Sleazebag control freak Bill Gates, along with Monsanto, Syngenta, et al, have funded under-the-radar efforts to give genetically modified organisms (GMO) a legitimacy that they do not deserve. It creates this concept that there are no questions about these foods that are created to take even more toxic glyphosate. In turn, that toxic poison on steroids is designed to kill living things by exploding their “guts” , while the plants themselves are altered so that the body does not recognize them, creating inflammation in the body, which can be deadly.
The Alliance for Science is a PR project and international training center for academics and others who want to work with the biotech industry to promote GMOs. It is funded ($5.6 million) by the Gates Foundation. Its upcoming program of speakers at Cornell for September include Tamar Haspel (Washington Post reporter), Amy Harmon (New York Times reporter) and Prof. Dan Kahan (Yale Law School).
An example of that work:
Profs. Bruce Chassy (University of Illinois) and Alan McHughen (University of California, Riverside) who worked together to destroy the credibility of Russian scientist and GMO critic Irina Ermakova. They persuaded the journal Nature Biotechnology to interview Ermakova about her research and describe it. This interview was followed by a detailed critique of her research (about which none of the authors were expert).
I was expecting to see Purdue University as part of this sordid business, but the article doesn’t mention it. I know that when I was there, Monsanto was giving heavily to the School of Agriculture and I imagine they still are. When I took a Science Reporting class, I chose to report on GMO’s because at that time, circa 1998-2000, they were just being released into the public sphere. Starlink corn was in the news and the Clintons are intertwined with Monsanto –Bill allowing GMO’s into the food supply and the Rose Law Firm, of which Hillary was a partner, represented Monsanto. Starlink is still being found in the food supply, despite assertions that its use was banned. Interesting, don’t you think? As the first article mentions, corn pollination makes it practically impossible to control this stuff. That is why it is so outrageous for monsanto to go after farmers like Percy Schmeiser, who suddenly find GMO crops growing in their fields even though they did not purchase GMO seed corn…suing them for something that is out of their control! Schmeiser really exposed the ruthlessness of Monsanto and how they were constantly watching he and his wife and threatening them with harassing calls. He claims after they had spoken at an event, a Monsanto toadie got in their faces and said that “nobody stands up to Monsanto! Nobody! We are going to get you one way or another!!”
As I’m watching Schmeiser talk about the right to save seed and keeping terminator seeds out of the food supply…I think about us as kids putting peach seeds in cups of water and watching the roots grow. As an adult, I tried doing the same thing…but the peach seeds would not sprout roots. My son explained that they had engineered them so people could no longer grow their own food from seeds of fruit that they had eaten. So…it’s not only farmers but ordinary folk who want to grow hobby plants or gardeners that want to take seeds from food they have bought that have had that right taken away. As Schmeiser says– that gives all the power to seed companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow — whom want to control all life by controlling the food supply.
Unfortunately, Schmeiser is too optimistic in his assertion that there was a big public uproar over introduction of GMO wheat…but mysteriously (or not) GMO wheat turned up in fields.
Juarez said there would not be any penalties or disciplinary action against Monsanto for the Oregon incident.
Well, of course not. Far be it for a billion dollar corporation to pay any freaking penalties or…perish the thought…be put out of business for REPEATEDLY VIOLATING RULES OF CONDUCT THAT THREATEN THE HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF THE PUBLIC!
…but that would take backbone and a moral compass…rare commodities nowadays…
The link to removal of blog posts defending US Right to Know is really interesting.
On Friday, August 21, PLOS removed Seife and Thacker’s post; in its place is a statement:
PLOS Blogs is, and will continue to be, a forum that allows scientists to debate controversial topics. However, given additional information for further inquiry and analysis, PLOS has determined that the Biologue post that had occupied this page, “The Fight over Transparency: Round Two,” was not consistent with at least the spirit and intent of our community guidelines. PLOS has therefore decided to remove the post, while leaving the comments on it intact. We believe that this topic is important and that it should continue to be discussed and debated, including on PLOS blogs and in PLOS research articles.
We sincerely apologize for any distress that the content of this post caused any individual. Comments and questions can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org
In an email to PLOS after the post disappeared, Seife (who forwarded the email to us) told PLOS Executive Editor Veronique Kiermer:
You say that our piece violated the standards of your site for engaging in civilized debate of matters of scientific importance.
Please explain in what manner we violated those standards?
We were peer reviewed and were deemed to meet the standards of your publication. We endured several rounds of *post-publication* legal and factual vetting — no doubt, a highly unusual procedure — and responded to all of your queries. When a minor factual error was found, concerning the state in which a proposition was being proposed (and the date of a letter), we immediately notified you and corrected it as appropriate. In short, we have behaved as expected of us. And we stand by our piece.
Yet not only do you pull our article without consulting us, or even hinting that this was in the works, you also leave critical comments of our piece out there for all to see — silencing us while giving critics full voice. (I’m surprised that your lawyers allowed this, by the way.)
So, please explain to us how we violated your standards so egregiously that you had to take this dramatic step. And while you’re explaining, could you please go into a bit more detail about the increasing pressure from scientists that you received to remove our article from the site?
Seife goes on to say that PLOS never answered his questions as to why their free speech was quashed. They have a right to their opinion and the public has a right to that information in order to make thoughtful decisions impacting their health and their very lives.