Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNo, Really, Monsanto Has a "Discredit Bureau"
A company functionary discusses Monsanto's 'Ministry of Truth'Since they hold more capital than Lucifer, it stands to reason they would have a propaganda wing that disseminates information and decimates those who stand in the way. Snippets of proof have surfaced before. Although shrouded in secrecy, this time someone from the company got a little too gleeful at the thought of "debunking" naysayers whether they be scientists, activists, bloggers or you.
DailyKos writer occupystephanie explains that she recently attended a talk by a Monsanto employee/representative who spoke to eager-to-work agricultural students about new RNA projects. When he talked of efforts to educate the public about the inherent goodness of the products, a student asked how Monsanto deals with the pesky, not-so-thrilled, non-GMO-ers.
She writes (emphasis hers):
One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the bad science around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had an entire department (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to debunking science which disagreed with theirs. As far as I know this is the first time that a Monsanto functionary has publically admitted that they have such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit Bureau will not be found on their official website.
Spin doctors have been weaving webs under the guise of science for nearly a century that we know of in the U.S. But recent examples show that deception-for-profit has been perfected since then.
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/04/no-really-monsanto-has-discredit-bureau.html
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You're not even doing 'science' at that point.
'Science' is finding out WHICH 'science' is right, not simply assuming you're correct and everyone else is wrong. It's figuring out WHY studies disagree, and whether or not that means you need to change your experiments or your axioms.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Next!
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Next!
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... you "Monsanto is devil" types are a source of great amusement.
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)Monsanto is, beyond the remotest shadow of a doubt, one of the most evil corporate entities ever created.
The sociopaths hiding behind the legal shield of "Limited Liability" actually believe that their "Right to profit" takes precedence over our right to live. I beg to differ.
Monsanto pimps poison, and little else. Were the forced dissolution of this rogue corporation to occur, nothing of real value to society would be lost, but the Sun would shine a little brighter in a sky less polluted, and farmers the world over would heave a great sigh of relief.
I say, drown Monsanto in its own excrement, and sing hallelujah at its long-overdue demise.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)While Intel was proudly putting stickers on products that had "Intel Inside", Gates was still slipping language into the MicroSoft's anti-consumer EULAs and losing anti-trust suits in Europe (MS lost but never significantly changed their bundling practice).
And while Windows 8 was a disaster, Gates has turned his anti-consumer machine on GMO critics:
...
What were seeing is a concerted campaign to do exactly what National Geographic has knowingly or unknowingly done: paint GMO critics as anti-science while offering no serious discussion of the scientific controversy that still rages.
An indicator was a quiet announcement in the press last summer that the Gates Foundation had awarded a US$5.6 million grant to Cornell University to depolarize the debate over GM foods. Thats their word. The grant founded a new institute, the Cornell Alliance for Science.
http://foodtank.com/news/2015/02/the-war-on-genetically-modified-food-critics-et-tu-national-geographic