Quote:"Internal Monsanto emails show that the company closely followed the evolution of some of the articles and even edited passages.


On Jan. 6, 2016, company official Heydens writes to Intertek about one of the papers: "I think you and I should talk about how that chapter gets completed, as it is not exactly what I was expecting."

Two days later, in another email Intertek sends Monsanto a draft version of another article, asking Heydens to look at changes suggested by certain authors. His response: "OK, I have gone through the entire document and indicated what I think should stay, what can go, and in a couple of spots I did a little editing."

All five papers claimed they were written by independent experts and said that no Monsanto employees or lawyers reviewed the manuscripts prior to publication."

(03-12-2019, 08:49 PM)EvolvingPhoenix Wrote: Wow. That's pretty corrupt that a company official got to edit articles about it. Glad it got brought to light. Thanks for sharing xise.

(03-13-2019, 04:05 PM)xise Wrote: So clearly, the frustration in my OP reflects a lack of acceptance on the issue. But I am glad I posted it, not just because it's not a well known or acknowledged issue, but lately I have been finding that unless I fully allow the lack of acceptance or whatever else distortion to surface into the conscious mind (without harming others, as Ra suggests), I can't fully balance the underlying distortion/rejection. Probably basically you can't skip over the Catalyst and Experience of the Mind, even if you think you know the ideal undistorted beliefs, you gotta process existing distortions through those two and can't skip to transformation. 

Was a good meditation yesterday. We'll see if I got to the basic underlying cause. I do truly believe Ra's words that there are no mistakes, and always all is well, but just because I believe that at a surface level and also in parts of my deeper mind and self doesn't mean there aren't bastions of holdouts that say "no, I reject this!" Hopefully loyalist forces got another rebel stronghold of distortion last night, time will tell

Cheers

(03-15-2019, 06:22 PM)krb Wrote: Redchartreuse wrote:
"We could extrapolate this to all manner of things where "old research" is allowed to stand, even if it flies in the face of new understandings and research methods.
The problem appears to be not so much in the scientists themselves, or even science itself, but in the fact wherein certain chemicals (or technologies) have become the foundation for generating massive amounts of revenue, not to mention all the "job creation" as a result".
----------------------
This is a reminder to me of the "old research" concerning the fluoridation of our water supplies. I'll use flofrog's words... it creates a "dark dark anger". The conclusions of the "research" of the medical benefits of fluoride was bogus to begin with and became the "pass" to provide industry a way to get rid of toxic waste with no "consequences" or expense. Fluoride prematurely ages the human body by wreaking havoc with our biological processes. Fluoridated water has been banned in the more "humane" countries, but not in the US.

Well, this thread is not about fluoride, and I won't "hi-jack" it, but wanted to point out the similarities.

Quote:A NEW PARADIGM?
Johnson’s work is based on a somewhat different paradigm from that of most conventional soil scientists. They often seek to boost agricultural productivity in traditional ways by adding fertilizer and using pesticides and herbicides as needed. This approach is anathema to Johnson. He decries almost every conventional farming practice—plowing, bare fallowing, and the application of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. All these, he says, “assault soil microbiota.” He claims that glyphosate (sold in commercial products such as Roundup) will kill Aspergillus fungal species in soil. Aspergillus is often regarded as a marker of fungal presence and is important in carbon and nitrogen cycling.