According to a USDA report, “Between 1990 and 2020, prices paid by farmers for crop seed increased by an average of 270 percent, while seed prices for crops grown predominantly with genetically modified (GM) traits rose by 463 percent, substantially more than commodity output prices.” Agricultural journalist Alan Guebert asks, "How would most of 'us' explain this incredible, 193 percent price increase in GM seed over non-GM seed during this period?" He answers his own question: "No doubt, many of us would link the price increase to the tightening grip that one seed giant was having on GM traits in the US corn, soybean, and cottonseed markets. USDA confirms this in its detailed analysis: By 2009, GM traits owned or licensed by Monsanto were used on 95 percent of soybean acres, 81 percent of corn acres, and 79 percent of cotton acres in the United States." Guebert also blames the US government for not strengthening antitrust rules and thus allowing that market concentration. The Courier

 

 

A new systematic review of studies on glyphosate and its commercial weedkilling formulations has found “strong evidence” that the weedkilling chemical has five out of ten key indicators for cancer hazard. The researchers from UC Berkeley said their analysis also revealed "strong and consistent positive findings" that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor and has the ability to cause DNA or chromosomal damage (genotoxicity). For genotoxicity, the researchers found: 1) studies conducted in humans provided stronger positive evidence than animal studies; 2) glyphosate-based formulations elicited a stronger effect in both human and animal studies when compared to glyphosate alone; and 3) the highest quality studies in humans consistently revealed strong evidence of genotoxicity. The authors conclude their review, "Our findings strengthen the mechanistic evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and provide biological plausibility for previously reported cancer associations in humans, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL]. We identified potential molecular interactions and subsequent key events that were used to generate a probable pathway" to the onset of NHL. Chemosphere

 

 

Dicamba and 2,4-D herbicide sprayed on GM dicamba- and 2,4-D-tolerant crops is harming mature trees in Illinois, according to reports. The trees are showing signs of distress, with leaves that have wilted, curled and cupped. Kim Erndt-Pitcher, senior habitat and agricultural programs specialist at Prairie Rivers Network, said that in some areas the organisation has been monitoring, some oaks are no longer producing acorns. Prairie Rivers Network says in a post on its website, “In recent years, states across the US have been dealing with large increases in reports of injuries to crops, trees, and plants. These injuries are symptomatic of exposure to plant growth regulator (PGR) herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba, which are commonly used in agriculture and lawn management." The News-Gazette

 

 

The 2020 "Proximal Origin" paper dismissed the lab origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 out of hand and was instrumental in stifling debate into the origins of the virus. But newly released messages from the authors show that they did not believe the conclusions of the paper and that the paper is the product of scientific fraud and scientific misconduct, says Richard H. Ebright on Twitter. See the table of private comments made by the "Proximal Origin" authors and prepare to be amazed! Richard H. Ebright on Twitter @R_H_Ebright

 

 

Kristian Andersen, first author of the "Proximal Origin" paper (see above), had a major grant proposal on Anthony Fauci’s desk while writing a paper exonerating a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded lab in Wuhan, documents show. And Andersen and a fellow author, who testified before the House subcommittee investigating the origin of COVID-19 virus, misled Congress about the nature of the multimillion dollar grant, which was still pending at the time they joined a critical conference with Drs Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci in February 2020, according to NIH documents. Andersen told the Congress committee he had no live fundraising requests before Fauci’s agency at the time of the call. But newly uncovered messages revealed in the hearing undermine Andersen’s claim. It is true that by November, the grant had cleared the independent review process, but it was still pending final approval from the director, Fauci. The grant wasn’t finalised until May 21, 2020. In other words, it was on Fauci’s desk at the time of the conference call. For Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and critic of Andersen’s, the timing put Fauci and Collins at an extraordinary advantage in their interactions with the scientists: “Andersen and Garry had a proposal for a center grant in the post-Council administrative-review stage in January-May 2020, making them maximally susceptible to pressure from Fauci and Collins.” The Intercept

 

 

An influential British scientist played down the COVID lab leak theory to avoid angering China, newly released messages suggest. Prof Andrew Rambaut, professor of molecular evolution at the University of Edinburgh, was one of the authors of the "Proximal Origin" paper published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 (see items above). Private messages released by the US Oversight Committee, which is investigating the origins of COVID, show that in the weeks before publication the authors had acknowledged that a lab leak was a possibility but were concerned about upsetting the Chinese. In a conversation with first author Prof Kristian Andersen, on Feb 2 2020, Prof Rambaut wrote: “Given the s---show that would happen if anyone seriously accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape, so we are content with ascribing it to a natural process.” Prof Andersen replied: “Yup, I totally agree that that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate it when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that.” The Telegraph (paywall)

 

 

President Joe Biden has cut off US government funding for China's Wuhan Institute of Virology after a review found the facility non-compliant with federal regulations. For many observers, especially those favouring the lab leak COVID origin theory, it was long overdue.“This is a step forward toward acknowledging that COVID-19 likely originated from US-funded gain-of-function research at WIV and toward taking steps toward preventing a future lab-generated pandemic," said Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright. But Ebright, a chemical biology professor, also complained the move was insufficient to fully address the problem. For one, EcoHealth Alliance, a US-based organisation that conducted coronavirus research at the lab, is still receiving federal dollars and has not been disbarred. Ebright also says former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins and former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases leader Anthony Fauci were not held accountable for their role. He'd like to see a full ban on gain-of-function research. Washington Examiner

 

We hope you’ve enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible by readers’ donations. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!