed by the NHS. But any randomly selected “Covid19 related death” has a 1/172 chance of being employed by the NHS.
In summary: In direct contradiction of the media coverage, healthcare workers are NOT being disproportionately affected by Covid19. They are actually substantially under-represented.


offguardian--2020-04-28--WATCH: “Stop calling it contact tracing!”

can you spare $ 1.00 a month to support independent media OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content .
@ @ @ @ @ backers .
We are not funded by any government or NGO .
Donations from our @ @ @ @ @ of income .
Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated .

What’s in a name? Everything. Find out about the latest attempt to package the Orwellian total police state surveillance grid as something wonderful and wholesome—and why you should never, ever say “contact tracing”—in this week’s edition of #PropagandaWatch.
Follow The Corbett Report channel here, or visit the website