Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The CIA’s Cloddish ISIS Attack on Duterte

The only word I find for it is cloddish. I refer to the latest CIA-instigated attempt to initiate regime change against outspoken Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. The so-called ISIS terror attack in the minerals-rich southern Philippines island of Mindanao, a predominately Muslim part of the mostly Christian nation of 100 million people, took place literally in the midst of President Duterte’s talks in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Duterte Putin talks in turn followed Duterte’s attendance in Beijing on May 15 for the first New Silk Road or Belt Road Forum. America’s colonial asset since 1898 was clearly walking away from the Washington “reservation.”

The terrorist siege in Marawi City is blatantly a desperate Washington try to topple the very popular (80% popularity in polls) Duterte, who successfully won the Presidency last June over a US-backed Mar Roxas, a US-educated former Wall Street banker. Since taking office Duterte has made bold and quite courageous steps to steer the former US Colony towards a Eurasian alliance with China and Russia as his major supporters. In Beijing in October last year, Duterte met China’s Xi Jinping and signed numerous trade deals with China. Critically, taking an opposite policy to his pro-US predecessor Benigno Aquino III, Duterte agreed to resolve the South China Sea dispute between Philippines and China through peaceful diplomatic talks, and to as he put it, “seek a separation from the United States.”

Since then Duterte has sought closer ties with Russia as well, in a further effort to bring his nation out from under the yoke of a de facto US control. This does not sit well with the circles of the so-called Deep State in Washington –the CIA and their nefarious friends. Should the US lose the Philippines, it would pose a devastating strategic geopolitical loss to the US military containment strategy against China and Russia in the Pacific. Devastating.

The recent attacks and siege in Mindanao were nominally done by the terrorist Maute gang and Abu Sayyaf criminal terrorist organizations, both nominally tied to the US-created ISIS fake Islamist operation, a CIA terrorist project created with Saudi money going back to the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden Al Qaeda Mujahideen Operation Cyclone during the 1980’s against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Duterte’s Eurasian Pivot

It comes as no surprise to anyone closely following the evolving dialogues between Duterte and the leaders of China and now, Russia that the CIA would try to destabilize Duterte at this critical time. They simply hide behind the black skirts of their psychopathic drug-running Maute and Abu Sayyaf, both now tied to the CIA and Mossad-created and Saudi-financed ISIS.

In Moscow, despite having to cut short his talks with Putin to fly back home and deal with the terrorist crisis in Mindanao, the Philippine leader and his Secretaries of Defense and Foreign Affairs managed to sign a number of critical agreements with Russia. These included 10 major agreements aimed at deepening bilateral defense, strategic and economic relations. The two countries signed an Agreement on Defense Cooperation, a legal framework for military-to-military exchanges, training, intelligence-sharing. The Philippines and Russia also signed an intelligence exchange agreement to bolster counter-terror cooperation. That does not please Washington at all.

A ‘Country Bumpkin’ Not

Western mainstream media has delighted in portraying the 71-year-old veteran politician Duterte as a crude country bumpkin, a lower-than-peasant creature who is only capable of vulgar statements, such as when shortly after his inauguration he called the US Ambassador to Manila a ”gay son of a bitch“ for criticizing Duterte’s war on drug lords and dealers plaguing the country. Whether Duterte was factually correct, he clearly won sympathy of millions of his countrymen for having the courage to stand up against the American power.

After closely watching Duterte and his choice of close advisers now for almost a year, I’ve come to the conclusion a country bumpkin Duterte is definitely not. Rather, he is a shrewd political actor who is determined to bring his country out of the colonial servitude status it has held since the first Spanish colonialization in 1565.

Duterte is the first Mindanaoan to hold the Presidential office. Ethnically he is of Visayan descent. This fact is not irrelevant. The Visayans in Mindanao and other Philippine islands led a war for independence against Spanish occupation in 1896.

The United States, posing as the supporter of the Visayan-led war of independence from Spain, betrayed the trust assured the Philippines, double-crossed them and signed a Treaty with Spain, the Treaty of Paris of 1898, under which Spain ceded Cuba and The Philippines to the United States. The USA refused to recognize the independence of their erstwhile ally, the Philippines, and took the country by military force, America’s first genuine imperial grab. The nascent First Philippine Republic then formally declared war against the United States in 1899, unsuccessfully. It was put under US military control. It took until 1946 before the country could be recognized as an independent sovereign state, at least in name.

That historical heritage of Duterte as a Visayan clearly is a living fact for Duterte. He graduated Philippines University and earned a degree in law in 1972. As a lawyer, he was prosecutor in Davao City in Mindanao and later Mayor, one of the longest-serving mayors of the Philippines with seven terms over 22 years. As Mayor, Duterte passed the city’s Women Development Code, the only such code in the country. Its aim is “to uphold the rights of women and the belief in their worth and dignity as human beings.” He pushed for the Magna Carta for Women in Davao, a comprehensive women’s human rights law that seeks to eliminate discrimination against women. As President he has made a domestic focus on poverty reduction.

There is clearly more to the man than lurid western media reports reveal. Now this very popular President is determined to make his country a sovereign nation able to choose with whom it allies and for what ends, and how its economy develops. This is why the CIA and its fake Jihadist networks are being jacked up to try to get rid of Rodrigo Duterte.

ISIS: Bloody Pawprints of CIA and Mossad

The networks of the US Deep State, primarily the CIA have chosen their favorite cover, the otherwise laughable deception of head-choppers calling itself the Islamic State or ISIS or ISIL or DAESH (CIA central casting seems to have trouble settling on a name). In reality IS, or the groups that spring up conveniently in Syria, in Iraq, in Chechnya–wherever the CIA decides it needs a terror hit squad–are trained mercenary killers, trained variously by CIA or Pentagon Special Forces; by Pakistani ISI intelligence, at least formerly, or by Mossad, also known as Israeli Secret intelligence Service, or by MI-6. In the Philippines, the IS alleged affiliates, especially the Maute group that has laid siege to Marawi City, are little more than a criminal band that finances itself by terror, occasional beheading to exert ransom in a protection racket, recruiting child fighters. Recently the networks of the CIA have been pouring in their foreign mercenaries from Syria, Libya and other places to beef up Maute’s gang for the attack on Duterte’s rule, portraying it as a religious-based “liberation struggle.”

ISIS came out of the CIA’s Al Qaeda franchise called Al Qaeda in Iraq. In 2010 its name was changed to ISIS. Then as Israeli journalists pointed out the embarrassing fact that the English acronym for the Hebrew spelling of Mossad was ISIS (Israeli Secret Intelligence Services abruptly they decided to call their band of mercenaries with their black flags and US M16 assault rifles, IS for Islamic StateConveniently in Syria they control the very territory where competing Qatari and Iran gas pipelines to the Mediterranean would run. Curiously, despite the fact they are active in the Golan Heights where Israel has its eye on stealing a huge amount of newly-discovered Syrian oil, they have never attacked Israel. The one time an accidental hit on an Israeli target took place, IS apologized…Do real head-choppers ever apologize?

When the fake CIA Sarin gas attack in Ghouta in 2013 failed to get a UN mandate for all-out war to depose Bashar al Assad–Obama’s infamous “red line”–the NATO and NATO-linked networks created the monster they now call IS in 2014.

Today the CIA uses IS as the cover to justify keeping US forces in Iraq after the government asked them to leave; a cover to bomb Syria in order to topple Assad, something Russian presence has made embarrassingly difficult since September, 2015. And they use it to recruit thousands of young psycho recruits from over the Muslim work, train them and send them back to places like Chechnya in Russia or Xinjiang in China, or Balochistan Province in Pakistan where the Chinese have built a new deep water port at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea near Iran, the heart of its $46 billion China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a strategic part of its One Belt, One Road Eurasian infrastructure project.

Now the West’s favorite terrorist mercenaries are being told to take down Duterte in the Philippines. They probably are too late and have badly underestimated their adversaries. But then with the deterioration over recent decades in the quality of American university education, the current generation of strategists at Langley likely missed the basic course in Sun Tzu’s the Art of War, especially the part that cautions generals who wish to be victorious to “know yourself and know your enemy,” something that Duterte seems to have thought about. How the IS destabilization try in the Philippines unfolds in coming weeks may well determine a major turning point towards creation of the emerging China-Russia-centered Eurasian Century.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

H.R. 1644: Washington's new House Bill that Russia is calling an "act of war"

SOTT | May 29, 2017 | Gar Smith

WorldBeyondWar.org - Top Russian officials are concerned that a bill passed by the US Congress will do more than increase sanctions on North Korea. Moscow claims H.R. 1644 violates its sovereignty and constitutes an "act of war."

On May 4, 2017, House Resolution 1644, the innocently named "Korean Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act," was quickly passed by the US House of Representatives by a vote of 419-1 - and it was just as quickly labeled an "act of war" by a top Russian official.

Why was Konstantin Kosachev, chair of the Russian Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee, so alarmed about a US law ostensibly aimed at North Korea? After all, there had been no blistering partisan debate preceding the vote. Instead, the bill was handled under a "suspension of the rules" procedure usually applied to noncontroversial legislation. And it passed with only one dissenting vote (cast by Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky).

So what did H.R. 1644 call for? If enacted, the bill would amend the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 to increase the president's powers to impose sanctions on anyone in violation of certain United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea. Specifically, it would allow for expanding sanctions to punish North Korea for its nuclear weapons programs by: targeting overseas individuals who employ North Korean "slave labor"; requiring the administration to determine whether North Korea was a state sponsor of terrorism and, most critically; authorizing a crackdown on North Korea's use of international transit ports.

H.R. 1644 Targets Foreign Ports and Air Terminals

What caught the eye of Russian critics was Section 104, the part of the bill that presumed to grant the US "inspection authorities" over shipping ports (and major airports) far beyond the Korean Peninsula - specifically, ports in China, Russia, Syria, and Iran. The bill identifies more than 20 foreign targets, including: two ports in China (Dandong and Dalian and "any other port in the People's Republic of China that the President deems appropriate"); ten ports in Iran (Abadan, Bandar-e-Abbas, Chabahar, Bandar-e-Khomeini, Bushehr Port, Asaluyeh Port, Kish, Kharg Island, Bandar-e-Lenge, Khorramshahr, and the Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport); four facilities in Syria (the ports at Latakia, Banias, Tartous and the Damascus International Airport) and; three ports in Russia (Nakhodka, Vanino, and Vladivostok). Under the proposed law, the US Secretary of Homeland Security could use the National Targeting Center's Automated Targeting System to search any ship, plane, or conveyance that has "entered the territory, waters, or airspace of North Korea, or landed in any of the sea ports or airports of North Korea." Any vessel, aircraft, or vehicle found in violation of this US law would be subject to "seizure and forfeiture."

House Bill Raises a Red Flag for Russia

"I hope [this bill] will never be implemented," Kosachev told Sputnik News, "because its implementation envisions a scenario of power with forced inspections of all vessels by US warships. Such a power scenario is beyond comprehension, because it means a declaration of war."

Russian officials were understandably outraged by Congress' imperious move to extend the US military's authority to include surveillance of sovereign ports in the Russian Far East. Russia's Upper House heatedly noted that such actions constitute a violation of international law that was tantamount to a declaration of war.

"No country in the world, and no international organization, has authorized the US to monitor implementation of any resolutions of the UN Security Council," Kosachev observed. He accused Washington of attempting to "affirm the supremacy of its own legislation over international law," an example of US "exceptionalism" that he claimed constitutes "the main problem of present-day international relations."

Kosachev's Upper House colleague, Alexey Pushkov, underscored this concern. "It is absolutely unclear how the bill will be implemented," Pushkov stated. "To control Russian ports, the US will have to introduce a blockade and inspect all ships, which amounts to an act of war." Pushkov argued that the lopsided 419-1 vote "indicates the nature of the legal and political culture of the US Congress."

Russia Challenges US Exceptionalism

Russia now fears that the US Senate maybe similarly inclined. According to Sputnik News, the surveillance-and-interdiction amendment is "due to be approved by the Senate and then signed by US president Donald Trump."

Andrey Krasov, the First Deputy Head of the Defense Committee in Russia's Lower House, greeted news of the US move with a mixture of disbelief and indignation:
"Why on Earth did America assume the responsibilities? Who gave it such powers to control the seaports of our country? Neither Russia nor international organizations asked Washington to do so. One can only answer that any unfriendly step by the US administration against Russia and our allies will receive a symmetrical adequate response. In any case, no American ship will enter our waters. Our armed forces and our fleet have every means to severely punish those who will dare to enter our territorial waters."
Krasov suggested that Washington's "saber-rattling" was another sign that the US has no interest in accommodating other members of the world community - especially rivals like China and Russia. "These are heavyweights which, in principle, do not fit into the US's overall concept on governing and ruling the whole world."

Vladimir Baranov, a Russian ferry line operator whose vessels ply the waters between Vladivostok and the North Korean port city of Rajin, told Sputnik News that "the US physically cannot control Russian ports - you have to visit the Port Authority, demand documents, that sort of thing . . . . This is essentially a bluff by the US, an attempt to show that it controls the world."

Alexander Latkin, a professor from the Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service, was similarly skeptical: "How could the US control our ports operations? It might have been possible if the US possessed a percentage of the port's equity but, as far as I know, all of the shareholders are Russian. It is essentially a political move by the US. The Americans don't have any legal or economic basis for controlling our ports."

Maxim Grigoryev, who heads Russia's Foundation for the Study of Democracy, told Sputnik Radio that he found the proposed legislation "rather funny," given that it fails to provide any details on what a US inspection intervention might entail nor does it provide any guidelines for conducting Pentagon inspections of internationally flagged foreign vessels and foreign port facilities.

"What happened is that the US judicial authority has empowered its executive counterpart to present a report on this matter, which includes telling whether the sanctions against North Korea are being violated via Russian, Korean, and Syrian ports," Grigoryev stated. "The US doesn't mind that it basically dictates that other countries must adhere to US legislation. Clearly, this is a preparation for some sort of statement to be made against Russia, Syria or China. The measure is unlikely to be related to real politics - because the US doesn't have any jurisdiction over other countries - but this is an obvious foundation for some propaganda campaign."

Adding to the growing uncertainty over rising US/Russia tensions, top Russian military officials have expressed alarm over signs that the Pentagon is making preparations for a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia.

Rising Concerns of a Nuclear Attack

On March 28, 2017, Lt. Gen. Victor Poznihir, Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces, warned that the placement of US anti-ballistic missiles near Russia's borders "creates a powerful clandestine potential for delivering a surprise nuclear missile strike against Russia." He repeated this concern again on April 26, when he alerted the Moscow International Security Conference that the Russian General Staff's Operations Command is convinced Washington is preparing to exercise the "nuclear option."

This terrifying news went virtually unnoted by the US media. On May 11, columnist Paul Craig Roberts (a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Ronald Reagan and former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal) cited Poznihir's comments in a clearly agitated blog post.

According to Roberts, a Google search revealed that this "most alarming of all announcements" had only been reported in a single US publication - the Times-Gazette of Ashland, Ohio. There were, Roberts reported, "no reports on US TV, and none on Canadian, Australian, European, or any other media except RT [a Russian news agency] and Internet sites."

Roberts also was alarmed to discover that no "US senator or representative or any European, Canadian, or Australian politician has raised a voice of concern that the West was now preparing for a first strike on Russia" nor, it appeared, had anyone reached out to "ask Putin how this serious situation could be defused."

(Roberts has previously written that Beijing's leaders also fear the US has detailed plans for a nuclear for strike on China. In response, China has pointedly reminded the US that its submarine fleet stands ready to destroy America's West Coast while it's ICBMs go to work obliterating the rest of the country.)

"Never in my life have I experienced the situation where two nuclear powers were convinced that the third was going to surprise them with a nuclear attack," Roberts wrote. Despite this existential threat, Roberts notes, there has been "zero awareness and no discussion" of the growing risks.

"Putin has been issuing warnings for years," Roberts writes. "Putin has said over and over, 'I issue warnings and no one hears. How do I get through to you?'"

The US Senate now has a critical role to play. The bill is currently before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The committee has an opportunity to acknowledge the grave existential risks created by H.R. 1644 and make sure that no companion bill ever makes it to the Senate floor. If this precipitously ill-conceived legislation is allowed to survive, our own survival - and the survival of hundreds of millions of others around the world - cannot be guaranteed.

Gar Smith is a veteran of the Free Speech Movement, an anti-war organizer, a Project Censored Award-winning reporter, Editor Emeritus of Earth Island Journal, co-founder of Environmentalists Against War, a member of the board of World Beyond War, author of Nuclear Roulette and editor of the forthcoming book, The War and Environment Reader.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Up Close HD Drone Footage of Four New Crop Circles That Just Appeared In The UK

Collective Evolution | May 28, 2017 | Arjun Walia

The UK is no stranger to crop circle formations. Four more incredible designs have popped up this week with the first design being discovered on the 21st of May in the county of Wiltshire.

The circles were documented via drone footage, thanks to Matthew Williams, via Crop Circle Connector, a website dedicated to documenting crop circle formations all over the world.

Check out the video below for a look at the crop circles.

What could these formations be? Is it depicting some sort of eclipse or celestial event? To look deeper into the subject, this documentary is a great place to start. Keep in mind that there are also many hoaxes out there, clearly the work of a bunch of pranksters. But we shouldn’t let that fact take away from the fact that there have been hundreds of documented formations that are so complex and so unbelievable in their nature that they’ve been subject to scrutiny at the highest levels of science. (See below) Whether or not these particular ones are real or fake should not detract from that fact, and this article is being used to create more awareness about a very real phenomenon that’s been happening for a long time.

According to coasttocaostam.com, “this particular formation, one of the four, appears to depict a solar eclipse and bears a striking resemblance to a 2004 design that also showed such a celestial event…Intriguingly, much like how the 2017 crop circle predates this summer’s solar eclipse by three months, so too did the 2004 formation.”

You can find links and footage to the designs here.

The video footage below is extraordinary, especially with regards to the close up footage where you can the pattern in which the crop has been pushed down, (using some form of heating method, more on that later in the article).

What’s Really Going On Here? 

Again, some of these formations are so complex, precise and mind-altering that everyone has taken notice, including the academic world. For example, professor Richard Taylor, who is the director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, has suggested that the circles are created using magnetrons, which are found in microwave ovens, or similar technology to complete their detailed patterns in a couple of hours.

What do you expect from the mainstream? Just look at the images in the above video, for example. Do you really think that hoaxers could be out in the middle of nowhere, in the dead of night, going completely unseen and leaving no tracks of entrance or escape, with only a few hours, is possible?

The people responsible must have a tremendous amount of resources, people, and money at their disposal, not to mention the skills necessary to make such a large and mathematically perfect design. This is why Taylor believes that “crop circle artists are not going to give up their secrets easily.” He believes that unknown artists are venturing “into the countryside close to your homes”  to “carry out their craft, safe in the knowledge that they are continuing the legacy of the most science-oriented  art movement in history.”

He published those words in an August 2011 edition in Physics Worldand it’s not hard to see why he feels this way. These designs are truly jaw dropping.

Lab Studies

The formations have also been studied in a laboratory setting, and some have indicated that the nodes of some of the stalks were blasted out on one side. It’s not conclusively known how this was done, but the effect has been replicated by highly localized microwave heating. This type of technique causes water inside to vaporize and dislodge. As a result, the stock flops completely over to one side. 

You can refer to this article for more information about that, and to view some other formations.

One source for this information comes from one of the worlds leading UFO researchers Richard Dolan. It’s also again shown by Taylor and his microwave theory, as well as other scientists who have published results showing strange heating occurrences that some have brushed off as light phenomena.

“There is a mounting body of evidence that suggests that a rare form of electromagnetic energy called an ionised plasma vortex (generally known as ball lighting) is involved.” – Greg Jefferys, historian.  (source)

This explanation was originally offered by physicist Dr. Terence Meadon, who believed that these patterns were the result of atmospheric phenomena.  He suggested that wind currents and ionized plasmas are the culprit. But given what we now know about the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon, the extraterrestrial hypothesis is very plausible.

Clearly something very sophisticated is going on here.

What On Earth? 

What On Earth? Inside the Crop Circle Mystery, winner of the Best Feature Documentary Award from the UFO Film Congress, is filled with stunning imagery of the circles. It deals with how our scientific materialistic worldview hampers serious investigation of one of the greatest mysteries of our time, and the many indications that the phenomenon is not a human perpetration. It goes on to speculate about what would happen if it were ascertained that the circles do indeed come from another intelligence, whether that be a civilization or something different — how that would help us think as a planet, which would give us our best chance to solve the pressing global problems that challenge us now.

The film was released in 2009. If you’re interested you can find out more about it here.

If you want to view our latest articles on the UFO/ET phenomenon, please click here.

Below is a short segment from the Thrive documentary, which now has more than 100 million views worldwide.


Ignoramus boy Macron Calls RT & Sputnik Deceitful Propaganda

RT | May 29, 2017

Newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron explained his team’s decision to deny RT and Sputnik, both Moscow-based news outlets, accreditation during his campaign, by labeling the media outlets as “propaganda.”

US Drops Leaflets In Tanf To Warn Syrian Military Not To Advance, Orders Retreat

Activist Post | May 29, 2017 | Brandon Turbeville

In a blatant but not altogether surprising display of arrogance and aggression, the United States recently dropped leaflets on the al-Tanf road, warning the Syrian military to halt its advance toward Tanf and demanding a retreat.

According to reports both by Leith Abou Fadel of Al-Masdar and from SouthFront, the leaflets were dropped after the Syrian military had advanced to the Shehmi area, which is located about 55km from the city of Tanf. The leaflets not only warned the SAA to stop advancing but demanded that it withdraw to the Zaza triangle.

The images can be seen at the SouthFront website in the article “US-Led Coalition Drops Leaflets Warning Syria Not To Approach Al-Tanf Town.

According to local sources cited by SouthFront, the leaflets contained sectarian expressions.

Syrian TV reported that the SAA has managed to advance in and around the Scientific Research area of the eastern desert of the Suweida countryside. The Syrian military was also able to repel an attack launched by the Western-backed terrorist group known as the Free Syrian Army in the same area.

In addition, SouthFront has reported that the “US-led forces” used Switchblade suicide drones in order to target the SAA positions with Grad missiles south of Zaza.

The move toward Tanf is significant because it puts Syrian military forces moving toward U.S. and U.K. Special Operations Forces stationed at the same location.

The base, located at al-Tanf, has been operational for around a year.

As RT reports,
The area is of substantial strategic importance to the regime, as controlling it would help re-establish a road link with Iraq to the south.

In June 2016, Russian jets, providing top cover for the Syrian military, bombed the base. No casualties were reported.

In April, the base reportedly came under attack from Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

The UK government refused to comment in line with its long standing policy relating to Special Forces operations.

The US has reportedly warned against further encroachment on the base and it remains unclear how foreign troops would respond to contact with Syrian forces.

The precise disposition and number of UK forces in unknown though they are likely to be either British Army personnel from 22 SAS or Royal Marines from the SBS – Britain’s so-called ‘Tier 1’ operators. Other units that operate under the same ‘no comment’ umbrella include the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), formerly the 1st Battalion of The Parachute Regiment, which supplies additional troops to SF operations and the shadowy Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), which provides expert close surveillance capabilities.
The possibility of a direct Syrian clash with US/UK forces and thus a Russian clash with US/UK forces is now becoming very real as the Syrian government does not seem ready to allow the US and UK to simply invade and occupy any more territory than they already have.

By now, it should be clear that the presence of the FSA in the Tanf area is nothing more than ruse designed to provide a tar baby for the Syrian military to fire upon – going under the guise of “moderate rebels” – which will then allow the West to scream that Syria is attacking moderates, violating agreements, and threatening American soldiers, and thus justify some type of U.S./U.K. reprisal.

Still, it appears that Syria and its Russian allies may be reaching the end of their patience with America’s arrogant invasions and chest thumping in Syria. The obvious strategy for the Syrian military is to lift the siege of Deir ez-Zour and retake Raqqa before America, Kurds, or America’s Kurdish terrorist forces are able to do so and thus begin choking the ability of terrorists to move back and forth, supply, and direct military efforts against the Syrian government. After the immediate goal is reached, the SAA will be tasked with surgically removing the cancer inflicted upon the country by the United States.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Image Credit: Southfront.org

Monsanto and the Causes of Cancer: Did Former US EPA Official Influence the European Food Safety Authority’s Verdict on Glyphosate Herbicide?

Global Research | May 24, 2017 | Claire Robinson

GMWatch - EFSA fails to provide evidence to support its decision to dismiss a key study showing glyphosate is carcinogenic.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been accused of excluding from its glyphosate assessment a key study only because of a negative comment by a former US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) official.

The former US EPA official, Jess Rowland, is under investigation in a US court case brought by cancer sufferers, who believe that exposure to Roundup triggered their disease. Based on internal Monsanto documents disclosed in the lawsuit, Rowland is accused of colluding with Monsanto to defend glyphosate’s health record.

The accusation against EFSA was made by the toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing, representing Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany, at a scientific conference on glyphosate’s health risks, held in the EU Parliament on 10 May. The conference was hosted by the Czech Socialist MEP Pavel Poc.

Dr Clausing said that he had met the head of EFSA’s pesticides unit, Jose Tarazona, the previous week. They had discussed a key study (Kumar 2001) showing that glyphosate caused malignant lymphoma in mice. Dr Clausing said that Dr Tarazona was not able able to give any concrete reasons why the study was excluded from EFSA’s assessment, other than that a US EPA observer had said the US EPA had not accepted it due to viral infections in the animals.

According to a report in EU Food Policy,[1] EFSA and PAN agree that the US EPA observer was Jess Rowland, who made the remark about infections during a teleconference about glyphosate organised by EFSA in 2015.

However, EFSA told EU Food Policy that
“it and member states had already picked up on weaknesses with the study and that the majority of member states had agreed there was a high background of malignant lymphomas in the mice used for the study.”
The EU Food Policy article goes on to quote Dr Tarazona as saying that Rowland informed EFSA “about potential flaws in the Kumar study (2001) related to viral infections that could influence survival as well as tumour incidence”.

Dr Tarazona told EU Food Policy that EFSA didn’t just take Rowland’s word for it:
“After the teleconference, EFSA experts checked the Kumar (2001) study themselves and found additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection.”
Dr Tarazona told EU Food Policy that Dr Clausing’s remarks “give rise to concerns about the integrity of EFSA’s glyphosate assessment”, but that this is “not borne out by the facts”.

Image on the right is Dr. Peter Clausing at Monsanto Tribunal (Source: GMWatch)

No evidence for alleged “viral infections”

So what were these “additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection”?

EFSA has had plenty of chances to describe them.

First, in its “Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate”, published in 2015, EFSA declared the Kumar study as
“not acceptable due to viral infections that could influence survival as well as tumour incidence – especially lymphomas”.
And second, in a peer-reviewed paper of the same year explaining why EFSA had come to a different conclusion on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity from the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency IARC (which classed it as a probable carcinogen), Dr Tarazona and his co-authors from EFSA and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) say that the Kumar study “was excluded due to a likely viral infection in the experimental population”.

But in neither document does EFSA give any supporting evidence for viral infections.

And in neither document does EFSA describe any “additional indications that confirmed deficiencies in the health status of animals, which supported the plausibility of a viral infection”, such as Tarazona claimed were present in the Kumar study.

In fact there is an irrefutable (by the EU authorities, at least) source that states that there is no evidence whatsoever that the animals in this experiment suffered from a viral infection or that their health was deficient as a result of such an infection. That source is none other than the CLH (harmonised classification and labelling) report on glyphosate, based on industry data and submitted by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

The CLH report states:
“During a teleconference (TC 117) on carcinogenicity of glyphosate hold [sic.] by EFSA… it was mentioned by an US EPA observer that the Kumar (2001, ASB2012-11491) study had been excluded from US EPA evaluation due to the occurrence of viral infection that could influence survival as well as tumour incidences, especially those of lymphomas. However, in the study report itself, there was no evidence of health deterioration due to suspected viral infection and, thus, the actual basis of EPA’s decision is not known” (p. 72).
Nevertheless, ECHA continued to use the narrative of a virus infection in spite of its admission that there was no evidence for such an infection. In its Opinion, ECHA cautions against “a possible role of oncogenic viruses” – which it apparently deemed as sufficient reason to exclude this important study from the overall assessment.

Unsurprisingly, having disposed of Kumar using an apparently evidence-free argument, ECHA followed EFSA in concluding that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

Dr Tarazona’s identification of the “US EPA observer” as Jess Rowland raises questions about the influence on the EFSA glyphosate assessment exercised by this man – who allegedly boasted to a Monsanto executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency’s investigation into the chemical’s health risks.

“Viral infection” claim first shows up in Monsanto-supported paper

It seems that Rowland himself did not come up with the narrative of the “viral infection”. It first appeared in a Monsanto- and Glyphosate Task Force-supported review, which concluded that glyphosate was non-carcinogenic. The review was co-authored by Monsanto employee David Saltmiras and published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which has industry ties. However, even this review introduces the idea of a viral infection in tentative language, referring to a “possible viral infection” that “may have confounded interpretation of results”.

EFSA goes much further than this Monsanto-linked paper in its unqualified claim that the Kumar study was “not acceptable due to viral infections”.

Malignant lymphoma-prone mice?

But what about the other supposed weakness in the Kumar study, the “high background of malignant lymphomas in the mice used for the study” that EFSA mentioned to EU Food Policy?

That argument doesn’t stand up either, according to Dr Clausing. He told GMWatch that while a good number of control mice did get malignant lymphomas, the glyphosate-treated mice had a statistically significant increase in malignant lymphomas, in a clearly dose-dependent fashion. Moreover, this statistically significant increase in malignant lymphoma was well above the range of historical control data (the “background” incidence referred to by EFSA) – supporting the observation of a glyphosate-induced carcinogenicity.

Dr Clausing said that these were valid historical control data as measured by OECD standards. This was important because there are a number of examples where EFSA used invalid historical control data to dismiss significant findings of carcinogenicity.

GMWatch believes that for EFSA to claim that these increases were due to chance and not to glyphosate is to turn its back on the scientific method.

The study that had to be killed

Dr Clausing believes that the Kumar study, together with two other studies showing the same effect, presents difficult-to-refute evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. Its particular significance within EFSA’s assessment is that the reasons used by EFSA to dismiss other studies showing glyphosate is carcinogenic do not apply to the Kumar study and a second study by Wood et al. (2009). In both studies the increase in malignant lymphoma in glyphosate-treated animals was both dose-dependent and significant, at doses that could not be dismissed as only a “high-dose phenomenon”.

In reality the Kumar study is far from being an outlier. Before EFSA produced its assessment, the German authority BfR, under pressure from the IARC verdict, had demonstrated statistically significant increases in cancer in seven rodent carcinogenicity studies with glyphosate. But EFSA denied these results, using what Dr Clausing considers spurious arguments, and insisted that there was only one mouse study – Kumar – with statistical significance.

According to the European legislation, evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two separate studies is “sufficient evidence” to label a compound as carcinogenic (category 1B). That would mean an automatic ban. Thus in Dr Clausing’s view, the Kumar study “presented an obstacle” to EFSA’s apparent intention to declare glyphosate as non-carcinogenic: “That’s why the exclusion of this particular study from further consideration was so important.”

Dr Clausing is not the only authority to believe that the Kumar study was particularly problematic for those who wish to argue that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic. The BfR remarked in its assessment of glyphosate that this unpublished industry study “was apparently not available to IARC” – “otherwise, it would have been certainly used as the first place argument for carcinogenicity of glyphosate” (p. 9).

Flawed study included by EFSA

Dr Clausing argued in his presentation to the EU Parliament that the Kumar 2001 study should have been included by EFSA in its assessment and that a study by Atkinson (1993), which found no carcinogenic effect of glyphosate, should have been excluded. The latter study was invalid, he explained, because only animals with signs of malignant lymphoma that were visible to the naked eye were examined more closely – a recipe for missing numerous cases. This flawed study was used as additional “proof” that glyphosate did not cause malignant lymphoma.

If EFSA had included Kumar and excluded Atkinson, it would not have concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic, Dr Clausing told the meeting.

Did Rowlands mislead EFSA on glyphosate?

Court documents released on March 13th show that Monsanto colluded with the EPA to bury scientific evidence linking its glyphosate product (RoundUp) to cancer in humans (specifically, Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma). (Source: Natural News)
In light of Jess Rowland’s role in the assessment of carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the US as reflected by the internal Monsanto documents, there are serious concerns that he might have influenced the decision by providing wrong information. Yet EFSA is not an innocent victim in this case. It apparently failed to properly scrutinize Rowland’s claim.

To summarize, the only publicly available explanation for EFSA’s dismissal of the Kumar study due to a viral infection is Rowland’s claim – yet there is no factual evidence whatsoever to back up the claim. Dr Clausing said he has examined the publicly available documents as well as the raw data of the Kumar study, which was made available to him by EFSA. He said,
“Scrutinizing all these documents did not provide any other evidence than the Rowland intervention. As a result, I have doubts about the integrity of EFSA’s assessment of glyphosate. Those doubts have been sown by EFSA itself.”

1. EU Food Policy. EFSA refutes claims it was improperly influenced on glyphosate. 15 May 2017. Subscription only (eufoodpolicy.com); no direct link.

Featured image: GMWatch