Michael Specter: The danger of science denial

[The Overfiend]

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html

 ILLUMINATI CLIQUE WHAT WHAT!!!

[virtuoso]

This is perverted, this guy is playing the role of willful ignorance, so according to him, the bees are dying by coincidence, autism is exploding through coincidence, cancers are exploding through coincidence.

I have a science friend to and he is very much on the fence about vaccines but here is what I did gather from him...the process itself means that contamination from viruses is inevitable, mostly all of the vaccines made are made in China and there is no oversight. Also even officially there is a "possibility" of a vaccine over stimulating the immune system and thus creating an auto immune response. It is the very reason why in the past manufacturers advised that vaccines should not be given to pregnant women and yet what did they advise with the operation scare the shit out of everyone bird flu? oh yes, pregnant women should take the vaccine.

The fact is the human race is being used as a guinea pig for the experimentation of splicing different gene pools together. What is more, you don't have a choice, unless you can afford organic foods. Furthermore we don't even know how long such contents have been in the food chain and we don't know the long term effects. I have watched long ass scientific debates about GM and when you cut through the semantics and the rhetoric and the terminology, they simply don't know what effect it will have.

I find this latter note extremely ironic since the net effect could be it completely destroys the environment, the very environment which is being championed, which we supposedly have to save.

'It's all in your imagination" this is quite sick particularly because top scientists have lost their jobs Dr. Arpad Pusztai google him

It's fact that it's creating super resistant weeds,

It's also a lie to point to the food production in Africa and cite the resistance to GM as being the problem. he knows that to, African domestic food production has been greatly diminished because cheap excess supply flooded into their country to knock out their domestic business.

I heard the whole frigging thing and it wasn't balanced it was him basically saying accept the conclusions reached.

People like him piss me off, we learned back when I studied business that even independent investigations are funded by the main oligopoly

We know that the policies are written by the lobbyists

Sure there are going to be more studies which agree with the official line than disagree with it, beyond the funding from the oligopolies, even if the funding is from government, the policies have already been determined by the lobbyists, so future funding is in the balance unless the scientists play ball

There also studies which dismiss any notion that Organic food is better than the toxic shit which is so readily available, according to his mindset that is proof, you believe that to? (rhetorical question)

[The Overfiend]

Haha. I knew you'd have a problem with this.

[The Overfiend]

I think you, have valid concerns, also held by me and many others, but I don't really see why you take such an adversarial position towards what was said in the video posted.

He is not exactly arguing for people to just accept what scientists or the government wants people to take/do.


Rather he is just trying to remind people that science is a process. Not a political party.


Also, GM foods have positive and negatives. I agree with the point that we do manipulate our environment and where we often change something for the better we change something in a negative way too. But I also agree that its a process, and good science needs rigorous testing. We shouldn't simply do away with something based on superstition.


On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

[virtuoso]

Lol you bet I do, I know what scientists in general have said about genetically modified foods, but unlike a typical drug even, there have not been decades of study on genetically modified foods, there have not been people willingly paid to be guinea pigs, instead they have slipped it into the food chain without any consent, no one was given a choice in the matter.

When that leading scientist expressed his opinion that he does not think it was safe enough to give to his kids, an arsenal of media attacks was launched on him and suddenly he saw himself being turned from a highly respected scientist, to a pariah. What such a co-ordinated attack does is have the effect of creating group think which in turn would silence dissenting scientists.

However it's also worth noting that some Monsanto scientists have also expressed their concern before and have seen themselves promptly dimissed from the company. I would suspect that the scientists probably have some kind of gag order to preventing from discussing any of these concerns in detail.

Beyond his impassioned pleas, he is effectively stating that the majority of scientists should be listened and the minority, well that's junk science which has no place at the table.

It is also telling that Michael Meacher the former environment minister in the UK who was quite strongly for it initally while in post, became increasingly opposed to it and was eventually sacked. The main charge he levied against the government was that they were deliberately orchestrating a campaign to play down and whitewash studies which had expressed the potential dangers the public were being exposed to.

However central to him (michael specter) defending GM is the idea that it will produce much bigger food yields which will help the poor starving people of Africa. He again willfully ignores other scientific studies such as http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ge-fails-to-increase-yields-0219.html which indicate that this notion is a falehood championed by the biotech industry as a means of selling their product.

Moreover as well as the mentioned honey bees, autism and cancers, we have also seen digestive disorders explode to. It is clear from the said scientists sacked that there are real substantive concerns and so we we have to wonder just how deep this goes. You don't need to be a scientist to realise that what Michael Specter is conveying is effectively the pro lobby and seemingly he is choosing to ignore or dismiss anything which does not fit in. The question I then ask myself is what do whistle blowers working for Monsanto have to gain by speaking out? absolutely nothing, they are black balled for it, their very stories only have a limited impact because most of the media choose to ignore it and they lose their livelihoods.

I thought this to was an interesting article and telling of the inner politics at play here http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=125

Investigative journalists have been silenced to http://vodpod.com/watch/1531814-fox-reporters-fired-for-truth-monsantos-pus-milk

The reason for my adversial position on this is because he seems to be effectively championing all of these causes with emotional blackmail. Perhaps he is totally genuine but supposing he is, then I find it disturbing that he would be so dismissive of some of the examples I have given. In fact the more you read about this, the more it becomes apparent that it is anything but clear cut science and isn't that central to the point? him saying trust science, really equates to trust the science that I believe in.

It is also telling that he would use denial to, trying to invoke into people thoughts of equating disagreeing with his science with holocaust denialism. That is a very loaded word and that is why he chooses to use it, to encourage a disdain amongst the audience and the readership for those who disagree.