Saturday, August 22, 2015

Bringing My Dead Mother to their Disgusting Cause

Just when you thought they could not get any lower. 

Now someone is posting truly evil information on the Gainesville, FL Craigslist page.  

Tomorrow would be my mother's birthday, she'd be 69 years old, if she was still alive.  She died a few years ago, way too young, and we all still miss her tremendously. 

So imagine my joy when someone directed me to this on the local Craigslist: 

To call these people scum is an insult to scum.

It is bad enough that they are posting personal information online, but now they are sifting through my history.  It is a sick kind of stalking that shows the delinquency of this movement.


And if Ginnie was here right now she'd tell you that she wished I worked for one of those companies, that I would make "real money", work 40 hour weeks, and stop wasting my time around universities. 

She never really understood what I did or why I did it.  

But she would absolutely be amazed at the hate I endure to be an interpreter of science, and the lengths that people go to hurt others. She'd be particularly disturbed that some sick little tart scoured the web for information that could be made personally harmful or injurious to me. 

She had a kind heart and was good to everyone.  She would not understand this kind of evil.  



GeoKaren said...

I truly cannot understand the depths to which these people are sinking. And to what end? How does it further the discussion of GE? How does it possibly enhance their own narrative? It's a despicable intimidation tactic and must certainly be crossing the lines of legal harassment.

Mary M said...

Seriously? This is what they've got?

Man, my mother wanted me to go to law school. I wish I had, so I could find creative legal ways to make them regret that they learned to type.

Michael Cooper said...

What the actual hell...

c0nc0rdance said...


Cairenn said...

It is time for you to talk to lawyers and to see if they can get Craig's list to disclose the email and IP of whoever is posting these.

You have turned the other cheek enough, time to start suing some folks, at least to make them stop

Stephen Kennedy said...

These people really are sick, and lack any sense of class or propriety. The only "upside" to this, if there is one, is that it shows they have nothing constructive to say and no rational arguments to support their fanatical beliefs.

Katherine Forbes said...

This type of vitriolic behaviour doesn't surprise me these days. Keep your head up Kevin - you have more people behind you than against you.

Lee Yancey said...

Exactly! Kind of sad really.

talulah gosh said...


David said...

Absolutely disgusting behavior. After bringing your mother into their hateful campaign, they now talk about your wife in a horribly disgusting way. Everyone, visit Craigslist daily and flag this crap these bastards post. I hope there is a police investigation in the works or if you can find out who this is sue them.

Michael said...

Kevin, take heart: you're winning.

Drakhor T said...

As much as I feel for you, I don't think you should have actually posted this. Pathetic little trolls like this guy want this kind of attention, and you're giving it to him with this post. Ignore him, as hard as it seems, and he'll grow tired of it soon enough.

TheOldTechnician said...

I seriously think you may need to contact the police now. This is unbelievable and intimidating, going after family members.

I'm sorry you lost your mother so early.

Nikki Midki said...

Oh Kevin, I'm so sorry you're going through this. I hope it's okay that I call you Kevin, I'm just so sad for you.

Frédérick Cossette said...

Oh my, all my sympathies. This is a really low level intimidation strategy. That Craigslist loon is still going at it. My mom died from a cardiac or breathing arrest due to ALS in 2009, she waa 55. So, I really get what you can feel right now. I did get eye to eye with her, but if someone used her memory like that, yeah, ballistic, that the word you used in English to said you go mad. That's how I'll be. So, seriously, kudo Dr Folta, you are keeping your cool as, I would have been able too, half the words would have been swear ( and I'm Québécois, so our swear are much more graphic and numerous than in English). Even by anti gmo standard, that's attack is low.

Sheila said...

That just indicates wilful ignorance.

I'm sure your mum would be very proud of you as she had every right to be.

I hope you get your day in court with that keyboard warrior, if only to see the look of shame on their parents' face when they realise what a failure they've produced.

You're better than that and stand way above any of the trolls and science deniers so stand tall and know you're an inspiration to many.

Tom Calarco said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Calarco said...

Yes, there are some vicious activists out there, Kevin, and I don't condone what they are doing to you. I believe you are an honest if rather naive man. I myself wonder how well versed you are on epidemiology and the effects of synthetic chemicals on human health. What is your diet? Do you try to eat organic vegetables and meats that come from grass fed and free range animals? Or do you believe the residual chemicals that come from the conventional food supply are not worrisome? If so, I think you ought to do some research on that -- and we are not talking about GMOs, which your opponents claim cause the development of super weeds requiring increased use of pesticides and herbicides. Something you allege is false, and that GMOs actually result in the use of less chemicals.

What troubles me, and has from the start, is that you categorically classify every study out (and there are hundreds) that suggest health issues with the use of GMOs as junk science. How can you be so sure?

In any case, here's a few that I extracted from a recent issue of Natural Health 365, which you are free to debunk -- no, they are not conclusive but they are suggestive of problems with GMOs.

The following is a listing of some recent and credible reports that make the GMO-cancer connection:

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) expressed concerns about GMO foods in May of last year, citing animal studies which showed altered structure and function of the liver, oxidative stress, intestinal damage, increased cell growth, disruption of the immune system and over 400 gene expression alternations.

A 2012 study commissioned by the French Government found serious effects after feeding rats genetically-modified, Roundup-tolerant corn. The study discovered that females fed GMO corn developed mammary tumors, displayed pituitary gland disruption and sex hormone imbalance and died 2-3 times more rapidly than those in the control group. It is worth noting that the French government recently banned Roundup from nurseries in that country, in response to a United Nations statement that Monsanto’s most popular weed-killer “may be carcinogenic.”

First of its kind Canadian research published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology identified the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin and other pesticides associated with GMO crops in fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. According to the study’s researchers, the fetuses were considered to be “highly susceptible” to the possible effects of “xenobiotics.”

A 2013 study which looked at 1,000 samples from four independent studies reported that “meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and, through an unknown mechanism, enter the human circulation system.”This statement is significant to GMO foods in that it opens up the possibility that whole gene mutations in plants could enter into the bloodstream of humans. In one of the blood samples, the concentration of plant DNA was higher than human DNA.

Anonymous said...

"A 2012 study commisioned by the French.." Are you referring to the Séralini experiment? I don't think that's a real legit study to refer to.

Jon Sands said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Sands said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Sands said...

I stopped reading when you made it clear you don't even understand that organic crops have "residual chemicals" as well, usually quite a bit more than conventional. Some of the highest toxicity pesticides are only in use with organic crops. This is all entry level agricultural science stuff, and here is not really the place to discuss it. If you're interested, here's a list with over 1500 independent studies showing the absolute safety of GM crops spanning two decades

jwalms2 said...


Here's the link to the article you borrowed the last four paragraphs from:

The article is dated 22 Aug 2015, so it's odd that the AAEM statement they reference from "May of last year" is actually dated May of 2009.

That could very well have been a typo, but all credibility is lost when they reference the retracted Seralini study.

As far as the "first of its kind Canadian research", the paper was received in summer 2010 and published in January 2011. Has it been replicated? And where on the scale of toxicity to humans do the amounts they found fall?

And the "2013 study which looked at 1,000 samples", this is a really interesting study since the prevailing idea was the DNA was digested to constituent parts before entering the blood stream. A few questions though since this study did not address them: How are free floating DNA strands going to pass through the cell membrane to get into a cell? And if this occurs, are there escort proteins to this DNA into the cell nucleus? Or were you imagining that RNA-polymerase is also free floating outside of cells? Free floating ribosomes too?

Further, why does this have significance to GMO foods? If food DNA has been floating around in our blood for all this time, what health effects are they related to?

Frédérick Cossette said...

You are right , it's not. And It was not the French government, and Séralini was 100% funded by antigmo group, and organic fruit vegetables industry, the biggest groceries in France, they have a anti gm position ( and commercial interests) , and one of the biggest food distribution company in France, also surfing on that nee marketing trend that is the anti gm, anti conventional food fear mongering and anti chemical. All company with millions of dollars in future profit from scared people because of bogus studies. . So He is not independent.

Mike Lewinski said...

You mean this 2012 French study? RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

I quote: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Except that's not true at all, and represents actual misconduct. Séralini's 2012 study was funded by two major French grocery chains, Auchan and Carrefour.

According to that link, Séralini admits in his book to conspiring to hide his conflict of interest (a considerably worse offense than simply failing to disclose):

An extract from Séralini’s book confirms the retail link, and explains that the money was channelled through CERES precisely because Séralini did not want to be seen to be "financed by the big retail lobby".

Then there's the disclosure that PLOS required Séralini add to his most recent work published there last month. As submitted there were no declared conflicts. But apparently after a little soul searching, he discovered them. And this disclosure also includes the French homeopathic firm Sevene for whom he conducts studies allegedly proving their remedies protect you from Roundup toxicity.

I note especially and earlier research.

The authors have received funding for this and earlier research from CRIIGEN, the Foundation Lea Nature and Malongo, the JMG Foundation and Foundations Charles Léopold Mayer for the Progress of Humankind, Nature Vivante, Denis Guichard, Institute Bio Forschung Austria, and the Sustainable Food Alliance. The laboratory received funding from Sevene Pharma in the last five years to study the detoxifying capacity of plant extracts on Roundup residues, bisphenol A and atrazin. Prof Seralini participated and received payment for a lecture organized by Sevene Pharma.

Cibatarian said...

This is absolutely horrible. I'm so very sorry this is happening to you. I wish the people who do this could understand that scientists are people. I'm guessing the Craigslist coward would never do such a thing in person, hence taking such absolute horse s**t to Craigslist.

Anonymous said...


My father passed 2 years ago. He was a major environmental activist in California, he was not anti corporate or far left - just a naturalist in the mode of the early 1900s. He associated with some folks of that ilk and once he got sick they literally moved into his house and tried to control his life. They tried to change his will and forced him to sign legal documents and even got him to hire a lawyer to accuse the family of abuse. Of course that was all bullshit. Dad was actually wealthy, already had a top dollar litigator on retainer and had already made me his trustee. When I shut down all their games in court and got them removed from the house (not easy). They got a State Senator to send peace officers to the house and remove all of my dad's records (50 years worth), while he was still alive. In addition they took all the family photos, personal papers and even my childhood drawings. All of this was completely illegal theft under color of authority, which I told the officers involved as soon as I heard about it. I was told the documents would be returned as soon as the DA's office got my report. During later court proceedings I learned that that the wackos had stolen a key to my dad's house and were sneaking in when the caretaker was asleep and doing though his files.

The short version is this - anybody who is a true believer in anything is very dangerous. They always rationalize that the ends justifies the means. Stay away from such people when you can.

Mike W said...

"A 2013 study which looked at 1,000 samples from four independent studies reported that “meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and, through an unknown mechanism, enter the human circulation system.”This statement is significant to GMO foods in that it opens up the possibility that whole gene mutations in plants could enter into the bloodstream of humans. In one of the blood samples, the concentration of plant DNA was higher than human DNA."

If it were true, and I doubt that, why is is significant to GMO? The quoatation is completely contextless. If whole genes could cross into our bloodstream, and that was bad, then it would be bad for tall of the DNA we ingest daily.

Beyond the lack of qualification of the GMO statement, I think we'd have to see a citation or link to the study to even guess as the quality. It would be pretty groundbreaking to claim that blood samples could contain more plant DNA than human DNA, so if it were true, it probably would have made real headlines. It woudl also throw a real monkey wrench into pathology and criminology.

Cryptandra said...

Tom, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine you cite as an authority is a fruit loop group listed by Quackwatch. You've blown your own foot off with a shotgun. Tom, why do people like you self-harm in this way?

Math Dame said...

Science? Who needs science when we can pick on someone's dead mother instead?
Absolutely disgusting!!

Tom Calarco said...

How about this recent study from NEJ:

On August 20, 2015, Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. published a paper1,2 in the one of the most prestigious medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on the topic of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), herbicides, and public health, noting that:

“... [T]he application of biotechnology to agriculture has been rapid and aggressive. The vast majority of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are now genetically engineered.

Foods produced from GM crops have become ubiquitous...Two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape.

First, there have been sharp increases in the amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops, and still further increases — the largest in a generation — are scheduled to occur in the next few years.

Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely used on GM crops, as a ‘probable human carcinogen’ and classified a second herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), as a ‘possible human carcinogen.’”

The ‘Answer’ to Herbicide Resistance Is Bound to Make Food Increasingly Toxic

The authors recount how genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant crops have led to a dramatic increase in herbicide application due to mounting resistance among weeds.

They then go on to argue that the science and risk assessment of the next-generation of GE crops — touted as the “answer” to growing resistance — is seriously flawed.

These next-gen crops are designed to be resistant to combinations of herbicides. Enlist Duo, which was recently green lighted, is resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D; the latter of which was a major ingredient in Agent Orange, used with devastating effect during the Vietnam War.

As a result of this approval, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects use of 2,4-D to increase anywhere from three to seven times in coming years.

Benbrook and Landrigan note that the science supporting Enlist Duo consists solely of unpublished toxicology studies done by the herbicide manufacturer in the 1980s and ‘90s.

These studies predate more recent scientific discoveries of how chemicals create adverse health effects even at very low doses, including endocrine and epigenetic effects.

They also criticize the risk assessment of Enlist Duo, saying it “gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law.”

The risk assessment also did not adequately account for ecological impact on pollinators, including the monarch butterfly, which is being decimated by massive glyphosate applications on vast fields of GE crops.

Last but not least, the assessment only considered glyphosate in isolation, despite studies showing that glyphosate in combination with surfactants and other chemicals tend to synergistically increase their toxic potential.

Tom Calarco said...


Quackwatch is run by a quack, Stephen Barrett, who has many conflicts of interest with Big Pharma. He also has a long line of lawsuits against him for publishing false information.

Mike Lewinski said...

Tom that's not a study, it's an opinion piece... one with undisclosed competing interests, no less:

Even if you take it seriously, at best it is an argument to mandate the labeling of pesticides used in food production. The proposed label PRODUCED WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING does not tell you what pesticides were used, nor does it protect you from pesticides used on non-GE crops. It's pure disinformation. It only makes sense if you begin with the genetic fallacy as premise, that a thing is bad because of how it is made. But if glyphosate is harmful, then it is also harmful when used as drydown on wheat. If 2,4-D is harmful then it has been harming consumers since the late 40s when it was first introduced.

You know some crops are naturally resistant to 2,4-D, and spraying them is not a new practice at all, but predates the discovery of genes?

2,4-D was brought to market as an herbicide called "Weedone" starting in 1945 by the American Chemical Paint Company. It revolutionized weed control, as it was the first compound that, at low doses, could selectively control dicots (broadleaf plants), but not most monocots - narrow leaf crops like wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crops. At a time when labor was scarce and there was a huge need for increased food production, it literally "replaced the hoe".

Tom Calarco said...

Mike Lewinski:

Let's not talk of conflict of interest when you have a huge multinational corporation, Monsanto, with a huge P-R apparatus and funding arm putting out information in support of GMO use, and has been doing this for decades. It's like calling the kettle black. Like I asked Kevin, do you believe in the philosophy of organic farming? Do you believe conventional farming is destroying our soil and ecosystem. Do you believe pesticides are harmful to human health? If not, I think you ought to talk to an epidemiologist.

Marc said...

While we're on the topic of conflicts of interest, it should be noted that much of Benbrook's research has been funded by the Organic industry. He's also served in advisory positions to that industry. Furthermore, the above referenced article was not a study; it was published as a "perspective," which is equivalent to an op/ed piece.

Mike Lewinski said...

Tom, the difference is that when Monsanto scientists publish, they disclose their conflicts of interest.

"A huge P-R apparatus" is not justification for hiding competing interests as Benbrook and Seralini do.

I do have an organic garden, but I can't say that I believe in the philosophy any more. The available organic treatments for cucumber and potato beetles are insufficient and this hampers productivity. I'd be happy if there's a GE resistance trait produced for the consumer market. Maybe Monsanto's new RNAi sprays will suffice. I'm rooting for them. RNA is perhaps the ultimate in GRAS. You have a matching gene (because you are a potato beetle) or you don't.

Pesticides have been getting safer and safer. From the lead arsenate used a century ago, to the DDT that won a Nobel prize for not killing people outright, to the organophosphates that didn't bioaccumulate the way DDT did, to the Bt trait of today, we've come an awful long way! We've been using pesticides since Sumerians first saw fit to record the use of sulphur in 2500BC. Organic agriculture uses them too (only they're less efficient and in some cases more toxic).

Anonymous said...

Monsanto also has had their ties to Big Pharma. Remember they used to own Searle, the "creator" of aspartame, another questionable chemical in the food supply. Monsanto and cohorts are using GMO crops in creating new drugs, i.e., Syngenta. So Monsanto and cohorts have a long running relationship with the pharmaceutical industry.

And yes, Stephen Barrett is a former psychiatrist with UNC, and main contributor to "Quackwatch" is a "quack" himself.

Anonymous said...

Whether you or disagree with Dr. Folta, what he has clearly done is create an image of impropriety and conflict of interest with the Monsanto money. If research scientists truly want to have an impact and engage in the public discussion of science, they should not be creating self-induced "blemishes" on their reputation and credibility. Government should fund the research, blind trusts, etc. be set up, etc.

Neither side should accept monies, directly or indirectly from either side.

What I do find interesting that most of the EU scientists, and the independent studies they have done, bring to question the value and health impact of GMOs. This is independent of Seralini. If GMOs are so great, why does Monsanto and cohorts have to use US Ambassadors and trade representative to exert great pressure in pedding their "wares"? Why can't the value of the product be seen in itself?

And if GMOs are so healthy, great for people, why didn't food processors from the beginning use it in their marketing campaigns? This cereal has GMOs! I mean they do this for low salt, low fat, low sugar, etc. They never did that long before the Food Babe and the organic movement came about.