It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No, Really, Monsanto Has a "Discredit Bureau"

page: 2
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: spirit_horse

Science does not need to be, nor should it be, publicly debated in order to be validated. The public is rarely qualified enough to make their own position anything other than unsubstantiated parroting. I'm sorry, but unless you're formally trained, you just don't have any credibility. Science, in it's purest form, deals with facts. Philosophical, sure, science, no. Just my teo cents, I agree with mostly everything else you have said.
edit on 3-4-2015 by dr1234 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Whaaaaaat? A company has people who's job it is to debate claims on controversial practices? How crazy is that?!?

Side note: when something is debunked here on ATS, is it just PR for "the other side?"


Debating I can handle. Debunking science, as stated in the OP, that is a little scary. Too Orwellian. Should be illegal as in fraudulent.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: dr1234
a reply to: spirit_horse

Science does not need to be, nor should it be, publicly debated in order to be validated. The public is rarely qualified enough to make their own position anything other than unsubstantiated parroting. I'm sorry, but unless you're formally trained, you just don't have any credibility. Science, in it's purest form, deals with facts. Philosophical, sure, science, no. Just my teo cents, I agree with mostly everything else you have said.


Yes, like the science put forward in the 1960's that told us smoking was not harmful. Like the science that said thalidomide was fine for pregnant women. Like the science that tells us prescription drugs of today are fine when in fact they are the fifth leading cause of death today in the US.

I will do my own research thanks, many studies are bought and paid for by corporate interests that have their own agenda's, profit usually being the main one, your health usually being the last one.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
No, Really, Monsanto Has a "Discredit Bureau"

Monsanto’s “Discredit Bureau” Really Does Exist


Since they hold more capital than Lucifer, it stands to reason they would have a propaganda wing that disseminates information and decimates those who stand in the way. Snippets of proof have surfaced before. Although shrouded in secrecy, this time someone from the company got a little too gleeful at the thought of "debunking" naysayers whether they be scientists, activists, bloggers or you.

DailyKos writer occupystephanie explains that she recently attended a talk by a Monsanto employee/representative who spoke to eager-to-work agricultural students about new RNA projects. When he talked of efforts to educate the public about the inherent goodness of the products, a student asked how Monsanto deals with the pesky, not-so-thrilled, non-GMO-ers.

She writes (emphasis hers):

One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs. As far as I know this is the first time that a Monsanto functionary has publically admitted that they have such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit Bureau will not be found on their official website.

Spin doctors have been weaving webs under the guise of science for nearly a century that we know of in the U.S. But recent examples show that deception-for-profit has been perfected since then.


"Debunking science that disagrees with theirs?" That's no longer science, that's just PR.


Uh huh. PR and marketing. Nothing to do with science. Or truth.



F&S&
Great find.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
While they had their roots in the right area (pun intended) - they quickly grew abusive and they do strive to suppress things both true and untrue.

Patented seeds? Can't replant without paying royalties?

That's bull crap, and that's just one issue.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: dr1234
a reply to: spirit_horse

Science does not need to be, nor should it be, publicly debated in order to be validated. The public is rarely qualified enough to make their own position anything other than unsubstantiated parroting. I'm sorry, but unless you're formally trained, you just don't have any credibility. Science, in it's purest form, deals with facts. Philosophical, sure, science, no. Just my teo cents, I agree with mostly everything else you have said.


Yes, like the science put forward in the 1960's that told us smoking was not harmful. Like the science that said thalidomide was fine for pregnant women. Like the science that tells us prescription drugs of today are fine when in fact they are the fifth leading cause of death today in the US.

I will do my own research thanks, many studies are bought and paid for by corporate interests that have their own agenda's, profit usually being the main one, your health usually being the last one.



Don't forget the science behind asbestos, DDT, and eugenics.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I do like your OP because it has the actual quotes in it.

That is a far cry better than another thread I was in on the subject.

My reading of the quotes have made me draw my own conclusions on the meaning which is good because I like to think for myself. I will say I am not the least bit surprised they debunk science positioned against them I think all big corporations do.

If it is good science they will not be able to debunk it, it will un-debunkable.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Sorry man...but that is a tad bit naive. Money buys everything...including the truth.

History is a witness to this.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

What exactly are you labeling as naive from my post?

I stated.

1. I like knowing what the actual quotes are.

2. I draw my own conclusions.

3. I like to think for myself.

4. I am not surprised they debunk science positioned against them.

5. That they can't debunk good science.

Since one through 4 can't be bought I am left with number 5.

Number 5 is about good science and good science follows the scientific method. No amount of money changes the scientific method.

So, if the scientific method was followed and the results were negative for Monsanto then it can't be debunked, but if the scientific method showing those results is repeated and different results appear that means the scientific method was never followed to begin with.

The only influence money can have on that is funding to repeat the experiment to check the results.

Money can and does influence opinion of the results, but that is not science and I never said they couldn't influence opinion.

I am not at all naive about any of it although I am honest and if you are to be honest you will admit money can't buy everything as you stated it does.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   
They're just pure evil:



Heavy use of the world's most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.
The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of "glyphosate," the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.
Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," the study says. We "have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated," Seneff said. Environmentalists, consumer groups and plant scientists from several countries have warned that heavy use of glyphosate is causing problems for plants, people and animals.
The EPA is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited.
Reuters



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes...I was referring to number 5. Sorry for being vague...it appears i cant quote on phone.

You say good science cant be debunked. But science debunks itself all the time. New science trumps old science.

It's all good science until new science steps in.

Also...you consider something good science if it is peer reviewed...right?

The fact that the peer review process has been shown to be corrupted or lacking in actual reviewing makes me want to throw out the whole thing out.

to me...only good science is one that can be empiricaly tested.

it takes years if not many decades to empiricaly prove or observe the effects or consequences of ingesting certain foods or chemical agents.

monsanto has no interest in such long term science to debunk their own product and the public institutions lack the funding and conviction for it because it is mostly driven by public outrage that is often squashed...by bought science.

I find it absurd that anyone would accept monsantos word on the health hazzards of their own doing. It does not work that way.

Science also needs money...or there would be no science. For that reason alone...it is always a subject to corruption. but it's not science's fault. It is our own. Numbers can be fudged...or simply misinterpreted to suit a particular agenda.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly




You say good science cant be debunked. But science debunks itself all the time. New science trumps old science.


Not really it is actually kind of rare. I think you are confusing things. Science simply explains the natural world/universe to the best of its ability. More science explains it further.

It drives some people crazy that science uses carefully chosen words in describing its findings such as "may, could, should, suggests" when presenting findings because 100% certainty is extremely rare and they know there is room for improvement.



Also...you consider something good science if it is peer reviewed...right?


I am sure I have never said that. Per review just gives credibility to someone's findings. It just means someone or a group of someones in the field a paper is on has read it and found they followed proper protocols and have properly sourced their findings. One of those things is looking to see if they followed the scientific method others may be in cases of lab tests on animals that they chose a logical breed and used adequate subjects with controls.



The fact that the peer review process has been shown to be corrupted or lacking in actual reviewing makes me want to throw out the whole thing out.


I had written a thread on unreliable peer review process a few years ago. Throwing it out would only make things much worse. The process needs to be fixed but until then most in the know, know that not every journal is created equal and for those researching there is a long and short list of journals that are trusted and ones who are not.



to me...only good science is one that can be empiricaly tested.


If by empirically tested you mean recreating the same results originally reported then I agree.

That is exactly what I have said repeatedly about good science.



it takes years if not many decades to empiricaly prove or observe the effects or consequences of ingesting certain foods or chemical agents.


Well, that really depends on what is being tested.




monsanto has no interest in such long term science to debunk their own product and the public institutions lack the funding and conviction for it because it is mostly driven by public outrage that is often squashed...by bought science.


Yet they have teams as admitted dedicated to debunking bad science and the only way to debunk bad science is to recreate the science to find if there was a different result. I think you need to define bought science for me to address it.



I find it absurd that anyone would accept monsantos word on the health hazzards of their own doing. It does not work that way.


You are right that it doesn't work that way.




Science also needs money...or there would be no science. For that reason alone...it is always a subject to corruption. but it's not science's fault. It is our own. Numbers can be fudged...or simply misinterpreted to suit a particular agenda.


And we are full circle back to what I have already explained. Scientists are funded primarily through government grants and internationally some are performed in colleges through those high tuition fees. When a study is completed papers are written to communicate results. Those papers are then reviewed through the peer review process to see if the tests were properly structured.

In the case of Monsanto when a study has been done and has passed peer review that is negative for them they will likely reperform the tests/study and depending on the results can either refute it if results are not replicated or in the case of replicating the results let their PR group handle it.

In all of that the science is either good or it is debunkable and if numbers are fudged that can be caught by replicating the tests/study.

I have seen several studies that didn't pass peer review that were negative for the likes of Monsanto and in each case those who originally did the study were given another chance to correct what the review found subpar and redo their study. Most times they declined while they had funding.

Good science can be replicated if it can be replicated it can't be debunked. Bad science being passed off as good science will not be replicated and is therefore debunked.


Just don't mix up PR with science they are two different subjects.
edit on 10-4-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

To further understand the peer-review process, there are two types of peer-review journals: paid subscription and open. Sometimes I hear criticism of a scientific paper because the author(s) paid a journal to review and publish their paper. But this should not be considered a negative, because authors do this to allow anyone to see their work without having to subscribe to a closed journal. Closed journals don't accept payment for publishing a paper, their costs however are covered by a sometimes very expensive subscription and that limits who gets to see the paper. Both business models will still follow the peer-review process.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Since a hell of a lot of them seem to visit ATS quite often...is it really any surprise to any regular members that a corporation which has bought the legal system, the political system and is cornering world food production sectors..that they would have a propaganda department to back up their plans for world domination and control?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The point I was making about bought science is....




Yet they have teams as admitted dedicated to debunking bad science


I cant take "their" science..(Monsanto's) to debunk...anything. Their motives are ultimately always suspicious...whatever comes out of their mouths...for me has no scientific value...as much as they wrap it up in numbers and tape pretty red ribbons around it.

You said it yourself.




In the case of Monsanto when a study has been done and has passed peer review that is negative for them they will likely reperform the tests/study and depending on the results can either refute it if results are not replicated or in the case of replicating the results let their PR group handle it.



and there in lies the thief...it's either good for Monsanto...or it gets man handled by PR...and we know what that means. It's gonna get spinned and respinned and turned upside down...everything to prevent their science/product being exposed. You know it's true. There is no way they can lose...too much money involved. That's what I mean by bought science...their science is bought. No scientist of Monsanto is gonna come out and say..."hey...this is all wrong...duh".



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Well now you have pretty much changed your entire argument.

This whole exchange between us has been because I stated that.

"If it is good science they will not be able to debunk it, it will un-debunkable."

Which can be shortened to "#5. That they can't debunk good science."

On that you said I am naive and claimed their money can buy everything.

You seem to argue that their money through means of PR can debunk good science which isn't true. Their PR team can't debunk anything the science is still intact.

You also seem to be upset that they wouldn't be inclined to publish science that is contrary to their business model.

Now, remember you called me naive and you seem upset about a corporation acting like a corporation certainly seems naive to me.

I will reiterate the last thing I said in my previous post to you. "Just don't mix up PR with science they are two different subjects." Obviously that is what you have been doing.

I think at this point you should see I have a very good understanding of how the processes and their corperation works maybe even better than you do. So no, I am not naive about this at all although I am unemotional about it and I wish more people were as well.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Suggested reading pertinent to the thread:

Merchants of Doubt

Link is to the Wikipedia article on a very important book that has been almost buried by MSM.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Sounds very much like ATS to a large degree. If people dont agree then they attack

Take 9/11 and the truthers. Complete jokers



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

You certably have a better understanding of the process than me, no doubt about it. I'm just a disgruntled keyboard thumper and a wacky conspiracy believer.

When corporation uses science only to come to one single conclusion...than it stops being science.

Im getting emotional...angry at monsanto to be precise....becase they represent all that is wrong about the corporate capitalist state that surrounds me.

I just cant be like you...shrug my shoulders..."ah well...it's normal corporate policy" and move on.

If you want to keep your science innocent...so be it. There is no science without people...and people are ultimately bought...so in my opinion science is bought.

I retract my statement...you are not naive, and I'm way too emotional about the subject of GMO.

2:0...you win. And...i'm not being sarcastic.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
This Venn Diagram demonstrates a drive of power-obsession and compliance.

I haven't posted enough for permission to embed media.




top topics



 
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join