My legal brief on human experimentation
by Jon Rappoport
March 16, 2015
“It doesn’t take a genius to realize you don’t necessarily win a court case on the merits. But it’s a stomping ground, a place where challenges can be issued and Constitutional principles can be dusted off and exposed. It’s a venue where new arguments can, from time to time, gain traction. The courts are places where truthful PR operations can be initiated. Of course the game is rigged. Of course the system is corrupt. But hammering at the foundations of the corruption—if enough legal players catch on and join in—can have an effect. A court can function as a tabloid scandal sheet: here, have a look at the criminals who pose as guardians of Justice…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
What is now happening on Maui gives me the impetus to write this brief, which applies over a much wider area than the Monsanto-Maui lawsuit.
In that lawsuit, Monsanto/Dow are seeking to nullify Maui County voters, who passed a ballot-resolution temporarily blocking those corporations from carrying forward their GMO/pesticide experiments in the “open-air laboratory” of Maui County.
Monsanto and Dow are basically arguing that state and federal laws regulating agriculture supersede county laws.
Beyond that wrangle sits the more basic fact: what Dow and Monsanto have been doing on Maui is human experimentation; the GMOs and pesticides are new, they are not commercial varieties.
This is not “agriculture.” This is a researcher-human guinea pig relationship.
No independent environmental impact assessment has been done. The population of Maui has not been informed of the particulars of these experiments. Nor have they given their consent to be exposed to experimental pesticide spraying and gene drift.
Every conceivable law and regulation covering human experimentation has been violated.
The people of Maui have every right to argue the case on this basis. The Judge in the case should be compelled to hear those arguments and treat them as crucial.
Now let’s consider a wider territory that extends far beyond the Maui case. As Steven Druker establishes in his book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, the process by which GMOs were originally certified as safe and allowed into the food chain was no legitimate process at all.
The FDA’s own scientists were expressing grave doubts all the way along the line, and they were ignored. A nuanced form of pseudoscience and a tactic of falsely manufacturing consensus brought GMOs into the growing fields and the marketplace.
Therefore, if the truth matters, and it does, all GMO agriculture has the status of human experimentation, to this day.
Arguing that the FDA permitted GMOs to enter the food chain and…
Therefore, the Agency’s decision cancels any charge of human experimentation…
Take the example of a criminal case. A defendant, charged with murder, convicted, and sent to prison, appeals for a new trial through his lawyer. The lawyer has undeniable documentary evidence that police officers lied on the witness stand, collaborated on their stories, destroyed exculpatory evidence, and intentionally pinned the murder on the wrong man.
Can the State argue that, since the jury found the defendant guilty, the conviction must be upheld, all new evidence notwithstanding? Of course not.
Well, in the same way, if the “evidence” leading to the FDA’s certification of GMOs as safe was cooked and distorted and turned upside down, the status of GMOs should revert back to the category of experimental.
And these matters (the details on how GMOs were actually approved in the first place) should be permitted as arguments in court.
It’s not enough to say, “Well, GMOs are approved and that’s that.” New evidence can be presented. At trial.
After all, the judicial branch is tasked with exercising a check on both the executive and legislative branches.
Allowing extensive testimony on science vs. pseudoscience certainly fulfills that role.
In fact, courts may be the only remaining places where such arguments can be made inside the structure of government.
Practically speaking, no judge is going to favor opening this huge can of worms in his venue. I understand that.
But with enough lawyers making their arguments along enough fronts, across the country, pressure can build. And with a coordinated PR operation, who knows what might happen?
The truth is: GMOs are, at best, an experimental hypothesis that carries destructive health consequences.
In every area of science/medicine, laws and regulations determine the outcome of legal cases. The general approach is: if a government regulation upholds a piece of science as legitimate, the courts will deny challenges and automatically assume the piece of science is, in fact, legitimate.
This is a fatuous stance.
For example, in the area of psychiatry:
On April 29, 2013, at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) website, Director Thomas Insel, the highest ranking federal mental-health official in the US, published a blog commentary, “Transforming Diagnosis.” Insel wrote (April 29, 2013):
“In a few weeks, the American Psychiatric Association will release its new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)…
“The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been ‘reliability’ – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure.”
That statement provides grounds for arguing, in court, in many cases, that a psychiatrist’s expert testimony is invalid. It’s unscientific. It has no legitimate force or relevance.
I’m sure the first time a lawyer presents that argument he will fail. But if a dozen lawyers go on to assert the same proposition, in a dozen courts, the worm might begin to turn.
Psychiatry, like GMO science, is, at best, an experimental hypothesis.
In both instances, millions upon millions of people are the guinea pigs being experimented on.
And what about “vaccine science” and “climate change?” Why not open up the courts so that these matters can be argued on the merits? Some vapid media anchor or “medical expert” claiming “the science is settled” isn’t doing science. He’s doing, at best, opinion. Why should that carry the day?
If enough lawyers remembered why, at an early age, they decided to enter the profession, they might find the inspiration and courage to make cases and forward arguments that would actually serve Justice.
Don’t bother writing me to say, “It’ll never happen.” Trust me, I know at least as much about the status quo as you do. The point is, causing a good kind of trouble in the court system shines a light on fake science and exposes the march toward what amounts to a pseudoscientific police state.
Coming back to the Monsanto/Dow vs. Maui case, we have a prime opportunity. There is no doubt that what these corporations are doing on Maui is human experimentation. Their own literature proves and explains it.
Therefore, raise the issue in court. Make it clear. This case isn’t about agriculture and the pertinent regulations on the books. It’s about experimenting on a population and keeping that population in the dark.
Ram it home, lawyers.
Don’t be shy.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.