BAYER BUYS ITS WAY OUT: SOME DISTURBING IMPLICATIONS OF GMOS & ...July 10, 2020
It's been quite some time since we've had any stories about the ongoing debate about GMOs, but M.W. found and shared this article (thank you!) and I have to talk about it, because it raises once again a disturbing trend in modern society that I've talked about before, but only in a round-about way. Today I want to address it more directly (hopefully), because there's something in this article that fell on me like an Acme anvil in a Road Runner cartoon. Here's the article:
Here's the central point of the matter: Bayer, whom we less-than-respectfully refer to on this site as I.G. Farbensanto, apparently bought more than just Monsanto's GMO patents and seeds; it also bought Monsanto's "business model" and "playbook," not that Bayer needed any instruction on ethically questionable business practices. But hey, the Trafficantes might learn a trick or two from the Gambinos if the two families merged. IN this case, Bayer has employed the Monsanto-Agent Orange model to buy its way out of a multitude of lawsuits:
$10.9 Billion of Bayer’s capital will be forked over to resolve the Roundup-NHL litigation, but Bayer admits no wrongdoing. There will be no warning labels. $8.8-9.6 Billion will cover current cases, except Johnson, Hardeman and Pilliod, which will continue through an appeals process.
In something of a surprise, $1.25 Billion will be set aside for a separate class agreement aimed to address potential future litigation and provide medical outreach for underserved communities to detect and treat NHL that MAY have been caused by Roundup. The attorneys involved in the class action are different than the core Plaintiff attorneys who originally worked for years on the litigation (Baum Hedlund, Miller Group, etc). The original attorneys could not be pleased with this tag-on settlement term.
So one might wonder, who will decide a verdict on this class action lawsuit? Who will ultimately determine if Roundup causes cancer or not? (A reminder: It is overwhelmingly clear that it does.)
And wow, it gets juicy in the worst of ways. The class action component appears to totally undermine the original work performed in the first three trials. The determination of who wins that class action battle will no longer come from a jury, but rather a “Science Panel”.
On a press release, Bayer writes:
"Both the class and company will be bound by the Science Panel’s determination on this question of general causation, taking this decision out of the jury trial setting and putting it back in the hands of expert scientists. If the Class Science Panel determines that a causal connection between Roundup™ and NHL is not established, class members will be barred from claiming otherwise in any future litigation against the company."
Remember, thanks to the diligent work of the attorneys and plaintiffs in all of the trials leading up to this moment, the general causality was ALREADY SETTLED in court THREE TIMES. (Italicized emphasis added)
And how convenient, too, that everyone's attention is focused on the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan-Baal Gates virus-and-"vaccine" scam/plandemic. But wait, there's more, because it's not entirely clear how that "independent panel" will be selected:
All class action litigation will be put on pause for several years while the Scientific Panel makes its decision on general causality.
To construct this panel, a mutually decided upon third party will select the members. Because that sounds insanely sketchy, the other option is that both sides will select two scientists, and those four scientists can agree upon a fifth scientist to complete the panel. Apparently, the analysis of the existing public research will take FOUR YEARS to sift through. They also may file an extension if they need more time. At that time, the panel will decide once and for all if Roundup causes cancer.
I’m hearing echoes of Winning Wisner calling out the “independent” Intertek Panel, the hired group of scientists who facilitated Monsanto’s ghostwriting of a research paper in rebuttal to the IARC classification.
My gears are grinding thinking of Monsanto’s perpetual, unfounded rebuttal that no one but them seems to understand the science, and that science is the weakness in the Plaintiff arguments. The juries called foul on that claim three times. It should be game over for that argument based on science.
Now, if you read between the lines a bit, what's really being said here is that ordinary juries composed of ordinary people are not allowed to have opinions, much less make findings of fact, in trials involving "science." With that, we have the erection of "authority," in this case, "science," and in the case of GMOs, the entire history of the discussion has been between corporate-funded "science," which of course concluded that there was no problem with glyphosate herbicides and GMOs in general, versus independent scientists and studies that said there were. (Recall for example, that University of Iowa study on GMOS that concluded GMO yields per acre actually fell over time as costs to plant it rose:
We see much the same pattern currently, with the corporate propatainment media (and government) promoting a narrative about the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan-Baal Gates plan-/scam-demic, versus independent voices questioning the whole narrative regarding masks, the virus itself, the way statistics have been manipulated, and now, the almost complete lack of mention of declining death rates while the media continues to hype rising numbers of diagnoses, the need for a "vaccine" while it trashes the use of hydroxychloroquine (which is, of course, a cheap drug and not an expensive "vaccine") , the on-and-off-and-on again "reopening" of certain states or localities in response to every little twitch or wiggle on "diagnosed" covid cases.
So what's going on?
To be succinct, and entirely serious, what's going on is the death of civilization. Not just western civilization, but civilization itself. Why? Because science, and the free and open discussion of it, is being killed. Only approved authorities are to be considered. We are now in a state of affairs where ideology and narrative drives everything. And remarkably, there are aspects of what is happening that resemble the quackery of the "sciences in socialism", be it Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany. Imagine, for a moment, that a really big country with a lot of people - say, China, for example - decides that GMOs are "ok" because it needs to feed its people. The chairman of the Socialist Peoples' Parasite and Piracy Party, Wahn Beeg Rhat (thank you Uncle Scrooge and Karl Barks) and faithful lackeys, Woe Phat (thank you, Hawaii Five-O) and Zhi Ping Pong, having bet on GMOs, silence the voices of scientists raising troublesome and inconvenient "issues." The result is little different in the socialist paradise than it is in the crony crapitalist paradise world of I.G. Farbensanto, or Baal Gates: dissent, opposing viewpoints or science, is to be suppressed to maintain the narrative and "authorities and experts" promoting it. We suffered no casualties in the border clash with India, and the dam and GMOs are entirely safe because the science is settled, because our scientists have said so. There is no link between vaccines and autism. Hydroxychloroquine is dangerous. We say so. Ignore the people who say or think otherwise.
When civilization reaches this stage, where authority trumps discussion and science, it begins to die. Think of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series and the death of the Galactic Empire through incompetence and authority.
Bayer, like the Socialist Peoples' Parasite and Piracy Party, thinks that it can buy truth, or at least enough voices to shout it down. The convergence of crony crapitalism and the Peoples' socialism is amazing.
Civilization, on the contrary, requires truth, and truth requires integrity, something that I.G. Farbensanto, Wahn Beeg Raht and Zhi Ping Pong et al do not have.
And I didn't even talk about the banksters, crypto-currencies, and how they're not even currencies at all... but that's for Monday.
In the meantime, not all is gloom and doom, for the judge involved in the case, while not a scientist, is passingly familiar with the law(one may assume, although these days this too is questionable), and may not be buying what Bayer is selling, according to this article shared by G.B.:
See you on the flip side...