Monsanto

[Tommy]

http://redrockdaily.com/monsanto-scrambling-bury-breaking-story-dont-let-go-unshared/

[flyboy]

Thanks Tommy. I forwarded the link.

[D Coates]

This is a hack job going after Monsanto at best.  That's exactly why no one is picking it and reporting it.  Scientifically, it's garbage and it should be treated as such.

"The testing and analysis was performed at the request of FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW!, in coordination with THE DETOX PROJECT, which gathered additional scientific evidence from around the world and included a compendium of independent research on glyphosate."  There's also been no peer review so they can report anything they want.  Their agenda is very clear if you look up the organizations so I'd not believe diddle of what they claim until they can be peer reviewed to check the "facts".

http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/

"The statement about 0.1 ppb being the lower limit for harm to human health is misleading, as only one of the studies listed as providing support for that claim actually tested an amount that low; the test was performed on mice, not humans, and it used the word "potential", not "probable". The FDA's limit for allowable concentrations in drinking water, though controversial, is is 700 ppb, though there are a number of studies using animals that have found evidence of potential harm below that level"

[PhilK]

Thank you D Coates! I wanted to debunk this yesterday but didn't have the energy. My BS meter was going crazy as soon as I opened that link. Any web page that is that sensationalist or has that many click bait advertisements is not to be trusted, especially when it comes to scientific information.

[Dallasbeek]

Thank you D Coates! I wanted to debunk this yesterday but didn't have the energy. My BS meter was going crazy as soon as I opened that link. Any web page that is that sensationalist or has that many click bait advertisements is not to be trusted, especially when it comes to scientific information.

Just about anything on the internet is not to be trusted.  With the exception of beekeepers, of course, who are almost always trustworthy insofar as they all have opinions, which may be right...or not.

[PhilK]

I disagree Dallas. There are plenty of fantastic and very reliable sources on the web.. we have all the knowledge in the world at our finger tips with the Internet. Unfortunately, we also have all the world's crap at our fingertips, you just need to now how to filter it out. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, and always check the resources.

I just meant I will not ever believe scientific info I find on a website with banners such as "DID BRANGELINA REALLY CHEAT? CLICK HERE TO SEE BRAD'S REACTION"

[Tommy]

http://naturalsociety.com/17-scientists-speak-out-monsantos-roundup-is-causing-cancer

[Tommy]

https://www.intellihub.com/admhttps://www.intellihub.com/admits-monsantos-glyphosate-probably-causes-cancer-chemical-found-75-air-rain-samples/its-monsantos-glyphosate-probably-causes-cancer-chemical-found-75-air-rain-samples/

[Tommy]

http://www.naturalnews.com/052862_Glyphosate_Roundup_cancer.html

[Tommy]

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/glyphosate-roundup-linked-cancer-lymph-tissue-new-study

[flyboy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POhtOUp15as

[flyboy]

Thank you D Coates! I wanted to debunk this yesterday but didn't have the energy. My BS meter was going crazy as soon as I opened that link. Any web page that is that sensationalist or has that many click bait advertisements is not to be trusted, especially when it comes to scientific information.

So only websites that are sponsored by large corps are to be trusted?

[PhilK]

So only websites that are sponsored by large corps are to be trusted?

Yes Flyboy I get all my scientific information from BigPharma.com ... Is there an eye rolling emoji?
Read my next post down from the one that you quoted:

There are plenty of fantastic and very reliable sources on the web.. we have all the knowledge in the world at our finger tips with the Internet. Unfortunately, we also have all the world's crap at our fingertips, you just need to now how to filter it out. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, and always check the resources

You need to know what sources are accurate, what are complete bunk (Brangelina ads are a good sign), and what sources are biased. I was lucky in my university degree teaching me a great deal about peer reviewed scientific articles, studies etc. People can form an opinion based on whatever they like but if they google "glyphosate causes cancer"and go to the first Google result, do you think they're accurately researching the issue?

[flyboy]

So only websites that are sponsored by large corps are to be trusted?

Yes Flyboy I get all my scientific information from BigPharma.com ... Is there an eye rolling emoji?
Read my next post down from the one that you quoted:

There are plenty of fantastic and very reliable sources on the web.. we have all the knowledge in the world at our finger tips with the Internet. Unfortunately, we also have all the world's crap at our fingertips, you just need to now how to filter it out. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, and always check the resources

You need to know what sources are accurate, what are complete bunk (Brangelina ads are a good sign), and what sources are biased. I was lucky in my university degree teaching me a great deal about peer reviewed scientific articles, studies etc. People can form an opinion based on whatever they like but if they google "glyphosate causes cancer"and go to the first Google result, do you think they're accurately researching the issue?

"

So I get that you did not bother with my link. Wouldn't want to spoil that good mind with facts.

My link to her was not based on a MahaguruGoogle search because for the record Stephanie Seneff is leading the pack in regards to research on the topic of glyphosphate. https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

She won't get rich on it, as nobody who casts a shadow on a large corporation does.

I am sure that you are aware of the soft underbelly of the "scientific" world where money is king. Money unfortunately pays for the "genteel" websites that you seem to be referring to. I am sure that having gone through the university system, being an avowed "skeptic" you must have noticed the connection between "scientific research" and corporations sponsoring it... wink wink... and how universities and indeed professors live on the proceeds of science, so lets not upset our corporate sponsors wink wink....

Reminds me of the cartoon I saw once that showed this young researcher getting a blast from his professor who in essence says:
"The heck you've found a cure for cancer, we depend on the research grants".

Then of course there are the lobbyists/politicos who get stuff like glyphosphate/aspartame etc. "approved" with no long term studies and how that system works. There are enough books on that topic to fill a library.

So having said this, maybe check out Stephanie's website and the studies she has referenced and maybe you will understand why Monsanto has been losing money. You can fool some of the PPL some of the time....

Here is a start on her resume:
" Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. She has published over 170 refereed articles on these subjects, and has been invited to give keynote speeches at several international conferences. She has also supervised numerous Master's and PhD theses at MIT. In 2012, Dr. Seneff was elected Fellow of the International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA).

In recent years, Dr. Seneff has focused her research interests back towards biology. She is concentrating mainly on the relationship between nutrition and health. Since 2011, she has published over two dozen papers in various medical and health-related journals on topics such as modern day diseases (e.g., Alzheimer, autism, cardiovascular diseases), analysis and search of databases of drug side effects using NLP techniques, and the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health. "

[bobsim]

   No fan of Monsanto here, but with internet credibility being discussed I'd like to share a link to a video of Sharyl Attkisson talking about corporate interests and their manipulation.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

  I was surprised to find Wikipedia can be manipulated so easily.

  I'm old enough to remember the news stories of farmers being sued out of business by Monsanto. Yep, back when news was news. Since then I've yet to come across something positive about them.

[D Coates]

Bobism, Great link.

Some of y'all have a good time assuming all the bad "news" from questionable sources is correct and convince yourself the sky is falling.  As a past "greenie" I remember back in the 70's all the claims of this and that.  I was scared to death and was convinced once all the claims came true people would have to take the claims seriously.  The 80's passed, then the 90's, then the 2000's.  More and more doom and gloom claims were made through those decades too.  I'm still waiting for the promised ice age that was hyped in the mid 70's.  It was the same time when "Jungles" became "Rain forests."  I've gotten to where I now understand this is how they raise funds and stir the pot, so to speak.  Money is claimed to the the root behind it and conspiracies to cover the "truth" are tossed out too.  Hogwash. 

If it's so easy to prove why has it not been done?  There are all types of trial lawyer who'd LOVE to take a big bite out of Monsanto's fat wallet.  Those lawyers have got deep pockets but they don't see the so easily claimed "smoking gun."  Why?, apparently the claims aren't valid.  Until there's a successful lawsuit or class action lawsuit this is nothing but propaganda spouted and respouted by groups with the same or similar agendas.  Repeat the same thing enough, and eventually it's hopefully going to be perceived as the truth.  Though it's not...

To me the goal here is to change the public perception not find the actual truth.

[flyboy]

Bobism, Great link.

Some of y'all have a good time assuming all the bad "news" from questionable sources is correct and convince yourself the sky is falling.  As a past "greenie" I remember back in the 70's all the claims of this and that.  I was scared to death and was convinced once all the claims came true people would have to take the claims seriously.  The 80's passed, then the 90's, then the 2000's.  More and more doom and gloom claims were made through those decades too.  I'm still waiting for the promised ice age that was hyped in the mid 70's.  It was the same time when "Jungles" became "Rain forests."  I've gotten to where I now understand this is how they raise funds and stir the pot, so to speak.  Money is claimed to the the root behind it and conspiracies to cover the "truth" are tossed out too.  Hogwash. 

If it's so easy to prove why has it not been done?  There are all types of trial lawyer who'd LOVE to take a big bite out of Monsanto's fat wallet.  Those lawyers have got deep pockets but they don't see the so easily claimed "smoking gun."  Why?, apparently the claims aren't valid.  Until there's a successful lawsuit or class action lawsuit this is nothing but propaganda spouted and respouted by groups with the same or similar agendas.  Repeat the same thing enough, and eventually it's hopefully going to be perceived as the truth.  Though it's not...

To me the goal here is to change the public perception not find the actual truth.

Nice try, Monsanto has been the ones who have been making most of their recent years profits off of the farmers that they have been suing.

My links were to scientific data, not "the sky is falling stuff". "Sky is falling stuff" is the same as the "lets just keep driving off this cliff" stuff. I quoted science not "belief" systems.

[D Coates]

Nice try, Monsanto has been the ones who have been making most of their recent years profits off of the farmers that they have been suing.

Most of their profit has been made off the farmers they've been suing?  You're willing to die on that field with that definitive claim? 

If not, let's stop with the "semi truths" that are trying to be masqueraded as fact.  If so, do me a huge favor and back this up.  Show me the "profits" they're showing on their public revenue statements.  Then, show me the legal cases where they've won in numbers that get close to the profits they show on their revenue statements in those respective years. 

You can't.  Just like your claims of scientific "facts" it's hogwash.  If it's so easily repeatable and accepted why hasn't a class action suit been successful?  Because it's not scientifically repeatable, i.e., it's pseudoscience.

[flyboy]

Nice try, Monsanto has been the ones who have been making most of their recent years profits off of the farmers that they have been suing.

Most of their profit has been made off the farmers they've been suing?  You're willing to die on that field with that definitive claim? 

If not, let's stop with the "semi truths" that are trying to be masqueraded as fact.  If so, do me a huge favor and back this up.  Show me the "profits" they're showing on their public revenue statements.  Then, show me the legal cases where they've won in numbers that get close to the profits they show on their revenue statements in those respective years. 

You can't.  Just like your claims of scientific "facts" it's hogwash.  If it's so easily repeatable and accepted why hasn't a class action suit been successful?  Because it's not scientifically repeatable, i.e., it's pseudoscience.

I understand that you make/made a living as a lawyer and as such, the art of arguing and it's associated hyperbole* has been honed to a fine edge, particularly since you have been doing it for so long. Interestingly you share the field with Hilary: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/hillary-clinton-gmo-support-monsanto-ties-spark-ba/

I notice that you also did not read the science that I linked to and you referred to work done by an employee of MIT with a list of degrees that I also included on my post, as "Pseudoscience".  MIT will be interested in knowing of your opinion. Very clever as a lawyer to avoid the topic of import and go off on another rant. Isn't that referred to as  "obsfucation" **.

I do not intend to "die on that field" to back up anything I say, as well you no doubt would never 'die on that field' to back up all of the nonsensical things that you have said over your long and illustrious career. After all you only get to die once. That is called in layman's terms "exaggeratin' ", but in legal terms it would be puffery.***

* hy-per-bo-le
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

** To totally obscure with non-germane information in a verbose manner, with the intent to provide a non-answer, and provide total befuddlement.

*** In law, puffery is a promotional statement or claim that expresses subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally. Puffery serves to "puff up" an exaggerated image of what is being described and is especially featured in testimonials.

[D Coates]

You understand I am/was a lawyer?  I've never been in the legal field in any way shape or form.  Complete nonsense like much of what you claim.  You have no way of knowing if I did or didn't read the link you posted.  If I found an MIT grad that claimed the moon was made of cheese would you automatically believe it?  They are after all an MIT grad and couldn't possibly have a biased agenda (sarcasm intended)

Thank you for making my point very clearly.  Cheers.