Graphene Rain, Scientist Sounds Alarm

Dane Wigington believes that the “Climate Change” being touted so relentlessly by the Globalists is being deliberately caused by them via a clandestine geoengineering campaign involving many world governments – and especially the US Department of Defense – which he claims is leasing at least 400 commercial carrier aircraft with commercial markings and dumping a few hundred million tons of toxic materials globally, annually.

Dane speaks with an anonymous former NASA scientist called “Joe” who now works for a leading environmental agricultural testing institution and he has been finding graphene nanoparticles in every rain sample he’s tested – over 100 samples – lately, in addition to other highly-toxic substances like mercury, aluminum and barium.

Both Joe & Dane believe that if we remain on the current trajectory of this massive aerosol spraying, having already lost up to 90% of the Earth’s insect populations, with the oceans’ plankton down by 70% and wildlife populations overall down by over 70%, we could see as much as an 8º to 12º or 14ºC (i.e., 20ºF+) temperature rise in the coming few years, in a runaway event called “Venus syndrome”, which would be “Game Over” for life on this planet.



TRANSCRIPT is working directly with the globally-recognized environmental agricultural testing institution that we are keeping anonymous for the time being. Graphene nanoparticles are showing up in almost every rain test we take, along with a plethora of other highly toxic elements.

The threat posed by this contamination cannot be overstated. Thank you for tuning in to this exchange between myself, representing and a PhD environmental testing scientist that is desperately trying to sound the alarm.

We are keeping the scientist anonymous for the moment. We’ll call him “Joe”.

Dane: In your circles of academia I’m, not diverging on the subject but I want to add light to this have you not had with specific issues and this being one almost a complete resistance by your colleagues to even look at credible data. Is that not true?

Joe: Oh, yeah. That’s totally true Dane, and I’m glad you brought this up because I also was going to change the direction here to academia for a little bit because it reminds me we got to go back to the graphene, because there’s a point there that we have to connect.

Academia – we talked about this, briefly in our first conversation we had on the air a couple months ago – but you know, academia, they will do anything to not look at the truth. I don’t know why. I think it comes to training, because when you think about a professor, a PhD, you think is a really, really intelligent, really smart person. And that’s not true.

And I know my colleagues that hear this will be mad at me for saying this but the PhD level is just somebody that is very, very capable, highly-effective at doing what they’re told; nothing on their own, doing what they are taught, because that’s how PhD programs work: you have an advisor who will tell you what you need to do to get your degree.

You do what you’re told, you get your degree. You don’t do what you’re told, then you will struggle throughout your whole program, you might not get your degree and you might get it – it depends on what you’re really fighting against.

And now, what happens is, whenever you become a professor and you’re working at a university, you have to come up with funding, to do your research, to pay salary, to pay your grad students, who you’re going to tell them what to do and they will have to do exactly what you tell and they will be doing the work that the grants are paying for.

Now, to get the grant, you have to go to the government agencies. Now, the government agencies are telling you what you can study, what you cannot study and it links back to what we just talked about: how EPA is hiding what they don’t want us to see and they’re only evaluating what they know is not going to show any issue.

And it’s the same with research: we cannot do the research that we wanted to back in the ’80s, ’70s, ’80s, the researchers, they had much more freedom. They were giving money from the government to do whatever they wanted to do and I think that’s why you have people that developed the GMO crops that today are killing us; developed all those pesticides that we are using. They developed some good things, too but the majority is, there was free money and they could do whatever they wanted to do.

Unfortunately, most of their work has been done for bad and not for the benefit of society. And that’s how it is today: they shut off all their free money now you can only get money to do what the government’s telling you you can do, so you can no longer go against the government, because once you try to do that, your funding is cut off and then you don’t make tenure and you become what happened to many other faculty colleagues that try to expose an issue that the government doesn’t want to expose: they end up fired. They end up having their name – you really become – I don’t know, an exile.

So, you’re not really part of the community anymore, because you went against whatever the government wanted you to do. Does that make sense?

Dane: It does but to clarify this; that the entire so-called science system, with few exceptions has, in many ways become a malignant cancer. And we’re trained from birth to blindly believe the so-called experts in every arena: “Don’t question the experts!” – that’s what we’re taught – and yet, the experts are simply doing what they’re told by their paymasters.

And that’s the core of this malignant cancer: the money-printers. Many people ask, “Well, who’s paying for this?” and people who ask that question don’t typically know how the entire monetary system works.

We have private Central Bankers printing whatever they want out of thin air and that controls everything. What most don’t know about the monetary system is that we have private Central Bankers that run it all. They run the Matrix.

And because these private Central Bankers can print whatever they want for whatever they want, they own militaries, thus, they own countries. So, we don’t have countries with governments; we have governments that own countries.

Indeed, above that, the Private Bankers who own the governments, who own the countries, that’s how the system works. That’s what most people don’t know.

So again, when we have so-called experts that are willing to do, say, conclude and publish studies that are whatever they’re told to do and publish and say, that’s a recipe for near-term self-annihilation and that’s exactly where we’re headed.

And if we look back at the examples of, again what’s happening on our planet right now, that what I would argue ,again mathematically and statistically, the single greatest and most immediate threat we face is what’s happening in our skies, because it – and that’s I caveat that with, short of nuclear cataclysm – but even in that case, when we have climate engineering, not only ubiquitously contaminating the entire planet, not only disrupting the hydrological cycle, not only it’s destroying the ozone layer, as well as the protective layers of the atmosphere – and let’s weave that into the nuclear cataclysm – without protective layers in the atmosphere being adequate, we have a large solar flare, a coronal mass ejection, like the Carrington Event in the 1800s and that shuts down grids all over the world.

Now, we have nuclear plants that can’t cool themselves. Now, we have Fukushima times one or two or three hundred. Game Over.

So, even in the case of nuclear cataclysm, climate engineering is connected. So from food production and again, human health quality, cognitive function, where breathing materials that are known to affect cognitive function. Correct, Joe?

Joe: That’s correct. Yes, in the case of aluminum…Like you said, the academia, I try to bring this issue to academia. Some of my colleagues and they they don’t talk about it. They don’t think it’s happening. They don’t think anything is being sprayed.

Whenever they see a contrail…they don’t think it’s a jet spraying and there’s nothing you can do. I try to show them some of your materials and they they don’t even want to look. They think it’s just a big joke, so it’s really sad to see the direction that science has taken, when so much good could have been done and you know, and to one point, then it’s amazing to see that we have the capability of controlling the weather on a planet but it’s disheartening to see that we are using that for the negative applications of this technology.

Again not saying that it’s good and should be done but it’s amazing that we can do it but we are doing to kill ourselves.

Dane: It is and again, yes they can disrupt the weather and they’re they’re good at causing specific disruptions and…through their lens, they would see this as a control of the weather – but in fact, the systems are so complex that they are, in essence just disrupting the entire system, damaging the entire system irreparably, in many cases.

And what we have in in the regard to academia, when there’s specific data that they don’t want the public to know – just like the EPA individuals I mentioned earlier at the Capitol – again, I’ve had private closed door meetings with these people arranged by Congressional reps. I’ve had a private, closed-door meeting with Governor Newsom and his top aide.

The entire system is designed to mask these threats from the population until we hit the wall at full velocity. The public is pacified into thinking that someone, somewhere is looking out for them and that couldn’t be further from the truth, could it, Joe?

Joe: No, we could not. That’s very disheartening, because that’s not what science was developed for. Let’s get back to that endocrine disruptor system and the pollution of water and all of that: what scientists are now doing, look at this – I don’t know if you’re aware of this – but this is insanity at its best: they’re using graphene oxide to try to bind to those endocrine-disrupting particles in water bodies, to try to inactivate them!

I’m not sure you understand this but there are papers that have been published on this, looking at binding; using graphene oxide nanoparticles to bind to pesticide molecules in water and then remove them.

Now, here’s one of the issues: when they look at toxicity, the toxicity was exponentially higher. When the nanoparticle graphene oxide was bound to whatever chemical they were trying to remove.

So, not only were they not successful at that, they made the problem even worse. Now, just think about it, then. It’s a nanoparticle. How will you treat a stream or a river or water that is coming to a treatment plant with a nanoparticle to bind it to a pesticide molecule and then, you cannot remove any of those out of the water and then you’re going to put that into a water system that is fitting a city and then everybody will be drinking it?

Now, you know that that’s exponentially more toxic. And the effects on the endocrine system are much higher when you combine those two molecules than when you have just whatever was there before. And that brings back what you said; that some of those molecules, like aluminum, mercury combine; that their toxicity is much higher. It’s exponentially higher than the two of them alone.

And the same is happening, here with some of those other pesticides. When you combine two bad things, the resulting thing is not going to be a miracle. It’s going to be a much worse, negative thing!

And that’s what we’re seeing with the graphene oxide, now. This, to me would say, “Stop the use of graphene oxide! Let’s shut this down!” Because everything we study, that I’m looking at is showing that graphene oxide is causing a disaster.

For example, there’s another study that they looked only at the graphene oxide in combination with – there’s a compound that’s called polyethylene glycol – and they combined that polyethylene glycol with graphene nanoparticles.

Now, what they found – you’re going to be shocked at this – and what they found is when they use this material, this graphene oxide nanoparticle with polyethylene glycol, now this thing broke the brain blood barrier. You opened up the pores and now, this compound now can reach the brain.

Not having a positive effect – having catastrophic effects!

Dane: Absolutely and this is what we’re dealing with; is quote “Frankenscience”, now across the board and we have a public, again that’s been trained from birth to blindly believe the so-called “experts”, is parroted every single day on power structure-controlled mainstream media.

They’re also used for biological carriers and at, we have found the science study advocating for graphene nanoparticles to be used in artificial ice-nucleating, cloud-seeding operations. And, indeed, you have found graphene in most of the last 100 precipitation tests. You took this all that connect up is that all correct?

Joe: It is, Dane and isn’t it great that we see all this negative consequences of graphene oxide and now we are all breathing it. Every breath we take, most days are contaminated with graphene oxide. Who knows what it’s doing to our system?

Dane: On top of everything else.

Joe: Complete insanity.

Dane: It is. Back to the agricultural production; the crushing of crops, which we are seeing consistently, the weather mayhem in various forms, hitting crops at their most critical window of production and growth. Whether it’s massive hail damage, flash drought or flash flooding, immense heat waves.

So, we just had over India, we had a massive high pressure heat dome – that is exactly the signature of ionosphere heater installations like HAARP in Alaska.

Again, for those that don’t know what an ionosphere heater is, this is not speculation. This technology is not disputed. Ionosphere heaters are ground-based radio frequency microwave transmitters that cause an electrical chain reaction in the ionosphere that heat it to immensely high temperatures, pushing the atmosphere up and down. The downward push creates a high pressure dome and India just had their wheat crop – at the most critical time – fried.

In fact, India was expecting to have a bumper wheat crop. That they said was going to make up for some of the losses in Ukraine and at that most critical window, their crop was crushed with a high pressure heat dome.

We see this again and again and again: one form or another of weather mayhem, crushing crops, on top of all the crop-damaging factors we’ve already discussed, on top of the fact that the crops that are yielded are far less nutritious, far more toxic. How are we to survive on this planet?

And now let’s add the fact that climate engineering is the single greatest factor destroying the ozone layer. We’re now getting massive amounts of not just UVB in the surface but we’re getting UVC, a DNA-damaging spectrum of UV radiation.

And we’ve begun with the former NASA contract engineer that tests with equipment we supplied him, we’re showing trace amounts of x-rays.

So Joe, let’s consider now that on top of everything else we just mentioned affecting crops, the massive UV bombardment, along with the light-scattering particles in the atmosphere. That, again – that’s the stated premise of solar radiation management – that has to be affecting the photosynthesis of organisms, does it not? These organisms were never adapted to any of this.

Joe: It does. That’s what those particles are doing: they are shifting some of the energy that the plants use together to do their photosynthesis and now it’s not there, anymore.

But you’re right on target, because you we are shifting the energy, the energy that is rich in the plant and on the plant surfaces, the plant leaves and that will have a negative impact on what the plant can do, because the plant’s very effective at using the sunlight that was reaching the plant up until 70 years ago or so, whenever they started those crazy operations but now, it has shifted.

And yes, maybe what we talked about earlier in this conversation, the inability of plants to remove nutrients, to be very much more effective. It’s important to the shift in the light that is reaching the plant, as well. So, it’s all connected. Then, this operation doesn’t negatively impact only one aspect of our lives; they have negative impacts everything! There’s no reason to think why it wouldn’t.

Dane: Yeah. Everything. We’ve completely altered – atmospheric chemistry has been completely altered – and this includes the the CO2 part of the equation, as well the adaptation of flora, crops, forests, that we have radically altered atmospheric chemistry. We have extraordinary heating occurring on the planet, we now know from a recent NASA study, which I’m surprised they disclosed, frankly.

I’m very surprised. We’ve had the climate science community ignoring this new, most-comprehensive data of its type, that has completely obliterated the entire premise for solar radiation management, which is to mimic a volcano by putting these light-scattering particles into the sky to block some of the Sun’s incoming thermal energy.

We now know, from all available paleo data that that can only cause a very short-term cooling effect, based on the studies; one to two years, followed by protracted warming, because of the changes in atmospheric chemistry trapping more heat than it deflects. And that’s exactly what we see happening.

So, on top of everything we’ve already discussed, it’s hampering the planet’s life support systems, i.e.,  the growth of of any type of flora, we now have superheating temperatures, so it doesn’t cool off at night as much. Nighttime low temperatures are rising twice as fast as daytime highs and most don’t know that photosynthesis stops at 104ºF. It tapers off to that point but it stops at 104ºF.

That’s it. So again, from every conceivable direction, the planet’s life support systems are crumbling, then we’re completely saturating the atmosphere with literally tens of millions of tons of highly-toxic particles. What a circus of insanity!

We’re not going to be long here, on the planet, on the current course.

Joe: And you know, then one of the other things is it’s all due to technology. And it’s amazing that technology is the problem. There was a survey that was done in, I think it was in the entire United States, where they were talking to farmers and talking about the issue of herbicide-resistant weeds. And I think was over 70% of the farmers said that they are hopeful that companies who develop new technology they will take care of the herbicide-tolerant weeds.

That shows you how – I don’t want to say I’m smart – but how the public is: they don’t understand what’s happening; how the misuse of technology is what’s causing the issue and technology – at least, the technology we have on this planet – cannot help us. Not right now.

Dane: It can’t. The rate of change. That is exactly what so many don’t understand: you can’t just completely alter atmospheric chemistry temperatures; rainfall, patterns and expect organisms to be able to cope with that. And also, let’s tie the soil PH factor into that: when we have pH changes in Northern California of up to 10 to 12 times toward alkaline, from five-four and five-five in that Arena and I have the USDA historical baselines in my possessions I have the originals in my possession from a contact at USDA – and now we’re seeing six-five, six-six, six-seven.

Those are, I mean, from an agricultural standpoint, Joe those are inconceivable changes. Are they not? A different organism,  they can’t adapt, on top of everything else we’ve already talked about. That is a radical change in pH for an organism that’s not adapted for it, correct?

Joe: It is. It is and what that does, then, there will shift, like we said. Before that, we shift the community that is inhabiting that soil. There are some communities that…thrive better under a higher pH than on a lower pH. However, whatever crop you’re growing also is impacted. And when you change the pH by that much, you’re really going to damage the crop, as well.

But the main thing is that your microbial community in the soil, your soil function is completely disrupted and you might not be able to have that soil be as productive for…I don’t know how long it took for that thing to happen, but within a decade or two, I would say, if that continues, that soil might not be productive, at all.

I mean – not saying that we have that long but let’s assume – let’s just ignore that we probably don’t have a decade, at all. But if this continues, within a decade or two, I would say that those soils would be very, very unproductive, maybe nothing will grow in them.

Because you change the chemistry of the soil, we change can what can grow in there and the new microbes that are inhabiting that soil might not be the beneficial microbes that you want to grow crops, at all. So, you really you really change that, because the entire ecosystem without really knowing how that is going to impact all the life around it.

And I think we tend to forget that we are not a species that lives on its own and we’re just on a planet and whatever happens to the planet, we are immune to it. We are one with the planet and whatever damage you do to the planet, we are doing to ourselves and the more we keep pushing, the worse it’s going to get for us and I don’t understand how people don’t see it, you know?

So again, I think another of the issues that we are not addressing is that we have all this endocrine-disrupting [chemicals] in the water and we’re seeing aquatic life suffering from but we’re not really addressing that issue, right? We’re not trying to stop them from getting there in the first place, which would be changing our food production system.

Instead of growing all this food that is contaminated with all those pesticides, why not go back to the way things were 100 years ago, before this chemical warfare started? Why not grow food the best way we can, the most organic way possible, using regenerative agriculture that would not only try to mitigate the issues that we have – and in fact, we will have to use this approach, if we are to try to survive on this planet – because you’re going to have to remediate all the soils that are polluted right now.

We’re going to have to remediate all of our bodies that have been ingesting all these chemicals for so long, because we are paying the price. Only those that don’t want to see are not seeing, because right now it’s discriminate us the amount of issues that we have in our society it’s all linked particularly to these two operations: the geoengineering that is going on and the use of pesticides in food production.

Dane: Correct and I mean the contamination is absolutely ubiquitous, at this point and we’re, instead of hitting the brakes as you describe what would rationally be done, the human race is actually hitting the accelerator on every front and this is important for people to understand: you can’t look backward at the path we have come and how long it has taken to get this far into a hole and expect that to continue at the same rate.

The equation has already become exponential, to a degree that can scarcely be imagined. So again, you can’t look backward at a graph and project that forward, because it’s like the fuse on a stick of dynamite: that fuse burns at a certain pace but once it hits the dynamite, that’s the end and that’s the point we’re at, I would argue right now. And that’s what people don’t understand.

And again, the circus of insanity, when you watch mainstream media and they address virtually nothing that matters in the wider horizon context, i.e., the existential threats that are closing in on us all from every conceivable direction and when we have the whole climate science community talking about spraying particles in the sky, that they say would stay up for one to two years, that is an absolute, blatant, glaring lie of inconceivable proportion.

I’ve worked with a polymer chemist that based on the actual altitudes that we see them dispersing at, which is generally in the troposphere, the polymer chemist that I work with estimated descent times of these highly toxic particles that could be as fast as 12 to 24 hours.

That is why they are having to dump so much into the skies, because it doesn’t stay up there very long, because they can’t carry it as high as they propose to carry it and they pretend that what’s happening is not really geoengineering, because it doesn’t fit their definition of geoengineering, therefore it can’t be happening even though we see it with our own eyes.

And as the atmosphere heats up – and it’s heating up radically fast – we are hearing from pilots, telling us that their planes – in the case of private Learjets – have been forced into autopilot descents; emergency descents, because the air was so warm, over 40ºF above where it should be – this is above 40,000 feet – that that air was not dense enough to even carry that aircraft. That’s how severe our situation is and that’s getting worse by the day and we, in fact are seeing them spray at lower and lower altitudes.

And that makes the descent times even quicker. That means they have to spray even more to accomplish their objectives. And I want to stress that there is nothing benevolent about climate engineering. It’s about power and control. It’s about masking the severity of damage already done to the planet, largely from these programs, or many ways from these programs, to begin with.

Is that not the true definition of insanity doing more of what you’ve been doing to try to cover up the damage of what you did in the first place? I don’t know if that even makes sense but that’s that’s what’s happening. And so yeah, it is, I mean it’s Insanity at its best.

Joe: It doesn’t make any sense to me, to think that anyway. The people participate in those activities, I don’t understand how they don’t see what’s happening negatively and they don’t link things together.

I think that we have been poisoned to such a degree that the majority of the population cannot comprehend what’s going on. They cannot connect the dots. It’s impossible for them to understand it.

There was a report that showed that we are ingesting the equivalent of a credit card in plastic every week, whether you like it or not. You’re ingesting those things in the food, in the water, in the air you breathe.

Dane: Very, very important point. We have found surfactants in precipitation testing.

Joe: That’s correct.

Dane: It’s surfactants. We’ve found those. We know that to be a part of the climate engineering mix, surfactants are what makes soap. Soap, for those that don’t know, surfactants are used in the dispersion of these particles to keep them from coagulating, to keep them from sticking together. So that’s why you see foaming rain running off and sometimes gutters and on streets. It’s foaming like it’s got soap in it. Those are surfactants. Part of the climate engineering mix.

And two, on the polymer fibers that are now showing up everywhere. And now we know: they’re showing up in actual precipitation events in Antarctica, one of the most remote places on the planet. And we know that the polymer fibers are named in climate engineering aerosol operations and so we have the so-called climate science community blaming all this on the degradation of plastic in the environment – which is a massive problem I’m not denying that – but the fact that these polymers are showing up in every bit of precipitation everywhere in the world – even the most remote places in the world – match climate engineering patents.

Why would we think, when these appear to be manufactured particles, not just decomposition but manufactured particles – of course, we would conclude logically, they’re coming from climate engineering operations? And yes, we’re absorbing an immense amount of this toxin, on top of everything else we’ve already discussed.

So Joe, your assessment, as a PhD scientist, based on everything you know, if we remain in the current course, we’re not going to be here much longer, is that not true?

Joe: We are not, Dane. Even if, for a miracle you know, if we continue doing what we are doing, I think in a few more decades, the human species is going to be unrecognizable. I think intelligence is going to disappear. I don’t think we can be the species we are today in 20 more years, if we continue what we are doing. I don’t think so.

Dane: If we look at trajectories, though statistical trajectories of the planet’s ability to support life based on the best data we have; if we remain on this trajectory, because of the feedback mechanisms of which there may be as many as 50 right now, that’s the frozen methane deposits that are thawing and entering the atmosphere, that’s the loss of albedo; the ice deposits that normally would reflects and now it’s absorbing Sun – again, there’s about 50 of these types of feedback loops in full swing right now.

Again, if we look at those trajectories, based on statistical data right now and we – again, we’ve already lost 80% to 90% of our insect populations, plankton down about 70%, wildlife populations down 70+%, we’re looking at all this converging in the next few years.

Temperature-wise, based on what we now know, with all these feedback loops in the exponential equation that we face, we could see as much as an 8º to 12º or 14ºC temperature rise in the coming few years. Game Over. That’s 20+ºF. Game Over.

That puts us on par with what Venus would be, given its proximity to the Sun, if not for the runaway greenhouse effect that already happened there. And most don’t know that. Most think Venus is 900ºF on the surface because it’s so close to the Sun. That’s not true. That’s not true. All things being equal, Venus – and most don’t know that – you know that, because you’re a PhD scientist – most don’t know that Venus, all things being equal would be about 20ºF warmer than Earth. That’s it.

And we are already, based on frontline data about 25% across that gap. We’re already about a 5ºF warming from pre-Industrial and that turns into a runaway event which we’re now in it’s called “Venus syndrome” and I think that term is self-explanatory and it’s not a metaphor.

So I would argue, on the current course, we have very little time and on top of that, the power structure is unimaginably desperate. They hold very big cards and they are already playing them, as we have seen in the last two-plus years, with issues that we’re not allowed to mention and I’ll let the listener fill in the blank on that.

So Joe, I’ll look forward to future conversation and an update addressing the issues but we know, to summarize all this: based on the internationally-recognized agricultural research institution that you work for and with, that it appears, based on the amount of tankers, that we know that the US military has – and for the record, the US military has three times more tankers – aerial dispersion tankers – than all other militaries in the world combined. Think about that. We know they’re leasing at least 400 commercial carrier aircraft with commercial markings – that’s the Department of Defense leasing those, so many aircraft in the skies dumping so much materials, that based on calculations that were taken from rain tests and the quantification of that material, it appears tens of millions of tons are being dispersed globally, annually.

Joe: That’s correct and to be conservative, right? We want to be very conservative, here, because we are not measuring the entire planet. Very conservatively, there is, I would say that we are just, if you look at them they’re not only using aluminum, strontium, barium, I suspect that they changed the mix and I think you’ve been talking about aluminum so much that they have changed, so I think they are using the minimum that they can they can get by with aluminum but they are putting other things in the mix.

There are other things that we have measured that are even higher than those, so I would say that it’s a few hundred million tons of material that is being spread on the planet right now. A few hundred million tons.

Now, I don’t know how they can do it. I don’t know how they can do it with the aircraft. It’s probably by combining the entire planet’s fleet that can be used for this, that’s how they do it.

Dane: They are. They are. And we know, for those for listeners that don’t know, for example, in the case of a KC-135 military tanker that can carry up to a hundred tons in one payload, so that’s how they do it; with aircraft that can carry inconceivable amounts of material into the sky and and flying multiple flights a day. That’s how they do it.

And the paradox is that all of that, all of those flights, by themselves do immense damage to the atmosphere – and lest I forget, a final point – that we don’t know, in any given moment what they’re dispersing.

And as we’ve discussed off the air, Joe, that in the Fall, rains happening since 2010, we see what appears to be a defoliant being sprayed, because we see the deciduous trees, leaves on those trees within a few days of specific rains in the Fall, those leaves dry up. Dead. Stone dead – and hang on the trees for very extended periods of time, sometimes all winter long – that if they’re in sheltered location, the wind doesn’t blow those dead leaves off. That’s not nature. That is not nature. That’s not a natural leaf fall.

So, in any given moment, we don’t know what they’re spraying on us. Why would we think that there’s not biologicals involved with this mix?

So, bottom line, if we can’t breathe without facing this threat, we’re in a fight for life. I would argue that that is the absolute case. We’re in a fight for life, right here, right now. We have to prioritize what’s happening in our skies; it’s the single biggest hole in the bottom of the boat. It’s the threat we cannot hide from, anywhere on the planet. We cannot hide from this threat.

So, the bottom line is, thank you for your courage and standing with us in this battle, Joe and I’ll look forward to future conversations and updates and in the meantime, I’m asking everyone listening to this exchange, please know that we are not helpless in this battle but it’s up to all of us to share credible data from a credible source.

Printed materials are extremely helpful. You can find those on the homepage of Please arm yourself with data or share from the homepage of Share links with authors of environmental articles, elected officials, agencies, groups, organizations; send them a link and a message saying, “Please tell the truth, address this issue while we can.

We need all the help we can get, until our next post and a follow-up on this conversation. This is Dane Wigington with and Joe, if you have any final statement, I want to say thank you so much for joining us.

Joe: Oh thank you, Dane it’s always a pleasure to talk to you and hopefully, we can stop this and try to remediate what has happened to the planet. Hopefully, we still have time to save at least a little bit.

Dane: If we can free the planet from this straightjacket, a toxic straightjacket and allow the planet to respond on its own to the damage done, I would argue, mathematically and statistically that is the greatest leap we can take in the right direction and that’s worth fighting for, with every fiber of our being.

Thank you, again for your time, Joe and my gratitude to all those listening; every concerned, caring and dedicated activist and individual that’s helping us to move this fight forward.

This is Dane Wigington with