-23 votes

Confession from a paid shill for Monsanto and Big Pharma

Just kidding. I'm not a paid shill. I earn exactly as much money by defending the principles of molecular biology and pharmacology as I make by defending free-market libertarianism- $0.

In every thread or post about GMO's or pharmaceuticals or medicine, I am inevitably accused of being a paid shill, often by more than one person. I'm not exaggerating when I say HUNDREDS of people have made this baseless, childish accusation. It is ubiquitous, and pathetic.

Why is this happening?

Are people so convinced of their beliefs that they can't even fathom that someone would have a genuine, educated, and opposing scientific viewpoint? Just because someone criticizes the mythology of the church does not mean they are possessed by the devil.

It is incredible to me that so many of a group of people who pride themselves in being "awake" are so quick to stoop to primitive anti-intellectualism. The "natural" health/alternative medicine movement has become a hivemind united in the lowest common denominator of sensationalism and logical fallacy.

I can't even estimate how many times I've been told to "keep drinking the fluoride, man." It is a brainless, meaningless, hypocritical insult, and as a dentist I will keep brushing my teeth with fluoridated toothpaste because it hardens enamel and makes it more caries resistant. I will also keep using my limited influence to stop public water fluoridation, because I strongly oppose the practice for both ethical and scientific reasons. People aren't even attempting to understand the mindset and perspective of the strangers (who are often allies in liberty) they are insulting.

Ultimately the blame comes down to each individual, but there are influential leaders in the natural health/alternative movement who are spewing anti-science disinformation, and they have a legion of followers who parrot their style of demagoguery and spam their propaganda everywhere. The worst example of this, of course, is Mike Adams of Natural News. His propaganda is so distinctly emotional (and unscientific) that I can often not only recognize his work instantly, but whether someone else has been influenced by his work. With the possible exception of Alex Jones, he is unrivaled in his ability to create an alarmist frenzy out of non-existent, minimal, or even conflicting information. There are Natural News disciples who have more confidence in the pseudoscience of the Natural Fallacy than Einstein did in the principles of physics. I mean this literally. Einstein had doubts about physics, while many NaturalNewsers have no doubt whatsoever that GMOs, pesticides, vaccines, psychiatric and other pharmaceutical drugs, nuclear power, et cetera are going to destroy the human race.

Is this what people prefer to believe? Chemophobia?

This has to stop. I'm sick of the fear-mongering. I'm sick of getting accused of being a paid shill in every conversation. I'm sick of getting blasted with pseudoscience alarmism. Defending the claims of Natural News by linking to a different Natural News article, which is defended by a different Natural News article, which is based on a documentary by an activist film maker who based his work on Greenpeace research, mixed in with angry name-calling and false allegations, is NOT debating.

We don't live in a black and rainbow fairy tale. Don't be that anti-intellectual who is manipulated by demagogues. Science is often counter-intuitive and complicated. Scientific evidence and mechanisms should not be angrily and immediately dismissed because they conflict with preconceived notions, superstition, and speculation. Corporations, including Monsanto, and the government are NOT always wrong, particularly in the case of science. Opposing a government program like NASA does not mean that the principles and accomplishments in astronautics are lies and conspiracies. This is analogous to the FDA and EPA in medicine and agriculture.

I AM NOT A SHILL. So please stop accusing me and the other defenders of modern medicine/science as such.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes, splice in the right bit of code and plant makes morphine

Cross tomatoes and get a lot of different tomatoes.

None genetically similar to the Morphinated Tomato.

Or maybe an Inslinated Tomato.

I think Michael makes this distinction.

Free includes debt-free!

You don't just accidentally code for morphine.

A tomatoe that codes for morphine is still a tomato. In fact this is how many pharmaceuticals are made. These are not being fed to people.

Is their anything stopping them from being fed to people.

It'd be a real seller, people can't just eat one.

A Statin tomato, supposedly for you own good.

Or a Delysid Tomato.

The attack of the Killer Tomato

Few new to the Atomic Bonb before the government dropped it on Japan. WMD is nothing new for the U.S.

Free includes debt-free!

deacon's picture

the jury is still out

a quote from your comment

" The science is overwhelmingly on the side of genetic engineering. Unfortunately there is going to be a hostile against antiscience populism."

the only science being done in the name of GMO is from their creators
the roundup herbicide has been found in the ice in the arctic circle
and this was after years of monsanto claiming it breaks down
you know safe for the environment
you claim organic farmers use more than the other farmers,where is the proof in that statement
defend them all you like,but when they or anyone else resorts to lies,then uses more lies,just how good and or clean cut can they be?

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)

The creators just made what nature was already dmaking.

Every single organism is genetically modified. We (humans) used natural processes to our advantage. This is why efforts to prove Genetic engineering as dangerous usually falls in the realm of antiscience. This is what I am trying to get the alarmists to understand. We share 8% of our genes with lettuce. This is why inserting a gene into another organism is not unnatural. All life on Earth overlaps at least partially in the genetic code.

The potential danger from genetic engineering comes from the glyphosphate. But this has been demonstrated for over 30 years to be one of, if not the safest pesticide. It is the same with the cry toxin. They are remarkably non toxic to humans and other wildlife.

Monsanto has lied because they are trying to profit. You would be hard pressed to find any corporation who hasnt lied somewhere down the line to profit. Their opponents lie plenty as well. One must look at the research and analyze it.

Organic farmers are not strictly pesticide free. Look up organic pesticides.

still not citing source

still not citing source

Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner- Benjamin Franklin


Why GMO's MUST Go. Just a very short summery of MonSatans dirty tactics. 9min video.


Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm- What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks
Strike The Root: There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

I'm curious to know how much scientific 'education' . . .

you have.

I have found that it's often those with B.S.s (no pun intended) or M.S.s--

that get the most defensive of 'science'--

Those I know with doctors' degrees and post-doctoral work/research, etc.--

can be quite skeptical of science. I know; I grew up in a scientific family, and we weren't impressed by doctors' degrees, because so many of the family members had them; we weren't impressed by M.D.s for the same reason--


if you are talking about upper level undergraduate classes--


some of *us* aren't that impressed. Even I, with a non-scientific bachelors' degree--

was able to handle those classes--

I just chose to have my degree say "B.A.", rather than "B.S.", because I laughed whenever I saw "B.S."--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Kiss my ass. I have more than degrees.

I have an understanding of science and a clear perspective of the quackery being propagated.

So you, with no science background, have no superiority over me. You are the Fox who can't reach the grapes.

not impressed with . . .

your education, however you came by it.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Michael Nystrom's picture

Keep it civil



No, you do not. You don't

No, you do not. You don't even understand high school level taxonomy.



You used this word 'taxonomy,' and I don't think you know what it means. Please, because I need a good laugh, expand on your point.

your arrogance is so obvious that . . .

any understanding you might have is overwhelmed by it--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


Monsanto feeds hundreds of millions of people.

What evil bastards.

Yes, and there's and end plan to it:

Not very humanitarian, eh?

You realize this propaganda shows nothing I hope

The only sources promoting that politically motivated Russian study are alternative medicine quack sites and conspiracy sites.

If you are linking to primitive propaganda pictures with no context or references or mechanisms, it is clear that you have no interest in anything besides proving the harm of genetic engineering.


The downvoting of this thread speaks for itself.

When will you draw the line, Delysid? After you've been diagnosed with infertility and cancerous growths? When you're being force fed purely synthetic chemical toxins via a tube akin to how Guantanemo detainees are?

Don't tell me there's no evidence, it's abound. In fact, it's f****** intuitive that putting lab-made chemicals in the body is harmful, so no evidence required.

Downvoting means nothing.

So are you saying I am going to be infertile and cancerous? You believe it to be true so it must true because in conspiracy alternative media lalaland speculation is fact!

So are you predicting the I'm going to be forced fed chemicals?

Of course you do not need evidence. Why would you?

Keep waiting for that article

Keep waiting for that article in the New York Times saying that GMO's and pesticide-loaded crops are hazardous to health. You might be disappointed to know that they won't publish an article there, because it is owned by the same cultists who are on the boards of directors for biotech firms and pharmaceutical cartels. You can continue to exercise wishful thinking on this matter, however it won't change the facts that Monsanto is tied in with sinister big pharma companies, eugenics programs involving K(B)ill Gates, and extraordinary corporate greed.


Give me a break. You have already chosen to believe in conspiracy. All you want to hear is your alarmist speculation confirmed.

You aren't awake. You aren't truth finding. You're paranoid, and you want others to be paranoid as well.

Hey by the way, your computer is made from toxic chemicals and emits radiation. The evil technology corporations are trying to kill you! You better destroy your computer and move into a Giant Oak tree out in the wilderness!

You are the worst troll I've ever encountered

You're not even trying to make a case against what I am saying; instead you resort to ad hominem attacks.

All is one, everything is energy and love is energy. GMOs, like banking fraud, 9/11, World Wars, etc, are merely facts of life. Being streetwise is being aware of these facts, whereas being paranoid is living in fear of them. I fear none of their shite that infests the Earth. I only wish to do away with it in order to live a more free life, and see others enjoying true freedom as well.

Now instead of facing these facts and accepting things as they are, you choose to mentally retreat and make-believe that these problems don't exist. I find it likely that you are the one who is in fact paranoid. You live in fear that if these things are in fact true, you will have to change your lifestyle, your way of thinking, who you associate with, etc. These are all confines constructed by the ego. Dissolution of ego CAN seem to be a scary thing, but it really is not. You will find that once you change your attitude and shift the appearance of your ego, positivity will enter your life.

We spend more on health care the the rest of the world.

Yet we are 60th in longevity.

Something is broken in medical "science" and people are not too stupid to see that they their parents are younger than their grandparents when the did.

The only man I know who lived over 100 years never used medical services. When he fell an broke his hip he died from the shock soon after.

I suspect some people are skeptical of your pronouncements regarding the scientific method since the medical establishment claims to be "scientific".

Either science is garbage or medicine is making false claims. Many I meet perceive this paradox.

GMO, my bottom line is that I'll consider them safe when someone proves that they will not prevent a man from living to 120.

Blowfish is not one of my menu choices, either.

Yes, modern government is always wrong, besides when were they authorized to have an opinion. Government is just a strawman that people hide behind when committing crimes.

Nystrom said the DP is a tough crowd. You fit right in, Mark.

Free includes debt-free!

Only 1 person in 10 billion have reached 120

A natural lifestyle of no GMOs has clearly not
worked at reaching your arbitrary milestone.

They didn't eat GMOs their whole life did they?

I am not talking about mutation and natural selection. I am talking out interspecies genetic manipulations.

If more people reach 120 or 100 or 80, or 60 eating GMOs. That would be a favorable outcome. I'll wait.

Free includes debt-free!

I see the herpaderpas are downvoting everything I say

It's weird how the anti-GMO crowd is most active during the workday. It is not a coincidence I'm sure.

It is an indisputable fact that in the pre-GMO era, only 1 human being reached the age of 120. This is out of several billion people. Obviously GM food cannot be blamed for every other person dying before 120, as they did not exist.

So why would you make living to this incredible age your criteria for the safety of GMOs? They are nutritionally identical to wild type.

I thought is was an informational reply.

Wouldn't it suggest that there were no danger.

Right now how long has it been used?

Bur, I confess to Reductio ad absurdum.

If we want to help people understand non-fallacious arguments, welcome them to moot court. So to speak.

Free includes debt-free!

Asclepius's picture

Regardless of the safety of their products, they're unethical!

I agree with you 100% about Mike Adam's. I think he does more harm that good with his over-the-top alarmist website.

However, there are good reasons to boycott Monsanto based on their unethical business practices alone, regardless of the safety of their products. Here is an example:


When you have a strong track record of unethical behavior, people tend not to trust you. For example, you don't see nearly as much negative press on Dupont's GMO research, like that of their omega3 soy.


If GMOs can be made safely, then Monsanto's unethical business practices are negatively effecting the whole industry.

Personally, I believe the global corporatism that companies like Monsanto and Nestle exemplify will ultimately make us slaves to a world no one would want to live in, so I choose not to support them regardless of their products safety. I buy local and grow my own food.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley