Why I left the Democratic Party

Get a load of THIS.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/boingboing.net/2017/08/04/glyphosate-follies.html/amp

An excerpt:


Monsanto is facing over 100 lawsuits in a Federal district court in San Francisco brought by people who attribute their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to exposure to glyphosate in Monsanto's Roundup weed-killer, and as part of the discovery process, it submitted internal documents to the court that detailed shenanigans in the company's internal science and its dealings with regulators and the press.



Then Monsanto's lawyers neglected to a motion seeking continued protection of the confidential documents, believing that a "a standing confidentiality order" was in place, something that the plaintiff's lawyers disagree with, which is why they released a huge tranche of damning memos.


Included in the dump are memos showing that EPA regulators had a back-channel to Monsanto through which the company was kept informed of upcoming bad publicity so they could get ahead of the press cycle with prepared PR blitzes; email chains in which Monsanto executives said that it was inappropriate to describe Roundup as non-carcinogenic; email chains from Monsanto scientists declining to publish corporate findings under their own name, on the grounds that this would be "ghost writing" and "unethical"; and evidence that an outside scientist who advocates for GMOs published editorials that were ghost-written by Monsanto's employees.

The reason for my pessimism about the chances of our country coming back from its current level of corruption is evidenced in the excerpt.

The EPA is being paid off by Monsanto.

They don't have to worry about their jobs though.

And people are getting sick and dying. Our food is poisoned and no one is doing anything about it.

This is why we are all dead.

I am a Obama-loving liberal. But I am also a man a science.

This liberal anti-science bullshit really pisses me off. Anyone who disagrees with the Monsanto conspiracy theory is corrupt. Any Scientific Data that disproves the conspiracy theory is illegitimate.

This is no different than the 9/11 bullshit, or the faked moon landing bullshit, or the Creationist bullshit.

Where are the fact-based liberals?

We have scientists creating poison, and scientists saying, "Hey. Don't eat that poison!"

Which scientist side are you joining?

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/324386-monsanto-and-the-epa-have-been-lying-to-us-for-years%3famp

How is this different than any other bullshit conspiracy theory?

We have scientists measuring the age of the earth. We have scientists saying "Hey... the Earth is 10,000 years old.".

A rather hefty excerpt from the previous link:

Yesterday's groundbreaking news of a new lawsuit regarding Monsanto's collusion, cover ups, and corruption inside the EPA is a part of a long string of unraveling safety claims.

Decades of faulty chemical review procedures are beginning to be overturned. Last week, after years of asking, I received an email from the EPA confirming that the National Toxicology Program is currently reviewing glyphosate and glyphosate formulations.

This is incredibly welcome news because it has long been the EPA's policy to only require long term safety studies on the one declared "active" chemical, for approval, not on the final formulation. This means that any claims that the final formulation of Roundup and other pesticides, are safe, are unfounded.

The current approval process is similar to the FDA saying that a cookie is safe for a child to eat based on assessing the safety of just one ingredient, like vanilla in the cookie, regardless of the contents or safety of all the other ingredients, which could be fatal food allergies.

Obviously the assessing of only one chemical in a chemical product is a faulty system, as even third grade science shows that when one chemical is added to another chemical, the effects are completely different.

The significance of this response from the EPA, that they and the NTP are finally looking into the full formulation of a chemical product rather than just one ingredient, is enormous.



80 percent of genetically modified foods are engineered to withstand Roundup or glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) in the USA. Non organic crops are also sprayed with GBH as a drying agent, making it the most widely used herbicide in the world.

The implications of this final formulation review and the possibility of the EPA pulling the license for glyphosate and Roundup could be the beginning of the end of Monsanto. Over 76.7 percent of Monsanto sales comes from genetically modified seeds and 23.3 percent comes from herbicides, the leading seller being Roundup brands.

In 2015, Monsanto made nearly $4.76 billion in sales of Roundup. Currently, 300 million pounds of glyphosate are applied each year to American farms.

You'd have to read and think critically.

Are you the same person as Layman? Your style of argument is very similar to his.

Mainstream media must have cashed their paychecks, but not French scientists--or their lab rats.

http://www.herbogeminis.com/IMG/pdf/reuters_monsanto.pdf

He provides proof?
And, yes. I'm Layman. Ya caught me.

That's no different than the Creationists.... you can can their arguments too.

The scientific institutions publish their findings, and represent the consensus of mainstream scientists... in spite of the fact that Creationists whine about atheist corruptions and GMO conspiracy theorists whine about Monsanto.

There are right answers in science... and the best answers come from scientific consensus, not from conspiracy theories.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/15/monsanto-and-the-damage-done/

I thought this was useful for anyone who may be interested in this later. I think the point has been established.

I'm sick myself with an array of digestive disorders related to the poison in our food. I've had to change what I eat dramatically. I know a lot of people through support groups on the inter web with the same issues.

If you're experiencing digestive problems, it may be caused by what you're eating.

It may be because of what the cow or chicken you're eating ate. I thought that was ridiculous...until I started testing what happened to me after I ate certain food.

Are you claiming that people didn't get digestive disorders 200 years ago? Before science, people died of all sorts of things... maybe that's why they didn't complain of digestive disorders.

I provided proof of my assertion.

Proof? Hah. You provided one anecdote. And, if people had the same disorders before Monsanto, then your anecdote is meaningless.

Again... science has been curing diseases and has literally doubled the human life expectancy in the past 150 years.

I don't think the Democrats should be the anti-science party.

Did you see me make that claim?

You're losing it, Max. If you decide to read the pertinent, evidence-rich articles I linked, and respond with a closely-related question or comment, I'll engage you.

Not until then.

I looked over them, they are biased propaganda. There is a big difference between real science, and politically motivated psuedo-science.

In Science, you start with the data... and then you use the facts to form an opinion. This is why real science splits across political lines; it takes global warming seriously, advocates for vaccinations, yet sees no risk in GMO's and sees no value in homeopathy. If you are doing real science, when the facts dispute your political opinion (which they will do from time to time) you choose the facts over your own politics.

Pseudo-Science starts with a political opinion. You start believing that GMOs are unnatural, then you use that opinion to find facts to support it. This is why many political liberals find "facts" to discredit GMO's while many political conservatives find "facts" to discredit global warming.

You are starting with a political position, and than googling for articles that support your preconceived notions, and making up reasons why scientists who have actually done the research can't be believed.

That isn't how scientific literacy works.

You are wildly incorrect.

You are beginning with an assumption about me and fabricating a narrative around your assumption.

I don't believe you read anything I linked. Incredibly disappointing display.

To read you, it seems like the only reason you even engaged me is to have some proxy argument with creationists and climate change deniers. Not the first time you've done this, and you were proven wrong the last time you did it.

You should notice this odd obsession and put the kybosh on it.