Since long before the first settlers arrived in North America until the mid-1950s, there were billions of American chestnut trees (Castanea dentata) blanketing the forests from Maine to Florida.¹ The deciduous trees could grow more than 100 feet tall and span 9 feet around. In fact, a lone chestnut estimated at 100 years old, was discovered in Maine in 2015, measuring out to a towering 115 feet tall.²

Although majestic to see, the trees also produced edible nuts that could be ground into flour, stewed into puddings or roasted and eaten out of the shell. Early Native Americans used the leaves for medicinal treatments and the wood was the first choice for pioneer log cabins.

Many times, the first 50 feet of the trunk was clean, without branches or knots, making it a builder’s dream.³ The trees grow fast and did not rot, so were a good choice for telephone poles and railroad ties.

The New York Times reports that in 1915, one author estimated it was the “single-most-cut tree” in America. As North America was settled, the American chestnut trees were the basis of Appalachian subsistence farming. New York Times reports that in 2005, historian Donald Davis wrote:⁴

“With the death of the chestnut, an entire world did die, eliminating subsistence practices that had been viable in the Appalachian Mountains for more than four centuries.”

The American chestnut tree also provided food for animals in the forest, including deer, squirrels and bears.⁵ Unlike oak trees with irregular acorn cycles,⁶ chestnut trees produce every year. Local farmers would send their hogs and cattle to forage on the chestnuts that had ripened and fallen to the ground in the late fall.⁷

Chestnut Blight Reduced Majestic Trees to Shrubs

Near the turn of the 20th century, a fungus that has all but eradicated the mature American chestnut trees was introduced into the U.S. through infected, imported nursery stock from China.^8,9 The U.S. Department of Agriculture National Invasive Species Information Center reports the blight was identified for the first time on dying chestnut trees in the Bronx Zoo.

The fungus was named Cryphonectria parasitica and may have arrived as early as 1893.¹⁰ It wasn’t long afterward that states began reporting dying American chestnut trees.¹¹ Currently, the trees are so rare that discovery of an American chestnut tree in the wild rates a report in the national press.

However, as The American Chestnut Foundation reports, the tree has not gone completely extinct but, rather, is considered “functionally extinct” since the fungus does not affect the root system.¹² The American chestnut is highly susceptible to the fungus as is the European chestnut. But the Chinese chestnut tree has some resistance to the infection as it causes only a small canker in the bark.¹³

The fungus is an ascomycete,¹⁴ also known as sac fungi since it has a sac-like structure with four to eight ascospores in the sexual stage. Some of the largest and more commonly known ascomycetes are morel mushrooms and truffles. Other pathogens in the same group include those that cause Dutch elm disease and apple scab.¹⁵

The fungus can infect a tree through small injuries to the bark, some as small as those created by insects.¹⁶ The fungus then grows under the bark and produces yellow-brown blisters. The infection eventually makes its way around the trunk, cutting off nutrients and water.¹⁷

The infection is called a blight, potentially because the branches die quickly. However, the fungus can infect branches, stems and a trunk of any size. It grows rapidly and continues to grow after the tree has died.¹⁸

Since the disease does not affect the roots of the tree, the species continues to survive by sending up sprouts through the stump. Inevitably, however, they succumb to the disease. Yet, a USDA Forest Service survey found there may be 60 million of these sprouts growing in the forests of New York state.¹⁹

How Genetically Engineered Chestnut Trees Were Birthed

Although the U.S. has lost other plants and animals to extinction, the American chestnut tree appears to have an emotional hook that has driven some to produce a genetic modification in the hope of bringing back large stands of the trees. The New York Times reports this may have started in 1989 when Herb Darling received a call telling him of an American chestnut tree on his property.²⁰

The tree was five stories high and about two feet wide, but also was dying from the fungal disease. Unable to save the tree, he decided to save the seeds. But since the tree wasn’t making any, he went about finding a male tree to fertilize the flowers in the spring.

After one failed attempt to fertilize the flowers, the tree produced about 100 nuts. He planted some and sent the others to Charles Maynard and William Powell, tree geneticists from State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Thus began the movement to engineer a new American chestnut tree that might be resistant to the blight.

Although the intent may be rooted in the desire to see these trees begin to repopulate the forests, ultimately the results may be disastrous. Initially, Darling looked for support from The American Chestnut Foundation, but the group was wary of genetic engineering.

The first attempt at inserting an antimicrobial compound into the tree genes originated from frogs. After several years, this was abandoned when the team feared the public would have problems with a tree containing amphibian genetics. The next step was to look for a single resistance gene in the Chinese chestnut tree that didn’t have trouble with the fungus.

However, as the scientists discovered, the Chinese chestnut tree is a complex organism that uses multiple genes to protect against the blight.²¹ In 1997, Powell found a scientific paper describing how the insertion of one gene from wheat expressed oxalate oxidase that protected a plant against oxalate-producing fungus, which the chestnut fungus produced.

Scientists Frustrated by Regulations to Protect the Forest

In 2013, the team announced their success in creating a version of the American chestnut tree that could defend against Cryphonectria parasitica.²² Each successive iteration of the tree has been named after Darling. This one is the Darling 58.

In 2018, Powell spoke at a chapter meeting of The American Chestnut Foundation to talk about his three-decadeslong research project. He warned the attendees that as many of the technical obstacles of producing a transgenic tree resistant to Chestnut blight had been overcome, they now face their biggest challenge: approval to plant a transgenic tree in the wild.

The approval process began with a 3,000-page report to the branch at the USDA responsible for regulating genetically engineered plants. The team also plans to file petitions so the FDA can examine the food safety of the nuts and with the EPA to review the impact the tree may have under Federal pesticide law. The New York Times reported a conversation during the meeting:²³

“‘This is more complicated than science!’ someone in the audience said. ‘It is,’ Powell agreed. ‘Science is fun. This is frustrating.’ (‘Being regulated by three different agencies is kind of overkill,’ he told me later. ‘That really stifles innovation in environmental conservation.’)”

It is crucial to remember that releasing genetically engineered organisms into the wild comes with a risk. While researchers may be frustrated by the regulations, without at least the minimal oversight now in effect, the food supply could be sorely impacted.

As it is, there is a significant percentage of the foods you purchase at the grocery store that contain some form of genetically engineered ingredients. The Center for Food Safety lists potential unexpected health risks that may be posed by genetically altering human and animal food. These include:²⁴

• Toxicity
• Allergic reactions
• Antibiotic resistance
• Immunosuppression and cancer
• Lack of nutrition

Scientists Have Not Identified the Impact of GE Trees

However, while the scientists told The New York Times they plan to submit a report to the FDA for judgment about food safety of the chestnuts, Gary Ruskin, co-director of US Right to Know, writes that the FDA has repeatedly made it clear that they do not test whether genetically engineered foods are safe.²⁵

“As Jason Dietz, a policy analyst at FDA explains about genetically engineered food: ‘It’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to insure that the product is safe.’ Or, as FDA spokesperson Theresa Eisenman said, ‘it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the [GMO] food products it offers for sale are safe …’”

In a white paper produced by The Campaign to STOP GE Trees, Biofuelwatch and Global Justice Ecology Project, they propose the GE American chestnut tree is a test case to determine if the public will “support biotechnology for forest conservation,” paving the way for more GE trees. They quote geneticist David Suzuki, who says:²⁶

“We’re still at the very beginning of understanding what we’re doing. The rush to apply these [genetic engineering] ideas is absolutely dangerous, because we don’t have a clue what the long-term impacts of our manipulations are going to be.”

As Powell and Maynard push forward with the current support of The American Chestnut Foundation and others interested in populating the forest with genetically engineered trees, The Campaign to STOP GE Trees brings to light many of the questions regarding safety and the future of the environment that have not been addressed.²⁷

“Locating and monitoring the progress of all the GE AC trees and their progeny will be near impossible, especially over a long period of time. There has been some discussion of planting the GE trees slowly, in stages, to improve the potential for monitoring. However, common sense and past experience with genetically engineered crops suggests that monitoring is not feasible.

A release of GE AC trees into natural forests raises some important questions and concerns about potential risks. For example: Will the nuts from GE AC be safe to eat? Will GE AC be safe for soils, waterways, fungi, pollinators, and other animal and plant species in the forest ecosystems where they grow?

Will inhaling pollen from GE chestnut be harmful? Will introducing GE AC present risks to the few remaining native AC trees, or those in hybrid backcross breeding program orchards?

Bees, butterflies, squirrels, birds and humans can carry away tree nuts and pollen, and pollen can also be blown on the wind. Once the engineered trees are released into forests, the GE AC ‘experiment’ will be irreversible. There is no way to prevent the trees from spreading, including across cultural or jurisdictional boundaries.

Before we can evaluate the risks, we must first ask: do we have the tools, information, time and wisdom to conduct adequate risk assessments? Only then can we determine whether the risks are worth taking.”

Biotechnology May Derail Natural Initiatives

Anne Petermann wrote in the Scranton Times-Tribune that planting these genetically altered trees opens the door for other risky genetically engineered plants. The fact is a wild tree cannot be replaced by a genetically altered facsimile. Peterman says this is “not restoration, but an uncontrolled experiment with our forests.”²⁸

It is impossible to have the American chestnut trees in numbers that were living in the early 1900s. However, there are other areas of research currently underway to help the species recover. The first is breeding for resistance. Researchers have experimented with crossbreeding Chinese chestnut trees with the American chestnut.²⁹

However, the Chinese chestnut is much shorter and spreads wide instead of going tall and straight. While the process has been slow, The American Chestnut Foundation has had some success in developing a hybrid that is 15/16 American chestnut with selection for resistance and form. They are boosting seed production of a line of trees that appear to be blight-resistant to plant at test sites.

Another line of research has been aimed at lowering the virulence of the fungi. Experiments with infected European chestnut trees show the fungi had developed hypovirulence or had become less toxic to the trees. Researchers found double-stranded RNA within the fungi they later discovered was a virus. The virus caused the fungus to become less virulent.

This treatment has shown some promise in Europe and Michigan. Unfortunately, it has not had the same success along the eastern shores of North America. Researchers have been able to therapeutically treat individual infections, but using this strategy at a population level depends on nature. Petermann believes the genetically altered trees threaten to derail the reintroduction of natural trees.³⁰

“Because the GE chestnuts were developed in a lab in a way that could never occur in nature (forcing genes from unrelated wheat plants into the DNA of trees), there is no way to know how they will respond in nature.

In fact, the researchers who promote these trees have done no long-term risk assessments to determine how these trees will interact in a natural forest over time, or how they will impact human health.”

The petition to deregulate the Darling 58 American Chestnut tree was submitted to the USDA January 17, 2020.³¹ The Campaign to STOP GE Trees developed several talking point samples to be used when the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was accepting comments.³² The deadline for public comments was October 19, 2020. At this time the USDA is reviewing the comments before making their ruling.

Bill Gates has built a global empire around his technologies and “philanthropic” endeavors, the magnitude of which is now becoming increasingly clear. His sheer wealth has allowed him to become a veritable superpower in his own right. He’s not only risen to become the largest funder of the World Health Organization and the unelected global COVID-19 health czar but he’s also a secret powerbroker of the global food system.

As revealed in the AGRA Watch report,¹ “The Man Behind the Curtain: The Gates Foundation’s Influence on the UN Food Systems Summit,” published August 2020, Gates wields powerful influence over global food and agriculture policy through his funding of a large number of organizations involved in agricultural development and policy making.

Gates-Funded Organizations Defend Gates-Funded UN Envoy

While Gates is just one man, his clout is significantly leveraged and magnified by the fact that he funds such a large number of companies and organizations that can then do his bidding on the sly.

When you see long lists of groups, you automatically think there are many players in the game when, in fact, Gates is the singular thread running through most or all of them. The AGRA Watch report² makes a perfect case in point with the story of Agnes Kalibata.

Kalibata is the president of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In December 2019, Kalibata was appointed special envoy to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit by the secretary general of the UN, Antonio Guterres.

In response, 176 civil society organizations and farmer groups from 83 countries urged Guterres to withdraw the appointment of Kalibata due to her clear conflicts of interest with corporate actors. A second statement, signed by more than 500 academics and organizations, also opposed Kalibata’s appointment to, and her organization of, the Summit.

The Gates Foundation seeks to exercise influence not only through its funding of projects and shaping of expertise, but also in funding the governance platforms that determine food and agricultural policy. ~ AGRA Watch

That’s significant pushback, illustrating there’s widespread concern about Kalibata’s appointment. Coming forward in her defense were a dozen individuals representing development banks, academic institutions and the private sector.

They urged Guterres to retain Kalabata, citing her leadership qualities and work ethic, among other things. However, of those 12 defenders, “11 had past or current connections to the Gates Foundation,” AGRA Watch says, adding:³

“In some instances, the organizations were directly funded by the Gates Foundation, and in others, the Gates Foundation funded specific programs in which the signers had played roles. One organization was funded by AGRA, which is funded by the Gates Foundation.”

Gates’ Undue Influence Over UN Food Systems Summit

In other words, while it may look like Kalabata had support from a dozen separate and independent individuals or groups, in reality, there are really only two voices speaking in her defense. It’s just that Gates’ voice is magnified times 11. What’s more, his name is never actually mentioned, so to the uninitiated, it would appear he has nothing to do with it at all.

“These findings illustrate the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) on global food and agricultural policy. AGRA Watch has continually documented the role of the BMGF in influencing agricultural development, which has grown immensely in recent years,” AGRA Watch writes.

“The Gates Foundation seeks to exercise influence not only through its funding of projects and shaping of expertise, but also in funding the governance platforms that determine food and agricultural policy. This role of the BMGF in driving policy decisions based on its proprietary and technological model of agricultural development is often overlooked …

In this report, we have demonstrated just some of the connections between the Gates Foundation and those who have supported Kalibata’s appointment as head of the UN Food Systems Summit.

While hundreds of civil society organizations called for her removal, only twelve signatories were willing to support her appointment, almost all of whom were direct beneficiaries of the Gates Foundation. This raises critical questions about the role of Bill Gates in shaping the agenda of the UN Food Systems Summit as well as its outcomes.”

The following graphic, included in the AGRA Watch report, illustrates the direct and indirect funding ties between the Gates Foundation and the UN Food Systems Summit’s special envoy, Kalibata.

Gates Foundation’s Revolving Door to Monsanto

AGRA Watch has raised concerns about the Gates Foundation’s influence on the agribusiness for many years.

For example, among its many research reports⁴ is the 2010 report “The Revolving Door: Monsanto-Gates Links,”⁵ which details the direct links between the Gates Foundation and Monsanto representatives Rob Horsch, Florence Wambugu, Don Doering,⁶ the late Sam Dryden and Lawrence Kent. Another 2010 report, “Gates Foundation Links to Monsanto and GE Crops Development in Kenya,” points out:⁷

“AGRA Watch formed in 2008 to challenge the Gates Foundation’s participation in the problematic Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and to support sustainable agro-ecological alternatives already practiced in Africa.

We have witnessed acceleration in the push for genetic engineering (GE) as a ‘solution’ to hunger in Africa, a criminalization of GE’s opponents as eco-imperialists unwilling to accept scientific advancements, and a misplaced reverence for philanthropic support for corporate solutions to global food issues. Corporate interests are clearly exhibited in the AGRA agenda, as seen below.”

Gates Foundation Isn’t in It to Solve Real-World Problems

In its 2014 report,⁸ “Three Examples of Problems with Gates Foundation Grants,” AGRA Watch highlights why Gates’ massive investments in global food production have failed to solve any of the very real problems we face. First and foremost, many of the solutions that he backs are “Band-Aid solutions” that in fact worsen the root problems.

Examples include the funding of the development of genetically engineered (GE) foods designed to be higher in certain nutrients. The problem is that these crops then end up replacing local diversity with just a few GE varieties that don’t even take local conditions into account. So, by pushing for “fortified” crop varieties, malnutrition actually deepens, as biodiversity is reduced.

Secondly, “a stubborn focus on yield” is at odds with research showing that low yield or insufficient production is not causing world hunger. “There is ample evidence today that the problem instead is poverty and lack of access, which is deepened by destruction of local food systems and commercialization of food,” AGRA Watch notes, adding:

“Grants by the Gates’ Foundation and AGRA continue to focus on yield, priming Africa for a system suited to the needs of the profit-seeking, yield-oriented commercial farmer rather than the peasant or small farmer producing diverse crops for a local community.”

A third problem highlighted in the report is Gates’ funding of European and American research organizations and scientists rather than African ones, even though the programs are being implemented in Africa.

According to AGRA Watch, “This may not be a result of conscious intentions but of a deeply embedded structural bias that casts African scientists and scientific institutions as not qualified or legitimate enough to receive grant funding.”

Gates’ Specialty: Philanthrocapitalism

Additional observations can be found in the AGRA Watch article⁹ “Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity,” published December 2017, in which philanthrocapitalism is described as “an attempt to use market processes to do good,” but which is inherently problematic “as markets are ill-suited to producing socially constructive ends.”

Put another way, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves. As noted in the article, advocates of philanthrocapitalism:

“… often expect financial returns or secondary benefits over the long term from their investments in social programs. Philanthropy becomes another part of the engine of profit and corporate control. The Gates Foundation’s strategy for ‘development’ actually promotes neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalization:

‘It is … likely that Bill Gates, who has regular access to world leaders and is in effect personally bankrolling hundreds of universities, international organizations, NGOs and media outlets, has become the single most influential voice in international development.

Closer examination of the BMGF is critical given that its influence is vast, indeed greater than most donor governments. The BMGF provides more aid to global health than any country donor and is the fifth largest donor to agriculture in developing countries.

In 2013, only 11 countries spent more on aid than the BMGF, making it the world’s 12th largest donor. The Gates Foundation has become a bigger donor than countries such as Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ireland and Italy.’¹⁰“

Gates’ Medical Plan: Global Immunization and Surveillance

One of the reasons many are now becoming aware of just how powerful Gates has become is because of his frequent appearances as the COVID-19 expert du jour. It’s an odd choice, considering his complete and total lack of formal medical training. It’s particularly perplexing in light of how the opinions of actual medical doctors, award-winning scientists and researchers who conflict with his views are being scrubbed off the internet.

Gates has repeatedly stated that life cannot go back to normal until and unless we vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19. This, despite the fact that scientists and medical researchers have discovered a variety of safe, simple and inexpensive strategies to prevent and treat COVID-19.

The fact that Gates’ irrational and scientifically unsound opinions are shaping pandemic responses around the globe while real medical professionals are being censored by mainstream media and social media platforms is proof positive that we’re no longer operating from a base of science and medical truth.

Instead, the whole world is expected to fall into line with the self-serving agenda created by Gates and his many allies in technology and medicine. In an April 30, 2020, GatesNotes post,^11,12 Gates even states he “suspect[s] the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule” — a nice little piece of predictive programming, if you ask me.

Mind you, the mRNA vaccines being developed against COVID-19 will alter your genetic expression, turning your body into a viral protein factory. Is it really wise to consider using such a novel vaccine on newborns? In a sane and rational world, the answer would be a resounding no. Unfortunately, we now live in a world run by Gates’ goons, and thus reason and logic have largely vanished from the equation.

In predictable Hegelian dialectic problem-reaction-solution fashion, the problem of COVID-19 led to illogical and ill-conceived pandemic responses such as mask mandates and house arrest of healthy people, followed by the “ultimate solution” of a hastily thrown together vaccine using novel mRNA technology.

Radical as all of that may seem, Gates’ plans for the world do not stop here. He’s also pushing for the implementation of a vast, global surveillance system to track and trace everyone’s infection and vaccination status. He’s even funding the contact tracing group Partners in Health, along with George Soros. (The William J. Clinton Foundation has also funded Partners in Health in the past.¹³)

Not surprisingly, Gates’ recommendations end up benefiting himself most of all. As discussed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates billions to the very same companies and industries that the Foundation owns stocks and bonds in.

Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you’re invested in is illegal, yet he’s been getting away with this for many years. At the same time, his Foundation gets tax breaks for the charitable donations it makes money from.

Remember, he has “donated” tens of billions of dollars over the years, yet his net worth hasn’t dropped — it has doubled, and this is largely because his donations are treated as tax deductible investments. It’s philanthrocapitalism at its finest.

Gates Is Major Benefactor of Pandemic Fear-Mongering

The COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly Gates’ biggest philanthrocapitalist project to date, and he stands to cash in big, as he’s funding/investing in both therapeutics and COVID-19 vaccines.

In March 2020, the Gates Foundation announced¹⁴ a new partnership, dubbed “The COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator,” with Wellcome and Mastercard to “coordinate R&D efforts and remove barriers to drug development.” According to the press release:¹⁵

“The COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator will play a catalytic role by accelerating and evaluating new and repurposed drugs and biologics to treat patients with COVID-19 in the immediate term, and other viral pathogens in the longer-term.”

The Gates Foundation has also teamed up with Serum Institute of India (SII) to manufacture 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines developed by AstraZeneca and Novavax. The vaccines, which will cost less than $3 per dose, are slated for delivery to low-income countries.^16,17

The funding is being funneled as an interest-free forgivable loan to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by the Gates Foundation in 2000, which will then provide the needed capital to SII. Over the next five years, the Foundation has also pledged to provide Gavi with a total of $1.6 billion in additional funds.¹⁸

Gates’ Attempt to Improve Education Was a Massive Failure

Having an overarching influence over technology, food and medicine (vaccines in particular) still doesn’t adequately describe Gates’ influence on our daily lives. He’s also had a profound influence over education. The much-criticized Common Core curriculum was the Gates Foundation’s attempt at remaking American education,¹⁹ and most parents can tell you how dumb that was.²⁰

Despite that abysmal failure, May 6, 2020, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the state is partnering with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop “a smarter education system” for the post-COVID world that will focus on online learning and permanently integrate technology into every aspect of civic life.²¹

The state is also partnering with Google, and Cuomo has asked former Google CEO Eric Schmidt to head a new panel to plan the state’s technological infrastructure.²² As noted by The Intercept,²³ the surveillance apparatus that consumers have been railing against is now being rebranded as the answer to everyone’s health concerns.

Gates Is the Most Visible Figurehead of Modern Technocracy

Whether preplanned or not, the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly being used to usher in highly controversial changes that are unmistakably totalitarian-building, including the private take-over of government through public-private partnerships.

Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit. Among those who stand to profit the most is Gates himself.

For a better understanding of what you’re giving up by going along with the mainstream narrative that we need Big Tech to save us, see my article about social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff and her extraordinary book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.”

You also won’t want to miss my recent interview with Patrick Wood, featured in “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy.” I’ve embedded that interview below for your convenience.

He paints a picture that can be hard to swallow, especially if you’re just coming around to hearing about all of this for the first time, but it’s really crucial that everyone begin to understand what we’re facing. Time is running out. To have any chance of stopping it, we must understand our trajectory, and unite to change the course Gates and others like him have set for us.