Dissecting the Royal Society’s GMO Whitewash

Published on 6 Jul 2016

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=19146

Dr. Robert Verkerk is the Executive and Scientific Director of the Alliance for Natural Health. Today we discuss his recent article, “UK Royal Society whitewash on GM crops,” which breaks down the Royal Society’s recent report on the safety of genetically modified foods. From false assurances of consensus to exclusion of key issues like glyphosates and superweeds, we show how the latest report is a whitewash and discuss why the Royal Society is promoting the biotech industry.

Glyphosate is poisoning us all, contaminating our bodies, our crops and our environment. This deadly poison must be stopped!

Source: https://cognitievedissonantie.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/glyphosate-is-poisoning-us-all-contaminating-our-bodies-our-crops-and-our-environment-this-deadly-poison-must-be-stopped/

Glyphosate.news brings you all the latest news on glyphosate, the cancer-causing weed killer chemical that’s being sprayed on wheat, oats, barley and other crops. It’s now showing up seemingly everywhere in the food supply, and it’s contaminating all our bodies with a deadly poison.
Glyphosate news

Many people that they feel a great sense of uncertainty about what’s ahead for our world, our nation and even our own families. Many are frightened by what they see as a vast chasm of uncertainty… others feel a sense of helplessness from being “trapped” in their daily commitments with seemingly no practical way to escape their job, their cities or their financial limitations.

Today, Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger is releasing a podcast that encourages you to gain a new perspective on how these feelings are actually a POSITIVE trait. The fact that you are feeling them isn’t a curse; it means you’re plugged in and have a heightened sense of awareness about events which are about to unfold.

Click here to listen to the full podcast. Here are the highlights and additional links:

• Many people are frazzled, depressed and confused about what’s happening in the world, and they feel hopeless.

• The fact that you feel the collapse coming only means that you are TUNED IN and connected to what’s happening.

• There’s nothing wrong with you. It’s not something wrong with your brain. You’re simply aware.

• Disconnected people can often appear happier because they are oblivious to the real world. But many of them won’t survive a collapse.

• The conscious mind is a connected mind that can sense things beyond what we can measure with today’s limited scientific tools.

• Premonition, remote viewing, intuition… these may all have a scientific basis rooted in consciousness.

• Your mind may be sensing and reflecting the growing concern in the minds of others.

• There’s nothing wrong with you if you’re feeling this sense of unease.

• What’s happening in your dreams may be a reflection of what’s taking place in the consciousness of the population in the aggregate.

• Globally, everyone is fed up with the failures of the establishment. People are waking up and realizing they’ve been lied to about science, food, pharmaceuticals and more.

• Many of the depopulation technologies tend to target African-Americans.

• There is a dark, destructive force that has taken over many institutions and governments of our world.

• Decades ago, the government was in many ways working in the interests of the people. But that has now changed to a situation where the government is actively working against the people.

• Government today carries out the destructive agendas of the corporations.

• A popular political revolt has begun across the world.

• Many of the people engaged in the intense evil that now threatens our world have lost their humanity and given over their souls to dark forces.

• Globalists hate humanity and hate life, love and happiness. Check out books by David Icke to learn about bloodlines.

• For many people, the evil in our world is so great that they can’t recognize it as being true. Those who commit evil know that the more extreme their acts of evil, the fewer people will be able to psychologically accept that it’s happening.

• Evil globalists are now willing to do anything and everything to maintain power and domination over the world.

• Expect to see massive false flags staged in order to create mass destruction. Most likely a nuclear event.

• The reality in which you think you live is being elaborately crafted each day to manipulate your perceptions and beliefs.

• Coming next for California: Mandatory organ harvesting and mandatory euthanasia.

• Only people who are awake can grasp the full onslaught of what’s being aimed at humanity right now.

• Everything you see on the news is planted there to control your perceptions and keep you clueless about reality.

• It is not an accident that governments and corporations consistently make decisions to poison and destroy humanity.

• It is my goal to help protect humanity from the death and destruction that’s now targeting us all.

• We will not stand by and stay silent as our fellow human beings are being poisoned and destroyed.

• This is a spiritual war with physical and chemical elements.

• We speak for those who cannot speak because they’ve been silenced or destroyed by vaccines and other poisons.

• We need a global revolution in defense of humanity.

Here’s why you’re sensing a disturbance in the Force…


Vaccines: the new government attack on pregnant women

Bron: http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/vaccines-the-new-government-attack-on-pregnant-women/

by Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Ferocious vaccine manufacturers are constantly on the move, looking for new “demographics” to shoot with vaccines. If they could stick a needle into a rock and get paid for it, they would find a reason to do it.

But in this case, we’re talking about pregnant women.

Protection, protection, protection—that’s the cover the government keeps pushing.

Meanwhile, the vaccines they’re foisting on pregnant women have a track record of damage.

Barbara Loe Fisher, head of the National Vaccine Information Center, has the story, so I’ll let her tell it. These are excerpts from her testimony before the Nov. 13, 2015“meeting of the FDA Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on proposed changes to FDA requirements for licensure of vaccines intended for use during pregnancy”:

Fisher (“FDA Prepares to Fast Track New Vaccines Targeting Pregnant Women,”11/17/2016):

“In 2006, CDC officials directed doctors to give all pregnant women a flu shot and, in 2011, a Tdap shot during every pregnancy, no matter how little time has elapsed between pregnancies. Prior to FDA licensure, influenza, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines [Tdap and flu shots] were not tested in or proven safe and effective for pregnant women inlarge clinical trials when given during every pregnancy either singly or simultaneously.”

“Categorized by FDA as Pregnancy Category B and C biologicals because it is not known whether the vaccines are genotoxic and can cause fetal harm or can affect maternal fertility and reproduction, administering influenza and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women is an off-label use of these vaccines. It is a policy that assumes maternal vaccination is necessary, safe and effective without proving it.”

“…pertussis containing vaccine [Tdap] injuries and deaths are the most compensated claim in the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) for infants and children, while influenza vaccine-related injuries and deaths are the most compensated claim for adults. And yet, in the absence of credible biological mechanism and epidemiologic evidence pre-licensure proving these vaccines are safe for all pregnant women, their fetuses and newborns, femalehealth care workers are being fired for refusing to be injected with them while they are pregnant.”

“The National Vaccine Information Center is opposed to FDA retroactively licensing influenza and Tdap vaccines for use in pregnant women and fast tracking RSV [respiratory syncytialvirus] and group strep B vaccines to licensure…”

No evidence of safety, but so what? Reports of injuries and deaths, but so what?

Pregnant women are a “lucrative market,” and that’s all that counts.

Need a terrific target for further disabling the population? Pregnant women areideal.

The FDA and its army of allies will assure you that these untested and off-label uses for vaccines are perfectly safe, because all vaccines are safe.

The FDA speaks for the pharmaceutical industry. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

It might be tempting to say the FDA is careless, is overlooking important factors—but it’s much, much worse than that.

Here are excerpts from a 2012 piece of mine about an FDA drug reviewer, and what happened to him when he went against the grain, and opposed his bosses on judgments about what was safe medicine and what was dangerous medicine:

—In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies (“Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety,” 7/29/2012).

Kavanagh: “…widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the lives of his children were on the line.

What was his secret task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Kavanagh’s revelations are stunning. He recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

***Kavanagh remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Kavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

—end of excerpt—

Women have to know what is waiting for them, in vials of vaccines, when they become pregnant. Waiting for them and their unborn children.

Huxley’s Brave New World portrayed a nation of docile citizens. But there, at least, the drug of choice was Soma, a compound that stimulated pleasure centers.

Here, we’re talking about docility and obedience in the face of suffering, pain, neurological damage, and death.

Doctors don’t want to know about this. They don’t want to know the true story about vaccines. If they did, they’d suddenly remember the body count they’ve been responsible for.

So instead, they polish their act, designed to invokecredibility and, above all, authority.

Invent a mountaintop, stand on it, and sell, sell, sell.

That’s their vaccine motto.

What’s yours?

Jon Rappoport


Original blog

TLB recommends other work by Jon Rappoport available by clicking onlinks displayed through out this post.

About the author: Jon has three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, he was a candidate for a US Congressionalseatin the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, andhealth for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for hisfreeNoMoreFakeNews emails here or his freeOutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by thecopyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


The Four Weapons of Mass Destruction-Humanity May Not Survive

Source: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/04/12/the-four-weapons-of-mass-destruction-humanity-may-not-survive/


By: Roger Landry (TLB).

WARNING: This is not a bedtime story!

Mankind has been inundated with natural disasters throughout it’s long history on this planet, some near extinction level in nature, but we have, as a species, always managed to bounce back and prosper following each of these cataclysmic events. What we endure today is the most serious threat to the  very survival of the human race ever encountered … and it is man made, legal and choreographed!

This commentary will expound on the multi-pronged attack against the masses utilizing four of the most deadly mechanisms ever developed by mans-mind … to ultimately destroy man-kind (or a vast majority of it). Understand all this is being accomplished Legally and with the Blessings of Many Governments, the United Nations and a sizable portion of the uneducated, MSM propagandized global masses.

So what are these Weapons of Mass Destruction being wielded so effectively against us under the guise of benign philanthropic assistance,

  1. Perpetual Warfare
  2. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s)
  3. Vaccinations
  4. Geo-Engineering (Chemtrails)

Now before you push back on any of these four mechanisms of destruction and their heinous role in this fiasco, please understand they are all … REALITY … not some conspiracy theory, or something out of a science fiction horror story, and the proof and documentation is readily available to all (see included links) with the awareness and the drive to seek it.

Each one of these mechanisms by themselves could seriously disrupt or even facilitate the extinction of humanity, but when used simultaneously, they create a perfect storm for massive population reduction. This perfect storm is manufactured and manipulated in a choreographed production who’s closing scene is the reduction of this planets population by almost 95% … and if you believe you are part of the remaining 5% … don’t count on it!

Related articles or references:


Perpetual Warfare:

As we and our allies jump from one country to another wreaking havoc, destroying vital infrastructure, killing millions, poisoning millions in future generations (depleted uranium ammo), and raping them of their vital resources, we must understand the hate and need for revenge we are perpetuating. With the death toll so far  about three million people (90% or higher considered “Collateral Damage” by our govt.)The US and its allies have manufactured more terrorists in the last decade than the world prior to this ever saw in its combined history.

We are infuriating the Russians, the Chinese and other regional powers and moving ever closer to a global conflict. With the state of technological warfare today (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical), and all out global war (no holds barred) looming on the horizon, we can rest assured the the survival rate of such an endeavor is just about ZERO!

Related articles or references:



This grandiose experiment has been going on for literally hundreds of years, and even though we have passed well beyond the days of snakeskin oil and bleeding (leaching a patients blood to eradicate a sickness) science, the practice has taken on an entirely new life and role. These are the days when Bill Gates has paid well for the right to brag that vaccination can result in a positive reduction in the global population! In the vaccinated portion of this global population, the fertility rate is dropping at an almost exponential rate … and the rise in vaccinations coincides with the fall in fertility.

The CDC was stating on their website that as many as 30 MILLION Americans (well understated) given a Polio vaccination “could” have been injected with the SV40 Virus (known cancer causing) I would dare say having grown up at that point in history … the actual number is much closer to 100 million. America is close to the top of the nations dealing with a blight of cancer with one out of every three baby boomers having cancer (yes we where the ones vaccinated wth this very vaccine). And to top it off those in the field of GM (genetically Modified) Vaccines now openly joke about creating a better virus to accomplish population reduction …

Related articles or references:


When a safety mechanism (vaccinations) induces more danger into a scenario than it is designed to prevent … it is time to remove and replace that system. But how do you do this when the very government charged with policing this function is so corrupt, complicit and just plain in-bed with its charges, that real change is almost impossible or if any changes do occur … it is all window dressing to play to the crowd and leaves intact the status-quo.

Related articles or references:


GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms):

This topic I could speak volumes on and barely scratch the surface, but it is a serious issue that DEMANDS our attention NOW! We are talking about controling the population via GM Corn, specifically bread and engineered to cause sterility, funded by the US government and patented. We are talking about the contamination of the Biosphere by a multitude of GMO’s … and no one has a clue as to what is about to explode in our faces through Horizontal Gene Transfer. Scientists are screaming to put a moratorium on GMO cultivation until this issue can be resolved … to no avail.

Related articles or references:



When an industry whose products are under fire from across the planet for eliciting extreme health and biosphere hazards, is allowed to police its own science and thereby set the acceptable standards, then greed and the lust for power become the standard, not ethics and concern for human life.

The Great GMO experiment underway is proving to be a colossal failure and eminent danger on so many levels, and may just as well prove to be the most heinous intrusion into the health of humanity and the global biosphere ever perpetrated … The most concerning aspect of all of this is that the GMO industry HAS to be aware of this on many levels! So just how deep does this rabbit hole go?

Related articles or references:



This country is number one in Dementia and Autism on this planet … out of 192 listed nations. Cases (reported) of Autism have exploded from 1 in over 12,000 in the 1960′s to far less that one in 50 children borne today. This is a serious epidemic of biblical proportions but our government and the mainstream media are all but dead silent on the issue.

Again I point out the meteoric rise of both (but with emphasis on Autism), and this rise starts when vaccines are benevolently mandated on a massive level, on up to the first introduction of GMO crops into our daily diets, when the autism and dementia rate goes into overdrive.

Related articles or references:


Vaccines and GMO’s are tied so closely together as to be Siamese twins. Most new vaccines now contain many genetically engineered components … with again no long term research to foresee the inevitable and impending disaster 10 – 20 or even 50 years down this mine strewn path.

Its not looking so good  for humanity at this point, and all of the first three WMD’s have a direct path to the extinction of humanity by warfare, disease, a collapsed Biosphere, or a negative population growth.

Related articles or references:


So what about our final blight … I hope at this point in the article you wouldn’t think me anticlimactic, so I wont disappoint you. There is a definite tie, link, a sharing of thoughts and goals going on between all of these perpetrators …

Geo-Engineering (Chemtrails):

Chemtrails involve the deliberate spraying of hazardous materials into the atmosphere that goes back over 30 years. Also known as cloud seeding, the U.S. Government has been spraying harmful chemicals and heavy metals into the atmosphere for numerous reasons. Some say this is to prevent global warming; however, the lack of media acknowledged Chemtrails tells a different story.

Related articles or references:



The presence of Aluminum Oxide and Barium in the air over the United States is now formally documented, in a scientifically reliable way. It can only get that dispersed and finely layered one way, airborne dispersal. So now that the poisoning is underway it is only a matter of time until humanity goes begging science for a ‘solution’ that the good boys of Monsanto won’t hesitate solving (they have already patented aluminum resistant seeds). Once more a noble cause, a threat to humanity and the environment will be averted thanks to Monsanto that will be releasing untold hundreds of exotic GMO bacterias each with a specific decontamination function as they roll out even more dangerous plant species like their Aluminum resistant sorghum that will make us reminisce about the good old days of Roundup ready plants and BT toxin crops…

Related articles or references:





This article connected some of the important dots to the evidence of the tremendous amount of poisoning to which we are constantly assaulted daily. If we think we are anywhere close to safe, it is only an illusion. So much of this is invisible in daily life and, therefore, not thought of by many or often. But global signs of increases in cancer, autism and sterility (just to name a few)  do fit into this picture. There is a plethora of scientific and medical reports and years of research showing the insidious dangers of each and every mechanism mentioned in this article.

When one begins to add up the thousands of poisons we breath, ingest or are injected with, and what they do to any living organism, it is not surprising that we have dangerously high and increasing rates of cancers, multiple immune diseases, global hormone disruption, infertility, and a worldwide population that is crippled with the harm of perpetual warfare. The damage done to our children and their children is unthinkable, and the damage being perpetrated on this planets biosphere is rushing up on irreversible.


The Liberty Beacon Rant: With Hosts Roger Landry (TLB) and Paula Mathers Discussing “The Four Weapons of Mass Destruction Humanity May Not Survive” Please join us as we … RANT!

Why the rise of fascism is again the issue

Source: http://johnpilger.com/articles/why-the-rise-of-fascism-is-again-the-issue

26 February 2015


The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.


“To initiate a war of aggression…,” said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, “is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”


Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.


Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.


In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that “most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten”.


The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a “rebel” bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: “We came, we saw, he died.” His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning “genocide” against his own people. “We knew… that if we waited one more day,” said President Obama, “Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”


This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda”. Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato’s inferno, described by David Cameron as a “humanitarian intervention”.


Secretly supplied and trained by Britain’s SAS, many of the “rebels” would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.


For Obama, David Cameron and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi’s true crime was Libya’s economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa’s greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to “enter” Africa and bribe African governments with military “partnerships”.


Following Nato’s attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu, “confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency”.


The “humanitarian war” against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing “genocide” against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as “225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59” might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and “the spirit of the Second World War”. The West’s heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.


With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia’s infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the “holocaust”. The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing “a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines”. A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The “holocaust” was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.


Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its “natural market” in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.


In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo “peace” conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer’s duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia – a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation – and the implementation of a “free-market economy” and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.


Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations – 69 countries – have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America’s modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as “sanctions”. The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.


“Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over.” These were opening words of Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. “The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion,” said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records. The majority have been killed – civilians and soldiers – during Obama’s time as president.


The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives’, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because “the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion… Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation.” He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter’s National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan’s first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?


In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.


The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan’s doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. “Every girl,” recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, “could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported.”


The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, “there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]”. Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the “threat of a promising example”.


On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal “fundamentalist” groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan’s first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that “the United States’ larger interests… would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.” The italics are mine.


The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA. Hekmatyar’s specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a “freedom fighter”.


Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and “destabilise” the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, “a few stirred up Muslims”. His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called “Operation Cyclone”. Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah – who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help – was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.


The “blowback” of Operation Cyclone and its “few stirred up Muslims” was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the “war on terror”, in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer’s message was and remains: “You are with us or against us.”


The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its “free fire zones”, “body counts” and “collateral damage”. In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians (“gooks”) were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.


Today, the world’s greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama’s victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA “kill list” presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each “hit” is registered on a faraway console screen as a “bugsplat”.


“For goose-steppers,” wrote the historian Norman Pollack, “substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.”


Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being,” said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, “The sovereign is he who decides the exception.” This sums up Americanism, the world’s dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.


The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the “tragedy” of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places – just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood’s violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, ‘American Sniper’, which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a “patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days”.


There are no heroic movies about America’s embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens – as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the “father” of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.


In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of Nato, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its “new wave” hailed by the enforcer as “nationalists”.


This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include  Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum”, including gays, feminists and those on the political left.


These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get “the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry”. If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.


No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe – with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as “the minister for defeatism”. It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading “neo-con” luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.


Nuland’s coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russia’s historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea – illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 – voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.


At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleansing. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping “the violence” caused by the “Russian invasion”. The Nato commander, General Breedlove – whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove – announced that 40,000 Russian troops were “massing”. In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.


These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine – a third of the population – have long sought a federation that reflects the country’s ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not “separatists” but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous “states” are a reaction to Kiev’s attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.


On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as “another bright day in our national history”. In the American and British media, this was reported as a “murky tragedy” resulting from “clashes” between “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) and “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).


The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington’s new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims – “Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says”. Obama congratulated the junta for its “restraint”.


If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained “pariah” role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine’s top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: “The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army”.  There were “individual citizens” who were members of “illegal armed groups”, but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev’s Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for “full scale war” with nuclear-armed Russia.


On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell’s fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America’s most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, “No European government, since Adolf Hitler’s Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West’s media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established… If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason.”


In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: “The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack… In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.” In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. “Putin must be stopped,” said the headline. “And sometimes only guns can stop guns.” He conceded that the threat of war might “nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement”; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that “America has the best kit”.


In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, “has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones.” He lauded Blair as a “Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist”. In 2006, he wrote, “Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran.”


The outbursts – or as Garton-Ash prefers, his “tortured liberal ambivalence” – are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash’s piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: “The F-35. GREAT For Britain”. This American “kit” will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world.  In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.


Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev’s new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas “investment”. She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden’s son is on the board of Ukraine’s biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine’s rich farming soil.


Above all, they want Ukraine’s mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia’s long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country’s economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.


The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.


Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger

How to deal with worldwide poverty forever

Zika Virus Outbreak in Brazil
Are the Zika virus – and GM mosquitoes – being wrongly blamed? Report by Claire Robinson

…….”Yet the most sinister aspect of this scandal is that the permanent damage to infants and their mothers may not be an accident at all, but instead the aim of a deliberate population-reduction strategy focused on the impoverished black-majority region of a predominantly Catholic country. Is OX513-A an instrument of planned destruction of a distinct group, which fits the legal definition of genocide?

Populous Brazil is a country of 205 million inhabitants with an annual population growth rate of 8.52, predominantly Catholic where abortions are illegal. The ZIKA epicenter in the northeast is a predominantly black and poor region. Evidence from previous microcephaly-linked population reduction events, accompanied by a ZIKA outbreak, as laid out in the second section of this report below, leans heavily toward the affirmative, that Brazil is actually the target of biological warfare with the objective of genocide”…….
From: https://weaponizedbacterialsandvirusses.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/cdc-oxford-death-gene-is-key-to-the-brazilian-babies-riddle/

OX513A release and recapture data.Source: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n11/fig_tab/nbt.2019_F2.html


Suppression of a Field Population of Aedes aegypti in Brazil by Sustained Release of Transgenic Male Mosquitoes

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4489809/


The increasing burden of dengue, and the relative failure of traditional vector control programs highlight the need to develop new control methods. SIT using self-limiting genetic technology is one such promising method. A self-limiting strain of Aedes aegypti, OX513A, has already reached the stage of field evaluation. Sustained releases of OX513A Ae. aegypti males led to 80% suppression of a target wild Ae. aegyptipopulation in the Cayman Islands in 2010. Here we describe sustained series of field releases of OX513AAe. aegypti males in a suburb of Juazeiro, Bahia, Brazil. This study spanned over a year and reduced the local Ae. aegypti population by 95% (95% CI: 92.2%-97.5%) based on adult trap data and 81% (95% CI: 74.9-85.2%) based on ovitrap indices compared to the adjacent no-release control area. The mating competitiveness of the released males (0.031; 95% CI: 0.025-0.036) was similar to that estimated in the Cayman trials (0.059; 95% CI: 0.011 – 0.210), indicating that environmental and target-strain differences had little impact on the mating success of the OX513A males. We conclude that sustained release of OX513A males may be an effective and widely useful method for suppression of the key dengue vector Ae.aegypti. The observed level of suppression would likely be sufficient to prevent dengue epidemics in the locality tested and other areas with similar or lower transmission.

Author Summary

Dengue is a major mosquito-borne disease, increasing in prevalence and severity; there are no specific drugs or licensed vaccine. It is primarily transmitted by one mosquito species, Aedes aegypti. We released transgenic ‘sterile’ male mosquitoes in Itaberaba, a suburb of Juazeiro, a Brazilian city. Sustained release of these males, whose offspring typically die before adulthood as a consequence of the transgenic modification, strongly suppressed the target wild population—by 80–95% according to different measures. These data are consistent with previous releases in the Cayman Islands, suggesting that differences between the two locations, including the environment or wild mosquito strain, made little difference. Mathematical models suggest that this degree of suppression would be highly effective in preventing epidemic dengue.


Dengue is second only to malaria as most important mosquito-borne disease. Unlike malaria and other major infectious diseases, dengue is increasing in incidence and severity, currently inflicting 50–390 million or more cases per year worldwide [1, 2]. Dengue is widespread in tropical and sub-tropical areas and is primarily associated with its principal vector Aedes aegypti (L.).

Dengue was reintroduced in Brazil in 1981 (Boa Vista, State of Roraima), after being almost entirely absent for at least 20 years following DDT-based vector control. Brazil now has serotypes 1–3 circulating throughout the country; in addition serotype 4 was recently detected in several states [3]. In an analysis of dengue in the Americas in 2000–2007, Brazil was found to have the highest number of cases and economic burden [4]; more recently [1] estimated 16 million total infections annually. While this in part reflects the size of the Brazilian population, Wilder-Smith et al. [5] concluded that the dengue burden is at least as high as the burden of other major infectious diseases that afflict the Brazilian population, including malaria. A cross-sectional seroepidemiologic survey conducted in Recife, state of Pernambuco, Brazil, in 2006 found overall dengue virus IgG prevalence to be 80% indicating that the large majority of inhabitants have been infected at least once [6]; these authors estimated that 5.2% of susceptible individuals become infected each year by each serotype and that this had increased sharply over the previous 20 years.

There are no specific drugs or licensed vaccine for dengue, so efforts to reduce transmission depend entirely on vector control [2]. However, even the most highly-resourced and well-implemented programmes, such as in Singapore, have not been able to prevent epidemic dengue using current methods [79]. Furthermore, existing control tools are threatened by actual or potential spread of resistance in the vector population. Therefore there is an urgent need to develop new methods. The use of transgenic vectors may provide a set of new methods for reducing the density or vectorial capacity of vector populations [10]. Here we describe a field evaluation of one prominent transgenic-vector strategy, the use of male mosquitoes carrying a lethal or autocidal transgene in a sterile-male-release system.

The Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) is a genetic control system based on the release of large numbers of radiation-sterilised insects. These mate with wild insects of the same species and thereby reduce the reproductive potential of the wild pest population, as they produce no or fewer viable offspring due to the radiation-induced presence of lethal mutations in their gametes [11, 12]. Though successfully used against several agricultural pests, trials against mosquitoes have met with less success [13, 14]. This is in part due to the somatic damage, and associated performance reduction in the sterile insects, which inevitably accompanies radiation-sterilisation. Interestingly, one successful example of SIT in mosquitoes used a chemosterilant in place of radiation [15]. Modern genetics can potentially overcome this problem, for example by using an engineered self-limiting gene, that is both repressible by an antidote provided in a managed rearing facility and when expressed in the absence of the repressor any insect carrying the gene results in mortality before the insect reaches functional adulthood, which may be used in place of radiation [16]. Operationally, the system would look very similar to SIT, and would share the clean, species-specific characteristics, and similarly benefit from the female-seeking ability of the released males. However the insects would not be irradiated, rather they would be homozygous for a transgene which, when transmitted to an embryo via the sperm, would lead to death of the zygote at some stage in development [17, 18]. As well as avoiding the need for radiation, by adjusting the time of death one can improve efficiency against target populations with significant density-dependence [19, 20]. Simulation modelling suggests that such a method would potentially be effective and economical against Ae. aegypti [19, 21].

After extensive laboratory development and testing, field testing of engineered insects has begun, with encouraging results. In particular, in the Cayman Islands a self-limiting strain of Ae. aegypti, OX513A, was shown to be able to compete successfully for wild mates, furthermore sustained release of OX513A males suppressed a wild population of Ae. aegypti [10, 22]. We tested whether this same strain and strategy could also be effective in Brazil. Within the overall project objective of evaluating OX513A technology in Brazil, we had three core technical activities. These were (i) to transfer the technology to Brazil, including adaptation and optimisation for local conditions; (ii) to assess the field performance in terms of mating competitiveness of OX513A males in Brazil; and (iii) to test the ability of OX513A males to suppress a wild Ae. aegypti population in this environment. The fourth core activity, which will be described in detail elsewhere, related to community engagement and regulatory activities.


Study area

The study was conducted in the Itaberaba suburb of the city of Juazeiro, Bahia in the semi-arid North East of Brazil (latitude—9.450, longitude—40.481), both treated and control sites were in the same suburb and, consequently, had similar characteristics. The site consisted predominately of housing of relatively low social economic status and was identified by local public health officials as having high dengue incidence. A dependence on stored water (due to irregular services for piped water) and high human densities provided ideal habitats for Ae. aegypti and thus the area supported a relatively high and stable year-round population that is atypical of fluctuating seasonal populations that are broadly prevalent in the region. This provides a highly challenging environment, terms of mosquito population, in which to evaluate OX513A technology. Baseline monitoring was initiated in July 2010 using ovitraps which revealed the presence ofAe. aegypti and absence of Ae. albopictus in the whole of Itaberaba.

Human population density was comparable in treated areas A and B with an estimated 165 people ha-1(total 424 houses with 1810 population). Control area density was slightly lower with an estimated 143 people ha-1 (1341 houses with 5726 population) (Fig 1). Juazeiro has a semi-arid climate with average annual precipitation of 536 mm falling mostly in warmer summer months (November-April). Throughout the study, conventional local mosquito control was deployed as normal and public heath agents followed standard procedures. Teams of public health agents typically visited homes between 4 and 6 times per year, where they destroyed some breeding sites and treated others with the organophosphate larvicide, temephos. The same team of public health agents were responsible for the whole of Itaberaba suburb, ensuring that underlying conventional mosquito control was similar between the treated and untreated areas of this study.

Fig 1

Itaberaba study area.

Community engagement/regulatory activities

Prior to establishment of the transgenic OX513A line in the mass rearing facility and subsequent open releases, regulatory approvals were obtained from the appropriate Brazilian national regulatory body, Brazilian National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio), for the import permit from the UK to University of São Paulo (Diário Oficial da União (DOU): Extrato de Parecer (EP) 2.031/2009) and for the containment facility for rearing the strain at Biofábrica Moscamed Brasil (DOU: EP 2.577/2010). Approval for releasing OX513A males in the environment was granted in 2010 by CTNBio for five sites, including Itaberaba, around Juazeiro, Bahia (DOU: EP 2.765/2010).

From its inception the project sought to adopt full transparency with a vigorous and proactive community engagement campaign. In addition to national (CTNBio) regulatory approval, consent and support came from regional (Bahia health secretary) and local community leaders (Town Mayor, health secretary and vector control authorities). Implementation included communication via local media (radio, TV and press), community meetings, printed information (posters and leaflets), school presentations, carnival parades, use of small vans with loudspeakers and social media (websites and blogs). Dedicated door-to-door campaigns and ongoing contact with field technicians working in the community provided face-to-face interaction on an individual basis, allowing specific questions to be addressed and for direct feedback and concerns to be aired. Full description of the community engagement will be reported elsewhere.


Transgenic Ae. aegypti with the OX513A insertion were used during this study [20]. The sensitivity of the OX513A strain to chemical insecticide has been evaluated independent (LSTMH, following WHO protocols). The strain was found to be susceptible to discriminating doses of the insecticide representing all classes commonly used (temephos, permethrin, deltamethrin and malathion,) with the exception of bendiocarb which was found to be non-discriminating for Ae. aegypti, as the observed levels of resistance were comparable to levels in the New Orleans susceptible reference strain [23] used as a control in the study. The OX513A strain was the same strain previously used for field evaluation in the Cayman Islands [10, 22]. The breeding line was originally imported by Oxitec Ltd. to the University of São Paulo where it underwent laboratory evaluations against Brazilian Ae. aegypti lines before being transferred to Biofábrica Moscamed Brasil (www.moscamed.com), Juazeiro City.

Mass rearing of OX513A

Subsequent to obtaining regulatory approval for field release, production of male mosquitoes was conducted at the Moscamed facility in an 84m2 laboratory specifically adapted and approved for the purpose. Mass rearing insectaries were maintained at 27°C (+/- 2), 70–90% relative humidity and a 12 hr day/night cycle. A colony of homozygous OX513A was established producing eggs to supply male mosquito production for release. Mosquitoes destined for release were reared to pupae where they were mechanically sorted to remove females [24, 25]. For quality control a minimum of 1500 male pupae from every release batch were individually checked using a microscope to ensure < 1% female contamination. Residual female presence was 0.02% (95% bootstrap CI: 0.016%-0.031%), equivalent to 1 female for every 4,300 males. Weekly quality control checks were made of the transgenic phenotype i.e. expression of the fluorescent marker and lethality in the absence of tetracycline. Detailed methods for production of male pupae followed [26].

Eclosion and release

Male pupae were aliquoted into release devices (RD) where they eclosed to adults over 24–48 hr before release (for details, see S1 Text). Mosquitoes were dispersed in field site by opening RDs at the rear of a vehicle moving slowly throughout the release area. Releases occurred three times per week. In the initial phase, which we call “rangefinder”, we maintained a constant release rate of males (~ 10,000 per release) for six weeks (total of 185,000 males). This rate was governed largely by production capacity at the time, with priority to releasing a constant rate, rather than sufficient to achieve suppression. The constant release rate provided a relatively stable standing crop of OX513A male population of a known size in the study area against which wild population estimate could be estimated from ratio of OX513A to wild males collected by direct adult trapping, using mark release recapture statistics [27]. Furthermore, the proportion of eggs recovered form ovitraps that were fathered by OX513A males provided an estimate of mating fraction of wild females with OX513A and wild males. This, together with the ratio of OX513A to local males, enabled an estimation of mating competitiveness [10, 28]. Assuming wild populations remained constant, likely release numbers required to achieve a predetermined ratio of released to wild population males in order to achieve suppression could then be estimated from the release rates and corresponding mating competitiveness estimate observed in the rangefinder phase. Thereafter rearing and distribution systems were optimised and sterile male production capacity increased [26]. Release rates increased in line with production allowing extensive estimation of mating competitiveness and eventually suppression. Following suppression, releases were maintained at a lower level (ca. 10 times lower) designed to counter resurgence of population (Fig 2). In addition, low density releases were initiated in a buffer zone extending 2 city blocks (~150m) from Westerly boundary of area B into previously untreated control area to further mitigate resurgence from migration of wild Ae aegypti from adjacent populated untreated area. For details see S1 Text, S1 and S2 Figs, and S1 Table.

Fig 2

Field data.


Ovitraps were checked and replaced weekly. Ovitrap index was calculated as number of egg-positive traps/total number of traps recovered. Additionally, number of eggs collected from each trap were counted allowing average eggs/trap number to be calculated. Direct monitoring of the adult population was conducted initially by aspiration surveys and later with BG-Sentinel traps (Biogents, Regensburg, Germany). For details see S1 Text.


Statistical analyses were performed using R freeware (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). Population size was estimated using Petersen-Lincoln test [27] as an estimate of the standing crop of released males. The number of pupae per person was determined from the wild mosquito population estimates following the calculations described by Focks et al. [29]. Confidence intervals (95%) for survival and population estimates were calculated by bootstrap (10,000 repeats).

Ethics statement

All experiments with animal blood were carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Ethical Principles for Experiment on Animals adopted by Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência de Animais de laboratório (SBCAL) and approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Committee (Comissão de Ética no Uso de Animais—CEUA)-Universidade de São Paulo, protocol #022/11.

The community engagement protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board in Human Research (Comissão de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos do Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas/USP) and Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa—CONEP, protocol #1115.


Range finder

The rangefinder was conducted between May 19th and June 29th 2011, a constant rate of 2,800 OX513A males ha-1 week-1 were released during that period in the treated area (Fig 1, Areas A and B). The sex ratios (male/female) from direct adult sampling were 2.14 and 0.45 in the treated and control areas, respectively. Thus, we estimated a ratio of 3.7:1 (95% bootstrap CI: 3.19–4.41) OX513A males per wild male was achieved, based on deviation in sex ratio from the 0.45 males per female found in the untreated control area.

By hatching the eggs from ovitraps and scoring the resulting larvae for fluorescence, we could identify which had an OX513A father—and had therefore inherited a copy of the OX513A transgene, which carries a fluorescent marker—and which had not (Fig 3). By comparing the ratio of OX513A:wild males with the fluorescent:non-fluorescent ratio in hatched eggs (‘fluorescence ratio’) we were able to estimate the mating competitiveness of the released OX513A males. We define field mating competitiveness (C) as the relationship between the numerical density of wild-type (W) and OX513A (O) males and the relative mating success, such that C = PW/(O(1-P)) where P is proportion of sterile mating (= proportion fluorescent larvae) [10, 28]. As expected [22], following releases there was a lag period before fluorescence was detected and then an increase before stabilising 3–4 weeks later. We interpret the lag period as representing the time during which the OX513A male population has accumulated to a steady state (new introductions matched by deaths), and similarly for females emerging late enough to have been exposed to these OX513A males as virgins. However this situation is itself transient as death of OX513A heterozygous offspring will in time start to have an impact on the number of wild mosquitoes, depending on the numbers of OX513A males released and their mating competitiveness in relation to wild males. Females additionally have to blood feed and find oviposition sites. We therefore expected a lag phase comprising a time delay of approximately one week between release of OX513A males and the appearance in ovitraps of eggs that they had fathered and a further delay as the population of females mated prior to this point declined to negligible levels. For the same reason, such eggs were expected for a short period after releases ceased. The data are consistent with these hypotheses (Fig 2). Accounting for a time lag before equilibration of released males and emerging females, we assessed for a 6-week period (19 May-29 June 2011). In total we screened 9,252 larvae of which 943 (10.2% (95% exact binomial CI: 9.6%-10.8%)) were fluorescent. Taking this value together with the male release ratio (3.7:1) implies that the released males had a relative competitiveness of 0.031 (95% bootstrap CI: 0.025–0.036). This is an underestimate due to the potential emigration of OX513A-mated females and immigration of pre-mated wild females.

Fig 3

Rangefinder study.

Optimising and scaling up production of OX513A

We next developed rearing and distribution systems in Brazil, building on Oxitec’s prior experience from field release in other countries [10, 22, 30]. This involved significant modification and optimisation of methods to make them appropriate for the Brazilian environment, including local sourcing of material [26]. Adult male production correspondingly increased from approximately 30,000 per week during the rangefinder to 540,000 per week in early 2012 [26].

Estimation of release numbers required for suppression

In addition to refining rearing methods and associated assessment of the field performance of the released mosquitoes, population suppression was a key endpoint of the release program as this would validate the technology in a Brazilian setting. Sterile-male methods such as the OX513A male release control strategy will successfully suppress the target population if a sufficient proportion of females mate sterile males. This threshold mating fraction required for local elimination in the absence of immigration can be estimated from models of mosquito population dynamics [31] as 13–57% [20, 22]. The minimum and maximum threshold mating fraction (13–57%) are derived from modelling a range of values for key parameters driving population dynamics including density depended survival of larvae and reproductive rate. Field experience in Grand Cayman suggested that in that location the threshold mating fraction with OX513A males was towards the lower end of this range, as significant suppression was observed at an estimated mating fraction of 12% [10]. While this does not show that the critical mating fraction was less than 12%, as release rates somewhat below the threshold level may still give significant suppression, it does suggest that the threshold is not at the upper end of the model estimates. We therefore aimed to achieve a mating fraction of 50%, reasoning that even if the population dynamics were somewhat different than in Grand Cayman this would likely be sufficient to achieve suppression. From the rangefinder study we predicted that we would have needed a nine-fold increase in release rate, from 2,800 to 25,000 ha-1week-1, to achieve a target 50% mating fraction, assuming mating competitiveness and wild populations remained the same.

Suppression phase

Up to 11th February 2012 we released into areas A and B (Fig 1), comprising 11 ha in total. However, despite improvements in rearing over the period, in this highly infested area we were unable to produce enough OX513A males with the available resources to consistently maintain a mating fraction of 50%, as judged by the percentage of fluorescent larvae. We therefore reduced the release area to an area of 5.5 ha (Fig 1A). As expected, the fluorescence ratio increased correspondingly.

Actual release numbers, observed mating fraction (% fluorescent larvae), and ovitrap index—a measure of population density—are presented in Fig 3B–3D. The ovitrap index in the untreated area remained relatively stable, showing little seasonal variation. Evaluation of impact of any treatment should be assessed in relation to untreated control areas thereby controlling for fluctuation resulting from local environmental factors such as rainfall and temperature. Ovitrap indices for treated areas A and B are correspondingly presented as relative ovitrap index (ovitrap index in treated area divided by ovitrap index in control area, Fig 3C). In 2011 the ovitrap indices in the treated areas were substantially higher than in the untreated area, with a relative mean ovitrap index of 1.61 (95% bootstrap CI: 1.34–1.91) and 1.93 (95% bootstrap CI: 1.67–2.24) for A and B respectively. As treatment started to take effect, ovitrap indices declined in the treated areas relative to the untreated area, with relative mean ovitrap indexes of 0.35 (95% bootstrap Cl: 0.26–0.45) and 0.49 (95% bootstrap CI: 0.36–0.61) for area A and B respectively from June 2012 onwards. This represented significant reduction (One-way ANOVA: df = 1, P<0.001) in relative ovitrap indices of 78% (95% bootstrap CI: 70.5%-84.8%) and 75% (95% bootstrap CI: 66.5%-81.7%) for areas A and B, respectively.

Mating competitiveness is a key performance measure for released males; estimates of net field mating competitiveness of the released males ranged between 0.0004–0.047 (S2 Table). Mean competitiveness as estimated by this method declined substantially with suppression of the wild population (first 5 estimates before suppression mean 0.030, 95% bootstrap CI: 0.020–0.040; last 5 estimates mean 0.008, 95% bootstrap CI: 0.002–0.016). These estimates may be influenced by immigration of pre-mated females; assuming this is constant, as the wild population is suppressed the proportion of positive ovitraps resulting from immigrating pre-mated females increases. This would result in a reduced estimate of mating competitiveness. The pre-suppression mean of 0.030 therefore represents the best estimate of the overall mean mating competitiveness for OX513A in this study. This is consistent with the estimate from the rangefinder (0.031; 95% bootstrap CI: 0.025–0.036).

Although the exact turning point is difficult to pinpoint, it is clear that suppression of the target population, relative to the untreated control area, began at the same time or even just before reducing the area treated (13 Feb 2012). This, combined with ongoing immigration of sterile males from the adjacent Area A, presumably explains that suppression was seen also in Area B. The majority (66%) of area B is < 100m from release points used in area A, and therefore falls under the flight rage of males Ae. aegypti which typically disperse (mean distance travelled) 30–100m as reviewed by Silver et al. [32]. Furthermore, cessation of releases in area B was coupled with a total increase in numbers releases of 41%, which were all concentrated in area A. Analysis of mating fraction in area B, before and after releases stopped, confirmed that there was considerable migration in area B, from releases in adjacent area A, as there was a slight increase in mating fraction from 0.264 (95% bootstrap CI: 0.218–0.325) to 0.326 (95% bootstrap CI: 0.221–0.431). See S1 Text and S4 Fig for more details. Sterile males do not immediately reduce the target population; rather they lead to mortality in the next generation. Therefore, there is a delay of approximately one generation between the release of sterile males and any consequent effect on population size. Mean fluorescence ratio over the prior 6-week period (22 December 2011–1 February 2012) was 43% (95% bootstrap CI: 34.8–52.1%) and corresponded with a mean release rate of 28,644 ha-1 week-1 (95% bootstrap CI: 24,929–32,102). This corresponds well with the target release rates predicted from the rangefinder.

Ovitraps provide only an indirect measure of the adult population density, reduction of which is the key target for vector control purposes. Though we consider that changes in ovitrap metrics provide good indications of changes in adult density within an area, they provide a poor guide to absolute number [29]. To provide an independent measure of the adult population we used mark-release-recapture methods to estimate the standing crop of wild Ae. aegypti adults in the trial area [33], exploiting the periodic releases of OX513A males. Adult collection was initially based on aspiration surveys; later on BG Sentinel traps, for which calculations were carried out for trap collections spanning consecutive periods of approximately four weeks. For each period, the average OX513A male standing crop was calculated from numbers released and an estimated daily survival probability (DSP) of 0.49, this DSP estimate being derived from a series of 14 mark-release-recapture studies using dye-marked cohorts. The wild population density was then estimated based on the relative recapture rates of OX513A and wild males.

These experiments provide clear evidence of a reduction in the standing crop of adults (Fig 3D). We observed a 95% (95% bootstrap CI: 92.2%-97.5%) reduction in the estimated Ae. aegypti adult standing crop from an average of 418 ha-1 (95% bootstrap CI: 307–532), prior to January 2012, to 20 ha-1 (95% bootstrap CI: 10–29) in area A from May 2012 onwards. As discussed above, this 95% reduction represents an independent and likely more accurate, assessment of the impact on absolute adult population than ovitrap index, and is the most pertinent measure in relation to impact of intervention with regard to reducing the risk of disease transmission.


In this study we demonstrate effective control of a wild population of Ae. aegypti by sustained releases of OX513A male Ae. aegypti. We diminished Ae. aegypti population by 95% (95% CI: 92.2%-97.5%) based on adult trap data and 78% (95% CI: 70.5%-84.8%) based on ovitrap indices compared to the adjacent no-release control area. We estimated mating competitiveness of the released males to be 0.030 (95% bootstrap CI: 0.020–0.040).

These results are similar to the 82% (95% bootstrap CI:69.7–90.0%) suppression achieved by release of OX513A males in a similar study in Grand Cayman [10]. In both cases, the degree of suppression attainable was expected to be limited by immigration of wild mosquitoes from adjacent untreated areas. Ae.aegypti dispersal is relatively short, with most published mean dispersal distances falling between 30–100 m; estimates for OX513A males also fall in this range [30, 32]. Effects of immigration would therefore likely be limited to a relatively small boundary zone in a larger program, or not even that if the whole of an isolated population were treated. Suppression may also be limited by the persistence of viable eggs laid at an earlier period. These may hatch over a period of months after deposition, depending on environmental conditions. The gradual reduction in the target population from April 2012 onwards may relate to gradual depletion of this egg bank. As for spatial migration, this ‘temporal migration’ would be of very limited consequence for a larger, longer operational control program. The 0.030 mating competiveness observed was also consistent with the estimate of 0.059 (95% bootstrap CI: 0.011–0.21) from the Grand Cayman study [10]. This suggests that differences between these two wild populations, or in environmental parameters between the sites, or in experimental procedures such as rearing and distribution, had little effect on the ability of OX513A males to win mates. Mating competitiveness as measured by this approach includes any effect of the transgene on the released males, the effect of artificial rearing, handling and distribution, and the effect of migration both of pre-mated females into the area and of released males and mated females out of the area. Relatively few estimates of mating competitiveness under open-field conditions have been published, despite the long history of sterile-male methods. In large-scale, successful SIT programmes, field competitiveness of sterile males was estimated at 0.1 for New World screwworm (Cochliomya hominivorax) [28, 34] and <0.01 for Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) [35, 36]. It is a well-documented feature of SIT programs that laboratory caged study estimates of mating competitiveness are not representative of results in the field, where competitiveness values are much lower [27]. This is has also been true for OX513A as observed mating competitiveness in the field are lower than results from laboratory [22, 37], and larger semi-field mating cage studies [38] that have consistently shown OX513A males to be highly competitive achieving equal mating success to non-transformed males counterparts.

Mean fluorescence ratio corresponding with period when suppression was observes was estimated to be 43% (95% bootstrap CI: 34.8–52.1%). This falls within model predictions of 13–57% (19) as did the Grand Cayman suppression (12%); variations in that threshold may indicate somewhat different population dynamics, as might be expected between two very different areas.

The target release rate sufficient to achieve suppression should be proportional to the initial wild population. This may be assessed in terms of the ratio of release to wild males. Alternatively the mating fraction achieved represented a more direct impact of a given release rate without need to account for potential differences in mating competitiveness. Results from this and previous [10] studies support the use of target release rate sufficient to achieve >0.5 mating fraction in large operational programs. Conventional sterile insect based programs generally achieve greater efficiency by initiating releases in conjunction with reduced mosquito population, either by utilising naturally occurring seasonality or temporary knockdown with alternate control such as insecticide application. In this study site there was consistently high mosquito infestation (Fig 2) and no targeted controls was used other than that routinely deployed by vector control teams. Despite this we were able to demonstrate efficacy in challenging conditions, with scope for substantial improved efficiency areas with lower mosquito populations and by incorporation with an integrated vector management program.

This study comprised exclusively entomological endpoints. What would be the impact of such striking reduction of vector population density on dengue transmission? Focks et al. estimated a disease transmission threshold in relation to pupae per person-1 (as a proxy for adult mosquito population), ambient temperature and herd immunity [29, 39]. For a mean temperature of 28°C Focks et al. calculated an epidemic transmission threshold of 0.42, 0.61 or 1.27 pupae per person for initial seroprevalence of 0%, 33% and 67%, respectively. The average temperature during peak dengue transmission season (January-July) was 27.7°C at the Juazeiro field site, and we can assume a moderate to high seroprevelance given the historical high level of dengue incidence reported in the site by residents and public health workers. Using calculations and assumptions given in Focks et al. (2000), we estimate that average pupae person-1decreased in our treated area from 0.7 pre-treatment to 0.04 post-treatment, which in their model would be sufficient to prevent epidemic transmission under these conditions, or indeed under the most adverse conditions modelled for a naive population with 0% seroprevalence. The long-term goal for vector control should be to suppress below the transmission threshold even given low herd immunity [8]–our data indicate that release of OX513A males is able to achieve this goal.[38]

Supporting Information

S1 Text

Additional methodological detail and results.


S1 Dataset

Raw data set.

Ovitrap data including results for screening larvae for expression of fluorescence, numbers of OX513A males released, direct adult trapping data including recapture of marked OX513A males and data presented in Figs Figs22 and and3,3, S2 and S4 Figs.


S1 Fig

Itaberaba study area.

Ovitrap distribution is shown for the period 21/11/2011–19/09/2012; open circles = 1 trap house-1, solid circles = 2 traps house-1. Adult BG Sentinel trap distribution for the period 10/07-25/09/2012 is also shown (open diamonds). Area A = 5.5 Ha, B = 5.5 Ha, C = 8.5 Ha, D = 34.5.


S2 Fig

Releases in areas A, B and C over duration of study.

Weekly numbers of adult OX513A males released per hectare.


S3 Fig

Itaberaba study area with release path.

Area A = Red, Area B = Blue, Area C = Yellow.


S4 Fig

Percentage fluorescent larvae recovered from ovitraps in areas A-D (error bars = 95% CI) during Phase 2 and 3 of study.


S1 Table

Study phases—Mean weekly OX513A release rate per ha for different phases of study.


S2 Table

Mating competitiveness and wild population estimation.

Details of the calculations of mating competitiveness and wild population of Ae. aegypti over the release period. φ Sex ratio was different for aspiration (0.45) and for BG-Sentinel traps (0.69).


S3 Table

Mean relative ovitrap index and eggs per trap in Areas A-C compared to control area D before and after suppression.

% Reduction expressed as reduction in relative ovitrap index from before and after suppression. Upper and lower 95% CI values given in parenthesis.



We are very grateful to Juazeiro municipal government and vector control authorities, and especially to the people of Itaberaba, without whose constant support, participation and encouragement the work described here would not have been possible. We thank Josué Young from Gorgas Institute, Panama and staff at Moscamed and Oxitec for their assistance, especially Jair F. Virginio, José Carlos Valença, Gildeane Silva, Gessilane dos Santos, Fabio Gonçalves, John Paul Oliveira, Derric Nimmo, Jessica Stevenson, and Neil Naish. For regulatory support we thank Camilla Beach and for statistical analysis Pete Winskill.

Funding Statement

AM and LG received support from Biofábrica Moscamed Brasil (www.moscamed.org.br. MLC and DOC received support form Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (www.fapesp.b) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnologia (www.cnpq.br). CAD received support from Medical Research Council (www.mrc.ac.uk). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


1. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496:504–7. doi: 10.1038/nature12060 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. WHO-TDR. Dengue: guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. Geneva: WHO; 2009.
3. de Souza RP, Rocco IM, Maeda AY, Spenassatto C, Bisordi I, Suzuki A, et al. Dengue Virus Type 4 Phylogenetics in Brazil 2011: Looking beyond the Veil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(12):e1439 doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001439 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Shepard DS, Coudeville L, Halasa YA, Zambrano B, Dayan GH. Economic Impact of Dengue Illness in the Americas. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2011;84(2):200–7. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0503 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Luz PM, Grinsztejn B, Galvani AP. Disability adjusted life years lost to dengue in Brazil. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2009;14(2):237–46. [PubMed]
6. Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Cordeiro MT, Braga C, de Souza WV, Marques ET, Cummings DAT. From Re-Emergence to Hyperendemicity: The Natural History of the Dengue Epidemic in Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(1):e935 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000935 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Wilder-Smith A, Foo W, Earnest A, Sremulanathan S, Paton NI. Seroepidemiology of dengue in the adult population of Singapore. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2004;9(2):305–8. [PubMed]
8. Ooi E, Goh K, Gubler D. Dengue prevention and 35 years of vector control in Singapore. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2006;12:887–93. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Lee K-S, Lo S, Tan SS-Y, Chua R, Tan L-K, Xu H, et al. Dengue virus surveillance in Singapore reveals high viral diversity through multiple introductions and in situ evolution. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2012;12(1):77–85. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.10.012 [PubMed]
10. Harris AF, McKemey AR, Nimmo D, Curtis Z, Black I, Morgan SA, et al. Successful suppression of a field mosquito population by sustained release of engineered male mosquitoes. Nat Biotech. 2012;30(9):828–30. [PubMed]
11. Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS. Sterile insect technique: principles and practice in area-wide integrated pest management. Netherlands: Springer; 2005.
12. Knipling E. Possibilities of insect control or eradication through use of sexually sterile males. J Econ Entomol. 1955;48:459–62.
13. Benedict MQ, Robinson AS. The first releases of transgenic mosquitoes: an argument for the sterile insect technique. Trends Parasitol. 2003;19(8):349–55. Epub 2003/08/07. [PubMed]
14. Klassen W, Curtis CF. History of the sterile insect technique In: Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS, editors. Sterile Insect Technique Principles and practice in area-wide integrated pest management. The Netherlands: Springer; 2005. p. 3–36.
15. Lowe RE, Bailey DL, Dame DA, Savage KE, Kaiser PE. Efficiency of techniques for the mass release of sterile male Anopheles albimanus Wiedemann in El Salvador. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1980;29(4):695–703. [PubMed]
16. Thomas DD, Donnelly CA, Wood RJ, Alphey LS. Insect population control using a dominant, repressible, lethal genetic system. Science. 2000;287(5462):2474–6. [PubMed]
17. Alphey L, Benedict MQ, Bellini R, Clark GG, Dame DA, Service MW, et al. Sterile-insect methods for control of mosquito-borne diseases: an analysis. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010;10(3):295–311. Epub 2009/09/04. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2009.0014 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Catteruccia F, Crisanti A, Wimmer E. Transgenic technologies to induce sterility. Malaria Journal. 2009;8(Suppl 2):S7 doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-S2-S7 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. Atkinson MP, Su Z, Alphey N, Alphey LS, Coleman PG, Wein LM. Analyzing the control of mosquito-borne diseases by a dominant lethal genetic system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(22):9540–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Phuc HK, Andreasen MH, Burton RS, Vass C, Epton MJ, Pape G, et al. Late-acting dominant lethal genetic systems and mosquito control. BMC Biol. 2007;5:11 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Alphey N, Alphey L, Bonsall MB. A Model Framework to Estimate Impact and Cost of Genetics-Based Sterile Insect Methods for Dengue Vector Control. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25384 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025384 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Harris AF, Nimmo D, McKemey AR, Kelly N, Scaife S, Donnelly CA, et al. Field performance of engineered male mosquitoes. Nat Biotech. 2011;29(11):1034–7. [PubMed]
23. Aponte HA, Penilla RP, Dzul-Manzanilla F, Che-Mendoza A, López AD, Solis F, et al. The pyrethroid resistance status and mechanisms in Aedes aegypti from the Guerrero state, Mexico. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. 2013;107(2):226–34.
24. Ansari M, Singh K, Brooks G, Malhotra P, Vaidyanathan V. The development of procedures and techniques for mass rearing of Aedes aegypti. Indian J Med Res. 1977;65😦Suppl) 91–9. [PubMed]
25. Focks DA. An improved separator for separating the developmental stages, sexes and species of mosquitoes. Mosq News. 1980;19:144–7. [PubMed]
26. Carvalho DO, Nimmo D, Naish N, McKemey AR, Gray P, Wilke ABB, et al. Mass Production of Genetically Modified Aedes aegypti for Field Releases in Brazil. J Vis Exp 2014;(83):e3579 doi:10.3791/3579 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Itô Y, Yamamura K. Role of Population and Behavioural Ecology in the Sterile Insect Technique In: Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS, editors. Sterile Insect Technique 2005. p. 177–208.
28. Mayer DG, Atzeni MG, Stuart MA, Anaman KA, Butler DG. Mating competitiveness of irradiated flies for screwworm fly eradication campaigns. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 1998;36(1):1–9. [PubMed]
29. Focks D, Brenner R, Hayes J, E D. Transmission thresholds for dengue in terms of Aedes aegypti pupae per person with discussion of their utility in source reduction efforts. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2000;(62):11–8. [PubMed]
30. Lacroix R, McKemey AR, Norzahira R, Lim KW, Wong HM, Teoh GN, et al. Open Field Release of Genetically Engineered Sterile Male Aedes aegypti in Malaysia. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e42771 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042771 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Dye C. Models for the population dynamics of the yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1984;53:247–68.
32. Silver JB. Measuring Adult Dispersal In: Silver JB, editor. Mosquito Ecology 2008. p. 1377–424.
33. Silver JB. Estimating the size of the Adult Population In: Silver JB, editor. Mosquito Ecology 2008. p. 1273–376.
34. Vreysen MJB. Monitoring sterile and wild insects in area-wide integrated pest management programmes In: Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS, editors. Sterile Insect Technique Principles and practice in area-wide integrated pest management. the Netherlands: Springer; 2005. p. 325–61.
35. Shelly TE, McInnis DO, Rodd C, Edu J, Pahio E. Sterile Insect Technique and Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): Assessing the Utility of Aromatherapy in a Hawaiian Coffee Field. J Econ Entomol. 2007;100(2):273–82. [PubMed]
36. Rendón P, McInnis D, Lance D, Stewart J. Medfly (Diptera:Tephritidae) genetic sexing: large-scale field comparison of males-only and bisexual sterile fly releases in Guatemala. J Econ Entomol. 2004;97(5):1547–53. [PubMed]
37. Patil PB, Niranjan Reddy BP, Gorman K, Seshu Reddy KV, Barwale SR, Zehr UB, et al. Mating competitiveness and life-table comparisons between transgenic and Indian wild-type Aedes aegypti L. Pest Management Science. 2015:In Press. [PubMed]
38. Lee HL, Vasan S, Ahmad NW, Idris I, Hanum N, Selvi S, et al. Mating compatibility and competitiveness of transgenic and wild type Aedes aegypti (L.) under contained semi-field conditionsTransgenic Research 2012;22:47–57. doi: 10.1007/s11248-012-9625-z [PubMed]
39. Focks DA, Alexander N, Villegas E. Multicountry study of Aedes aegypti pupal productivity survey methodology: findings and recommendations Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006. TDR/IRM/DEN/06.1.

Articles from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science

Ronmamita's Blog

Creatively Express Freedom

Yanis Varoufakis

thoughts for the post-2008 world

The McClaughry's Blog

This is the place

Chemtrails In Our Skies

Wake Up Look Up Speak Up Get Up



Higher Density Blog

Love Is Always The Answer

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Der Honigmann sagt...

Der etwas andere weblog...

wall of controversy

the other side of the story

the enigma channel


Friends of Syria

revealing the truth

Transform Now Plowshares

They will hammer their swords into plowshares

The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Staatsbosbeheer Achterhoek

Blog van de boswachters van Staatsbosbeheer in de Achterhoek

| truthaholics

Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin