HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » proverbialwisdom » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Feb 10, 2010, 01:12 PM
Number of posts: 4,959

Journal Archives

ABSOLUTELY FALSE -"Peer review tells us that...Pusztai performed shoddy research."

Vet your sources and seek robust redundancy among those fully vetted sources, or you just might be completely misinformed.


BOOK REVIEW: http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/109/reviews/review (inactive)

Trust Us, We're Experts
How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

Reviewed by Sibylle Hechtel PhD
Posted August 31, 2001 · Issue 109

It's not often you read a book that dramatically changes your outlook or opinions. Most books amuse, entertain, or inform. Trust Us, We're Experts shocks. It easily could lead the uninitiated to question their assumptions about "facts" and "truth" in the marketplace.

Authors Rampton and Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy ( http://www.prwatch.org/cmd ) chronicle the history of public relations...

I was particularly appalled at the story of scientist Arpad Pusztai. Pusztai identified troubling results in rats fed genetically modified potatoes. When he announced his findings, his bosses at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, suspended him (he soon retired) and discredited his research. Before reading this account, I had believed the official version: Pusztai did shoddy research. But this book indicates that Pusztai's work was fine - its only fault was that it went against major commercial interests.


The authors recount similar cases in which millions of dollars were paid to PR companies by corporations whose interests ranged from the food and restaurant businesses to the oil and chemical industries. The issues involved industrial diseases and work-related illnesses; safety and risk assessment; and the impact of organochlorines such as DDT, PCBs, and dioxin, chemicals that can disrupt hormone metabolism.

Rampton and Stauber continue with a description of the battle between environmentalists and the biotech food industry. They note that many of the world's largest chemical corporations, such as Monsanto, Novartis, Hoechst, Pharmacia, Dow Chemical, and DuPont, shifted their investments from chemicals to food and pharmaceuticals. The investigative journalists conclude that "government regulators are not presently functioning to safeguard the public's best interest." As an obvious example of abuse, they cite the story of one regulator, a former Monsanto attorney, who helped draft an FDA policy and later left the FDA to return to work for Monsanto.

Trust Us, We're Experts also considers the effect of big money on universities and scientific journals, describing instances in which tobacco companies paid 13 scientists $156,000 to write letters to influential medical journals. Chapter 9 looks at the concept of "junk science," a self-serving term coined by corporate attorneys, lobbyists, PR firms, and industry-funded "think tanks" to discredit scientific and medical studies that might threaten corporate profits.


Before reading this book, I was an enthusiastic supporter of biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) foods. Now I'm not so sure. Last summer, I debated GM foods with a fervent opponent. I argued that they could provide vitamin A in rice for developing nations, and produce bananas that could be used as vaccines for children in the third world. I still find these goals desirable, but I'm now more skeptical. I ascribed distrust of GM foods to ignorance or technophobia. After reading this book, I fear that my enthusiastic support resulted partly from ignorance - not of the science, but of the politics.

This book, which is well researched and includes 33 pages of footnotes and references, is an excellent primer for readers not familiar with the manipulation of public opinion. A major strength is its help in directing readers to relevant information, and instruction on how to investigate problems affecting local communities.



Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science
by Sheldon Rampton — March 27, 2007 - 3:13pm

Mr. Rampton goes to Washington

I've been asked to deliver testimony this Wednesday before the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives, which is holding a hearing titled "Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science: Media Strategies to Influence Science Policy."


If you want to know how the world wags, and who's wagging it, here's your answer. Read, get mad, roll up your sleeves, and fight back. Rampton and Stauber have issued a wake-up call we can't ignore."
--Bill Moyers

Trust Us, We're Experts
How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

Now In Paperback!
Publisher: Tarcher/Penguin

Bookstore price: $14.95 U.S./$21.99 Canada
ISBN 1-58542-139-1

Ask for it in your local bookstore or order it directly. To order by mail, send $20/book (includes postage & handling) to: CMD, 520 University Avenue, Suite 260, Madison, WI 53703.

We count on the experts. We count on them to tell us who to vote for, what to eat, how to raise our children. We watch them on TV, listen to them on the radio, read their opinions in magazine and newspaper articles and letters to the editor. We trust them to tell us what to think, because there's too much information out there and not enough hours in a day to sort it all out.

We should stop trusting them right this second.

In their new book, Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber offer a chilling exposé on the manufacturing of "independent experts." Public relations firms and corporations have seized upon a slick new way of getting you to buy what they have to sell: Let you hear it from a neutral "third party," like a professor or a pediatrician or a soccer mom or a watchdog group. The problem is, these third parties are usually anything but neutral. They have been handpicked, cultivated, and meticulously packaged to make you believe what they have to say--preferably in an "objective" format like a news show or a letter to the editor. And in some cases, they have been paid handsomely for their "opinions."

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Thu Jul 25, 2013, 09:35 PM (0 replies)

FALSE - "The vast majority of scientists agree that biotech food is safe. " The field is evolving.



Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops
January 21, 2013
by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson

How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).

The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.


To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.



About Independent Science News

Why Independent Science News?

A truly public interest perspective on science and the science media is urgently needed. As our society has become more technologically oriented and our effects on the planet more pronounced, science has increasingly become the key battleground determining the social acceptability and official approval of new (and old) products and technologies. On top of that, science is also the battleground of the ideas, such as the true origins of disease, the cause of gender differences, how to feed the world, and the merits of natural foods, that are no less important to future global possibilities.

Because of its role, science is a tempting target of manipulation for commercial entities, governments, and other powerful institutions. Not only does it offer a decisive opportunity to tilt the playing field in their favour, but also scientific decisions are often both complex and hidden from view (even from other scientists). Manipulation can therefore occur entirely unnoticed. Manipulation is further aided by the fact that scientists have constructed for themselves a mythology of impartiality and rigour that deters questioning.

Scientific facts and ideas are not always what they seem, however. From counting the future world population or quantifying the deaths following the Chernobyl nuclear accident to preventing independent research on GMOs to the safety or the effectiveness of just about any product, including pharmaceuticals and basic foodstuffs, powerful interests often succeed in controlling the output of science. When data is manipulated on this scale, then truth, the public, and democracy all suffer. It becomes effectively impossible for a society to function and decide rationally and thoughtfully.

In no field of human endeavour is this more important or more true than food and agriculture.

These examples of science journalists exposing deceit and manipulation are rarities. They are rare because most science reporters, even at Science magazine and the New York Times, see themselves not as journalists but more as explainers of science. They typically lack the independence, the public interest focus, and often the expertise, to contextualise scientific results and penetrate the inner logic of individual motives and institutional agendas that are now necessary to explain much of science.

Therefore, the two aims of Independent Science News are to call attention to these defects and remedy them as far as possible.

Independent Science News is part of the Bioscience Resource Project.
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Thu Jul 25, 2013, 08:51 PM (1 replies)


Posted by proverbialwisdom | Wed Jul 24, 2013, 01:03 PM (0 replies)

Thank you for posting. nt

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Wed Jul 24, 2013, 11:00 AM (0 replies)

I greatly admire Gregory Jaczko whose handling of the Fukushima crisis may have cost him his job.


Gregory Jaczko
Chairperson of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission



Policy positions[edit]

Jaczko has asserted that the greatest possible openness furthers the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's work on the protection of the environment and of public health and safety.[8] He encourages “licensees, vendors, state and local governments, interest groups, and the general public” to participate in the Commission's policy-making efforts.[8] Efforts by Jaczko to strengthen security regulations for nuclear power plants have included requiring new such plants to be able to withstand an aircraft crash.[8]

On February 9, 2012 Jaczko cast the lone dissenting vote on plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years when the NRC voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. He cited safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, saying "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened".[9]


Peter A. Bradford, who was a commission member from 1977 to 1982, has defended Jaczko. Bradford said it was not unusual for the commissioners to disagree strongly, and added that he did not believe that "the chairman is somehow raging around the agency and intimidating the staff". He also argued that, although the letter came from two Republicans and two Democrats, it was necessarily bi-partisan in the context of nuclear politics. He claimed that "In Washington, you’ve got a situation where the ‘nuclear party’ transcends the Republican and Democratic party," adding that "You’ve got four members of the nuclear party writing a letter about the chairman, who’s never been a member of the nuclear party."[18]
Jaczko eventually did resign in May of 2012 due to the controversy surrounding him.

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Tue Jul 23, 2013, 12:39 PM (1 replies)


Posted by proverbialwisdom | Tue Jul 23, 2013, 12:10 PM (0 replies)

Al Gore: The challenges raised by human biotechnologies on par with those of global climate change.

Thursday, July 18, 2003 at 4:18 PM


Dear Subscriber,

Did you know that Al Gore’s new best-seller The Future puts the challenges raised by human biotechnologies on par with those of global climate change? While some biotechnologies can truly improve the human condition, the former vice president writes, others call for “great wisdom…in deciding how to proceed.”

That's why the Center for Genetics and Society is working to build a new biopolitics that’s grounded in social justice, human rights, and the common good. We’re one of the few public interest organizations taking these challenging issues head on.
As someone who follows these developments in Biopolitical Views & News, I hope you’ll join our efforts to meet these challenges.

Your generous contribution will help put social justice and the public interest at the center of a new biopolitics.


Please help shape a new biopolitics! Your contribution will work toward reclaiming biotechnology for the common good.

Many thanks,
Marcy Darnovsky
Executive Director
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Mon Jul 22, 2013, 11:09 PM (0 replies)

Ironic you'd mention risk factors. Here's a 2009 Press Release from Breast Cancer Action about rBGH.


BCA Confronts Eli Lilly, Demands they Stop Milking Cancer

Posted on September 22, 2009 by Caitlin C.
For Immediate Release


Breast Cancer Action Challenges Pharma Giant’s Marketing of the Artificial Hormone, Asks the Public to Demand Action

San Francisco—Breast Cancer Action (BCA), known as the watchdog of the breast cancer movement, today announced the launch of their “Milking Cancer” campaign challenging the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly to stop manufacturing rBGH. rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBST) has long been linked to cancer.

Eli Lilly is the sole manufacturer of rBGH which is sold worldwide under the name Posilac. The company also markets drugs to treat breast cancer and a drug to reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at high risk.

“Eli Lilly profits from cancer any way you look at it,” said Barbara Brenner executive director of Breast Cancer Action. “It’s the perfect profit cycle. When Eli Lilly milks cancer, it’s great for the company, but bad for the public’s health.”

The artificial hormone rBGH has been banned in Japan, Australia, Canada and the European Union. Large corporations such as Walmart and Starbucks no longer use milk from rBGH-treated cows in their store-brand products.
“There is strong evidence of a connection between rBGH and cancer, including breast cancer,” according to Dr. Martin Donohoe, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Community Health, Portland State University. “Many leading dairies and health care facilities have eliminated its use. Why should we take a chance with the public’s health?”

BCA is launching the Milking Cancer campaign –featuring an on-line video and website, (www.milkingcancer.org) – to raise awareness and to encourage concerned consumers to contact Eli Lilly directly and tell them to stop manufacturing rBGH.

This project builds on BCA’s Think Before You Pink®– a campaign raising critical questions about pink ribbon promotions and targeting “pinkwashers”: companies that say they care about breast cancer, but make products that contribute to the incidence of the disease. Bolstered by the many successes of the campaign, including a 2008 effort that persuaded General Mills to discontinue the use of rBGH in pink-lidded Yoplait yogurt, Brenner urges people to believe they can effect change over Eli Lilly as well. “Ordinary people have extraordinary power to change corporate behavior,” said Brenner. “People who care about public health can and will get Eli Lilly to stop milking cancer and end the manufacture of rBGH.”

Breast Cancer Action is a non-profit education and advocacy organization that does not accept funding from pharmaceutical companies or any other organizations that profit from or contribute to the breast cancer epidemic.
Partners in the Milking Cancer Campaign are DES Action, Food and Water Watch, Institute for Responsible Technology, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, Our Bodies Ourselves, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Oregon, and the Women’s Community Cancer Project.


rBGH & Breast Cancer
The Connection Between rBGH and Breast Cancer

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), also known as Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), is injected into cows so they will produce more milk. Research suggests that a number of health concerns, including breast cancer, are associated with the consumption of dairy products from cows treated with rBGH.

The use of rBGH stimulates the production of another hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally occurring hormone in both cows and humans that regulates cell growth, division, and differentiation. 1 2

Cow’s milk that is treated with rBGH has higher levels of IGF-1. Studies in humans, animals, and cell cultures have indicated that elevated levels of IGF-1 in humans may increase the risk of breast cancer. 3 4 5

In addition to breast cancer, increased IGF-1 levels have been associated with prostate, colon, and other cancers.6 The use of rBGH also increases the need for antibiotics in cows, which can lead to increased antibiotic resistance in humans.7

There is controversy about whether or not the IGF-1 in milk makes its way into the human bloodstream. Some studies have indicated that IGF-1 does survive digestion while others have not. 8 What is clear is that there is sufficient evidence for concern about the human health impacts of using rBGH.


The use of rBGH has been banned entirely in Australia, Canada, Japan, and all 27 countries in the European Union. Although there is not definitive proof that the use of rBGH leads to breast and other cancers, there is enough evidence now to take precautionary steps and to eliminate its use.


1) European Commission. Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin. Food Safety—From the Farm to the Fork. March 15-16, 1999. ↩
2) Prosser C.G., et al. Increased secretion of insulin-like growth factor 1 into milk of cows treated with recombinantly derived bovine growth hormone. Journal of Dairy Research 56 (1) 17-26, 1989. ↩
3) Hankinson S, et al. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1 and risk of breast cancer. Lancet 351:1393-1396, 1998. ↩
4) Macaulay VM. Insulin-like growth factors and cancer. British Journal of Cancer 65:311-320, 1998. ↩
5) Resnicoff M, Baserga R. The insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor protects tumor cells from apoptosis in vivo. Cancer Research 55:2463-69, 1998. ↩
6) Yu, Herbert and Thomas Rohan. Role of the Insulin-Like Growth Factor Family in Cancer Development and Progression. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92:1472-89, 2000. ↩
7) Kronfield D. Recombinant bovine somatotropin and animal welfare. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 216(11):1719-1720, 2000. ↩
8) Xian C. Degradation of IGF-1 in the adult rat gastrointestinal tract is limited by a specific antiserum or the dietary protein casein. Journal of Endocrinology 146:215-225, 1995. ↩

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Mon Jul 22, 2013, 08:47 PM (0 replies)

Courtesy Michael Hansen, PhD Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports: Monsanto, GM foods & Health Risks.


Monsanto, GM foods & Health Risks

Courtesy Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports:

SUMMARY: Based on the scientific uncertainty surrounding both the molecular characterization of genetically engineered (GE) crops as well as the detection of potential allergenicity, there is more than enough uncertainty to decide to require labeling of foods produced via GE as a risk management measure as a way to identify unintended health effects that may occur post approval. If foods are not labeled as to GE status, it would be very difficult to even identify an unexpected health effect resulting from a GE food.

For more see Reasons for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

Original link to document at Consumer Reports missing.
Link to preserved document provided above from http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27026.cfm
RECOMMENDED: http://www.organicconsumers.org/documents/AMA-GE-resolutions-3-19-12.pdf
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Mon Jul 22, 2013, 09:20 AM (1 replies)

Fraudulent science, how about sick kids? These findings give support to The Precautionary Principle

Washington PostImmune Systems Increasingly on the Attack

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

...First, asthma cases shot up, along with hay fever and other common allergic reactions, such as eczema. Then, pediatricians started seeing more children with food allergies. Now, experts are increasingly convinced that a suspected jump in lupus, multiple sclerosis and other afflictions caused by misfiring immune systems is real.

Los Angeles Times4% of Children have Food Allergies

November 17, 2009

...The number of children who have food allergies is not only increasing, it now encompasses 4% of all kids in the United States, according to an analysis of four large, national surveys published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

The study -- the first to make a broad estimate about the prevalence of food allergies among U.S. children -- supports previous studies suggesting that allergy rates are rising rapidly, for reasons that are unclear.

Los Angeles Times - Chronic health conditions increasing in children, study finds

February 17, 2010

...More than a quarter of all U.S. children have a chronic health condition, new research suggests, a significant increase from the rate seen in earlier decades and a statistic that looms large for the nation's efforts to subdue rising healthcare costs....


VIDEO: Alex Bogusky interviews Robyn O’Brien, author of The Unhealthy Truth.

O’Brien turns to accredited research conducted in Europe that confirms the toxicity of America’s food supply, and traces the relationship between Big Food and Big Money that has ensured that the United States is one of the only developed countries in the world to allow hidden toxins in our food–toxins that can be blamed for the alarming recent increases in allergies, ADHD, cancer, and asthma among our children.

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Sat Jul 20, 2013, 02:21 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »