Poisoning the Public: Toxic Agrochemicals and Regulators’ Collusion with Industry
Colin Todhunter
Image source here.
In January 2019, campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman accusing European regulatory agencies of collusion with the agrochemicals industry. This was in the wake of an important paper by Charles Benbrook on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides that appeared in the journal ‘Environmental Sciences Europe’.
In an unusual step, the editor-in-chief of that journal, Prof Henner Hollert, and his co-author, Prof Thomas Backhaus, issued a strong statement in support of the acceptance of Dr Benbrook’s article for publication. In a commentary published in the same issue of the journal, they write:
“We are convinced that the article provides new insights on why different conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides] were reached by the US EPA and IARC. It is an important contribution to the discussion on the genotoxicity of GBHs.”
The IARC’s (International Agency for Research on Cancer) evaluation relied heavily on studies capable of shedding light on the distribution of real-world exposures and genotoxicity risk in exposed human populations, while the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) evaluation placed little or no weight on such evidence.
Up to that point, Dr Mason had been writing to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU Commission for an 18-month period, challenging them about ECHA’s positive assessment of glyphosate. Many people around the world had struggled to understand how and why the US EPA and the EFSA concluded that glyphosate is not genotoxic (damaging to DNA) or carcinogenic, whereas the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, the IARC, came to the opposite conclusion.
The IARC stated that the evidence for glyphosate’s genotoxic potential is “strong” and that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. While IARC referenced only peer-reviewed studies and reports available in the public literature, the EPA relied heavily on unpublished regulatory studies commissioned by pesticide manufacturers.
In fact, 95 of the 151 genotoxicity assays cited in the EPA’s evaluation were from industry studies (63%), while IARC cited 100% public literature sources. Another important difference is that the EPA focused its analysis on glyphosate in its pure chemical form, or ‘glyphosate technical’. The problem with that is that almost no one is exposed to glyphosate alone. Applicators and the public are exposed to complete herbicide formulations consisting of glyphosate plus added ingredients (adjuvants). The formulations have repeatedly been shown to be more toxic than glyphosate in isolation.
Rejection of Dr Mason’s complaint
The European Ombudsman has now rejected Rosemary Mason’s complaint who has in turn written a 25-page response documenting the wide-ranging impacts of glyphosate-based Roundup and other agrochemicals on human health and the environment. She also outlines the various levels of duplicity that have allowed many of these chemicals to remain on the commercial market.
Mason is led to conclude that, due to the rejection of her complaint (as with others lodged by her to the Ombudsman), the European Ombudsman Office is also part of the problem and is essentially colluding with European pesticide regulatory authorities. Mason has addressed this concern directly to Emily O’Reilly, who currently holds the post of European Ombudsman:
In your rejection of all my complaints over the last few years, it is clear that The Ombudsman’s Office is protecting the European pesticides regulatory authorities, who are in turn being controlled by the European Glyphosate Task Force…. You have turned a blind eye to the authorisation of many of the toxic pesticides that are on the market today because industry is being allowed to self-regulate.”
Some of the key points, claims and issues raised in Mason’s new report ‘The European Ombudsman is colluding with the European Pesticide Regulatory Authorities’ include:
- The European pesticide regulatory authorities and the European Ombudsman is colluding with industry, resulting in the poisoning of humans and the environment
- Cancer Research UK is not addressing the impact of agrochemicals because it is heavily compromised by industry interests and therefore claims, “there is little evidence that pesticides cause cancer”
- The UK Science Media Centre is an industry lobby organisation, which feeds the wider media and its journalists with misleading and false information about agrochemicals
- Industry group the European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) has been instrumental in ensuring the re-licensing of glyphosate in the EU
- Maladministration and criminal collusion with the agrochemicals industry resulted in the renewal of glyphosate registration in the EU
- The report touches on the condemnation of the ECHA’s positive classification of glyphosate by the judges of the International Monsanto Tribunal
- The global insect apocalypse and the impact of intensive agriculture and pesticides is catastrophic
- Children and adults have diminished mental acuity and exhibit increasing levels of mental health disorders, depression, suicides and anxiety as a result of exposure to agrochemicals
- Monsanto’s sealed secret studies shows the company knew about impact of its product on cancers and eye damage
- The report mentions UN expert on Toxins Baskut Tuncak’s call to put children’s health before pesticides
- Mason outlines the poisoning of British food: breakfast cereals have shockingly high levels of glyphosate
- She notes that 30,000 doctors and health professionals in Argentina have demanded a ban on glyphosate
- Brazil’s National Cancer Institute statement that genetically modified crops are causing of massive pesticide use is referred to
- The independence of regulatory decisions made by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has been marred by political donations to Labor and the Coalition. In the 2017-18 financial year, Bayer donated $40,600 to Labor and $42,540 to the Coalition, with CropLife donating $34,271 to Labor and $22,300 to the Coalition
- As a result, APVMA is allowing clothianidin and Roundup to be applied to crops in low lying areas which drains into The Great Barrier Reef
- In turn, the poisoning of The Great Barrier Reef is taking place due to the impact of herbicides and long-acting insecticides
There are numerous other important points and issues tackled in the report, which readers are urged to read in full. Mason names key individuals and provides all relevant links to research, reports and papers. You can access the report below. You can also access Dr Mason’s many other documents here.
Read Rosemary Mason’s new report The European Ombudsman is colluding with the European Pesticide Regulatory Authorities here.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Unless Mr Todhunter has very specific evidence to back up his claims that CRUK is ‘compromised’, I think he would well to understand more about how CRUK operates.
CRUK is involved in a variety of work, including:
1. Basic medical research in arenas of relevance to how cancer develops and progresses.
2. Mechanistic studies of how particular cancer-associated genes operate.
3. Mechanistic studies of how known carcinogens act.
4. Developing technologies and new formulations worthy of investigation as potential medicines.
5. Carrying out clinical trials on a wide variety of potential treatments, including diet, giving up harmful activities, screening programmes, chemical compounds, biological molecules, surgery and other invasive procedures, non-invasive technological approaches.
What it does not do is carry out routine screening of commercial chemicals for potential carcinogenic effects. DEFRA will be the lead organisation associated with such work, IFR in Norwich might occasionally find it relevant etc.
If he has specific evidence that CRUK knows glyphosate is a dangerous carcinogen but is actively preventing funding of relevant research in that arena, he should present it.
It would not be hard to frame specific research proposals if things are that cut and dried.
Mr Jaggar, you say, “Unless Mr Todhunter has very specific evidence to back up his claims that CRUK is ‘compromised’… ”
I advise you to read carefully what I state prior to the list of bullet points that I have included in the article. I say: “Some of the key points, claims and issues raised in Mason’s new report ‘The European Ombudsman is colluding with the European Pesticide Regulatory Authorities’ include… ” – then I list the points.
In other words, I have made it clear that I am reporting on, in the case of CRUK, a claim made by Dr Mason. It is her claim. At the same time, I take responsibility for publicising her report. I have been bringing her writing to a wider audience via different media outlets for many years because she has provided strong evidence in this report and others that support many of her assertions.
More specifically, in the case of CRUK, she raises a very important issue, something we should all be concerned about: a deep-rooted conflict of interest at the strategic level. Dr Mason asserts that certain personnel, research funders and corporations linked to or involved with CRUK have commercial interests that encourage the agency to make statements about preventing cancer, thereby shaping a misleading public narrative. She notes that by focusing on lifestyle behavior, the agency ignores structural factors that people have little or no control over: not least the contamination of water and food by agrochemicals.
Dr Mason has outlined a financially lucrative symbiotic relationship between the agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals sectors in the UK and certain research bodies, which all have a vested interest in driving the research agenda in a particular direction. And this is facilitated and heavily promoted by the UK govt. I advise you to read about these issues for yourself by clicking on the links to her work, which I have provided in the article (and by the way, DEFRA too does not escape lightly): The information is there and individuals and specific companies and research institutes are named.
Cancer as a racket?
I find that power operates its own versions of history, narrative and appropriation of funding and attention. Power can also be given to that which protects, and by capturing and enforcing a regulatory monopoly, only ‘standard of care’ can be effected without risk of losing one’s career as a doctor.
Since a ‘War on Cancer’ was announced by Nixon, how many billions of dollars that have been funnelled and continue to be funnelled to cancer research that has not resulted in significant changes to ‘standard of care’ or proscribed outcomes overall.
Research into cancer is highly controlled as is the cancer narrative.
This is not to say there ere not many ‘rank and file members’ who are dedicated to their cause.
http://www.whale.to/cancer.html
A transglobal corporately driven top down monopoly operates across a broad spectrum of ‘opportunity’. To put it another way, no vector of marketising or weaponising of the human being is overlooked.
A world in which…
“Everything is BACKWARDS; everything is upside down! Doctors destroy health, Lawyers destroy justice, Universities destroy knowledge, Governments destroy freedom, Major media destroys information, And religions destroy spirituality”. (Michael Ellner).
… is like unto a mind-parasite that frames life in terms of subversion of a relational situation to a transaction, of conversion of a need-meeting to a service and service provision as dictate of needs and regulatory (state) control of their definitions, and provisions of ‘care’.
Sickness management is a further development of sin-management – with genetic malfunction and virological attack serving the (ph)armaments industry with a captive revenue stream.
As for glyphosate; I don’t know that cancer is the major risk. It is a persistent and pervasive anti-biotic that destroys our gut flora – on which depends immune function, brain functions, digestive functions – as well as breaking down the gut barrier (via zonulin over production) – and opening our primary defence to undigested proteins that of course invoke chronic inflammation towards auto-immune disease. Glyphosate is a major input into a synergy of negative or destructive toxicities that all operate together – just as in health, does a range of nutrients, activities, exposures etc.
Health is not an industry founded of the fear of its loss, but a wholeness of being.
“Fear Inc”, operates a thinking-reversal as a form of possession in which it is the fear that is protected from a true awareness as if truth is to be feared above all else.
Unless we revisit the predicates from which we think, and respond, we will not know our ‘base is captured’ by fear-induced errors, and cannot revision the past and so it persists as the stamp of a boot on the present into a future of ‘protection’ from life.
‘Seek and do NOT find’ is the underlying intent to keep the problem as a basis for a private agenda. Are we truly alive to know and share it – or are we locked into private agenda as ‘survivors’ in a kill or be killed world?
Killing fields with glyphosate to bring a crop to seed (dying plants put all energy into seeding) is a profitable convenience for Big-Ag. As is maximising yield via application of poisons, and generation of bulk yields from denatured/demineralised soils by inputs to feed plant growth NOT the soil – which also means less health and resilience in the plant.
When everything is turned to monetary profit of private agenda, then all the parts work apart in stead of playing a part, and division invites and feeds destructive profiteering – that is the use of war and sickness as a cultivation of power and profit – and the capture and effective control of all arenas of influence by which to operate this AS the ‘Economy’.
Glyphosate is a demineralising drain cleaner that accidently killed weeds! It was never mean’t to be an integral part of the human food chain & now its killing us ! CRUK know this.
Watch “Peril on your plate” https://rtd.rt.com/films/the-peril-on-your-plate/
Monsanto knew & know everything & that’s why they cashed out in a very dirty deal with Bayer before the legal cases came tumbling in & BECAUSE the USDA is complicit Bayer will not pay the Billions in damages but the US Taxpayer will. USDA by default sanctioned the Bayer deal & has to carry the legal tab………. CRUK are no different.
Look at the Chinese research on Glyphosate & ask why they banned it ? CRUK are in it to the teeth cos they ain’t that dumb.
Colin is on the cutting edge – or perhaps the neural edge – of the interface between the old and the emerging new paradigm. According to the scientific Method of the old paradigm: you isolate the pure chemical (in this case glyphosate) under sterile lab conditions; with a ‘neutral’, objectively dispassionate, non-participant observer; from the isolated, linearised, reproducible results it can be correctly determined how the chemical will affect the whole of the isolated, sterile, ‘dead’ material, disconnected universe.
Now clearly there is wilful negligence and corporate bias at play here. Not all scientists are wilfully negligent or corrupt. But they nearly all are relentlessly Cartesian in their approach. And Nature is not. In fact, Nature is relentlessly and radically anti-Cartesian, interconnected, non-linear, non-local, non-mechanistic …and relentlessly unpredictable. It is not an isolatable, temperature and humidity controllable, sterile lab – in which dead material reacts in predictable, reproducible and controlled ways …so why are we treating it as one? Our reductive materialism and mechanistic scientific approach to modelling Nature has to take the lion’s share of the blame. Especially when it is corrupted and co-opted to corporate needs.
I’m not knocking science in toto: only scientific determinism and corporate capture. There have been great advances in science (aided by the evolution of non-linear mathematics) in the last century: away from purely analytical logical posivitism, verificationism and determinism – and toward inter-relational dynamic systems views and observer participation (toward a second order Cartesian synthesis). The old mechanistic, materialistic, hierarchical Cartesian synthesis paradigm is in, what Kuhn might call, ‘model crisis mode’ – resisting transition to a more holistic, dynamic, creative process model. Science progresses one funeral at a time – as ‘Mad’ Max Planck wryly observed.
There will be no doing away with duality – it is a useful concept …but a lousy, dictatorial, brutalising, totalising, regime of truth. One that favours corporate capture and inverse totalitarianism by always favouring the status quo ante. The emerging paradigm will contain the results of all our enquiries into the nature of the universe …and much more. Science will be set free from linearised reductive determinism (it already has in many fields, but this is yet to translate into consciousness ‘outside the lab’. The regimes of truth and power are inexorably, concretely Cartesian, and cannot be any other way).
There is a blackhole (and when manipulated, a blackheart) in the Cartesian Method and resulting paradigm. Consciousness is relentlessly natural and living, in a way that is beyond the Cartesian Method to describe. So it left it out (as irrational, emotional, corrupted, and unreliable): or inserted a cognitive computational representation and symbol manipulation ‘Black Box’ – and called it human. Well, you can stick your Black Box mentality – because we are not disconnected from anything, nor living in a lab, or even a computer simulation. You cannot analytically parse human subjectivity from reality and call it real.
The Cartesian Method brought us so far, at the expense of excising the heart of humanity from its models. The political models and regimes of truth and power that were coercively and controllingly erected on the Cartesian Method and Enlightenment principles can only last so long when we rediscover our interpenetrative interconnectedness with everything. Nature is a mighty big thing to have as ally: the second we realise the pernicious folly of our false consciousness dominion via the Method.
Dominion? Meet the old boss; same as the new boss. Our jumped up egotism and self-conceit briefly fuelled our delusion that we are in charge and we have control …but we never were. Our redundant reductive Method – generally unintentionally – fostered the deceit. We need a new inclusive Method: one in which we are participatory (second order synthesis). One that takes the heart of humanity and places it firmly in the heart of Nature. Not above or below, bit within …as co-equal with everything.
That new emergent, unified (inter-disciplinary) Earth Systems Science must then be the heart of community and political-economy. A totalising universal humanism: whose heart is within the heart of Nature …or a totalising corporatocracy: whose blackheart is not …there is still the choice to be made with heart (I hope) .
That is just such an excellent review of so much that is wrong with the traditional “scientific” approach to our world:
No respect for Nature, no comprehension of the difference between something alive and something dead, and blind acceptance of existing habits of thought.
Thank you.
I hope I never meet the person who down-voted your comment, by the way. Incomprehensible, although I suppose one should endeavour to understand all points of view…
Hi, Wardropper, nice to meet you.
BigB’s position is a pendulum swing to the other side from the Cartesian viewpoint. It appears to be hinduism/theosophy/baha’i/new age/planet worship – the world RELIGION Gorbachev said would be needed for the New World Order, and, therefore, shortsighted and dangerous.
I agree we need to be one with each other, but nature (let’s loose the ecosystem label) is separate – it (and let’s loose the female pronoun, mother earth fantasy) supports us and we protect it for our survival.
I had to go out so I downvoted the comment intending to post an answer upon returning. Answer duly posted. I have made my views known to BigB several times.
Mikalina
Yes, we have shared views before: so you could at least correct the misattribution element of your comment? My views are a mix of old and new – Dao, Yogacara-Mahayana-Zen, process philosophy (Bergson, Pierce, Whitehead); etc. with modern science such as Prigogine, Maturana, Varella, etc. plus a whole lot more. None of your attributions is remotely correct.
On the ‘woman versus nature’ split: where do you propose the boundary is? Is it a permeable or non-permeable boundary? Is it a cognitive, psychological, or hard physical membrane? Where does the individuated self reside? How is it separated and insulated from the outside? What is inside without outside? Where does ‘me-ness’ begin and end?
Let’s forego the quantum field that makes a mockery of separate things. Consciousness arising from sensation has to be conscious of something. What is sensory consciousness – sight for instance – without the exterior object of sight? If the cognitive faculty of seeing is isolated from the visible spectrum of light, and the visual objects it illuminates – what is there? The individuated entity is totally deaf, dumb, blind, unfeeling, unmoving, and unconscious is it not?
Cut off from the environment: every process that supports life ceases – without continued access to energy and waste exchange. An oxygen breathing organism can only be co-existent with a breathable atmosphere. We need food, that pre-supposes co-existence with systems of agriculture, fertile soil, healthy aquifers, vapo-transpiration, pollinating insect and bird and their sustaining web of biotic life, etc. The bottom of every food chain is plant life – which pre-supposes co-existence with sunlight. So the barrier extends into the cosmos?
If you break any or all of the myriad circular causal chains in the causal nexus – we cease to be. Even thought: if you have never seen a tree, or learnt anything through sensation or psycho-motor activity – cannot exist in isolation. Not without oxygen, water, and food. Even thought requires calorific sustenance, myriad biological processes, and an object of conception – which can only be attained by sensory perception. So where is, or more importantly, who is this isolated individuated entity?
The isolated, individuated entity is a bit like the scene from Interstellar – a Major Tom moment in isolation – alone in absolute darkness, zero gravity, and absolute zero confinement – crossing the event horizon into nothingness. We only survive like that in the movies and science fiction, I’m afraid.
Mikalina
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” Carl Sagan
Have you heard of self-organisation? It is indeed a huge folly to project our ideas of Beingness onto Nature, anthropomorphising ‘Her’ as an intentional, teleological entity. You are right, that is New Ageist hippy BS, and not at all helpful. It is also a classic denigration trope employed against the likes of Lovelock and Margulis when they proposed the Gaia Principle. Only, they never made the claim. And neither did I. Nor will I ever do. If you read any of my comments: I substantially deny our symbolically reified notional Being as linguistic mystification. There is no fixed, substantive, durational, individuated Being at either the personal, communal, cosmic, or metaphysical level. It is a Cartesian notion and a Cartesian projection: hardly something I would infer in refuting Cartesian separationism.
Everything works integrally and interactively within an inconceivable web of processes. Everything relies on everything else. Nearly all the ‘dead’ elements – and has been postulated recently – including amino acids were forged in stars as part of the cosmological process. It is not impossible to conceive that the galaxies are indeed ‘proto-conscious’, as has been recently postulated. Whether it is or it isn’t: is that any more of a foolish idea than consciousness evolved from the structural congregation of dead elements?
If Life is a temporary compounding of non-life cosmic elements: and an aggregation of myriad processes – all of which are equally vital. Although this tends towards stability and homoeostasis over significant epochal time periods – it may not be metastable over greater geological periods. There is a corresponding Medea hypothesis: that life might be unstable over long enough periods of time. Gaia might be a suicidal teenager for all we know.
Whatever turns out to be the truth: there will never be the need to posit a supranatural Being behind the Process. No such thing exists. Emergence and self-organisation can account for Process without attributing a self-conscious intentional entity with a plan. That is the very nature and folly of our delusion.
What is clear to me is that we are intent on hastening the process of returning life to the microbial level. Life may or may not be omnicidal: but we, collectively, certainly are. Our false consciousness confections of Being, separateness, and notionally non-integrating Nature very much underpins that quickening.
If you cannot conceive of a cosmic process, working in unison, for better or worse – that’s OK, no one can. A major part of our conceit is that we can understand the universe with a sufficient set of axioms. We cannot. But we can experience its unfolding in a unique and privileged way – locally integrated through our sense-experience. If you think that is dangerous, you might want to consider the alternatives.
“Gaia might be a suicidal teenager for all we know.”
Even Lovelock has proposed
The perfect technical notion
That we could dispose of our heat
In the depths of the ocean
The human psyche is predicated upon a god of terror and so we project it as our model or self-image – with a front facing mask of justified self that conceals what would damn and condemn us if it were exposed.
I realise that ‘successful’ identification in the mask does not look within, asserts there is no within – and maintains its defiance no matter what – so that death and dying proves it right – for such is the god-idea of terror that splits love to a stockholm syndrome allegiance set over a denied captivity.
The god(s) (split mind) of terror are exemplified in our ‘Mythic’ records that are not just imaginations that just happened to be associated with Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury – under various names in different times to different civilisations. But the time of terror is not here now and events given symbolic and ritual forms each according to their culture no longer have corroborations in our skies.
The rediscovering of what lies beneath from a new perspective is a revisiting of a traumatic past in some willingness to heal or be healed of it – but the resistance to such exposure has all the force of survival under triggered fear.
Projecting fear onto the realm of change is our invested identity IN it – but there IS no home in the changing EXCEPTING we make it ours by giving or extending our self to our relational environment. This IS what Mind ‘does’ – it extends Idea that is accepted and recognised as self – and thus to recognise our self in each other is to recognize our integrality in Mind.
A terror split mind seeks to escape the split by giving or projecting to get rid of – so as to keep a fragment in dissociation from what is unbearable or overwhelming.
So you CAN project your own current psychic content onto your world or your model of Gaia – as a beginning appreciation of the ‘pre-biological’ matrix of a living Universe – but then you will ‘see’ it in your world as if it is there.
The cycles of ‘birth and death’ in terms of structural energy fields from galaxies to microbial or atomic processes – are arbitrary beginnings and ending of certain FORMS of energy expression.
However, if suicide exists, then it is one of the ways of a system ‘collapse’ even when apparently there is no outer convergence of conditions leading to such an outcome – and here we have our human psyche as a set of conditions that – when not met – make life unwanted, unlovable, unbearable, devoid of meaning or painful without respite – so as to give up or release the life in the body with the mind of its life.
My sense of the human psyche is that collective suicide is one of the options on the table and available via a number of means. The ingenuity of the human mind is in ‘knowing not what it does’ – as a result of wanting to believe something else – and with emotional intensity of investment in the belief.
So a ‘Convergence’ that perhaps could prism into different scenario outcomes? I feel to make sure we are on the bus that is most aligned with who we truly are rather than be induced by false thinking and emotional reaction into choosing against our Good – perhaps because we have to step up to a vibration of what we want to meet or share in.
Life is substantially atemporal. I say substantially so as not to completely deny inner ontological time …and temporal Being. Being is time, life is not …hence the disonnance between the two. We symbolically reify a psyche that masks the congruence and actualisation of Life. Literally, Life is what happens when we are too busy Being: making other plans for the quasi-perpetualisation of Being.
We have this huge cosmogony of astrophysical history preceding us by billions of years. The universe and the natural laws (of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc) were made without us …just waiting for us to evolve to find them – waiting patiently for us objectivelly eternally – in neo-Platonic heaven. Universals, waiting to be discovered and verified – in congruence with our finest minds. When we have discovered enough of these pre-existent, transcendental, absolute, universal axioms, we can theoretically tame the universe and master its fullest potential for humanity.
This should be a definition of monomaniacal insanity: but for the fact it is hardwired into the heart of much of our scientific Method. Even Einstein believed in a version of it. But it is all projected.
I should quickly qualify that by saying that it is not necessarily inaccurately. Honest scientists will admit to accurate abstractions and verified approximations, which can be called “poetic objectivity”, “empirical subjectivity” or “embodied realism”. But to the regime of truth: it must be purely “objective”.
All we have done is make a powerful creation mythology – a deterministic monomyth – one that absolutises the separationism of Being qua Being. One that no one can really challenge …it’s the empirical root of all culture. Critically, parts of it are real true approximations – physical laws – highly verified. So it must all be true, in totalitarianism?
No. It’s a joke …one that should be laughed at. Every element of the man-made monomyth of man – no sexism on my part – is man-made. Space-time, dimensionality, causality, mass, energy , etc are man-made abstracts that verify the man-made monomythical model of man. We have anthropom
We may use words or symbols differently.
I behold that being is – and only is – no matter what attributes are given, Is Is.
Being is time-less or always – but the identification in mind of form is ‘come and go’ or cyclical, periodic, temporal.
Being does not DO so much as embrace all that (it) Is.
Giving attributes is ‘doing’ as intent, desire or appreciation of worth, value or meaning and AS SUCH is creative – as the extending (of) idea in and as the mind of being – as awareness (of) being. We can be aware THAT we are aware. We can never be aware of what awareness IS and an object, EXCEPTING as one with ALL objects.
The above is abstract and thus generalisable to all examples and exclusive to none.
The ‘concrete’ or specific mind is a development of consciousness within mind.
And can seem to be A mind split from its source, nature, and true environment.
The split is not in being – but at the level of mind – and projected to the body, form and world.
From this reversal is the experience of a mind in a body in a world as a narrative or mythic representation or overlay of meanings to the underlying reality.
Investment of identity in the self-definition and its world-view is an expression of a LOSS of shared identity in being – the experience of which is ‘separation trauma’, and the mind and world arising from its denial, being structured by the constellations or configurations of such denial.
This is no less true of each life, than of our collective species.
In all of what I write I am affirming being, mind and spirit as creative – even in the setting up of a reversal by which they are made subject to objects that have been defined with attributes that belong to mind – and cannot actually leave the mind.
The reversal in consciousness is revealed by its signature in all of its fruits – one of which is the accusation ascribed to the ‘other’ of one’s own unrecognised or concealed act. This trick of mind given force of feeling, operates the ‘false flag’ mind of denied or evaded and abnegated responsibility, and runs AS IF freedom from consequence, or at least a buy now, pay later, in which fears and wants usurp true relational awareness. And a true sovereign will.
The poisoning of the true will by deceit is an ancient story that Bayer-Monsanto et al are re-enacting in global terms, not just in the ‘what of it’ being toxic, but the ‘way of it’ being an intent to capture, dominate and control life in terms that degrade and destroy the whole to feed the self-gratification of a split off part. Life’s qualities and energies sacrificed to an anti-life agenda.
A negative economy thriving on degradation, destruction and death!
What ELSE could come of deceit given allegiance over true?
“Is fear a treasure? Can uncertainty be what you WANT? Or is it a mistake about your will, and what you REALLY are? Let us consider what the error IS, so it can be corrected, NOT protected. Sin is belief attack can be projected OUTSIDE the mind where the belief arose. Here is the firm conviction that ideas CAN leave their source made real and meaningful. And FROM this error does the world of sin and sacrifice arise. This world is an attempt to prove your innocence, while cherishing attack. Its failure lies in that you STILL FEEL guilty, though without understanding WHY. Effects are SEPARATED from their source. They SEEM to be BEYOND you to control or to prevent”. (A Course in Miracles).
Thanks WD
Kind words outweigh the occasional downvote 50-1. 🙂
According to the scientific Method of the old paradigm: you isolate the pure chemical (in this case glyphosate) under sterile lab conditions; with a ‘neutral’, objectively dispassionate, non-participant observer; from the isolated, linearised, reproducible results it can be correctly determined how the chemical will affect the whole of the isolated, sterile, ‘dead’ material, disconnected universe.
Like CO2 affecting the Earth’s climates because it did in the lab?
From my tiny bit of research I have found that glyphosate products destroy the brain/ body barrier and allow metallic compounds to gain access where normally they couldn’t. Aluminium compounds for instance cause dementia. The manufacture of some medicines is so slap dash that glyphosate products are allowed into the pitri dishes (from food chain contamination of animal feed) in which some cultures are grown. Let’s start the MMR vaccine argument all over again.
Jim Porter, eg: Abstract from Link to research paper published in Surgical Neurology International:
“Manganese (Mn) is an often overlooked but important nutrient, required in small amounts for multiple essential functions in the body. A recent study on cows fed genetically modified Roundup®-Ready feed revealed a severe depletion of serum Mn. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, has also been shown to severely deplete Mn levels in plants.”
Link is to National Institute of Health:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392553/
PS Roundup (Trademark) is basically an old chelating agent which Monsanto found a new use for. A chelating agent is one which picks up metallic ions and carries them around in a protective coating; hence can kill plants by preventing access to essential trace metals, and could quite feasibly carry metal ions across the blood-brain barrier in animals and deposit them in the brain, as Jim reports above.
PPS info from my socially conscious chemist friend Dr.Janina Altman and her husband Prof.Colman Altman at Techion Physics Dept, Israel.
Beware governments in some places are installing air-freshners in as many places as possible, for example at every railway station. The vast majority, if not all, of these air-freshners contain chemicals that cause short and long term illnesses in the respiratory system as well as causing kidney and liver damage. Do your research on Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs and see the evidence.
The auto-release feature ensures the place where every unit is installed is saturated as much as possible with these poisonous chemicals, and saturated day and night.
And if government actions are not enough, many companies are voluntarily installing these auto-release devices in common work areas.
Not enough?
Individuals are also installing these devices in their own home. Sure, lots of people are using the non-self-release version of these products as well. And then they complain the kids are allergic to this and allergic to that, coming and going to the GP and the ENT doctor, before becoming a regular patient with an Oncologist!
Not enough to convince you, the government is working to poison you?? Doctors are instructed to say, they don’t know ‘for sure’ what causes cancer!
Operation Fragrance. I had a friend who suffered acute respiratory distress from such compounds, couldn’t stand them at all. He seems to have been among the first victims of what is now known as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Wikipedia:
“Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), also known as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances (IEI), is a complex chronic condition symptoms characterized by non-specific symptoms that the affected person attributes to encountering small amounts of common substances, _such as perfume.”
I used to live in NW Scotland. I heard many a rumour about something very similar to this – acute respiratory distress – from locals working on fish farms, spraying de-lousing agents on salmon. I heard of people who had to be excluded from such work as another dose would kill them. This is anecdotal, and I never came across a study of the effects on the locals. Fisherman told me that the local mollusc populations – which are filter feeders – were wiped out. That and salmon lice escape were at least reported. And they shoot otters and seals. Bastards.
Colin Todhunter’s article puts the dot upon the i. The systematic loosening of public regulations regarding Financial Institutions began under Snatcher & Raygun, was extended to Military Intelligence & International Law by Bush & BLiar, and is now being extended to weakening the public regulation of Health.
All this to increase profits for ruthless, stupidly irresponsible Capitalism. And the bribes which Capitalists give to our Political Leaders are derisory (or “only modest”, to quote British Prime Minister TB.Liar): a modest 80Million GBP to BLiar, a slightly less modest couple of $Billion to the Clintons,
And now a laughable pittance to Ozzie Lawmakers to subvert the health of Australia and destroy its ecological paradise the Barrier Reef: “In the 2017-18 financial year, Bayer donated $40,600 to Labor and $42,540 to the Coalition, with CropLife donating $34,271 to Labor and $22,300 to the Coalition”.
vexarb, Do you have a list of all Bayer’s donation to political parties worldwide? I have a particular interest in a drug Rivaroxaban/Xarelto widely prescribed abd promoted as a blood thinner. There is a class action underway in the USA against Bayer in connection with this drug.
https://www.classaction.com/xarelto/lawsuit/
Thanks
Grigory, all I know is what I read in the papers. Only noticed Bayer when I read they had moved out of ethical products (such as their famous Aspirin) and into Monsanto’s GMO scams. If Bayer are launching some dubious pharmaceutical, I hope the courts will check them.
PS I am not against GMO in principle, neither am I against any other technology such as carbon fuel, nuclear fuel, artificial intelligence or whatever. Nor am I against public right to carry a gun or a knife (even though such a great scientist as Charles Darwin deplored this American practice as conducive to wanton acts of murder). But I am against improper use of tools — especially rushing in with untried and possibly dangerous procedures for profit.
“Love of money is the source of many problems”. — Old Testament.
This is the tip of the iceberg of the regulatory capture and corruption of peer review process.
The EU is captured by the Lobbyist complex as much as Washington and any of the other Corporate “Democracies”
Professor Bruce Charlton was hounded from his Journal for Publishing a research paper challenging the link between HIV and Aids, Clive Spash resigned from CIRso in Australia when the Aussie quango’s higher ups wanted to censor his paper critiquing Carbon Trading credits.
This portmento of quotes from We Pragmatists by (Haack) attributed to C S Pierce
In order to
reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues
as intellectual honesty and sincerity a
nd a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientific
inquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them
to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to
know how things really were … (1-34).
[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake
(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with in
tentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235).
[When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines wh
at the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which
determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham
reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men
come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative….
longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/between-the-lines-ariana-boussard-reifel/
@RogerLewis: “Professor Bruce Charlton was hounded from his Journal for Publishing a research paper challenging the link between HIV and Aids”
As I wrote on a previous thread, scientists do not ‘hound’ people for proposing a thesis (even though they might question their sanity). They simply test whether the idea corresponds with: 1. objective measurements & 2. a web of ideas which do (more or less) correspond with objective measurement.
I do not know about Prof.Charlton but I have disagreed with Peter Duesberg’s thesis for decades; nevertheless I am pleased to read this from Nature | News:
Paper denying HIV–AIDS link secures publication
https://www.nature.com/news/paper-denying-hiv-aids-link-secures-publication-1.9737
“The truth rarely, if ever, convinces its opponents; it simply outlives them”. — “Mad” Max Planck, proposer of that quantum theory which Einstein later described as the very definition of insanity: repeating an experiment and expecting a different result.
Planck proposed the quantization of radiant energy and later experimentally derived a constant linking energy and frequency. A few years later Einstein realized that if the hypothesis Planck developed to explain his work were correct then the then “laws” of physics would need serious revision and proceeded, with Bohr, Heisenberg and others, to do just that, constructing quantum theory, despite having for the rest of his life philosophical objections to the total loss of determinism the new theory implied (“God doesn’t play dice with the universe”). More people now reject Einstein’s reservations than accept them, but the matter is still by no means definitively settled. Inadequate research is neither enlightenment nor understanding. Which latter point leads me to wonder how many of the little automatons who downvoted my comment of some time ago, that it seemed that pure glyphosate was considerably less toxic than the adjuvant cocktails formulated to make it into a commercially useful product, are going to diss Todhunter for reporting the same well-substantiated findings. Downarrows rooted in mindless reflexes are about as useful as a jug of pure glyphosate at an EPA sponsors’ booze up.
Einstein: for all his genius, was a Laplacian determinist at heart. He couldn’t cope with the idea of Uncertainty. Professor Stephen Hawking famously rebutted:
“Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen.”
http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html
Determinism literally means that we can determine every variable – including hidden variables (see link) – at any given time: and predict or calculate the state of the universe at any other time from such a universal datum. Except under highly specialised conditions: and profoundly obviously, we cannot. Nor are locally determinable predictions applicable to rest of the universe …or even Nature: including human nature. That there are those, clinging to the coat tails of Einstein, who will not accept this – Cartesian scientists chief among them – is not necessarily equatable with “not settled”. It just means that there are those who are so inculcated in the Cartesian Method – they cannot accept the obvious. God is an inveterate gambler, as Hawking says.
The idea that one fixed state determines the next fixed state denies novelty, creativity, and innovation. To the big clockwork universe I say good riddance! 🙂
Rob, good for you, reporting earlier something this thread is presenting in greater depth. But why on earth should people _downvote an experimental result_?.
Roundup (TM Monsanto/Bayer) is simply a chelating agent, which wraps up metals in a protective coating. Whether this is good or bad depends on which metal and for which purpose. Chelating agents are useful for wrapping up Calcium ions to make water softer, for instance. I believe Monsanto originally developed glyphosate to prevent iron from rusting, then they found it was toxic so Monsanto/Bayer are now trying to sell the stuff as a weedkiller.
“The surgeon’s knife can kill as well as cure. That is the double legacy of twin centaurs, Chiron who taught Esculapius and Nessus who poisoned Hercules”. —
PPS That was a quote from surgeon Christian Ficat, in Revue des Deux Mondes if I remember correctly.
From 2003 to 2010, Charlton was the solo-editor of the journal Medical Hypotheses, published by Elsevier.[4] After HIV/AIDS denier Peter Duesberg published a paper in Medical Hypothesis arguing that “there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS”, the journal came under fire for its lack of peer review. The paper was withdrawn from the journal citing concerns over the paper’s quality and “that [it] could potentially be damaging to global public health.” Elsevier consequently revamped the journal to introduce peer review, firing Charlton from his position as editor, due to his resistance of these changes.[5]
vexarb I do like your falling back on the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Charlton lost his editorship for not censoring a scientific paper, or supressing a scientific paper to be mmore accurate.
The peer review process is a sort of arrangement to promote in group biases and extend outlived paradigms.
The problem with modern science is that often repeated experiments do not obtain the same result thats a different sort of insanity , I call it Oligarchical psychosis.
First, there is the Replication Crisis.
This is the canary in the coalmine of the scientific crisis in general because it tells us that a surprising percentage of scientific studies, even ones published in top-tier academic journals that are often thought of as the gold standard for experimental research, cannot be reliably reproduced. This is a symptom of a larger crisis because reproducibility is considered to be a bedrock of the scientific process.
https://youtu.be/LfHEuWaPh9Q?t=347
@RogerLewis: “The paper was withdrawn from the journal citing concerns “that [it] could potentially be damaging to global public health.” Elsevier consequently revamped the journal to introduce peer review, firing Charlton from his position as editor due to his resistance of these changes.”
I stand by my claim: Elsevier and the people who wanted Duesberg’s hypothesis retracted on social grounds are no true Scotsmen. Whereas the Italians who published it, are true Scotsmen.
I have other bad things to say about Elsevier, but shall not vent them here because you are probably aware of recent criticisms that Elsevier impose a financial stranglehold on scientific publication.
One of May’s Cabinet has just resigned.
Somebody called Eustice. Maybe Useless Eustice.
Never heard of him, but he was in charge of mangel wurzels or something to do with agriculture.
Can the country survive?