tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70764551230220016522024-03-03T03:15:45.379-05:00Illumination 2.0"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness" -
<br> <br>
Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comBlogger558125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-15793589925109221092024-02-18T08:59:00.002-05:002024-02-18T18:58:33.183-05:00Shame on Pediatrics. Rejecting Scientist's Comments<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> A lot has been said about the journal <i>Pediatrics </i>December 2023 Clinical Report on "Using GMOs on Children". The poor scholarship and citation bias are alarming, and the bias against safe technology is clear. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">When I wrote to editor-in-chief Dr. Lewis First, he indicated that I was invited to submit a response to the article that would be posted below the article on its website. I submitted my response, and it was not published on the site. My guess is that it illuminated the bankruptcies of the article in a manner that ran counter to the authors', editor's and journal's narrative. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So I'll publish my comment here. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Pediatrics Readership, </p><p class="MsoNormal">The article by Abrams et al. represents a stunning example
of how misinformation spreads- even through a credible conduit. <i>Pediatrics</i>
is a respected journal, so when a paper implies a technology is dangerous, physicians
and the general public take note. That’s good. But if the message runs counter
to the scientific consensus built from tens of thousands of studies, regulatory
approvals, and 50 years of use, it confuses the issue and breaks trust for
those of us that communicate science. Worse, it breaks the credibility of Pediatrics,
a journal that needs to lead scientific discourse.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>As an editor, reviewer and scientific author, I was shocked
by the disconnect between this work and the broad scientific consensus. The
article lacks scholarly rigor, suffers from omission, and seeks to create a
narrative rather than correctly communicate evidence. While there are many
problems with this work, some of the most glaring problems are:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">1.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Failed
Central Premise. There is no direct evidence that glyphosate causes cancer at
dietary or occupational exposures. The IARC, other agencies within the World
Health Organization, and dozens of international regulators stand by this
conclusion. This is not stated in the review.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>2. Citation Bias. Cited evidence comes from a meta-analysis by Zhang et al., 2019, which
showed a relatively slight increase in risk of a family of rare blood cancers.
Critics indicate that this work compared disparate datasets to find an
association at only the highest exposure and time point (Kabat et al., 2021). Abrams
et al. also cite a single paper by perennially incorrect authors that genetically
engineered crops (“GMOs”) are not safe (Hillbeck et al.,2016). The largest
study of 54,000 applicators over decades shows no association with non-Hodgkin
lymphoma, but the authors curiously fail to cite that (Andriotti et al., 2018).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>3. Omission
of Limitations. While the cited research articles are clear about critical
limitations of the studies, these authors cite the same work as conclusive evidence
of the dangers of glyphosate. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>4.Confusing
Hazard and Risk. The authors continually conflate detection with risk. The dose
makes the poison and analytical chemistry techniques can detect concentrations orders
of magnitude below physiological relevance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>5. Logical
Fallacy. The authors continually make the argument from ignorance, stating that
“more study is needed” when the crops and herbicide have been massively
studied, and risks and benefits are well described. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>These are just several of the problems with this work. Many
independent scientists and physicians have criticized the work online, so multiple
dissections are available. While it is impossible to know intent, the language
used and messaging seems highly motivated, like almost a commercial for organic
crop production.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>We remain open to the idea that genetic engineering and
associated chemistries could carry undue risk. But that conclusion comes from evidence
leading to consensus, not cherry-picked and assembled morsels that manufacture
risk in a biased narrative. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>The authors are invited to join me in discussion on the
Talking Biotech Podcast anytime to discuss the work.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><p></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-14659580993034494012023-08-13T10:44:00.002-04:002023-08-13T10:44:08.317-04:00Glyphosate, A.I. and Spreading Disinformation <p><span style="font-size: large;"> Here's a great example of how bad reporting and the war on glyphosate play hand-in-hand. I don't know anything about the reporter, Stacey Scott at Gillett News (Gillett is a town of 32,000 in Wyoming), but the headline she/it (they use A.I. generated graphics, Stacey Scott might be an A.I. too-- no Twitter or online presence) generated has the potential to misinform. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrr5Nn8JnJu2ip_g_KRpi1NdXuvFlksUUC4IoTmtOqVE-R8jqhtqDZTI8FONoMdfYW3KaW-m8fcKeOftzzuuJVqL95gad_swyo75_yj1HE9lZRQF3K7mqQd5_j78qsJarL0soAtRJP6YuIzDPaJLy6CTGleQ-un0s-AHFNnrhYtaimYIYxP0_TySL3bzWp/s1813/230813%20gillett%20news%20glyphosate%20headlines.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="741" data-original-width="1813" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrr5Nn8JnJu2ip_g_KRpi1NdXuvFlksUUC4IoTmtOqVE-R8jqhtqDZTI8FONoMdfYW3KaW-m8fcKeOftzzuuJVqL95gad_swyo75_yj1HE9lZRQF3K7mqQd5_j78qsJarL0soAtRJP6YuIzDPaJLy6CTGleQ-un0s-AHFNnrhYtaimYIYxP0_TySL3bzWp/w611-h250/230813%20gillett%20news%20glyphosate%20headlines.jpg" width="611" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Agriculture Department? You mean the USDA? <br /><br />No.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">You mean some other major government regulatory agency?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">No.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Some respected international agency? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">No.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then who "warns" ? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">It was the government of Amritsar. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">What?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Yes. Amritsar, a relatively small town/region by India standards. It's a major metropolitan hub in the northwest, not far from the Pakistan border. They have some agriculture there, mostly rice, palm oil, sugar cane and maize, apparently a lot of Basmati rice which is exported from small-holder farms.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">According to Scott's article, glyphosate is "a chemical known to cause cancer since 2018." In reading everything I can on the subject, I saw no evidence of such conclusion. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Gillett News appears to be all A.I. generated or Stacey Scott is extremely prolific. She had 10 articles written on August 10th, and at least 70 (I stopped counting) launch on August 13th. To my eye these are articles that are curated and written by A.I.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">This interpretation makes sense, as the conclusion "glyphosate causes cancer" would likely assemble from online claims. Garbage in, garbage out.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">I dug a little deeper on the subject. Amritsar's Chief Agriculture Officer recently called for a ban of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides in "chemical free" Basmati rice production. Why? Because rice exports were being rejected because residue levels <a href="https://www.tribuneindia.com/columnist/tribune-news-service-91">exceeded allowable levels</a>. My guess is that small farmers with their livelihoods on the line, were a little overzealous with application in an interest to save their crop, and it was rejected upon export. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">But the headline from an apparently A.I. generated newsletter, from a robot reporter was all GM Watch needed to amplify the headline. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1v3wHNTJ8O13Mxyyml97hzkcfy9UGgg6pMgEepSsuObl2VjjEso2gcjCZrZGOms2n3cvcnxELxfgavJhZQpK0UkUxJ-zqZyMQNoGBDjYYWey-FpQkJJ5q23srn-4OfEe2vM_Jw2sY6qpeFGsrtyuvmJlkOfxFiG8JbIz8wA3XJCJq0oU-dCvREsqYMJt0/s442/230813%20glyphosate%20GM%20watch%20headlines.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="442" data-original-width="262" height="517" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1v3wHNTJ8O13Mxyyml97hzkcfy9UGgg6pMgEepSsuObl2VjjEso2gcjCZrZGOms2n3cvcnxELxfgavJhZQpK0UkUxJ-zqZyMQNoGBDjYYWey-FpQkJJ5q23srn-4OfEe2vM_Jw2sY6qpeFGsrtyuvmJlkOfxFiG8JbIz8wA3XJCJq0oU-dCvREsqYMJt0/w307-h517/230813%20glyphosate%20GM%20watch%20headlines.jpg" width="307" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;">This is how false information spreads, and get ready for more of it as A.I. constructs real-looking articles that are nothing by eye candy to grab readers, hoping they'll click a link and buy some socks, a few cents of the sale going back to the "news" outlet. </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">But can the average person tell the difference? Absolutely not. Such claims appear as credible, they reinforce the biases and errors of GM Watch's audience-- despite not being supported by any hard evidence or regulatory decision. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-2952771658276231032022-11-22T09:33:00.006-05:002022-11-22T10:06:24.177-05:00Glyphosate and School Lunches<p><span style="font-size: large;"> School lunches might not be the perfect sustenance, I don't know. When I was in school the institutionalized food was a weird combination of vague meatoid substances and carbohydrates pushed together into recognizable forms. I think we have come a long way since then, and I'm grateful that many municipalities recognize that many economically challenged families rely on school-based nutrition to feed their children. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Last week I saw a tweet about the horrors of school lunches on Food Chain Radio, a syndicated broadcast by Michael Olson that <a href="https://metrofarm.com/michael-olson/school-lunch-2/?unapproved=7887&moderation-hash=f1cbb8c654496ec325723e360a9e1322#comment-7887">may be accessed online. </a> The episode hosted perennial wet blanket on science Zen Honeycutt, representing Moms Across America (that Olson slipped and referred to as "Moms Against America"), a group of scientifically distressed moms that search to blame agriculture for their families' health issues. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN_0vPJMFD6Ip3lFu6b5Xc1YigfKDU2H9S7Nh4JJWIi6GzAgGZCP-1iy9KFM63WJiP2IYHWGuo-9KnCWT6R7vJZzQ_SuFbruGojsYlq39-3ViBNhqSaZXgM_38yTBz6WxgZNFhyMpn2-l2JjK7Rns7kpCE8_ZwNhY_gjtykZJgokYwmGuQvn8svP6v9A/s1023/olson.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="701" data-original-width="1023" height="404" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN_0vPJMFD6Ip3lFu6b5Xc1YigfKDU2H9S7Nh4JJWIi6GzAgGZCP-1iy9KFM63WJiP2IYHWGuo-9KnCWT6R7vJZzQ_SuFbruGojsYlq39-3ViBNhqSaZXgM_38yTBz6WxgZNFhyMpn2-l2JjK7Rns7kpCE8_ZwNhY_gjtykZJgokYwmGuQvn8svP6v9A/w591-h404/olson.JPG" width="591" /></a></div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p>I engaged Honeycutt <a href="https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning_corn_comparison">in the past on her website</a>. She posted blatantly false data that were absolutely manufactured (claiming for instance that tested corn had no carbon but was alarmingly high in glyphosate, which contains carbon). When I asked questions kindly I was banned from her website. Of course, her responses and the responses of her followers remain. </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In this episode Olson allows her to rattle on about how school lunches are full of toxic herbicides and that these "cause" autism to cancer. She made the usual crazy assertions that we know are not consistent with the evidence. </span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>I listened intently and prepared a point-by-point rebuttal. I posted that in the comments section of Olson's website. </span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span> <br /></span><span>You can read my responses and predict the same-old-same-old tropes that Honeycutt claims. She quotes Seneff, talks about plants "doused" in herbicide, and holds up the half-baked ideas from Don </span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Huber as evidence. <br /></span><span><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>But when I pushed "submit" it did not post to provide clarity to the listener. <br /></span><span><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Instead I received the "awaiting moderation" message. </span></span></div><p><span style="font-size: large;">I gave it a week for the moderator to post it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Apparently the moderator found science problematic. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I'll post it here. Here is the content deemed unacceptable for Olson's website. If you listen to the episode you can follow along. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><b><i><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; padding: 0in;">Dr. Kevin Folta</span></i></b><span face="Lato, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11.5pt;"> </span><span face="Lato, sans-serif" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-size: 11.5pt; padding: 0in;">says:</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><i><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; padding: 0in;">Your comment is awaiting
moderation. This is a preview; your comment will be visible after it has been
approved.</span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align: baseline;"><i><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://metrofarm.com/michael-olson/school-lunch-2/#comment-7887"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">November 15, 2022 at 4:07 am</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">As
I’m listening I am typing. As a scientist and farmer I have been listening to
this, and it bothers me that such false information is given such credence. It
is critical that we get this right, and your show has little to match the
scientific consensus. Here are a few thoughts as I listen. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">1. The crops are not
“drenched” in weed killer. Glyphosate active ingredient is applied at 750
ml/acre, about 2 soda cans.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2. Crops are not “infused” with insecticide that
harms people. It contains a gene encoding a protein that is toxic to specific
insect larvae, not to humans, animals, and non-target insects.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 3. Glyphosate is
not used on a lot of grains, occasionally depending on weather. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">4. If you look
at the statements made by Zen Honeycutt over the years you find a record of
being wrong about almost everything.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 5. how does her son get enteric bacteria
in his urine?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 6. There is no evidence that glyphosate affects bacteria in the
digestive system, it is not present at high enough levels. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">7. The testing
depends on the kit that is used and the standardization– in most matricies it
cannot be accurately detected. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">8. Sugar? What is in sucrose from a GE sugar
beet that makes it different from non-GE sugar beet? It is sucrose. That’s it.
Sucrose.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 9. Stephanie Seneff is not a reliable source. Even the anti-GMO
movement says she’s out there. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">10. Gives a plant AIDS? C’mon. Don Huber wrote
to Tom Vilsack in 2011 and claimed a secret organism that was in GE foods. It
was total fabrication.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 11. Glyphosate is not a great chelator. Although
patented that way, patents are broad. Compared to actual chelators like EDTA/EGTA
it is not very good. Plus, it is present in parts per billion, whereas most
minerals to be chelated (divalent cations) are present at levels several orders
of magnitude higher, so they can’t have much effect.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 12. Honeycutt has posted
and promoted false information before “Stunning Corn Comparison” where the data
were absolutely fudged. They were so badly fabricated, and when I inquired she
blocked me from the website. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">13. Glyphosate has never been shown to be
carcinogenic. The data for liver damage and endocrine disruption are thin. Most
show no effect. At micro-residue levels present. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">14 The experiments that
suggest feminization or masculinization use high doses to see these subtle
effects. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">15 Don Huber—“It will make DDT look like mouthwash” When? It has been
used safely for 40 years, with no effect. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">16. The Swanson article is a
correlation. Purely a correlation. It also overlays with organic food sales.
There is no causal effect, and her claim is anecdotal. There are no clinical
data to support such claims. If that was true, it would be everywhere. Autism
is not a new thing. If you could reverse it with organic food, or avoiding
glyphosate, it would be easy to demonstrate clinically.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 17. Contained
pesticides— how much is there? The dose makes the poison. They can detect a
tiny amount and it is far below pharmacological levels but thousands, millions
of times. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">18. The regulatory bodies like the EPA are extremely rigorous
barriers. They rely on independent and company generated data. The IARC
mentioned is the one that only accepts published data, and they ignored the
largest, best study that shows zero association with glyphosate and cancers.
The other examples mentioned in IARC are not statistically significant
differences, they are trends at best. That’s in the IARC monograph, and you can
compare to the original research.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 19. Heavy metals? No idea. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">20. Yes, we have
traces of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides. These are in tiny levels.
Glyphosate is found at parts per trillion—minutes in 32,000 years, parts per
billion, seconds in 32 years. The rest of the stuff, who knows. I just don’t
trust activists that have lied before. And there is not a lot of hormone in
milk and meat. This is what the animals naturally produce, maybe a tiny chip in
one ear on some cattle that provide far less hormone than a birth control pill. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">21. I completely disagree with gender identity claims. It is not diet related.
It is natural variation in humans that is due to how we develop sex organs, and
brain development. It is normal and acceptable. Kleinfelter syndrome is a
chromosomal segregation disorder, it is rare and not due to “endocrine
disruptors”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 22. Glyphosate is sprayed on plants, not on soil. Anything sprayed
on soil is a waste, and farmers don’t do that. It is a foliar herbicide, it
must be sprayed on leaves. Farmers spray the leaves, a little reaches the soil. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Lato",sans-serif" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: black; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">23. If you test military food you’ll detect a few parts per billion glyphosate.
No question. It goes through the body and shows up in the urine. The levels
detected are safe. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face="Lato, sans-serif" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 10.5pt;">The sad part of this is that Honeycutt and her organization
are making a sense of risk where none exists. This means parents that believe
her will have their kids not eat school lunches. In many cities the school
lunches are the best meals they get all day. The artificial risk implied, where
none exists, drives parents to push their kids away from school lunches. Then
they get nothing, or some alternative that is not as good as the school lunch.
It is so disappointing that you listen to a known generator of false
information and don’t interview actual scientists or regulators. Then again,
they don’t have sensational claims, so the non-alarmist message is not as
compelling as, “The sky is falling, kids are being poisoned, and we’re all
doomed.” Thanks.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Why does it matter? Many families rely on school lunches to provide nutrition for their kids. As usual, Honeycutt and the well-healed moms of California's suburbs push their scientifically distorted agenda without considering the collateral harm that is imposed on poor families. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When you tell a mom that the school food is poison, she will not allow her child to eat it, and if she has no other choice, the child will go without. The economically challenged will not eat "poison" and instead will foment angry feelings towards a system that would harm children. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Fearful messaging, bad science, scare tactics, and major media have conspired to push Honeycutt's horrific anti-agriculture agenda. Olson's echo chamber is insulated from legitimate scientific criticism, and his listeners were just treated to disinformation that will further affect their views. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Ten years ago Honeycutt pushed false information and doctored numbers. Today she's targeting children, particularly those that don't have parents that prepare lunch at home, or perhaps require a subsidized meal. It is elitist, cruel, and deceptive. Honeycutt should be showered in shame, and Olson as well for enabling and promoting her crusade.</span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-78496261998753386742022-07-27T19:35:00.001-04:002022-07-27T19:41:51.053-04:00A Response to Carey Gillam<p><span style="font-size: large;">The general rule is not to engage those that seek to malign you as a scientist. But this is a textbook case of how they respond to legitimate criticism-- by trying to disqualify the critic. I thought it would be worth a read so you can understand how these folks work, and why scientists are hesitant to engage disinformation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Last week <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/07/12/glyphosate-detected-in-80-of-urine-reason-for-alarm-or-deceptive-data-distortion/">I prepared a critical, scholarly response</a> to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-glyphosate-cdc-study-urine-samples">an article</a> by Carey Gillam in The Guardian. Her work was a horrible distortion of data to manufacture a sense of risk where none actually exists. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In response, <a href="https://careygillam.substack.com/p/dirty-work-chemical-industry-attack">she published a textbook ad hominem fallacy </a>argument against my scientific response, personally impugning me with selective editing, out of context quotations, and misrepresentation of situations. All of her comments are based on documents (mostly my emails) freely obtained through transparency laws I abide by as a public scientist.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I then commented thusly on her website. To her credit, it has been allowed to stand, of course with her comment: </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCBG3_zBctN88fLmblpLvOkHS5mNYRmrnlHyKbeBJilBv0-oxnd2RlvivuMD0z9ZsyFRi4HP_59jx_Ew5pe3qtnQg3_Fh9CVKQxQ1f6Rs3iwN7hJ9RsV-ZD02400vgUXXE6eC3_ouYwBRbiUFPx1yx_DWKS6JtlLvN9IahV0XtZ8-b3f34j2FrmgqCnA/s705/220727%20gillam%20artice%203.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="139" data-original-width="705" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCBG3_zBctN88fLmblpLvOkHS5mNYRmrnlHyKbeBJilBv0-oxnd2RlvivuMD0z9ZsyFRi4HP_59jx_Ew5pe3qtnQg3_Fh9CVKQxQ1f6Rs3iwN7hJ9RsV-ZD02400vgUXXE6eC3_ouYwBRbiUFPx1yx_DWKS6JtlLvN9IahV0XtZ8-b3f34j2FrmgqCnA/w658-h129/220727%20gillam%20artice%203.JPG" width="658" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><i>"If you care to read an unchallenged set of claims against a scientist you can pay me for them, because he's a shill that makes up things for money." </i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><i><br /></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Check out her article, and read my response: </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><p></p><table class="comment-content" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; background-color: whitesmoke; border-spacing: 0px; color: #1a1a1a; display: block; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"; font-size: 19px; padding-bottom: 8px; position: relative;"><tbody><tr style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: top;"><td class="comment-rest" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: top; width: 680px;"><div class="comment-meta" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_secondary, var(--print_secondary_on_web_bg_color, var(--print_secondary, #666666))); display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; font-size: 12px; gap: 4px 12px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="commenter-name" color="var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a)" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; cursor: default; font-weight: 700; position: relative;"><div class="profile-hover-wrapper" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; display: inline-block;"><a style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: inherit;">Kevin Folta</a></div></span><a href="https://careygillam.substack.com/p/dirty-work-chemical-industry-attack/comment/8013628" native="true" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; text-decoration-line: none;">59 min ago</a><span class="comment-publication-name-separator" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; cursor: default; position: relative;">·</span><span class="edited-indicator" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; cursor: default; position: relative;"><em style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">edited 38 min ago</em></span></div><div class="comment-body expanded" data-hidden-height="704" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-top: 4px; max-height: initial; overflow-y: initial; position: relative; word-break: break-word;"><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">Hi, Dr. Kevin Folta here, the guy in the article. I usually don't respond to such things, but it is kind of important as a teaching tool. As in the article in question, she continues to mislead. Here are my responses to her claims.</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">1. Note that Gillam does not address the criticisms levied against her article. She attacks the scientists that levied the criticisms. Because we appropriately called out the distortions, she's angry and needs to disqualify expert opinion.</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">2. Her claims that a 2014 (snooze) donation from Monsanto to my university to help defray the costs of a science communication program were not disclosed is not true. The VP of my university clarified that, and be because of the threats, hassles and fallout from her social media (and others) the university moved the funds to a campus food bank. None went to me and they were never used for science communication. <a class="linkified" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/?sh=57fe4f32619a" rel="nofollow ugc noopener" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;" target="_blank">https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/?sh=57fe4f32619a</a></span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">3. I did not "allow my name to be used on columns posted on an industry website that were written by industry PR teams." When the website GMO Answers came out I was asked to answer questions. Awesome. That's what I should do as a public scientists. In a conference call with all independent, unpaid writers, I asked about the scope and depth expected for answers. In response, the folks running the website provided a sample answer to one of the 72 questions I answered on the site. The answer was quite good, it was accurate. So I edited it, changed things around, clarified other aspect of it, essentially using that one as a template. That was one article of the thousands of things I've written. It gave red meat to those that want to cancel my voice, and that was a huge mistake I should have never given them. And that answer is 100% accurate and supported by a scientific consensus to this day.</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">4. In thousands of pages of emails etc provided and information subpoenaed in legal discovery, there was no place that I 'defended" "questionable activities in defense of Monsanto". I'm a scientist that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of technology. I don't care about the companies.</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">5. I did write a (freely available) email to a friend of mine that works for Monsanto (it's hard to be a plant scientist and not have old friends that end up there) "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like." What was the context that Gillam omits to make this look nefarious? There was a blatantly false and deceptive television commercial going on in Oregon and Colorado around the 2013 (?) labelling ballot initiatives. Lies, total disinformation. My friend and someone else (and you can go back and read those emails online) were soliciting scientists to respond to the false information. They suggested an op-ed or a petition. I replied, "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like." Context matters, but do you see how Gillam pulls quotes from context to make it appear nefarious?</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">6. The line "I'm grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on investment" is absolutely 100% correct. I didn't make that statement to a "Monsanto executive". I made it in an email to Charla Lord who is on the communications team at Monsanto. She was the one that sent the donation to my university to expand the science communication program. I was really grateful for the donation because it would allow me to teach more, hold more workshops where I trained scientists, farmers, academics, etc on the nuances of science communication. It would have been a great return on investment. I always over deliver. It's how I roll.</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">7. And yes, I published it in GLP. I appreciate GLP a lot as a source of scientific information and always am glad for the space they give me.</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">8. And I'm paid 9 months a year by a public university, also from a software company to do my podcast and by various websites that pay me for freelance content. I have no funding from Bayer, Monsanto (dead now 4 years) or any ag or biotech company. If there are factual problems with that content I'm always glad to discuss.</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 8px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">In the days of disinformation it is good to illuminate how we as public scientists are maligned by folks like Gillam. Those of us that discuss the science of chemistry, genetics, climate, vaccines, abortion, etc are targeted by these folks She's been on me for a decade, and while she's paid to write books and articles to trash the science and scientists, my work appears in scholarly journals with peer review.</span></p><p style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; color: var(--print_on_web_bg_color, #1a1a1a); line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px;"><span style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0;">It's why I bothered to reply.</span></p></div></td></tr></tbody></table>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-37146770945800854852022-05-16T09:43:00.001-04:002022-05-16T09:43:10.448-04:00Your Evidence Means Nothing- Time to Disengage<p><span style="font-size: large;"> As usual, I was being berated by an anonymous "GMO-free" account on Twitter, and also as usual, responded with kindness and tact. </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA7RA5yKd5Fk3boJ2Vzcqjs2Rf1basfxb80yGy4Ile8LWsklPkJ9acUjIRffR7gRGlznTetfbP6YXzZmF4uNtGDi5p9DzUF5zGi17TWpTbt8w0Dc0UhmkUGHfTKr9-C8hIxPtAJwJSxGmxvIobMSSANHOaQP1-cR07F3X29qBp_C7f1VdrVKG-lU_g5g/s300/220512%20gmofree.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="245" data-original-width="300" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA7RA5yKd5Fk3boJ2Vzcqjs2Rf1basfxb80yGy4Ile8LWsklPkJ9acUjIRffR7gRGlznTetfbP6YXzZmF4uNtGDi5p9DzUF5zGi17TWpTbt8w0Dc0UhmkUGHfTKr9-C8hIxPtAJwJSxGmxvIobMSSANHOaQP1-cR07F3X29qBp_C7f1VdrVKG-lU_g5g/s1600/220512%20gmofree.JPG" width="300" /></span></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Another nameless account joined in the Folta pile on, responding to my tweet about Vandana Shiva being invited to give a talk at the FAO. He reminded me about the "terminator" seeds that never were actually commercialized. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI1sbUOA0lTwfYPnVirP5pQS6uIDtqUmP6xd7I9kR1AQZOEFNPUg0_keT_QhQraxunw_Qtx8x2IXrW6_WA2N_4x9uMRS9mUfL3SBhfDBCDEi2xFSgDmde_SZySyAc4sVLoq283aUDSugjW4IK3yF1ekiC_Hdo4Nm10OewMm3hdldtQAhNWWkvGHX6CuA/s338/220514%20twitter2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="116" data-original-width="338" height="110" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI1sbUOA0lTwfYPnVirP5pQS6uIDtqUmP6xd7I9kR1AQZOEFNPUg0_keT_QhQraxunw_Qtx8x2IXrW6_WA2N_4x9uMRS9mUfL3SBhfDBCDEi2xFSgDmde_SZySyAc4sVLoq283aUDSugjW4IK3yF1ekiC_Hdo4Nm10OewMm3hdldtQAhNWWkvGHX6CuA/s320/220514%20twitter2.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I offered a few words about my knowledge of the subject, but that was met with disdain. I sent a link to my CV so he could understand who I really was and what I really do. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJBTSZ76XkbcgchXo_xRINO8B_Z6_jQTa32k2rFjtIKrm4zT3VmZVEasDlrHTF1jrDsg_W6wQL9sGgR81MbnjTnqOh7bj21g2yecuSiCov6QPqx5o303UGiG4CL5ETtdUA_yLVNT8PY7LJ5wH3o1hdEt7sHJsd6t3O18AuGD1El60KsMeK6hoCBNwB7w/s350/220514%20twitter.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="333" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJBTSZ76XkbcgchXo_xRINO8B_Z6_jQTa32k2rFjtIKrm4zT3VmZVEasDlrHTF1jrDsg_W6wQL9sGgR81MbnjTnqOh7bj21g2yecuSiCov6QPqx5o303UGiG4CL5ETtdUA_yLVNT8PY7LJ5wH3o1hdEt7sHJsd6t3O18AuGD1El60KsMeK6hoCBNwB7w/s320/220514%20twitter.JPG" width="304" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>I guess I was not surprised to get such a response. I asked about why someone would listen to aggressive hate groups over a pubic scientist's actual record. <br /><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxx2iUl_ZgvL8a07M2Zccz6gB6VW_UyfgIaW3YSCzIHTliW5mV6BwlJCtBYttv8n-Qs9wr050hkFC60CGGWkyo_rKMRRK0Izvao88COA6It2RQw9G9xfdrqhi49rj_eCvFfVD99i7l5wAyf_6Pyai5ef9GJCmi6ZFSpmAh4Wv4Dtn7mAGaKJ3SHHn6VA/s318/220514%20don't%20need.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="127" data-original-width="318" height="127" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxx2iUl_ZgvL8a07M2Zccz6gB6VW_UyfgIaW3YSCzIHTliW5mV6BwlJCtBYttv8n-Qs9wr050hkFC60CGGWkyo_rKMRRK0Izvao88COA6It2RQw9G9xfdrqhi49rj_eCvFfVD99i7l5wAyf_6Pyai5ef9GJCmi6ZFSpmAh4Wv4Dtn7mAGaKJ3SHHn6VA/s1600/220514%20don't%20need.JPG" width="318" /></span></a></div></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-size: large;">It was the best response I could have imagined. It was the line I needed to drop engagement, block, mute, etc. When people do not accept evidence and instead trash others based on what they think, they don't deserve your time and attention. Trolls. Spend your time influencing others that are willing to learn, and at least consider evidence before making decisions. </span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-12056202971944348232022-03-31T10:09:00.003-04:002022-03-31T10:09:44.256-04:00Blackmailing Small Business <p><span style="font-size: large;"> Thanks to my friend Freida for bringing this to my attention. I'm glad to discuss it here, so that others can understand that this is happening. It is extortion. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">According to Freida, Corner 17 Noodles and Bubble Tea is an exceptional small restaurant in St. Louis. They offer authentic Asian cuisine, and are apparently the "real deal" according to Freida.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">They were contacted by a social media personality that offered them the opportunity to be reviewed for a $100 food credit. The owners politely declined. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh62kxRiu4lNQ-Ygj2wjOtYS5sSDRQ977MQD9mwFwrhFOUrCO0XbtBiiZmdMy_odbSMD9XuBJNDA4CFYiIQ6XzvgrweJOB81vor0jIGf8Yo04KUGIrF3_Lzp-g4r60AINxb1ZEL5YfdxjOwf8YXh8gy1SRs0cDjSqqhABg8iXKFgJ2BnVuHEIRIRY3fBQ/s1800/noodles.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1800" data-original-width="1440" height="423" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh62kxRiu4lNQ-Ygj2wjOtYS5sSDRQ977MQD9mwFwrhFOUrCO0XbtBiiZmdMy_odbSMD9XuBJNDA4CFYiIQ6XzvgrweJOB81vor0jIGf8Yo04KUGIrF3_Lzp-g4r60AINxb1ZEL5YfdxjOwf8YXh8gy1SRs0cDjSqqhABg8iXKFgJ2BnVuHEIRIRY3fBQ/w338-h423/noodles.jpg" width="338" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>A polite response from the owner didn't sit well with "influencer" Antonio Malik</i></b></span></div><p></p></blockquote></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Self describing as an "influencer" suggests a certain level of confidence that you do in fact influence others. It also comes with a certain sense of entitlement that people actually care about what you do or give a damn what you think.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In response to the owner's kind decline of the offer, Malik decided to write the review anyway. Apparently without actually visiting the establishment, or perhaps after actually visiting, he wrote a review that trashed the restaurant. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl7HtgFmenEONwVHUidFTIUBi5ID4Ktkui4d6S0wtWst2KQaF72UmWlk4VT2enXBm_FGU4d-t5B4i-Q1f_Da_xKjD_8IwIGMWm8n0iR9_jJwYGwyGtazhE6vHSmB64JsKCvWzp37peOWG9oorZczy1sNirOVYma8PnTRWV7I4CsMMkq5LfV48Otj6N3w/s1771/noodles2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1771" data-original-width="1440" height="584" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl7HtgFmenEONwVHUidFTIUBi5ID4Ktkui4d6S0wtWst2KQaF72UmWlk4VT2enXBm_FGU4d-t5B4i-Q1f_Da_xKjD_8IwIGMWm8n0iR9_jJwYGwyGtazhE6vHSmB64JsKCvWzp37peOWG9oorZczy1sNirOVYma8PnTRWV7I4CsMMkq5LfV48Otj6N3w/w474-h584/noodles2.jpg" width="474" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Maybe he actually went there, but such an unprofessional treatment of the business appears to be retaliation for them declining his "influencer" services.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is "retailiation"</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Small business operates on thin margins, and restaurants are probably the thinnest. There is not $100 in a budget that spreads its quality and practice by word of mouth. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Malik might consider a softer approach, because he certainly is an influencer-- a negative influencer. He's someone I'd never follow or associate with. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-84980047381591764692022-02-09T10:37:00.003-05:002022-02-09T11:11:52.192-05:00Center for Media and Democracy Smears Scientists<p> <span style="font-size: large;">At a time when democracy is threatened by a number of sources and media is a potent remedy or problem, the Madison WI based Center for Media and Democracy could be especially relevant. Their cause seems reasonable, and as an independent academic scientist, consumer and American I applaud some of their efforts. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sadly, they have targeted me and other scientists for harassment. They have posted pages that use omission, innuendo and inference to portray scientists they wish to defame in a false, negative light.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Their website about me does not mention what I actually do, awards won for teaching/research/outreach excellence, pursuit of opportunities of under-represented students, and my efforts to coach and promote faculty career progression. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Look at the manipulation- the omission, the twisting, the extrapolation. This is what Center for Media and Democracy does to target a scientist they don't want teaching inconvenient science. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have contacted CMD with kind requests to amend the information for several years. It is something I do now and then. No response from them. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I only posted this again because CMD's web page is being used by anti-vaccine, anti-5G, anti-GMO trolls to attempt to remove me from important conversations. <br /><br />Take a look below. Here are CMD's wild fabrications and silly extrapolations that time has proven to be false. Let's look at this point-by-point. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Why would anyone trust them? Why would anyone donate to support this? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Click on image to enlarge. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjsU8Dnm8ioVH36IU8HNhf9UcnNm5RC3WzDbw4B1TlilnMwy3jy9jYvi1j6Q3-D0-V7_YHmqElC1tQ0-UITaNoe5wjW7vj23c7gIWnsZVCvHVZcC7D5sVJrqI0iP6_7Xdbxcoy6J390imvhAZR7APqQkt-WB3RGYzkRkStIig16mPt-gZGbOHi-gy63CQ=s1482" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="594" data-original-width="1482" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjsU8Dnm8ioVH36IU8HNhf9UcnNm5RC3WzDbw4B1TlilnMwy3jy9jYvi1j6Q3-D0-V7_YHmqElC1tQ0-UITaNoe5wjW7vj23c7gIWnsZVCvHVZcC7D5sVJrqI0iP6_7Xdbxcoy6J390imvhAZR7APqQkt-WB3RGYzkRkStIig16mPt-gZGbOHi-gy63CQ=w628-h251" width="628" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjb4Oy-uSVBa31q44vnAR6jXzThzXhbgSk-VxiLqGNh2DAeThTxfdO81Yc9GU8jTCX6gNH3PMBstLjrJXgUyWMEPAbPjLNgftCWIWc00Uau0G8anWOT2LEfUNZEV_djW1JBd-2rNH_rt4m3xrNmyIdGkK5TZWTzANCq5VLvKCwW4_rL9bCo-iUc8RtnYQ=s1239" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="493" data-original-width="1239" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjb4Oy-uSVBa31q44vnAR6jXzThzXhbgSk-VxiLqGNh2DAeThTxfdO81Yc9GU8jTCX6gNH3PMBstLjrJXgUyWMEPAbPjLNgftCWIWc00Uau0G8anWOT2LEfUNZEV_djW1JBd-2rNH_rt4m3xrNmyIdGkK5TZWTzANCq5VLvKCwW4_rL9bCo-iUc8RtnYQ=w575-h227" width="575" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj7p4DNcIR_NU48tE3_6cZOmqGL99B6kn6noTGWb3otLoZbs53GUzuyflAfL-gaxKRYvA_q3RXQrtp40K1d2oMh0ePmZqP2vSFIAjvw94ehWjrokrn_DZfgld1k7b3ulnLg5yN3AdTHFX9qbFlU_6C15ao1rxwfh-Q1wJmzA27krkHDiP-SIpPSq4y11g=s1245" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="559" data-original-width="1245" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj7p4DNcIR_NU48tE3_6cZOmqGL99B6kn6noTGWb3otLoZbs53GUzuyflAfL-gaxKRYvA_q3RXQrtp40K1d2oMh0ePmZqP2vSFIAjvw94ehWjrokrn_DZfgld1k7b3ulnLg5yN3AdTHFX9qbFlU_6C15ao1rxwfh-Q1wJmzA27krkHDiP-SIpPSq4y11g=w584-h262" width="584" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj1qT9D40IupSF_FV6rdVur0PKrIPbhXulhQ03RPh2SSI490cGq_l--x59vwaC5nnmt3KI7xnQtx15PsfoqbPjrIKUy_uotykLV8zbG1sloDwGyH44XAMMpGxLjDUnEdTqD1EBDEFNKJbrMz5J-dT9EcpBALc7pj1tSND9xkNSxm0qERHW-ZY4naqwI_g=s1458" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="496" data-original-width="1458" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj1qT9D40IupSF_FV6rdVur0PKrIPbhXulhQ03RPh2SSI490cGq_l--x59vwaC5nnmt3KI7xnQtx15PsfoqbPjrIKUy_uotykLV8zbG1sloDwGyH44XAMMpGxLjDUnEdTqD1EBDEFNKJbrMz5J-dT9EcpBALc7pj1tSND9xkNSxm0qERHW-ZY4naqwI_g=w600-h204" width="600" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgVWk1ycIG5rfD6yIMLy6i0RlqdOTYP8uHA5SK7jSSp8hBZs2c5M94GZmiYg2p70ay93hnNIpPmUeph8RqD6zYO4kcdnqVxGfBEByb5fDAlFF9r3eUvXWZprP9QWYgYDZQnxeExPpQ45hQWD3IeKlr1dvWWM0umPHSM5NOwitveQERynXmOzzo6aiHFvw=s1477" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="1477" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgVWk1ycIG5rfD6yIMLy6i0RlqdOTYP8uHA5SK7jSSp8hBZs2c5M94GZmiYg2p70ay93hnNIpPmUeph8RqD6zYO4kcdnqVxGfBEByb5fDAlFF9r3eUvXWZprP9QWYgYDZQnxeExPpQ45hQWD3IeKlr1dvWWM0umPHSM5NOwitveQERynXmOzzo6aiHFvw=w653-h163" width="653" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiLHn88VOgInsvrJS9G6CyqrJLudyEr90yj7WccAmsDemzi0EIW5u9f8zWs5m6pRHVsHbSZJuldAMG5UiDW8wJeprYB9QVo0cFiDsTCTe4BO7cntPcm7CzLa_V5mR22kgw6r8H6OJ7JL_FDAKk1Rzl5ILDpheoB9_nuvBZ_89podLz8WMyqlZjIEzGKqQ=s1121" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="238" data-original-width="1121" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiLHn88VOgInsvrJS9G6CyqrJLudyEr90yj7WccAmsDemzi0EIW5u9f8zWs5m6pRHVsHbSZJuldAMG5UiDW8wJeprYB9QVo0cFiDsTCTe4BO7cntPcm7CzLa_V5mR22kgw6r8H6OJ7JL_FDAKk1Rzl5ILDpheoB9_nuvBZ_89podLz8WMyqlZjIEzGKqQ=w641-h136" width="641" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiT4H27cqTkT_sKiZH2aX1xlcOvU-kZ7uT15ktHa1UpAhk1xoCkRQEybLyvKh3gawAXM7ID_C-tUu35jkV_FBRzHAL1Qviw9vJ3KKQPtG_LYNKM7xCWjv9ZohENTm7ADrpLvpRdPufwwHlDnUIHDYIpJkTI7SHL4xUzcLdNLRTQ1SBOBgkN1WxCHAPNqA=s1420" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="520" data-original-width="1420" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiT4H27cqTkT_sKiZH2aX1xlcOvU-kZ7uT15ktHa1UpAhk1xoCkRQEybLyvKh3gawAXM7ID_C-tUu35jkV_FBRzHAL1Qviw9vJ3KKQPtG_LYNKM7xCWjv9ZohENTm7ADrpLvpRdPufwwHlDnUIHDYIpJkTI7SHL4xUzcLdNLRTQ1SBOBgkN1WxCHAPNqA=w605-h221" width="605" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-78549312868933946992021-10-25T18:13:00.002-04:002021-10-26T13:20:11.788-04:00Hey Goofballs, Science is Not a Popularity Contest<span style="font-size: large;">Starting a few weeks ago the European Commission began a public feedback period on the regulation of gene edited crops. Gene editing is a relatively non-invasive, rapid way to make precise genetic alternations of crops to improve specific traits. Changes made frequently emulate natural variations. </span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The EU has had excessively harsh restrictions on transgenic technology, not approving any new genetically engineered crops in decades. Activists wish for the same hyper-rigorous repression of technology to be applied to new plant genetic improvement techniques. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">EU farmers and scientists almost universally feel that the technology could have some benefit, and should be part of the region's technologies. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So when the European Commission opened a public comment period, it was spammed by an avalanche of identical and near-identical comments that were distributed by anti-biotech groups. No thinking, just copying and pasting as they were told to. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm75ckv_rOIPoTcXOC5GNbW7efqY2wyr7tcE8jHTWo9oKyUN0dhmBpx3AkIW0VRlOtUKtQUyx1z1JJ3Y5po4e-JUTutqbuDZuDT6ezAEx2weEwpLU9C2D088MfvRdLmAbhuMDOa2pSc6s6/s1109/eucomments.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="1109" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm75ckv_rOIPoTcXOC5GNbW7efqY2wyr7tcE8jHTWo9oKyUN0dhmBpx3AkIW0VRlOtUKtQUyx1z1JJ3Y5po4e-JUTutqbuDZuDT6ezAEx2weEwpLU9C2D088MfvRdLmAbhuMDOa2pSc6s6/w646-h248/eucomments.JPG" width="646" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><i>The European Commission asked for scientific, thoughtful comments and instead got slammed with spam. </i></b></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The part that anti-biotech groups and their lackeys forget is that science is not a popularity contest. It doesn't matter how many people cut and paste your misguided rant into the form. <i><b>It still only represents one opinion</b></i>, zero data or citation, and in any "anti" movement you'll can always find a willing group of parrots willing to repeat exactly what you tell them. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Cut/paste = LAZY. The reviewers are not stupid. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I watched this develop over the last few weeks, and while anti-biotech groups would not persuade anyone at the EC, they'd take a victory lap. After all, there were thousands of comments against the relaxed restrictions on gene editing. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And true to form it happened. </span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjwHTwUqLY7mg-T6PW78pU9fSgf5Nw1t6anyRgoBYJh558NPpDTjhUlPid_DWmfL_ltGE-gL1LaAHOst-NxfAGrFVu_S9WH0z-Ptin38l7voHenXa80aS4EEAp7-yrRRfwmstJqi873MsM/s502/EU69k.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="502" data-original-width="311" height="561" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjwHTwUqLY7mg-T6PW78pU9fSgf5Nw1t6anyRgoBYJh558NPpDTjhUlPid_DWmfL_ltGE-gL1LaAHOst-NxfAGrFVu_S9WH0z-Ptin38l7voHenXa80aS4EEAp7-yrRRfwmstJqi873MsM/w347-h561/EU69k.JPG" width="347" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Leave it to the followers of Rudolph Steiner to get the science way wrong. During molecular biology class they were busy putting cow poop in a horn to harness cosmic energy.</i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is amazing that the anti-biotech folks would claim victory after encouraging a campaign to spam a sincere effort to gather information about a new technology. Luckily, the folks at the EC will hopefully be persuaded by this overt manipulation.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Those that have lost the argument raise their voices.</b> When you don't have the science on your side you have to spam the conversation in an attempt to minimize the actual science communicated.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i style="font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">If I was a regulator in the EC and had to weed through cut-and-paste nonsense to get to the nuggets of actual information, I would not be so happy with the anti-biotech folks. My guess is that this will backfire. Ultimately decisions are made on actual evidence, and your opinion doesn't matter, even if pasted sixty thousand times. That's why the EC even asked for scientific comments. </span></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is why I appreciate science and sports. They are the last meritocracies, the last places where superior performance still ultimately wins. That's why the EC opened the public comment period. Change is happening. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Don't take a victory lap just yet. </span></div>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-64059024810193678362021-10-21T11:52:00.005-04:002021-10-21T12:01:27.646-04:00Seed Sovereignty? Not So Fast Farmers... <p><span style="font-size: large;"> For the last 25 years I've listened to the tired argument that Monsanto controls farmer seed choice. Over and over again. Even since the hated seed company has ceased to exist, I still hear the same boring trope. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This is the position of activist groups and their parrots, and others that never actually tried to tell a farmer what they would be allowed to grow on their space. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Farmers choose what is best for their land, their schedule, their budget, input availability, and dozens of other factors. Cotton, corn, soybean canola and sugarbeet growers oftentimes choose genetically engineered seeds containing the traits that serve their production system and support their bottom line. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Farmers control farmer seed choice.</i></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> Unless you are a corn farmer in Mexico that wishes to use traited seeds. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqMxWBYNfqzREZncI9t50I4Pc_6_qAkiuy8LYWCEvKQ64ZcApOYl3dRUNOnckJQqIdjbL5BH98XOS66TGaYH5Jjn61CRfY79k1tChxU0qWfvg_Hl8hWcjgXAZkvPz_p5la0306_fcnskEP/s668/crorn.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="668" height="377" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqMxWBYNfqzREZncI9t50I4Pc_6_qAkiuy8LYWCEvKQ64ZcApOYl3dRUNOnckJQqIdjbL5BH98XOS66TGaYH5Jjn61CRfY79k1tChxU0qWfvg_Hl8hWcjgXAZkvPz_p5la0306_fcnskEP/w498-h377/crorn.JPG" width="498" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b><i>Anti-biotech activists feel that Mexican farmers should have the unrestricted freedom to choose any maize varieties they wish to plant -- from the list of activist-approved varieties</i></b></span><b><i>. </i></b></span></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://remezcla.com/food/bayer-monsanto-gmo-legal-battle-mexico-farm-activists/">Activist groups have decided</a> that Mexican farmers should not have access to the elite corn technology, lines that contain engineered traits to aid in limiting weed pressure and cutting insecticide sprays. Despite farmer demand, activists have now pressured the government into not allowing these resources to be utilized. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">They claim that it is to protect native genetics near corn's center of diversification, but that's just not true. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Farmers <i><b>will be allowed</b></i> to use hybrid corn without the GE traits. Those lines are just as likely to outcross with indigenous resources as any GE crop. If you want to preserve indigenous maize genetics, you need to have special programs to do that, and <a href="https://www.cimmyt.org/news/preserving-native-maize-and-culture-in-mexico/">such programs are in place.</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This is nothing more than activist groups using pressure to limit the acreage of genetically engineered crops. If that means forcing farmers to choose non-GE hybrids, increasing insecticide use, and returning to aggressive top-soil-sacrificing techniques to manage weeds, that's where they'll be. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I don't ever want to hear any activists whine about companies limiting seed sovereignty. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">They are the ones restricting farmer choice to use proven, safe, and efficient genetics to suit the needs of their farms.</span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-1673800288165427062021-09-30T12:03:00.009-04:002021-09-30T12:10:12.629-04:00REPOST: A civil conversation about the future of food<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> The following article was printed April 7, 2015. It was written by Iowa State student Kelsey Faivre after she attended talks by Vandana Shiva and me, Kevin Folta. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Shiva was invited to Iowa State University by a student group. Fearing the usual barrage of bad information, another group on campus invited me to provide the scientific counterpoint. My whole presentation from 3/25/15 can be seen here. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Ms. Faivre captured the contrast between the two events well. Reprinted here without permission from Feedstuffs where it was originally printed and no longer available.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZgs_rRUWKLq7mYPzBBxQn7AD9IItYWG7Nqgs_xIEsTy7dG1qw6KzxVLy91cCClejGXiipoOTt7t8muAhll8VzLfClVegB8fZPvSfi2ZSJHD6x3d4B_UKPM1gFUKGBh4CJkLweamFzjbzd/s424/meisu.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="388" data-original-width="424" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZgs_rRUWKLq7mYPzBBxQn7AD9IItYWG7Nqgs_xIEsTy7dG1qw6KzxVLy91cCClejGXiipoOTt7t8muAhll8VzLfClVegB8fZPvSfi2ZSJHD6x3d4B_UKPM1gFUKGBh4CJkLweamFzjbzd/w378-h346/meisu.JPG" width="378" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A civil conversation about the future of food</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">By Kelsey Faivre</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">DR. Kevin Folta, professor and chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, recently came to lecture at Iowa State University.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The subject of his lecture was transgenic crops (also known as genetically modified organisms GMOs) — what they are, what they can do and how to communicate about them. Folta, who uses transgenic crops for research in his lab, has firsthand knowledge.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The main points of Folta's lecture were that transgenic crops have been determined to present no more risk than conventionally bred crops, there is an important place for them in the future of agriculture and that the debate surrounding them is not a scientific one.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">With a clear majority of scientists supporting the safety of transgenic crops, the debate surrounding these crops "is a social one fueled by fear and misinformation," he said. Folta used a fungus-resistant strawberry and a citrus tree resistant to citrus greening as examples of future applications of transgenic breeding. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Folta's lecture followed one by activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, which happened two weeks prior (Feedstuffs, March 23). Though the topic of Shiva's lecture was similar — she and Folta both discussed the impacts of transgenic crops — the two lectures could not have been more different. Not only did their content differ, but their communication methods and motives clearly were dissimilar.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Folta presented the scientific consensus regarding the safety of transgenic crops, explaining that plant breeding is inherently risky, but transgenic breeding methods present no more risk than conventional breeding.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Shiva rejected this consensus, claiming that there are health risks associated with GMOs despite the fact that no cases of GMO-related illnesses ever have been reported. In fact, Shiva supported her anti-GMO agenda with research that Folta noted was either discredited — like the work of Gilles Seralini — or distorted by the media — as in a study regarding placental cells and glyphosate.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Folta said he wanted to connect with people who are concerned about the safety of their food and are at risk of being swayed by activists who benefit from others' fear and mistrust. It was refreshing to hear from someone who is a primary source of information and is clearly passionate about delivering the facts.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After being in both audiences, I felt that there was a more obvious discontent with Folta's message. One gentleman in the crowd interrupted Folta twice — the second time proclaiming, "I think about 90% of what you've said could be proven false."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Despite this angry, cynical challenge, Folta remained calm and responded with grace and kindness. Folta then used the challenge to illustrate his point that anti-GMO activists sometimes make more noise than scientists and farmers and use fear to cover up facts.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">After his lecture, Folta stayed for more than an hour to answer questions on topics ranging from the ethical issues surrounding transgenic crops to the research he is doing in his lab. When difficult questions came up, he agreed to look into things further and follow up with individuals, and in one case, he invited someone to participate in a study with him.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Folta set a great example of how we, in agriculture, can engage non-science audiences in conversation. One of his ideas on scientific communication is that we have to, as he said, "stop beating people over the head with science"; the public wants to hear the facts without needing a Ph.D. to understand them.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">He also appealed to the values of every person in the room, acknowledging that "at the end of the day, we are all on the same page and want the same things; we just bring different toolboxes to the table."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Having listened to both Shiva and Folta, the biggest difference I could detect in their messages was the tone behind the messages. I fear that my fellow students left Shiva's lecture feeling scared, mistrustful and conflicted. I hope those who listened to Folta left knowing more about the science behind the technology and feeling more reassured about the future of food.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">No matter how you feel about transgenic crops, one thing is certain: Using fear, blame and mistrust is not the way to start or end this conversation.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Folta and an audience member discussed her genuine concerns about transgenic crops for almost a half-hour, and it remained a conversation rather than devolving into a verbal battle. At the end of her questions, Folta asked if there were any type of transgenic crop she would accept. After several minutes of deliberation, she admitted that using a transgenic orange tree to stop citrus greening would be a good application. That is what I call a success.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In my opinion, Folta did an excellent job of delivering facts over fear while maintaining a civil, open and conversational atmosphere. That is something to be commended.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">I left Folta's lecture feeling something I haven't felt in a while: hope. We can open up a civil conversation about the future of food. By sharing our agricultural and scientific stories, we have the opportunity to cast light on the facts of modern food production.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">*Kelsey Faivre is a sophomore in agricultural communications at Iowa State University. She was raised on a row crop operation in DeKalb, Ill., and raises cattle.</span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-13915115496899147272021-09-27T12:45:00.004-04:002021-09-27T12:45:59.046-04:00Letter to the EU<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZyUEbIkUpNlToBaeL3i-hOZwkJBH0dIv013stKQbkXc1_OTM_UWTV6C_u2zK58JcaPigBOaS3VeUhpcBKMHY10zmZJPlh7R8C0Q2kBztys9VfG1Z0ziONTOQ7prE7VNUaIuj37HrfnIA0/s279/eu.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="126" data-original-width="279" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZyUEbIkUpNlToBaeL3i-hOZwkJBH0dIv013stKQbkXc1_OTM_UWTV6C_u2zK58JcaPigBOaS3VeUhpcBKMHY10zmZJPlh7R8C0Q2kBztys9VfG1Z0ziONTOQ7prE7VNUaIuj37HrfnIA0/w365-h165/eu.JPG" width="365" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The European Commission is taking public feedback on gene editing. I urge you to send your letter here:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13119-Legislation-for-plants-produced-by-certain-new-genomic-techniques_en">USE THIS LINK</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If you need an idea of some aspects to emphasize, here are my comments:</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sustainable farming in the EU is critical; economic sustainability for EU farmers, and environmental sustainability for the limited agricultural land in the region. Keeping costs manageable for EU citizens and potentially bolstering agricultural exports or fostering less reliance on imports is important too. To meet these challenges, EU scientists should have full access to all technologies to produce safe and sustainable crops.
As a scientist in the USA I have hosted dozens of EU scientists that are frustrated by policy that restricts their research and their ability to produce solutions for their home countries. The current restrictions are arbitrary, not science based, and reflect the whimsy of political/ideological views over a scientific consensus.
My terminal degree is in molecular biology and I have followed genetic engineering since human insulin was created in microbes in the early 1980's. Gene editing, the process using sequence-directed nucleases, is a revolutionary technology that has already had tremendous positive impacts in agriculture and medicine.
Briefly, in shaping a future EU policy the most important points to consider are:
1. Speed. Gene editing can often install the same genetic changes as plant breeding (making crosses), only it can be done on a scale of months rather than years/decades.
2. Precision. Gene editing can install genetic changes that underlie important traits (e.g. resistance to disease) that are known in plants broadly, but perhaps not present in that species. They would be impossible to incorporate with traditional breeding techniques.
3. Accountable effects. While gene editing is highly precise, it is prone to errors and off-target effects. However, our ability to sequence genomes provides a means to inventory the associated changes and assess them for risk, if they occur.
4. Sovereignty. The technology is simple and can stimulate new industry around regional crops, giving power to smaller EU companies and expanding seed invention/production away from a small, consolidated handful of multinational corporations.
5. Adaptability. Gene-trait associations are known to help plants mitigate the effects of temperature stress, salinity, flooding, etc. Being able to install these traits into established regional crop varieties will likely provide a rapid means to approach issues caused by climate change.
6. Rapid response. The emergence of new pests and pathogens requires a rapid means to adapt to new threats that cannot be achieved by traditional plant breeding.
7. Minimal risk. Gene editing techniques are much more precise than the well-accepted mutagenesis techniques currently allowed by the EU, and it can be done without introduction of foreign DNA, such as in the production of transgenic plants.
The EU has unique challenges that demand that all tools be considered in meeting future food security needs. To hamper the hands of the EU's best scientists with arbitrary, emotional, non-evidence-based policy is a travesty, and will affect EU sustainability and seed choice in the near future.
It is critical to allow European scientists access to the same tools to genetically improve crops that other countries have available.
I'm very happy to answer your questions.
Kevin M. Folta Ph.D.
Professor
University of Florida </span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-84473754516308964182021-09-08T10:53:00.002-04:002021-09-08T10:54:25.772-04:00Talking Biotech 308 - The Origins of GMO Disinformation<div style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-size: large;">Where does bad information begin and how does it propagate? I speak with University of Connecticut law professor Robert Bird <a href="https://www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com/308-misinformation-and-gmos/">in this week's podcast. </a></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiazuy58FUbu-UMa1G7s0m88NepZaACg4MxNOJ1eh0QjG_efYQyp_m7rNQPjh-nYTBsxAYAQsZxICiY6WJgCkEOEPBBAi2wiTXZCofaaq0NRU5QLwA3N-vTy-8rOsSLuE_rQPbl0hcLeYHS/s1246/308+bird+cover.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="946" data-original-width="1246" height="434" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiazuy58FUbu-UMa1G7s0m88NepZaACg4MxNOJ1eh0QjG_efYQyp_m7rNQPjh-nYTBsxAYAQsZxICiY6WJgCkEOEPBBAi2wiTXZCofaaq0NRU5QLwA3N-vTy-8rOsSLuE_rQPbl0hcLeYHS/w572-h434/308+bird+cover.JPG" width="572" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-59788646103316433182021-08-29T10:54:00.001-04:002021-09-08T10:57:27.401-04:00Talking Biotech 307 - Glyphosate Residues and Dietary Exposures<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">While glyphosate is claimed by may to be ubiquitous in food, how much is really there and is it a legitimate risk? I had the opportunity to ask a panel of the world's experts about a recent review they prepared that summarized the peer-reviewed literature on detection, residues, exposures and risk. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com/307-glyphosate-residues-and-dietary-exposure/"><br /></a></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com/307-glyphosate-residues-and-dietary-exposure/">Listen here.</a></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZBwSXa1KFMYz3sZ-vu9JKLBNXVzbdxmFQiFfyADFYv0FMsUf0NYG7IaqmKq1pXOOzLwqggW8RoUsmQIXeN54GMJwnww_RVKldJyT9jQZnTA9e3V9PyjGA8BWokzm0b9rlSUhYdAguZIMJ/s1249/307-+bayer+cover.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="945" data-original-width="1249" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZBwSXa1KFMYz3sZ-vu9JKLBNXVzbdxmFQiFfyADFYv0FMsUf0NYG7IaqmKq1pXOOzLwqggW8RoUsmQIXeN54GMJwnww_RVKldJyT9jQZnTA9e3V9PyjGA8BWokzm0b9rlSUhYdAguZIMJ/w521-h394/307-+bayer+cover.JPG" width="521" /></a></div><br /> <p></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-70494609267744522462021-08-27T13:52:00.005-04:002021-08-27T13:54:49.792-04:00Report on the Problem You Create- The Rise of Cyclical Sensationalism<p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjklARJ8dB5S2nuP2lr4ClsuZkVgMVJIqAuyKuwUUtmRSSBWB7hyHONQ2A-3pLcbtUPNEMfQvt5pkwW2w5oVnx1zopla9hIp_C9_k0a_u8LO8I9YtWsA-OIkQ5VsTZYBXBJjiCaB7FUAt7S/s1200/Dh3zpavVMAAlfFO.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjklARJ8dB5S2nuP2lr4ClsuZkVgMVJIqAuyKuwUUtmRSSBWB7hyHONQ2A-3pLcbtUPNEMfQvt5pkwW2w5oVnx1zopla9hIp_C9_k0a_u8LO8I9YtWsA-OIkQ5VsTZYBXBJjiCaB7FUAt7S/s320/Dh3zpavVMAAlfFO.jpg" /></a></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> A reporter places a banana peel at the top of the staircase in a local mall. A customer walks toward the stairs only to be shoved by the reporter onto the banana peel and down the stairs. The customer dies from traumatic injuries. </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The next day the reporter's headline reads, "Customer Dies on Mall Stairs."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The same reporter repeats the assassination ritual a few more times and shares the story of a negligent staircase widely on social media. he also cites his own article from the previous week, giving the impression of an epidemic of dangerous stairs. From there it spreads among local mall patrons. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The next week the reporter's headline reads, "Customers Concerned about Staircase Safety at Mall."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">*****</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A visible trend is emerging in crank journalism and slimy activism-- <b><i>reporting on the significance of a problem that they themselves created.</i></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For unethical "journalists" it is a way to create "evidence" that their errant or malicious position actually has support. First they produce media or messaging that makes a bogus claim. Next, they cite their own media source to create the perception that their bad claim has wide support. In other words, they strategically place the banana peel and shockingly report when someone slips on it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I call this <i>cyclical sensationalism. </i> It is a case where maliciously motivated can create faux news to fool the reader into believing a false claim is legitimate. This tactic is used for several reasons:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>1. To harm the credibility and trust in legitimate scientists. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One especially egregious violator of ethical standards uses cyclical sensationalism as a mainstay. Paul Thacker foists the patina of a legitimate journalist, but in my estimate he's a stooge working for the anti-GMO, anti-5G, anti-scientist interests like US-RTK. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">He started writing fallacious stories about me in 2014, and trolls my social media accounts with regularity. <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/24/following-criticism-plos-removes-blog-defending-scrutiny-of-science/">Some of his work has been retracted by ethical journals.</a> Other stories he has written appear in <i>Grist</i> and <i>The Progressive</i>, and all target me unfairly and inaccurately. Both <i>Grist</i> and <i>The Progressive</i> failed to take action when I notified them. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>The Progressive </i>did offer me a 250 word rebuttal to the 10,000 word hit piece. I declined. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The point is, he is one of very few writers that seem to scam publication outlets into publishing his filth. So he writes new hate pieces and then links to his own old work citing the name of the source (e.g. <i>The Progressive</i>) rather than the author (him). The goal is to trick the reader into believing that there are independent, legitimate voices that agree with his claims, and that he's not a lone goof libeling scientists. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I complained to </span><i style="font-size: x-large;">Grist </i><span style="font-size: x-large;">about the piece they hosted.</span><i style="font-size: x-large;"> </i><span style="font-size: large;">In the article Thacker states without question that my research can't be trusted because it is compromised by corporate influence, which is absolutely not true. As I stated in my letter: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"><b><i>"...</i> <i>he (Thacker) does the execution, leaves the shotgun in your closet, and then uses social media to say, “Hey, look who Grist just killed.” </i></b></span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I'm not the only one. He's done this to other scientists like Dr. David Gorski, and good journalists like Keith Kloor and Tamar Haspel. The list is reasonably long, but he has a special eerie tumescence for me. </span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>2. Amplification with cyclical self-sharing. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Retweets and shares come from linked accounts held by the same person, or within a tight network of cronies, provides a false sense of legitimacy or consensus to poor scientific ideas.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A really good example is US-RTK, the science hate group that seeks to harm reputations of scientists on behalf of the industries that pay their bills. Gary Ruskin and Carrie Gillam retweet Stacy Malkin's posts (both US-RTK employees), then US-RTK retweets their retweets. Usually it does not go much farther than that. </span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>3. To give the perception of mass interest in a non-problem that they describe as a risk.</b> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A recent tweet by the Non-GMO Report claims that 49% of US adults... you can read it! </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ_YJSp6y6_fLnqYeLAJP4Dj2jC5k7z6HRIawM4srdYp69gEjdTLkpt5Dgxi1WZ9xAF_Sa7k0x2aJdP5A8Da3itf50DjYbaBOaIHGdq-CHUBYP4ygjCRbCiN3aZ5-lZ30_y093QwelwohF/s542/210419+biohazard+corn.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="292" height="566" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ_YJSp6y6_fLnqYeLAJP4Dj2jC5k7z6HRIawM4srdYp69gEjdTLkpt5Dgxi1WZ9xAF_Sa7k0x2aJdP5A8Da3itf50DjYbaBOaIHGdq-CHUBYP4ygjCRbCiN3aZ5-lZ30_y093QwelwohF/w304-h566/210419+biohazard+corn.JPG" width="304" /></a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Duh! When an organization endlessly maligns a technology and makes false claims about it, certain elements of the public are influenced. They then report about the phenomenon they helped create! </i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">This example is a great case of cyclical sensationalism, creating the problem, and then pretending to independently report that there <i>is </i>a problem. The BIOHAZARD sticker is 100% intended for shock value. When the world is trying to figure out who to trust about food and farming, consumers are influenced by this malicious messaging.<br /><br />Of course, Twitter sets them straight:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0gF3-g00GlE5NO-fqmtKKs5_qxn-5aw3_XmDc_9ki2PAXWwRRmZnNC1kfAzYXL3Z2kcc8Kkx5SIdyqD9gnpx3gVRFuA6Ou8qnL8ciEDhfuRvFcImBV2KNsbUfM6qJDGvNyUuV1OW74qZa/s382/nongmobiohazard.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="382" data-original-width="306" height="433" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0gF3-g00GlE5NO-fqmtKKs5_qxn-5aw3_XmDc_9ki2PAXWwRRmZnNC1kfAzYXL3Z2kcc8Kkx5SIdyqD9gnpx3gVRFuA6Ou8qnL8ciEDhfuRvFcImBV2KNsbUfM6qJDGvNyUuV1OW74qZa/w346-h433/nongmobiohazard.JPG" width="346" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>These are just three ways that self-citation and near-network amplification spreads misinformation. It is cyclical sensationalism, and is becoming more common as crank claims and pseudoscience become more prominent through the limited filters of social media. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-24552140435028181102021-08-10T16:35:00.010-04:002021-08-12T13:39:24.847-04:00Dissecting the Dr. Dan Stock Video<span style="font-size: large;">One of the saddest parts of the pandemic is the number of trained physicians that have divorced themselves from their training and exploit their credibility to motivate action on an agenda. In my study of the social dynamics of the pandemic I'm finding more and more physicians that promote politically acceptable views of their community over published science. </span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As I continue to gently persuade and address concerns in social media I frequently get a video or podcast thrown at me.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Well what do you say about THIS, plant scientist!"</i> they say. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The assertion is that just because someone completed medical school (or maybe didn't lots of folks call themselves "doctor" and do not fulfill accredited training) they have some special forcefield of infallibility. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But they are fallible, and dangerous. The credibility of the title matters, and is being wielded at local events and school board meetings to influence critical public health decisions. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEsh6Sf_FIDSfp1i-FnLBQG15RpswgE0S4at8Ta1thQ-FTLohOn_lCuY1tfBlGbIiskZKShJCSIQKWHH0p35WWOzmp3JLKxiMhfvPtBi6FNe4YgjUeKC5vf0eq0rQBu8gE9MKZaWTSD83I/s1598/Screen-Shot-2021-08-09-at-1.57.34-PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="902" data-original-width="1598" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEsh6Sf_FIDSfp1i-FnLBQG15RpswgE0S4at8Ta1thQ-FTLohOn_lCuY1tfBlGbIiskZKShJCSIQKWHH0p35WWOzmp3JLKxiMhfvPtBi6FNe4YgjUeKC5vf0eq0rQBu8gE9MKZaWTSD83I/w509-h288/Screen-Shot-2021-08-09-at-1.57.34-PM.png" width="509" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Indiana sort of health guy Dr. Dan Stock misinforms a school board about COVID19 and it takes a plant molecular biologist to sort it out. </i></b></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />One video I was sent by FOUR separate people is at the Mt. Vernon, Indiana school board meeting. A guy dressed like John Boy Walton introduces himself as Dr. Dan Stock, expert in "functional medicine". </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Red flag #1. "Functional medicine" is a red flag tagging dubious alternative medical practices like reiki and energy field manipulation. Most of the disciplines used are bogus, unlike I guess non-functional medicine, the stuff that works. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The evidence presented was a Gish Gallop of false claims, starting with the Indiana Board of Health and the CDC fail to "read the science". Then he says, "everything recommended by the CDC is contrary to science." </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The CDC is operating contrary to science. Riiiiiiiight. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The first time I watched it to 45 seconds when he claimed masks don't work. After the second person to send it to me wanted an analysis, I went through the whole thing, painfully. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Here we go: </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Claim 1. "all respiratory viruses are spread by aerosol particles which are small enough to go through every mask"<br /><br />Fact- viral particles are highest in the fine particles that come from deep in the lungs. They are smaller than 5 um and most projected from taking, singing, yelling (Coleman et al., 2021). These are significantly attenuated by an N95 mask and even a basic surgical facial covering (<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2">Leung et al., 2020</a>). </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Claim 2. Respiratory viruses time infection for the "immune system to get sick through the winter"</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Fact- This makes zero sense. His contention is that the virus is always there, human immunity drops and then it takes over. There is substantial evidence against that, namely the huge spike we're seeing the USA now. And the huge spike during our winter, but in Brazil, where it is their summer. There are seasonal variations in some respiratory viruses, but they are due to other factors, mostly people concentrating indoors. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Claim 3. Vaccines make your immune system "deranged... cause symptomatic disease"</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Fact-- the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. There are rare cases of myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (a specific clotting in the brain), along with anaphylaxis reported. However, the fact that these are identified as a handful of doses in 160,000,000 vaccines shows that <i><b>the vaccine is safe and that the side effects are being carefully monitored</b></i>. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Claim 4. Vaccines can't work because the virus is in "animal reservoirs" and goes on to name a number of other viruses, like influenza. <br /><br />Fact- Flu and SARS-CoV2 are very different viruses. Influenza viruses undergo genomic shuffling to vary their genetics and presentation to the immune system. While SARS-CoV2 variants exist, they are slow to emerge and evade vaccines, which work quite well and were very effective against the original variants. He talks about respiratory scintitial virus (RSV) as being zoonotic, when there is no evidence for that. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Claim 5. Vaccines "go wrong" because of antibody dependent enhancement, "worse than it (infection) would be if fully vaccinated". He mentions the incidence of COVID19 among the highly vaccinated Provincetown outbreak. (Draws applause)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Fact- The folks in Provincetown were 99% vaccinated, so almost all cases (we know the vaccine isn't 100% effective) will be in vaccinated people. If everyone is wearing red shoes, the odds are that everyone with COVID19 will be wearing red shoes. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />There is also ZERO evidence of antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) with respect to SARS-CoV2, the phenomenon where vaccination leads to worse symptoms upon actual infection. It is a real problem with some vaccinations, like the early versions of Respiratory Scintitial Virus (RSV) vaccine. It has never been an issue with others, like measles. Clearly the least vaccinated counties have the highest incidence of symptoms/disease, <b><i>the exact opposite</i></b> of if there was ADE. <br /><br />Claim 6 - "No vaccine prevents you from getting infection"</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Fact - not true. HPV works great. Well established. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Claim 7 - "vitamin D, ivermectin and zinc, not a single person that has come near the hospital" </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Fact- he treated 15 people. Odds are that out of 15 infections most are unlikely to need hospitalization. I wonder how many of his untreated control group were hospitalized? Oh, he didn't have one. What dose did he use? How did he determine it was safe and effective at that dose? <i><b>He just took a wild-ass guess.</b></i> There are no clinical good clinical data on ivermectin and zinc for COVID19, so <b><i>he's doing his own experiment on his patients based on beliefs, taking a guess at levels needed to treat a novel virus.</i></b> Ethical? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Claim 8 - "patients that recover from COVID19 have no benefit from vaccination." <br /><br />Fact- the CDC has looked at this (Cavanaugh et al, 2021) and there is significant reductions in reinfection after vaccination following natural infection. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Claim 9 - "suffer 2-4 x side effects if vaccinated" </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Fact - There is no evidence to support this. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">He then says that the board is wrong because they aren't scientists and listen to the NIH, CDC and Indiana Board of Health... but then says that he should "listen to the people in the audience" as the average person in rural Indiana is certainly a better source of infectious disease information than our nation's infectious disease brain trust. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">He then offers to be an expert for free if they are sued. (Applause)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The bottom line is that Dr. Dan Stock is making unfounded assertions that placate the political rejection of science resident in his community. While a school board has a responsibility to protect the health of children, the community will follow guidance that fits their beliefs, even if it is wrong. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Dr. Dan Stock just used his authority to affirm their beliefs, beliefs that vaccines don't work, masks don't work, and that the virus is treatable with bogus nostrums. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">First, do no harm Dr. Stock. <b><i>First do no harm</i></b>. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">This is dangerous, and explains why his community will soon be a twisted little red pixel on the Indiana map, suffering from the spread of a completely preventable pathogen. When licensed physicians deceive the community they serve, shouldn't there be some repercussion? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I guess if they want to be deceived he's in the right place. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-4335618878468332832021-07-13T12:17:00.000-04:002021-07-13T12:17:38.139-04:00The Massive COVID19 Gain-of-Function Experiment - Are You Part of It?<p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Critics of SARS-CoV2 research decry the use of the </span><i style="font-size: x-large;">gain-of-function</i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> experiments used to study viruses. Such experiments are designed to test how changes in DNA sequence relate to enhanced activity of a gene product on biology, or in this case, the function of a virus. Mutation of viral DNA may lead to enhanced transmissibility, infectivity, pathogenesis, or lethality, among other effects. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That is exactly why researchers perform gain-of-function experiments in the safety of a laboratory setting. By understanding the biology in controlled circumstances scientists can better prepare to address the virus if it </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">naturally </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">becomes problematic in a population. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yet critics of gain-of-function research say it is dangerous and unnecessary.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And the same critics are also the least likely to be vaccinated. </span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="89c8"><span style="font-size: large;">The unvaccinated say they don’t want to be part of an experiment. </span></p><p class="graf graf--p" name="3abc"><span style="font-size: large;">By failing to be vaccinated, they have become an experiment.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This is the profound irony. Those that refuse vaccination are the most likely to sequester in small towns, churches and political rallies. They participate in work and social functions as though the virus is not a threat. Few masks, little distance, limited isolation, life as usual. <strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">They are a gain-of- function experiment, </em></strong>a spawning ground to test effects of new mutations.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioAIpG1iOAjCAcAVBn9pyMoMkwdgKwaxqYlVKb5ozwQ-tfqkYQLV9TR6A6cHTuwVSn3lyZnSOvYHrafzSs4Mp79RETFaJa5PUyu1qBXR0o-1KaUSqqKDpKDFR9knHRvCwyWQPyB1fdscb9/s671/EV49NDcXQAIGmOu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="598" data-original-width="671" height="382" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioAIpG1iOAjCAcAVBn9pyMoMkwdgKwaxqYlVKb5ozwQ-tfqkYQLV9TR6A6cHTuwVSn3lyZnSOvYHrafzSs4Mp79RETFaJa5PUyu1qBXR0o-1KaUSqqKDpKDFR9knHRvCwyWQPyB1fdscb9/w429-h382/EV49NDcXQAIGmOu.jpg" width="429" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>When ignorance goes viral, the virus goes to the ignorant. </i></b></span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the lab, prescribed changes may be made in DNA precisely, and the effects can be followed in laboratory animals. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Outside the lab, the virus replicates furiously in the body. The body produces hundreds of billions of viral particles. Each round of replication is slightly imprecise, potentially introducing random errors into the newly-produced virus. Most mutations have no effect. Others negatively affect the virus, its transmissibility, infectivity, or pathogenesis. We don't ever see these viruses in populations because they are a biological dead end.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But occasionally a mutation arises that bestows gain-of-function. When that newly-enabled virus escapes containment in that first breath, it may gain a foothold in a population, and become a new "variant of concern".</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We are learning about enhanced viral function by studying the new variants now circulating in populations. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is no question that vaccine denial follows<a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-profile-of-the-unvaccinated/"> political and regional trends</a>. These areas are the breeding grounds for new variants. It is the most extensive viral gain-of-function experiment ever performed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And remarkably people are willing to participate. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Please get vaccinated. </span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-1812331432821005372021-07-11T13:27:00.004-04:002021-07-11T13:27:53.665-04:00Gyphosate, Autism, and Goal Posts<p><span style="font-size: large;"> Dr. Stephanie Seneff has polluted the scientific conversation about the health effects of the herbicide glyphosate for over a decade. This latest volley is the waving tip of a white flag, as time is not supporting her alarmist claims. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">She does not run a research program on glyphosate or its effects on humans. What she does do is use the title of "Senior Research Scientist at MIT" as cred to be able to push underpowered hypotheses that are framed as legitimate empirical research. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The outcome is a slate of less-than-scholarly review articles, almost invariably in low-impact journals, that decry the dangers of herbicides and vaccines. They are give some credibility because of her title, and at least one journal has published a warning label that the work is suspect. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">How are the papers constructed? In short, they are sculpted narratives of cherry picked data and pushing correlations as causation. These are crafted into what are best hypotheses not supported by the preponderance of he evidence. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Like this one in the journal Entropy. The unknowing actually think it is scholarly research. <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416">The journal even notes</a> the authors' bias in not presenting the breadth of the research (a.k.a. 'Cherry Picking'). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One famous one was the claim that due to glyphosate use, <a href="https://www.mstbrazil.org/news/scientist-argues-%E2%80%9Cglyphosate%E2%80%9D-will-lead-autism-50-children-2025">half of all children would be autistic by 2025. </a> This is conclusion is an extrapolation of trends of glyphosate use and autism prevalence, as she described in this <a href="https://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/JOS_Volume-9_Number-2_Nov_2014-Swanson-et-al.pdf">logical-fallacy strewn wreck of a paper.</a> </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg144sKKx2bfZJVdUf-ttEXCWgx62H3tR4zm4kQ-QiLTnZicWA1AMEZrhsjSvZNQfd2J8jpMN7A4kpcXdyv3ux2mIqiYAgKNsgBJXxUsp0mO-a2o8BRySmxumK9U7M_xPb_f3fq0cHf5YUD/s566/autism.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="471" data-original-width="566" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg144sKKx2bfZJVdUf-ttEXCWgx62H3tR4zm4kQ-QiLTnZicWA1AMEZrhsjSvZNQfd2J8jpMN7A4kpcXdyv3ux2mIqiYAgKNsgBJXxUsp0mO-a2o8BRySmxumK9U7M_xPb_f3fq0cHf5YUD/w529-h440/autism.JPG" width="529" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>To some great thinkers correlation and causality are one in the same. </i></b></span></div><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Apparently now that landmark 50% rate appears to have shifted, apparently to 2032. We're not using less glyphosate, so I wonder why autism rates now won't hit half of kids until seven years later?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizIgzLRACtc-X_muKl8Fu0vdIJZJ1hdHt8Il8sA-RKChzNmZIrvs3yzNbXaWlMmsxoje-bpDD3iUSA9eOVShLl340ULObucswJGGXdUbUbDCpXMv8ryk9lUFUlwgrfMB4KXqz-3kQXe_l0/s308/autism2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="218" data-original-width="308" height="327" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizIgzLRACtc-X_muKl8Fu0vdIJZJ1hdHt8Il8sA-RKChzNmZIrvs3yzNbXaWlMmsxoje-bpDD3iUSA9eOVShLl340ULObucswJGGXdUbUbDCpXMv8ryk9lUFUlwgrfMB4KXqz-3kQXe_l0/w462-h327/autism2.JPG" width="462" /></a></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Twitter links to the claims that glyphosate-induced autism is on the rise, just not as fast as predicted. The link takes you to an anti-vaccine site for the documentary </i>Vaxxed II<i>.</i></b></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />The real reason the claim was pushed back was much more practical. 2025 is the year after the year after the year after next year. If you're going to revise your bogus claim you have to do it early. </span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The more realistic answer is that physicians have changed the criteria for autism and surveillance has greatly improved. Even minor anti-social behaviors can place a child on the autism spectrum, which is excellent because early therapy and intervention can have great effects. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">My point here is to remind you of the predictions that were made and never seem to come true, and remember the people that make them. They are held up as heroes in some conspiracy communities, and their errant opinions affect how some perceive science and technology. </span><p></p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p></div>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-46523054395577349702021-06-11T20:14:00.002-04:002021-06-14T13:48:43.650-04:00Coordinated Disinformation Campaigns on Twitter<p><span style="font-size: large;"> Today on twitter I kept seeing the same message coming up, over and over again. What the heck is going on? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmnc0g0PHa2tFqLXkxsjUq1a3y-AeBLhRQFi1NCFoiGnlDmOlx5m4J9cfupsYr6x6hYdtYiZeAevLZp2X0ZCkkPRcnYLHXT-CrWA6Jo2gNSsMvWUxTvqW2UzS-L_5DR7xb50H8QsM2LXYX/s410/CFSspam1.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="410" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmnc0g0PHa2tFqLXkxsjUq1a3y-AeBLhRQFi1NCFoiGnlDmOlx5m4J9cfupsYr6x6hYdtYiZeAevLZp2X0ZCkkPRcnYLHXT-CrWA6Jo2gNSsMvWUxTvqW2UzS-L_5DR7xb50H8QsM2LXYX/s320/CFSspam1.JPG" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i>Mia's mom wants major restaurant chains to know that she's not exactly up on the science.</i></b></div><br />The link goes to the Center for Food Safety, an organization that really isn't that is much more of an anti-technology club than a food safety concern. They speak out against any application of biotechnology, such as the release of the disease-suppressing GE mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Somehow when CFS launches a twitter campaign they plaster the Tweet Stream with the exact same message over and over again. My feeling is that they do this to create the impression of a mass consensus, a movement to essentially bully retailers and restaurants.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In this case it is the AquaAdvantage Salmon, a fish grown in inland tanks in Indiana. First invented in 1989, the salmon has had a rocky road to market, despite the magic of growing to market size in half the time and on a fraction of the food and other resources. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It has been shown to be equivalent to regular salmon and safe as can be. It is not a threat to natural populations because the fish are genetically sterile and a long flop to any place where they could cause ecological problems. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While technophiles argue that this innovation takes pressure off of natural populations and can provide fresh fish at a better price point, those opposed to biotechnology in any form push back.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Tweet above is just one of hundreds. Literally, hundreds. All exactly the same, cookie-cutter tweets. The information is false, as they imply risk to public health, oceans, and wild salmon populations. It is total disinformation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">They spam popular restaurant chains and hotels, folding them in to tweet after tweet. What gives? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I've heard of tweet-storms before, campaigns to start hashtags trending around a given topic. When spawned organically this is probably a good way to get an issue noticed. <br /><br />But the identical nature of these tweets is highly suspect. They are not retweets, they appear to be original work of real people. But are they? <br /><br />I thought they were bots, and remain to be convinced otherwise. Are there services out there that create hundreds of bogus accounts that appear real, simply for these applications? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I reached out to some of the tweeters, asking if there is a message they received or some script they copied. I received one reply that said, "Go to the (CFS) website". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I went to the website and there was simply a petition to sign. No twitter script. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Meanwhile they accumulate by the hundreds. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyzSypIGCkRY3iTv8P-LPKdq5__Zehm1DgAcV6NotirM1cRP1M1Ei67V8jzybD_bHIPKqxv53HdcBv9L3PNw1Nc3ClGmJQEouHIdFecwA26b2DOifrvbqS8H2i8fXo1oRouMo7vuL8LOvP/s1233/CFSspam2.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="861" data-original-width="1233" height="433" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyzSypIGCkRY3iTv8P-LPKdq5__Zehm1DgAcV6NotirM1cRP1M1Ei67V8jzybD_bHIPKqxv53HdcBv9L3PNw1Nc3ClGmJQEouHIdFecwA26b2DOifrvbqS8H2i8fXo1oRouMo7vuL8LOvP/w621-h433/CFSspam2.JPG" width="621" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><i>If you search tweets using the hashtag #GMO you'll find over 100 identical messages implying harm from AquaAdvantage Salmon.</i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">I'm very interested in how these kinds of coordinated disinformation campaigns are being used to influence corporate decisions. Social media can be a powerful influence, and those not understanding the technology might find this mass movement against a new product quite compelling. How can so many people be wrong?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The real question is, are there really so many people, or is this just some devious scam to present the façade of widespread concern, when it really is just the Center for Food Safety pushing their typical anti-biotech agenda? </span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">(To be continued)</span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-24124239305457268132021-06-02T11:33:00.007-04:002021-06-02T14:14:46.804-04:00Are You Harming Your Best Advocate? <p><span style="font-size: large;"> Be careful when you take action to eliminate an informed voice from a conversation. In the days of the internet such cancellation can be permanent, and if you remove someone that has a clue, it might just come back to work against your best interests later on. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Throughout the 2000's and most of all in 2015 and to this day, there have been activist groups and <a href="https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/tag/paul-d-thacker/">unhinged individuals</a> that wanted me silent. Whether it is weird professional jealousy, the fact that I run a highly-rated biotech podcast, or the fact that I am a trusted source of scientific information, I attract vicious critics. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But I'm consistent about two things:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">1. Speaking from the evidence and the data.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">2. Admitting when I'm incorrect and adjusting. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i><b>When critics use sharp and defamatory means to destroy trust and remove their target from <u>a</u> scientific conversation, they run the risk of removing them from <u>all </u>scientific conversations. </b></i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In 2015 I was targeted by USRTK, <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/24/following-criticism-plos-removes-blog-defending-scrutiny-of-science/">Paul Thacker, Charles Seife,</a> Organic Consumers Association and dozens of other anti-biotech activists. Food Babe Vani Hari joined in. Journalists like Eric Lipton at the New York Times and freelance writer Brooke Borel took hard and visible shots that today clearly stand as well-orchestrated hit pieces. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://kfolta.blogspot.com/2021/05/whats-actual-story-of-39-page-complaint.html">Other folks</a> added their interpretations of emails, professional actions and even <a href="https://kfolta.blogspot.com/2021/05/whats-actual-story-of-39-page-complaint.html">crept eerily into my personal life</a>. Gross. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> The defamation for teaching science remains permanent on the internet to this day. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Why does it matter? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Because it forever serves as a touchstone for those that reject the science I teach, it is a get-out-of-science-jail-free card to those that want to debate climate change, vaccination, genetic engineering or evolution, but rely on bad evidence and conspiracy to fortify their bankrupt positions. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Case in point. Last night I <a href="https://twitter.com/Teodrose_Fikre/status/1399948569159872512">had a pleasant conversation on Twitter</a> with someone (now going by "Fauci is Mengele" that was certain he was correct. He was not. He drew a chorus of supporters that chimed in about the COVID19 vaccine that was untested, experimental, dangerous, and blah, blah, blah. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Painted into a corner with evidence to counter his anti-vax claims, he "did research" on me and posted this:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCIw8iufIqiwvJRSGyDTXxrknGMF9ey1JLqLue7EnL4e7qH66MiLquktwkQwyDjLfu_wQ7F12p8Ei8g0GQrMYFX0Cp-NEsh_0SJMemLUd49XhcKqUFKBw43zuF3yNuZrwg7i9VMp_D251s/s523/210602+ulterior.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="523" data-original-width="300" height="530" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCIw8iufIqiwvJRSGyDTXxrknGMF9ey1JLqLue7EnL4e7qH66MiLquktwkQwyDjLfu_wQ7F12p8Ei8g0GQrMYFX0Cp-NEsh_0SJMemLUd49XhcKqUFKBw43zuF3yNuZrwg7i9VMp_D251s/w305-h530/210602+ulterior.JPG" width="305" /></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Fauci is Mengele "did a bit of research" to eliminate my knowledgeable voice from an important conversation. A tip of the hat to those that work to slander scientists.</i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">And the fact that I've not "lined my pockets" and am hardly an insider doesn't matter. I've been a academic scientist my entire career and have a strong record of public service. The fact that the <i>New York Times</i> used out of context quotations (at times eliminating words to reverse their meaning) and false interpretations to harm my reputation is something I'll carry to the grave. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>From the <i>New York Times</i>, 9/5/2015 regarding me: </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja4wGPEOVpbwvZvWZKpCOZJTq8VVMArGt0GDbmZKkovZCVD3tCAjSGEeGkxxHUKcjRXuYDfXY9MP8-wPAEh1XRkpCKCCAr7spbuKq0YonpdzEPo17sa-Fhh__mWC9NzCX7wi3n-DgbcxXR/s618/210602+lipton.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="109" data-original-width="618" height="115" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja4wGPEOVpbwvZvWZKpCOZJTq8VVMArGt0GDbmZKkovZCVD3tCAjSGEeGkxxHUKcjRXuYDfXY9MP8-wPAEh1XRkpCKCCAr7spbuKq0YonpdzEPo17sa-Fhh__mWC9NzCX7wi3n-DgbcxXR/w659-h115/210602+lipton.JPG" width="659" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i>I reject the notion that teaching science is a "corporate public relations campaign"</i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Also from the <i>New York Times</i>, 9/5/2015 </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIcfuyVcHd9RmjLsBw9hQmVPPJqkrDN-mN4Fsa-v_c2pN9mDsjm1o5QHbyfqEYGz0-jh0_SeY2tgssYLj6nubM3xNvtfG80gdl88cy1F62x8YvRPUFjTmdB3hui-iMD-5A2NGY2DCWZSvr/s618/210602+lipton2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="172" data-original-width="618" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIcfuyVcHd9RmjLsBw9hQmVPPJqkrDN-mN4Fsa-v_c2pN9mDsjm1o5QHbyfqEYGz0-jh0_SeY2tgssYLj6nubM3xNvtfG80gdl88cy1F62x8YvRPUFjTmdB3hui-iMD-5A2NGY2DCWZSvr/w621-h173/210602+lipton2.JPG" width="621" /></a></div><b><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i>When I first read this in print I spit my coffee all over the screen. Inner circle? I'm a freakin' piss-ant public servant that begs federal agencies for funding to do great science and train tomorrow's scientists. I WISH I was some kind of inner circle lobbyist or consultant! </i></b></div></b><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This kind of rhetoric provides an easy disqualification for those that cannot discuss the evidence. If they can't address your arguments with conspiracy and websites, they eliminate you from the conversation. This is especially true towards me because I treat everyone with profound kindness and do influence those watching the conversation. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So be careful of trashing academic, public scientists in big, public, visible ways. At the end of the day they do work for you, and the reputation you are harming may be that of one of your best advocates. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div></span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><br /></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-83865534417696465542021-05-24T15:26:00.003-04:002021-05-24T15:27:21.378-04:00Creating False Consensus with Bots<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The discussion around Twitter bans is hot, mostly with regard to specific accounts that provide dangerous false information. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">But what about accounts that appear to be legitimate users, but somehow are coordinated accounts posting false or misleading information? One false-information source alone is not much influence, and one can be singled out, reported or appropriately banned without consequence. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>But does the mass posting of a common false claim from dozens of accounts provide a false sense of consensus where none really exists? </i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">It's right from the Goebbels playbook-- tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. It works because repetition and the perception of broad support from a number of supposedly independent accounts provides the illusion of truth. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">This barrage occurred following news that Oxitec mosquitoes were being released in the Florida Keys. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBQqoeWYGenRMb1IFG5zUf5AeBxIp6aUi7US-rPnaNl-L7BHUrsZ1vI0Uid0YtspfaQT9bqqktLFyvdP_RFfMzH2EhJ0A4VRugFmvHLCeervAi02c15qAzX-ZzGc4qdZILIANXQr8fCubq/s684/BOTSCOMBINED.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="631" data-original-width="684" height="544" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBQqoeWYGenRMb1IFG5zUf5AeBxIp6aUi7US-rPnaNl-L7BHUrsZ1vI0Uid0YtspfaQT9bqqktLFyvdP_RFfMzH2EhJ0A4VRugFmvHLCeervAi02c15qAzX-ZzGc4qdZILIANXQr8fCubq/w590-h544/BOTSCOMBINED.JPG" width="590" /></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Repetition of a common message from multiple accounts that appear to be independent provides the illusion of consensus about a common theme where none really exists. </i></b></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">This deceptive spamming appears to happen through legitimate accounts. So either these are well-crafted fake online personas, or a careful coordination between individuals in a "phone tree" type of distribution of an identical message. Either way it is deceptive, and the second one is highly unlikely. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I'm going to look at this more closely. My guess is that this all boils down to a common organization that is trying to manipulate public opinion around biotechnology. Stay tuned....</span></div>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-89653182997937435172021-05-23T17:55:00.008-04:002021-05-24T11:49:56.924-04:00Allegations of Threats<p><span style="font-size: large;"> Over the last week the trolls are back, and polluting social media with more anti-Folta nonsense. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I won't even touch on it. Nobody has looked at it, nobody really cares. It gets few likes, retweets, etc., and those that do show some love to the filth are in the defamation network. It's dead.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But sadly I need to always play defense. Now that these allegations are forever placed in findable space, I must reluctantly respond. </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">I teach students, I work with kids, I lead community initiatives, and when someone claims that I'm issuing "threats" I unfortunately have to provide my perspective.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">First, Carey Gillam. She tweeted this, this week:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbu3-msV0NkM847SdOcPC5HMtcExr6ZsoVEMmJWO2bXpedkwDyk7poqEmZMpMdOoKO1zWFLZ9jXya0iNijvwS7M2rickUlDelU2gFPS8vtFx2U13gbmH53bUebnf_L4nHnR-4LD-sy64fm/s307/210523+gillam.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="295" data-original-width="307" height="347" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbu3-msV0NkM847SdOcPC5HMtcExr6ZsoVEMmJWO2bXpedkwDyk7poqEmZMpMdOoKO1zWFLZ9jXya0iNijvwS7M2rickUlDelU2gFPS8vtFx2U13gbmH53bUebnf_L4nHnR-4LD-sy64fm/w361-h347/210523+gillam.JPG" width="361" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carey is one of very few people on my "do not Heimlich" list. She is one person that I believe is truly evil, and takes pleasure in harming others. When I begged her to leave my family out of some online slander, she doubled down and went after someone very close to me. I appealed to her as a mother and a human being to please just stop-- but she dialed it up. She is a monster. <br /><br />Over the last decade she has trashed my work, made false claims about me and my motivations, and has been generally horrible. She is paid by USRTK, the organization <b><i>sponsored by industry</i></b> to endlessly harass me, so she gets a paycheck to post defamation like the above. That's her job. <br /><br />If she had "bizarre and oddly threatening emails" from me she would have posted them, or paraded them around the internet. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">And if I would have made threats, they would have been very much deserved. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Threat Capacity</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I'm not one to make threats. I'm a diplomat. We work things out. However, I am one to describe the constellation of outcomes if a given path is taken. Big difference. By talking about "here's what happens if..." is an important point for me to present to others. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I make no threats, and nothing I say could ever be remotely construed as a personal threat-- like physical harm or unfair retribution. I don't have that gear. Frankly, I wish the trolls would leave me alone, and I ignore them for the most part. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Where It Started</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">This week a story emerged online about how Karl Haro Von Mogel claimed that I threatened him in a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20708655-karl-haro-vonmogel-complaint-about-kevin-m-folta">39-page psycho complaint </a>to my University's Dean for Teaching. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Think about this. If someone were to threaten you in a non-work related context, legitimately, would you run crying to their employer? </i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Karl does this because he knows that there are no legitimate threats from an ethical or legal perspective, and people that know me, and know him, understand that I don't operate that way. They see what he has done to cause me personal and professional harm, along with stark personal betrayal, and understand that I probably am justified in feeling a little prickly towards him. I just ignored him until his wild complaint package surfaced.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">But universities are extremely risk averse and must take all claims very seriously. That means universities can be exploited to do your dirty work, and trash the reputation of your target academic from within their institution. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">At the same time my University Administration knows me better than anyone, and also knows the praise I receive for good work in teaching, service, research and outreach. They know a troll when they smell one. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The other major problem here is that the <b><i>alleged threats were not communicated through a university email </i></b>account or in my role as a professor at the university. I was a private citizen protecting my privacy and reputation, and discussions with Karl were personal and through non-work channels. Now von Mogel took it upon himself to drag in my employer and make his claims public, making my personal, private emails public without my knowledge or permission, or the courtesy a carbon copy. Shame.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">He produced an email from me that contained this excerpt, interpreting it as a threat: </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZiAr5TzD4_hLMxZBmezh-gKiX0hr5fu6YEEGR1oHl2Xqqdf28EF3zjW74zNDfHaVBcCifkdRcponZry-Dyj38APCRAWlQN5rqoAWuBP8xn8gL_dyazcuLcGccw2CV4Nj6kMFbXuBfqBM3/s897/karl001.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="897" height="114" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZiAr5TzD4_hLMxZBmezh-gKiX0hr5fu6YEEGR1oHl2Xqqdf28EF3zjW74zNDfHaVBcCifkdRcponZry-Dyj38APCRAWlQN5rqoAWuBP8xn8gL_dyazcuLcGccw2CV4Nj6kMFbXuBfqBM3/w641-h114/karl001.JPG" width="641" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">At the time, my personal property and files were being distributed to the internet, including the ever-hostile GM Watch for malicious and incorrect re-interpretation. I wanted to know how that material was getting out of my home and file cabinet, and I suspected he may be part of that pipeline. I already knew that he broke my confidentiality on some highly-sensitive work I was doing with a law firm and was meddling in my divorce by providing false statements to my ex-wife's attorney. <br /><br />I simply told him, we can discuss this privately, or make it public, you pick. That's not a threat. This is me kindly offering to work it out together privately, rather than having it blow up publicly and have to explain it, like is happening here. I don't want to wreck the guy's future like he wants to wreck mine. <br /><br />Keep in mind that this was several years ago. I just learned of this complaint last week (5/2021) when it went public, and if it didn't go internet-wide I would never have said anything publicly. They guy has enough problems and could still sort it out and be a good contributor. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>But to accuse me of threats is something I must directly address. </i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">He continues: </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx-Xu0JKdiU_WcKx7vUJCqxK5uu_AQRSdPL1sQkbxSksPC5VW05ndEBLBnHostNqwyVBSh_GNp0bU-hcZ5DrL-au9TczP4il2q5uRzB6LliKXLJ0xcuIPjv9PiR8WymIOS4hbTJwgus8tS/s966/karl002.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="108" data-original-width="966" height="74" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx-Xu0JKdiU_WcKx7vUJCqxK5uu_AQRSdPL1sQkbxSksPC5VW05ndEBLBnHostNqwyVBSh_GNp0bU-hcZ5DrL-au9TczP4il2q5uRzB6LliKXLJ0xcuIPjv9PiR8WymIOS4hbTJwgus8tS/w655-h74/karl002.JPG" width="655" /></a></div><br /> If it is false, then we can talk about it and sort it out. It was his refusal to discuss this important issue, and my need to get to the bottom of it that prompted my response. It was not "social blackmail", as proven by the fact that he did not discuss it with me and I kept quiet-- I never made it public until now, when his complaint became public. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The next "double down" on "threats" was:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRXGkClvLmIcvp82Hew2_TWzJuI0qca9smCyuzZ2-TnvyuKkCFN72FrZuaYd_Da5TSmcLXEq9gVvvO0JJR_SC_SV2F03V9apSAyqR0X9_MmxZWnPQ6SBA6T8Eb_kDHS8WXbzfCiuk5Ttsq/s906/karl003.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="426" data-original-width="906" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRXGkClvLmIcvp82Hew2_TWzJuI0qca9smCyuzZ2-TnvyuKkCFN72FrZuaYd_Da5TSmcLXEq9gVvvO0JJR_SC_SV2F03V9apSAyqR0X9_MmxZWnPQ6SBA6T8Eb_kDHS8WXbzfCiuk5Ttsq/w629-h295/karl003.JPG" width="629" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">This was after Karl reported me to a professional conference for violating the Code of Conduct, simply because I requested a meeting with him on how we were going to complete a project that was crowdfunded with >$13,000 of public money, where he dropped the ball and my name was attached to it. I had every right to be angry, and I wasn't. I just wanted to formulate a plan out of the mess, together. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">My reputation was on the line and I wanted a resolution. I either wanted a plan forward or was going to disconnect from the work very publicly in an act of self-preservation. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Luckily he kicked me off of the project, along with lots of other people that did the analysis on my end, and did so very publicly, so I didn't have to do anything. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Is it a Threat? </b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The point is simple. These are not threats-- these are IF/THEN statements where I spelled out our options to completing a project or resolving a difference. I always was gracious in offering to do things the easy way first, and avoiding escalation that does nobody any good. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">That statement is shown to be true with time, as I did not receive a satisfactory solution that I asked for, and still never took the situation public. I didn't want to affect his career and possibilities like he wanted to do to me. I just let it disappear. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Until now. If the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20708655-karl-haro-vonmogel-complaint-about-kevin-m-folta">39-page complaint</a> didn't surface, then I would not have to state my explanation of the situation. He knows about FOIA and public records requests, he used that system anonymously to gather confidential documents of mine and distribute them. He absolutely knew that he was planting a seed that would be discovered later and play a critical role in his malicious targeting. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Again</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">If you have questions, ask me. The situation is super unfortunate and my guess is that the other parties involved wish they had a do-over. It makes them look amazingly sad and petty. Rather than accepting an invitation in a <i><b>private email</b></i> (these were from my personal account, not subject to FOIA, and had nothing to do with university business) to resolve a difference with me personally, they run to conferences and my university administration and claim "threats". <br /><br />And now this long-forgotten annoyance has become very public, not by me, I'm busy working and teaching science. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">And I want to keep doing that. These kinds of accusations do nothing to help me teach others as they are designed to harm my reputation. <br /><br />Which means I now need to work even harder at producing good media and better outreach. Good. I needed a little fire to refocus my efforts in positive ways. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I hope he finds his. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-18014853198737022752021-05-21T18:04:00.012-04:002021-07-19T10:53:51.391-04:00Hang It Up Stacy<p><span style="font-size: large;"> In 2015 the anti-science, scientist slander machine called US-RTK provided my emails and a story to New York Times reporter Eric Lipton. As stated by Lipton on the 9/17/2015 <i>Kojo Nnamdi Show</i> on NPR, (USRTK leader) "Gary Ruskin handed me a story and wanted me to publish it."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The result was a gross misrepresentation of me and my motivations to teach science. To them, it was all part of a corporate cabal to misinform the public in exchange for grant money. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Time has shown that none of it was true. Still the story lives on the internet, forever attached to me in a Google search. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And folks from USRTK keep it alive and well. Last week Stacy Malkan, a USRTK henchtwit, continued to post links to the Lipton story, at least to the documents that supported it, plucked from their context for easy re-interpretation.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkyZYIf7WoB7x09S6tmC6MFTjqd3AkmT4SHcdC-w5frft9appnEtNS89jcKlE1ScE1owTL5GZm4mBO-DsZ61G89x2AcTf4t02NXSrwDf6_RmVwr5c2ATp9E60ggYcKL05cp8WCqoS-xwJQ/s479/stacy001.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="314" height="557" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkyZYIf7WoB7x09S6tmC6MFTjqd3AkmT4SHcdC-w5frft9appnEtNS89jcKlE1ScE1owTL5GZm4mBO-DsZ61G89x2AcTf4t02NXSrwDf6_RmVwr5c2ATp9E60ggYcKL05cp8WCqoS-xwJQ/w365-h557/stacy001.JPG" width="365" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Yes, that's what I do. I talk to folks about communication, which has a significant component of psychology. How do people process information? What mistakes do they make? How can we earn trust? These are the things I teach. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">And as the article states, "A Florida Professor Works With the Biotech Industry" they neglect to note that this is our job. We are to be public liaisons with industry. That's part of the Morrill Act of 1862 that established the Land Grant University System. It is to take the knowledge generated and apply it to agriculture, which includes the ag-associated industries. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Lipton and USRTK neglect to note that 95% of my research funding comes from federal and state sources. The industry funding for research came from the Florida Strawberry and vertical farm industries. In 2017 I hired a postdoc for one year on Bayer funds ($57,000 to hire a Ph.D. scientist for one year with benefits) to work on novel molecule discovery, which is one thing my lab does. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Here's the Point</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Over the last several years it is no secret that USRTK has lost relevance. You can't slander scientists and attack science for years and not expect folk to catch on eventually. <br /><br />Their recent attacks on Dr. Peter Dadzyk brought them sharp rebuke by social media, and their website visits plummeted. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi6jjLm3d6TuVVEMhC6d31zYwwSKClQpapbQeGexTNM5e_sHHllZqMyftAtCFOE_feH9SmeLnBQ5bkOILgwM5pkOG9SOPM_zl6AHoMqDONrD0MnNm8Uz5IrWevwEE9viwvebdlaLyzoyb2/s911/RTK+click.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="383" data-original-width="911" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi6jjLm3d6TuVVEMhC6d31zYwwSKClQpapbQeGexTNM5e_sHHllZqMyftAtCFOE_feH9SmeLnBQ5bkOILgwM5pkOG9SOPM_zl6AHoMqDONrD0MnNm8Uz5IrWevwEE9viwvebdlaLyzoyb2/w567-h239/RTK+click.png" width="567" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Traffic ain't so hot over at USRTK. While the world tolerated their hate directed at scientists for years, the anti-COVID19 science work has flattened their curve. <a href="https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-the-us-right-to">Source.</a></i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><i><br /></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b style="font-size: x-large;">At the Same Time... </b></div></div><p><span style="font-size: large;">While I'm not speaking at conferences as much and have been living through the other hassles of hard defamation, things are going generally very well. Research is fun, teaching is going great, and I'm investing time in other community leadership efforts. All good. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Talking Biotech Podcast is entering its 7th year, approaching 1.5 million downloads and 300 episodes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1c7N-1BPSS-RYu59LZV5grQGE2Q5YhoR69vMtbDGndzUOoLCmtv3HcZWO01jlskAXwjrCvl6n3ZHw0ggJhhQXQttjFaQ-OL_ma6tCTRoJMsOUZ8XTf-YvVXWwLGW93p6m6acXpPgXGulN/s311/stacy002.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="177" data-original-width="311" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1c7N-1BPSS-RYu59LZV5grQGE2Q5YhoR69vMtbDGndzUOoLCmtv3HcZWO01jlskAXwjrCvl6n3ZHw0ggJhhQXQttjFaQ-OL_ma6tCTRoJMsOUZ8XTf-YvVXWwLGW93p6m6acXpPgXGulN/w460-h262/stacy002.JPG" width="460" /></a></div><p></p><p><b style="font-size: x-large;">The Point.</b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When you are a hate group that targets scientists the world will catch up, and you will lose relevance. When you do good work that grows with time, you gain relevance. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Why do they beat a tired old story from 2015 that they created? It got them what they wanted at the time, but in the rear view mirror of time it is clear that it was a targeted hit piece that ultimately proved to be bullshit. <br /><br />And their defamation page on me is alive and well. My students visit it and laugh. They know me, and that's not me.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In a world of important problems, why not focus energy and time on solving them? What dig the heels into defamation of public scientists working for the good of others? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is a failed formula. Stacy doesn't get that. Maybe she will when USRTK is out of business. Coming soon. </span></p><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-80622521473759012352021-04-15T17:51:00.003-04:002021-04-15T17:56:32.865-04:00Consumer Advocates or Anti-Biotech in Disguise?<p><span style="font-size: large;"> Wolves in sheep's clothing? It is an interesting question because I've never seen a sheep wearing clothes. I guess what it really means is that if a wolf could skin a sheep and wear the wool to basically be a trojan horse. Something like Silence of the Lambs.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I've always suspected that a number of apparent "good guys" of consumer advocacy are really just anti-biotechnology interests. Their recent activities have confirmed my suspicions. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Over the years I have watch the Organic Consumers Association and the Center for Food Safety rail against biotechnology as it applied to crops. They falsify evidence, bend the truth, and vilify scientists. You can go to their pages and read that I'm a booze-swillin', wife-beatin', child harassin', drunk-drivin' a-hole that is paid by Monsanto to lie about science.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Because I teach science. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now that their nemesis Monsanto is no longer a thing, these groups must be falling on hard times. Their most recent targets? Biotech mosquitoes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The genetically engineered mosquitoes by <a href="https://www.oxitec.com/">Oxitec</a> are a modern version of <a href="https://www.iaea.org/topics/sterile-insect-technique">sterile insect technique</a>, a method to rapidly suppress mosquito numbers that has been used for over half a century. Its modern form is much more precise. Briefly, male mosquitoes contain a larvae-lethal gene. The gene is turned off in the lab, but then it is activated upon release. The males mate with local female pests, and the next generation of larvae are inviable. Mosquito populations crash. The target is a non-native invasive mosquito so it poses no threat to natural ecosystems. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">These disease-transmitting mosquitoes are clearly the most lethal animal on the planet. With Zika, Dengue, chikungunya, malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases on the rise, these tools could have great human health implications. They are to be released in the Florida Keys shortly. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now technically birds eat mosquitoes, so the Center for (Bird) Food Safety might have a point. But the Organic Consumers Association? I haven't been to Whole Foods in a long time, but maybe they are selling mosquito larvae for $40 a pound. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNC6dZBnp1F6nb1Hx8bMGeky9mwSgEhb4y5E4pCiSrBwYAijCC3i1LXvCzsSAjirSQwNYt2-dZ5WZ6VNVhrosOFEAVzpZD0I0LDXe_YlrUQ4YQJKMFtYBVwvpoV_lSLsjMqPPxDVUX9oM1/s1179/210415+bots3.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="817" data-original-width="1179" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNC6dZBnp1F6nb1Hx8bMGeky9mwSgEhb4y5E4pCiSrBwYAijCC3i1LXvCzsSAjirSQwNYt2-dZ5WZ6VNVhrosOFEAVzpZD0I0LDXe_YlrUQ4YQJKMFtYBVwvpoV_lSLsjMqPPxDVUX9oM1/w554-h384/210415+bots3.JPG" width="554" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><b><br /></b></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><b>Cool if you are an organic consumer, but does OCA really represent your interests when it promotes fighting a proven technology that can aid public health?</b></i></div><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;">Not to be outdone, the Center for Food Safety also is in the anti-biotech mosquito game. Recently they were bragging about their new billboard on Twitter. Yes, the Center for Food Safety spends their budget on expensive billboards that oppose human health initiatives.</span><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiztflz_22Jyw9jkTgUGtGUTKolR2Lhutq3eE6ioSTv7gKp1-MJfbWl3a06tErJfSsBwP_7Fxhhu1dZ0vGnyNlrBYE1v1hGmfxLaJBaG61bHQblNgTkBLB-sPriJthp_GhjGYL-0wpenjw4/s964/210402+CFS.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="889" data-original-width="964" height="574" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiztflz_22Jyw9jkTgUGtGUTKolR2Lhutq3eE6ioSTv7gKp1-MJfbWl3a06tErJfSsBwP_7Fxhhu1dZ0vGnyNlrBYE1v1hGmfxLaJBaG61bHQblNgTkBLB-sPriJthp_GhjGYL-0wpenjw4/w622-h574/210402+CFS.JPG" width="622" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">The Center for Food Safety is "SO excited" about their first-ever billboard in the Florida Keys, an effort to manufacture risk against all evidence, impact tourism, and essentially harm a local economy to push their agenda. </span></i></b></div><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In social media, OCA has bots that spam the interwebs, blasting a common, repeated message over and over again. The goal? To make it look like there is widespread concern about a safe and effective strategy to limit numbers of disease-causing mosquitoes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQY4jKKNjK-v1Syxam7Nuvq5FRDIlSNr6bI7igOtbWZAIivAT0qaz0mUJ5olUS-sYEQ5PtGMZwK_J5rKTqEGF1GHubXtGxBirM005FQs4ES4k_AKKAlB85jHl6583kRya1sSnuWz9Mskhp/s726/210415+bots4.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="707" data-original-width="726" height="613" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQY4jKKNjK-v1Syxam7Nuvq5FRDIlSNr6bI7igOtbWZAIivAT0qaz0mUJ5olUS-sYEQ5PtGMZwK_J5rKTqEGF1GHubXtGxBirM005FQs4ES4k_AKKAlB85jHl6583kRya1sSnuWz9Mskhp/w630-h613/210415+bots4.JPG" width="630" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>The wolves in sheep clothing use façade accounts and bots to swamp Twitter with identical messages to make it look like mass rejection of a good technology. </i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here we have organizations that present as food advocacy groups that really are anti-biotechnology groups. I can't wait for the day that these insect-limiting strategies are widely lauded for their success in curbing transmissible disease. Maybe they will finally be held accountable.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Probably not. They have been lying about technology for three decades and the dollars keep rolling in. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Maybe if we all share these kids of stories we can clue people in to their deception. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com/205-mosquito/">You can learn more about the Oxitec mosquito strategy here on the Talking Biotech Podcast. </a></span></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-69999336457839064872021-03-23T16:21:00.012-04:002021-03-24T00:10:37.279-04:00COVID19 Vaccine: A Very Deep, Personal Meaning<p><span style="font-size: large;">A safe and effective vaccine has been developed to meet a public health threat, in months instead of a decade. It is the amazing confluence of molecular biology, medicine, and and influx of money, all colliding to install community immunity to a highly transmissible and potentially harmful virus. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I receive my first shot today, the Moderna mRNA vaccine. I'll get it today at 5:40 pm at the Publix grocery store on 91st Street. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For most this event marks the end of a threat to health, the potential to maybe rejoin others and life returning to normal. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>But to me it means something more. I</span><span>t is another gorgeous application of a technology I have studied for almost a lifetime. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I first learned of recombinant DNA technology in 1977. I was 10. The concept was always intriguing. It was amazing that we could potentially fix medical problems, correct genetic errors, enhance traits in plants.... simply my adjusting the basic instructions in the molecular blueprint. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZL837TAbkyaPeXY-RUUAsOcpFlS2CWKfb8qd75Nvm_LQeGGnySsFuwYHdVSmVpuaDqi9k2Gm4BGXCnHQ7WdAitpeCs5aQ_WT8qT9KBzjPIDsqfyEnaHCowomFMDswMnwiPeTYBX9yYBg9/s318/download.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="159" data-original-width="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZL837TAbkyaPeXY-RUUAsOcpFlS2CWKfb8qd75Nvm_LQeGGnySsFuwYHdVSmVpuaDqi9k2Gm4BGXCnHQ7WdAitpeCs5aQ_WT8qT9KBzjPIDsqfyEnaHCowomFMDswMnwiPeTYBX9yYBg9/s0/download.jpg" /></a></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>I get the shot in an hour and my sleeve has been rolled up all day. I have been waiting for this opportunity to protect my community, colleagues and family. </i></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For the next 44 years I'd study the molecular basis of life, and today teach these concepts to students in class and in the lab. For six years I have hosted a popular weekly podcast on biotechnology. I have taught these concepts in the public square, in front of angry protesting audiences, and in online forums, sometimes leading to responses of defamation, threats, and situations requiring police protection. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If you don't believe I have paid a price for teaching science, just do a Google Images search of my name. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Today I get to receive the gift of this amazing technology. It is technology that I have fought and suffered for, and paid great prices personally and professionally to advance. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My guess is that I'll drop a few tears when I get the jab, and not because it hurts, but because it heals. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And I'll drop a few more when it can reach the most desperate and needy in the world in other forms, with medical care and food security. We live in amazing times with beautiful technology, and maybe the silver lining of the pandemic is that new technology will gain acceptance into its proper place in improving the human condition. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /> </span></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7076455123022001652.post-57749770985764304442021-02-24T09:54:00.007-05:002021-02-24T13:17:12.923-05:00Ten Years Ago- A Strawberry Genome<p> <span style="font-size: large;">One of the joys of publishing a scientific manuscript is the
correspondence from the journal that the paper has finally been accepted. Peer review and high journal standards are a slow
and deliberate maze to navigate that stand in the way of sharing your prized
work.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">There is one monumental publication in the hundred plus I’ve
authored where the research, writing and review processes became a delicate managerial
dance between negotiation, combat, finesse, psychology, and arm twisting. This
week we celebrate its 10 year birthday, with two sturdy gin and tonics for
every piece of birthday cake. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-sIGuVQArM1mienueU8i4m8tc6oszExjpg6J6PxDF6NS8RDcid4Yd4nPaXfNVWLCxXClPuZBZJYA83Z5bBPRbie0wWs5g5W2gy9A54uYvkU8Np65qtZQyPeNJ9qgyJ528wUmQqnlvgraD/s604/nstgen.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="604" data-original-width="448" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-sIGuVQArM1mienueU8i4m8tc6oszExjpg6J6PxDF6NS8RDcid4Yd4nPaXfNVWLCxXClPuZBZJYA83Z5bBPRbie0wWs5g5W2gy9A54uYvkU8Np65qtZQyPeNJ9qgyJ528wUmQqnlvgraD/w296-h400/nstgen.JPG" width="296" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The publication of the woodland strawberry genome in
February of 2011 was the culmination of efforts from at least 77 scientists. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a battle from the beginning, and story
that few people know and the rest tried to forget. Somehow I became the manager
of the project, so the successes and frustrations are still a little fresh even
after a decade. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The genome sequenced was not that belonging to the big red
commercial strawberry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was its
relative, a tiny yellow-fruited cousin that shared similar genetic makeup.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a great choice to sequence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2007 at the Plant-Animal Genome Meeting in
San Diego, CA there were only several key species sequenced—things like rice,
and the model plant <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Arabidopsis thaliana</i>.
Strawberry was a good choice to add to that rarified group. It was the
red-fruited weirdo of the rose family, a group of plants containing apples,
pears, peaches, blackberries and, well, roses. We knew the woodland
strawberry’s simple genome was tiny, and likely didn’t contain much repetitive
DNA, a problem that still confounds genome assembly efforts. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">But as usual, politics wrecks everything. While there were
many merits in obtaining strawberry sequence, there were vocal supporters of
sequencing peaches and apples, tree crops with larger genomes that didn’t have
the same lab value as the readily transformable and diminutive diploid strawberry.
Other crops obtained funding and support from federal agencies and
international bodies. We had a dumb little plant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Six strawberry scientists huddled in the best privacy we
could find at a conference, sitting on folding chairs behind a faux wall room
divider in the lobby. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How would we do
it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How would we pay for it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The best we could do is pass the hat, get the
ball rolling, and see if we could recruit additional experts to make it happen.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The effort took off like cold molasses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few bucks here and there, some support from
institutions like Virginia Tech and the University of Florida.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>National strawberry organizations wanted
nothing to do with it, despite a genomes immense value to breeding. Nor did the
companies that would one day mine the data for every last nugget of value. It
was frustrating. The deepest pockets that could make this a drop-in-the-bucket
effort saw no value. Eventually they would contribute. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The beginning-beginning was gorgeous. I purified genomic DNA
using an old-school technique, a cesium chloride gradient. The snotty threads
of life were as white as unviolated snow, and that few micrograms of perfect
starting material would seed the effort.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To make a long story
less long, that virgin DNA blob would be squeezed, interrogated and processed
for information, trickling in a little at a time, all being assembled into
longer threads as best could be done at the time. Eventually Roche/454 would
join the effort, providing significant sequence at low cost, simply to prove
they could do more than bacterial genomes. Additional experts joined the party, each lending their skills to unraveling part of the mystery. Soon, little stretches of information piled up, it became obvious that we were
a few obligatory Venn diagrams away from submitting a draft genome sequence for
publication. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The activities in that paragraph spanned 2008 and 2009, with
bi-weekly phone calls that grew less and less enthusiastic with time. I can
only thank my lucky stars that Zoom calls were still lost somewhere in the
future. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">As time went on the calls grew shorter and had fewer
participants. Other genomes were being sequenced, had funding support, and were
executed by teams of scientists whose full-time job was working on a genome.
The diploid strawberry effort had no central funding source, so everything done
was on donated time and materials. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">It was really the efforts of Dr. Daniel J. Sargent that
pushed this effort over the top. He undertook a massive campaign to understand
the spatial relationships between DNA ‘markers’, little signatures that were
present on the different stretches of DNA that were sequenced. That information
allowed the pieces to be put together in the right order and orientation. That
was the key, as Dan’s data allowed the piñata to be built so that other
scientists could beat it and pick up some candy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Other prominent figures on the author team vanished. No
contact, no participation. Gone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Others
played major roles and I felt were not appropriately credited. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Authorship order can be a delicate issue. Dr.
Daniel J. Sargent should have been first author, as his efforts and ingenuity
provided the data to elevate a skeletal work to near-publication form.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The original manuscript was written by a team, and it read
like a string of personal spins on the data each felt was most important. The
manuscript was probably 400% too long, and the few standing as an author team were
divided on where to send it. While I wanted it anywhere and done fast, others
demanded it be shopped to one of the prominent weekly science journals. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">We sent it to <i>Science</i>, we sent it to <i>Nature</i>. Reject, reject.
Another few months burned from revision and submission. At the time there were
probably six or seven genomes published, including apple, so strawberry was
looking like the really cool guy that got to the party right when everyone else
was leaving. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Rejection, burnout, and being sick of a project that was
becoming less and less significant scientifically led most of the team to
disconnect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bi-weekly conference
calls consisted of me and maybe another person talking about a chili recipe, if
they were not cancelled altogether. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">It needed one last push.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I started with an almost blank sheet and smashed the author team’s
clunky manuscript into the tight template for <i>Nature Genetics</i>. It was the
middle of 2010, three years after a tiny team of strawberry scientists
decided to start the ball rolling. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The next months were a cycle of review and revise,
review and revise. Tweak, crunch, edit, chop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I remember those nights thinking that I should also punt this project as
so many others clearly did. But there was maybe a light at the end of the
tunnel, and after round after round of revision we were close. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">I remember fielding at least a dozen calls with the Associate
Editor, as she kept finding problems and generating requests from reviewers and
other editors. I dreaded the conversations, as each request for more data,
reformatting, additional experiments were going to sink the project.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Somehow I navigated that maze with a skillful persuasion and
dumb luck.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The work would eventually
find acceptance at <i>Nature Genetics</i>, a decent journal where it fit quite nicely.
The Editor relayed the good news that the work would be published in February
of 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was November of 2010, so it
seemed a million years away. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">There were a few things that made this accomplishment
unique, aspects that were largely unappreciated. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">It was published in
the same issue as the cacao genome, the 12<sup>th</sup> and 13<sup>th</sup>
plant genomes sequenced. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>Here in
2021 there are literally tens of thousands of plant genome sequences known. What
took $350,000 and three years then can now almost be accomplished in a few days
for a few thousand dollars. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">It was assembled
without a physical map. </b>Knowing where genes or DNA sequences are located relative
to one another helps put the little smudges of DNA sequence data in the right
order and orientation. The strawberry genome did not have this guiding luxury
as other crops did, and Dan Sargent’s efforts made it possible to assemble
strictly from short reads. Later the panda genome would also be assembled from
short reads with quite a bit more fanfare. Pandas are cute. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">There were no relevant
reference maps.</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today genome
assembly is less taxing because of the wealth of information that already
exists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is easy to draw a map of the
USA because everyone from settlers to satellites has already defined where the
parts belong. The strawberry genome sequence was a pioneer. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">It was done without a
centralized funding source.</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The work
was done on a shoestring, digging in science’s couch cushions to capture enough
scratch to push out more data. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Overall, it was a great experience to work with experts and
learn a lot about how the tools of genome sequence assembly and analysis
work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Soon after I would move into
university administration and forgot everything I knew.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">But I didn’t forget that phone call, the news that the work
was finally accepted. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">And I won’t forget the efforts of the scientists that really
made it possible, as there were a few key players that carried the vast
majority of the weight. You know who you are. Pat yourself on the back and
celebrate, as your efforts allowed this seminal discovery to be translated to
the commercial crop, and eventually influence genetic improvement efforts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that was our ultimately mission all
along. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>Kevin M. Foltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253508434587464552noreply@blogger.com