Volatility

August 18, 2017

The EPA Stalls for Monsanto

>

Stonewalling the people, building a wall against the future.

 
 
The EPA’s most common practice is to receive PR copy from corporations like Monsanto and launder Monsanto’s lies to the public with its own “regulatory” imprimatur. But sometimes the collaboration is more actively hands-on, as in this long-running delay of a toxicological review of glyphosate. The new review was promised for 2015. The delay leaves in place the EPA’s 2013 proclamation denying the fact that glyphosate causes cancer. This proclamation was a prime example of the stenography and rubber-stamping of the corporation’s own self-description I mentioned above. This new information about EPA/Monsanto collusion is the latest to come out of the many cancer lawsuits Monsanto is now fighting.
 
Note well, this is Obama’s EPA in action. The Obama administration was the most aggressively pro-pesticide and pro-GMO to date. Trump certainly will try to catch up and surpass Obama, but as with so many other crimes against humanity and the Earth, he has a long, long way to go.
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements

June 10, 2017

Your EPA in Action

>

 
 
It’s been common knowledge for years that the EPA knew at least since the early 1980s that glyphosate causes cancer, and has been helping Monsanto cover up this fact ever since. Glyphosate doesn’t work in practice, and the brain-dead cult of it is driven only by profit and power.
 
The flood of cancer lawsuits now ongoing against Monsanto is providing more information about the EPA’s pattern of crime. In one of the suits the plaintiffs’ experts are reviewing one of Monsanto’s own original studies which found evidence of glyphosate’s cancerousness.
 
This 1983 study, entitled “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice”, was conclusive enough that in 1984 EPA toxicologist William Dykstra wrote in a memo: “glyphosate is oncogenic…in a dose-related manner.” Other EPA scientists concurred over the next year. In 1985 they officially signed a consensus review classifying glyphosate as Category C, “possibly carconogenic to humans.”
 
In response, Monsanto cadre George Levinskas, the company’s cover-up artist who previously led the campaign to lie about the devastation wrought by PCBs, suborned doctor and academic Marvin Kuschner to whitewash the evidence. Levinskas assured colleagues that Kuschner’s testimony was in the bag even before Kuschner actually looked at the slides. Sure enough, Kuschner claimed to find a tumor in the control group which previous researchers, including Monsanto’s own, had not located.
 
At the same time as this alleged control group tumor was being “discovered”, Monsanto sent the EPA a secret report which blamed the tumors found among the experimental group on how the study allegedly used “aged mice”. Why, praytell, would a scientific toxicology study use “aged” experimental subjects such that tumor evidence, if found, would be overdetermined? Precisely for that reason – so that in the event of experimental trouble Monsanto could dismiss the evidence as caused by the age of the subjects. In other words, this is Monsanto openly admitting that its study was a deliberately designed to be a fraud, because they intentionally used experimental subjects which could not provide legitimate scientific evidence. In legitimate science, of course, the goal of experimental design is to isolate the experimental variable(s) and control for every other variable. Legitimate researchers therefore select their experimental subjects in order to prevent any overdetermination of the results. In a cancer study, the subjects would be selected from the demographic which has the least actuarial incidence of cancer. But if you select older mice who are statistically more prone to tumors in general, you’re intentionally designing a fraudulent study. Here we have Monsanto openly avowing that it perpetrated such a fraud, and claiming that therefore the evidence of its own study should be dismissed.
 
Any society which respected science would drive them out with a whip. But we see how things function in a system of establishment science dedicated to the corporate science paradigm.
 
Monsanto also bombarded the EPA with “historical control data”, a standard methodological fraud. Standard in industry tests, this tactic is designed to generate irrelevant noise in order to drown out any toxicity or cancer signal which does arise.
 
 
These Monsanto lies gave the EPA enough of a pretext to reclassify glyphosate into Category D – “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” But they still asked Monsanto to repeat the study, which Monsanto refused to do, thus implicitly validating the original results. In other words, Monsanto believed that even with all its chicanery and fraud, a new study would still produce evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. If the company didn’t think that, it would happily perform the study. The same goes for the fact that the GMO corporations have absolutely refused ever to perform a single safety study upon any GMO. This proves that the corporations and governments believe that such studies would produce evidence of the health harms of GMOs.
 
In 1989 the EPA dropped its request for a new study. The EPA was warming up to its whitewashing role. In 1991 the agency finally performed a complete inversion, dubbing glyphosate Category E – “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans” – a bald-faced lie.
 
The EPA has held fast to this pro-glyphosate line ever since, reaffirming it most recently in 2013.
 
Meanwhile the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), one of the few public bodies dedicated to legitimate science*, has deemed this same study, along with a 1981 study finding evidence that glyphosate causes testicular cancer in rats, as evidence that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”.
 
 
Since at least the early 1980s Monsanto and the EPA have known that glyphosate causes cancer. Every US president, agriculture secretary, and other government officials also have known this at least since then. All of them have systematically covered up this fact ever since. They are all complicit in mass murder by poisoning. This is indelibly what the EPA and other regulatory agencies are, just as it’s indelibly what the Corporate One-Party is, regardless of its fake “Democrat” and “Republican” groups. There is no path forward for humanity with these criminal organizations. The regulatory agencies are dedicated in principle to “managing” the infliction of deadly poisons upon the people, and in principle are supposed to keep the number of deaths and injuries at a politically tolerable level, thus the regulatory concept of “tolerances”. But in practice they make no attempt even to manage the death toll, but strive to maximize the use of every kind of deadly agricultural poison. This is indelibly what they are.
 
There is no path forward for humanity in seeking to “co-exist” with these poisons and poisoners. The only solution is total abolition. Therefore there is no path forward in trying to “reform” these indelibly poisonist agencies. They too must be abolished along with the vile poisons they inflict upon us.
 
 
 
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-Monsanto, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation.
 

Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.

 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant “science” ideology which dogmatically views cancer as arising either from genetic determinism or “bad luck”, and which considers the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist cures supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This ideology is driven by the need of the poison-peddling corporations to obscure and deny the fact that profitable products like glyphosate are in fact major cancer drivers. The corporate flacks are abetted by scientism’s religious zealots who refuse to hear any evil spoken of their technological rabbits’ feet.
 
 
 
Help propagate the abolitionist idea.
 
 
 
 

June 5, 2017

The Regulator/Corporate Interest vs. the People’s Interest

>

 
 
The Greens/EFA faction of the European Parliament is suing the EFSA because the agency refuses to release secret documents from its 2015 glyphosate review. The EFSA always has proclaimed openly that it depends upon secret documents it is fed by the corporations. In other words, the regulator openly admits that it uses no science in its reviews, but only corporate innuendo. This is in complete contrast to the WHO’s IARC cancer research agency, whose guidelines require it to use only published studies. The IARC requires itself to stay within the bounds of legitimate science, while the EFSA and EPA explicitly disavow science and stay within the bounds of secret corporate decrees.
 
Under public pressure the EFSA did release a fragmentary, heavily redacted version of the corporate materials, and did find collaborators willing to provide political cover for this fraudulent “disclosure”. The EFSA now says no public interest would be served by full disclosure. In addition to being an explicit abdication of the canons of science, which by definition requires public perusal, this is the EFSA’s open admission that it does not view itself as acting in the public interest, since it explicitly avows that the public interest, at best, must be limited by the corporate interest. The Greens/EFA statement partially endorses this, agreeing that there’s a “balance that should be struck.” We abolitionists of course recognize no such fraudulent “balance”, but will never settle for anything less than the full public interest and the full publicity of anything claiming to represent “science”.
 
 
Once again we have the standard state of things:
 
1. The myth of the public interest regulator.
 
2. The reality of the regulator controlled by the corporation and ideologically committed to serving the corporation.
 
3. The regulator lies, claiming to be trying to “strike a balance”. This already partially abrogates the myth of the public interest. In reality, the regulator recognizes no public interest at all, except insofar as this may trickle down from corporate domination.
 
4. “Reformers” have already surrendered that far, and they abet that extent of the lie. So we can assume that over time they’ll continue to surrender ground and abet further lies as the corporate assault advances.
 
 
As the piece points out, the EFSA could, if it really were under legal constraint with regard to publicizing its alleged data, ask the court to order it to publish the data. But of course no regulator would ever make such a request, because they lie about being under such constraint. No regulator ever has its hands tied by intellectual property law. On the contrary, they ardently, actively, ideologically support the poisoner project and all its elements. This includes the “secret science” the regulators require in order to perform their sham reviews.
 
 
As I’ve written many times before, this strong regulator bias on behalf of the corporations and against the public good and against science does not arise primarily from superficial venal corruption. It arises from a far more profound existential corruption, a corruption of all canons of human morality and reason. While de jure corruption is common, it’s epiphenomenal compared to the overall ideological and methodological framework of technocracy and the corporate science paradigm. Cadres of an agency like the EFSA or ECHA, or the US EPA, FDA, and USDA, operate according to the corporate/technocratic template. Its three components are:
 
1. The corporate power/profit project is normative. It is the primary purpose of civilization. Under no circumstance can any other value or alternative project be allowed significantly to hinder the corporate project.
 
This has profound implications for actions like a pesticide cancer review. For technocratic regulators to acknowledge the fact that all synthetic pesticides cause widespread cancer would significantly hinder the corporate project. Therefore even the prospect of such acknowledgement is ruled out a priori. By definition it cannot be part of the review. Only the most grossly excessive and obvious cancerousness on the part of a particular chemical could be acknowledged even in principle. When outfits like the US EPA or the EU’s EFSA claim to believe that glyphosate is not cancerous, this is not according to any rational or scientific canon of evidence, and reformers who interpret it this way make a mistake about the fundamental character of these organizations.
 
Rather, technocratic regulators apply the canon of the corporate paradigm. According to this canon “causes cancer” is defined as: “So grossly carcinogenic that it’s politically impossible to deny it, to the point that lack of action would in itself be significantly bad for business.” For the government, just as much as for the corporation, cancer is purely political.
 
This leads to the template’s second component.
 
2. Given the strictures of (1), the regulator may if absolutely necessary impose limits on the most excessive harms and worst abuses. More often, it only pretends to do even this. Which leads to the template’s third component.
 
3. The regulator then puts its imprimatur on the corporate project as having been sufficiently regulated for safety. According to the ideology of technocracy and bureaucracy, the people are supposed to believe implicitly in the competence, rigor, and honesty of the regulator. They’re supposed to believe this for all measures of safety, public and environmental health, political and socioeconomic benefit and lack of harm.
 
All this is based on a Big Lie, since as we described above the regulator actually functions only according to the normative values of corporate power. But it fraudulently claims, always implicitly and very often explicitly, that it has acted on behalf of human values and to protect and serve the people. Therefore, the ideology goes, the people should repose implicit trust in the regulator rather than assert themselves democratically in any kind of grassroots way. Most of all, the people must not start to think in any political terms which would be based on fundamentally different values and goals, values and goals opposed to those of corporate rule and technocracy.
 
Thus we see how technocracy is an ideology, method, and form of government which is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-political as such since it is dedicated to the proposition that the people should relinquish all political activity and passively receive and believe the judgements of technocratic regulators. This system is based fundamentally on the Big Lie that it actually is a form of democracy and a form of society which encourages the political participation of the people. But in fact it conjures only sham versions of these and seeks aggressively to discourage and suppress any true politics.
 
This ideology and method is especially critical for the poisoner campaign, whose continued domination depends upon the people’s opposition remaining strait-jacketed within the bonds of regulator-based reformism. It’s essential that no significant number of people attain an abolitionist consciousness and commit to the abolitionist goal.
 
We see how the corporate state and technocracy, along with their allied economic ideology of neoliberalism, exist as species within the same genus as classical fascism. This is the genus of pseudo-democratic forms bled of all real political content which then stand as cultural facades behind which exists only state tyranny. Today’s corporate state is the most fully evolved form of this tyranny.
 
 
 
Help propagate the abolitionist idea.
 
 
 

May 30, 2017

For Educational Use, Portier/EFSA Example

>

People keep out. Corporate Exclusion Zone.

 
 
We continue to compile information about the fraudulence of the European glyphosate reviews. Chris Portier, a cancer expert who has served with the IARC and participated in its 2015 review confirming that glyphosate causes cancer, has analyzed the EFSA’s partial release of the information upon which it based its review, as well as a 2015 paper disseminated by the industry’s Glyphosate Task Force (GTF). He finds that the German Agency for Risk Assessment (BfR, the agency which carries out Germany’s role as the EU’s “rapporteur state” for glyphosate), the EFSA, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) all distorted their interpretations of the industry’s own glyphosate studies in order to suppress the studies’ evidence that glyphosate causes tumors in rodents. In fact, the EU agencies now follow the BfR in simply regurgitating the GTF’s talking points where it comes to distorting and suppressing the data.
 
Portier details several elements of fraudulent methodology.
 

* EFSA’s classification of the human evidence as “very limited” is not a valid characterization under the relevant EU law (the CLP guidelines) and fails to properly address the strength of the available evidence;
* Both EFSA and ECHA dismissed positive findings because they fell inside of the range of the historical controls (this is an improper use of historical control evidence);
* Both EFSA and ECHA compared findings across different animal strains and different study durations to conclude that studies were inconsistent (this is not scientifically justifiable); and
* Both EFSA and ECHA characterize the evidence for genotoxicity (DNA damage) as negative, yet a review of the evidence released by EFSA and the open scientific literature suggest there are many studies demonstrating genotoxicity.

 
These are typical of the way regulators distort and suppress the science. As is also typical, the regulatory agencies followed the lead of Monsanto’s GTF in deploying these fraudulent methods. The corporation typically is the mentor and teacher of the regulator
 
 
Therefore we have the latest information for the ongoing political struggle to ban glyphosate, as part of the greater imperative to abolish all synthetic pesticides. Here’s the takeaways.
 
1. All the evidence, including that compiled by the industry’s own tests, consistently finds that glyphosate causes cancer.
 
2. This comes through even in the distorted releases of industry and regulators.
 
3. The regulators regard corporate control of science as normal and normative.
 
4. This includes the new paradigm of “secret science”. But according to the canons of scientific method, science by definition is public. Therefore secret science is a contradiction in terms. If it’s not publicized, it’s not part of the scientific record, period.
 
5. The corporate and regulator lust for secrecy proves, among other things, that the real evidence is even worse than they’ve been forced to let out. The existence of secret science in itself is strict proof that the governments and corporations know or believe that to perform and publicize real science would bring results damning to their products, pesticides and GMOs. It proves that whatever evidence they have condemns these poisons.
 
6. Regulators are not public servants but corporate servants. These agencies are indelibly pro-corporate and always serve the corporation, never the people. This is their real job, while propaganda about public service is just a lie.
 
 
We depart from Portier in the prescription, of course. As an establishment scientist he’s committed to endlessly proposing reforms, i.e. begging the criminals to stop committing crimes. We abolitionists, by contrast, take his findings as further proof that these regulatory institutions are indelibly criminal organizations which never can be redeemed, nor their mandate to “manage” poisonism be reformed. On the contrary, the poisons these agencies “regulate” must be abolished. We’ve had enough of these poisons’ agronomic failure and destruction, enough of their health and environmental devastation, and enough of the political sham.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

May 25, 2017

Abolition vs. Regulation

>

 
 
We have the latest detail in the ongoing exposure of the indelible collaboration of the EPA and Monsanto. The EPA provided talking points to the EFSA to help it dismiss as irrelevant a study showing that glyphosate causes cancer in mice. The EFSA could then rule the evidence out of its glyphosate review. An EFSA officer admitted this in a letter to glyphosate critic Peter Clausing, who has been denouncing the EFSA’s sham “regulation” of glyphosate. Thus we see how the EPA and EFSA work together to defend what they see as Our Thing, the poisons propagated by their corporate clients.
 
Just another stone to add to the Everest of proof that the regulators are inherently pro-poison. This particular act, like almost all such acts, was not “corruption”. It was standard, everyday, banal procedure, in accord with the institutional ideology and mandate. The only corruption we can meaningfully speak of is the fact that, relative to all canons of human morality and reason, pro-corporate regulation is existentially corrupt. But as for de jure “corruption”, that’s nothing more than a drop in the ocean.
 
 
As for those who retain faith in the idea of such regulation, it’s bizarre how someone can, day after day, read and comment on pieces, each of whose content boils down to “the EPA is fundamentally pro-pesticide and pro-GMO” or “the FDA is pro-GMO”, and yet simultaneously hold the faith that such regulatory agencies are basically good, sound institutions, there to serve the people, institutions which humanity needs to have. Underlying this is the prior, unspoken assumption that the thing being regulated, such as pesticides and GMOs, also is something basically good, just in need of regulation. Faith in the regulator is a manifestation of wanting to co-exist with Monsanto and its poisons.
 
Abolitionism denies this implicit, primary proposition, renders it explicit, and from there denies the secondary, surface, “political” proposition. Therefore we reject today’s political configuration and call for a new one.
 
We recognize that it’s impossible to “regulate” poisonism, impossible to “manage” it, there can be no “tolerance level” of it, and therefore it’s intrinsically impossible for an institution dedicated to such regulation, management, setting of tolerances, to play any constructive role.
 
We cannot “regulate” agricultural poisons, we need to abolish them completely.
 
 
 
 

April 28, 2017

You Can’t Keep Scamming People Who Don’t Want to Be Scammed

>

Corporations and reformers always come together for what matters most.

 
 
(This is just a short piece. It’s a foretaste of a longer treatment I have in the works dealing with the pathology of hankering for “more and better testing.”)
 
 
We see where the seemingly permanent rut of fetishizing “more data” and “more testing” gets one. After endless begging by people who aren’t capable of understanding what the EFSA’s cover-up means and going from there, the EFSA finally, grudgingly, released a portion of its hitherto “secret science” to a few carefully selected scientist and public advocate recipients. The result, according to Corporate Europe Observatory’s survey of the collaborating scientists:
 
“The data is very difficult to handle and cannot be used for publication, making it impossible for scientists to use.”
 
In other words it’s a scam which has found all too many voluntary collaborators and all too few intelligent and principled denouncers. This was predictable and predicted. Any scientist with integrity would boycott this fake “disclosure” and publicly denounce it as a scam, for the exact reasons detailed in this piece.
 
Here’s a brief description of the EFSA’s “disclosure”: The documents are image PDFs which cannot be machine-searched or used with other software; the documents are grossly redacted, including the summary, methodology and conclusions; the release came with a threat that any recipient who publishes any part of it might be sued by the industry for violating intellectual property law. “So we did not publish it for now…”
 
To correct the headline, this most definitely is not “better than nothing”, it is worse, nor “could [it] in principle allow limited scrutiny on the agency’s glyphosate assessment work, and some insights”. Why anyone would be willing to settle for “limited scrutiny” is beyond me, but at any rate we see how it doesn’t allow even that, but rather scrutiny skewed according to Monsanto’s specifications.
 
But instead of dealing with this as the self-evident fraud it is, the piece and the collaborating scientists treat it as some kind of brain teaser.
 
 
What’s truly disturbing about even the seemingly more honest and socially responsible scientists isn’t just their bottomless political naivete which allows them to be so easily manipulated this way, but the way incidents like this highlight how existentially corrupt even they are. Any true scientist automatically rejects “secret science” as inadmissible by definition and rejects anything short of 100% public disclosure as unacceptable. This is non-negotiable, and no true scientist or public advocate would collaborate in any kind of fraud which flouts this non-negotiable baseline. But here we see yet again how our “reformers” endorse secret science, consider its existence negotiable and acceptable, and merely decry some “excesses”. Many of them see themselves as part of the technocratic elite and merely want to be accepted by the corporate establishment. That’s why they’re willing to serve as specially selected recipients of otherwise still secret information instead of demanding full public release as non-negotiable. To use a metaphor commonly used by political traitors to describe themselves, they merely want “a seat at the table” and nothing more. This is yet another proof of wanting to make a deal to co-exist with Monsanto.
 
I’m not aware of any of the specially selected recipients who rejected the release on the grounds I cite here. Evidently Monsanto selected the recipients well.
 
And to repeat the obvious fact of rationality and political tactics, secret science and covering up the facts is strict automatic proof that whatever evidence the corporations and regulators have is adverse to the product. Therefore the very fact that Monsanto and the EFSA have felt the need to resort to secrecy is proof that they know or suspect glyphosate causes cancer. It’s a clear admission of guilt on their part.
 
The tactical implications are obvious for anyone who’s really serious about abolishing these poisons and not just blowing smoke. We relentlessly denounce the system for its secrecy and, as I just did here, emphasize how secret science in itself is proof of the harmfulness of the product. As a matter of course we demand complete publication and a complete end to the cover-up. But since we know from history that any concession from the regulator and/or corporation will be fraudulent, we pre-emptively reject, on principle, anything short of full, 100% uncensored public disclosure, and we refuse any cooperation with any such scam. On the contrary, we redouble the condemnation. The EFSA’s fake disclosure only proves further that whatever they’re hiding damns glyphosate.
 
To restate the basic fact: We have far more than enough evidence which rationally proves that glyphosate causes cancer. By the strict proof of the system’s cover-ups and secret science and systematic refusal to conduct legitimate safety studies we also have proof that governments and corporations know or believe that glyphosate causes cancer. We don’t need more evidence, we need much better and more relentless, disciplined, cumulative communication of the evidence we do have.
 
This is also true of all other pesticides, all of which are cancer agents. And it’s true of glyphosate’s many other health ravages. And it’s true of GMOs. In these cases as well, the rote call for “more testing”, “better testing”, is at best procrastination on the part of those who have no idea what to do. In many cases it’s worse than this, intentional delaying and gate-keeping tactics.
 
 
 
The only thing the EFSA’s fake disclosure accomplished was to provide yet another lesson in how lukewarm most critics of poisonism still are. The EFSA hopes it’ll also allay some of the weaker-minded criticism and reassure the public. Those who collaborate are trying to assist the EFSA and Monsanto in this.
 
I’ll close with the observation that this isn’t just about the abolition struggle. Anyone who cares about the integrity of science itself must regard the campaign of secret science as an abhorrent scourge. Here too one must be an abolitionist. At the very least, one must never be weak, wavering, willing to compromise and collaborate on such a fundamental point. This point on secret science is so fundamental that anyone who would compromise here certainly would compromise anywhere and has no firm principle at all. It’s clear, on both practical and principled grounds, that the one and only valid position on “secret science” is total rejection and refusal to countenance anything short of 100% public transparency.
 
Have I been too severe in this piece? Well, we’ll see if anyone learns a lesson from the incident and publicly expresses that lesson. But if they persist on their “more and better testing” co-existence course, we already know the truth. Persistence Proves Intent, always.
 
 
 
 

April 8, 2017

“…as physicians and mothers…”

>

 
 
Glyphosate causes reproductive problems and birth defects, as was proven many years ago though Monsanto and the US and European governments continue to deny it. Today the evidence continues to pile up.
 
The latest study links glyphosate residue in the bodies of pregnant women with shorter pregnancies and lower birth weights. Lower birth weight in turn goes with many physical and cognitive developmental problems.
 
Monsanto pays physicians to reply: “As physicians and mothers ourselves, nothing is more important to us than the health and wellbeing of children. We stand by the safety of our products and the extensive regulatory oversight provided by agencies like the U.S. EPA.
 
It’s no surprise that Monsanto’s “staff physicians”, i.e. medical doctors who now work as PR flacks, assure us that poison is not poisonous. It’s always been easy to find doctors willing to lie about anything you’re willing to pay them to lie about. To this day there are M.D.s who deny that smoking causes cancer. So it goes with every kind of “expert” who denies that pesticides cause cancer.
 
But some people may pause at the bit about “mothers.” Would a mother knowingly feed poison to her child? Well, sure, lots of them would.
 
Some parents physically beat their children, and some sexually molest them. So it’s no surprise that some are willing at least to deny the evidence of dietary poisoning and feed poison to their own children. It’s the path of least resistance and they can rationalize the odds of its leading to disaster. So it’s also no surprise that when someone offers to pay a parent to say publicly that feeding poison is safe, some parents will have no problem taking the money and reciting the script.
 
And then there’s the many hypocrites who would never feed the poison to their own children but happily avow in public that other parents should feed poison to their own children. The ranks of Monsanto are riddled with such conscious liars.
 
 
In addition to its mundane profiteering and power aspect, the corporate-technocratic campaign to force pesticide laden GM-based food upon humanity is also a massive uncontrolled feeding experiment which is a kind of dry run for subsequent controlled experiments. There’s no reason to doubt this: It describes perfectly the pattern of action of the scientific establishment, and no other theory explains the evidence nearly as well.
 
This is reinforced by the fact that even though biological determinism was debunked as junk science in the early 20th century, and even though geneticists themselves have overwhelmingly debunked genetic determinism, nevertheless this determinism remains the mainstream paradigm for the entire scientific establishment. Even the very geneticists whose work disproves it will turn around with no apparent cognitive dissonance and publicly support genetic engineering, for example.

 
This active, relentless reinforcement of a long debunked paradigm, such that by now it’s a Big Lie, can only be in the service of an ideological commitment. This commitment is, of course, the exact same Social Darwinist and eugenic commitment which first promulgated biological determinism in defiance of the scientific evidence a hundred years ago.
 
If we take these facts into account and from there interpret the persistent pattern of action of today’s pseudo-scientific liars and experimenters, we see that the Poisoner campaign is a kind of self-fulfilling eugenics enforcement mechanism. This is a core purpose of the massive uncontrolled human feeding experiment. Genetic mutations and hormonal imbalances caused by dietary and environmental poisons, and all the diseases which follow from these, can be envisioned as markers of unfitness. For example, Hitler intended after the war to quarantine and probably then kill all German families who had any incidence of heart or lung disease, on the grounds that such disease was proof of biological decadence running through the genes of the family.
 
Therefore if eugenic elitists forcibly, if surreptitiously, feed the “subjects” the agent of their own poisoning, this can bring about in reality (to the experimenters’ own satisfaction) the result they dogmatically pre-assumed, the proof of their physical/genetic superiority and the inferiority of the victims of poisoning. Anyone who doubts this should read what these same technocrats spew about transhumanism and the Singularity. They start from the fundamentalist assumption that evolutionary humanity is inferior and that technological transformation will render “someone”, which obviously includes themselves, superior.
 
This carries over from the original eugenics campaign the assumption that the right “breeding” will improve humanity. Today the focus of all such eugenic breeding ideology is genetic engineering, which combines the original eugenic aspiration with the more recent transhumanist aspiration.
 
Finally, it follows from all this, if implicitly, that technology also can deform, which in practice will be taken to mean that it merely exposed the latent genetic weaknesses. Therefore, in the same way that Hitler used to call Nazi ideology a magnet traversing the metallic substance of the German people, attracting the good iron and rejecting the dross, so today’s technocratic ideology and technology is the magnet which will not only attract the good metal but actively repel the bad. It will reveal existential inferiority by causing this to manifest as cancer, birth defects, etc. This is the way technocratic experimentalism conceives the massive uncontrolled feeding experiment of the GMO/pesticide complex.
 
 
Obviously all this is insane, and most of all the pretensions to superiority of this group of parasites who are demonstrably inferior by every traditional and scientific measure: Socially, emotionally, creatively, intellectually, ecologically, and biologically (as early as the 1920s critics were ridiculing how often the technocratic Master Race types had no children and seemed incapable of conceiving them; the same demographic pattern continues to this day) the technocratic type tends to be a subhuman reject, and their whole elaborate eugenic religion and technological deployment is one massive exercise in overcompensation.
 
The only thing which temporarily has empowered them and rendered them capable of partially carrying out their campaign of destruction is the fossil fuel binge and the technological deployment it has enabled, organized by the corporations. From the long view of the Earth this circumstance is only temporary, and history soon shall return to its normal course.
 
But in the shorter run, and especially from the perspective of the near-term human future, the corporate-technocratic campaign of destruction threatens to do incalculable damage and render humanity’s redemption extremely difficult, even impossible. This is why it is imperative for humanity finally to hear the call of the Earth and organize itself according to this call, organize into the great necessary movement to abolish corporate agriculture and accomplish the global transformation to agroecology and Food Sovereignty.
 
Humanity is pregnant with this future, but pesticides are symbolic and more than symbolic of the system’s will to turn the entire human future into a stillbirth.
 
 
 
 
Help propagate the new and necessary ideas.
 
 

March 24, 2017

The USDA Honors National Poison Prevention Week

>

 
 
We should’ve known those jokers at the USDA were yanking us.
 
In honor of National Poison Prevention Week (March 19-25), the USDA has declared that its promise to begin testing US foods for glyphosate residues on April 1st, 2017, was of course an April Fools prank.
 
They reverted to their previous position, dictated to them by Monsanto since the 1970s, that such testing would be too expensive. What this really means, of course, is too politically expensive. It wouldn’t do for the people to know from systematic government testing (as opposed to the ad hoc, self-selected testing of NGO programs) how rife their food is with this deadly cancer agent. (Last autumn the FDA also suspended its own alleged plan to test for glyphosate.)
 
Of course the notion of expense is self-evidently absurd. If capitalism worked the way the good civics primers claim then Monsanto would have to pay the cost of all such testing, performed by truly independent laboratories. If the expense of this would render the product unprofitable, then the product shouldn’t exist, ipso facto. That’s in addition to the truly scientific safety tests which would be required, and the hard ban which would be imposed as soon as the product is found to cause cancer.
 
But now I’m the one telling jokes. Of course everything the primers and mainstream media say about capitalism is a lie, capitalism does not work, and nothing rational or sane can exist wherever these would conflict with the corporate imperative. The regulators are full partners in this great campaign of organized crime and poisonism.
 
 
 
 
 
 

All of Today’s Establishment Science is Ghost Written

>

And sustain your business’s “science” that way.

 
 
Last week we contemplated the revelations coming out the Monsanto cancer litigation. Monsanto has been forced by the court to divulge much hitherto secret information about its propaganda machine and how it has sought to cover up the facts about glyphosate’s cancerousness. The new information especially reinforces our longstanding knowledge of the real character of regulators like the EPA. Such regulatory agencies are indelibly pro-corporate and can never serve the people the way the good civics textbooks claim. They were designed to do the opposite, to assist corporate organized crime in looting and poisoning the people and destroying the environment.
 
Among the new proofs of what we already knew are the Monsanto e-mails crowing about their practice of getting academic scientists to put their names on papers written by Monsanto PR flacks. They call it “ghost writing”. Monsanto cadres discussed several specific examples including a pathologist at New York Medical College. Embarrassed that one of its prostitutes has been caught in the act, NYMC is scrambling to cover its tracks and promises to investigate the good doctor. Of course the kind of organization which doesn’t let it be known implicitly that such corruption is acceptable wouldn’t be the one caught sheltering it.
 
 
This is just de jure corruption, the more superficial kind. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
 
What’s vastly greater and more profound is the inertia of the scientific establishment as such, which works predominantly to reinforce prevailing “scientific” dogmas. This is what Thomas Kuhn called “normal science”. These dogmas in turn are dictated by the elite power interests of a society. Under corporate rule, Western society exalts the corporate science paradigm.
 
Therefore, in a broader, deeper sense Monsanto and its fellow oligopoly corporations “ghost write” the entire establishment agenda for toxicological and cancer research, and the paradigm of “science” deployed by regulators. Even mavericks like Seralini tend to define themselves as reformers within this corporate normative framework.
 
But history proves that nothing short of scientific and social revolution can overthrow such entrenched, sclerotic, malign frameworks.
 
 
For a compendium of the fraudulent “science” of glyphosate deployed in publications written by industry and used as religious gospel by regulators, see the new report “Buying Science”.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

March 17, 2017

The Regulators’ Rearguard Fight for the Cancer Poisons

>

Where Gothic really does mean death.

 
 
Today we live in fear of cancer, one of the great and insidious fears deeply delving, haunting the civilized psyche. We know that the power structures ranging uncannily above us like storm clouds, pelting us unpredictably with rain and winds, are insinuating this cancer through the industrial poisons they pump into our air, water, and food. We know this adds up to an existential incarceration and we fear we’re on death row. People don’t know what to do, which is why denial is the most common response. To those who struggle to overcome denial, the corporate state directs its propaganda campaigns.
 
The most directly potent cancer agents are the agricultural poisons. Humanity has no choice but to come together as a movement dedicated to abolishing these poisons. Nothing less can liberate us from the fear and the reality of cancer. So far this movement does not yet exist, only the necessary idea for it.
 
Once in awhile one of these poisons becomes the subject of a political flash point. Today glyphosate, one of the most cancerous agricultural poisons, is under fire. Even some governments and other system forces have been cutting ties with it. Where this happens we abolitionists must urge all effective anti-poison actions and use the situation for the greatest benefit to the necessary ideas and to organizing for these ideas. But we must never regress to faith in discredited enemy organizations. Thus where we have evidence of discord at the EPA we use it to demonstrate that the evidence against the poisons is so extreme that even within the ranks of the enemy some are losing faith. But we must never give aid and comfort to reactionary notions about wanting to “reform” the regulator, or any version of wanting to resurrect faith in it. This is the main preoccupation of gatekeeper consumerist groups who really seek a deal with the corporations.
 
In the US the EPA has been the leader organizing and propagating lies and misinformation about glyphosate. This is a permanent EPA campaign which continues regardless of any merely cosmetic change of presidential administrations. All US presidents from Reagan onward have agreed to the EPA’s suppression of its knowledge that glyphosate causes cancer. All US presidents are therefore conscious, willful accomplices to this campaign of murder.
 
The EPA has been forced into damage mode by the rising tsunami against glyphosate. From the mainstream point of view, the milestone was the 2015 finding of the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency (IARC) that glyphosate causes cancer. According to secret Monsanto memos forced into the public light by ongoing litigation, the EPA tipped off Monsanto about the IARC’s upcoming finding and helped Monsanto prepare an attack. This included EPA officials working to prevent an investigation of glyphosate’s cancerousness by the Department of Health and Human Services, and academics agreeing to have their names placed on “scientific” papers actually written by Monsanto public relations cadres.
 
In April 2016 the EPA publicly released a document declaring glyphosate to be “unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans”, then withdrew it from public view. The memo publicly existed just long enough for Monsanto to tout it as an EPA formal public opinion. The EPA implicitly endorses this Monsanto characterization even as it claims the memo was posted inadvertently. This clearly is a lie.
 
What’s really happening is that the evidence of glyphosate’s cancerousness is so overwhelming that the EPA is scared to defend this position in full public view. Seeing how badly the EU’s EFSA has been floundering in public since its own formal declaration in 2015, the EPA has been unable to assemble a propaganda package it feels comfortable defending. That’s why it’s been stonewalling and resorting to such tricks as now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t with public releases. This has been nothing but an innuendo campaign meant to prop up the pro-glyphosate status quo without actually having to make a formal public declaration. The EPA knows it can never plausibly defend any such declaration, since it’s in the nature of the brazen pro-glyphosate lie that it can have no plausible content or evidence to justify it.
 
We’ve been getting more details about the EPA’s internal angst. According to a secret EPA memo leaked to a French magazine, there’s an internal dispute about the agency’s campaign to whitewash glyphosate. The EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) accuses the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP, the division which released and then suppressed the April 2016 memo) of using a reductive, anti-scientific measure instead of the internationally agreed scientific measure. All agencies including the EPA agree in principle to use a scale of five levels in assessing the cancerousness of a chemical, ranging from “carcinogenic” to “unlikely to be carcinogenic”. (The WHO’s cancer agency found glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen”, the second most severe ranking.) According to the ORD’s memo, in practice the OPP drops this and applies a reductive Yes/No measure rigged always to give a No answer.
 
The OPP refuses to divulge the methodology it uses. This is because it really uses no method at all. It only starts with the dogma that it will whitewash the chemical, then engages in whatever convolution is necessary to reach this conclusion. Evidently these methodological convolutions are so contorted as to be laughable, which is why the EPA is refusing to release and stand by a public proclamation.
 
Meanwhile the EU continues to brazen ahead. Its Chemical Agency (ECHA) released its own declaration whitewashing glyphosate. This was written by a pro-industry panel in imitation of the prior BfR/EFSA declaration, which by the BfR’s own admission was nothing but a rewrite of a paper written by the Glyphosate Task Force, a de jure industry group. We see how in Europe the conveyor belt from Monsanto’s PR department to a regulatory finding has been completely mechanized, while the EPA’s procedure is more clumsy in action.
 
Nevertheless the EPA’s intent and result is the same: Whitewash glyphosate. Prop it up as long as possible. EPA performs this role most directly on behalf of Monsanto, the politically powerful corporation most precariously dependent upon glyphosate.
 
More broadly the EPA and its European counterparts have an ideological and power-conserving mandate to defend the entire regime of poison-based agriculture and maximize the use of poison. Therefore every fight for a particular high-profile poison is also the fight for all poisons.
 
Conversely, abolitionists must fight every particular cancer poison, which means all pesticides, and turn every fight against one poison to the fight against all poisons.
 
 
 
 
 
Help propagate these ideas.
 
 
 
Older Posts »