Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

nucklehead

TED is Dead

22 posts in this topic

http://www.hangtheba...lks-about-gmos/

Allow me to be the first to announce that TED is dead. Why? Because the group that organizes so-called "TED talks" has been thoroughly hijacked by corporate junk science and now openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine, or even the subject of how food can help prevent behavioral disorders in children. All these areas of discussion are now red-flagged from being presented on any TED stage.

This is openly admitted by TEDx itself in a little-known letter publicly published on December 7, 2012. Click here to view the letter.

In that letter, TED says that people who talk about GMOs are engaged in "pseudoscience." Those who discuss the healing potential of foods are spreading "health hoaxes."The letter also advises TEDx organizers to, "reject bad science, pseudoscience and health hoaxes," meaning anyone who talks about GMOs, "food as medicine" or similar topics.The TED organization, incredibly, believes that food cannot be medicine and does not contain medicine. Perhaps someone should educate TED about resveratrol, curcumin, phycocyanins, polyphenols and ten thousand other chemicals created by plants that have medicinal functions in the human body. To deny this is to nearly admit you believe the Earth is flat and that the sun and stars revolve around our planet. It is a sure sign of a feeble mind that cannot grasp the very simple and readily evident idea that the human body evolved in an environment full of plants with beneficial physiological effects, including many medicinal effects.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea... Heard earlier Monsanto paid TED to not talk against them...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read through that entire open letter yet, but from the looks of it....I disagree with your quote. They aren't banning people from talking about GMOs. Nor are they calling people who do pseudo-scientists. From what I've read so far, they are just saying BEWARE of speakers who want to talk about GMOs, because this is a topic that tends to attract people who aren't qualified to talk about it.

2. Red flag topics

These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists. If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny. An expanding, depressing list follows:

Food science, including:

  • GMO food and anti-GMO foodists

  • Food as medicine, especially to treat a specific condition: Autism and ADHD, especially causes of and cures for autism

Because of the sad history of hoaxes with deadly consequences in the field of autism research, really look into the background of any autism-related talk. If you hear anything that sounds remotely like, “Vaccines are related to autism,” — RUN AWAY. Another non-legitimate argument: “We don’t know what works, so we have to try everything.” Pretty much all the time, this argument is designed to cause guilt in suffering parents so they’ll spend money on unproven treatments.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TED has been a sham for a while now. It is so big and popular now that it can't help but be corrupted.

As far as talk about GMOs, food as medicine, etc. are concerned, I agree with the above poster, those debates draw a lot of people who are unqualified to discuss the topics, and there are a lot of people out there who will believe anything they hear on those topics so long as it supports their views, its a recipe for disaster to allow that type of talk without heavy screening first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TED has been a sham for a while now. It is so big and popular now that it can't help but be corrupted.

As far as talk about GMOs, food as medicine, etc. are concerned, I agree with the above poster, those debates draw a lot of people who are unqualified to discuss the topics, and there are a lot of people out there who will believe anything they hear on those topics so long as it supports their views, its a recipe for disaster to allow that type of talk without heavy screening first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched one yesterday about how we can manufacture real cow leather in a lab and how that will eventually lead to manufactured meat.

I suppose the concern about GMO's will be long dead by then.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TED has actually been suspect for a while now. It has gone from grass roots to corporate sponsored and as such one cannot bite the proverbial hand that feeds.

If Ford is paying you millions of dollars you cannot speak out against Ford using cheap labour in Bangladesh can you?

If Monsanto is supplying millions in production costs by the same reach you cannot say Monsanto engineered and supplied pesticides are directly responsible for bee kills in countries still using Monsanto products can you?

It is much like the people who brought us Food Inc, which Monsanto has an ongoing lawsuit over regarding defamation when they aired Monsanto contracts and crops were being unfairly forced upon farmers and through pollination were leading to theft of land via lawsuits against small farmers.

I personally just don't trust anyone to not have an agenda when Corporation X is in their closing credits.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TED has actually been suspect for a while now. It has gone from grass roots to corporate sponsored and as such one cannot bite the proverbial hand that feeds.

If Ford is paying you millions of dollars you cannot speak out against Ford using cheap labour in Bangladesh can you?

If Monsanto is supplying millions in production costs by the same reach you cannot say Monsanto engineered and supplied pesticides are directly responsible for bee kills in countries still using Monsanto products can you?

It is much like the people who brought us Food Inc, which Monsanto has an ongoing lawsuit over regarding defamation when they aired Monsanto contracts and crops were being unfairly forced upon farmers and through pollination were leading to theft of land via lawsuits against small farmers.

I personally just don't trust anyone to not have an agenda when Corporation X is in their closing credits.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide some sources to support all of these statements?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?

Do your own homework.

Watch the closing credits of any TED Talks program. Find out the subsidiaries and who the parent company is. Shocking really.

But for the sake of you I'll do some of the work

http://www.bing.com/......=MSNH56&qs=n=

http://www.ted.com/p...dtalks_sponsors

http://www.bing.com/...31266afbfc1d03b

As for not being able to bite the hand that feeds. You seriously cannot expect to be able to speak out against ANY sponsor that keeps your business afloat and still expect to keep them as a sponsor....that's common sense

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus is on you to provide sources.

Can you prove this " crops were being unfairly forced upon farmers and through pollination were leading to theft of land via lawsuits against small farmers."

I got this from the link you provided me:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about the airline ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I can prove it. Unfortunately due to legal restrictions details are not being released.

But again watch Food Inc. A small farmer surrounded by Monsanto soy and grain had his fields tested by Monsanto, they claimed he was using THEIR seed because his crops now had the blueprint of Monsanto seed due to pollination from neighbouring farms. He was in danger of losing his farm via legal fees and Monsanto's basic carte blanche in the USA to appropriate crops and land found using their "product" without contract or payment.

The Onus is NOT on me to prove anything, if you're curious it is on YOU to see if what people are saying is true or not. I tend to try posting things based on fact or what I have seen and observed. People who want to learn will find basis in fact via research. People who want to argue will ask for proof via links and then back up their own claims with Wikipedia.

There is a reason whole countries are boycotting companies like Monsanto up to and including farmers in Hungary burning their fields because Monsanto tried to appropriate land in the same manner.

Also, I provided links, I provided a basis of fact, it is up to you to dispute.

The end result and bottom line as per the OP is that corporations have indeed made TED Talks a little less credible

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, lets establish the basic principles of arguments:

https://en.wikipedia...burden_of_proof

You've made a number of anecdotal claims with no proof. All court proceedings are of public record, please provide evidence.

I can't find any cases where Monsanto sued a farmer for cross pollination. I can find a few where farmers broke the law, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I despise Wikipedia but here is a few for ya there sunshine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used Wikipedia to quote the most common, universal, well known principle of arguments.

The article (from a notably bias source) alleges a farm is being sued for saving seeds, not cross pollination. Can you provide a link to the suit that is alleged?

You don't trust wikipedia, yet you link to a wikipedia rip-off site called 'sourcewatch' that is clearly a sham? This link is an embarrassment to all academia.

The inability to re-use seeds is common place in the industry, it's not Monsanto centric nor is it invented by them. It's governed by the law.

Mr. Schmeiser broke the law. The summary on this link is atrocious, it is not a statement of fact from the case, it's an editorial shill piece. Feel free to read the real source on how the SUPREME COURT of Canada ruled against Mr. Schmeiser.

http://scc.lexum.org...m/2147/index.do

...what exactly are you linking this for? Another interest group webpage not based on fact.

"Saving Monsanto’s seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed sprays, violates provisions of the company’s contracts with farmers"

Don't buy Monsanto seeds and enter into contract with them if you don't agree with the contract agreement. The farmer admits to re-using seed that he agreed not to by entering into contract. I don't see a case of cross pollination here, just a farmer breaking a legal contract.

Piracy is illegal.

This article simply states that Monsanto is suing to protect its patents. Patent law requires you to do this or your patent risks being dissolved.

Again, nothing to do with cross pollination. If you disagree with the patent system, go after the respective countries and their governing bodies. It's unfair to single out Monsanto, companies in every single industry file suits to protect their patents or else, as stated previous, you can risk losing your patent.

None of those links contain evidence of Monsanto suing a farmer for cross pollination.

Again, show me a farmer sued by Monsanto for cross pollination.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I can prove it. Unfortunately due to legal restrictions details are not being released.

But again watch Food Inc. A small farmer surrounded by Monsanto soy and grain had his fields tested by Monsanto, they claimed he was using THEIR seed because his crops now had the blueprint of Monsanto seed due to pollination from neighbouring farms. He was in danger of losing his farm via legal fees and Monsanto's basic carte blanche in the USA to appropriate crops and land found using their "product" without contract or payment.

The Onus is NOT on me to prove anything, if you're curious it is on YOU to see if what people are saying is true or not. I tend to try posting things based on fact or what I have seen and observed. People who want to learn will find basis in fact via research. People who want to argue will ask for proof via links and then back up their own claims with Wikipedia.

There is a reason whole countries are boycotting companies like Monsanto up to and including farmers in Hungary burning their fields because Monsanto tried to appropriate land in the same manner.

Also, I provided links, I provided a basis of fact, it is up to you to dispute.

The end result and bottom line as per the OP is that corporations have indeed made TED Talks a little less credible

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just gave you MULTIPLE examples.

I am sorry, you're one of those people who will take what he asked for call it biased and then demand more. And I for one refuse to continue engaging with this nonsense. You want something, you got it, take it and run as there is a dozen examples right there.

The "piracy" quoted is that cross pollination has lead to crops containing a Monsanto owned blueprint. It is right here but you call it biased so it's not going to matter what I post because it won't be good enough for you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.