Archive for monsanto

The Problem of Real Science and the Bias of Money

Posted in Artificial Chemical Products, Climate Change, Commercial Corporations, Ethics & Morals, Legal / Laws, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 31, 2018 by Drogo

Regarding Corporate Science Corruption

 

“How do we find out about the real science behind corporate chemicals?” is a great question. There are major court cases that are on-going and are finally exposing how scientists (not just politicians) are affected by where they get their funding, as other historic cases have shown before. Activists are attacked by people claiming to be the voice of scientific reason who defend corporate science, although they seem to know less about the corporate details involved with how the business world affects science and our environment (not just politics). It is very difficult to get people interested in large scale safe environments above immediate MONEY to supply specific food, drink, and shelter for individuals and loved ones…. until those things are taken from us; but then without money we lack much power within the system, and we are accused of emotional bias, as though corporate lackeys are objective. ‘Ring of Fire’ on Youtube has lawyers involved so they are covering the news about these issues, with a bias that is dedicated to exposing how corporations function by using science for their profit as the structure of their power. It is not true that companies use science for purely objective reasons, or that they would allow themselves to be subjected to ‘objective’ science if it did not benefit them, and in fact they do everything within their power to make sure that they can control studies in their favor.

Is there any way to know if the ‘peer-reviewed’ information has filtered out any bias towards the company? This is the best way to ask the question about our most ‘objective science’ regarding company neurotoxins and carcinogens. No offense to scientists, but it happens like with the Oil and Tobacco companies, pay-checks often come first for families. It does not benefit employed scientists to admit to bias, it just simply affects their way of interpreting data and conducting tests. Nuclear scientists are more prone to be in favor of things that cause nuclear radiation by down playing the risks which are acceptable costs for them in favor of ‘advancing science’ and getting their funding. Every profession is subject to this problem of economics, so i am not picking on scientists, i am an architect and many of us are rational and brilliant too, but profit influence happens in our field as well because it is the system that hires us that is on trial when it comes to environmental science ethics. Environmental peer review for Climate Change seems to be large enough to have not been as corrupted in the favor of companies as much as specific chemicals that companies produce to sell.

With so many billions of dollars at stake for corporations like Monsanto (GMO and Glyphosphate Science), our courts and scientists may not even be aware of how to be objective when their own family members have bought into the propaganda that allows them to pay their bills and provide and protect their loved ones. As with Oil Companies and Tobacco Companies, we should assume that toxins can affect us and our environment, and those that produce them should perhaps be more responsible by being held accountable. Few people will not be biased in one way or another, but real science should be the goal, not corporate greed. If it sounds like I am describing a fictional dystopia, perhaps the reader should be more realistic about how Capitalism actually works in reality (our EPA is in ruins in 2018). The larger problem of real science and the bias of money that affects us all will continue to exist so long as we allow our government to be influenced by corporate money at the highest levels, more than they are influenced by environmental ethics and a desire for more ethical science which means being more objective than the influence of money (which is asking a lot). People are innocent until proven guilty, but if a provable crime needs to be investigated we need to let the evidence decide if people are using corporations as tools to corrupt politics and science, and harm humanity in favor of profits for the few.

As an architect i take rationality and logic about designs very seriously, so i do not believe scientists are alone in wanting to take credit for knowing how we interact with our environment and how we can make technological innovations for improving humanity by using ‘facts’. “Peer reviewed” does not mean scientists do not all have their own human biases regarding how data is interpreted; that is part of my point. “Purely objective” as a philosophical ideal is worth talking about for the sake of science and law enforcement and ethics etc… This issue of the influence of money on science (and every profession and field of study) will not go away, but it is one we should deal with honestly in studying the sustainability of civilization. Peer reviews are not exempt from being reviewed over decades, with new conclusions drawn.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Corporate Chemical POISONS

Posted in Artificial Chemical Products, Commercial Corporations, Legal / Laws, Medical, Science & Math, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on July 23, 2017 by Drogo

First rule regarding Corporate POISONS: #1 DO NOT TRUST THE COMPANY;

Second rule regarding Corporate POISONS (and big money influence): #2: Do not trust the ‘test results’.

My grandfather was poisoned by arsenic lead that the company said was safe for farmers to breathe in the fields. It made his lungs bleed because it actually did poison him, despite their claims. Any chemical manufactured and sold commercially should not be trusted to be ‘safe’, even if ‘scientists tested it’. The only chemicals we can truly ever trust, are natural organic chemicals that humans have worked with for hundreds or better yet thousands of years. Poisons that have negative affects on some carbon-based life-form species who have DNA, probably have some adverse affects on related carbon-based life-form species who have DNA; because Ecology and Biology tend to work like that.

FUCK MONSANTO!!! Pirate Flag X