THE GMO-BIG PHARMA-CORPORATE “SCIENCE” SCRAPBOOK: THE ...June 15, 2014
There's another aspect of the GMO problem that is looming in our culture, and I'm not talking simply about the geopoliticization of the issue, first by the West and the attempt to impose GMOs on the world as a means of controlling the food supply. As other researchers have pointed out (one thinks of F. William Engdahl here), the process of "science" and "regulation" behind GMOs was corrupted by big corporate money from the outset. And as I've pointed out in previous blogs, Russia finally challenged the whole GMO-"science" issue by pointing out the obvious, and by pointing out what critics within the west, dismissed as "cranks" by the bought-and-paid for corporate-regulatory establishment, also knew: there were no long term intergenerational studies of the effects on GMOs on either the environment or on human health. Just this previous week, in fact, I've shared various articles that have raised new concerns about GMOs and the human female reproductive system and women's health issues.
The same problem exists in relation to "big pharma," and we see some of the effects of bought-and-paid for "scientism" now on television, in almost every commercial that runs for some new wonder drugs designed to treat erectile dysfunction in men, or in anti-depression drugs. Most of these commercials are now full of disclaimers that their wonder drug can cause heart failures, strokes, suicidal thoughts, dementia, loss of memory, hair, and I'm still waiting for one of these commercials to include terminal flatulence, impacted colons, dissolved stomachs, liver failure, or rapid fingernail growth, hives, shingles, excessive sensitivity to sunlight or moonshine or what-have-you.
In short, our pill-popping culture is blind to the obvious, for the drug companies are telling us in their commercials that their drugs cause as many, if not more, problems than they solve. "Notwithstanding all these side effects, consult your physician to see if our new wonder-drug will work for you."
Uh-huh. With a recommendation like that, I'll think twice before visiting a doctor, thank you. The whole thing is like a mackerel on a moonlit beach. It both shines, and stinks to high heaven.
But there's more, and this article is a true stunner. It was shared with me by Ms. George Ann Hughes, after we had a private conversation about the drug commercials. Get a load of this:
"In 2005, three MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) grad students decided to test their perception of journal and scientific publishing integrity by creating a software program named SCIgen that would create a wordy, convoluted paper to be accepted.
"They had noticed that paper-publishing pressure was evident at scientific conferences, as well as from within a university's need for notoriety and research funding, and the need for professors and researchers to publish or perish. They thought that their hoax would expose low acceptance standards of research papers.
"Journal publishers that offer peer reviews are paid registration fees ranging from $2,500 to $5,000. The lower-end fees are with a few newer open-access journals such as PLOS ONE. "Open-access" means anyone can read them free of charge. The more "old guard" journals take a heftier registration fee and charge readers for viewing. Institutions that are interested have to pay per view or pay subscription fees.
"So those three naughty nerds at MIT decided to see how much garbage in for garbage out these academic publishers would withstand for their fees. Their first computer-generated paper was called "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy," by Jeremy Stribling, Daniel Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn.
"It was accepted by an international scientific conference that's been spamming scientists for papers since 1995. That conference group took the paper down after the hoaxers informed them that it was bogus. You can download a PDF file of it here." (See Academia hoaxed by fake scientific papers auto-generated by gobbledygook text generators)
Perhaps we're listening to the same sort of thing in all those miracle-working-drug commercials, and perhaps we're hearing the same sorts of programs from big pharma and agribusiness "scientism" promoters and their shills in politics. We're no longer listening to humans, we're listening to programmed gobbledeegook.
And at the root of it? Why, well, the same corrupting influence that one sees in "big science": money, for note you have to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege of "peer review," and even that review can be fooled.
See you on the flip side.