Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Propaganda Promotes Fake Science!

*******
*******
All Government-Funded Science is FAKE SCIENCE!
TheHealthRanger
Published on Feb 15, 2017
*******

The Science of Disinformation: Counter Intelligence Programs, Psy-Ops, Astroturfing
Lifting The Veil / Cullen Smith
Published on Oct 31, 2016
*******
*******
Keith Kloor Exposed As A Biotech Industry Shill For Pimping GMOs (And Smearing Environmentalists)
Written By: Isabelle Z.
September 1, 2017
Freelance journalist Keith Kloor’s penchant for writing pro-GMO articles goes beyond personal bias. In a recent piece for the Huffington Post, contributor Paul D. Thacker shows just how hard the NYU adjunct journalism professor has worked with “experts” on the GMO industry’s payroll to get corporate talking points published as journalism. Kloor has written pro-GMO propaganda for outlets such as Science Insider, Nature, Slate, and Discover.
A slew of documents that have come to light through freedom of information requests and court proceedings show a very coordinated effort on the part of scientists who are secretly funded by Big Ag, corporate front groups, and reporters aligned with them attempting to present themselves as scientific experts.
It’s one thing to parrot talking points, but Kloor’s deliberate attacks on those who disagree with him have earned him a lot of enemies. When journalists critique GMOs even slightly, his aggressive side can come out, and the name calling and smearing begin. Thacker should know; Kloor called him a “sadistic troll” on his personal blog. He has also gone after NYU Food Science Professor Marion Nestle, NYU Science Journalism Professor Charles Seife, and UC Berkeley Journalism Professor Michael Pollan. He called New York Times columnist Mark Bittman’s work “idiotic or utterly disingenuous” and referred to NYU Professor Nassim Taleb as “an angry a—hole”. In 2013, Columbia Journalism Review wrote: “Keith Kloor makes a beat out of policing frightful coverage of GMOs.”
Thacker also presents the case of registered dietician Carole Bartolotto, who drew attention from Monsanto though her writing expressing concern about GMOs for Kaiser Permanente. Monsanto Executive Vice President Robert Fraley invited her to the firm’s headquarters on the pretense of trying to open up a dialogue, but she declined because she worried the firm merely wanted to buy her opinion. After writing in the Huffington Post that GMO advocates have been spreading the false notion that GMOs are proven to be safe, she drew the ire of Kloor, who subsequently embarked on a quest to discredit her.
“Very good friend” of corporate propagandist Jon Entine
Kloor has yet to explain his involvement with two highly questionable GMO characters, Kevin Folta and corporate propagandist Jon Entine, even though publicly released documents show a close connection and Entine himself has referred to Kloor as a “very good friend of mine.” Emails exposed by U.S. Right to Know show that Kloor was part of a big group of journalists, academics, public scientists and biotech promoters who aimed to spread misinformation across the media to try to sway public opinion of GMOs in their favor and influence USDA regulators and other public officials. Kloor has published stories that fail to mention the financial and other ties between Folta and Monsanto. He has also dodged questions about whether he received any payments or had any expenses covered in exchange for attending industry-funded conferences.
In addition, he has spoken out against public records requests, calling the requests for the financial information of scientists in the public sector “an attack on science.”
Despite what he would like you to believe, Keith Kloor is not a journalist in the purest sense of the word. You see, journalism is meant to be balanced and show all sides of the issues. Kloor is little more than a biotech industry shill who does his best to steer public opinion in favor of GMOs. One only needs to look at his body of work to see a clear pattern of supporting GMOs and painting critics as quacks.
Sources include:
*******
*******
Jon Entine and Genetic Literacy Project Spin Chemical Industry PR
by Gary Ruskin
Posted on July 18, 2017
Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a central player in Monsanto and the agrichemical industry’s public relations efforts to promote genetically engineered foods and pesticides and discredit critics. Entine portrays himself as a science journalist and an objective authority on issues important to the chemical industry. But the evidence shows that he is actually a longtime public relations operative with deep ties to the chemical industry, including undisclosed industry funding. His work features the defense of GMOs, pesticides, industrial chemicals, the oil industry, fracking and nuclear power.
Ties to Monsanto
A Le Monde investigation into Monsanto’s “war on science” in June 2017 describes the Genetic Literacy Project as “a propaganda site” and a key player in 
Plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto over glyphosate cancer concerns stated in a May 2017 brief that:
“Monsanto quietly funnels money to ‘think tanks’ such as the “Genetic Literacy Project” and the “American Council on Science and Health,” organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.
The evidence suggests that Genetic Literacy Project and Entine work closely with the agrichemical industry in hidden collaborations, and sometimes in ways that involve undisclosed funding.
According to emails obtained by US Right to Know, GLP published a series of pro-GMO papers written by professors that were assigned and promoted by Monsanto, with no disclosure of the corporation’s role:
  • The Boston Globe reported, Monsanto suggested the topic and headline for a professor’s paper “then connected the professor with a marketing company to pump it out over the Internet as part of Monsanto’s strategy to win over the public and lawmakers.”
  • In a September 2014 email, Monsanto executive Eric Sachs wrote to a professor with “proposed edits on your brief on the costs of regulations,” and told him “the primary outlet” for publishing the papers and “building a merchandising plan” with the public relations firm CMA would be Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.

In 2014 and 2015, Genetic Literacy Project partnered with a Monsanto-backed groupAcademics Review, to sponsor the Biotechnology Literacy Project “Boot Camps,” a series of conferences designed to teach scientists how to “best engage the GMO debate with a skeptical public.” Reporters were told the funding for the 2015 BLP Boot Camp at UC Davis came from UC Davis, USDA, state money, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) — in fact, the industry group appears to have provided all the funding, as Paul Thacker reported in 2017..  (See section on Entine’s funding for more.)
Entine was also linked to three pro-GMO journalists – Keith Kloor, Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel and New York Times reporter Amy Harmon – in FOIA documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know.
In a December 2013 email, Entine offered to take the lead on setting up a conference call with Monsanto and PR surrogates to discuss a documentary film idea.
Ties to Syngenta
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a corporate front group funded in part by the agrichemical company Syngenta, published Entine’s 2011 book, “Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health.” The book defends atrazine, a pesticide manufactured by Syngenta.
A 2012 Mother Jones article about Entine describes the circumstances leading up to the publication of the book. The article, by Tom Philpott, is based in part on internal company documents, obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy, describing Syngenta’s PR efforts to get third-party allies to spin media coverage of atrazine.
In one email from 2009, ACSH staff asked Syngenta for an additional $100,000 – “separate and distinct from general operating support Syngenta has been so generously providing over the years” – to produce an atrazine-friendly paper and “consumer-friendly booklet” to help educate media and scientists.
ACSH’s announcement for Entine’s book:
“The American Council on Science and Health is pleased to announce a new book and companion friendly, abbreviated position paper … authored by Jon Entine, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and highly regarded science journalist … ACSH compiled this resource book and position to educate legislators, industry, media, consumers and parents on the actual risks of chemical exposure and use in everyday products.”
Entine denied any relationship with Syngenta and told Philpott he had “no idea” Syngenta was funding ACSH.
Attacks on Syngenta Critics 
In a 2014 New Yorker article, based on internal Syngenta documents, Rachel Aviv revealed how Syngenta’s public relations team plotted to “discredit” UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes, whose research suggests that the herbicide atrazine is associated with birth defects. In emails, Syngenta employees discussed a psychological profile of Hayes and searched for ways to “exploit Hayes’ faults/problems.”
A month later, Entine wrote an attack piece in Forbes describing Aviv’s story as a “botch puff piece” and calling Hayes “almost completely discredited.” Entine’s primary source was a “summary analysis” by University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy, posted on Academics Review. Academics Review, which also partners with Entine to promote GMOs,  claimed to be an independent group started by independent scientists, but emails obtained by USRTK establish that Academics Review was set up 
with the help of Monsanto as a front group to attack people and groups who raise concerns about GMOs and pesticides.
The Murky Funding Trail to Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project
Entine’s funding history is complex and opaque, but tax documents and his own disclosures reveal a pattern of funding from anonymous sources and right-wing foundations that push deregulation and climate science denial, as well as undisclosed funding from the biotechnology industry.
Inaccurate, ever-changing “transparency” note
The “financial transparency” note on the Genetic Literacy Project website is inaccurate, changes often and at times contradicts itself.
As of July 18, 2017,  the funding note claimed Genetic Literacy Project was housed under a nonprofit called Science Literacy Project, and received funding from the Templeton, Searle and Winkler foundations and the Center for Food Integrity (a food industry front-group with ties to Monsanto).
Three months earlier, in March 2017, GLP disclosed a $5,000 “pass through” for the Biotech Literacy Boot Camp from “Academics Review Charitable Association,” which appears not to exist. That group is apparently AcademicsReview.org, a front group 
closely affiliated with Monsanto. The disclosure said the money came from BIO, the biotechnology industry trade association. A September 2016 
disclosure note reported $27,000 in “pass through” funds from Academics Review Charitable Association for the boot camps, but did not mention BIO.
The Academics Review partnership was removed from the GLP disclosure altogether after Paul Thacker reported on July 11 2017, that BIO had paid Academics Review over $300,000 for boot camps in 2014 and 2015 at UC Davis and the University of Florida that were co-sponsored by GLP. Industry appeared to be the only funder but Entine and his partner told journalists and scientists that the boot camps were partly funded by university and government sources.
The new funding note also misleadingly describes GLP as independent of the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and GMU, and does not disclose that STATS and its sister group CMPA paid Entine over a half million dollars between 2012-2016. In 2012, Entine claimed that he derived the bulk of his income from the Genetic Literacy Project, according to 
In March 2016, Genetic Literacy Project made no financial disclosures at all and tried to distance itself from STATS. In 2012, the Genetic Literacy Project claimed it was affiliated with STATS.
Center for Media and Public Affairs/George Mason University
For the year ending June 2016, according to tax records, Entine received $173,100 for his work as “director” at Center for Media and Public Affairs, a group based at George Mason University and founded by GMU Professor Robert Lichter.
CMPA was paid by Phillip Morris in the 1990s to deflect concerns about tobacco, according to documents in the UCSF Tobacco Industry Library.
CMPA does not disclose its funders but has received funding from George Mason University Foundation — the leading recipient of donations affiliated with Charles Koch and Koch Industries. GMUF also received $5.3 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund between 2011-13, according to the Guardian. These funds channel money from anonymous donors including corporations to campaigns and academics who push industry interests, as Greenpeace demonstrated in an 
STATS – key player in chemical industry defense efforts
CMPA’s sister group, also founded by Lichter and based at GMU, is Statistical Assessment Services (STATS). According to its IRS forms, STATS paid Entine $140,600 in 2012/2013 and $152,500 in 2013/2014 for his work as a “research consultant,” and $173,100 as “director” for the year ending June 2015. The tax records show that Entine received a total of $639,300 from STATS or CMPA between 2012-2016
CMPA has loaned money to STATS – a $203,611 loan in 2012 and a $163,914 loan in 2013, which “due to inadequate funding” has “not been reimbursed.” In those years, George Mason University Foundation gave CMPA grants in the amount of $220,900 in 2012 and $75,670 in 2013. GMU Foundation does not disclose the source of its funds.
Reporting in The InterceptMilwaukee Journal SentinelThe Atlantic and Consumer Reports portray STATS as a key player in the chemical industry’s PR efforts to defend its toxic products.
Biotechnology industry funding
The GMO-industry trade group, BIO, paid a total of $340,000 to fund Biotech Literacy Boot Camps at the University of Florida in 2014 and UC Davis in 2015 that were co-sponsored by the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, which boot camp materials described as “an independent nonprofit organization.” In fact, Academics Review was set up as a front group with the help of a Monsanto 
execetive who promised to find funding for Academics Review “while keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information,” according to emails obtained by US Right to Know.
The BLP Boot Camps were described as a “communication skills training” for scientists and journalists to help reframe the food safety and GMO debate, and promised to provide scientists with the “tools and support resources necessary to effectively engage the media and appear as experts in legislative and local government hearings, and other policy making and related outreach opportunities.”
Faculty at the first boot camp included representatives from the agrichemical industry, food industry front groups and trade groups, and pro-GMO academics including University of Florida Professor 
Kevin Folta, and University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy, both of whom have accepted undisclosed funding from Monsanto and promote the GMOs and pesticides that Monsanto sales rely upon. Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel, who also accepts money from agribusiness interests, was the journalist on faculty.
Climate science denier funders
Major supporters of STATS and Entine’s group Genetic Literacy Project also include right-wing foundations – primarily Scaife Foundation, Searle Freedom Trust and Templeton Foundation – that are leading funders of climate science denial, according to a 2013 Drexel University study.
Attacks on Critics of ExxonMobil
Entine attacked Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt, as “a populist Luddite, the intellectual Rottweiler of in-your-face, environmentalism, unduly wary of modern technology.”
Entine attacked Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll and journalist Susanne Rust for their series reporting that Exxon knew for years that climate change was real but hid the science to keep revenues flowing.
In a follow-up attack, Entine accused Rust of having a “journalistic history” that raises “ethical and science questions.” He cited as evidence Rust’s award-winning investigative series on BPA that was short-listed for a Pulitzer Prize. The BPA reporting, he wrote, was “dead wrong.” He didn’t mention that the series outed his former group STATS as a “major player in the public relations effort to discredit concerns about BPA.”
Chemical Industry Defense Guy
For many years, Entine has been a prominent defender of chemical industry interests, following the industry playbook: he defends the chemicals as safe; argues against regulation; and attacks science, scientists journalists and others raising concerns.
Defending Neonicotinoids
Growing scientific evidence suggests that neonicotinoids, the most widely used class of pesticides, are a key factor in bee die-offs. The European Union has restricted neonics due to concerns about impact on bees.
Entine:
Defending Phthalates
In August of 2012, Entine defended vinyl plastic backpacks that were found to be exposing children to phthalates.
Defending Fracking
Entine defends hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), the pumping of high-pressure chemical-laced water into the ground to crack shale and extract natural gas. As in his many other messaging campaigns, Entine blasts science and scientists who raise concerns, framing them as “activists,” while making sweeping and indefensible statements about “scrupulous” science conducted over many years that defend its safety.
For example, Entine claimed: “From a scientific perspective, no reason exists to even suspect unknown health or environmental issues will turn up” from fracking (New York Post).
Entine also:
  • Accused New York Times reporters of misleading children about the potential environmental dangers of fracking (Forbes).
  • Attacked two Cornell University scientists for their study suggesting that fracking operations leak methane (Forbes).
  • Attacked the Park Foundation, claiming that it has “almost single-handedly derailed shale-gas development in methane-rich New York State, and put its imprint on public opinion and policy decisions around the country.” (Philanthropy Roundtable)
Defending BPA
Entine writes in defense of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), despite a large body of scientific evidence raising concerns about its endocrine disrupting potential and other health problems associated with it. Canada declared the chemical to be toxic in 2010, and the EU banned BPA in baby bottles in 2011.
Entine:
  • Attacked “a small but determined group of university researchers, activist NGOs and journalists” raising concerns about BPA (Forbes).
  • Tells women who can’t get pregnant not to blame it on plastics (Forbes).
  • Challenged scientists linking BPA to heart disease (Forbes).
Defending Nuclear Power
Entine:
  • Criticized Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes for pointing out the economic and environmental risks of nuclear power (Huffington Post).
  • Claims that nuclear power plants are environmentally benign and that “Nothing as bad as Chernobyl is likely to occur in the West” (Jon Entine).
  • Argued that Germany is “taking a gamble” by transitioning away from nuclear power (Ethical Corporation)
Fellowships
Entine was an unpaid fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University (GMU) from 2011-2014. Entine is also a former senior fellow at the UC Davis World Food Center’s Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, which does not disclose its donors, and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a DC think tank funded in part by corporate and dark money 
contributions.
*******
*******
Hundreds Of GMO Studies BUSTED By Discovery Of Major Conflicts Of Interest
By Brandon Turbeville
December 26, 2016
Researchers affiliated with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research recently announced the results of their study regarding potential conflicts of interest and published studies on GM crops.
The study was published by the journal PLOS One and determined that a large portion of studies on genetically modified crops were rife with conflicts of interest.
Most of these studies were tainted because someone working on the study was also an employee of a GM-producing company either as an author or having received funds directly from the company.
Out of 579 published studies that were analyzed, around 40% showed a conflict of interest. “We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40% of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest,” said the authors of the study.
The researchers also noted that studies with conflict of interest had a much higher likelihood of presenting a favorable outcome for GMOs when compared to those without.
The authors stated,
In particular, we found that, compared to the absence of COI (conflict of interest), the presence of a COI was associated with a 50% higher frequency of outcomes favorable to the interests of the GM crop company.
The majority of these studies were American – 404 in total – and 83 Chinese.
“The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favorable conclusion for GMO crops,” said Thomas Guillemaud, Director of Research at Francis National Institute for Agricultural Research. “We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many.”
It should also be noted that the study itself was limited because it only investigated direct financial conflict of interest. It did not include conflicts of interest such as authors being members of advisory boards, co-holders of patents, or consultants to GM companies.
This study, thus, shows the incredible level of corruption, politicization, and deceit now present in the scientific community, particularly in the Western world. If academics and scientists want to know why more and more people distrust their claims, this is a perfect example
and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and  The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 600 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at  UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.


*******
Five Examples of How Monsanto Brainwashes School Children with Propaganda
Paul Shumovsky
Published on May 15, 2016
Monsanto has a lot of money invested in the genetically modified seed, farm chemical and many other industries, but they also have a lot invested the hearts and minds of the next generation.
After all, as more and more people catch on to the truth about GMOs; that their main function is to sell more agricultural chemicals like Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, and that they really aren’t the answer to “feeding the world” after all, more and more people are beginning to consciously avoid making decisions that could support pro-GMO companies.
Monsanto in particular is doing everything it can to counteract this awareness movement by spending more money on the public relations side of things, in an attempt to convince the younger generation that GMOs are a “scientific advancement” rather than the environmental and health catastrophe they’ve actually been.
It’s something they’ve been at for a long time, as one of the items on the list below demonstrates.
1. Monsanto at Your Local Zoo- The St. Louis Zoo is home to the infamous Monsanto Insectarium, a display that seems to suggest that the GMO giant is some sort of great protector of insects even as the company continues to widely use bee and butterfly-killing neonicotinoid pesticides that have long been implicated in causing mass insect and other small animal deaths in the ecosystem.
The exhibit even features its own butterfly wing — which kids will no doubt associate with Monsanto, the company that is likely more responsible for the deaths of butterflies than any other.
One recent study even directly linked GMO corn to monarch butterfly deaths, as this ABC News article notes.
You can learn more about the exhibit in this article.
2. Biotech Propaganda in School Textbooks- In September 2013, a grassroots Internet campaign to remove pro-Biotech language from books for 8th graders published by the company Evan-Moor was successful, as even the CEO of the company, William E. Evans, was forced to apologize for the blatantly pro-GMO content in one particular activity book.
Mr. Evans even went on to say that he doesn’t allow GMO foods in his own home, and promised to fix the error and to not let it happen again under his watch. This is just one example of blatantly pro-GMO and pro-Biotech language in school textbooks.
If you see any in your kids’ books, be sure to let school officials know you don’t appreciate it (and to get on social media and voice your opinion).
3. More Pro-GMO Books for Kids- One of the most egregious examples of Monsanto (and Dow, Bayer, and five other companies in this case) targeting kids with their propaganda is the “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book,” titled ‘Look Closer at Biotechnology,’ which was created for elementary school-aged kids.
The book actually “teaches” kids that the biotechnology can “help improve the health of the Earth and the people who call it home.”
Another section is titled, ‘How Can Biotechnology Help the Environment?’ even as Monsanto’s pesticides and GMOs have clearly done the opposite.
This is what happens when corporations begin influencing our educational system; luckily many alternative web sites picked up on the story and called these companies out before further damage was done.
4. Associating Monsanto with Sustainability- The Monsanto Fund has given countless thousands of dollars to local schools to help them build gardens and tackle other projects, which on the surface is a good act.
But in the process, these schools and kids are beginning to associate Monsanto, responsible for soil depleting and bee and butterfly-killing pesticides and GMOs, with sustainability, which is a dangerous notion.
Monsanto has even created a ‘Kids Garden Fresh Program’ which has helped launch gardens at various schools. Kids learn an important skill, but at what cost?
One teacher in a video on Monsanto’s website notes that the kids are now beginning to think, “Where does my food come from…What is it I’m putting into my body and how does it affect me in the long term?”
Unfortunately, many of those participating in the project may well be overlooking the number one source of the unhealthy and unnatural food they’re putting into their bodies on a daily basis because of their association with the project: Monsanto.
5. The Monsanto House of the Future- A Disneyland attraction that was demolished in the late-60s, the Monsanto House of the Future showcased a mostly synthetic future dwelling including a microwave oven, wall-mounted big screen TV, and cutting edge furniture made from synthetic materials.
This is probably the most tame example on the list, but it’s just one example of how chemical corporations used various PR tactics to pave the way for the “better living through chemistry” era we’re just now coming to terms with, an era that has brought tens of thousands of health-damaging, synthetic chemicals into our lives through our food and many other sources.
And it also goes to show just how long Monsanto’s been at this game of shaping public perceptions from behind the scenes — and perhaps why they were so good at it, until the ongoing grassroots movements began beating them to the punch, that is.
Source: althealthworks.com
*******
Also See:

Besides Fake News, There Is Fake Science!

23 August 2017
and

Fake Scientists Include Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking!?

31 July 2017

*******