Bill Gates supports GMOs as "high-tech agriculture," February 2012, Bill Gates GMO interview
|
Time
Text
All right, this is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger here with naturalnews.com.
And who's looking over my shoulder?
None other than Mr.
Bill Gates, Mr.
Pro-Vaccine, Mr.
Genetically Modified.
We're going to feed the world with our high-tech agriculture.
Have you noticed that?
That they're not using the term genetically modified anymore.
Now they've changed it to be the term high-tech agriculture.
Yeah, check out this headline in Associated Press.
It says right here, Gates defends focus on high-tech agriculture.
Oh yeah, see, they're losing so badly now, these pathetic mainstream lie pushers and these poisoners of the world, which includes Bill Gates, who said he wants to reduce the world population with the help of vaccines.
I mean, he openly states that, 10-15% reduction in the total population with better vaccines.
What does that tell you?
Now they want to say it's all a high-tech agriculture, not genetically modified anymore.
That's how much we're winning this battle to spread the truth about GMOs, to demand GMO labeling in our foods.
Now they have to change the words.
Remember when the Corn Refiners Association did that?
They try to change high fructose corn syrup to just be corn sugar.
That hasn't gone through yet, but that's just another example of how they're trying to change the words on us to make us change the way we think about the same stuff that they're using to poison us.
Now, Bill Gates himself is just a huge proponent of, I guess, depopulation and there's no better way to do that than to put these poisonous seeds into the environment that aren't natural, that are engineered by corporate greedy Frankenstein scientists.
I mean, these are some crazy mad scientists who are trying to control the world's food supply.
Now, to support this, Bill Gates has made some quotes.
He's offered some quotes and he did an interview with ABC News that we're going to show right after my commentary.
I want you to watch Bill Gates in this video.
It's astonishing what he says.
Here are some of the words from the video that you're about to see.
He says, quote,"...I think the right way to think about GMOs is the same way we think about drugs." Whenever someone creates a new drug, you have to have very smart people looking at lots of trial-based data to make sure the benefits far outweigh any of the dangers.
So, are you kidding me?
Bill Gates thinks that the pharmaceutical industry is the example to follow?
The outright corruption, the criminality, the distorted science, the complete cherry-picking of so-called scientific studies, the fabrication of study data, the monopolization of healthcare, the mass poisoning of the American people, over 200,000 Americans dead every year just from taking FDA-approved prescription drugs?
Bill Gates thinks that's a great model.
Oh, we should have more of that.
Let's do that with the crops now.
Let's have the big pharma model in your farmlands and in your seeds and in agriculture.
And get this, he even goes on to say the following astonishing quote.
Bill Gates says, quote, You can't be against all drugs, but drugs in general are not safe.
Yeah, that's the point!
Neither are GMOs!
Doesn't that mean we should be testing GMOs for their long-term implications on the environment and on human health and reproductive health?
Oh, come on.
These people know exactly what they're doing.
GMOs cause infertility.
They poison agriculture.
The yields of GMO crops are lower than non-GMO crops.
And this use of the term high-tech agriculture It's just kind of a brainwashing technique to try to make you think that if you're not using GMOs, then it must be low-tech agriculture.
Oh, it's low-tech to plant real seeds, heirloom seeds that actually reproduce generation after generation.
Oh, I guess it's low-tech not to have poison in your corn.
That's low-tech now.
See, they're trying to bamboozle us with this high-tech terminology like, oh, like technology's always better for you.
Really?
Well, why don't you ask all the irradiated or dead people in Nagasaki or Hiroshima?
Why don't you ask everybody that was bombed with nuclear atomic bombs because that was the cutting-edge science of the time?
Great, great use of science, isn't it?
How about the chemical pesticide industry with all the environmental destruction, all the people it has killed, all done in the name of science?
How about the Bhopal pesticide factory explosion incident in Bhopal, India?
How many people died from that?
How many people suffered?
Oh, wonderful science.
I guess Bill Gates here can't get enough science.
We need more poison.
We need more radiation.
We need mosquitoes running around the planet with vaccines in them so that when they bite you, they vaccinate you.
I guess that's Bill Gates' vision of the perfect high-tech utopia with mass human casualties, mass depopulation.
No wonder he supports GMOs.
What better way to just kill off all the so-called useless eaters who are, I guess, trying to have just basic food and nutrition in our world?
The global elite doesn't like people to survive, and this is how they're going to kill you.
Watch this interview.
Listen to the words of this absolute madman who is just a complete, devious, wretched person who is trying to kill us, literally trying to kill us, and he openly admits it.
Take a look.
This year's letter is the idea that in order to feed the world, these emerging billions out there, farmers need technology.
They need genetically modified seeds.
To grow enough healthy food, but you never actually use that term.
You never actually use the term genetically modified.
Why?
There's many things we can do to improve agricultural productivity that aren't related to GMOs.
Getting fertilizer, teaching them no-till practices that sustain the soil well.
And we still do make more of our improved seed efforts are conventional breeding where you can still use genetics to see what you're getting.
But over time, yes, countries will need to look at specific GMO products, like they look at drugs today, where they don't approve them all.
They look hard at the safety and the testing, and they make sure that the benefits far outweigh any of the downsides.
And so the sophistication that we have in drug approval, even the poor countries, to avoid starvation, will want to have that for crops as well.
Now rich countries won't have to participate in that.
The question is can these countries have their ability to choose if something's going to prevent starvation and they see that the risks are extremely low.
Can they as a country have that choice?
Is the innovation being funded and the expertise made available to them?
Because one of the big causes of these problems is going to be the climate change that the rich countries have caused.
And so it'd be ironic if they prevent the tool that would avoid starvation from being made available to the people whose lives they've measurably caused a terrible problem for.
There were fears, obviously, as you know well, that vaccines caused autism.
And it took a lot of years and a lot of science to quell that fear almost entirely.
Do you see parallels with the fear of genetically modified foods.
Are some of those concerns warranted about creating super weeds or superbugs or those sorts of things?
Well, the autism connection to vaccines was a corrupt piece of science.
The data was completely fraudulent and it's caused lots and lots of deaths because the kids who don't get vaccines, they die of measles and pertussis and There's very substantial numbers.
That's why some rich countries have lower vaccination levels than some of the poorer countries.
And what you'll get is a group of parents who spread those rumors and you'll get a whole school class where you can get measles and pertussis deaths in particular.
So, you know, it was a pretty clearly evil thing and Very unfortunate to have the tool that saved so many come under an unfair and fraudulent attack in that case.
GMOs were at an earlier stage, but over time the benefits will be substantial and so each country will make a choice.
When they first came out the benefits were quite modest.
They weren't things that would save lots of people from starvation.
That's much more in the future.
There are lots of seeds, non-GMO seeds, that are also yet to be fully created.
Right.
And there's also the economic concern that big companies like Monsanto, they have the patents not only on the seeds but the weed killer.
And so farmers, both in America and India, then have to buy both in order to survive.
It's very expensive.
What are your thoughts on that?
Well, in these poor countries the intellectual property is given to non-profits and so that's the seeds we're working on for the poor countries.
There's absolutely no payments, no royalties of any kind.
It's just like in medicines, we're able to get medicines where there's no profit made when they're sold to the poorest countries.
And we do the same in agriculture.
We go to the big companies who don't expect to make profits from the poorest billion and say, will you help us?
And so they donate it.
You have to adapt the seeds anyway.
The agricultural soil conditions, weather conditions are quite different in Africa.
And that's partly why the Green Revolution that helped Asia so much passed Africa by.