Saturday, May 21, 2016

A fictional “World Scientific Consensus” about GMO has been perpetuated over recent years in mainstream media outlets and is proclaimed “science-based”


 
All the corporate shills at America's largest "science body" agree that GMOs are safe–of course they do–they work for the creators!

One year ago, in an article titled, "Is opposition to genetically modified food irrational?" –BBC News published a hit piece on the sensible world that opposes the genetic mutation of food and seeds, citing crop genetics who lie through their teeth and convolute traditional breeding with biotech's lab-concocted, DNA modified, pesticide-gene insertion into plants, something that never happens in nature.

"This is where BT comes in - a gene from a soil bacterium which produces a protein that is deadly to pests. Scientists cut the gene for BT out of the bacteria and inserted it directly into the eggplant genome. It's been very successful." – claims Pam Ronald, a lab head at the University of California, Davis. Even though most countries around the world BAN GMO, especially exports from the United States, Pam also alleges, "Every major scientific organisation in the world has concluded that the genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat."

The article continues with bold-faced lies and propaganda. It goes on to cite a fake poll offered by the Pew Foundation that says the "majority of scientists argue that GM food is safe" and that "almost 90% of scientists from America's largest science body think GM food is generally safe, while only 37% of the public agree."

Then a lying biotech "risk consultant" weighs in with the old Hitler philosophy talking about sacrificing humans and health for the "greater good," and we've all heard this one before, "We have to weigh the pros and cons and what's in the greatest common good." – that's the BBC quote from David Ropeik, Risk consultant. The "greatest common good" also means eugenics and population control are in favor of certain people surviving some kind of upcoming war, whether by force or biotechnology and bio-terrorism, such as mass forced "immunization" campaigns or Bill Gates trying to force-feed nations GMO and sterilization vaccines.

Pew Foundation spews pro-biotech propaganda and the BBC catapults their lies

The BBC article is relevant now because it was published as a backlash to last year's Worldwide March Against Monsanto, that happens on every continent, in hundreds of cities and nearly every country on Earth. That worldwide protest of GMO and Biotech is arriving again now for 2016.  

The "Pew" lies stink like chemical pesticide

"79% of adults say that science has made life easier for most people and a majority is positive about science’s impact on the quality of health care, food and the environment." Even if this survey or "poll" was really taken, it doesn't mean people were talking about GMO. Science to most people is used to help people, not destroy their health and claim the opposite.



A fictional “World Scientific Consensus” about GMO has been perpetuated over recent years in mainstream media outlets and is proclaimed as “science” and “science-based” and “evidence-based” by the very manufactures, distributors and sellers of genetically modified organisms in agriculture in the United States of America. There is no world scientific consensus on GMO. It is a completely fabricated version, since scientific safety research – and that which is NOT done by the industries in question, is not readily made available to the public. Most Americans are “in the dark” concerning the real scientific community discussion–regarding this thirty-year-old experiment called “transgenics.” The current “think tanks” between rogue industry scientists, hack journalists and pro-GMO “reporters” are nothing more than propaganda mixed with delusions of grandeur.
http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16722-jon-entine-the-chemical-industry-s-master-messenger

In an ideal consensus, all variables and elements of a process or science are considered, but in this case, chemical-agriculture giants/monopolies and their proponents–paid journalists and insider scientists–make false claims, assertions, cite false statistics and even source studies that DO NOT exist, then call it consensus. Of the studies that do exist, few of which are actually peer-reviewed, how many are funded by Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Dupont Chemical, Bayer Crop Science, Syngenta, Cargill or any other massive corporate entity that lobbies in Washington DC with millions, sometimes billions of dollars? And how many GMO safety studies are done because the heads of US regulatory agencies are former presidents, vice-presidents, CEOs or lobbyists for the companies that need to falsify these studies to get their GM products growing and selling, and unlabeled at that? The truth is revealed as the lie is deconstructed, one article at a time.

Deconstructing the massively distorted, fabricated “World Scientific Consensus” on “GMO Safety”
The consensus on GMO is that there is no consensus. There are no valid GMO safety science studies or research because the ones made visible, whether on websites or a few cherry-picked peer-review articles, are funded by Monsanto. The US Right-to-Know group dredged up thousands of documents exposing via email that biotechnology or “agrichemical” industry heads at Monsanto recruited and “enlisted,” via their PR firm Ketchum, a couple dozen hacks, shills, charlatans and hucksters to reiterate and regurgitate industry-written propaganda. These documents verify the behind-the-scenes collusion of the biotech industry with paid-for hack science to sell Americans dangerous, experimental food, knowingly. They push GMO safety and quote sources, documents, books and “peer-reviewed” articles that don’t exist, and they claim everything they say is backed by scientific research. Jon Entine, former writer for Forbes.com, is the leader of the hack pack that writes the most convincing jargon (1) to influence the public, scientists, promoters, council members and even Congress. Along with Dr. Kevin Folta of University of Florida, the proof of fraud and negligence of safety concerns is more than evident. (2)

Hundreds of GMO “safety research” papers turn out to be bogus–only bug-killing statistics from chemical tests

October, 2013: Here’s Jon Entine’s largest PLATFORM AND LIE he purports across media outlets like “Genetic Literacy Project” … (3)

“A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.”

He goes on later in the article to say:
“A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue. Those claims are simply not true. Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the magnitude of the research has never been evaluated or documented.”
Here is Entine’s propaganda article for reference: (http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/22/michael-pollan-brags-about-twisting-facts-to-support-anti-gmo-activism-and-duping-credulous-new-york-times/).

So then, if you are a researcher or investigative reporter or just a health enthusiast that wants to know the truth about GMO and GMO safety and GMO research, you click on the link to this PDF in Entine’s article of the “recent paper” by “independent” Italian scientists, you get many studies about HOW MANY insects, weeds and fungus that chemical pesticides kill. Those are NOT safety studies. Of course, the first few handfuls of studies talk about the environment risks of GMO, but this doesn’t constitute the whole lot as credible or even relating to what Entine implies. Many of the papers simply talk about safety protocol that is or is not in place, or should be. These are also NOT scientific or science-based safety studies or research. Plus, to consider that many of the studies are done by Swiss scientists and not Italian ones is another questionable point of light.

There is NO world scientific consensus, there are not 1783 studies–there are not even 50 studies on the safety of GMOs, and there most certainly are not a hundred independent science bodies around the world that say GMO is safe. Most of the rest of the world, besides USA, labels GMO or rejects them all together, banning them from their countries, like Russia and Japan. So, why are science “papers” that simply tell us there is a “need” for a study or a “need” for an assessment all being referred to as safety studies that prove GMO is safe and beneficial? Because Jon Entine is lying.
For example, this paper, entitled: “Need for an Integrated Safety Assessment” of GMOs, Linking Food Safety and Environmental Considerations,” is not a paper that helps Entine’s case, in fact, it challenges GMO to adhere to guidelines because GMOs are suspected of contaminating the environment, including other plants and animals. This is not a safety test or research that has been run, but rather protocol that should be followed to ensure the safety of organisms that might get CONTAMINATED or CORRUPTED by GMO. (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0511650)

Entine and other top GMO-propaganda shills are saying there are over 1,000 safety studies done, yet many of these studies just tell you how many bugs or weeds the chemicals killed, or warn of needed safety testing and protocols, but this is all distorted by propaganda, because for corporations and their platform pushers, it’s all about profit – not human health.

This one published in “Nature” (an International weekly science journal) is entitled: “Industry scientists look for benefits, not risks”
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6903/full/419111b.html

How is that a safety study? Plus, Wiley online library uses hokey (and hackable) social media “altmetrics” for ranking their “professional” articles, as explained below:
http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/03/19/wiley-introduces-altmetrics-to-its-open-access-journals/

“The results of the pilot were positive. Across the 6 journals included in the initial 6 month trial, 2,183 articles received an Altmetric score, indicating that a high proportion of articles were receiving attention and making an immediate impact.   To date, around 40% of articles from the trial journals have achieved a score of 10 or above – remember, the Altmetric score is based on the number of individuals mentioning a paper, where the mentions occurred (e.g. a newspaper, a tweet) and how often the author of each mention talks about the article. So, the score reflects both the quantity of attention received, and the quality of that attention:  a news story counts for more than a Facebook post; attention from a researcher counts more than attention from an automated Twitter bot.”

In other words, Wiley online library, is posting what Western culture considers “scientific proof” that GMOs are safe, yet Wiley online library relies on social media posting and commenting to determine if these papers are ranked high or not in the search engines (SEO). That means that social media is helping dictate whether most food on planet earth that is genetically modified is scientifically proven dangerous or safe for mankind to consume. That is a sad fact about the “GMO world safety consensus.” If a thousand people on Twitter say GMO is healthy, you know it’s concrete science-based proof! Peer reviewed!

Here are more bogus studies claimed to be safety studies by Jon Entine, Monsanto’s #1 front-man for pushing biotechnology propaganda:

Study #216 on Excel spreadsheet:

“Effect of Bt Corn for Corn Rootworm Control on Nontarget Soil Microarthropods and Nematodes”
http://ee.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/4/859

This study actually incriminates the Bt Corn toxin gene as posing a “hazard to non-target organisms:”

“One of the environmental concerns about genetic modification technology in plants is the possible effect on nontarget organisms (National Academy of Sciences 2000). Saxena et al. (1999) reported that a Cry1Ab Bt toxin was released from corn plants into the rhizosphere soil in root exudates from Bt corn for European corn borer. They also mentioned that the Bt toxin released in soil from roots during growth of a Bt corn crop would add to the amount of toxin introduced into soil from pollen during taselling as a result of the incorporation of plant residues after harvesting the crop. Tapp and Stotzky (1998) observed that the bound state of the Bt toxin persisted for up to 234 d. Active Bt toxins could persist and remain insecticidal in soil as a result of binding to humic acids (Crecchio and Stotzky 1998) and clays (Saxena et al. 2002). This persistence could pose a hazard to nontarget organisms and enhance the selection of toxin-resistant target species.”

So, Mr. Entine, you were saying?

http://www.truthwiki.org/gmo-safety-research/
 

No comments:

The CIGARETTE HANGOVER - and how to end it and QUIT SMOKING FOREVER!

Get rid of your “cigarette hangover” for good the natural way https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-07-20-get-rid-of-your-cigarette-hangov...