We are highly risk exposed to the world’s most widely used pesticide, glyphosate. We as a regulatory entity, an industry and a technology, fail to track glyphosate’s modalities, vectors and its actual EPA Part 180 Maximum Tolerance Limit compliance inside our food supply. This is called malfeasance in the business world, and bonus sive malum inside ethical skepticism. Otherwise known as criminal ignorance and pseudoscience.
Certainly yes, I am a skeptic. One of the first rules of ethical skepticism, after the tenets concerning conducting your own investigation and holding open an ‘allow-for’ disposition regarding multiple strong explanatory approaches, is to be skeptical of your own thoughts, and indeed, work. So yes, I am skeptical of the data I have produced below. But as an ethical skeptic I also have a problem in that I have never seen this data published, despite the critical importance of this issue inside social discourse on the rapid decline in American health and skyrocketing rates of auto-immune, allergy and microbiome related disorders since 1995. So I went and pulled the official sources and did the analysis myself. As a note, this is the reality I face in 90% of the instances regarding tough social issues inside which we find so many social skeptic ‘experts’ and so little actual data/research.
I would also not be maintaining integrity inside my own philosophical base, were I to not raise the warning flag of concern about what I see inside my data regarding glyphosate regulation and monitoring practices and risk vector pathways within the American food supply chain (see my chart below).
Raising a warning flag of plurality is an ethical skeptical action. It does not stand as a claim to final proof, neither is it an accusation of conspiracy, nor is it tantamount to credulousness/bias – nor any other of the red herring and strawman objection protocols employed by fake skeptics. It is simply a call for research, under the context of risk based necessity.
Now set aside the fact that the very foods in vector exposure V below are the very same ones which make me break out, gain weight, get painful intestinal disorders and become very sick. Set all that aside for whatever reason you choose: apophenia, placebo (just mistaking that I get sick), a priori confirmation bias, etc. I assure you that these are not contributors to my observation base in the least. But some of you use these things as methodical cynicism defense mechanisms, so I recognize that and allow for it. Be that as it may, yes let’s set this personal observation aside – and simply address the risk vector pathways incumbent inside the current practices involving application, regulation, tracking, and most importantly – weighted risk exposure, regarding glyphosate employment inside the United States food supply.
Set aside as well, the fact that the top two contribution vectors, Aspirated/Whole Grains and Corn Sweeteners, are the top two soaring allergy/sensitivity growth food commodities since 1995. Don’t let correlation move you to causality, we wouldn’t want that at all. Better to just ignore it instead. ‘Cuz that is being skeptical after all.
Below I have assembled a chart which is drawn from the following three resources on pesticide use, EPA Part 180 MTL tolerances and corresponding food consumption rates by commodity in the United States. I extracted the data on glyphosate and glyphosate bearing foods – and compared that to the rates of US consumption in pounds per capita, in the chart below. This took a good 8 hours of data assimilation and sorting in order to derive a picture which is not available to the American Public.
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Index to Pesticide Chemical Names, Part 180 Tolerance Information, and Food and Feed Commodities (by Commodity) December 12, 2012¹
United States Department of Agriculture: Profiling Food Consumption in America, Chapter 2²
Food and Drug Administration: Pesticide Residues and Industrial Chemicals 2004 – 2005 sorted by Pesticide/Chemical³
Several alarms were raised inside this analysis. Not conclusions mind you – as I am always skeptical of my own work – rather, flags. Flags which not only indicate practice exposures inside the regulation, administration and monitoring of glyphosate in the US, but as well correlate highly with specific foods which are showing to produce health problems in the United States since glyphosate’s introduction to the food supply chain in starting in 1995. So without further ado, let’s outline these exposure pathways which emerge from the analysis in the chart below.
Vectors and Modalities for Glyphosate Entry and Risk Exposure in American Diets ¹ ² ³
I. Actual Pesticide Contents Are Not Measured nor MTL Tracked for Any Food
First, the most widely employed pesticide inside the American food supply is neither tracked for actual level compliance to EPA Part 180 MTL’s for ANY food at all, nor in many cases is even specified for Maximum Tolerance Limits on several critical foods which employ large scale use of glyphosate.¹ ³
II. Cheese, Butter & Dairy Contents are Highly Exposed and Neither Regulated nor MTL Tracked
Both the content of glyphosate inside these critical caloric contributors, as well as the fodder and feed contribution (100 – 400 ppm) to such foods is neither monitored for actual EPA Part 180 MTL compliance nor even specified for a Maximum Tolerance Limit.¹ ³
III. Dried Beans Contents are Highly Exposed and Neither Regulated nor MTL Tracked
Both the content of glyphosate inside these critical caloric contributors is neither monitored for actual EPA Part 180 MTL compliance nor even specified for a Maximum Tolerance Limit.¹ ³
IV. Animal Fats are Highly Exposed and Neither Regulated nor MTL Tracked
Both the content of glyphosate inside these critical caloric contributors, as well as the fodder and feed contribution (100 – 400 ppm) to such foods is neither monitored for actual EPA Part 180 MTL compliance nor even specified for a Maximum Tolerance Limit.¹ ³
V. High Risk/Content Exposed/Desiccated Foods Are Not MTL Tracked
The content of glyphosate inside these critical caloric contributors is not monitored for compliance to EPA Part 180 MTL’s at all.³
Set aside the increase in use (potentially attributable to desiccation practices – which has been recently claimed and disputed by several resources). No monitoring has been conducted to observe the prevalence, nor ppm impact of modalities and practices of any kind, including use of the Monsanto desiccation instruction. This is a risk exposure and a warning flag. You cannot make the claim that there is no problem, and attack people who bring up the issue, even if you are Snopes, if you have not conducted any actual research.†
VI. Feed and Forage Content Contribution is Neither Regulated nor Tracked
Both the content measures for glyphosate inside these critical caloric contributors to our meat supply (feed contribution 100 – 400 ppm) are neither monitored for actual EPA Part 180 MTL compliance nor are they even specified for a Maximum Tolerance Limit by modality contribution to our food.¹ ³
The bio-accumulation, given glyphosate’s persistence in soft tissue, is not modality measured and EPA Part 180 MTL tracked for bio-accumulation sensitive food derivatives such as Cheese, Cream, Butter, Milk, Dairy, Shortening and Animal Fat derivative products.
The Compiled Data From the Three Resources
List is complied from resource 1, matched to commodity measures from resource 2 (consumption lbs per capita indexed against MTL ppm ratios). Then sorted, highest to lowest in terms of contribution to overall amount in weight of glyphosate consumed (theoretical) in the per capita diet. !!! indicators show where risk exposure exists but is not Part 180 defined. Yellow commodity highlights indicate non-animal derived foods, while beige highlights indicate animal derived foods. Green highlights indicate animal feed and fodder commodities. Direct unknown risks rank first, quantified MTL risks second by theoretical per capita quantity of glyphosate exposure (lbs), while indirect (feed and fodder) risk ranks last in priority flagging. Resource 3 shows that none of these food commodity types are tracked for actual parts per million Part 180 MTL compliance and impact on the American diet.¹ ² ³ And here is why we need to be concerned about this:
Glyphosate, a synthetic amino acid and analogue of glycine, is the most widely used biocide on the planet. Its presence in food for human consumption and animal feed is ubiquitous. Epidemiological studies have revealed a strong correlation between the increasing incidence in the United States of a large number of chronic diseases and the increased use of glyphosate herbicide on corn, soy and wheat crops. Glyphosate, acting as a glycine analogue, may be mistakenly incorporated into peptides during protein synthesis. A deep search of the research literature has revealed a number of protein classes that depend on conserved glycine residues for proper function. Glycine, the smallest amino acid, has unique properties that support flexibility and the ability to anchor to the plasma membrane or the cytoskeleton. Glyphosate substitution for conserved glycines can easily explain a link with diabetes, obesity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary edema, adrenal insufficiency, hypothyroidism, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease, prion diseases, lupus, mitochondrial disease, non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma, neural tube defects, infertility, hypertension, glaucoma, osteoporosis, fatty liver disease and kidney failure. The correlation data together with the direct biological evidence make a compelling case for glyphosate action as a glycine analogue to account for much of glyphosate’s toxicity. Glufosinate, an analogue of glutamate, likely exhibits an analogous toxicity mechanism. There is an urgent need to find an effective and economical way to grow crops without the use of glyphosate and glufosinate as herbicides.
“Correlation does not prove causality.” You have heard the one-liner uttered by clueless social skeptics probably one thousand times or more. But real science rarely if ever starts with ‘proof.’ More often than not, neither does a process of science end in proof. Correlation was never crafted as an analytical means to proof. However this one-liner statement is most often employed as a means of implying proof of an antithetical idea. To refuse to conduct the scientific research behind such fingerprint signal conditions, especially when involving a risk exposure linkage, can demonstrate just plain ole malicious ignorance. It is not even stupid.
When a social skeptic makes the statement “Correlation does not prove causality,” they are making a correct statement. It is much akin to pointing out that a pretty girl smiling at you does not mean she wants to spend the week in Paris with you. It is a truism, most often employed to squelch an idea which is threatening to the statement maker. As if the statement maker were the boyfriend of the girl who smiled at you. Of course a person smiling at you does not mean they want to spend a week in Paris with you. Of course correlation does not prove causality. Nearly every single person bearing any semblance of rational mind understands this. But what the one who has uttered this statement does not grasp, while feeling all smart and skeptickey in its mention, is that they have in essence revealed a key insight into their own lack of scientific literacy. Specifically, when a person makes this statement, three particular forms of error most often arise. In particular, they do not comprehend, across an entire life of employing such a statement, that
1. Proof Gaming/Non Rectum Agitur Fallacy: Correlation is used as one element in a petition for ‘plurality’ and research inside the scientific method, and is NOT tantamount to a claim to proof by anyone – contrary to the false version of method foisted by scientific pretenders.
To attempt to shoot down an observation, by citing that it by itself does not rise tantamount to proof, is a form of Proof Gaming. It is a trick of trying to force the possible last step of the scientific method, and through strawman fallacy regarding a disliked observer, pretend that it is the first step in the scientific method. It is a logical fallacy, and a method of pseudoscience. Science establishes plurality first, seeks to develop a testable hypothesis, and then hopes, …only hopes, to get close to proof at a later time.
Your citing examples of correlation which fail the Risk Exposure Test, does not mean that my contention is proved weak.
… and yes, science does use correlation comparatives in order to establish plurality of argument, and consilience which can lead to consensus (in absence of abject proof). The correlation-causality statement, while mathematically true, is philosophically and scientifically illiterate.¹²³
2. Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacy (ingens vanitatum): What is being strawman framed as simply a claim to ‘correlation’ by scientific pretenders, is often a whole consilience (or fingerprint) of mutually reinforcing statistical inference well beyond the defined context of simple correlation.
Often when data shows a correlation, it also demonstrates other factors which may be elicited to demonstrate a relationship between two previously unrelated contributing variables or data measures. There are a number of other factors which science employs through the disciplines of modeling theory, probability and statistics which can be drawn from a data relationship. In addition these inferences can be used to mutually support one another, and exponentially increase the confidence of contentions around the data set in question.²³
3. Methodical Cynicism: Correlation is used as a tool to examine an allowance for and magnitude of variable dependency. In many cases where a fingerprint signal is being examined, the dependency risk has ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED or is ALLOWED-FOR by diligent reductive science. To step in the way of method and game protocols and persuasion in order to block study, is malevolent pseudoscience.
If the two variables pass the risk-exposure test, then we are already past correlation and into measuring that level of dependency, not evaluating its existence. If scientific studies have already shown that a chemical has impacts on the human or animal kidney/livers/pancreas, to call an examination of maladies relating to those organs as they relate to trends in use of that chemical a ‘correlation’ is an indication of scientific illiteracy on the part of the accuser. Once a risk relationship is established, as in the case of colon disorders as a risk of glyphosate intake, accusations of ‘correlation does not prove causality’ constitute a non-sequitur Wittgenstein Error inside the scientific method. Plurality has been established and a solid case for research has been laid down. To block such research is obdurate scientific fraud.²³
4. Correlation does not prove causality… however, even weaker in strength of inference is an implicit refutation by claim of coincidence.
Most often, when one poses the ‘correlation does not prove causality’ apothegm, they are attempting to enforce an implicit counter-claim to coincidence in the observed data. While this is the null, it is also most often not an actual hypothesis – nor can such a claim be made without evidence. Most often the evidence in support of a correlation being merely coincidence, is in fact weaker than the evidence in support of causality. A position of epoche is warranted – not denial, in such circumstances.
Calling or downgrading the sum total of these inferences through the equivocal use of the term ‘correlation,’ not only is demonstrative of one’s mathematical and scientific illiteracy, but also demonstrates a penchant for the squelching of data through definition in a fraudulent manner. It is an effort on the part of a dishonest agent to prevent the plurality step of the scientific method.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with ‘proof.’
A Fingerprint Signal is Not a ‘Correlation’
An example of this type of scientific illiteracy can be found here (Note: a former article entitled Correlation Is Not Causation in Earth’s Dipole Contribution to Climate by Steven Novella, which was dropped by Discover Magazine). There is a well established covariance, coincidence, periodicity and tail sympathy; a long tight history of dynamic with respect to how climate relates to the strength of Earth’s magnetic dipole moment. This is a fingerprint signal. Steven Novella incorrectly calls this ‘correlation.’ A whole host of Earth’s climate phenomena move in concert with the strength of our magnetic field. This does not disprove anthropogenic contribution to current global warming. But to whip out a one liner and shoot at a well established facet of geoscience, all so as to protect standing ideas from facing the peer review of further research is not skepticism, it is pseudoscience. The matter merits investigation. This hyperepistemology one-liner does not even rise to the level of being stupid.
Measuring of An Established Risk Relationship is Not a ‘Correlation’
An example of this type of scientific illiteracy can be found inside pharmaceutical company pitches about how the increase in opioid addiction and abuse was not connected with their promotional and lobbying efforts. Correlation did not prove causality. Much of today’s opiate epidemic stems from two decades of promotional activity undertaken by pharmaceutical companies. According to New Yorker Magazine, companies such as Endo Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson centered their marketing campaigns on opioids as general use pain treatment medications. Highly regarded medical journals featured promotions directed towards physicians involved in pain management. Educational courses on the benefits of opioid-based treatments were offered. Pharmaceutical companies made widespread use of lobbyist groups in their efforts to disassociate opiate industry practices from recent alarming statistics (sound familiar? See an example where Scientific American is used for such propaganda here). One such group received $2.5 million from pharmaceutical companies to promote opioid justification and discourage legislators from passing regulations against unconstrained opioid employment in medical practices. (See New Yorker Magazine: Who is Responsible for the Pain Pill Epidemic?) The key here is, that once a risk relationship is established, such as between glyphosate and cancer, one cannot make the claim that correlation does not prove causality in the face of two validated sympathetic risk-dependency signals. It is too late, plurality has been established and the science needs to be done. To block such science is criminal fraud.
Perhaps We Need a New Name Besides Correlation for Such Robust Data Fit
Both of these examples above elicit instances where fake skeptic scientific illiteracy served to mis-inform, mis-lead or cause harm to the American Public. Correlation, in contrast, is simply a measure of the ‘fit’ of a linear trend inside the relationship between a two factor data set. It asks two questions (the third is simply a mathematical variation of the second):
Can a linear inference be derived from cross indexing both data sets?, and
How ‘close to linearity’ do these cross references of data come?
How ‘close to curvinlinearity’ do these cross references of data come?
The answer to question number 2 is called an r-factor or correlation coefficient. Commonly, question number 3 is answered by means of a coefficient of determination and is expressed as an r² factor (r squared).³ Both are a measure of a paired-data set fit to linearity. That is all. In many instances pundits will use correlation to exhibit a preestablished relationship, such as the well known relationship between hours spent studying and academic grades. They are not establishing proof with a graph, rather simply showing a relationship which has already been well documented through several other previous means. However, in no way shape or form does that mean that persons who apply correlation as a basis of a theoretical construct are therefore then contending a case for proof. This is a relational form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This is a logical flaw, served up by the dilettante mind which confuses the former case, an exhibit, and conflates it with the later use, the instance of a petition for research.
/philosophy : logic : evidence : fallacy/ : when employing the ‘correlation does not prove causality’ quip to terminally dismiss an observed correlation, when the observation is being used to underpin a construct or argument possessing consilience, is seeking plurality, constitutes direct fingerprint evidence and/or is not being touted as final conclusive proof in and of itself.
THIS is Correlation (Pearson’s PPMCC) It does not prove causality (duh…)¹²
This is a Fingerprint Signal and is Not Simply a Correlation³∋
There are a number of other methods of determining the potential relationship between two sets of data, many of which appear to the trained eye in the above graph. Each of the below relational features individually, and increasingly as they confirm one another, establish a case for plurality of explanation. The above graph is not “proving” that glyphosate aggravates diabetes rates. However, when this graph is taken against the exact same shape and relationship graphs for multiple myloma, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, bladder cancer, thyroid disease, pancreatic cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel syndrome, lupus, fibromyalgia, renal function diminishment, Alzheimer’s, Crohn’s Disease, wheat/corn/canola/soy sensitivity, SIBO, dysbyosis, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, rosacea, gall bladder cancer, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, liver impairment and stress/fatty liver disease, … and for the first time in our history a RISE in the death rates of of middle aged Americans…
… and the fact that in the last 20 years our top ten disease prescription bases have changed 100%… ALL relating to the above conditions and ALL auto-immune and gut microbiome in origin. All this despite a decline in lethargy, smoking and alcohol consumption on average. All of this in populations younger than an aging trend can account for.
Then plurality has been argued. Fingerprint signal data has been well established. This is an example of consilience inside an established risk exposure relationship. To argue against plurality through the clueless statement “Correlation does not prove causality” is borderline criminal. It is scientifically illiterate, a shallow pretense which is substantiated by false rationality (social conformance) and a key shortfall in real intelligence.
Contextual Wittgenstein Error Example – Incorrect Rhetoric Depiction of Correlation
The cartoon to the left is a hypoepistemology which misses the entire substance of what constitutes fingerprint correlation. A fingerprint signal is derived when the bullet-pointed conditions exist – None of which exist in the cartoon invalid comparison to the left – this is a tampering with definition, enacted by a person who has no idea what correlation in this context, even means. A Wittgenstein Error. In other words: scientifically illiterate propaganda. Conditions which exist in a proper correlation, or more, condition:
A constrained pre-domain and relevant range which differ in stark significance
An ability to fit both data sets to curvinlinear or linear fit, with projection through golden section, regression or a series of other models
A preexisting contributor risk exposure between one set of unconstrained variables and a dependent variable
A consistent time displacement between independent and dependent variables
A covariance in the dynamic nature of data set fluctuations
A coincident period of commencement and timeframe of covariance
A jointly shared arrival distribution profile
Sympathetic long term convex or concave trends
A risk exposure (see below) – the cartoon to the left fails the risk exposure test.
Rhetoric: An answer, looking for a question, targeting a victim
Fingerprint Elements: When One or More of These Risk Factor Conditions is Observed, A Compelling Case Should be Researched¹²³
Corresponding Data – not only can one series be fitted with a high linear coefficient, another independent series can also be fitted with a similar and higher coefficient which increases in coherence throughout a time series both before and during its domain of measure, and bears similar slope, period and magnitude. In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where ignorance ranges into fraud.
Covariant Data – not only can one series be fitted with a high coefficient, another independent series can also be observed with a similar fit which increases in coherence as a time series both before and during its domain of measure, and bears similar period and magnitude. Adding additional confidence to this measure is the dx/dy covariance, Browning Covariance, or distance covariance, etc. measure which can be established between the two data series; that is, the change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a very strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where socially pushed skepticism ranges into fraud.
Co-incidence Data – two discrete measures coincide as a time series both before and during its domain of measure, and bear similar period and magnitude. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderately strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where arrogant skepticism ranges into fraud.
Jointly Distributed Data – two independent data sets exhibit the same or common arrival distribution functions. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderately strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where arrogant skepticism ranges into fraud.
Probability Function Match – two independent data sets exhibit a resulting probability density function of similar name/type/shape. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderately strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition is not wise.
Marginal or Tail Condition Match – the tail or extreme regions of the data exhibit coincidence and covariance. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series when applied in the extreme or outlier condition; that is, the discrete change of these remote data in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderately strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where even moderate skepticism ranges into fraud activity.
Sympathetic Long Term Shared Concave or Convex – long term trends match each other, but more importantly each is a departure from the previous history and occurred simultaneously, offset by a time displacement, are both convex or concave and co-vary across the risk period. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a compellingly strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where even moderate skepticism ranges into fraud activity.
Discrete Measures Covariance – the mode, median or mean of discrete measures is shared in common and/or in coincidence, and also vary sympathetically over time. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in mode and mean over time. In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderate case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition is not wise.
Risk Exposure Chain/Test – two variables, if technical case were established that one indeed influenced the other, would indeed be able to influence one another. (In other words, if your kid WAS eating rat poison every Tuesday, he WOULD be sick on every Wednesday – but your kid eating rat poison would not make the city mayor sick on Wednesday). If this condition exists, along with one or more of the above conditions, a case for plurality has been achieved. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where even moderate skepticism ranges into fraud activity.
These elements, when taken in concert by honest researchers, are called fingerprint data. When fake skeptics see an accelerating curve which matches another accelerating curve – completely (and purposely) missing the circumstance wherein any or ALL of these factors are more likely in play – to say “correlation” is what is being seen, demonstrates their scientific illiteracy. It is up to the ethical skeptic to raise their hand and say “Hold on, I am not ready to dismiss that data relationship so easily. Perhaps we should conduct studies which investigate this risk linkage and its surrounding statistics.”
To refuse to conduct the scientific research behind such conditions, especially if it involves something we are exposed to three times a day for life, constitutes just plain active ignorance and maliciousness. It is not even stupid.
epoché vanguards gnosis
¹ Madsen, Richard W., ” Statistical Concepts with Applications to Business and Economics,” Prentice-Hall, 1980; pp 604 – 610.
² Gorini, Catherine A., “Master Math Probability,” Course Technology, 2012; pp. 175-196, 252-274.
³ Levine, David M.; Stephan, David F., “Statistics and Analytics,” Pearson Education, 2015; pp. 137-275.
∋ Graphic employed for example purposes only. Courtesy of work of Dr. Stephanie Seneff, sulfates, glyphosates and gmo food; MIT, september 19, 2013.
To the SSkepticism Cabal, the US Constitution was simply a grand experiment which failed, and now we as science should usher our common good back into the 600 year old failed royalty elite-Let them Eat Cake-socialism of the past. Socialism, under the moniker of ‘consensus,’ is moral and is based on scientifically proved principles; which by chance just happen to support specific socioeconomic goals. It is this purposeful emasculation of public rights as being ‘anti-science’ based on their dissent, concern, or unapproved ideas, which we as a nation feared most in our inception – because unlike in the Thomas Paine scenario, it does not just hurt the one who precludes and denies. Unfortunately the Cabal has adopted this take on our free expression, free enterprise and economic rights as a nation. Examine the industry verticals, corporate clusters, and rates of inflation inside of such, wherein they spend the preponderance of their time in advocacy, and you will begin to glean a bit about the goals entailed.
‘Anti-Science!’ – The modern version of being accused of Witchcraft.
I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
~ Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Professional Skeptics, The Cartel Big Boys, are Here to Peer Review Your Supposed “Rights” Experiment as a Nation
Thomas Paine understates the underhanded nature of censorship, in that the one who precludes himself of the right to change his mind is the least harmed by censorship. Even today, against Americans’ knowledge, their speech, their emails, their websites, their ideas – if they run counter to the Cabal, are being censored and muted by those in the Cabal who are seeking to circumvent the US Constitution and enact their own Utopia of Morality and Truth. Further, this control of ideas lends to a greater reality in which Social Skepticism is seeking to promote the dominance of a specific set of socioeconomic goals, commensurate with the rise of the socialist cartel, all in the name of ‘science.’ No better example elicits this current cartel/trust activity than the issue of the current ABCD seed monopoly and the ensuing related GMO propaganda being foisted by skeptics employed to defend the cartel.
The Public is Anti-Science!
“What happens when your political or ideological views are contradicted by the consensus of scientific opinion regarding the evidence (TES note: referring to the “safety” red herring, as opposed to necessity based validity of genetic modifications targeting simply anti-competitive profits by means food technology)? It appears that a common reaction (depending on how strongly held the ideological views are) is to reject science. Not only do people reject the science specific to their issue, they reject science itself.”
“It appears…” a furtive, lazy and loaded claim to broadscale knowledge. One bearing no evidence and backing only by a echochamber effect from a couple of news articles from familiar crony organizations (see chart below), tendering this same manipulated and extraordinary claim.
Steven whips out his regular ergo sum scientia fallacy – then purposely misconstrues in the above context, vis-à-vis the ‘safety of GMO’s’ strawman and red herring, the principal arguments entailed so they falsely appear to focus on the relative trivia surrounding nucleotide substitutions – yawn – rather than the economic and human rights questions entailed (below). The genetic modification of organisms is a future reality – the public is not against this science. Steven purposely occludes this core argument in favor of his preferred red herring: By raising objection at all people are therefore, inside the above logic, at war against science …and quod erat demonstrandum their rights should be removed. Only the big boys of self-proclaimed science are qualified to formulate public policy. They are skeptical that your input is necessary.
What indeed however is being discussed with respect to GMO food under the constitution is the right of a single corporation and/or 90+% dominant cluster of companies to employ such technology in skirting US Anti-Trust laws; simply to create channel domination profits and promote a single proprietary pesticide, all in the process of construction of a Cartel. In this case the ABCD (Archer Daniels Midland, Bungee, Cargill, Louis-Dreyfus) seed-to-table/glyphosate Cartel being defended by indirectly compensated non-expert Social Skeptics (see graphic of how a cartel functions below). Such a practice is corporate tyranny, rising well above the definition of ‘monopoly.’ It in no way constitutes an argument of safety and science, as Steven (a non-expert ‘skeptic’ in this industry) falsely contends.
In a country where its citizens cannot even call for more in-depth science on the pesticides, genes, growth promoters, hormones, antibiotics and chemicals it is FORCED to consume multiple times every day – because such science and legislation is blocked by so called ‘skeptics’ and legal/electoral threats are issued to wayward representatives,
Is this a constituency which is ‘anti-science?’
Is this a constituency who has constitutional input to its legislative representatives?
In a country where endocrine and immune diseases have gone last-20-year pandemic and cause enormous suffering, and the constituency can do NOTHING about it because ignorant ‘skeptics’ say it is all in our heads, and instead obsess over ghosts, UFO’s, bigfoot, gods, psychics and regulating supplements,
Is this skepticism which is focused on real science or scientific issues of gravitas?
Is all this indicative of a nation which is free?
The answer is a resounding ‘No‘
Fake Skepticism’s Role in the Rise of the Socialist Cartel
On March 22, 1966, General Motors President James Roche was forced by the United States Senate to appear before a subcommittee, and further at the end of session to apologize to Ralph Nader for the company’s campaign of harassment and intimidation over his book Unsafe at Any Speed. Nader later successfully sued GM for excessive invasion of privacy. It was the money from this case that allowed him to lobby for consumer rights, leading to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, among other things.‡
Nader was successful in his lawsuit because he and his lawyers were able to demonstrate a track record of GM response to his criticism of the Corvair, through trying to destroy Nader’s image and to silence him. General Motors more specifically retained corporate insiders and directly compensated third parties, wherein GM
conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, ‘questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits’
kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time;
caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships;
made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him;
tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and
conducted a ‘continuing’ and harassing investigation of him.”‡
The Ralph Nader/General Motors case, more than any single event with the exception of the Big Tobacco obfuscation-skepticism, precipitated the introduction of the modern era of Social Skepticism. The General Motors Corvair case elicited the importance of establishing a non-corporate, non-third party, credible but untouchable group of fanatic activists to act on behalf of corporate interests. A mafia sans the pinstripe suits. A non-liability bearing risk-mitigation group, committed to their social understanding of the science handed to them, who would be willing with or without full awareness, to pursue the enemies of the cartel with fervent and damaging passion. All in the name of science.
Activists so sure of their correctness, that any means of social shaming, career damage, or personal defamation could be justified in the destruction of enemies of truth (cartel enemies). Activists of sufficient academic intelligence to be able to understand some science, develop an argument and publish in journal or media channels, but not smart enough to observe a game of counter intelligence and their role therein.
This prostituting of smart-but-dumb players is a common tradecraft in intelligence circles. It is the essence of modern skepticism.
From the history of the American Medical Association versus the Chiropractic industry: “in 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. The Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt form antitrust suites. In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC can enforce antitrust laws against medical societies. These two suites paved the way in 1976 for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suite against the AMA and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case). Similar suites were filed in New York and Pennsylvania in 1979. The pressure of these law suites forced the AMA even before these suites went to court to propose a modification of their Medical Code of Ethics which prohibited M.D.s from associating with chiropractors. But, it was not until 1980 that the Ethics Code was changed to reflect that each individual doctor may decide for themselves whether to accept a patient from or refer a patient to a chiropractor or other limited practitioner.”∈
These two cases more than anything else, established the need for a separate-on-the-surface activism group which was immune to anti-trust, defamation, business tampering and tortious interference laws. Cartels needed a way around the law – and inside Skepticism they found this way.
All this is introduced in the mind of the Social Skeptic under the guise of ‘science.’ Science handed to them by their corporate sponsors. Science which cannot be questioned because Social Skeptics block threatening research before it can even be developed. If you don’t accept the wholesale imposition of their politics or corporate activism, and since they and their political cronies all joined a club self-entitled ‘science,’ you are now therefore anti-science if you disagree in the least with their politics, religion, agenda and professional constraints.. In the particular instance above, Steven is contending that science justifies sets of political action which serve solely to remove human rights. The imposition of privately manipulated food stocks, property which formerly fell inside the public domain, solely for oligarch anti-competitiveness – putting small farms out of business so large socialist cartels can displace formerly free economic mechanisms – and force all of us to consume 1000 times per year, only that which they and their cronies have personally approved. This constitutes simply one small example of the goal of a socioeconomic structure dominated by cartel; cartels which feature:¹
Features of a Cartel Based Industry Vertical
Contrary to the mis-definitions of the term cartel by non-professional media sources, cartels are not ‘price fixing rings’ or ‘drug dealing corporations.’ A cartel is simply a tacit agreement inside and outside an industry vertical (one with the remaining few oligarchs) to exclude competition and entry to that market. A cartel does not have to price fix (even though by default position, a cartel is already price fixing whether the players intend to or not), nor does a cartel actually even need be profitable. All that is needed for the formation of a cartel, is the illegal vertical control of a market – enabled by partnership with government regulators, banks suppliers and M1 Financiers, across international borders, such that only grey and black markets can exist aside from its dominion.
Investopedia defines a cartel as ‘An organization created from a formal agreement between a group of producers of a good or service, to regulate supply in an effort to regulate or manipulate prices. A cartel is a collection of businesses or countries that act together as a single producer and agree to influence prices for certain goods and services by controlling production and marketing.’²
This is incorrect. Under this permissive definition, even OPEC is not considered a cartel. First there need not be a formal agreement, rather simply an industry standard set of practices. To sell crude oil, one must hold an OPEC Standard Assay Report on the lot of oil and schedule a Lifting Slot at a pier, assigned to a specific ship with a specific authorized Sail Plan. Otherwise, any oil commerce outside this practice is considered “piracy.” Push article propaganda regularly circulates citing the rise in ‘piracy,’ hoping that the American public confuses this action on the part of an excluded market with ‘Captain Phillips’ – and therefore will support increased regulatory spending. These practices are not enforced by OPEC, rather American and European banks, who will not issue MT series documents to finance any transaction which runs afoul of participation in this cartel practice set. Can I cite a reference on this? No, of course not. These are unpublished corporate policies; sets of relative privation. No one is going to publish a document entitled “Here is How Our Cartel is Run.” One only learns this by actually assisting developing nations in attempting to set up exports for their oil.
Interestingly enough, grey market oil trades are allowed, it is just they are only allowed for certain politicians and highly powerful and influential individuals …ones who could never afford to be seen taking a pay-off. Ones who mysteriously make hundreds of millions of dollars prior to an important election, through ‘smart business practices.’
Second, there need not be any price gouging in a cartel. With the intervention of free money from outside sources, the objective is not price gouging and profitability – rather simply learning how to completely control entry into a given market vertical. There is plenty of money to go around and everything can be made to appear as if it were ‘non-profitable’ (wink wink, all skeptical tongues should be held at this moment). The US Healthcare system is a fine example, of a cartel wherein costs have risen by a very conservative Standard & Poor’s definition with an embedded rate of inflation of 48% every 10 years. Yet still, no one seems to be making blockbuster profits from price gouging. Well, imagine that. There exists an entire network of compensated ‘skeptics’ who are appointed to defend that industry from any unwanted competition.† They have not published a set of practices in this. They just do it. “Anti-Science!!” “Deadly, Toxic, Placebo!!” are the bully weapon words employed in that shill argument. All the while conflating the British and American definitions of Homeopathy, which are wholly different, because the British definition affords them more bandwagon one-liners. The result is the Cartel targeting of preventative health philosophies and supplements, which have absolutely nothing at all to do with homeopathy in the first place.
Skeptic tweets, blogs and articles inevitably come out during the work day (most on Monday and Tuesday from 10am to 3pm), over monitored corporate networks. Their claims to have spotted fraud, poorly researched opinion sets, unwarranted and non-supported attacks on people, businesses and institutions are never met with reprisal or word of caution by their employers. An odd exception in an industry wherein corporate image and professional standards of conduct in communication are constantly touted to be of utmost importance?
Third, it is not simply the goods themselves which are constrained in terms of access to a cartel dominion, rather, the money, agencies, supply channels, remote cost effective labor, cost efficiencies themselves, political agreements, exclusivities, contracts, shippers, consolidators, capital, licenses to operate and import, regulatory agencies, wholesalers, raw materials, etc. It is the limitation of access to these enabling market features which defines a cartel. More specifically this includes the following features:
1. A fictitious supply of money, exercised through exclusive access placement and paper trading mechanisms which enrich the hidden royal elite of socialism – affording them unique financial access to mineral rights, international trade, materials supply, capital funding, the most highly leveraged manufacturing, channels of supply and political influence.
2. Banks which limit the volume and access, based on overhead and risk, allowed in bond and capital flows; such that only those authorized to do so, can capitalize the large scale formation of international business. These bank policies are constructed outside political boundaries so as to elude anti-trust legal jurisdiction.
3. Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to modify the supply of or monopolize/cartel-ize an industry vertical, without review by or consent from the public. Anti-competitive practices which skirt anti-trust laws by operating principally offshore and through the establishment of multi-national supply monopolies of the materials, manufacturing and shipping resources necessary to establish and operate business.
4. Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to construct shill and small authorized cottage capital businesses, limited in scope and size, bound by non-compete compliance agreements, which serve as barriers to entry and displace legitimate competing free enterprise inside a cartel dominated industry vertical.
5. Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to take public domain property, modify it slightly, and then force this new intellectual property to displace all old public domain assets, in order to create a monopoly/cartel which previously could not legally exist, without review by or consent from the public. (All we have to do is call it ‘science’).
6. Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to power of intellectual property, no longer needing patents or to attain the 3 litmus tests of patent-ability (novel, not obvious, teachable) in order to leverage domination of an industry. Intellectual property can now be forced on the public in an unqualified and non-expiring tyranny of elite ownership. (All we have to do is call it ‘property’).
7. Corporations which bear the unilateral right to sole access to commissions and governmental agencies by means of communications, legislation, lobbying, mutual employment/inter-breeding and oversight – abrogating their accountability to the public at large. (All we have to do is simply ignore this).
8. Barriers to Entry which are iron clad and promote economic dependence and elimination of a powerful upper and middle class, free information and press mechanisms – the enemies of socialist cartels.
9. The comprehensive and complete control of an industry set of transactions such that select sets of those transactions can be allotted as compensation for political favors, election influence, ministry corruption, and rewards to key/royalty participants; thereby avoiding detectable illegal pay-offs. The exercise of such transactions simply keeping the appearance of business as usual for the otherwise inaccessible industry vertical.
10. Foundations and Activist organizations which are funded by elite fictitious money, seeking to promote the dominance of socialist cartels, undue government influence, elimination of a free press, filtering and control of the internet and information, in displacement of public rights – and themselves fund money to promote compromised educational, media and ‘skepticism’ social groups.
It Starts with the Social Skepticism’s Blocking of Public Access to Rights, Self Determination, Regulation and Information
And in the end, with respect to our curiously highly motivated ‘skeptics,’ who publish most of their skeptic work right in the middle of the compensated work-day; all this is justified, no mandated, by those claiming falsely that somehow ‘science’ trumps human rights. The Phil Plaitt’s, Steven Novella’s and Michael Shermer’s of the world spit in the face of the public at large, the Bill of Rights, and insult our collective intelligence by framing the strawman, that somehow – any exercise of rights on the part of the public is irrational, vile and socially deplorable. All deployed behind the smokescreen of accusing people of being “anti-science” for the simple act of defending their rights lost in the above points.
Phil Plaitt decries the exercise of human rights over the manipulation of those rights by figures making the claim to represent science – by equivocally framing this human rights suppression as “investigation, creative progress, science.” Moreover comparing its means of constitutional jurisdiction on the part of the American People to be equivalent to Soviet tyranny and Lysenkoism:
When a society’s government (in the United States: the public) starts dictating what can and cannot be investigated, scientific and creative progress stalls. Lysenko’s work, advocated by Stalin, led to the USSR falling almost irretrievably behind other, more progressive countries; ones like the United States.
This is spin and a great example of Godwin’s Gaffe, practicing exactly what Social Skeptics decry as inevitable and invalid, Godwin’s Law: their being compared to Nazi’s and Communists. The public is not dictating what can and cannot be “investigated” (save for the necessity to manage federal funding deficits and putting a cap on what is considered to be entitled money) – they are objecting to the wholesale imposition of policy, the removal of human rights and right to free enterprise, through the simple act of declaring one’s self to represent ‘science’ or specious claims of ‘scientific consensus.’ Defending one’s rights inside a constitutional jurisdiction does not in any way resemble the actions of old Bolsheviks and Lysenkoists. The designation of the defense of human rights as Lysenkoism, is the attempt to remove the right to self determination by a people, at the hands of those who are not qualified, much less appointed, to make such unilateral decisions.
The USSR fell apart because precisely because they denied public human, governmental and economic rights, not because they squelched the ideas of those who called themselves ‘scientists.’ The alternative Godwin’s Gaffe foisted above is a clueless re-invention of history. Ironically, it was the Soviet Union who delved more deeply into subjects which were and still are, forbidden and disdained by Social Skeptics in the United States.
The result of this is a dramatic shift of wealth back into the same socialist hands which served to precipitate World War I and II (see graphic from the Economist, to the right). We are well underway back to the establishment of this same form of socioeconomic practice, once again.
Our best and our brightest, too stupid, skeptical and compliant to spot when they have been manipulated into serving institutions which only promote royalty, and serve to enslave and create conflict.
To the SSkepticism Cabal, in their superior educated wisdom, the US Constitution was simply a grand experiment which failed, and now we should step back into the 600 year old failed royalty-Let them Eat Cake-socialism of the past. Because socialism is moral and based on scientifically proved principle, my principles, human rights are an unnecessary if they get in the way of cartel power and the intentions of those who declare themselves to be ‘science.’ It is this purposeful targeting of persons based on their ideas, which we as a nation feared most in our inception – because unlike in the Thomas Paine scenario, it does not just hurt the one who precludes and denies.
This principle, the concept that it is experimentally moral to change government solely for reasons of increased control, and begin to remove and filter ideas based on their ‘truth and reason’ content is no better expressed than by Michael Shermer himself; grand master of social morality and truth enforcement on the populace. A product of religion himself, now spinning his new religion with a blood-thirst by which even Jerry Falwell would be awed.
If you want different results [government], change the variables. “The founders often spoke of the new nation as an ‘experiment,’” Ferris writes. “Procedurally, it involved deliberations about how to facilitate both liberty and order…” As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1804: “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth.” ³
~ Michael Shermer, The Work of Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Sept 2010.
Your freedom of speech, was just an experiment
Your rights to assemble and communicate, were just an experiment
Your right to unfiltered information, was just an experiment
A free press, was just an experiment
A free capital economy, was just an experiment
Your right to bear arms, was just an experiment
Your right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, was just an experiment
Your right to thrive, was just an experiment
Your right to freedom from totalitarian corporations acting in lieu of the public trust and right to self-determination, was just an experiment
And since We Are The Science, only We, the Cabal, are authorized to issue Peer Review on this experiment.
We will note with the Cabal that, the only thing which will not be an experiment, is their power. That is absolute and unquestionable. They have made this very clear.
¹ Appleyard, Field, Cobb, “In the Real World: The Effects of International Cartels,” International Economics (Seventh Edition), pp 139 – 150.