ACP45 wrote:
Yes, I know that is a rhetorical question. Obviously you would not do so, putting aside for a moment the obvious issue of quantity.
Here is a brief summary of the article below:
1. Moms Across America tested five childhood v*****es and found glyphosate positive in all five of them.
2. The MMR v*****e was twenty-five times higher than the other childhood v*****es
3. The FDA refused to answer a question addressed to them under the freedom of information act on whether they would (or did) test for glyphosate.
4. The FDA also came back and said that they were discontinuing further testing for glyphosate in anything...they said anything because they questioned the reliability of the methodology.
5. Glyphosate has shown to break down the blood brain barrier, and allow toxins into the brain. Toxins such as aluminum, mercury, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde and the many, many others in v*****es which you can find listed on the CDC website. There are also the co-formulants that are in the glyphosate herbicide, which have been found to be a thousand times more harmful.
6. The information released by the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act consisted of mostly blanked out pages.
7. The blanked out pages was information withheld pursuant to five USC 522 exemption, which is information that "is protected under the
deliberative process privilege. This protects the decision-making process of government agencies and materials that are both pre-decisional, and deliberative."
8. The huge spike of autism came when glyphosate and GMOs were introduced into the food supply in the late 1990s. The FDA will no longer test for this substance found in v*****es, and will not divulge any of the information they have previously acquired.
https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/fda_hides_information_on_glyphosate_in_v*****eshttps://www.b***hute.com/video/N5ymQVc9ZsRZ/?list=notifications&randomize=falseYes, I know that is a rhetorical question. Obvious... (
show quote)
Ah yes, yet another crack pot theory claiming v*****es, including the current c***d19 v*****e, are unsafe. Oh, and lest we forget, the FDA is covering it up, this "crack pot theory" gets upgraded to a CT due to the FDA being a part of the cover up. How about we explore the other side of the story, just so that we have both sides of the story, just for balance and all...
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/10/11/do-v*****es-contain-glyphosate-anti-gmo-claim-would-require-very-unlikely-scenario/What MBFC has to say about Genetic Literacy Project:
MBFC wrote:
Funded by / Ownership
The GLP is part of the Science Literacy Project (SLP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Funding and revenue are derived through donations and grants. They are t***sparent and list top donors for the 2018-2019 fiscal years as follows:
John Templeton Foundation: $267,687
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_TempletonWinkler Family Foundation: $120,000
Couldn't determine WHICH Winkler Family Foundation donated the moneyCharles Koch Foundation, Technology & Innovation Group: $68,500
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_KochCharles Ohrstrom: $17.000
Couldn't find information on this donorKayser Family Foundation Fund of the DuPage Foundation: $10,000 [Couldn't find information on any DuPage Foundation nor a Kayser Family Foundation, perhaps related to [url]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Family_Foundation[/url], typos can happen[/i]
The Bader Family Foundation: $10,000
Couldn't find this donor eitherPerry Hackett: $2,500
Couldn't find this donorThe Modzelewski Charitable Fund: $2,500
Couldn't find this donorPeter Treadway: $2,500
Couldn't find this donorIndividual donations: $10,861
Analysis / Bias
In review, the Genetic Literacy Project website publishes news and information on the fields of GMOs, genetics, evolution, and biotechnology. They publish original science reporting that is low biased and properly sourced such as this How evolution could thwart the new C***D v*****es and what we can do to prevent that. They also aggregate news related to their fields from sources such as the American Society for Microbiology and the American Council on Science and Health. Further, they also publish commentary based information that relates to science such as this, criticizing Mike Adams from the Natural News p***********e network Mike Adams: Natural News, “everyone’s favorite über-quack #1 anti-science website”—”even the quacks think he’s a quack”. Finally, the website is pro-GMO with an Anti-GMO Advocacy Funding Tracker that shows who and how much money is spent to advocate against GMOs. According to the Media Bias Fact Check P***********e Dictionary, GMOs are proven to be safe and those who are promoting these dangers are promoting p***********e. In general, this is a pro-science organization.
Failed Fact Checks
None to date
Overall, we rate the Genetic Literacy Project Pro-Science based on evidence-based reporting of scientific information related to genetics and GMOs. (D. Van Zandt 12/15/2016) Updated (11/25/2020)
Source:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/Funded by / Ownership br br The GLP is part of th... (
show quote)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/genetic-literacy-project/Found information on the two of the first three donors, the others weren't so well known. The John Templeton Foundation was founded by John Templeton obviously and of what I have found on the founder and the foundation, it appears that this donor may very well be conservative. The other donor I found information on was the Charles Koch Foundation founded by Charles Koch obviously, though I couldn't find information on the foundation, I found information on it's founder, of course I am fairly sure EVERYONE already KNOWS that the Koch brothers are both conservatives, Charles is a Libertarian, his late elder brother, David Koch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koch, was a Libertarian prior to 1984, from 1984 until his death in 2019 he was a Republican.
Of course none of that really means anything really, I just point out what I found to show that conservatives are some of Genetic Literacy Project's biggest donors, just in case someone might try to discredit what Genetic Literacy Project has to say in their article concerning the C***d v*****e CT based on any assumption that they may be liberally biased.
What I find most interesting, Genetic Literacy Project has NEVER failed a fact check...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/genetic-literacy-project/https://fullfact.org/online/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-v*****es/What MBFC has to say about Full Fact:
MBFC wrote:
Analysis / Bias
In review, Full Fact is a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). They do not use loaded words in their fact checks and always source properly. A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check and are in fact a certified fact-checker.
Failed Fact Checks
None. They are an IFCN fact-checker.
Full Fact is a very well-sourced, thorough fact-checker. We consider them to be a top fact-checker in the genre with the likes of Politifact and Factcheck.org. MBFC endorses Full Fact as a highly credible fact-checker. (D. Van Zandt 11/29/2016) Updated (6/1/2019)
Source:
https://fullfact.org/Analysis / Bias br br In review, Full Fact is a s... (
show quote)
What I find most interesting, Full Fact has NEVER failed a fact check...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/full-fact-uk/https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/10/mit-screwball-blames-glyphosate-c***d-and-everything-else-14706What MBFC has to say about AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH:
MBFC wrote:
Analysis / Bias
The ACSH is known to be funded by corporations and tends to lean toward deregulation issues. Though not scientifically wrong, they exhibit a bias in favor of businesses.
Some of the products ACSH has defended over the years include DDT, asbestos, and Agent Orange, as well as common pesticides. ACSH has often called environmentalists and consumer activists “terrorists,” arguing that their criticisms and concerns about potential health and environmental risks are threats to society.
ACSH has been funded by big agri-businesses and trade groups like Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others.
A factual search reveals that the American Council on Science and Health has not failed a fact check. However, there are numerous instances where ACSH has not aligned with the consensus of science in the past. Over the last few years, they have accepted human influenced c*****e c****e, although they do not favor government action, but rather free-market solutions.
Overall, we rate ACSH Right-Center Biased based on pro-business support and High for factual reporting due to adhering to the consensus of science on most issues and a clean fact check record. (8/14/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 9/26/2019)
Source:
https://www.acsh.orgAnalysis / Bias br br The ACSH is known to be fun... (
show quote)
What I find most interesting, ACSH has NEVER failed a fact check... Oh, and the organization is conservative!!!!
You can't say a conservative organization is liberally biased, now can you?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-council-on-science-and-health/So... Three legitimate sources all weighed in on that CT and all three appear to disagree with what the CT claims to be true... I did try to find information on Moms Across America, they don't appear to be very well known... Now, let me think here... Do I trust an unknown source that makes a fairly screwy claim or do I trust 3 well known, legitimate sources, none of which have failed a fact check... Hmm, that is a tough question, I just don't know...
The answer I think should be OVERWHELMINGLY obvious... Sorry MAAM, gonna kick you to the curb in favor of legitimate science. Next?