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.

 

"Unscientific" Is Secret Code For Anyone Who Opposes GMOs Or Pesticides

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

(NaturalNews) Watch out for the word "unscientific" in propaganda that's pushing GMOs, pesticides or other dangerous chemicals onto our world. In a joint letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, three Republican members of Congress (Rep. Frank Lucas, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Sen. Pat Roberts) attempted to spin GMOs as being "scientific."

They urged the USDA to "return to a science based regulatory system" and claimed that "science strongly supports the safety of GE alfalfa."

The implication, of course, is that anyone who opposes GMOs is "unscientific" (and therefore stupid). The letter further implies that any USDA opposition to GMOs is purely political in nature and not based on science.


Full Story

I can see it now. Anyone who wants healthy, unmodified, natural food will soon be lumped in with "climate change deniers", "creationist zealots", and any other group that has been labeled "unscientific" by TPTB and their agenda. They'll probably come up with some quack psychiatric disorder for people who don't want poison in their food and, of course, the accompanying breakthrough medication.




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
It's not "secret code" at all. Calling a stance unscientific means it either has no well-accepted scientific footing, or contradicts currently accepted science. That's not to say it CAN'T be supported by science, it just currently isn't.

For example: most things posted on natural news are unscientific (and poorly written, but that's another issue altogether). That sire tends to take a few snippets of a study, pull them out of context, and then make unscientific assertions without any evidence.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
It's not "secret code" at all. Calling a stance unscientific means it either has no well-accepted scientific footing, or contradicts currently accepted science. That's not to say it CAN'T be supported by science, it just currently isn't.

For example: most things posted on natural news are unscientific (and poorly written, but that's another issue altogether). That sire tends to take a few snippets of a study, pull them out of context, and then make unscientific assertions without any evidence.


It's the use of the word as manipulation rather than giving verifiable proof. I don't care what is "well-accepted", they can't and shouldn't use the words "science", "scientific", or "unscientific" to back up their claims, when they don't even give the PROOF. Just like I'm pointing out in THIS Natural News article: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's kind of like you do in some of your posts. I'd like you to dissect Natural News and tell me exactly where they do what you claim. That is you need to give PROOF.
edit on 24-1-2011 by kalamatas because: typo



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kalamatas
 


Not a problem. Here are a few very unscientific NaturalNews articles from the front page:

Physical Fitness Better than Flu Vaccine

This article makes it seem, at first, that a study has shown physical exercise prevents the flu more effectively than vaccines. When you read the article, though, it does nothing of the sort. NaturalNews first provides a brief summary of an ASSU study that shows physical exercise has a positive impact on health, including a decreased risk of contracting flu, in the elderly. The study makes NO MENTION of vaccines. NaturalNews makes the vaccine connection by quoting a biased book, NOT A STUDY, which says there is "no benefit" to the vaccine. In this instance, NaturalNews is being dishonest both in their title, and in their analysis of the work. You can't compare a peer-reviewed study and a non-peer-reviewed, unproven book full of anecdotes. That is unscientific.

Genetically-modified bacteria in the Gulf

This article is even more ridiculous. NaturalNews takes an event that is occuring (using genetically-modified bacteria to eat oil in the Guld), and then just makes things up to fit the headline! NOTHING in the article describes "harmful mutants" appearing in the Gulf, bacterial or otherwise! The only quote about harmful effects they use is a nurse speaking about the effects of oil, NOT bacteria! How can you write a headline about something you aren't even discussing in the article?!

Government Launches Pharmaceutical Division

This article uses a more subtle form of lying; they take half-truths, and then ramp up the fear with conjecture. While it's true the NIH is starting to do more drug research, it is only doing so on non-patented, copyright-free novel drugs. The article makes it sound like the NIH is churning out drugs for Pharma, but in fact is working on drugs that Pharma rejected as "too costly to develop", most of which are for illnesses with a small number of sufferers.

These were just the first three articles I picked from the front page. It took me literally 2 minutes a piece to see the blatant lies contained in each work. Do you see now what an awful source of information this site is?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I didn't intend for this thread to become a debate about the journalistic integrity of naturalnews.com. They can be alarmist at times and, like all media, are biased in one way or another.

The point of the article, as I saw it, was to be on the lookout for changing rhetoric in public discourse relative to the natural health movement--rhetoric that serves to discredit the movement in the interests of Frankenfood and Big Pharma. Wiping away the fluff of the article, it simply raised this possibility based on statements made by a few politicians.

Given TPTB's track record of stifling alternative opinions and dissent, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this article is hitting it right on the head. But I do wish they could've written it a little better.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
funny, this is the exact argument I've always run into/seen.

People who are skeptical of the quality of GMOs are constantly being told they're just "afraid of science," as if the accuser actually knows something more about the stuff, when 99.9% of the time they've spent less time actually researching.
They trust what they're told, isn't that the scientific method?

edit on 24-1-2011 by alaskan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I'm going to respond briefly and then stop to not derail this thread. I apologize in advance.
The first article gives stats of reducing the time being sick as compared to zero evidence of effectiveness in the flu shot. I agree it's titled wrong, but the content isn't. Once again, where's the "science" on the effectiveness for the flu vaccine? Rather where's the proof?

The second report could be corrected with a question mark to the end of the title. I suggest you read the link at the bottom of that article. But let's trust in the "science" of the safety gmo's right?

The last one. Hello? The problem here is the fact that they're using TAXPAYER dollars!

Natural news is not perfect as neither is any other "news" source, but yet their attempt is to piece together the DETRIMENTAL lies being told to us have "footing".

The word "science" means NOTHING. They can't use the word proof, because there is none. Yet there is plenty of proof of the dangers of GMO's that I have yet to see countered. So any use of of the words science coming from these people is geared to those that don't have a mind to think. And that's who their banking on.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalamatas
Once again, where's the "science" on the effectiveness for the flu vaccine? Rather where's the proof?


This took me literally 2 seconds on PubMed. Why don't you try to educate yourself about the other side of a debate before making ridiculous claims?

Korean study shows flu vaccine is highly effective
Chinese study shows flu vaccine is highly effective
English study shows flu vaccine highly effective in high-risk age groups
Finnish study shows flu vaccine highly effective in kids



But let's trust in the "science" of the safety gmo's right


Do you have any evidence (as in data, NOT anecdotes) that suggests the current science on GMOs is flawed?


The last one. Hello? The problem here is the fact that they're using TAXPAYER dollars!


Then maybe they should have written about that, rather than making things up about the new NIH division.


They can't use the word proof, because there is none.


No, they don't use absolutes like "proof" because they are educated. Using an absolute in relation to science shows that you have little to no knowledge of how the world, and it's properties, work. Nothing is truly absolute, not gravity, not medicine, not anything. There are always natural exceptions. Scientists will always say that data "suggests" a trend, or that the scientific community accepts a theory. They rarely say "this absolutely proves X".



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I won't continue the vaccine debate on this thread, but I can tell you the holes I see in those studies, or at least incompleteness of data to truly validate their conclusions. And if you'd like we can go back to one of the vaccine threads and we can debate on that


There's a crap load of data on the dangers of gmo's not anecdotes. Frankly I'm tired, so would be happy to post links later, but if you're anxious just search "studies showing dangers of gmo's"

And lastly, if you don't like to correlate the word proof with science, then evidence is better. But not one sided, take out the bad stuff, what we're left with appears acceptable evidence, that Monsanto has been caught doing. Gmo's are shown to cause all sorts of damage, and it is up to the pro gmo psychos to PROVE them wrong.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalamatas
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I won't continue the vaccine debate on this thread, but I can tell you the holes I see in those studies, or at least incompleteness of data to truly validate their conclusions. And if you'd like we can go back to one of the vaccine threads and we can debate on that


Please expand.


There's a crap load of data on the dangers of gmo's not anecdotes. Frankly I'm tired, so would be happy to post links later, but if you're anxious just search "studies showing dangers of gmo's"


Why should I have to search? You demanded that I provide evidence, now I demand you do the same.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I told you I would, just not this moment, cuz I don't feel like compiling links right this second. If you read what I wrote, I said in the meantime if you're anxious to know, which obviously you're not. But I will happily get there.

And if you want to go to the thread that I linked up about we can go on about the vaccine thing there since it correlates, but I'm not going to be rude and continue about it on this thread that has nothing to do with it.

And by the way a lot of things are provable. When it comes to human health and safety and you have clear cut evdidence that things do harm it is up to those promoting those potentially harmful things to PROVE they are not. Monsanto and Pharmaceutical companies have a track record of ommiting evidence from their studies that might interfere with their exceptance. And I'll find that evidence for ya too if you want it. After I get some rest though.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


The False Science of Big Pharma, Monsanto and Co is now a Religion

The word unscientific is to them as the word Blasphemous is to Religion
edit on 25-1-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1

log in

join