TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing

page: 1
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing




(NaturalNews) Allow me to be the first to announce that TED is dead. Why? Because the group that organizes so-called "TED talks" has been thoroughly hijacked by corporate junk science and now openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine, or even the subject of how food can help prevent behavioral disorders in children. All these areas of discussion are now red-flagged from being presented on any TED stage.

This is openly admitted by TEDx itself in a little-known letter publicly published on December 7, 2012.

A letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science





In that letter, TED says that people who talk about GMOs are engaged in "pseudoscience." Those who discuss the healing potential of foods are spreading "health hoaxes." The letter also advises TEDx organizers to, "reject bad science, pseudoscience and health hoaxes," meaning anyone who talks about GMOs, "food as medicine" or similar topics.

The TED organization, incredibly, believes that food cannot be medicine and does not contain medicine. Perhaps someone should educate TED about resveratrol, curcumin, phycocyanins, polyphenols and ten thousand other chemicals created by plants that have medicinal functions in the human body. To deny this is to nearly admit you believe the Earth is flat and that the sun and stars revolve around our planet. It is a sure sign of a feeble mind that cannot grasp the very simple and readily evident idea that the human body evolved in an environment full of plants with beneficial physiological effects, including many medicinal effects.

Maybe someone should remind TED that nearly 25% of all prescription medicines are in some way derived from plants, including statin drugs. Drug companies expend enormous resources searching the world's botanical treasures for amazing molecules that they can pirate from nature and alter in some way to make them patentable as a drug. Even the World Resources Institute readily admits this, while also reminding us that 80 percent of the world population still relies largely on plant-based medicine.

TED apparently thinks 80 percent of the world population is purely delusional, because obviously, as TED insists, real medicine can only come from pharmacological factories spewing out deadly chemicals, right?


This is incredibly sad news, an organization that claimed to be open to all kinds of opinions and subjects is now being influenced to support the interests of a few...well so much for TEDx, it was fun while it lasted...




posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 




I have know for quite some time that the people that organize those talks are corrupt.

Some of the talks from a couple of years ago really started to raise some red flags for me when they started towing the company line.

What you guys need to realize is that corporations exist only as long as their public image is desirable, and they will use whatever tool they can to make sure that facade is maintained.

TED is just another tool in a long line of tools corporations use to manipulate public opinion and this is how they engineer consensus and create reality. 5 years from now nobody will even remember how independent (if they were ever that really) TED used to be.

Just means the critical thinking people will have to start a new group or platform to voice the truth untill that too gets taken over and we start again.

The battle for liberty and justice is never over, because the day we give up is the day we loose.

Never give up.
edit on 19-9-2013 by TiM3LoRd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


Sad, I liked a lot of the TED presentations. However, this hardly surprises me. People will bend over backwards and throw their morals to the wind and betray anything they stood for as long as enough money is thrown their way.

I don't have much else to add I'm afraid, but you get a star and flag from me for bringing this to my attention.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 

TED balks eh?

Not surprising, I thought that having the guy who killed 50,000 elephants on to recommend anything was a bit disgusting. A great example of why we shouldn't listen to anyone who claims to know what to do on any large scale.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


I haven't seen many decent TED or even TEDx talks in the last year, they used to get a lot of out-of-the-box thinkers and now it seems that such talks are a rarity. I guess I now have my reason for why that is.
edit on 19/9/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

The_Oracle
halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing

(NaturalNews)
and now openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine,
now red-flagged from being presented on any TED stage.



And once again, NaturalNews lies to its readers.

If you take the time to actually read the letter, no such "halt"ing, "reject"ing or banning is stated.

The wording is merely to aid organisers in looking for pseudoscience and offers a suggestion:


These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists.
If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny.

edit on 19-9-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 

May I ask you to reconsider your opinion? I understand that you're largely quoting and accepting what Natural News said, but you should know that they are mistaken in what they are saying.

Since you sourced the letter from TED, I hope you won't mind if I quote a snippet.

2. Red flag topics

These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists. If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny. An expanding, depressing list follows:

Food science, including:

GMO food and anti-GMO foodists
Food as medicine, especially to treat a specific condition: Autism and ADHD, especially causes of and cures for autism
Because of the sad history of hoaxes with deadly consequences in the field of autism research, really look into the background of any autism-related talk. If you hear anything that sounds remotely like, “Vaccines are related to autism,” — RUN AWAY. Another non-legitimate argument: “We don’t know what works, so we have to try everything.” Pretty much all the time, this argument is designed to cause guilt in suffering parents so they’ll spend money on unproven treatments.

More:

"Healing," including reiki, energy fields, alternative health and placebos, crystals, pyramid power
"Free energy" and perpetual motion machines, alchemy, time travel
The neuroscience of [fill in the blank] — not saying this will all be non-legitimate, but that it’s a field where a lot of goofballs are right now
The fusion of science and spirituality. Be especially careful of anyone trying to prove the validity of their religious beliefs and practices by using science
Look carefully at talks on these topics: ask to see published data, and find a second source, unrelated to the speaker and a recognized expert in the field, who can validate the research.


TED is not banning any topics, despite what Natural News claims. It makes me wonder about the integrity of the author. I see nothing wrong with advising TED sponsors to exercise extra scrutiny of things like perpetual motion, time travel, and other topics which attract people using bad science.

I'd hate to think that people believe TED has sold out because their cautious about supporting one particular view point. If that were the case, it would be more logical to say Natural News is dead.
edit on 19-9-2013 by charles1952 because: Capitalization



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

alfa1

The_Oracle
halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing

(NaturalNews)
and now openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine,
now red-flagged from being presented on any TED stage.



And once again, NaturalNews lies to its readers.

If you take the time to actually read the letter, no such "halt"ing, "reject"ing or banning is stated.

The wording is merely to aid organisers in looking for pseudoscience and offers a suggestion:


These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists.
If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny.

edit on 19-9-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



That was just a way of putting it. They ARE saying don't allow those topics from speakers. Just because they worded it to ultimately leave it in the hands of organizers to judge essentially they are saying they don't support pseudo science which is sometimes found in the GMO discussions. Who, in a position of authority at TED is going to take the chance at losing their pay grade.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
When TED banned this talk by Nick Hanauer on income inequality - they proved that they serve the interests of the corporate and political establishment and not " Ideas Worth Spreading"



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
isn't filtering another form of censorship?

the ENORMOUS difference between the posts by alfa1 www.abovetopsecret.com...

and charles1952 just beneath it www.abovetopsecret.com...

is a perfect example of the effects of censorship/information sequestration

se·ques·tra·tion
noun \ˌsē-kwəs-ˈtrā-shən, ˌse-; (ˌ)sē-ˌkwes-\

: the act of keeping a person or group apart from other people or the state of being kept apart from other people
www.merriam-webster.com...

reply to post by MALBOSIA
 
thumbs up
yes, ted's using weasel words



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

Thank you very much for pointing out the Hanauer talk. I've only seen about three TED talks, and this gave me a chance to do a little looking at them.

Surprisingly, the Curator of the TED talks, explained why Hanauer's talk wasn't chosen for posting.

“…it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings."

www.forbes.com...

It's seems that TED's reputation has survived unstained.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


That's as described in a blog post by TED Curator Chris Anderson and editorialized in Forbes, a corporate apologist rag if ever there was one.


charles1952
It's seems that TED's reputation has survived unstained.


LMAO!
edit on 9/19/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

kosmicjack
When TED banned this talk by Nick Hanauer on income inequality - they proved that they serve the interests of the corporate and political establishment and not " Ideas Worth Spreading"


and that's not the only one


'Rich People Don't Create Jobs' Nick Hanauer ...


Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion


Graham Hancock - The War on Consciousness



The War on Consciousness

The third censored talk is by Graham Hancock and called ‘The War on Consciousness‘.

“If this is how science operates, by silencing those who express opposing views rather than by debating with them, then science is dead and we are in a new era of the Inquisition.”

– Graham Hancock
www.highexistence.com...
edit on 19-9-2013 by Metaphysique because: better safe than sorry



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

Dear kosmicjack,

I tend to agree with you that Forbes is

and editorialized in Forbes, a corporate apologist rag if ever there was one.

But that leaves me with a question. I don't know their corporate structure, but I assumed the TED Curator would be in a position of authority. If that is what he said, and was accurately quoted, why does it matter where it was printed?

A talk was not youtubed, an explanation was given by a person in a position to know, is that not good evidence?

I'm a little concerned that you seem to be saying that the cover of a magazine determines the truth of everything in it. I don't think that's quite open minded enough. Do we discard a chart that comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics because it is duplicated in Forbes?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Look, discounting this hysterical account from Natural News...the question remains...if TED is about "Ideas Worth Spreading" how do they decide worth and who makes the decision?

500 years ago someone had the crazy idea that the world was round. And Galileo had some ideas that scared the hell out of the establishment.

The fact is, information is power and this attempt to gate-keep fringe or esoteric topics smacks more of control than merely editorial.

Ideas should not be banned. Let people decide for themselves.

BTW...TED knew the nature of the presentation Hanauer was going to make, there is a vetting. So, why pull it? Is it that the corporate sponsors gave it a thumbs down? TED is a huge platform for show casing ideas, maybe they thought that one was too dangerous to their interests.
edit on 9/19/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
And this is why anything from natural news should be taken with a grain of salt. They have a reputation for not telling the truth.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

Dear kosmicjack,

I'm known sometimes as Mr. Confusion, and I'm living up to that now. I know little about TED. Is it a government funded organization? A private one? I'm guessing (and it really is a guess) that they are private and get money from lots of different places. If that is true:

How does a Super Moderator at a place where the content is member driven, explain "LOL" "Hoax" and the "Trash Bin," where threads can't even be seen again? How about restrictions on certain topics concerning substances, sexual practices, photos of damaged human bodies, and discussions of German leaders during WW II?

. . . if TED is about "Ideas Worth Spreading" how do they decide worth and who makes the decision?

500 years ago someone had the crazy idea that the world was round. Galileo had some ideas that scared the hell out of the establishment.

The fact is, information is power and this attempt to gate-keep fringe or esoteric topics smacks more of control than merely editorial.

Ideas should not be banned. Let people decide for themselves.
I hope you can see why I'm confused. Is their obligation to present fringe ideas greater than ATS' for some reason?


So, why pull it?
A reason was given by the Curator. I don't have any reason to believe the Curator is lying. Do you?

Is it that the corporate sponsors gave it a thumbs down? TED is a huge platform for show casing ideas, maybe they thought that one was too dangerous to their interests.
Sure, anything's possible. Do you know of any letters from sponsors, or corporate E-mails that might support that position?

Honestly and sincerely, I don't know enough about TED to sew onto a bee's thong. All I know is what's come from this thread. I may not be conspiracy minded, but I just haven't seen anything to support the idea that they're censoring unpopular (if that's the word I want) opinions.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 



There was no ban, there was strong encouragement to look more closely at certain types of potential presentations, those that generally attract a nutter butter crowd. Where are you going to draw the line so that TED doesn't become a complete laughing stock with it's name pinned to every insane theory out there? There's a guy on YouTube (not sure if trolling) that believes fairies visit the little houses he makes for them.

Should they let people that won't take their children to the doctor get up and make a speech about it?

Let's look at ATS. There are some rules here and things that can't be discussed. There actually IS a ban on them. I can't say that a certain something is good for glaucoma. Does that mean that other information presented here is somehow less important?

It's also rather dangerous to allow people claiming they can heal with touch or certain foods a podium. Look at that idiot that turned himself blue with his colloidal silver. People are dumb and give someone even the slightest hint of legitimacy (like allowing them on TED) and morons will follow and potentially kill their children. Hyperbole, a bit, but also fairly plausible.

I would like to hear things on these subjects (especially GMOs), but I completely understand the hesitancy to allow them, and the strong cautions set out in the letter that has Natural News in a tizzy. Methinks more for pageviews than actual outrage. The guy said somewhere in that article, and this is not verbatim, that TED doesn't believe in the placebo effect... I saw no mention of that, they said to scrutinize.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Good points all around.

I wonder too why Whole foods or GNC sells supplements that people can hurt themselves with? Or why McD's is allowed to sell slow death in a bag. Or why churches can preach ideas that fuel people's guilt and self-loathing?

It all speaks to corporate interests or special interests.

So TED should just be honest about it.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Grimpachi
And this is why anything from natural news should be taken with a grain of salt. They have a reputation for not telling the truth.


there's so much wrong in your statement, [not you personally ] I don't know where to begin

generalization for starters
it could be said the second sentence is guilty of the same exaggeration natural news is given to

exaggeration is not equal to outright dishonesty

not sure if you're aware of this but as a long-time lurker it's not escaped my attention that there is/was a campaign to get any links/articles from NN...

censored from ATS

don't even get me started regarding the Inquisition's/Thought Police's successful censorship
of a site known for being a prominent supporter of the "heresy" of Catastrophism
one of the major Shibboleths of mainstream science especially government sponsored science.





top topics
 
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join