« prev   random   next »

3
2

"Kill Monsanto Before It Kills Your Kids"

By Feux Follets following x   2018 Jun 12, 3:16am 353 views   30 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


There are a lot of industries in our world that wreak outsized amounts of havoc. Think the biggest global banks and oil companies. Think plastics. But there is one field that is much worse than all others: agro-chemicals.

At some point, not that long ago, the largest chemical producers, who until then had kept themselves busy producing Agent Orange, nerve agents and chemicals used in concentration camp showers, got the idea to use their products in food production.

While they had started out with fertilizers etc., they figured making crops fully dependent on their chemicals would be much more lucrative. They bought themselves ever more seeds and started manipulating them.

And convinced more and more farmers, or rather food agglomerates, that if there were ‘pests’ that threatened their yields, they should simply kill them, rather than use natural methods to control them.



And in monocultures that actually makes sense. It’s the monoculture itself that doesn’t. What works in nature is (bio)diversity. It’s the zenith of cynicism that the food we need to live is now produced by a culture of death. Because that is what Monsanto et al represent: Their solution to whatever problem farmers may face is to kill it with poison. But that will end up killing the entire ecosystem a farmer operates within, and depends on.

However, the Monsantos of the planet produce much more ‘research’ material than anybody else, and it all says that the demise of ecosystems into which their products are introduced, has nothing to do with these products. And by the time anyone can prove the opposite, it will be too late: the damage will have been done through cross-pollination. Monsanto can then sue anyone who has crops that show traces of its genetically altered proprietary seeds, even if the last thing a farmer wants is to include those traces.

Anyway, when reading John Vidal in the Guardian yesterday, I was struck by some numbers. Bayer-Monsanto, soon to be just Bayer, own 60% of proprietary seeds and 70% of agrochemicals in the world. That’s roughly comparable to the numbers of vertebrates and insects that have vanished from the countrysides of Germany, France and England. Life itself is dying. Species extinction is now a bigger threat than climate change. Vidal:

Who Should Feed The World: Real People Or Faceless Multinationals?

“Through its many subsidiary companies and research arms, Bayer-Monsanto will have an indirect impact on every consumer and a direct one on most farmers in Britain, the EU and the US. It will effectively control nearly 60% of the world’s supply of proprietary seeds, 70% of the chemicals and pesticides used to grow food, and most of the world’s GM crop genetic traits, as well as much of the data about what farmers grow where, and the yields they get.

It will be able to influence what and how most of the world’s food is grown, affecting the price and the method it is grown by. But the takeover is just the last of a trio of huge seed and pesticide company mergers.” It will be able to influence what and how most of the world’s food is grown, affecting the price and the method it is grown by.

But the takeover is just the last of a trio of huge seed and pesticide company mergers. Backed by governments, and enabled by world trade rules and intellectual property laws, Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-DuPont and ChemChina-Syngenta have been allowed to control much of the world’s supply of seeds.

Do note that although Dow-DuPont and ChemChina-Syngenta may be large companies, Bayer-Monsanto alone own 60% of proprietary seeds and 70% of agrochemicals. Since they ‘only’ own 60% and 70%, they can’t be accused of running a monopoly.
But their main product, glyphosate (Roundup) is also produced by Dow, DuPont and Syngenta. So together they do effectively run a monopoly. Just not ‘technically’.

These guys have the world’s best and biggest legal, lobbying and PR teams. Because they’re after global control.

More: https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2018/06/everything-that-dies-does-not-come-back/

Also at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-06/raul-ilargi-meijer-kill-monsanto-it-kills-your-kids

#Environment #Monsanto #Bayer #FoodSupply #Insecticides #Poison
1   HEYYOU   ignore (13)   2018 Jun 12, 8:32am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Americans are immune to all chemicals,that's why they feed their children food that they have no idea what might be in it because it doesn't matter.

It seems I read that glyphosate cannot be washed off.
2   MrBark   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 10:30am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

More laughable insane pseudo science. Keep supporting big organic.
3   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 12:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrBark says
Keep supporting big organic.


What the fuck is big organic? I know about Tyson and Con-Agra, but never heard of a single organic company that rivals them in dollars or percentage of "food" production.
4   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 12:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Don't you know Monsanto is god!? If they can patent a seed that their GMO's only comprise 0.000000001% of, they obviously created corn!
5   Feux Follets   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 12:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

NuttBoxer says
What the fuck is big organic?


Brought to you by the same fine people that deny anything going wrong with the climate / environment, swear the planets revolve around Potus, and as long as the stock market is up - we are winning.
6   MrBark   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 2:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

NuttBoxer says
MrBark says
Keep supporting big organic.


What the fuck is big organic?


Let's see... Organic industry is worth 50B per year.

1. Grow produce.
2. Spray it with copper sulfate and a bunch of other shit that is considered "organic".
3. Start a few industry groups to spread unsubstantiated pseudo science about the dangers of Glyphosate and "GMOhhhhhs" from the big boogy man Monsanto.
4. Charge double to hipsters and anti-vaxxers at Whole Paycheck.
5. Profit???

But hey, there's a gigantic corporation to be outraged at, makes things really convenient. Nevermind the science they've developed to feed 8 billion people with the land we have available. Please do just grow produce in your backyard and let me know how sustainable that is, see if you can feed your entire family on that plot of land. Monstanto's innovations have allowed farmers to use less pesticides.
7   RC2006   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 3:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals have wiped out amphibian populations and have caused major bee die offs. They are a major contributor of our present day over population which now forces us to have to use them to keep up with demand. We have a real problem this day and age with having to sustain huge monocrops that are vulnerable to all sorts of issues. It’s silly to think that all of these chemicals used on our food supply have no effects on humans when time after time we eventually find out they do.
8   everything   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 8:39am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

50% of people die of cancer now, it's acceptable. Health care industry loves it. It all feeds into the mix. Feed it to the lazy sheep, people hungry will eat anything. California finally concluded that it is carcinogenic and cancerous. Monsanto left the U.S., to many class actions, even agent orange is still coming at them.
9   MrBark   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 13, 8:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

everything says
50% of people die of cancer now, it's acceptable. Health care industry loves it. It all feeds into the mix. Feed it to the lazy sheep, people hungry will eat anything. California finally concluded that it is carcinogenic and cancerous. Monsanto left the U.S., to many class actions, even agent orange is still coming at them.


"Monsanto left the U.S." wat? there is an office down the street, I still use Monsanto products, they're sold everywhere. what exactly is carcinogenic and cancerous that Monsanto produces? with sources. California just labeled a cup of coffee as a carcinogen. 50% of people die from Cancer? got a source to back that bullshit up? "Lazy sheep will eat anything" where do you get your food from?
10   HEYYOU   ignore (13)   2018 Jun 13, 9:04am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Real Americans drink a large glass of Roundup in place of orange juice for breakfast & sprinkle Monsanto's dry chemicals in place of salt & pepper.
11   everything   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 9:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Ok 38.4% will acquire cancer and it will lead to death in most cases, albeit slow.

Their are places in the world where cancer does not exist. They don't do processing or chemicals.
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

Well of course Monsanto isn't going anywhere, but they sold the name to Bayer, essentially dissolving the old corporation probably to shirk liability, the name will change eventually friend.

Judges, lawyers all bought, it is what it is. Some countries refuse import of American products because the glyphosate levels are to high in the foods as they dessicate with glyphosate some crops. I know to stay away from it, I source my foods very, very carefully, as well as grow my own but eat up friend, eat up. Believe what they tell you, I don't care what you want to think or believe, so much propaganda anyway.

The world health organization stands by California. Reality speaking, TPTB can't admit that it does, we are talking global panic meltdown at this point, people are living to long anyway, and cancer is a cash crop for the health care industries.
12   drB6   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 10:01am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

everything says
Their are places in the world where cancer does not exist. They don't do processing or chemicals.


This is absolutely false on so many aspects.

First, there are NO places in the world where cancer does not exist. The age is the major risk factor for cancer, so primitive societies where average life span was 20-30 years are bound to have much less cancer than modern society. Many causes of cancer - sun, radon, aflatoxin - have been around far longer than humans. Oldest human-type cancer discovered so far is 1.7M year old bone cancer. Is Monsanto responsible also for it?

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/14/claims-that-cancer-is-only-a-%E2%80%98modern-man-made-disease%E2%80%99-are-false-and-misleading/

Second, there exist no place in Universe without CHEMICALS other than vacuum. We all are a walking collection of chemicals; everything around us is chemicals. Synthetic (or isolated natural) chemicals such as sulfonamides and penicillin are the reason why we live, on average, past 70 or 80 nowadays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

If someone wants to criticize Monsanto then please use science and logic as opposed to scary old wive's tales. Genetically modified foods decrease genetic diversity of plants as very few types of crops are planted. What if something goes wrong say GM plants have sensitivity to a particular disease? Failure of GM crops would mean starvation, just like a major cause of Irish famine was potato blight killing few sorts of potatoes grown in Ireland. Monsanto has sued farmers who had GM seeds blown into their fields, which is beyond reprehensible. And finally, they lobby against marking GM foods - we certainly have a right to know what we eat.
13   MrBark   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 13, 10:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

everything says
Ok 38.4% will acquire cancer and it will lead to death in most cases, albeit slow.


From the very link you posted:
"Approximately 38.4 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer of any site at some point during their lifetime, based on 2013-2015 data."

It says nothing about those 38.4 percent dying or eventually dying from the disease. And far from the "50% of the population will die from Cancer" comment earlier. Cancer rates have been declining since the 1990s.
14   MrBark   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 13, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

"Monsanto has sued farmers who had GM seeds blown into their fields, which is beyond reprehensible."

More propaganda. Love it! Monsanto hasn't sued a single farmer for "wind blown seeds". They sell seeds to 250,000 American farmers, they've had something like 150 lawsuits. Those farmers sued were intentionally saving seeds and planting them, thus using their patented IP in violation of the agreement they signed.

Here is one of many cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser
15   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 13, 11:37am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrBark says
Let's see... Organic industry is worth 50B per year.


So to call something "big blahblahblah", you have to have a specific company name. Care to try again? Just one name, that's all I'm asking for. The companies I mentioned control an insane amount of the total food production in this country, that's why they are big, not just because I think so.

MrBark says
Please do just grow produce in your backyard and let me know how sustainable that is, see if you can feed your entire family on that plot of land.


I have, and it is. We've given away produce because there's only so much you can consume yourself. Here's a family that feeds themselves, and makes a living off their home grown produce, on 1/10th of an acre in the city of Los Angeles.


MrBark says
3. Start a few industry groups to spread unsubstantiated pseudo science about the dangers of Glyphosate and "GMOhhhhhs" from the big boogy man Monsanto.


You mean the FDA?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/30/fda-weedkiller-glyphosate-in-food-internal-emails

MrBark says
Nevermind the science they've developed to feed 8 billion people with the land we have available.


You mean the same "science" that caused the dust bowl?
The science that starved thousands of share-croppers?
The science that has turned our soil into waste, and required the creation of a billion dollar supplement industry because the 50+ nutrients healthy plants need for plants to thrive have been stripped out through continual poisoning, failure to rotate crops, and failure to compost?
The science that has led to gastronomical increases in cancer, diabetes, and autism?
The science that requires you to be on 50 pills a day because your bodies toxic burden so fucking high from all the science, that your quality of life has turned to shit, and you may as well be living at ground zero in Fukushima!?
16   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 13, 11:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

everything says
Ok 38.4% will acquire cancer and it will lead to death in most cases, albeit slow.


Actually your first figure was correct, for men. I attended a seminar when I was working at Illumina when I first heard that statistic. 33% of all women, and 50% of all men will contract cancer in the next 10 years, and the speech was from about 5 years ago.
17   drB6   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrBark says
Those farmers sued were intentionally saving seeds and planting them


Not necessarily.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-lawsuit/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer-idUSTRE78K79O20110921

Also, I do not see why the farmer below should have lost court battle. He did not steal the seeds, did not benefit from their use, and so on. Looks like a typical corporate overreach. The farmer should not be required to police the wind or neighbor's trucks, and why should he not be able to use what has accidentally dropped on his land?

The affair started in 1997, when Schmeiser was spraying the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate in generic form) around power poles on the edge of his property. He noticed that some of the canola plants weren’t killed by the spray, revealing that they were GMO plants. It’s unclear how they got there—it’s possible they came from neighboring farms or from grain trucks passing on the road.

Regardless, Schmeiser sprayed more Roundup in several surrounding acres, isolating a small section of GMO canola. The farmer then saved the seeds from the GMO canola and replanted them in 1998. It should be noted that by the time his case went to trial, there was no dispute over the accidental contamination...But the court rejected Monsanto’s claim of damages, saying Schmeiser did not actually benefit from the planting of Roundup Ready canola because he never sprayed the harvest with the glyphosate herbicide, so he gained no economic benefits from his illegal activity.
18   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 13, 11:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I'm just gonna state the obvious. Bark is either a Monsanto employee, or a troll. If trolling, doing quite well Bark. If employee, Dante's inferno would have included a special place in hell for you if it was written today.
19   drB6   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 11:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

NuttBoxer says
The science that requires you to be on 50 pills a day because your bodies toxic burden so fucking high from all the science, that your quality of life has turned to shit

That is a severe exaggeration. Without "science" we would still be living on average 20-30 years, and not 80.
NuttBoxer says
3. Start a few industry groups to spread unsubstantiated pseudo science about the dangers of Glyphosate and "GMOhhhhhs" from the big boogy man Monsanto.


You mean the FDA?

Glyphosate as far as I recall increases possibility of one very specific cancer type. Some evidence of increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) among the highest exposed group was observed, but the increase was not statistically significant.
20   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 13, 11:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says
That is a severe exaggeration. Without "science" we would still be living on average 20-30 years, and not 80.


Obviously, I was countering the ridiculous claims made by Barksanto. Reality is way too many people are taking anti-depressants nowadays, and pills for one condition usually require an additional pill or two to counteract side affects of the first pill.

The age thing is not accurate. Look at tombstones in a graveyard some time. People lived to be just as old, but there used to be higher rates of infant death. So average looked lower in the past, but reality for those who made it past infancy was same life or longer, and most importantly, better quality of life. Just because a pill or a machine can keep you from dying, doesn't mean it should. There are worse things than death.
21   drB6   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 12:13pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

NuttBoxer says
The age thing is not accurate. Look at tombstones in a graveyard some time. People lived to be just as old, but there used to be higher rates of infant death. So average looked lower in the past, but reality for those who made it past infancy was same life or longer, and most importantly, better quality of life. Just because a pill or a machine can keep you from dying, doesn't mean it should. There are worse things than death.

Partially agreed, however the biggest increase of life expectancy came from antibiotics/sulfonamides + improved sanitation and not necessarily from decreased infant deaths (which also contribute obviously). Even decrease of infant deaths, to a large extent, was caused by evil chemicals named antibiotics (and better sanitation).
And yeah, some people here seem to think that Monsanto is beyond criticism...I wonder if there is a paid (genetically modified) troll farm somewhere which tries to create positive attitude towards Monsanto.
Edit: this is interesting re. taking out infant mortality: https://www.infoplease.com/us/mortality/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011
22   MrBark   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 13, 1:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Barksanto lol. Still waiting on my paid shill checks damnit! I'm just a person who came here for the housing threads, but these discussions really intrigue me. At the end of the day, the majority of us here aren't scientists and it admittedly becomes more of an ideological discussion around which studies were paid for and by whom, what your political beliefs are, which studies are manipulated to present one side in a favorable light or if you believe that all big corporations are evil. You're going to believe one thing, I'm going to believe another based on our understanding of science and nobody is going to convince either side that they are wrong. Just like human contributions to climate change, which I also believe.
23   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 1:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrBark says
But hey, there's a gigantic corporation to be outraged at, makes things really convenient. Nevermind the science they've developed to feed 8 billion people with the land we have available. Please do just grow produce in your backyard and let me know how sustainable that is, see if you can feed your entire family on that plot of land. Monstanto's innovations have allowed farmers to use less pesticides.


The premise is wrong here though. There is no shortage of food, just a distribution and infrastructure problem. In fact most people consume too much food. Given genetic manipulation has a tail-risk that cannot easily be estimated and the potential for cross-pollination makes no sense what Monsanto is doing (except for them to profit w/ their "patents" while damaging the environment). This is one of the few issues where I side with strong regulations, the burden should have been on Monsanto not to pollute other crops. Also while the extent of damage done by glyphosate is definitely debatable there is no doubt about it being harmful to the environment, esp. animals and kids and again there is no reason to use it when you have effective means that aren't toxic.
24   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 1:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MrBark says
Barksanto lol. Still waiting on my paid shill checks damnit! I'm just a person who came here for the housing threads, but these discussions really intrigue me. At the end of the day, the majority of us here aren't scientists and it admittedly becomes more of an ideological discussion around which studies were paid for and by whom, what your political beliefs are, which studies are manipulated to present one side in a favorable light or if you believe that all big corporations are evil. You're going to believe one thing, I'm going to believe another based on our understanding of science and nobody is going to convince either side that they are wrong. Just like human contributions to climate change, which I also believe.


I don't mind the difference in opinion at all. It's an interesting discussion.
25   drB6   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 1:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
the burden should have been on Monsanto not to pollute other crops

+100000000000000000
And there should be mandatory marking of food containing GM crops. Even though there is no evidence that GM foods are harmful (and I scientifically can not see how they can harm a human), we should be able to avoid eating them if we wish so.

MrBark says
the majority of us here aren't scientists


I am a chemist/chemical engineer and lately have become immersed in medicinal chemistry. Having said that, going through science in question would require months to be able to form an educated opinion. Sorry about Barksanto - I deleted it from my earlier post.
26   just_passing_through   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 13, 8:49pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says
And there should be mandatory marking of food containing GM crops. Even though there is no evidence that GM foods are harmful (and I scientifically can not see how they can harm a human), we should be able to avoid eating them if we wish so.


I'm a former molecular biologist and now a bioinformatic scientist. GMO is absolutely something we should pursue with gusto! It amazes me how much disinformation there is about it out there still to this day. GMO is not 'chemicals'.

My beef with the Monsanto buyout is my prediction came true: In the 90s when the Eurofucks started bitching about Frankenfoods I predicted they'd keep bitching until they caught up technologically. Big loss for the USA.

People who want to avoid produce derived from a molecular biology / tissue culture lab should just eat 'organic'. That's GMO as well. Force labeling is bullshit because it falsely insinuates there is a problem with it and inhibits the technology that we'll need more and more in the future.

The arguments against mono-culture I agree with. We shouldn't do that and we don't have to. The arguments about it's affects on the 3rd world I may or may not agree with. I don't have enough data but think thats probably bullshit. Arguments about vertical marketing of paired cancer causing pesticides etc., are bull shit and come from the fake news version of science. GMO in isolation has zero negative health affects.

I had the chance to meet Iowa farmer family last February, a whole bunch of them. My grandmothers side of the family so somewhat distantly related. I queried them on their thoughts of GMO - they all LOVED it. Said it solved sooo many problems for them.
27   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 14, 9:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

There are definitely health concerns with GMOs. For example a major one is the glyphosate resistant crops which withstands large amounts of the herbicide while other herbs will die. Glyphosate is not only toxic, it also contributes to molecular (glycine) mimicry which is nowadays assumed to be responsible for a variety of auto-immune problems. Labeling should be mandatory in this still evolving field, but the GMO free and Organic labels at least already provide some choices, often though at a hefty surcharge. To be fair the above scenario is not a GMO in isolation scenario but the only reason to engineer that type of crops in this example is for it to be doused with glyphosate.
28   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 14, 9:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Monsanto isn’t killing kids.

Liberal behavior does... abortions, homosexuality, transgender, feminism.

If anything should be kicked to the curb is all those liberal retards.
29   HEYYOU   ignore (13)   2018 Jun 14, 9:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

NuttBoxer says
You mean the same "science" that caused the dust bowl?
The science that starved thousands of share-croppers?
The science that has turned our soil into waste, and required the creation of a billion dollar supplement industry because the 50+ nutrients healthy plants need for plants to thrive have been stripped out through continual poisoning, failure to rotate crops, and failure to compost?
The science that has led to gastronomical increases in cancer, diabetes, and autism?
The science that requires you to be on 50 pills a day because your bodies toxic burden so fucking high from all the science, that your quality of life has turned to shit, and you may as well be living at ground zero in Fukushima!?


If I deny it,it can't be true.
I'm an American,why should I care as long as my immediate gratification is fulfilled.

Nothing can hurt one's children because they are SPECIAL!
30   just_passing_through   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 8:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
Glyphosate is not only toxic, it also contributes to molecular (glycine) mimicry which is nowadays assumed to be responsible for a variety of auto-immune problems.


I'll concede I hadn't heard of this one yet but I still suspect it's BS. Every scare paper I've ever read is BS where people are chasing p-values or using Rats bred to get cancer (which pretty much get cancer no matter what they eat) or force feeding insects stuff they don't eat. Lets just say I'm highly dubious and too busy/lazy to verify.

On the other hand I eat organic strawberries because strawberries are one of the most pesticide ridden produce out there. If I drank milk I'd drink organic because it'll have less or no hormones, antibiotics etc., and I'm not a fan of GMO animals - yet.

Glyphosate is toxic to a lot of plants yes.




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions