reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 discusses Bill Gates’ alleged involvement with Tyrana Biosciences, stating that Gates has donated $50,000,000 to a new company called Tyrana Biosciences, and that they are going to create a new category of biologically modified crops. One of Tyrana’s first targets is soybeans, according to the speaker. The speaker claims that the product will not be detectable as modified, nor labeled as GMO, because the EPA has said that it is, quote, “naturally occurring compounds and is not GMO.” The speaker explains the mechanism: it is taking RNA from a virus and using it to insert whatever gene they want into whatever crop they want. Once the RNA is inside the plant, it replicates, and it gives it different features. The company allegedly brags that they can create whatever feature they want. One of their targets is to make it more insect resistant, so the speaker says you’re going to put insecticides within the food. The speaker states that Tyrana is targeting tomatoes, corn, and soybeans first. The claim is that it will not be labeled as modified or GMO. The speaker asserts that Bill Gates is betting on making profit by genetically modifying our food without telling us. The speaker claims that the EPA has already given it the green light.

Farmers have been saving and planting seeds for thousands of years, but the idea of corporations owning food crops is relatively new. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court allowed the patenting of life, leading to companies like Monsanto patenting valuable crops. Monsanto, a chemical company known for products like DDT and Agent Orange, developed Roundup and genetically engineered soybeans that could resist it. Farmers initially resisted the idea of not being able to save their own seeds, but over time, acceptance grew. Now, if a farmer saves seeds, Monsanto, the main company involved, may send investigators to look into the matter.

Monsanto found bacteria surviving Roundup in a waste dump, leading to Roundup-ready soybeans. Glyphosate in Roundup depletes nutrients in plants, weakens them, and promotes disease. Livestock eat Roundup-ready crops, leading to nutrient deficiency. FDA memos reveal GMO dangers in animal feed, with toxins bioaccumulating in animals and milk. 95% of genetic modifications aim to withstand more chemicals and drugs, altering genes in plants, animals, and humans permanently. Translation: Monsanto discovered bacteria resistant to Roundup in a waste dump, resulting in Roundup-ready soybeans. Glyphosate in Roundup depletes plant nutrients, weakens them, and promotes disease. Livestock consuming Roundup-ready crops face nutrient deficiencies. FDA memos expose GMO risks in animal feed, with toxins accumulating in animals and milk. 95% of genetic modifications aim to withstand more chemicals and drugs, altering genes in plants, animals, and humans permanently.

Today across a huge number of crops, there is discussion of genetically modified food. Our foundation is working with partners, for example DuPont Pioneer on some new maize things, with ADM on some cocoa growing things. Some of these are traditional breeding and some are transgenic. In parallel, we're funding scientific expertise in Africa so that, three or four years from now, if things go as expected, there are some crops with big benefits like drought resistance. The transgenic approach probably can do better than any other country in deciding what the benefits are and what the risks, what's known about it, safety, IP licensing, and things that would make them hesitant. And they'll, on their own, be able to make that decision. The likelihood that the safety profile will be okay and that it will be beneficial, I hope that works out because it is a tool, particularly for disease resistance, where you can put in a new gene called an RNA interference gene for a particular crop problem, it would be a real help. And you're right on the verge of starvation all the time, so every tool that's safe and appropriate, you Alan Kuhlman (DuPont) does produce genetically modified food as well as many other things, high yielding varieties. Are you facing a lot of resistance through a little knowledge is a dangerous thing kind of approach? Or are you confident that GM is the future? Speaker 2: Well, think that if you're going to resolve problems like drought resistance, you're gonna have to use genetic modification to get there. You know, I can't think of a product in terms of genetically modified seed that has been more tested and more thoroughly vetted in many of the countries that currently allow it to grow. I think in 2008, we surpassed 2,000,000,000 acres globally where biotech crops are grown. And so there is a lot of data out there, there's a lot of information, and there's a lot of benefits to it. But I think Bill's right. Each country, if they set a science based transparent regulatory framework, then the industry can work with those countries in order to bridge that gap and the productivity that is needed to fill that food gap. Speaker 1: So in Vietnam,

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and preserve the core claims about GMO technology, safety concerns, and corporate motives as presented. - Highlight explicit examples and mechanisms (insertion of genes, Bt toxin, built-in pesticides, herbicide tolerance, seed patents). - Note the portrayed regulatory and legal dynamics (lobbying, revolving door, labeling, litigation, seed saving restrictions). - Emphasize unique or provocative elements (codfish gene for frost resistance, Indian BT cotton suicides link, cross-pollination as “not our problem”). - Exclude repetitive or filler content; avoid adding new judgments or opinions. - Translate or retain English phrasing of key statements exactly as needed. - Keep the summary within 388–486 words. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are presented as a comprehensive, almost omnipotent solution to modern nutrition and farming, combining inserted insect and fish genes, irradiation, and pesticides embedded in crops. The narrative asserts: “Our GM scientists are putting the pesticide right inside the crops,” so the food itself will “kill those pesky critters stone cold dead.” It claims Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, produced by the inserted gene, destroys insects’ stomachs but not humans, adding, “We have absolutely no testing results to prove that these are safe, but they are. Trust us.” It argues that pesticides in crops enable plants to withstand more weed killer than organic crops, promising “No weeds, no bugs. More food, more profit.” The transcript lists staple crops: corn, rice, soybeans, cotton, alfalfa, papaya, oilseed rape, and adds that “GM is the gift that keeps on giving,” with ambitions including frost-resistant traits such as codfish genes in strawberries for the icy North Atlantic environment: “insert a gene from a codfish… Result, frost resistant strawberries.” It frames the looming challenge of population growth and food security as justification for rapid GMO adoption. Testing anecdotes are cited: “tests on rats eating genetically modified potatoes showed them growing slower after two or three generations and developing fertility problems, some organ development issues.” The speakers disparage critics as “goody two shoes scientists” and “whiny campaigners,” insisting they will wait to see human effects while biotech profits fund further GMO experiments. A central strategy is to persuade farmers to abandon organic farming in favor of GM, accompanied by aggressive seed patenting: “Whenever we change the natural gene sequence of any plant, we get a patent ASAP. It’s our invention after all. … total control of the seed.” Seed saving would be prohibited: “If you save seeds for next year’s crop, we’ll know. We’ll tie up farmers for years in the courts.” Farmers must buy new seeds and pesticides yearly; cross-pollination is dismissed as not their problem, and “your crops belong to us” once genes migrate. Regulatory capture and lobbying are described as routine: a “revolving door” between industry and judges, former GM lawyers in regulation bodies, and efforts to keep GMO labeling off products. The piece notes India’s BT cotton saga, claiming “hundreds of thousands of farmers have been organically recycled to dodge debts that they owe us,” with debts supposedly dying with farmers under Indian law and Bt cotton’s yields and bollworm resistance threatening revenue, as the strategy envisions becoming the sole cotton-seed supplier. European concerns about GMO pig feet—sterilization and growth issues—are acknowledged, with plans to work around them. The closing pitch invites consumption: “Eat up your veggies… there’ll be plenty for everyone for the right price.”

Seed companies pressure farmers to buy their seeds by threatening lawsuits if farmers use their own seeds. Farmers must pay fees to plant genetically modified seeds and risk being audited if they don't repurchase. This system leaves farmers without ownership of their crops, as companies can claim rights to any genetic traces found. For example, buying seeds for 300 acres of soybeans cost over $30,000.

The speaker contrasts GMO sweet corn from the store with heirloom corn, noting the sunflowers turning away from the sun. They claim aluminum levels in the soil are now five to ten times higher than last year. Cucumber and hot pepper plants are not producing as much as in previous years. Normally, the speaker would have excess produce to give away, but this year the garden has suffered the worst. The speaker states they will still be able to maintain operational costs and can enough for their family. However, they claim they won't be able to provide for others as much as in the past.

Speaker 0 describes a range of claims about food modification, environmental engineering, and public health interventions. He states that many basics, including tomato, potato, asparagus, broccoli, and cauliflower, are purposely modified, and mentions a “terminator seed” concept, claiming farmers cannot plant seed unless purchased from the government. He notes seeds come up one season and are gone, and asserts watermelon is modified to be seedless. He asserts that the air we breathe is contaminated with toxins, and that chemical sprays are used over 245 major U.S. cities and around the world. He alleges the presence of electronic metal, small in the air, and explains this is done with “Gwen towers,” HARP programs (high frequency active auroral research project), ILATA in Russia (electrified atmospheric discharge), ISACAT in Europe (scattered radar manipulation). He claims these systems broadcast billions of watts, resulting in billions of watts of ionic electrified air particles in the air we breathe. He lists contaminants such as titanium, aluminum, barium, nonhuman T cells, and other substances sprayed from ships, along with emissions from smokestacks and cars, which collectively contribute to metal particulates and electrified air that are poisonous to the body. He asserts that the body will age quickly and cells will deteriorate unless these factors are addressed. He describes people as “dumb toe,” “comatose,” “dumb down,” “brainwashed,” “vaccinated,” “inoculated,” and “encrypted,” claiming that encryption includes being chipped if the person encounters a prosthetic device or certain lab work, implying that food, vaccines, and military service can render a person encrypted. He equates encryption with mind control in many cases, and suggests that those who are not encrypted are mind controlled. He warns that there is extensive activity and apathy among people, expressing concern about a planet being manipulated and controlled by forces described as globalists. He contends that the globalists are on their way out, describing their behavior as crazy and noting that their time is short while consciousness endures. He emphasizes the existence of a dichotomy in humanity (black and white, brown and yellow) as part of this described undermining control and manipulation. The overarching message is a warning about modified foods, chemtrails, advanced atmospheric and surveillance technologies, encryption and mind-control concerns, vaccines, and a perceived decline in human agency, with a claim that globalist forces are fading but still active.

Speaker 0 explains that in the agriculture appropriations bill, they tried to defund research for transgenic edible plant vaccines. They describe the concept as scary and state that taxpayer dollars are funding research on vaccines produced in lettuce and spinach, such that when people eat those leafy greens, they would be vaccinated with whatever vaccine the plant is producing. The speaker asserts that there is a belief this approach amounts to “playing God with our spinach,” and argues that if someone wants to pursue this, tighter rules are probably necessary because pollen can escape and pollute plants in neighboring farms that did not intend to grow vaccines in their food. The speaker notes that they attempted to put rules on this issue in the agriculture appropriations bill and were able to stop taxpayer spending in that bill. However, the speaker states that the bill was thrown in the trash and an omnibus was passed instead. As a result, the speaker warns that there will be “another year of transgenic edible plant vaccine research,” and indicates that this topic will be a post of its own. In summary, the speaker highlights the following points: the existence of research funded with taxpayer dollars into transgenic edible plant vaccines produced in vegetables like lettuce and spinach; the concern about potential vaccination through consumption of these plants; the risk posed by pollen dispersion to neighboring farms; an effort to restrict funding via the agriculture appropriations bill that was ultimately unsuccessful due to the bill being discarded in favor of an omnibus; and the expectation that such research will continue for another year. The overall message emphasizes opposition to funding this line of research and points to procedural outcomes that hindered the attempted defunding, while noting that the broader effort and its controversy would be revisited in a future post.

I'm here to discuss why companies like Gates and China are buying up farmland. I spent years suing factory farms, including Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer. Smithfield came to North Carolina and, with a partner, created large-scale hog warehouses, dropping pork prices from 60¢ to 2¢ a pound. This put 28,000 independent hog farmers out of business, replaced by 2,200 factories controlled by or contracted to Smithfield. Farmers became like serfs on their own land, losing control over their practices. Smithfield dictated everything. Because of the price drop in North Carolina, Iowa had to adopt the same system. Eventually Smithfield controlled 80% of US hog production and then sold itself to China. Now China owns a large part of our hog production, threatening Thomas Jefferson's vision of a democracy rooted in independent family farms. This industrial agriculture gives us substandard food and threatens American democracy.

Monsanto scientists discovered bacteria at a chemical waste dump that could survive Roundup herbicide. They took the gene from the bacteria and inserted it into soybeans, creating Roundup Ready soybeans. These soybeans can be sprayed with Roundup without dying, but it kills other plant biodiversity. Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, was patented as a chelator that deprives plants of essential minerals and harms beneficial microorganisms in the soil. Livestock in the US consume Roundup Ready crops, leading to nutrient-deficient food. The toxins in genetically modified feed can accumulate in animals and their milk, posing a risk to human health. The majority of Canadian and American crops are genetically modified or contaminated. Genetic modifications are primarily done to make plants resistant to chemicals and animals resistant to drugs, but consuming them can alter our genes permanently.

The transcript presents a claim that seed companies pressure farmers to buy their seeds, contributing to higher food costs. It asserts that farmers can be sued if they plant their own seeds, and that farmers do not own the genetics of their crops unless they use heirloom seeds. To plant these seeds, farmers must pay a fee, and seed companies can come onto a farmer’s property to inspect plants; if any part contains the company’s genetics, the farmer can be sued. The speaker emphasizes that farmers do not own the hard work of growing the plant because of these seed-ownership practices. Seed companies are described as reminding farmers of their purchasing history by saying, “we know you bought our seed last year,” and that if farmers do not buy seeds again, the companies will audit them. The speaker then shares a personal example: an order of three totes, sufficient to plant 300 acres of soybeans and to have the right to plant them, cost over $30,000.

During the Vietnam War, the American government compelled seven chemical companies, including Monsanto, to create Agent Orange. The same companies then sold patented seeds to farmers, which now cover 80% of American farmland. These seeds, including corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and wheat, were created to be resistant to Roundup, which is also owned by Monsanto. Roundup contains glyphosate, which is claimed to be a neurotoxin. These crops are subsidized by the government and are largely used to make ultra-processed food, which makes up 60-90% of the standard American diet. The speaker claims that the majority of American families are eating this food because the government deems it safe.

Bill Gates has donated $50,000,000 to Tyrana Biosciences, creating a category of biologically modified crops. One of their targets is soybeans, but you won't know you're buying a modified soybean because our EPA has said it is, quote, naturally occurring compounds and is not GMO. They're using RNA from a virus to insert whatever gene they want into whatever crop they want. Once the RNA is inside the plant, it replicates and gives features, and the company brags they can create whatever feature they want. One of their targets is to make it more insect resistant. So you're gonna put insecticides within the food. They're targeting tomatoes, corn, and soybeans. It will not be labeled as modified, and it will not be labeled as GMO. But Bill Gates is betting on making profit by genetically modifying our food without telling us. Our EPA has already given it the green light.

A speaker discusses genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the debate surrounding their safety, mentioning a petition signed by 17 Nobel laureates asserting their safety. The speaker says that while millions have consumed GMOs without apparent harm, the context is important. The speaker explains that GMOs are often engineered to resist glyphosate, and glyphosate is used heavily. Glyphosate is described as an antibiotic, patented for antibiotic use, that kills microbiota around plants. The speaker claims that glyphosate is the most prescribed antibiotic on Earth, especially in rice farming, and that the consequences of its widespread use are unknown.

The speaker questions the safety of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, despite claims from Bayer that it does not cause cancer. They cite 180,000 lawsuits against Bayer, resulting in over $12 billion in damages, and Bayer's efforts to prevent future glyphosate-related cancer lawsuits. Roundup Ready crops, genetically engineered to resist glyphosate, led to a surge in its use, with approximately 60% of crops now treated with it. The speaker highlights a letter from members of Congress arguing against glyphosate overregulation, suggesting that without it, widespread hunger will occur. They point out that some signatories, like Deb Fischer and Chuck Grassley, are major recipients of funding from big agriculture and biotech companies like Bayer, DuPont, and Dow. The speaker implies that these contributions influence their support for glyphosate.

Charanjit and his family in Northern Indian Punjab bought expensive genetically modified cotton seeds from Monsanto, hoping for higher yields. However, insects destroyed their crops for two consecutive years, leaving them with insurmountable debts of €6,500. Despite the worsening harvests, they continue to use Monsanto seeds as there are limited alternatives available. Monsanto has dominated 95% of the Indian market since entering the country 14 years ago, claiming that farmers prefer their seeds. Activists argue that Monsanto is responsible for the farmers' suicides, accusing the company of deceiving them for higher profits. Pests destroy the cotton, forcing farmers to borrow money to purchase expensive pesticides.

Speaker 0 presents a line of inquiry and a set of provocative claims about Monsanto. The conversation begins with a question about whether the listener has heard of the Monsanto family and what they associate with the name. The reply prompts the common stereotype that the name is linked to chemicals—specifically “the chemical, the nasty, like, shitty chemicals.” Building on that stereotype, Speaker 0 then introduces a controversial and broader assertion: that Monsanto is not only connected to chemicals but originated as a powerful, Caribbean Jewish pirate-style family. The claim continues with a provocative framing: they “got started in the big slave trade in New Orleans.” The speaker states that the Monsanto family were slave traders first, positioning them as “one of the most prominent” in that historical trade, and argues that their involvement in slavery preceded their later involvement in chemical ventures. The speaker emphasizes a causal thread or progression: the family’s early prominence in slave trading laid the groundwork for their later notoriety in chemical industries, leading to the claim that they “poisoned us with chemicals.” This phrase is presented as a historical fact in the speaker’s view, highlighted by the assertion that it is “a fact” that is not discussed openly. The speaker contrasts this alleged history with contemporary public discourse, noting that many people are talking about Monsanto on platforms like TikTok, but “no one talk[ing]” about the alleged slave-trading origins and the supposed early acts of poisoning associated with the family. In sum, Speaker 0 frames Monsanto as a name associated with chemicals in public perception, but counters with a narrative that the Monsanto family began as slave traders in New Orleans, describing them as a prominent lineage tied to the slave trade before transitioning into chemical enterprises, and asserting that they “poisoned us with chemicals” as a matter of historical fact that remains under-discussed in popular discourse. The speaker points to online chatter about Monsanto on TikTok as evidence that the topic is discussed superficially, without addressing these claimed origins.

Monsanto scientists discovered bacteria at a chemical waste dump that could survive Roundup herbicide. They inserted the gene responsible for this into soybeans, creating Roundup ready crops. However, Roundup kills plant biodiversity and hinders access to essential minerals, weakening plants and promoting disease. Livestock in the US consume Roundup ready crops, leading to nutrient-deficient food. The director of the Centre For Veterinary Medicine warned that toxins in genetically modified feed could accumulate in animals and their milk. Currently, 90% of Canadian and American crops are genetically modified or contaminated. Genetic modifications primarily aim to make plants resistant to chemicals and animals resistant to drugs, but consuming them can alter our genes permanently.

Speaker 0 argues against labeling certain plants as weeds, stating that destroying them would mean destroying the land. They point out that the plants produce flowers, which come from them, and these flowers help butterflies, bees, and all the other pollinators. The speaker notes that “Monsanto wants to sell you some poison to get rid of the bees, the pollinators, and then Walmart will sell you, guess what, robotic bees.” They question whether viewers are watching the same video. The speaker concludes by asserting that “Monsanto says destroy the weeds because it destroys the beets.”

Speaker 0 discusses aspects of their farming and garden to illustrate changes and challenges they’re experiencing. He starts by showing traditional sweet corn, noting that this is not what they used to call their heirloom seeds. He identifies it as GMO corn and explains that they grow this as their field corn. He plans to illustrate two things with the corn: first, that they also have heirloom corn, which they don’t weed every year, and which has come up and done really well for the last ten years. He mentions using the same seed repeatedly and rotating crops. He then points to the sunflowers, asking the audience to look at them; he notes that the sunflowers have turned away from the sun, indicating a pattern that he says is not right. He references their garden, noting they grow over an acre of garden space. He emphasizes that something isn’t right, identifying two main observations. First, the amount of aluminum in their soil is now five to ten times higher than it was last year. He intends to show more about these changes. Second, he discusses the sweet corn that is bought from the store, which is not heirloom seed. He says this corn is supposed to be all natural and non-GMO, but he is starting to doubt it. He contrasts this with their cucumber plants, which historically would produce so abundantly that after putting them on the stand they would be given away. He says the heirloom corn is part of their garden stand achievements. Regarding the garden’s performance this year, he states it has suffered the worst it has in years, and he clarifies that this is not due to a lack of water. He mentions hot pepper plants as another example: traditionally, they would have so many peppers that they wouldn’t be able to sell them all, and they would give the extras away. He hopes for a better garden next year. Despite these challenges, he notes they still have enough produce to maintain costs and keep their vegetable stand, so it remains open. They still plan to can enough for their family, but it will not be as viable as before for providing for others through the stand. In closing, he wishes the audience a good day, reflecting that the overall situation—soil aluminum levels, variability between heirloom and store-bought corn, and reduced garden yields—has impacted both their ability to sustain the stand and the volume they can share with others.

Four companies today control the seed system. They do not want farmers to have their own seeds. They treat farmers having their own seeds as violating their monopoly rights. The monopoly rights are created through patenting and intellectual property. Intellectual property rights means I have created something. I'm an inventor. But seed is not a machine. It is not put together. Seed is evolution forever. Seed is renewable. Seed is multiplicative. One seed can give me a thousand seeds. In the case of millets, a 100,000 seeds. When seeds are made nonrenewable and seeds are designed for use of chemicals, what happens is biodiversity starts to disappear.

There is a concerning connection between Monsanto and regulatory bodies, with Justice Clarence Thomas being a former Monsanto attorney. He wrote the majority opinion in a case that allowed companies to prevent farmers from saving their own seed. Monsanto had close ties to both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Over the past 25 years, our government has been dominated by the industries it was meant to regulate. The issue lies in the interests these regulators choose to represent. This centralized power is being used against farmers, workers, and consumers who are kept in the dark about their food.

The speaker questions why people often hear about slavery without learning who owned enslaved people, saying they came across the Wikipedia page for the Monsanto family. The speaker references Monsanto as “the company that makes the chemicals that are sprayed on all of our food” and states it “currently has billions of dollars of legal settlements to pay,” noting the company was named after Olga Monsanto. The speaker says they are “just reading from Wikipedia” and advises viewers to consult sources. According to the speaker’s reading of Wikipedia, the Monsanto family was “a powerful banking family in Louisiana in the mid 1700s.” The speaker says the family “had engaged in the Atlantic slave trade and owned slaves at their plantation in Mississippi.” By the 1780s, the speaker states they had “51 slaves.” The speaker says that led by Isaac Monsanto, the Monsanto family was part of “an entire network of slave traders,” and that “many members of the Monsanto family were involved.” The speaker adds that they are not claiming that current people are guilty or bad, and instead focuses on what they characterize as “cherry-picked narratives” in school. They argue that school histories make sure students learn that Thomas Jefferson had slaves and George Washington had slaves, while not teaching other slavery contexts. The speaker claims that “five to 10 million people were enslaved in the Ottoman Empire,” “Four to 10 million people were enslaved in the Trans-Saharan slave trade,” and “Nine to 17 million people were enslaved in the Trans-Saharan slave trade,” along with “10 million people were enslaved in South America.” They then state that, in contrast, only “three to four hundred thousand people were brought from africa to the american colonies in the united states of america,” and repeat “million million million million thousand” multiple times as part of the comparison. The speaker says they believe this framing is designed “to make america look like a uniquely evil place,” and claims it is “a marxist tactic” to make “certain people identify as victims” and “certain people be viewed as oppressors.” They further claim that “the European Christian West” would “lead the march to eradicate slavery,” describing slavery as “normalized across all civilizations for thousands of years” and “practiced by all people.” The speaker concludes that people “owe it to our kids to teach them the truth.”