posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:49 PM
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: soficrow
Of course I read it - and know full well that you're simply regurgitating and parroting the communications strategy. But I also read between the
lines, relied on my experience, knowledge and instincts.
Thanks for the nice remarks about my critical thinking skills.
I really do have great respect for your ability to regurgitate and parrot communications strategies - it's not an easy task and you do it very
If scientists are already being "muzzled" by governments, how does this agreement expand upon that muzzling? Why bother with the agreement,
especially since it is not particularly binding on any of parties involved? Perhaps your instincts are somewhat overactive.
of muzzling are expanding. Not that public health matters have been ignored in the past - Mad Cow Disease and the gag order on
scientists that resulted when prions were put on the 'special agents' list comes first to mind - but there are many more diseases that are swept
under the rug. The standard rationale is that people will panic if they know there are incurable untreatable diseases spreading, and the economic
implications are untenable. In addition, decision-makers still believe 'susceptibility' is genetic and "the strong will survive." All wrong,
The agreement puts public health firmly in the hands of international corporations, by defining it as subject to international "Free" Trade law.
Remember - corporations have equal status with nations under "Free" Trade. True, this is "just" an agreement in principle, but given history with
such things, it's "just" the first step.
Does the First Amendment allow scientists to be muzzled?
I don't think so.
fyi - My instincts are really really good.