I received this from a relative in Oklahoma this morning. I have corrected a few spelling errors and removed a name but, for the most part, it is in the original form. I would add that some of the…
t-
ments. ''■■';_ ■" '
■■ Role of the public sector -.-..:
The agricultural industry should" operate
with a minimum of direct Involvement by
the public sector. Ideally, the public sectors
role should be limited to the establishment
and enforcement of rules which will allow
the industry to maximize its contribution to
the national welfare. Such rules might in-
clude restrictions on the use of certain pro-
duction practices or inputs, or restrictions on
the use of land for purposes other than
agriculture, or for purposes excluding^ agri-
culture Once established, "■ the industry
through free market forces, would have^ to
make the necessary adjustments. The public
sector-might provide assistance to alleviate
the burden of such adjustments; but such
assistance should be of limited duration,•-__
In general, the rules established for tne
agricultural industry or any other industry
should be limited to those which result m
more efficient use of natural and human re-
sources. The private sector will utilize re-
sources efficiently only to the extent that the
price structure reflects the true costs of these
resources. We should not expect t»e private
sector to cease dumping wastes in*° «f ijf:
tlon's rivers and.lakes if it is ^.B*$*£***
from doing so and-does not.have, to.bear..the
Page 5
Page 6
ime 21, 1972
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
21739
cer bushel of projected yield" rather than
i restrictions on total payments. Kestric-
ons of total payments encourage inefficient
irm organization.
2 Over the same S-year period, non-re-
ourse loan rates would be reduced to a "dis-
=ter price" level for feed grain crops and
/heat and to eero for all other crops. The
isaster price level would be one that is
ufficiently low that it rarely sets the price
ithoueh it may have & seasonal effect on
rice in many years. Bather than taking
!ver a large volume of stocks in the event of
. -vear encountered in which the market price
rotad have remained below the loan level for
irons a reseal program extending if necessary
iver a few years should be instituted so that
•tocks remain in producers' hands rather
■nan in GCO inventory. If reseal stocks start
:o rise the disaster price should be lowered,
-Snce this would indicate that'the loan price
ias apparently become higher than the
»auUibrium price.
3 purchase programs such as the one tor
flau'v products should be phased out over a
few years. Price stability appears to be the
orhicipai justification of the program and
saülc marketing orders appear to be potent
enough to give this stability. ,.„,,.
i All commodities presently supported due
to a critical "national defense" requirement
should be reviewed to see if they are really
critical. Tung oil and gum naval stores surely
are not critical to national defense, Due to
the development of artificial sweeteners,
domestic production of sugar seems no longer
critical to national defense. Neither is do-
mestic production of wool, due to the devel-
opment of synthetics.
It is often argued that a progressive lower-
ing of direct payments and loan rates is no
better than letting the blow fall in a single
year If producers could foretell the adjust-
ment which will be made, this might be the
case. Land values would drop exactly to the
levels reflected by their value in an "adjusted
agriculture." We cannot, of course, anticipate
many of the adjustments even from a na-
tional vantagepoint. Certainly we cannot ex-
pect individual producers to predict ac-
curately the many institutional changes
which will affect them.
Drastic shifts in agricultural enterprises
may be expected from the above recommen-
dations, but adjustments to alternative agri-
cultural enterprises take time. It. is for this
reason that the committee proposes a grad-
ual phase-out of present programs over a
5-year period. For example, should the rais-
ing of -beef cow-calf herds become more
profitable than cotton then it will take time
to make this adjustment. Beef cow herds
can only be economically built up over time.
A crash buildup could lead to disaster for an
individual producer lacking managerial
skill's in beef cattle production. Too rapid
a buildup would also mean chaos for present
beef producers as it would cause precipitous
changes in livestock prices.
Too rapid a switch between crops also
causes managerial difficulties for producers
as can be witnessed by talking to producers
who are growing soybeans or grain sorghum
or many of the speciality crops for the first
time.
Even if price support adjustments are
phased over a S-year period, land prices will
probably drop more than is warranted due
to uncertainty as to the effect of the chang-
ing levels of support. But at least progres-
sive decreases in support levels win give
more time for the future to be known and
should result in land prices not dropping to
as low a level as they otherwise would.
The question of how to handle the reduc-
tion in land values resulting from elimina-
tion of present farm programs was debated
at length by the Committee. Fairness would
dictate a policy of reimbursing'those Who
purchased land at prices including the cap-
italized value of farm program benefits, but
such a policy would be impossible to ad-
minister. The question then becomes one of
whether the inequities of eliminating the
capital value of program benefits for those
who paid for them is greater or lesser than
the inequities of reimbursing all landowners,
including those who neither earned nor paid
for the benefits. The Committee felt that the
inequities of the latter were greater and,
therefore, concluded that land owners should
not be reimbursed for their losses.
The Committee would not, however, want
to see this issue stand in the way of elimi-
nation of present farm programs. Should
political realities dictate that payment in
total or in part be required, such payment
should be made. The long-term benefit to the
Nation would justify such a compromise.
Other Pkogkams Affecting Fabmeks ahd
Fakm Income,
The Department administers many pro-
grams other than price support and direct
payments which have an impact on the farm
sector and individual participants in this
sector. These include credit, crop insurance,
market information, domestic and foreign
market promotion, and market research and
dissemination. The nature and scope oí this
report prohibits a full and detailed analysis
of these programs. What follows are the
Committee's views on the general direction
that should be taken by these programs and
an identification of issues that should be ex-
plored in greater depth.
Farm Credit
The credit needs of agriculture are great
and will likely increase in the future. Con-
sistent with the objective to assure adequate
supplies of food and fiber, the Nation must
see that the credit needs of the farm sector
are met. But the farm sector, to operate
effectively within a free market environment,
must not be given a competitive advantage
in the capital markets. Discrimination in
favor of agricultural borrowers would raise
the possibility of over-investment in the
farm sector.
There is some evidence to support the
argument that our supply management prob-
lems are, in part, due to excess availability
of capital in the farm sector brought about
by discrimination in favor of agriculture in
the national allocation of money.« Clearly,
to avoid excessive availability of capi-
tal in agriculture over the long-run,
the farm sector should compete for funds
in the capital markets along with other in-
dustrial sectors. If farmers, in the aggregate,
are receiving equitable returns to resources,
sufficient capital, barring any imperfections
in the capital markets, shouid.be available,
private lenders,' along with .the Farm Credit
System, should be capable of providing the
credit nee'dsVof agriculture. The Farm Credit
System'should continue to. compete for funds
in the money market; their bonds should re-
main uninsured by the Federal government
and their loans free of any interest subsidy
to the borrowers. It will, of course, be neces-
sary for the Department to monitor the
credit system to see that imperfections in
the money markets do not impair the pro-
duction of adequate supplies of food and
fiber. , . .
The large amount of capital required to
develop an economically viable farming
operation does serve as a formidable barrier
to entry. For this reason, there are those who
argue that subsidized credit should be made
available to those wanting to enter the farm-
ing industry. If farming is to be treated as
an intìustry rather than as a way of life, this
position cannot be easily supported. A basic
justification for subsidized loans to new
entrants, regardless, of the industry, is to
maintain competition and allow for technical
innovation. But in agriculture there are
a "Agricultural Finance Review," Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, August 1971.
presently too many firms to provide adequate
income for all participants, and technical
innovation in agriculture has not been, nor
will it be in the foreseeable future, dependent
on new entrants who require subsidized
credit. Por these reasons, the Committee rec-
ommends elimination of the FHA Farm
Ownership Loan and Farm- Operating Loan
programs, ' . ' " :
The FHA Emergency Loan Program needs to
be continued/Private sources of capital are
not likely to be adequate to cover the credit
needs of farmers affected by natural dis-
aster nor are farmers generally prepared to
meet the full cost of financing such loans.
The Committee would, however, prefer to
see increased use of insurance by farmers
to cover such losses. In this way, the full
cost of risk would be borne by the market
system. The Committee feels that the sub-
sidized sou and water loans, to individuals
and associations and loans to grazing asso-
ciations need to be fully reviewed. There
may exist a need for such loans, but it is
unlikely they can be supported on grounds
of aiding commercial agriculture or, as they
are aligned in the Department's program
structure, supporting farm Income.
Domestic and Foreign Market Promotion
Domestic Market Promotion: The Commits
tee ieeis that expenditure of public funds for
domestic promotion of agricultural products,
or for the administration of funds collected
from producer groups for this purpose, is
highly undesirable. At- any given income,
consumers will not likely increase their ex-
penditures for food as a result of. market
promotion. Trade-offs between commodities
might occur, but this is merely benefiting
one group of farmers at the expense of an-
other with little or nò net social benefit. Ex-
penditures for such purposes and with such
known benefits can be justified by com-
modity groups whereas such expenditures by
the public sector cannot. The same holds
true for non-food items of agricultural ori-
gin Here the trade-off Is primarily with prod-
ucts of nonagricultural origin, but the argu-
ment against expenditure of public funds
for promotion remains valid as no, or little,
net sociai benefit is gained.
The exception to this line of reasoning
would be promotional and educational activi-
ties aimed at improving human nutrition.
The objective of such a program would have
nothing to do with improving farm income,
but rather, would be directed at improving
the diet of the target group. The Extension
Service's Food and Nutrition Education Pro-
gram is an example of this type of. program.
The expenditure of public funds for this pur-
pose can be fully justified; in fact,, increased
eifoft needs to be aimed towards improving;
human nutrition and our knowledge of hu-
man nutrition needs.. .::.-.. ': ■
"The emphasis, domestically, is to produce
adequate supplies of food and fiber and not
to provide adequate demand for the output
of agriculture. This being the case, public
funds should not be expended on programs
whose sole aim is to increase consumption of
a particular commodity.
Foreign Market Promotion: National eco-
nomic strength is dependent, in part, on
avoidance of trade deficits over extended pe-
riods of time. One clear way to minimize
trade deficits is to establish import restric-
tions But, the Committee feels that the
united States and other countries should
strive to relax artificial trade barriers. It
would be unrealistic to assume or to-propose-
complete free trade in the near future—the
impact on the world economy would be
severe. But, steps In this direction need to
he taken. Some degree of control will likely
be needed with .respect ' to agriculture to
avoid dumping, by the United States or other
countries, of large- amounts of surplus com-,
modities In any given year-. Severe- changes
in the amount of agricultural commodities
moving into world trade would exacerbate
Page 7
Page 8
June 21> 1972
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
21741
mutton. H there Had been only 600,000
institution. oî the average iarm
ieXtZ have been about $90,000. This is well
WÄ toe range of a one- or two-man opera-
?Är most Igrieultural enterprises.
^Srtwïto not feel it necessary to P**f"b*
B ,ïmber ana sise distribution of farms
^tdÄ ancient agricultural system
ne+*7 future, individual farm size will be
** ^ Smtoed fey now well each, unit
íargely deterrai*^ * and marketlng
oaíf nties to IS to all other unite. Un-
aot^« efficiency criteria, a productton-dis-
der »a eBoien^ t, ¿compass farms of
WT™"siÄS numbers, olir major con-
1« is noTwnether agricultureis egg***
ceî" » _mall farina or few large farms, oi
rfmT^mbCt£Hf number Ind size of
s0^ rS it is focused on how eonimer-
f¿ agS«re in the aggregate can best
oial agni, d ^ oî tne Nation
S rf«Ä awarding its own partici-
P^Snoval of the government from supply
mSÄ aÄles will HMiy accelerate
f^Stion in the agricultural industry. But
^îSaîon should not be confused with
m Ä takeover of farming operations
ÄÄ» are that farming; will
? „!rt nf a hlshlv integrated productlon-
™AÌng system we do not feel that large
«*ïï corporations pose a major threat,
ofÄaya dominant role, in tomorrow's
toSt ÄÄW for production at
th^m level to be geared more closely to
fnll Set demands. It is to ««
SSod prices, It is also to the advan-
ce of the consumer. Producers niust In-
tenti» their search for ways of becoming a
S naît of the total process by which con-
sume? demands for food and fiber are met_
Eric Thor Identifies four types of todustry
organiÄ that seem to be developing to
meieySmer?oerͿnized into bargaining asso-
ciatiS negotiate price and terms of con-
tract with processor and pacto ^
2 Larira investor-owned, food-converting
eorporSfons integrated from the ultimate
nn^iimpr back into farming.
CTS integrated multiple-product farm-
«4ÄU between farmer coopera-
ti vés and investor-owned corporations.
tS'Äi in which agriculture s head-
ed and its implication to the nation's farm-
era should be obvious, in order to play a
liable role in the future, today's Producer
muä ahgn his pro«t^ the
distribution system, more closely with tne
rpaulrements and demands of the anal con
uÄhe possible structural arr^g^en
mentioned bv Thor are potential vemcies
Sgh which this meshing process might
oecÄ doubt others «^»«^
The Committee ^dorses public pohciesde
signed to assist ae^ou}to* ^c°^\Xr
marfcet-oriented. The alternati ve is»**£«
cost industry-one which retains toefficient
production patterns and inefficient P^ucers
dependent on income teansiers*r°fJhlo^!
of society. There is, of course, need %o moni-
tor these developments to assure maintenance
of a highly competitive industry. .
These trends-reduction m í^^strv
and increasing coordination among industry
sectors-are consistent with the basicpolicy
framework of the Committee It is impor
tant to note that these ^«nds/^ taktog
place today. Existing P°Hy** &$£*£
with their annual cost of $4-5 »J;
American taxpayers, are leading us to the
same direction as the much less costly policy
a "Increasing Understanding oí Public
Problems and Policies" Farm Foundation,
1971.
CXVIII 1870—Pant 17
and programs proposed by the Committee.
Agíarfan íundímentalists shudder at the
thought of fewer farms or the loss of in-
dependence of our American farmers as a
result of integration such as has occurred
in.the broiler industry, To a large extent it
has been the agrarian fundamentalists who
have created aid perpetuated our present
policy and programs. But that which they
want to protect or preserve is not being pro-
tected or preserved with present programs.
While evidence can be brought to bear in
support of either position-an efficient agrl-
ouiuu-e with resulting bigness, ^gration
etc., vs. preservation of traditional agrarian
values with small independent ís;raíS,^¡
îarmers-the Committee's set of values leads
it to place greater emphasis on an efficient
agricultural industry. We feel the ^o^ural
industry can provide adequate supplies of
food and fiber at reasonable pnoes and
equitable returns to resources, including
Äy labor, with a minimum of government
fÜÍtTae SSSST—ttf that society which
is OS percent urban will be directed by urban
Priorities and these priorities will call for an
agriculture which provides adequate sup-
S of food and fleer at reasonable prices
It would seem unlikely that they would be
vriiung to pay the cost, either in the form of
toes or higher food prices, that wouldresult
from efforts to maintain large numbers of
totally independent fanners^ffltìent agri-
culture may, however, conflict with urban
desires to improve the quality of the environ-
ment. Action taken in recent years indicates
that society is willing to make some sacrifice
In efficiency to gain environmental bene-
fits. The Committee recognizes the need to
improve the quality of the environment But
toe conseq.uences oí actions to accomplish
íto end, both beneats and costs, must be
fully explored and made an integral part of
the decision-making process.
IMPROVING TBS LEVE!, OP LIVING IS
EUR«. AMS8ÏCA
The Committee's recommendations remove
from agricultural policy the welfare consid-
erations of small farmers andJ****™*
residents. Present farm programs have at-
tempted to combine the objective of main-
Sng a healthy agricultural industry and
the objective of improving the welfareof
small farmers. Our attempt to accomplish
lotíTobjetives by a single approach has been
^efficient in meeting the former and inef-
Äe in mee«ng thl latter • ™*f **£
agricultural policy consideration oí the small
fura and other rural residents does not im-
ply removal of their problems from consid-
eration by the public sector. But as pointed
ouTeTrlïer in the report, agriculture cannot
be looked upon to provide employment oppor-
tunities sufficient to maintain the present
rural copulation. If rural towns and com-
mumÄe to survive, and hopefully grow,
more off-farm employment must be lound.
The purpose of tbto section of the report is
to present the Committee's views on what
must be done to revitalize our rural com-
Sunlties, to tackle present rural problems,
md to adjust to present trends that may be
accelerated U our other recommendations are
adopted.
Bural America today—and lieyom,
The plight oí our rural people has been
well documented. In recent years, many task
forces and commissions have been estabided
to study and develop remedies ^ alleviate the
Problems of rural America. While descrip-
tions of the problem and recommended rem-
edies are in ample supply, direct action taken
to implement the recommendations has been
limited. A recent report of the Senate Com-
mittee on Agriculture and Forestry noted
that while much has been done for rural peo-
ple there are also wftMftt!
closed.0 The report Stated that often.tne
Federal response to the recommendations of
the rural poverty report was a series of puoi.
programs, which, when they proved their
merit, were discontinued. These projects were
often begun with great fanfare, indicating to
rural people that the government was going
to get something done, and then the fanfare
withered away into crushing disappotnt-
mThè basic problem in rural areas Is re-
flected in the history oí relative rural pop-
ulation decline. In the past & decades, while
total Ü.S. population has increased from 106
million to 203 million, the rural population
has remained steady at Just »bout 60 mil-
lion i» The iarm sector of the rural popula-
tion however, has declined from 32 million in
1920 (three-fourths of the total rural popu-
lation) to fewer than 10 million (one-fifth of
total rural population). Although the rate of
movement of people away from farms has
remained high, the number of people In-
volved has dwindled, as the size of the iarm
population has declined.
While the farm population continues to
decline, there is evidence of a net increase of
people moving into rural areas. From 1960-
70 the rural counties of the country grew in
population by 9.7 percent, while the urban
counties were gaining by 16.6 percent. How-
ever if the farm population, with its pro-
nounced downward trend, is subtracted from
the total rural population, one finds that the
nonfarm rural population (which comprised
the great majority of all rural people) rose
bv 19 percent in the 196Q's. Thus, the heavy
decline of farm population has tended to
mask the rapid growth oí the nonfarm seg-
ment oí the rural and small city population,
to the 1960's, about 200 nonmetropolitan
towns of 10,000 to 50,000 population grew by
15 percent or more; that is, at a rate above
the national average of 13 percent, thus Im-
plying net immigration.
Although per capita income in rural areas
has been rising at a faster rate than in urban
areas for the past 40 years, the percentage
sain has not been fast enough to narrow
the gap between rural and urban incomes.
In fact, the dollar gap has widened over the
years. Rural personal income, which increased
at an average of 7.4 percent per year com-
pared with 5.9 percent in urban areas, would
have had to grow at the rate of 8.5 percent
per year for this 40-year period to have closed
togspÍte oí improvement in rural income
in the 1960's, there remains a disproportion-
ate extent of poverty among families out-
side urban areas. The rural areas, account-
ins for about a quarter of the population,
have 49 percent of the Nation's poverty and
59 percent of the substandard housing.
The present rural welfare situation is wor-
risome just on the basis that an important
segment of our society is locked into a life
devoid of the opportunities generally avail-
able to our nation as a whole. But it de-
serves concern for other reasons. This Nation
needs to look increasingly to the rural sector
to house and employ our still-growing popu-
lation if we are to avoid further concentra-
tion of people in urban areas. In this regard,
the Committee is impressed with and en-
dorses the related recommendations of the
President's Task Force on Eural Develop-
ment and the National Goals Research Staff.
o "Effectiveness oí Implementation of the
Recommendations of the Presidential Cora-
mission on Rural Poverty," 92nd Congress,
First Session, November 30* 1971.
m Data presented to this section oî the re-
port were obtained from publications issued
fcy the Economic Research Service titled
"The Economic and Social Conditions in
Rural America in the 1970V May 1971 and
"Rural Development Chartbook," March 1971.
Page 9
IHf
21742
The thrust of their recommendations Is that
a national population attribution policy will
ba required for a mora deliberate and plan-
ned dispersion of our total population. If
this is to occur, the rural sector will have
to offer realistic alternatives to the oppor-
tunities for jobs and basic amenities of life
which exist in the urban sector.
Programs for action in rural America
The Committee has reviewed various pro-
gram proposals for upgrading rural Amer-
ica and recommends Federal action in the
following areas.
Income Assistance
Change often takes place at a greater rate
than to which the economy, through normal
forces, can adjust. During such periods, peo-
ple are often without a source of income.
Also, many poor, both urban and rural, are
unable to earn a living because of age, ill-
ness, or other disabilities. The Nation has
long recognized this problem and, over the
years, has developed a series of programs
aimed at providing income supplements to
needy people. Although initiated with good
intentions, the existing welfare programs
have evolved into a bureaucratic nightmare.
They have done more to perpetuate than
eliminate poverty. For this reason, the Com-
mittee strongly supports the proposed Fam-
ily Assistance Plan. Welfare reform is long
overdue and must be given highest priority
by both Congress and the Administration.
Although applying equally to both urban
and rural people, welfare reform would serve
as a basic element in the development of pro-
grams to improve rural America.
The Committee feels that the Family As-
sistance Plan must incorporate the follow-
ing features. First, payments to rural and
urban people should be equal except for ad-
justments in cost of living. Second, eligibility
standards should be established at the Fed-
eral level. Third, ail payments should be in
cash; payments in kind, e.g., food stamps
should be eliminated. Fourth, the Plan
should be financed through the Federal tax
system. Payment in excess of the Federal
minimum or to people not meeting Fed-
eral eligibility standards should be financed
entirely by State and local governments.
Job Training
Greatly improved educational and voca-
tional training are needed so that rural
communities can adequately supply skilled
labor and encourage new industry and busi-
ness to their communities. Effective pro-
grams must meet needs oí both workers and
employers. Bural areas are now getting only
about a third of their fair share (based on
population) of present manpower develop-
ment and training programs. Rural resl-
■ dents should have better access to these pro-
grams. Such efforts as the Concerted Services
in Training and Education (OSTE) and Op-
eration Hitchhike, as well as the Education
and Employment Service program, should
oe expanded to assure that those transfer-
ring out of agriculture and other rural resi-
dents have the opportunity to upgrade their
skills and have access to the full array of
manpower services.
Rural Industrial Tax Credits
An attractive tax credit on plant and
equipment should be offered new Industries
which locate in rural areas. Such an Incen-
tive would attract more industries to rural
America and provide job opportunities lo.
eally so residents would not be forced to mi-
. grate to other areas. The ta» credit could be
t¿%l£ î Crural area«, or it might be
graduated upward as one moves away from
■ * ^l6 metr°PoH*an centers. An objective
«™ <^e T?1?™011* oî a substantial por-
tion of local labor in relation to the skilled
I^0r^Whloli mighi be imported from out-
side the community.
Such tax incentive should be granted
through the Federal tax system, Local com-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
June 21, igy¿
íifvh KtìHùim -«-^rt v^ i «^..... ivifcj tínoo ■
ñZn\ ™ S +y t0 Hna t!aey have lQSUÍ- direction is imperative andTtoXk^10^
fnr «™ nUtt0,meet the incr^d demand not believe the aural communttvn6, *<>**
for services-schools, sewers, streets, hospitals, ment Revenue ¿Sp^oSVol-
tile principal thrust toward improvement &e
the rural sector. * ™menS of
The rural emphasis we suggested here a
not necessarily imply that existing ££**
housing and planning programs be s»i¡í ,15
rural and urban components. But the wî0
ership emphasis recommended, alone ™C
the rural directed programs suggested J£t
are essential to assure balanced consS ■
tion of rural-concerns within the p S
Federal structure. Existing general pS
are biased toward the urban sector Tbl ¿5s
partaient of Agriculture, although it ¿t
speak for rural America, does not have fS
force of program options at its disposal
for services-schools, sewers, streets, hospitals,
etc. Since both urban as well as rural peo-
ple will benefit from a more even distribu-
tion of industrial production.in the United
States, it seems only proper that both should
share in the cost.
Rural Development Credit Bank
A credit system should be established to
make credit available for construction of
community services and facilities and hous-
ing. Tue credit should take the form of in-
sured loans.
Research and^Technical Assistance
Research on the complex problems of rural
development should be encouraged to both
private and public institutions. This re-
search must be applicable to the problems
of local communities. The rather limited
amount of research directed toward rural
development has been largely descriptive or
fundamental long-terra research generalized
so that it applies to the numerous and var-
£? w^?tlon found «iroughout tne coun-
try, While such research server a useful
function in the formulation of national pro-
grams, it is of limited value to individual
rural communities. .
Most rural communities cannot employ
officials on a full-time basis who are capable
of formulating and Implementing long-term
development plans. Lack of such technical
SS?„0r? is piacea ruraI ooBununities at a
distinct disadvantage relative to urban
ÏEfîES 0ltleS- X° help fiU tm ***• the
Committee recommends that technical ad-
visors trained in community planning be
made available to rural communities. The
tKîA anlfunaiI1g arrangements for
this could be patterned after the system de-
veloped to provide technical assistance to
otnT^61Tiaad-^nt unlversiS and
£*her state colleges and universities should
be made an integral part of the system.
National Growth Policy
m ™™,ST af0Una pattern of development
in rural America and proper use of natural
resources the Committee recommends üeveT-
nfX?L ™a9ti0IWl fra*»work for land use
planning. The Committee believes It is the
responsibility of the Federal^rnment^o
analyze the various consequences of alterna-
te f ?fta strategies, choose among them,
SJJ«1 Ineate a Clonal growth policy. AH
Federal programs, including tax policies
transportation, housing and urban develop!
ment, resource conservation, and welfare
must be oriented toward attainment of toe
goals of that policy. To accomplish this will
require a major, Federally coordinated analy-
tILf^^ and othet resources we have
available to meet existing and known future
national needs. The approach suggested in
not SÄT ?? P0ll0y >»*lon cai-
?£L thlS?ind of J°b- zt d0«3 encourage a
stronger state role in assuring land use ¿tan-
Bu?uVnl0CaX flevel~aa *™al fhltstep.
But it does not acknowledge the need for
deXment1"1 ^^ °f S™™*
Getting the Job Done
atS a^'lff °Uon'J.t5e ^ß^tee has reiter-
ated an oft-repeated agenda for meeting the
XTT 0Í U7f nerica. The critical issue
pushed " agenda items "aeeom-
The Committee does not plan to suggest
what specific agencies in government should
do the jobs needed to upgrade the rural sec-
ÎSS HoweIer' a vlsIM<*. specified, cabinet-level
body or official must be designated to coordi-
nate rural development efforts. Rural Amer-
ica must have a real voice with the power to
assure that the voice is heard and^IeLd
improvement of the rural sector must be a
national goal affirmed by action programs de-
signed to meet specific objectives. The Com-
A MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY
(Mr. STAGGERS asked and was giver,
permission to address the House L i
minute, to revise and extend his »
marks and include extraneous matten"
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, the d¿
tmguished Senator from West Vheinia
the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, majority
whip of the Senate, used this strikjZ
Phrase at an impressive ceremony fa?
back in the hills of our wonderful State
last Saturday, June 17.
The occasion was the dedication of a
permanent memorial to Nancy Hanks
The place was the birthplace of this re-
markable woman. The sponsoring agen-
cy was the Historical Society of Mineral
County.
Forty years ago a stone marker was
set up on the site. But due to neglect it
was difficult to find in open country. Re-
cently a camp for young people has been
established there, and arrangements
nave been made to assure the mother of
Lincoln the respect that is due her
Considering the difficulty of access, a
large crowd assembled for the ceremo-
nies The Governors assistant presented a
State flag, and it was my privilege to
present a flag previously flown over the
Capitol. Both will be on display at the
site daily.
Senator Byrd's dedication address
pointed clearly and forcefully to the sig-
nificance of a moment in history. His ad-
dress demonstrates that he has equal
claims on our admiration and respect ss
an orator. Both his subject and his treat-
ment of it should be of interest. I include
it in the Record:
Speech by Bobsbt 0. Btkd, a U.S. Senato*
From West Virginia
Mr. Chairman, Congressman
ladles and gentlemen:
It is indeed a pleasure for me to be wit»
you on this occasion, when we are gathered
to mark a moment in American history. I
have always thought it unfair that, through-
out the ages, so many great women have
been bom to blush unseen, because of the
brilliance and success of the unen they moth-
ered or married.
The whole world knows of the greatness of
Abraham Lincoln. The world is very apt to
forget that the qualities that made him
great were born and bred into him. I am
not a student of genetics, but Nancy Hanks,
whose birthplace this Is, undoubtedly had a
major influence on President Lincoln's life.
Every American schoolchild knows that
Abe Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Ken-
tucky, but ï wonder how many of them
know that his mother was also, bom in a log…
n Seattle August 2-3, it was announced that a recent court decision prevented Monsanto from suing farmers for patent infringement when their crops become genetically contaminated with lab-engineered patented seeds.
But the ruling is insufficient to protect farmers in the real world, where contamination events are often much higher than only one percent of a field, as specifically prescribed in the ruling.The June 2013 decision dismissing OSGATA v. Monsanto discussed in the letter by Jim Gerritsen, president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, protects farmers from being sued for “inadvertent contamination” of “approximately one percent” of their crops. Gerritsen sent the letter in lieu of his appearance.That letter, reproduced at Good Food Web, has now gone viral, leading to some misunderstanding about the significance of the court’s decision and the protections afforded US farmers.The court did bind Monsanto to a statement made on its website that it would not sue growers, seed sellers or organizations for inadvertently using or selling trace amounts of genetically modified seeds. The court defined “trace” this way:While the USDA has not established an upper limit on the amount of trace contamination that is permissible, the appellants argue, and Monsanto does not contest, that ‘trace amounts’ must mean approximately one percent (the level permitted under various seed and product certification standards). We conclude that Monsanto has disclaimed any intent to sue inadvertent users or sellers of seeds that are inadvertently contaminated with up to one percent of seeds carrying Monsanto’s patented traits.
The court added, however, that anyone who replants or sells “even very small quantities of patented transgenic seeds without authorization may infringe any patents covering those seeds.” [emphasis added]The court specifically stated:
For purposes of this appeal, we will assume (without deciding) that using or selling windblown seeds would infringe any patents covering those seeds, regardless of whether the alleged infringer intended to benefit from the patented technologies. [emphasis added]
On the farmers’ side, the court did not firmly decide the issue of inadvertent contamination, leaving its assumption ripe for further litigation.Also on the farmers’ side, the June ruling clarified that a prior Supreme Court decision [Bowman v. Monsanto, 133 S.Ct. 1761 (2013)] “leaves open the possibility that merely permitting transgenic seeds inadvertently introduced into one’s land to grow would not be an infringing use.”However, the bulk of the decision was a win for Monsanto, which admitted to suing or threatening suit against nearly 850 farmers between 1997 and 2010 for patent infringement, settling 700 of those cases before they reached trial.Gerritsen understood and emphasized in his letter the key component of the ruling preventing Monsanto from suing farmers for trace contamination events when he asserted:
The estoppel protects EVERY farmer in the United States – not just those in our Plaintiff group.
So the ruling has national impact, and that’s important. But having only one percent of your crops genetically contaminated is rare, especially for small farms, or those surrounded by GM fields. Already, over 90% of all soy and sugarbeets grown in the US are genetically modified, and about 66% of corn.
A case in point: By 2009, nearly a third of natural rice crops in the US had become genetically contaminated, as reported in a significant trial against biotech firm, Bayer AG. That lawsuit resulted in a $137 million award to Riceland Foods, a farmers cooperative spanning five states.Though federal authorities today insist that there is no commercial GM rice growing in the US, in April, Turkish authorities arrested several people from companies that imported or distributed US rice which had tested positive for GM contamination. If not from commercial fields, then that contamination comes from ongoing trials or the 2006 contamination event which has not “been effectively eliminated,” as asserted by the US Embassy.Can you imagine Monsanto executives being arrested for contaminating natural crops in the US? That would be a real victory for farmers and consumers. If corporations were held accountable for dangerous products that destroy the livelihood of others (given the collapse of export markets), the entire biotech industry would take a much more precautionary approach to GM deployment. Such is not the legal lay of the land, however.
Alfalfa seeds are 2mm in size.Compare to field corn which is 13mm.
When the US Supreme Court deregulated genetically engineered alfalfa in 2009, with its tiny seeds that can be windblown for miles, the organic beef and dairy industry took a hit because alfalfa is one of four staple crops used for free-range cattle. That was the first GMO case heard by the land’s highest court, and the victory went to biotech, thanks to former Monsanto attorney, Justice Clarence Thomas, who refused to recuse himself from the case.By 2010, reports litigant Geertson Seed, US alfalfa had already been contaminated since GE alfalfa’s introduction in 2005. In 2011, the USDA approved widespread planting of the ubiquitous seed.A mere one-percent contamination event would be rare, with much higher contamination penetration the most likely scenario. But, yes, it is good that all growers and distributors are now protected from suit by Monsanto when only 1% of their farmland or seed supply is genetically contaminated. That’s 1% better than nothing.We need to remember that since the commercial deployment of GE crops in 1996, the federal government has consistently made it policy to promote the growth and spread of genetically engineered crops, here and abroad, as revealed in the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.In Section 733 of the 2013 Farm Bill, Congress stripped federal courts of the right to stop the sale and planting of genetically engineered crops during any legal appeals process. The Orwellian name, “Farmer Assurance Provision” has become widely known as the Monsanto Protection Act, though it applies to all biotech crops no matter who engineered them. That provision is set to expire next month, unless Congress approves its extension.Though 95% of the US wants GMO foods labeled, California’s reported election results claimed that less than half voted for Proposition 37. We can thank electronic vote counting systems for that, given that those machines can be hacked without detection. Those vote results are unambiguously fraudulent. (Hand counted paper ballots, in full view of voters, would completely resolve the issue.)Biotech companies, and their deadly products, are clearly at an advantage in the US.OSGATA’s president, Jim Gerritsen, made it clear that the victory was in the ruling applying that 1% inadvertent contamination to all farmers, and not just the plaintiffs in that case. We have much more work to do to protect our farmers from Monsanto’s aggression against genetic contamination that Monsanto caused, and much more work to protect all of us from lab-created food
…
he evening, after someone sent me the information that he’d died suddenly at 41 while training for a half marathon. Dr. Hakeem Abdul-Karim, DDS, P.A , better known as “Doc”, appeared to be extremely fit, and only 41 years old. He is described as a man of faith and strong character who left a Non Profit foundation behind that he started to help the underprivileged, which I hope will carry on his name. The more I search on the man and the holistic sites that rave about him, the more awesome I see he was.
His long time friend and patient had this to say about his death:
Greenville artist and former Daily Reflector pressman Pearless Speller said Abdul-Karim was his dentist, a fraternity brother and longtime friend.
“I found out on Wednesday,” Speller said. “He was a very active guy, played basketball every Sunday after church. He ran a lot and didn’t eat pork or beef or any red meat. He ate fish and chicken. He was cautious about what he ate. It just doesn’t add up”
As many of you know I started reporting on doctors who died suddenly (especially holistic ones here in Florida or the South East) in the last month. I never intended it to turn into a series which has been linked on a few network affiliates and some of the biggest sites online. I only wish this were better news. Dr. Abdul-Karim died in North Carolina where our first Doctor Bradstreet was also found dead on June 19th, just over one month ago.
“Doc” wasn’t your typical dentist or typical person by any means. He excelled in every way imaginable that I can find. Besides being in top shape and having extensive training in surgery, he treated severely disadvantaged children, and even mentally ill patients and his website says he practiced “preventive dentistry” and his Facebook page shows he liked many holistic sites such as the International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine (which I suggest you all like) as well as Healing with Nutrition, several functional medicine pages and other natural holistic websites.
He also had an A+ rating on the BBB’s site , no complaints ever that I see of, and had many all five star reviews on the review sites from his patients who obviously adored him.
I am reading on Facebook pages about what a kind gentle man he was who loved what he did and his patients adored their “Doc” It appears he was very involved in his church and started a non profit foundation 2 years ago so that his legacy would live on to help other (especially kids) after he’d passed away.
From the GoFundMe page set up for his Non Profit foundation:
Doc was a man who loved people, especially disadvantaged children, and he loved the Lord with all of his heart. For many years, Doc gave generously of his time and his treasure in support of those passions. About two years ago, Doc established a private non-profit foundation to ensure that his passion would survive beyond his lifetime.
We’re sure he never expected his lifetime would be so short.
Now, I thought twice about including him in my series of holistic doctors who have been found dead here in the last few months- many who were very young, and like Dr. Abdul-Karim, just died suddenly at a young age which appears has been a big shock to his friends, family and many adoring patients.
I had seen another site, that reported on my stories, add a young dentist to the list (we’ve not reported on any holistic dentists until now) who had died recently here in Florida. I didn’t do a story on that dentist (Dr. Castellano age 44) as I couldn’t find a cause of death and, unlike a few other Florida doctors who died, I didn’t have friends or patients in common to talk with to discuss a cause.
But Dr. Abdul-Karim was 41, holistic and it states clearly he died of a massive heart attack while training and was found that evening by a person passing by who saw him on the side of the road.
He may have very well fit and 41 and just died of natural causes- even if his friend say it simply “doesn’t add up” I’m certainly not saying that he didn’t. But with so many other holistic MD’s and DO’s (and now a dentist) dying suddenly who were so healthy fit and vibrant (and he was in this region of the US) I’m going to go with my gut and do this story.
If nothing else, people can see the great work “Doc” did and know that the world lost a wonderful man who was only 41 (just 4 days away from his 42nd birthday!) and perhaps someone will be compelled to share this or donate to the GoFundMe Page for his non profit foundation so that his name might live on to help others.
With every other story I’ve done, I end up receiving emails from patients (and sometimes family members) who often have more information. That may be the case here too, or maybe not. Remember 6 of those who were found dead within the last month or so were found here in the South East (most here in Florida) I know some holistic doctors who are worried and admittedly (though it could be one big coincidence) I always say that I am concerned for my better half- a holistic doctor as well.
So rest in Peace “Doc” . May the foundation carry on your name to help others for years to come. My heart goes out to his friends, family and legions of fans who obviously loved him very much.
Erin Elizabeth
…
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Brazil, South Korea and Russia are losing the battle among developing nations to reduce gains in their currencies and keep exports competitive as the demand for their financial…
Added by Anti Oligarch at 7:50am on November 15, 2009
Pull US troops out of Afghanistan. Leave Iran alone. Legalise drugs. Get the government out of people's private lives. Say no to the bailout of Wall Street fat cats. As a…
ed in part one of this report, and is absolutely mandatory reading before continuing below. What is happening in our country and all around the world has already crossed into dangerous territory, with children as their target. This is a billion dollar industry growing at rapid pace, and if people don’t see the writing on the wall, there is no turning back.
Puberty blockers are being used by physicians around the globe to transition children, which can lead to chemical castration and sterilization as well as a myriad of other side effects. This is the precursor to moving toward gender reassignment surgery. Where did these puberty blockers originate from, are they FDA licensed, and how did science play their role in this?
Dr. Paul McHugh, a distinguished professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, recently told the College Fix:
“Many people are doing what amounts to an experiment on these young people without telling them it’s an experiment. You need evidence for that and this is a very serious treatment. It is comparable to doing frontal lobotomies.
I believe it will be something like how we think of eugenics now. We will come to regret it when we discover how many of the young people that were injured regret it themselves.”
Medical Engineering Origins In 1969, Marshall and Tanner published the results of their study of 192 white British girls. They claimed that the average age of thelarche (onset of secondary breast development, whereas the initial growth occurs in fetal development) was eleven years and they defined “precocious puberty” in girls if this began before age eight. For boys, it’s if pubertal development occurs before age 9. What does this effect? Primarily, ones height. They could have a growth spurt to grow taller more quickly, then it stops, so when full grown they may be on the shorter side. It certainly wouldn’t put them out of the “norm,” but they’ve programmed a society based on vanity, so being slightly shorter is unacceptable. With girls, they may begin to develop breasts a few years earlier than their friends. With boys, their penis may begin to grow slightly faster than the average boy. In all cases, NONE of this has a negative health impact on the child. It doesn’t physically harm them, their organs, their bones, or their tissue. It comes down to vanity. Being as 1 in 5,000 – 10,000 children allegedly have “central precocious puberty,” it would seem that society would look upon this as “normal,” especially considering there are a lot of fairly short people in this world. Who really cares? They do, because they can monopolize on it, by suggesting it is a disorder. What happened next?
Immediately, scientists set out to find the genes to prevent this from happening. Miraculously, just two years later, in 1971, there was a discovery and synthesis of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) by two research teams, Andrew Shally of the New Orleans Institute Laboratory, and Roger Guillemin from the Salk Institute in California. They devised analogs that led to a Nobel Prize in 1977. This is what is used for puberty blockers, under the guise of a “disorder,” so it could be used for transgender transitioning in the future.
Sound Crazy? This is How The Mayo Clinic Depicts “Central Precocious Puberty:”
Precocious puberty signs and symptoms include development of the following before age 8 in girls and before age 9 in boys.
Symptoms
Breast growth and first period in girls
Enlarged testicles and penis, facial hair and deepening voice in boys
Pubic or underarm hair
Rapid growth
Acne
Adult body odor
When to see a doctor: Make an appointment with your child’s doctor for an evaluation if your child has any of the signs or symptoms of precocious puberty.
There is “central precocious puberty” and “peripheral precocious puberty.” The difference is, if it’s central, puberty starts too soon, but the majority of children have no medical problem and no identifiable reason for early puberty, whereas with peripheral, it is caused by estrogen or testosterone in the child’s body. Of course, they toss in extremely rare medical conditions that are separate issues that require treatment of their own, and could possibly be the culprit for why a child may be displaying signs of “precocious puberty.” They list horrifying, scary “rare causes” such as; a tumor in the brain or spinal cord, radiation to the brain, injury to the brain or spinal cord, exposure to external estrogen or testosterone, McCune-Albright syndrome, and ovarian cysts or tumors, which would make any parent want to rush their child to the hospital upon seeing an unusual growth of acne on their face, right?
Here is what they indicate to be the “complications” if a child has this “problem.”
Complications
• Short height. Children with precocious puberty may grow quickly at first and be tall, compared with their peers. But, because their bones mature more quickly than normal, they often stop growing earlier than usual. This can cause them to be shorter than average as adults. Early treatment of precocious puberty, especially when it occurs in very young children, can help them grow taller than they would without treatment.
• Social and emotional problems. Girls and boys who begin puberty long before their peers may be extremely self-conscious about the changes occurring in their bodies. This may affect self-esteem and increase the risk of depression or substance abuse.
So in short (no pun intended), all of this hoopla over CPP was to make parents feel that their children would feel inferior unless the parents stepped in and got treatment for this “problem.” ABSURD! Instead of letting the body take it’s natural course, they are suggesting that parents are incapable of raising their children with self-esteem, and this is because the health industry and agenda pushers have done everything they can to break down the family unit. They want you reliant on them. The health industry has long created labels for alleged problems and disorders to line their pockets, while shaming society into keeping quiet about their newly-found disorder that makes them a “broken” person and a “victim.” Instead of everyone simply accepting we are all different, with varying heights, color, and features, they have programmed society to feel inferior so they can come to the rescue with their “cures.”
How much do these potential future complications cost to diagnose? They would like to do a physical exam, hormone tests, blood samples, possible thyroid testing, an MRI, x-rays and ultrasounds. Once they assess that your child has CPP, they want to do a monthly injection into their muscle, using puberty blockers such as Lupron Depot-Ped (approved since 1993) or Trelstar (just approved in 2017) until your child reaches the normal age of puberty.
How much do these treatments cost? A lot! The monthly injections run over $1500 a month. Mind you, puberty blockers for CPP is often covered by insurance, only they are now being used on children for transitioning purposes, which may or may not be approved by insurance. If a parent prefers their child to get the Supprelin LA subcutaneous implant that is surgically placed under their skin, for a 12-month period, that could run them as much as $39,000 according to Drugs.com.
What are the side effects to these puberty blockers? Let’s look at Lupron Depot-Ped as an example, since they claim to be the number one prescribed treatment for CPP. In 2011, they listed few side effects on their label, approved by the FDA.
In 2016, the FDA required changes to their warning labels.
Lupron wasn’t the only medication that was required to update their warning labels due to seizures and serious psychiatric adverse events. Supprelin and Synarel were also required to make these updates. In this 109-page approval package for Lupron Depot PED, they repeatedly state that the medicine is for children with “central precocious puberty.” The FDA and Department of Health and Human Services also state this. Nowhere in any of their documentation or FDA approvals does it state this medicine can be used in children to block their puberty for purposes of transitioning their gender. Even though “central precocious puberty” is a manufactured “disorder,” it still limits the use to those purposes. With the dangers these medications present, why isn’t the FDA stepping in? Better yet, why isn’t the Bureau of Consumer Protection under the FTC knocking down doors of these clinics, hospitals, and universities for false advertising and marketing, and clear misuse of these products? I’ve seen them knock down doors for a fraction of the manipulation game these folks are running. Yet, they are silent.
The full breakdown of warnings and precautions include:
• Psychiatric events of emotional lability, crying, irritability, impatience, anger, and aggression.
• Convulsions in patients with and without a history of seizures, epilepsy, cerebrovascular disorders, central nervous system anomalies or tumors.
• Injection site reactions and pain including abscess, headache, emotional lability, and hot flushes/sweating.
• Early phase of therapy can cause an increase in clinical signs and symptoms of puberty.
• In less than 2% of patients receiving treatment, adverse reactions of a broad scope of symptoms were reported, either effecting the respiratory system, cardiovascular, endocrine, musculoskeletal, skin and appendages, and urogenital system.
According to a 2019 investigation by ABC’s KTNV 13 Las Vegas, there are over 25,000 adverse reports including 1500 deaths on Lupron products for puberty blockers, endometriosis, and prostate cancer.
The ultimate question – as a parent, what do you feel is more dangerous? The “risk” of your child going through puberty a little earlier than the other children, potentially resulting in feeling self-conscious and possibly being shorter in height, or the “risks” listed above?
According to Drs. Paul Hruz, Michael Laidlaw and Quentin Van Meter, not only are they injecting Lupron into children who suffer from gender dysphoria, which has never been approved by the FDA for this use, there are no peer-reviewed studies done on the drug’s long-term physical and psychological side effects on children. It’s no wonder suicidal thoughts and actions are so high in the transgender community. These drugs not only come with serious side effects with lasting health problems, they can also lead to sterilization.
Despite this, physicians have been pushing for this for quite some time. In 1983, Walt Heyer, who was a transgender woman for eight years, who later detransitioned after realizing that the sex change didn’t solve his underlying issues, had sought out the top gender identity therapist of his time only to be told that he needed to go through gender reassignment during his first appointment, and was given a prescription for hormones at his second appointment. This is incredibly telling, when the tops doctors, all the way back in the 80s, were pushing for this, without even attempting to address traumas, unresolved issues, and why it is they may be suffering from gender dysphoria. This also aligns with the agenda timeline documented in part one of this report. Heyer was an adult at that time, whereas now days, they are pushing this onto children as well.
Dr. Paul McHugh, a distinguished professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, recently told The College Fix he believes transgender people are being experimented on because the doctors treating their patients with hormones “don’t have evidence that the treatment will be the right one.” He went on to state:
Many people are doing what amounts to an experiment on these young people without telling them it’s an experiment. You need evidence for that and this is a very serious treatment. It is comparable to doing frontal lobotomies.I think their mental problems, often depression, discouragement are the things that need treatment. I’m not positive about this. It’s a hypothesis, but it is a very plausible hypothesis, and it would explain why many of the people who go on to have treatment of their body discover they are just as depressed, discouraged and live just as problematic lives as they did before because they did not address the primary problem.They’re going to be in the hands of doctors for the rest of their lives, many of them are going to be sterilized not able to have their own children, and many will regret this. Can you imagine having a life where you need to seek doctors all the time, for everything, just to live? Getting your hormones checked, getting everything checked. That is something doctors should like to spare people of.I believe it will be something like how we think of eugenics now. We will come to regret it when we discover how many of the young people that were injured regret it themselves.
Johns Hopkins was at the forefront of this manufactured industry, and for this professor to come forward and speak the truth against his own community pushing this agenda, is powerful. If only more doctors would come forward, we could turn the tide and stop the insanity. And, he is absolutely correct about eugenics. Sadly, eugenics never ceased, it merely changed terminology, and this is precisely what is taking place in this case. You can read an extensive 6-part report on eugenics right here on Corey’s Digs.
A Quick Timeline Recap & Other Key Points:
1969 – They decided children had a “disorder” and coined it “precocious puberty.”
1971 – Scientist miraculously found the solution for a cure.
In 1984, none other than the Washington Post came out with one of the most fear mongering stories of all about an “affliction” to the young through an “outbreak” in Puerto Rico, where one child began menstruating at 17 months and a “9-year old boy’s estrogen levels exceeded that of an ovulating woman.” They estimated 3,000 children were “affected” by precocious puberty, but that in the United States and other countries, “this condition is rare.” Fast forward 35 years and they now claim that 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 children have CPP, while also stating it is rare and effects less than 1% of the U.S. population.
Puerto Rican doctors suspected a possible estrogen in the food chain causing this or an environmental contaminant. Imagine that. The director of pediatrics at Hospital De Diego in San Juan expressed that he had encountered the condition in the mid 1970s and had seen 778 affected children, most in between 1982 and 1984. After investigations, they determined there were high levels of estrogen in the poultry, only later to disprove their own findings by further chemical tests. An endocrinologist in Philadelphia ran tests and did find high levels of estrogen in the poultry. The USDA ended up sampling poultry, beef and eggs only to find they were not contaminated with estrogen, so they said. It then went to the CDC, where they ran statistical analysis on 130 cases of females that had been affected. Yet, after two years they had no conclusions. Of course in this story, they portrayed the stress of a mother whose daughter had cysts and enlarged breast tissue, which is its own separate issue that they attribute as a potential cause of CPP.
That was a big, bold push to bring awareness to this newly discovered “precocious puberty disorder.”
1989 – Patent for Supprelin was filed in May by The Salk Institute, which is a histrelin acetate injectable puberty blocker for children with “central precocious puberty.”
1991 – Supprelin was approved by the FDA on December 24th as the first product of its kind. However, Johnson & Johnson’s were the pharmaceutical company selling it.
1993 – The FDA approved Lupron Depot-Ped for CPP. In 1993, when Abbott Laboratories (now AbbVie) sought to get their FDA license to utilize Lupron in children for CPP, an abstract was published on trials they had done on just 10 girls at Children’s Hospital in Phoenix, AZ, to determine the efficacy and long-term effects. They ran this study on 10 girls and “Patients who finished treatment have been followed up for up to 5 years, and will continue in follow-up throughout their reproductive life.”
2007 – Supprelin-(R)-LA was approved by the FDA. Rather than being an injectable puberty blocker like their method designed in 1989, this is a subcutaneous implant that is inserted into the upper arm for a continuous release over a 12 month period.
2008 – The Endocrine Society, with members in more than 100 countries, “approved” puberty suppressors as a treatment for transgender adolescents as young as 12 years old. It has never been licensed by the FDA for this purpose.
2011 – The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) issued “standards of care” for the treatment of patients with gender dysphoria, including puberty suppression.
WPATH was originally called the Henry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association.
2014 – Government appeals board ruled that Medicare must cover surgery for gender transitions, which overturned a policy dating back to the 1980s. WPATH standards of care studies on the benefits of sex reassignment therapy played a big role in this. It doesn’t mean all sex reassignment surgeries will be paid for by Medicare, but it lifted the ban so they can submit documentation for coverage. Between 2000 – 2014, surgeries increased four-fold.
2016 – The FDA requires all manufacturers of puberty blockers to add “risk of seizures and serious psychiatric adverse events in this patient population” to their safety warning labels.
2019 – The Hill reported in October, “a federal judge overturned ObamaCare protections for transgender patients, ruling that a 2016 policy violates the religious freedom of Christian providers. The regulation prohibited insurers and providers who receive federal money from denying treatment or coverage to anyone based on sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy. It also required doctors and hospitals to provide “medically necessary” services to transgender individuals as long as those services were the same ones provided to other patients.”
Big Business
Gender affirming hormone therapy is big business. In fact, it’s so big, Planned Parenthood has quickly climbed to be the nation’s second largest provider. Whereas nearly all, if not all, of their centers provide this service to those who are 18 years or older, some of them also provide prescriptions for puberty blockers. They do all of this under the guise of “reproductive rights.” More on this in part 3.
In addition to hormone therapy, surgeries for breast augmentation and reassignment surgery have skyrocketed. When I stated that they have manufactured an industry, I wasn’t hypothesizing. This is a huge market, with many funders, many profiteers, and a whole lot of dancing and shaking of hands taking place. They have taken advantage of, and completely exploited the transgender community. While portraying to show their support, what they are really doing is backing their agenda, which is to destabilize countries and turn them into a socialist one world governance, experiment on humans while sterilizing them through hormones and surgery, and make themselves incredibly wealthy in the process to keep their agenda moving forward.
Does anyone really believe they would have dedicated this much time, energy and money into less than 1% of the population for well over seven decades, if they didn’t believe they could increase that 1% and monetize it while changing the fabric of our world forever? Part 3 will get into the funders and profiteers.
www.coreysdigs.com/health-science/exploiting-transgenders-part-2-medical-engineering-origins/…
activistpost
David Michael
Activist Post
[Editor's note: Over $10,000 has been raised to help the Baker family fight the motion for all farmers nationwide, with $14,000 left to go. It is encouraged
American Financing:N M L S 1 8 2 3 3 4, N M L S consumer access dot org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.799% for well qualified borrowers. Visit https://...
In this clip from 1965, folk singer and activist Pete Seeger talks about being black listed for "un-American activities" and his refusal to answer questions ...