Illumination 2.0

Four years ago this week I went to see Dr. Don Huber present his sideshow at an event in my town. The grandfatherly man ground his axe against modern biotechnology, especially genetically engineered plants and the products used on them.  One of the highlights of the night was when he scared and disgusted the concerned audience. He showed them pictures of aborted livestock and images of human disease. He claimed it to be caused from a "virus-like microfungus", an organism unknown to modern science, propagated in genetically-engineered crops and fostered by glyphosate treatment.  Six years ago Purdue Professor Emeritus Don M. Huber wrote a letter to the USDA Secretary claiming to have cultured a new type of organism that thrived in Roundup Ready soybeans and corn, and caused harm to humans and livestock.  He never has produced any evidence building on this claim, despite vigorously defending it, claiming that it was being worked on.  Isn't it time he came clean? 

I saw the video, I've heard the comments, and read the police reports.  You should too.  I can also add some points you have not read anywhere else.   I've been seen by Dr. Peter Gallogly and Dr. Tom Raulerson at the Gainesville After Hours Care, mostly in its old location on 2nd Avenue.  I appreciated the care I received so much that I considered them my primary physicians, even though the facility was frequently jammed and it was hard to get an appointment.  They also are the only game in town in the evenings and weekends outside of the emergency room, which means they see a lot of urgent cases.  There's my review from Google, probably at least ten years old now.  I'm a state employee, I have great insurance, and I can go anywhere.  I chose GAHC because of the professionalism, the compassion, their social mission, their service to the community, and an appreciation for the good physicians and staff that work there.  Both of these physicians always took

In yesterday's blog I described how a former scientist was provided a high visibility forum by the taxpayer funded Canadian Broadcast Company (CBC)-- to make up fake news .   I hate that term.  But it is a news website, and the information is fake . Fake news .  It is so false, so maliciously untruthful, that neither Thierry Vrain or the CBC reporter noticed the inherent contradiction. The lies are so bad that they don't align. It is about creating fear, uncertainty and doubt, even if the claims are internally contradictory.  But in the world of false information, you can have it both ways, and nobody cares, so long as the nonsense you spout fits their bias.  Let's look at three lines from this article.  This statement implies that rigorous dose-response tests have been performed and have concluded that low-doses lead to disease.  No such evidence exists.  There is no evidence that it accumulates in all of our organs. And "no research ha

When a government news agency promotes false information to subvert a government scientific safety decision, it is time to re-evaluate their role and if they should even receive government support.  Their November 6th 2017 interview is a shameful distortion of facts, evidence, and directly opposes the science-based decision that government regulators made.  As usual, the object in question is glyphosate, the low-toxicity herbicide that has been used for about four decades.  It has been recognized for its low toxicity by 100 world governments, most that did their own independent evaluation. It has a reasonable half life in the environment, low environmental impact, and efficacy against a wide variety of weeds.  But there is a movement afoot to take this safe and useful chemical away from farmers, municipalities and homeowners.  It has been a carefully orchestrated misinformation campaign driven from many angles.  The article on CBCNews states clearly that a safe, well studi

Last Friday my university released another 2000 pages of my email to hostile interests, and Monday they will release another pile to US-RTK.   US-RTK is the activist organization that is funded by the Organic Consumer's Association, among others. The goal is to destroy the reputations of scientists, journalists, dietitians and others that are influencing the discussion of biotechnology, particularly as it applies to crop biology.  At the same time they fund folks that pose as journalists and authors to prepare non-scientific articles and books that appear to be legitimate, then they self-review the work of people they pay to write. They are a hive of conflict of interest, pointing a finger and screaming 'conflict of interest' where no conflict, or some tenuous cursory relationship actually exists.  The email grab this time is for all of my correspondence with Bayer. This is curious, because I just received my first "Big Ag" industry grant from Bayer. It i

In this week's podcast we speak with science journalist and author Mark Lynas.  Mark has been a central figure in the discussion of biotechnology, particularly in regard to its role in ensuring food security in the Developing World.   In the 1990’s and early 2000’s you could find Mark destroying test plots of genetically engineered crops.  Later he would reconsider his view, and support the technology, especially as it can be applied to help issues of food security.  Mark discusses the situation on the ground in Africa, the various threats to production, the innovations that can address them, and the resistance toward adoption of new technology.  Follow Mark Lynas at @mark_lynas

Moms Across America turns their slander machine on orange juice producers, seeking to harm an industry that it currently fighting for its survival.  Here's how farmers, scientists and concerned citizens can counter that information. The article appears in Citrus Industry