Posted on 06/20/2020 8:20:55 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
Meet the Smear Merchants
For the uninitiated, Paul Thacker is well-known among the biotech community. He has spent many years accusing pro-GMO biotech scientists of being industry shills paid off by Monsanto. His tactics are merciless; for instance, he engages in relentless defamation and character assassination by employing guilt-by-association accusations, innuendo, and outright lies. In an article posted on his own website (which is worth reading in its entirety to truly understand Thacker's depravity), NYU journalism lecturer and freelance journalist Keith Kloor -- who was one of Thacker's victims -- referred to him as "malevolent" and a "sadistic troll."
Perhaps because he finds it increasingly difficult to get his conspiracy theories published in America, Thacker found a willing partner in the Dutch journalist Jannes van Roermund. Thacker knows who I am (and has blocked me on Twitter!), so he almost certainly fed van Roermund a bunch of names. Lo and behold, all of us were then smeared in De Telegraaf article.
For instance, in this English translation of the hit piece, I'm not referred to as a PhD microbiologist or an expert in debunking junk science. Instead, I'm called a "publicist."
Grimes isn't the only publicist who downplays the potential danger of 5G, and previously defended pesticides. Also, Alex Berezow, director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), attacks Prof. Moskowitz, calling him "a conspiracy thinker and charlatan," complete with an aluminum cap.
"Grimes" is Dr. David Robert Grimes, a postdoctoral fellow at Queen's University Belfast. He, too, was referred to as a "publicist." The article went on to smear Dr. David Zaruk, a science writer and professor at Odisee University College, who has never written about 5G. The article was essentially a "Who's Who" list of people Thacker hates.
(Excerpt) Read more at acsh.org ...
Like all technology, 5G is a double-edged sword.
It can help economies to boom, but it can also help governments spy on their citizens and demand conformity.
While I understand the benefits, I would rather live out in the sticks without the technology—I own my life, and want the busybodies out of my life.
“I would rather live out in the sticks without the technology—I own my life, and want the busybodies out of my life.”
In this day and age, I wonder if that is even possible, even out in the sticks. Hope you succeed.
“It can help economies to boom, but it can also help governments spy on their citizens and demand conformity.”
Does our immersion in technology start going against human nature at some point? A lot of people are out of their element spending their time sitting, looking at a screen poking keys or touching a piece of glass.
In terms of communication and data-gathering I think we have enough now.
I think 5G will help organizations but not us individuals.
Its ability to track us more closely is a double edged sword and the sharper edge is the one I don’t like.
Pro-GMO biotech scientists ARE industry shills paid off by Monsanto.
“Pro-GMO biotech scientists ARE industry shills paid off by Monsanto.”
I am a man of science—it’s my carrer—and I have no issues with eating and using GMOs. And am not paid off lol! I don’t like the “force them to use our seeds” thing, and that should be dealt with. But there is no credible science saying eating GMOs can harm you.
“there is no credible science saying eating GMOs can harm you.”
Garbage, non-scientific patter.
GMO’s have NO TRACK RECORD.
“
“there is no credible science saying eating GMOs can harm you.”
Garbage, non-scientific patter.
GMO’s have NO TRACK RECORD.”
Too funny. They’ve been studied for well over 20 years, by dozens of science groups. Results? Eating GMOs are perfectly safe. And if you know biology, you would understand why. Foer gawds sake, we eat anthrax sometimes. Our digestive system first bathes our chewed food in hydrochloric acid. How much survives that?
Here is a study of studies of safety of GMOs, released by the National Academy of Sciences in 2016. Read it and then present comparable evidence (actual science) showing the harm. Or are you a emotional lib, who won’t look at evidence objectively and THEN decide? That’s what liberals do.
“This consensus report examines a range of questions and opinions about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops and food. Claims and research that extol both the benefits and risks of GE crops have created a confusing landscape for the public and for policy makers. This report is intended to provide an independent, objective examination of what has been learned since the introduction of GE crops, based on current evidence.”
Now what do you have?
“Eating GMOs are perfectly safe.”
“Now what do you have?”
A shill for Monsanto
“A shill for Monsanto”
Troll.
Monsanto has a long record of destruction.
Now tell us all about how “safe” aspertame is.
“Monsanto has a long record of destruction.
Now tell us all about how “safe” aspertame is.”
I said eating GMOs is perfectly safe, and linked a study-of-studies supporting it, by a major scientific publication. And all you can say to rebut it is “Monsanto Bad!”
I missed your logic. So could you explain in more detail how that makes GMOs unsafe to eat? Having sat across the table from FDA representatives more than once, presenting proof of efficacy of medical devices in humans, and certified by Federal Courts more than once as an expert, I’m pretty good at biology and toxicology in humans, so please feel free to go into detail.
Sorry, that is not true. There is nothing wrong with GMO foods. The idea that GMO food is harmful has no basis in fact.
I know, we won’t agree....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.