haro von mogel 2
==
accidently forgottern , remembered
https://kfolta.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-am-i-missing.html?m=1
no lnx pix of him smile in lab w/ baby plants
Monday, February 4, 2019
What Am I Missing?
I humbly ask this question. What am I missing?
Tonight I read the press release for the AAAS about the 2019 Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award, going to two Sri Lankan physicians / researchers that apparently confirmed a deadly causal connection between a kidney disease (Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Origin; CKDu) and the herbicide glyphosate. Congrats, congrats!
Wow, I must have missed this. Certainly a concrete link would be big news, and if AAAS is awarding someone for this research it must have been a prominent publication. But I scan the literature almost daily and never saw this.
The names of the awardees seemed strangely familiar. Then it hit me... this was the 2014 paper where they looked at hard water consumption in Sri Lanka and then suggested a tie between CKDu, heavy metals and glyphosate. The paper presented a hypothesis. There were no data. There were no experiments. It was a decent hypothesis that could be tested.
At the time the anti-ag-chemistry world lit up in celebration. Finally they had the smoking gun. I remember this vividly-- only there was no smoke, there was no gun. It was a hypothesis to test. These folks don't actually read the papers.
This paper, presenting a hypothesis only, was sufficient to spark a ban of glyphosate in 2015, a move that drew criticism because the ban occurred in the absence of data. Later, reputable scientists would add that the ban threatened food security as farmers were stripped of a helpful agricultural tool, based on a hunch.
The Sri Lankan National Academy of Science made clear statements on the associations, stating that the "research is not conclusive" and "We are not aware of any scientific evidence form studies in Sri Lanka or abroad showing that CKDu is caused by glyphosate."
The same organization also notes no association between CKDu and cancer, which we'd expect if the herbicide was causing both diseases as some claim.
[pix]
Lethal herbicides? I'm not aware of evidence that supports this conclusion. What's up AAAS?
The researchers are obviously passionate about identifying the source of the problem in this region. An examination of their later work shows a dedicated inquiry into heavy metals and pesticides that occur in drinking water in agricultural areas, and their association with CKDu. They also look at the flip side and how access to clean water improves health outcomes. That alone is deserving of some recognition. I also think they would agree with me that the AAAS website was not accurately representing their conclusions.
Many researchers, including these authors, have examined the connections to heavy metals, particularly arsenic and cadmium (including this work that shows cadmium dose-response), which are present in high levels in CKDu endemic areas, and arise from application of fertilizers and pesticides.
Their follow up paper added a correlation to the hypothesis by actually examining heavy metals and glyphosate in the urine of a relatively small number of subjects (10 ill, 10 asymptomatic, 10 from another area). Their conclusion was, "Although we could not localize a single nephrotoxin as the culprit for SAN (Sri Lankan Agricultural Nephropathy), multiple heavy metals and glyphosate may play a role in pathogenesis."
A case-control study (self-reported health factors) by the same authors in a CKDu-endemic hospital also found statistical associations with application of several different herbicides and insecticides. There also was association with exposure to a variety of heavy metals in drinking water, especially from abandoned wells. The authors note that the majority of those answering questions were farmers who don't use personal protective equipment when spraying pesticides. I'm not surprised that they'd have higher levels in their urine. Again, the authors were correct in noting the limitations of the study.
Across all work, these authors rely on statistical associations between agricultural inputs, heavy metals, and CKDu, and a hypothetical "Compound X" that could bind heavy metals and transport them to the kidneys. They suggested that glyphosate would fit the bill and build survey data that support that association. Cool. Again, a great hypothesis to test, but we have to be careful with interpretations.
The caption says "deadly herbicide called glyphosate" -- again, what am I missing here?
This where AAAS oversteps the data, referring to the herbicide as lethal and deadly. C'mon AAAS. If this was Natural News, Green Med Info, The Food Babe, or any other kooky khemistree website then I might understand. They've been searching to vilify ag chemistries for decades.
But this is AAAS. I'm a member.I'm always in awe at the awardees for their much deserved recognition.
These authors see a problem in these agricultural regions and are searching for a cause. Certainly publishing such a hypothesis could bring lots of criticism to the researchers, as well as derision from farmers that rely on agricultural chemistry. However, I'm not sure how this situation jumps from a statistical association to hard conclusions that rewrite agricultural policy and toxicology-- especially when so many heavy metals levels are also high and associate with the disease (in the same authors' findings).
How does the Sri Lanka situation fit into the wider picture? We have to remember that Sri Lanka is not the only place that uses glyphosate and there is no reputable mention of CKDu in other populations studied. There also is the incongruence between this report and other reports on the herbicide's potential as a physiologically relevant heavy metal shuttle at levels found in drinking water. Other analyses of CKDu do not support their hypothesis.
CKDu sufferers are not reported to also be stricken with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, which a jury of my peers says should be the case.
Despite all of the questions and shortcomings, we really need to object to the AAAS conclusions of "lethal" and "deadly".
Or they must have some information I don't have.
Or does the emperor wear no clothes?
The bottom line is that the associations are not clear, the experiments to demonstrate strong links are difficult to do, and the multi-factorial nature and genetic/environmental overlays will make such conclusions difficult to discern. That has been the conclusion of others as well.
This will be a very interesting discussion. I'm glad to stand corrected here. But I'm afraid that our most esteemed scientific organization just elevated a testable hypothesis to "fact" and I'll spend a lot of time over the next year explaining that the data are just not there (at least at this point) to support that conclusion.
at February 04, 2019
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Newer PostOlder PostHome
Hey Goofballs, Science is Not a Popularity Contest
Allegations of Threats
Over the last week the trolls are back, and polluting social media with more anti-Folta nonsense. I won't even touch on it. Nobody ha...
no lnx
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness" -
Sunday, May 23, 2021
Allegations of Threats
Over the last week the trolls are back, and polluting social media with more anti-Folta nonsense.
I won't even touch on it. Nobody has looked at it, nobody really cares. It gets few likes, retweets, etc., and those that do show some love to the filth are in the defamation network. It's dead.
But sadly I need to always play defense. Now that these allegations are forever placed in findable space, I must reluctantly respond. I teach students, I work with kids, I lead community initiatives, and when someone claims that I'm issuing "threats" I unfortunately have to provide my perspective.
First, Carey Gillam. She tweeted this, this week:
Carey is one of very few people on my "do not Heimlich" list. She is one person that I believe is truly evil, and takes pleasure in harming others. When I begged her to leave my family out of some online slander, she doubled down and went after someone very close to me. I appealed to her as a mother and a human being to please just stop-- but she dialed it up. She is a monster.
Over the last decade she has trashed my work, made false claims about me and my motivations, and has been generally horrible. She is paid by USRTK, the organization sponsored by industry to endlessly harass me, so she gets a paycheck to post defamation like the above. That's her job.
If she had "bizarre and oddly threatening emails" from me she would have posted them, or paraded them around the internet.
And if I would have made threats, they would have been very much deserved.
Threat Capacity
I'm not one to make threats. I'm a diplomat. We work things out. However, I am one to describe the constellation of outcomes if a given path is taken. Big difference. By talking about "here's what happens if..." is an important point for me to present to others.
I make no threats, and nothing I say could ever be remotely construed as a personal threat-- like physical harm or unfair retribution. I don't have that gear. Frankly, I wish the trolls would leave me alone, and I ignore them for the most part.
Where It Started
This week a story emerged online about how Karl Haro Von Mogel claimed that I threatened him in a 39-page psycho complaint to my University's Dean for Teaching.
Think about this. If someone were to threaten you in a non-work related context, legitimately, would you run crying to their employer?
Karl does this because he knows that there are no legitimate threats from an ethical or legal perspective, and people that know me, and know him, understand that I don't operate that way. They see what he has done to cause me personal and professional harm, along with stark personal betrayal, and understand that I probably am justified in feeling a little prickly towards him. I just ignored him until his wild complaint package surfaced.
But universities are extremely risk averse and must take all claims very seriously. That means universities can be exploited to do your dirty work, and trash the reputation of your target academic from within their institution.
At the same time my University Administration knows me better than anyone, and also knows the praise I receive for good work in teaching, service, research and outreach. They know a troll when they smell one.
The other major problem here is that the alleged threats were not communicated through a university email account or in my role as a professor at the university. I was a private citizen protecting my privacy and reputation, and discussions with Karl were personal and through non-work channels. Now von Mogel took it upon himself to drag in my employer and make his claims public, making my personal, private emails public without my knowledge or permission, or the courtesy a carbon copy. Shame.
He produced an email from me that contained this excerpt, interpreting it as a threat:
At the time, my personal property and files were being distributed to the internet, including the ever-hostile GM Watch for malicious and incorrect re-interpretation. I wanted to know how that material was getting out of my home and file cabinet, and I suspected he may be part of that pipeline. I already knew that he broke my confidentiality on some highly-sensitive work I was doing with a law firm and was meddling in my divorce by providing false statements to my ex-wife's attorney.
I simply told him, we can discuss this privately, or make it public, you pick. That's not a threat. This is me kindly offering to work it out together privately, rather than having it blow up publicly and have to explain it, like is happening here. I don't want to wreck the guy's future like he wants to wreck mine.
Keep in mind that this was several years ago. I just learned of this complaint last week (5/2021) when it went public, and if it didn't go internet-wide I would never have said anything publicly. They guy has enough problems and could still sort it out and be a good contributor.
But to accuse me of threats is something I must directly address.
He continues:
If it is false, then we can talk about it and sort it out. It was his refusal to discuss this important issue, and my need to get to the bottom of it that prompted my response. It was not "social blackmail", as proven by the fact that he did not discuss it with me and I kept quiet-- I never made it public until now, when his complaint became public.
The next "double down" on "threats" was:
[x]
This was after Karl reported me to a professional conference for violating the Code of Conduct, simply because I requested a meeting with him on how we were going to complete a project that was crowdfunded with >$13,000 of public money, where he dropped the ball and my name was attached to it. I had every right to be angry, and I wasn't. I just wanted to formulate a plan out of the mess, together.
My reputation was on the line and I wanted a resolution. I either wanted a plan forward or was going to disconnect from the work very publicly in an act of self-preservation.
Luckily he kicked me off of the project, along with lots of other people that did the analysis on my end, and did so very publicly, so I didn't have to do anything.
Is it a Threat?
The point is simple. These are not threats-- these are IF/THEN statements where I spelled out our options to completing a project or resolving a difference. I always was gracious in offering to do things the easy way first, and avoiding escalation that does nobody any good.
That statement is shown to be true with time, as I did not receive a satisfactory solution that I asked for, and still never took the situation public. I didn't want to affect his career and possibilities like he wanted to do to me. I just let it disappear.
Until now. If the 39-page complaint didn't surface, then I would not have to state my explanation of the situation. He knows about FOIA and public records requests, he used that system anonymously to gather confidential documents of mine and distribute them. He absolutely knew that he was planting a seed that would be discovered later and play a critical role in his malicious targeting.
Again
If you have questions, ask me. The situation is super unfortunate and my guess is that the other parties involved wish they had a do-over. It makes them look amazingly sad and petty. Rather than accepting an invitation in a private email (these were from my personal account, not subject to FOIA, and had nothing to do with university business) to resolve a difference with me personally, they run to conferences and my university administration and claim "threats".
And now this long-forgotten annoyance has become very public, not by me, I'm busy working and teaching science.
And I want to keep doing that. These kinds of accusations do nothing to help me teach others as they are designed to harm my reputation.
Which means I now need to work even harder at producing good media and better outreach. Good. I needed a little fire to refocus my efforts in positive ways.
I hope he finds his.
Dissecting the Dr. Dan Stock Video
One of the saddest parts of the pandemic is the number of trained physicians that have divorced themselves from their training and exploit t...
Global News, Rachel Parent, and a Deliberate Hit Piece
I remember going back to Chicago to visit my father just before Christmas in 2015. The previous months had been brutal, and I was finally ...
LI scrape 12/15
mogel LI
Camille (Cami) D. Ryan
Steven Savage
Consultant, Blogger, Speaker
Jay Byrne
President at v-Fluence -- New media and research driven public affairs, issues management and strategy support.
Kevin Folta
Professor and Chair
Anastasia Bodnar
Plant genetics and science communication
German Muttoni
Corn Line Development Breeder at Monsanto
Özlem Vardi Özkirmizi
--
Elliot Heffner
Research Scientist at Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc
L. Val Giddings
Senior Fellow at Information Technology & Innovation Foundation
==
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php/news/archive/2014/15367-meet-the-plush-gmo-mascot-frank-n-foode
==
Watch the Cato GMO Forum
by Karl Haro von Mogel on 25 June 2013
Earlier this month, Jon Entine, Kevin Folta, and I traveled to Washington D.C. to talk about genetically engineered crops at the Cato Institute, in a forum titled,*Biotechnology: Feeding the World, or a Brave New World of Agriculture?* The forum, as many of you know, was intended to be a debate between those in favor of using the technology, and those who were against it, but at the last minute the anti-GMO debaters pulled out. So instead, I was invited to join Jon and Kevin to round out the numbers and talk about genetically engineered plants that many of you may not have heard about yet.
Jon, Kevin and I got together the night before the forum to go over our presentations and main points, and Anastasia[Bodnar] met up with us as well. It is nice to sit down and have dinner with people who you’ve known for years and talked about these issues extensively, and talk about where we want this discussion to go. I think there was a little contest to see who had the zaniest activist artwork to put in their presentations. And a little note – we didn’t know what the moderator was going to say or talk about, so keep that in mind when you watch the forum. Without any further ado, here it is!
I had a great time being part of this, and I hope that the three of us inspired a few people to learn more about this topic. What did you think? Feel free to comment below and ask questions. I know several people want to see some of our presentation slides, and we’re thinking about ways we can extend this presentation like that. Kevin and I also plotted and planned ways that we could include anti-biotech activists in planning and executing research into GMOs that we would publish together. This was tried in one form already, but we came up with some more ideas that we’ll develop and present down the road.
[jackie bodnar FW]
http://www.biofortified.org/2013/06/watch-the-cato-gmo-forum/
FOOD INDUSTRY ENLISTED ACADEMICS
Parts of this were already known, but Lipton digs up further damning evidence and quotes from Folta. They include an email to Monsanto that solidly contradicts Folta’s previous denials of a relationship with Monsanto and the biotech industry: “I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment,” Folta wrote after receiving the $25,000 check, thereby showing both a clear understanding of his role and the purpose of the money. The article goes on to similarly expose Bruce Chassy (Prof Emeritus, University of Illinois) and David Shaw (Mississippi State University). It also discussses, presumably for “balance”, agronomist and GMO critic Charles Benbrook, then at Washington State University, who unlike the others openly acknowledged his funding.
What Lipton Missed
But readers of the emails can find facts that are much more damaging to perceptions of academic independence than that contained in the main article. For one thing, the money Folta received is insignificant besides the tens of millions his university was taking from Syngenta (>$10million), Monsanto(>$1million), Pioneer (>$10million), and BASF (>$1million). Money that it’s hard to believe did not have a role in protecting Kevin Folta as he roamed zealously (and often offensively) over the internet, via his twitter account, blog, podcast, and OpEds, squelching dissent and ridiculing GMO critics wherever he went.
Also missing from the main Times article is a sense of the extensive and intricate networking of a small army of academics furthering the interests of Monsanto and other parts of the chemical, agribusiness and biotech industries. Folta rarely acted alone. His networks are filled with economists, molecular biologists, plant pathologists, development specialists, and agronomists, many of them much more celebrated than Kevin Folta, but all of them in a knowing loop with industry and the PR firms. Their job was acknowledged openly in emails (“We are all bad-ass shills for the truth. It’s a pleasure shilling with you.” Or, as Folta himself put it: “I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like.”).More generally, the group’s role was to initiate academic publications and other articles and to firefight legislative, media and scientific threats to the GMO and pesticide industries, all the while keeping their industry links hidden.
The academics identified by these emails as cooperating with industry and PR firms include:
Profs. Bruce Chassy (University of Illinois) and Alan McHughen (University of California, Riverside) who worked together to destroy the credibility of Russian scientist and GMO critic Irina Ermakova. They persuaded the journal Nature Biotechnology to interview Ermakova about her research and describe it. This interview was followed by a detailed critique of her research (about which none of the authors were expert). Ermakova was neither told of the critique nor given a chance to answer it. This whole elaborate subterfuge required her to be sent a dummy proof of the article she thought she was publishing in the journal.
Prof. Calestuous Juma (Harvard University) longtime advocate of GMOs for Africa.
Prof. Wayne Parrott (University of Georgia) a serial intervener in academic GMO debates.
Prof. Roger Beachy (Danforth Center, formerly USAID). Beachy is the principal living exponent of a classic biotech strategy: to respond rapidly to a report or publication critical of some aspect of the technology with a multi-author “rebuttal” [Disclaimer: the inaugural report of the Bioscience Resource Project (on the genome damage caused by genetic engineering) was met, even before formal publication, with both barrels from 23 professors, including Roger Beachy (Altpeter et al 2005)].(2)
Prof. Ron Herring (Cornell) who has helped to promote GMOs in India and fought to defuse the farmer suicide debate in India.
Prof. CS Prakash (Tuskegee University) is the convener of the influential listserv AgBioWorld. AgBioWorld was the all-important conduit for a petition signed by three thousand scientists calling for the retraction of a 2001 scientific paper showing GMO contamination of Mexican corn (Quist and Chapela 2001). As detailed in an article called The Fake Persuaders, the scientists who initiated the petition, and made inaccurate and inflammatory statements about the authors, were not real people. However, their emails could be traced back to servers belonging to Monsanto or Bivings, a PR company that was working with Monsanto at the time.
Prof. Nina Fedoroff (Penn State) is the most prominent of all of the scientists looped into all of the Times emails. Nina Fedoroff was the 2011-2012 President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AAAS is the foremost scientific body in the US. During her Presidency, Fedoroff, who is also a contributor to the NY Times, used her position to coordinate and sign a letter on behalf of 60 prominent scientists. This letter was sent to EPA as part of an effort to defeat a pesticide regulatory effort. The real coordinator was Monsanto but Fedoroff participated in phone conferences and email exchanges with them (including with the prominent lobbyist Stanley Abramson) and gets credit in the emails for “moving the ball far down the field”. Yet Nina Fedoroff is not once named in the main article and nowhere at all is her position noted.
So the story that academia’s most vocal GMO defenders, and some of its most prominent scientists, are copied into these emails is missing. The focus on individuals like Folta occludes a demonstration, for the first time ever, of long-suspected and intricate coordination and cooperation among them.
Also looped in to various of the emails are supposedly independent individuals and organisations who speak in favour of biotechnology, self-reportedly out of personal passion. These include Dr Steve Savage, Karl Haro von Mogel of Biofortified, Mischa Popoff (of the Heartland Institute) and Jon Entine (then affiliated with George Mason University and now head of the Genetic Literacy Project and a Forbes Magazine columnist). All are revealed, by the emails but not the article, as biotech insiders.
Cooperation among academics is not a crime. But these emails show, as in the EPA letter example, that a company (usually Monsanto, but also Dow and Syngenta and a PR firm, often several of them, plus sometimes the biotech lobbyists BIO or CropLife America) were invariably looped in to these emails, and further, that initiatives usually began with one of these non-academic entities, and were shepherded by them. Only rarely is there even a suggestion from the emails that the various academics were out in front, though that was always the intended impression of the result.
But perhaps the biggest of all revelations within these emails is the connivance of senior university administrators, especially at Cornell University. The NY Times article focuses on the misdeeds of Mississippi State University Vice President David Shaw. But, looped into one email string, along with the PR firm Ketchum and Jon Entine are various Cornell email addresses and names. These are ignored by Lipton, but the email addresses belong to very senior members of the Cornell administration. They include Ronnie Coffman (Director of Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Science) and Sarah Evanega Davidson (now director of the Gates-funded Cornell Alliance for Science).