Re: [UC] Monsanto protection act, link

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:41:55 -0700





"Monsanto is looking like or worse than British East India Tea Co"

 

Worse! 

 

Even with plenty of corporate/institutional "science" to fight against honest scientists around the world, Wall St. hedges its systems of death.  Even if their highly profitable GM technolgies are proven harmful in the future, it will be illegal to stop them!  Think about it.  Why would they want that guarantee for their profits?????

 

 

I wish Daniel Safer hadn't unsubscribed.  He never posted, but he probably could have explained the famous lesson about thalidomide, and skipping even some of the important testing in the interest of corporate greed and expediency.  We could have had a good discussion of what I call, institutionalized censorship, when various techniques are used to perpetuate myths and partial truths under the cloak of the march of science. 

 

It's interesting that you mention marijuana.  I worked for one of the most famous university research institutions on matters of drugs and addictions.  For over 50 years, "science" guarded the falsehood that marijuana was a dangerous "narcotic" and that it had absolutely no medical value.  Even in the last stages when the whole world knew we were full of shi..., science came up with something called amotivational syndrome and a gateway drug, as a hail mary.  I wonder if people ask themselves, "how did the experts get the science about marijuana so wrong for so long????"  (I'll never forget the combat veterans, terrified and threatened, about their use of marijuana to treat their PTSD, instead of obediently taking powerful profitable drugs with extreme side effects.  It was horrible!  I'll also never forget how behavioral health therapists became welfare queens, like public school teachers of today) 

 

 Institutionalized censorship is very difficult to counter!  Corporations control all aspects of research funding priorities behind the scenes, and they can create powerful myths even within research institutions and departments.  I also believed many myths and partial truths, until I learned many of the mechanisms, which steer the march of science away from the public good toward profit.  It's not unscientific to point out that institutions of science have been powerfully corrupted by corporate profits and a patriarchal, hierarchical, system of organization. 

 

 It's not immediately obvious to see research funding as censorship or institutionalized, but all you need to do is look at the research literature on education reform and then talk to an experienced teacher.  Data can prove what ever one wants it to prove, once the progress of scientific method becomes corrupted by funding streams. 

 

But I digress, it's a different important discussion...

 

Glenn

 

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Conrad
Sent: Mar 29, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Glenn moyer
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UC] Monsanto protection act, link

Similar to liberals' Jefferson, Washington, Adams.... et. al. keeping the tobacco and marijuana industries unfettered in the old days.  Monsanto is looking like or worse than British East India Tea Co.
On Mar 29, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Glenn moyer wrote:


Well it's done.  There is clear evidence in animal studies that consuming GM food causes cancer in them.  This is what acceptance of backroom dealing brings us.  It's also one of the big reasons that things like DOMA were passed in the first place.  DOMA and manufactured bigotry issues are always designed to enthrall 24 hour corporate media, while the huge treacheries remain hidden.

 

 

 
"But Obama ignored it, instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.

"This provision is simply an industry ploy to continue to sell genetically engineered seeds even when a court of law has found they were approved by USDA illegally," the petition stated. "It is unnecessary and an unprecedented attack on U.S. judicial review. Congress should not be meddling with the judicial review process based solely on the special interest of a handful of companies"

 

---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .

---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .

Reply via email to