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

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?




posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 





So TED should just be honest about it.


I see more dishonesty coming from Natural News than TED on this issue. TED released a letter, Natural News, as they are want to do, twisted it for pageviews.

Do we know for certain that the reason some topics are discouraged is because TED is beholden to large corporations? Perhaps they just want to be taken seriously and don't want to give the idiot with a lawn mower engine and a hamster wheel a platform to sell his unlimited energy device. Remember Skechers and those dumb shoes that were supposed to exercise your butt?

I'm sure TED has been shady about a number of things, but saying they align themselves with Monsanto and reject science because they strongly caution against allowing people using certain buzzwords often associated with nutjobs and hucksters/hoaxers/hokum to speak seems a little out there. Many of these types are selling snake oil. I think it foolish to not be cautious.

TED has a right to choose who it wishes to associate with. Should a hunting magazine be forced to run a PETA ad?



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


TED is staying about even in my eyes. No points lost or won.

My reasoning:

Pro-Monsanto = bad

Denying proponents of homeopathy a chance to speak as if their pseudoscience is credible = good

Homeopathy is grade D fecal matter. And I'd rather hear about what Monsanto does than remain mostly ignorant about it. Let's be reasonable here - just because TED is changing is policy on wholistic medicine garbage and allowing Monsanto to speak doesn't mean they have an agenda.
edit on 20-9-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Metaphysique
 


All I can tell you is that every time as in all the times that I have researched a claim on ATS that was made based off of an article from natural news the article came up short for factual information and sometimes there were strait out lies in the articles.

Maybe they do put out some factual information but I haven't read it but I don't browse their site either I do check sources on here though and then I will look for confirmation and that is when NN comes up short on the smell o-meter.

So saying you should take everything from them with a grain of salt or the fact that they have a reputation for not telling the truth. Well I stand by that remark and to be honest I was being extremely kind to them with those words.
edit on 20-9-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Ted had a lot of Kid Genius speakers I recall.

Next, "they" will have kid geniuses tell us how awesome, healthy and tasty eating the green chips are!

so,
MonsanTedWater


Well smart people can always meet in a park, if that is still legal!

Its all to create an Intellectual Eugenics Class system, 4th Reich, master race stuff.

the Upper class will be visually and intellectually distinguishable from the lower class, basically branching humanity for the rest of its existence before ever settling on another planet!

High Upper Class
Upper Class
Servant Class
Robot Class

Robot class might be above servant class if they have their way!
edit on 20-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by Metaphysique
 


All I can tell you is that every time as in all the times that I have researched a claim on ATS that was made based off of an article from natural news the article came up short for factual information and sometimes there were strait out lies in the articles.

Maybe they do put out some factual information but I haven't read it but I don't browse their site either I do check sources on here though and then I will look for confirmation and that is when NN comes up short on the smell o-meter.

So saying you should take everything from them with a grain of salt or the fact that they have a reputation for not telling the truth. Well I stand by that remark and to be honest I was being extremely kind to them with those words.
edit on 20-9-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


sure question everything
regarding kindness, well, compared to the Pan troglodytes flinging crap, you certainly are a soul of kindness

for you I'll leave a quote



Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri (be skeptical of the experts)

Horace Epistulae


the other fellow can feel free to Grok my signature

edit on 20-9-2013 by Metaphysique because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 02:29 AM
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)


Problem is what is the likelihood TEDx will actually allow anyone to make a presentation anymore on stage about those topics, considering they have all been red flagged, even though all of them have valid merits of discussion?

Seems to me like the hole cult scientism the article mentioned is alive and well with TEDx, everything they like goes, and what they don't doesn't...
edit on 9/20/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


Actually TED hasn't "halted" anything about GMO topics. They just said that people who present info about food as medicine should be scrutinized more.


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.
edit on 20-9-2013 by Nostrenominon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
All they are doing is keeping the place clear of claims like vitamin C will cure cancer or let you live to a 150. Perpetual motion hucksters and their ilk.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

The_Oracle


Problem is what is the likelihood TEDx will actually allow anyone to make a presentation anymore on stage about those topics, considering they have all been red flagged, even though all of them have valid merits of discussion?

Seems to me like the hole cult scientism the article mentioned is alive and well with TEDx, everything they like goes, and what they don't doesn't...
edit on 9/20/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)


Indeed, note how all the taboo subjects have a political and/or corporate agenda sticking to them like a rash.
so it goes when one is a prostitute.
note also how pointing out they are behaving like the inquisition goes in one ear and comes the other
so it goes when one is biased

.
The Romance of Science is meant to be a joyful adventure in opening doors, not closing them.

their Ignorance has left them surrounded by countless things they cannot understand. It must be infuriating.
I pity them.
edit on 20-9-2013 by Metaphysique because: added edit & comment



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Grimpachi
All they are doing is keeping the place clear of claims like vitamin C will cure cancer or let you live to a 150. Perpetual motion hucksters and their ilk.


I don't know about living to a 150, but supposedly liposomal vitamin C can cure cancer, there was actually a thread here on ATS about it...

Liposomal Vitamin C This Stuff is Amazing - Thread Summary



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I've seen plenty of Ted talks that go against the "party line" if you will, how does one explain that, if Ted is simply a mouthpiece of corporations ?

The most recent was that 15 year old autistic kid that basically tore down schools, told people to STOP LEARNING and START THINKING. That is totally against the government/corporate line, schools are a factory to create drones, not a place to nurture intelligence or knowledge, and this kid knocked it out of the park making this point clear. Wouldn't this kid be banned, if as NN claims, Ted talks are just about towing (or is it toeing?) the company line?

Just because you are skeptical of those pushing gmo hysteria or various "miracle" cures doesn't mean you support Monsanto or the status quo, or that you are defending them. Anti-gmo folks and miracle cure peddlers do not have science to back them up, while that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, it does mean one should be more careful with those topics since there is little actual evidence of those claims.

There's a million harmful things people are exposed to on a daily basis, to use the poor health of the nation as proof of the negative effects of GMO is dishonest. Other countries have banned GMO because, by their standards, not enough if known about them. Not knowing for sure something is safe, is a lot different than proving it's dangerous. I'd tend to agree with the countries that have banned GMO, simply because the possible implications are so grave that we should be absolutely sure it's safe before widespread use is accepted.

I also think Monsanto is evil, and abhor their business practices, but that's a reflection of Monsanto, NOT of GMO. They are one of the larger companies using GMO, but GMO is an entire field not a company. To judge all GMO by the actions of Monsanto is, again, dishonest.

Being open minded also means rejecting ideas that don't have sufficient proof, just as it means entertaining ideas that go against the grain. A 9/11 truther could be considered open minded for rejecting the OS due to insufficient proof of it, yet when someone challenges anti-GMO folks or natural living types they are instantly labeled closed minded sheep. No, thinking independently allows to to challenge ides regardless of what side of the aisle they come from. Accepting any and everything that goes against mainstream thought isn't being open minded, it's simply being brainwashed in a different direction.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Not to mention that the hole GMO fiasco is basically a large scale experiment (just like with medical drugs) on the expense of the many by the few...

800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End
edit on 9/20/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


There is a thread on here about that. Now first let me say 800 scientists is not very much however the claim itself is false.

The signatures on it are not all scientists in fact many that are scientists didn't work anywhere in that field. Some were college students others dietitians I had seen a few in holistics without any accredits. The claim of 800 scientists is completely false. If they had claime 800 signatures with some scientists then it would be true.

Always check the source.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

The_Oracle
reply to post by James1982
 


Not to mention that the hole GMO fiasco is basically a large scale experiment (just like with medical drugs) on the expense of the many by the few...

800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End
edit on 9/20/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)


I more or less agree, they shouldn't be testing something on unsuspecting consumers without their consent. And before anyone says you just just not buy GMO food, well that's not possible, as companies are not allowed to label their products in a way that would allow the consumer to know what they are purchasing.

We are forced to eat this stuff without knowing long term effects that it may have, and Monsanto and the government are conspiring to keep this going. That is flat out wrong, but there is a big leap between that, and proclaiming GMOs are killing people and the environment. We just don't know yet, and until we do, we should hold off on proclaiming such things. But we should also demand to stop being treated as lab rats, there is no need to be an extremist, on either side.

Normally I would be against banning something because of not knowing for sure it's safe, as long as the choice to consume such a product is left up to the consumer. In the same way certain herbal remedies (not talking about illicit drugs, but actual herbal remedies) are being banned by the FDA because "they don't know for sure they are safe, or work" The thing is, something should not have to be proven safe to be legal, and things should only be made illegal if there is obvious and severe danger involved. Banning the sale of mercury pills and similar things would be one example, it's a fact mercury is incredibly dangerous, it should not be legally in pills or anything else.

So that may sound hypocritical to be against GMOs being sold to the public because it isn't proven safe, but again it comes down to choice. Consumers do not have a choice on whether or not to consume GMO, we are forced, and if we are forced to consume something, it should damn sure be proven safe.

And to get closer to the topic of the TED talks and reference mercury again, do you know there are actually people who are saying mercury is good for you? "consume mercury, it will heal all your ills!" That's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible, do you think TED should allow a speaker to espouse the benefits on consuming mercury? Of course not, why waste TED time on such a ridiculous idea? That's what I got from TED's letter, is that within these subjects there are a lot of really dangerous ideas, and if someone wants to do a TED talk on such subjects, their material should be closely examined to make sure they aren't one of these mercury peddling quacks (or something similar)
edit on 20-9-2013 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


There is a thread on here about that. Now first let me say 800 scientists is not very much however the claim itself is false.

The signatures on it are not all scientists in fact many that are scientists didn't work anywhere in that field. Some were college students others dietitians I had seen a few in holistics without any accredits. The claim of 800 scientists is completely false. If they had claime 800 signatures with some scientists then it would be true.

Always check the source.


Regardless if they haven't worked in the field specifically, their concern still deserves credence as fellow scientists, and they united in an effort to share that awareness...



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


Well what about the ones who are not scientists or the ones without any degree of any type? Do you still think that it's even worth mentioning when they blatantly lie to inflate the numbers?

On the other side would you trust the word of a geneticist on how a skyscraper should be built if not why should you care what a structural engineer has to say about genetic manipulation?

Let's be real here.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

James1982

The_Oracle
reply to post by James1982
 


Not to mention that the hole GMO fiasco is basically a large scale experiment (just like with medical drugs) on the expense of the many by the few...

800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End
edit on 9/20/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)


I more or less agree, they shouldn't be testing something on unsuspecting consumers without their consent. And before anyone says you just just not buy GMO food, well that's not possible, as companies are not allowed to label their products in a way that would allow the consumer to know what they are purchasing.

We are forced to eat this stuff without knowing long term effects that it may have, and Monsanto and the government are conspiring to keep this going. That is flat out wrong, but there is a big leap between that, and proclaiming GMOs are killing people and the environment. We just don't know yet, and until we do, we should hold off on proclaiming such things. But we should also demand to stop being treated as lab rats, there is no need to be an extremist, on either side.

Normally I would be against banning something because of not knowing for sure it's safe, as long as the choice to consume such a product is left up to the consumer. In the same way certain herbal remedies (not talking about illicit drugs, but actual herbal remedies) are being banned by the FDA because "they don't know for sure they are safe, or work" The thing is, something should not have to be proven safe to be legal, and things should only be made illegal if there is obvious and severe danger involved. Banning the sale of mercury pills and similar things would be one example, it's a fact mercury is incredibly dangerous, it should not be legally in pills or anything else.

So that may sound hypocritical to be against GMOs being sold to the public because it isn't proven safe, but again it comes down to choice. Consumers do not have a choice on whether or not to consume GMO, we are forced, and if we are forced to consume something, it should damn sure be proven safe.

And to get closer to the topic of the TED talks and reference mercury again, do you know there are actually people who are saying mercury is good for you? "consume mercury, it will heal all your ills!" That's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible, do you think TED should allow a speaker to espouse the benefits on consuming mercury? Of course not, why waste TED time on such a ridiculous idea? That's what I got from TED's letter, is that within these subjects there are a lot of really dangerous ideas, and if someone wants to do a TED talk on such subjects, their material should be closely examined to make sure they aren't one of these mercury peddling quacks (or something similar)
edit on 20-9-2013 by James1982 because: (no reason given)


When you're performing a large scale experiment like with GMO's, without the consent of the population, the chances are they could cause all sorts of possible symptoms of illnesses.

There are many threads here on ATS on these possible side effects, and that does cause concern that the two may be linked, so it's only understandable, but you can't have a proper scientific research on these issues with corporate interests breathing down your neck to balance popular opinion, since opinion in scientific scrutiny is irrelevant and harmful, which is why awareness is needed on these issues, and I doubt TEDx are up to the task considering how they handle these issues.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


Well what about the ones who are not scientists or the ones without any degree of any type? Do you still think that it's even worth mentioning when they blatantly lie to inflate the numbers?

On the other side would you trust the word of a geneticist on how a skyscraper should be built if not why should you care what a structural engineer has to say about genetic manipulation?

Let's be real here.


Well this goes both ways, would you trust a geneticist with well known to be profit driven first human concern later corporate backing considering all the money they put into their business?

Now THAT's real...
edit on 9/20/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/20/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


I am talking about the claim. 800 scientists and that is blatantly a lie. There are not 800 scientists not even close. Facts and truth are what matter not lies and deceit and that goes for the entire issue whether it's good bad or in between. That petition is a sham but for some reason people still take it at face value.

Why the need to lie what are they hiding?

To answer your question I wouldn't trust a geneticist to design a skyscraper.






top topics



 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join