Dr. Philip Goff, Will Academia Get Beyond Materialism? |409|

Re: Glyphosate and Vaccines...

Induction and Deduction to the various forms of modus ____________ are one set of inference playing-field inside science. However, once one introduces the concept of Risk, especially chronic or broadly exposed Risk... The entire landscape of inference (The Map of Inference) changes.

Risk does not care how smart you are, what your good intentions are, nor what you know or have found out through inductive study. It requires that you actually FALSIFY its reach. Anything short of this is pretend science. This is part of what I do professionally, with markets, trade and technology.
Can you somehow re-phrase that so it does refer directly to glyphosate and vaccines!

David
 
Can you somehow re-phrase that so it does refer directly to glyphosate and vaccines!
Sure David,

Problem Statement

It is not sufficient science to merely suggest the possible (or even likely) safety of a mandatory or chronic exposure agent which is administered internally to the public at large. The scientific standard for the assemssment of such risk is a full assay of conclusive deduction, and not casual inductive suggestion. In the case instances of vaccines and glyphosate in particular, a methodical deescalation was exercised which preferred more-likely-favorable inductive study over more conclusive deductive study; masquerading in the appearance of having conducted sufficient safety testing, but in reality falling woefully short of plenary and ethical science. Enormous harm was imparted to the American public at large, the full extent of which, we still do not know.​
If one undertakes the risk of playing Russian Roulette:​
  • Induction is recalling that you did not load any weapon
  • Deduction is looking inside that weapon to make sure that the chamber is empty
Re: Glyphosate

What was Done
Studies were conducted on rabbits and beagles to observe Direct Acute Toxicity LD(50) expressive impacts, and on rats for 240 day Direct Acute Toxicity LD(50) measure estimations in human populations. The results indicated a mild uptick in soft tissue cancers in the beagle studies, and mild impacts to liver and kidney health. Glyphosate was given a Level III Carcinogen flag by the FDA in 1990. Studies were conducted by former employees in 'One-and-Done' single projects, wherein the conflict of interest was extremely high.

What was Not Done (The 'Reach' Which Must be Falsified)
LD(50) Direct Acute Toxicity is not the end-all of human toxicity assay. There are at least 19 other toxicity measure standards which needed to be evaluated, 18 of in which the 'dose does not make the poison' - in other words LD(50) and LC(50) are moot. For example, Chronic Toxicity measures of ADI, RfD, NOAEL, LOAEL, fatty liver incidence, kidney function, skin disorders, etc. In particular, Innate Adaptogenic NLRP3 inflammasome, and Subclinical Biocide in terms of fecal pH and ppms, pre and post administration time series panels were needed. These could first be done inexpensively through non-randomized placebo-control trials in beagles (nonlethal invasive). Finally, tissue persistence was shown at 97% over a week of observation in rhesus monkey tests and this was never followed up for net effect.

References here: The Apothegm Makes the Poison

Re: Vaccines

What was Done (Typically)
Phase I, II and III clinical trials are executed on the primary acute Prophylatic physical response in mice, rats and rabbits. Typically followup if done, involves at most, one year monitoring of infants receiving the dose (mixed with myriad others - which clouds the signal). See example here: Human Bovine (WC-3) Rotavirus 1-year Followup Trial

What was Not Done (The 'Reach' Which Must be Falsified)
In the 'Best Evidence' Hviid Madsen study, infants were only Medical Plan Traced on net diagnosed cerebral effects of vaccine administration for a period of 4.5 years. However, the average age of diagnoses of autism and encephalitis in a medical plan are: Autistic disorder - 3 years, 10 months, ASD/pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) - 4 years, 8 months and for Asperger disorder - 5 years, 7 months. This 'Best Evidence' study design therefore missed 77% of the ASD/A cases it should have statistically detected - and then further carried an inversion effect p-value of 1.21 - indicating that the vaccine bundle MMR 'cured' autism. This is called an inversion, and is a well known signal of inclusion criteria bias - and usually serves to eliminate a study even prior to peer review. But in this case, since we had nothing - a blind eye was turned to standards of science.

Brain inflammation markers need to be measured for each vaccinated child at 4 months (pre-vax) and 4 years of age, and be regularly tracked through longitudinal time-series study – just the type of deductive research that the NCVIA of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) legislation had specified be done, but was never implemented.

The Bottom Line (Legal Oppression)

1. The appropriate study designs were easy and the ethical studies could have been done very inexpensively, but the sponsors in each case FEARED what they might show. The conflict of interest was exceedingly high.​
2. The study designs which were employed were inductive and mild. The study designs which were needed would have been probative and deductive (conclusive) - but were meticulously avoided. This is a process called Methodical Deescalation.​
3. Both of these acts of pseudo-science were criminal - legally falling under statutes regarding fraud with scienter, and racketeering.​
4. Unpaid shills, skeptic groups and guerilla agents seeking to impart harm to anyone who would dare say this publicly - were inchoate activated by the agencies committing the racketeering.​
This is why the Courts in both the glyphosate cases and their appeals, when the four torts above are taken as a group (as is being committed now with vaccines) - are deeming such activity to constitute the legal definition of 'oppression'.
 
Last edited:
TES, While I am also concerned about the question of vaccine induces autism, I am more dubious about glyphosate. The problem is (typically) that there is bad science on all sides. Here is an expose of the bad science involved in blaming red meat eating for causing cancer:

http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/

It is worth reading, because it would seem that it is considered acceptable to prime test animals for cancer by injecting both test subjects and controls with a low dose of carcinogen as well as feeding the test animals the substance under test!

The obvious reason why this might be necessary, is that otherwise you would need to feed meat (or low dose glyphosate) to a vast number of animals to see an effect! Whether or not this is valid, it obviously produces the possibility for file draw effects - you will always get some cancers in the experiments and if you discard experiments that produce the 'wrong' result, you will get your excess of cancers - voila!

As it was, in the study they didn't find any cancers, and so used some other lesions as evidence. This was part of the WHO report on meat eating and cancer.

David
 

Alex

Administrator
Sure David,

Problem Statement

It is not sufficient science to merely suggest the possible (or even likely) safety of a mandatory or chronic exposure agent which is administered internally to the public at large. The scientific standard for the assemssment of such risk is a full assay of conclusive deduction, and not casual inductive suggestion. In the case instances of vaccines and glyphosate in particular, a methodical deescalation was exercised which preferred more-likely-favorable inductive study over more conclusive deductive study; masquerading in the appearance of having conducted sufficient safety testing, but in reality falling woefully short of plenary and ethical science. Enormous harm was imparted to the American public at large, the full extent of which, we still do not know.​
If one undertakes the risk of playing Russian Roulette:​
  • Induction is recalling that you did not load any weapon
  • Deduction is looking inside that weapon to make sure that the chamber is empty
Re: Glyphosate

What was Done
Studies were conducted on rabbits and beagles to observe Direct Acute Toxicity LD(50) expressive impacts, and on rats for 240 day Direct Acute Toxicity LD(50) measure estimations in human populations. The results indicated a mild uptick in soft tissue cancers in the beagle studies, and mild impacts to liver and kidney health. Glyphosate was given a Level III Carcinogen flag by the FDA in 1990. Studies were conducted by former employees in 'One-and-Done' single projects, wherein the conflict of interest was extremely high.

What was Not Done (The 'Reach' Which Must be Falsified)
LD(50) Direct Acute Toxicity is not the end-all of human toxicity assay. There are at least 19 other toxicity measure standards which needed to be evaluated, 18 of in which the 'dose does not make the poison' - in other words LD(50) and LC(50) are moot. For example, Chronic Toxicity measures of ADI, RfD, NOAEL, LOAEL, fatty liver incidence, kidney function, skin disorders, etc. In particular, Innate Adaptogenic NLRP3 inflammasome, and Subclinical Biocide in terms of fecal pH and ppms, pre and post administration time series panels were needed. These could first be done inexpensively through non-randomized placebo-control trials in beagles (nonlethal invasive). Finally, tissue persistence was shown at 97% over a week of observation in rhesus monkey tests and this was never followed up for net effect.

References here: The Apothegm Makes the Poison

Re: Vaccines

What was Done (Typically)
Phase I, II and III clinical trials are executed on the primary acute Prophylatic physical response in mice, rats and rabbits. Typically followup if done, involves at most, one year monitoring of infants receiving the dose (mixed with myriad others - which clouds the signal). See example here: Human Bovine (WC-3) Rotavirus 1-year Followup Trial

What was Not Done (The 'Reach' Which Must be Falsified)
In the 'Best Evidence' Hviid Madsen study, infants were only Medical Plan Traced on net diagnosed cerebral effects of vaccine administration for a period of 4.5 years. However, the average age of diagnoses of autism and encephalitis in a medical plan are: Autistic disorder - 3 years, 10 months, ASD/pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) - 4 years, 8 months and for Asperger disorder - 5 years, 7 months. This 'Best Evidence' study design therefore missed 77% of the ASD/A cases it should have statistically detected - and then further carried an inversion effect p-value of 1.21 - indicating that the vaccine bundle MMR 'cured' autism. This is called an inversion, and is a well known signal of inclusion criteria bias - and usually serves to eliminate a study even prior to peer review. But in this case, since we had nothing - a blind eye was turned to standards of science.

Brain inflammation markers need to be measured for each vaccinated child at 4 months (pre-vax) and 4 years of age, and be regularly tracked through longitudinal time-series study – just the type of deductive research that the NCVIA of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) legislation had specified be done, but was never implemented.

The Bottom Line (Legal Oppression)

1. The appropriate study designs were easy and the ethical studies could have been done very inexpensively, but the sponsors in each case FEARED what they might show. The conflict of interest was exceedingly high.​
2. The study designs which were employed were inductive and mild. The study designs which were needed would have been probative and deductive (conclusive) - but were meticulously avoided. This is a process called Methodical Deescalation.​
3. Both of these acts of pseudo-science were criminal - legally falling under statutes regarding fraud with scienter, and racketeering.​
4. Unpaid shills, skeptic groups and guerilla agents seeking to impart harm to anyone who would dare say this publicly - were inchoate activated by the agencies committing the racketeering.​
This is why the Courts in both the glyphosate cases and their appeals, when the four torts above are taken as a group (as is being committed now with vaccines) - are deeming such activity to constitute the legal definition of 'oppression'.
awesome... thx for this. TES are you familiar with:
Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a ... - Amazon.com
Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald ...

I find these books to be credible (seems highly unlikely that this is not true). the implications re the vaccine backstory is significant:
A Medical “Manhattan Project”: Dr. Alton Oschner, JFK Murder, CIA, Monkey Viruses & the Search for a Weaponized Form of Cancer
 
awesome... thx for this. TES are you familiar with:
Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a ... - Amazon.com
Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald ...

I find these books to be credible (seems highly unlikely that this is not true). the implications re the vaccine backstory is significant:
A Medical “Manhattan Project”: Dr. Alton Oschner, JFK Murder, CIA, Monkey Viruses & the Search for a Weaponized Form of Cancer
Yes, read that years ago - and have it on my ready shelf in my office. I need to read it again because I have forgotten 70% of it and butcher the backstory and Dr. O when I try and recount it now.
 
"One measure of the toxicity of a compound is its LD50: higher numbers are safer, lower numbers are more toxic."

That is about as deep as the typical 'skeptic' article gets. :) But the subject is much much more demanding than that. LD50 does not mean that higher numbers are 'safer' and lower numbers are 'more toxic'. This is actually an incoherent contention on Brian's part, as to how LD50 functions in an acute toxicity taper curve. LD50 is always LD50 for that substance and vector of exposure. I am not sure Brian really understands this subject.

A substance can have a fantastic LD50 profile relative to tapered exposure, and still be Teratogenic at the base of the taper curve - and need to be banned.

 
Last edited:
"One measure of the toxicity of a compound is its LD50: higher numbers are safer, lower numbers are more toxic."

That is about as deep as the typical 'skeptic' article gets. :) But the subject is much much more demanding than that. LD50 does not mean that higher numbers are 'safer' and lower numbers are 'more toxic'. This is actually an incoherent contention on Brian's part, as to how LD50 functions in an acute toxicity taper curve. LD50 is always LD50 for that substance and vector of exposure. I am not sure Brian really understands this subject.

A substance can have a fantastic LD50 profile relative to tapered exposure, and still be Teratogenic at the base of the taper curve - and need to be banned.

Does that mean you disagree with the thrust of the piece...?
 
Does that mean you disagree with the thrust of the piece...?
Yes, his premise statement "the science shows no risk associated with glyphosate" is logically flawed and incoherent, but more importantly is also incorrect by scientific consensus and countless studies. 65% of the global grain/legume advising scientific community (US Census Bureau Trade Data - Ag-Technology Embargo), currently disagree with Brian's corporate propaganda fantasy here. Glyphosate bears risk - the global community agrees on this. The US is the lone holdout because our corporate food science is run by a cartel - and does not reflect the opinion of the Global scientific community at large.

The questions are

1. 'Have we measured the full extent of those risks?'
2. 'Can those risks be mitigated by field standards and practice alone?'
3. 'What benefits are derived from monist industrial application of the pesticide technology?'
4. 'What are the detriments to soil microphyla assay, demoveogenic impacts, arthropods and biosphere, and fulvic/phloem human-animal health profile of the biomass-accelerated plants as a food source?'
5 'Do the benefits mankind derives outweigh the scientifically established loss and seed monopoly associated with those practices?'

I do believe that glyphosate served to offset the use of some even nastier pesticides, but - this is a moot point. Stealing only half of someone's money is still theft, even if you advertise that as 'protecting' them.
 
Last edited:
Yes, his premise statement "the science shows no risk associated with glyphosate" is logically flawed and incoherent, but more importantly is also incorrect by scientific consensus and countless studies. 65% of the global grain/legume advising scientific community (US Census Bureau Trade Data - Ag-Technology Embargo), currently disagree with Brian's corporate propaganda fantasy here. Glyphosate bears risk - the global community agrees on this. The US is the lone holdout because our corporate food science is run by a cartel - and does not reflect the opinion of the Global scientific community at large.
You may have missed the difference between politico-legal and scientific arguments.

The questions are

1. 'Have we measured the full extent of those risks?'
2. 'Can those risks be mitigated by field standards and practice alone?'
3. 'What benefits are derived from monist industrial application of the pesticide technology?'
4. 'What are the detriments to soil microphyla assay, demoveogenic impacts, arthropods and biosphere, and fulvic/phloem human-animal health profile of the biomass-accelerated plants as a food source?'
5 'Do the benefits mankind derives outweigh the scientifically established loss and seed monopoly associated with those practices?'
Yep, we can keep coming up with questions to try and stall the development of any process/product (JAQing off).... Just look at the GM nitwittery. In what known action of this product do you see the "risks"?

I do believe that glyphosate served to offset the use of some even nastier pesticides, but - this is a moot point. Stealing only half of someone's money is still theft, even if you advertise that as 'protecting' them.
Poor analogy. In any endeavour we are always beset by having to choose the least worst option; we can't all live in your compromise-free world. If something was really useful and convenient but killed one person every 25 seconds, would that be an acceptable cost? If no, we may have to rethink car use. ;)
 
Last edited:
You may have missed the difference between legal and scientific arguments.
No, I understand these embargoes well. My team works to try and ease them - and we are working with the Chinese right now. Many are political, but also many are derived/stem from scientific study - just because they are applied in the legislative domain does not serve to invalidate them as science-derived arguments. The legal and legislative domains are where the public trust is administrated - and science serves inside the public trust. It is not its own privileged tyranny of elites.

Yep, we can keep coming up with questions to try and stall the development of any process/product (JAQing off).... Just look at the GM nitwittery. In what known action of this product do you see the "risks"?
GM is not a thing. Glyphosate is a thing. It must stand cost benefit scrutiny, but more importantly risk-accountability inside the public trust - such scrutiny is critical path and a fortiori therefore, can never be JAQing. These are the questions which ministries and heads of state/provinces ask of my teams - to answer when we do a strategy for a technology or a health or food strategy. They are critically salient. Otherwise this red herring accusation is nothing more than 'Just Avoiding Questions', rhetoric taken from an amateur 'skeptic' talking points sheet, pseudoscience, or as multiple Courts (not just me) have defined it: oppression.

Poor analogy. In any endeavour we are always beset by having to choose the least worst option; we can't all live in your compromise-free world. If something was really useful and convenient but killed 50 thousand people a year, is that an acceptable cost? If no, we may have to rethink car use. ;)
Not even close. 15% of the US market and 70% of the world market already is functioning in this world you claim is 'walking' under this analogy - and they are beating our 18-year recession cartel at its own game - badly. But the suffering from the malnutrition, demoveogenic and auto-immune disaster underway since the Fall of 1995 now is staggering... the cost of this dwarfing the paltry savings from nutrient-diluted added caloric biomass 'yield' from growth accelerant based pesticide.
 
Last edited:
totally get this... and totally respect the perspective. how could it be otherwise? how does Oppenheimer not watch in horror as the bomb explodes? Of course, some don't... some become absorbed in the "master of the universe" complex (in fact, I suspect that everyone who has ever made any "done anything" has... part of the process).

But I'm becoming interested in exploring another reality (i.e. not a philosophy, but a reality):

“...take a look at reality. You’re floating in empty space in a universe that goes on forever... You gain nothing by being bothered by life’s events (small examples of weather and traffic scale up to everything every in yr past) . It doesn’t change the world; you just suffer.”
"The only permanent solution to your problems is to go inside and let go of the part of you that seems to have so many problems with reality. "
― Michael A. Singer, The Untethered Soul: The Journey Beyond Yourself
Hi Alex
Found an audiobook of singers book and have listened twice, very simple/obvious and good message but I think it takes quite a long time to sink in.
 

Alex

Administrator
Hi Alex
Found an audiobook of singers book and have listened twice, very simple/obvious and good message but I think it takes quite a long time to sink in.
it has for me... about 30 yrs since I sent away for Yogananda's correspondence course. then again, I'm a slow learner. and although I may be far from "actualized" I'm firmly on-board re the reality of my foolish predicament... i.e. I'm in here (consciousness) trying to make the world not hit my stuff.
 
it has for me... about 30 yrs since I sent away for Yogananda's correspondence course. then again, I'm a slow learner. and although I may be far from "actualized" I'm firmly on-board re the reality of my foolish predicament... i.e. I'm in here (consciousness) trying to make the world not hit my stuff.
Hi Alex
I always conceptualize new information being mixed into a big pot of other info like adding one new colour into hundreds of other colours,most
of which never really mix. I cant conceive of becoming actualized.
 
Yep, we can keep coming up with questions to try and stall the development of any process/product (JAQing off).... Just look at the GM nitwittery. In what known action of this product do you see the "risks"?
Dunning put out another piece of propaganda, saying essentially the same thing, and employing the same rhetorical approaches, inside an article with more emphatic nulla infantis phrasing and intimidating sounding fabutistics. Most of this article is equivocation/amphibology and casuistry spun from 30% truth. This article only passes muster with a layman or media type. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4676

Malf, if you want to see how a professional market, infrastructure or technology Risk Strategy is developed in industry ... you can access the link below. When your stakeholders ask you to show diligence that your product is not harming environment, economy, markets, food suppy, microflora nor human cognition/health - a completed Risk Strategy, executed before technology deployment, is what you hand them - NOT a couple inductive studies and a social media intimidation campaign from the Brian Dunnings of the world. Once a company hires celebrity skeptics to speak for them, in lieu of competent prior diligence, that is a key warning sign that they have no idea what the hell they are doing.

This is not, 'just asking questions'. This is standing up and being an ethical company, playing by big-boy rules. If Monsanto had used my firm to develop a Risk Strategy ($1.2 - 1.6 million plus expenses) before they rolled out this 5-3-PS growth accelerant pesticide class market strategy so fast, then they could have avoided $billions in reactive/defensive expenditure thus far...

Epistemological Domain and Objective Risk Strategy

In response to your "In what known action of this product do you see the 'risks' " - well, in my work I have observed the following in the industry data, just off the top of my head and without looking into the notes for third world infrastructure and markets strategies I have been involved in.

This was not a 'product' - it was a wholesale change of a global industry, simply for the advantage of creating a cartel & monopoly. The diligence required for such an action demands much more than the rigor which was given. Oh... and most of these are no longer 'risks' - rather they are now 'knowns'...

1. Depletion of the 5 critical microphyla classes from soil
2. Chelation of key macro and micro nutrients from the soil
3. 1 & 2 Combining to reduce the suspended fulvic content in plant phloem
4. 1 & 2 Combining to reduce the synthesis of key vitamins and uptake of macro nutrients into plant biomatter
5. 5-3-PS acceleration of caloric biomass without a corresponding increase in human nutrient - nutrient dilution well documented - promoting endocrine malnutrition and obesity - epidemic in the US and any country which consumes US grains.
6. Lengthening of the field turn intervals and reduction in permaculture health of industrial farm soil
7. Establishment of constrained seed & monoculture practices - threatens biodiversity & economic resilience
8. Establishment of pesticide monoculture practices - promotes resistance
9. Demoveogenic displacements in human gut - promotes autoimmune, behavioral and endocrine disruption
10. Monoculture practices displacing supply chains for competing technologies upon which food supply vulnerable countries depend.
11. Accelerating yield in the field which only perishes post harvest - and creates 'acreage waste' - agriculture is a system, not a vending machine model.
12. Displaces diversity of market dynamics and competition
13. Established cartel-like behavior in speculator, wholesaler and logistics provider entities
14. Forces mixed bin supply chains and cross contaminates grain grade classes
15. Eliminates the farmer from the margin share equation inside a market - intermediaries control the margin flow - farmers make no margin
16. Puts less 'efficient' farms offering varietals out of business - absolutely decimates indigenous farming economies.
17. Is predatory as a business practice - the same as is predatory pricing in retail
18. Places technology companies in control of a production market (called an inversion)
19. Creates a conflict of interest inside academia, who are funded by the profits pulled from production (farmers)
20. Creates a seed monopoly and monogenetic base.
21. Creates a horizontal monopoly which skirts by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by technicalities (as Walmart did in the 90's)
22. Makes the cost of competing technologies or affiliated agricultural products rise through dis-leveraging
23. Prohibits the establishment of a free market - with practice to price discovery - which exists in every other industry except AG
24. Creates a conflict of interest in intermediary players to support the cartel or be non-competitive.
25. Beagle experiments did not place a limit on the observed kidney, liver and skin observed effects.
26. Has precipitated an 18 year technology-caused, not market caused, recession and depression of pricing, killing small to medium farms
27. Has caused hardship and suffering for tens of thousands of non-industrial farming families.
28. Bears unknown/undefined negative effects on ecosphere, arthropodia, persists in soil.
29. Has caused a recent > 50% of the world rejection of US Farm products globally
30. Forces constrained set of buyers - monopsony - especially in regions where population is vulnerable to food security risk.
31. Results in a longer distance average panamax and handymax consolidated bin shipping transit - more carbon in atmosphere
32. Causes a faster methane or injected natural gas leach from soil - more methane in atmosphere
33. Causes a greater degree of methane bleedoff from wasted biomass - more methane in atmosphere
34. Forces longe distance and added shipments of natural gas and pig manure supply chains to be injected into nutrient depleted soils - more carbon, methane and natural gas bled in atmosphere.
35. Forces added 'yield' into alread subsidized and oversupplied classes (Maze), forcing legislation to dump the excess at market-destroying pricing, or into un-needed ethanol manufacturing - which increases VOC's in atmosphere
36. Maybe (some groups say 'probably') causes cancer...
 
Last edited:
Dunning put out another piece of propaganda, saying essentially the same thing, and employing the same rhetorical approaches, inside an article with more emphatic nulla infantis phrasing and intimidating sounding fabutistics. Most of this article is equivocation/amphibology and casuistry spun from 30% truth. This article only passes muster with a layman or media type. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4676

Malf, if you want to see how a professional market, infrastructure or technology Risk Strategy is developed in industry ... you can access the link below. When your stakeholders ask you to show diligence that your product is not harming environment, economy, markets, food suppy, microflora nor human cognition/health - a completed Risk Strategy, executed before technology deployment, is what you hand them - NOT a couple inductive studies and a social media intimidation campaign from the Brian Dunnings of the world. Once a company hires celebrity skeptics to speak for them, in lieu of competent prior diligence, that is a key warning sign that they have no idea what the hell they are doing.

This is not, 'just asking questions'. This is standing up and being an ethical company, playing by big-boy rules. If Monsanto had used my firm to develop a Risk Strategy ($1.2 - 1.6 million plus expenses) before they rolled out this 5-3-PS growth accelerant pesticide class market strategy so fast, then they could have avoided $billions in reactive/defensive expenditure thus far...

Epistemological Domain and Objective Risk Strategy

In response to your "In what known action of this product do you see the 'risks' " - well, in my work I have observed the following in the industry data, just off the top of my head and without looking into the notes for third world infrastructure and markets strategies I have been involved in.

This was not a 'product' - it was a wholesale change of a global industry, simply for the advantage of creating a cartel & monopoly. The diligence required for such an action demands much more than the rigor which was given. Oh... and most of these are no longer 'risks' - rather they are now 'knowns'...

1. Depletion of the 5 critical microphyla classes from soil
2. Chelation of key macro and micro nutrients from the soil
3. 1 & 2 Combining to reduce the suspended fulvic content in plant phloem
4. 1 & 2 Combining to reduce the synthesis of key vitamins and uptake of macro nutrients into plant biomatter
5. 5-3-PS acceleration of caloric biomass without a corresponding increase in human nutrient - nutrient dilution well documented - promoting endocrine malnutrition and obesity - epidemic in the US and any country which consumes US grains.
6. Lengthening of the field turn intervals and reduction in permaculture health of industrial farm soil
7. Establishment of constrained seed & monoculture practices - threatens biodiversity & economic resilience
8. Establishment of pesticide monoculture practices - promotes resistance
9. Demoveogenic displacements in human gut - promotes autoimmune, behavioral and endocrine disruption
10. Monoculture practices displacing supply chains for competing technologies upon which food supply vulnerable countries depend.
11. Accelerating yield in the field which only perishes post harvest - and creates 'acreage waste' - agriculture is a system, not a vending machine model.
12. Displaces diversity of market dynamics and competition
13. Established cartel-like behavior in speculator, wholesaler and logistics provider entities
14. Forces mixed bin supply chains and cross contaminates grain grade classes
15. Eliminates the farmer from the margin share equation inside a market - intermediaries control the margin flow - farmers make no margin
16. Puts less 'efficient' farms offering varietals out of business - absolutely decimates indigenous farming economies.
17. Is predatory as a business practice - the same as is predatory pricing in retail
18. Places technology companies in control of a production market (called an inversion)
19. Creates a conflict of interest inside academia, who are funded by the profits pulled from production (farmers)
20. Creates a seed monopoly and monogenetic base.
21. Creates a horizontal monopoly which skirts by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by technicalities (as Walmart did in the 90's)
22. Makes the cost of competing technologies or affiliated agricultural products rise through dis-leveraging
23. Prohibits the establishment of a free market - with practice to price discovery - which exists in every other industry except AG
24. Creates a conflict of interest in intermediary players to support the cartel or be non-competitive.
25. Beagle experiments did not place a limit on the observed kidney, liver and skin observed effects.
26. Has precipitated an 18 year technology-caused, not market caused, recession and depression of pricing, killing small to medium farms
27. Has caused hardship and suffering for tens of thousands of non-industrial farming families.
28. Bears unknown/undefined negative effects on ecosphere, arthropodia, persists in soil.
29. Has caused a recent > 50% of the world rejection of US Farm products globally
30. Forces constrained set of buyers - monopsony - especially in regions where population is vulnerable to food security risk.
31. Results in a longer distance average panamax and handymax consolidated bin shipping transit - more carbon in atmosphere
32. Causes a faster methane or injected natural gas leach from soil - more methane in atmosphere
33. Causes a greater degree of methane bleedoff from wasted biomass - more methane in atmosphere
34. Forces longe distance and added shipments of natural gas and pig manure supply chains to be injected into nutrient depleted soils - more carbon, methane and natural gas bled in atmosphere.
35. Forces added 'yield' into alread subsidized and oversupplied classes (Maze), forcing legislation to dump the excess at market-destroying pricing, or into un-needed ethanol manufacturing - which increases VOC's in atmosphere
36. Maybe (some groups say 'probably') causes cancer...
I haven’t really got the time for this collection of unreferenced claims... Which neither balances against the benefits of the product (risk/benefit), nor compares against other products on the market (thereby missing the point entirely).
 
I am of the philosophical mindset more along the quote by Francois de La Rochefoucauld, 'Humility is the worst form of conceit.' A person with Asperger's or ASD is a person who is highly self focused and often socially inept. Pisses off colleagues at times. They often do not bear a skill nor ability to lie.
Love this. I don't agree, but it provokes an important discussion - having just endured a barrage of praise I do not feel comfortable with. To say that "humility is the worst for of conceit' proposes a superior state of awareness and response that is not 'umble' in the sense of saying one does not deserve the kudos, nor the celebratory display in the vulgar manner so beloved of advertisers these days - the 'ironic' victory shambles.

What is the is mid point between knowing you have done a good job and not really giving a toss about it beyond a justified sense of of personal satisfaction?

Folk seem not to be able to distinguish between being 'amazed' you did so well and 'amazed' you were given any credit at all.

An ASD philospher would be useful to us if we dared not be 'offended' their style.
 

Alex

Administrator
Hi Alex
Yes I have listened, I think the idea of becoming "actualized" just confuses me.
I saw a short movie of a beetle wondering about doing its thing, even crossing roads between cars shooting by... I identify strongly with that beetle.
I don't think we should get caught up in language... other than to acknowledge how difficult it can make this research.

Jeffrey maybe a little off-putting to some people, but I think he's an awesome truth-seeker warrior. I mean, how else do you do it. This guy went out to a bunch of spiritual communities and asked "who's really got it... who's got the goods... who's figured it out... who's actualized/enlightened/godlike?" then he said down with and interviewed them for 6 to 9 hours asking them to describe their every aspect of their experience. then he complied the results. this is monumental research... and of course it makes people feel uncomfortable. of course it generates hate. it challenges some of our fundamental core beliefs about who we are.
 
Top