GMO Makers, Their Puppets in Academia, and The New York Times

Monsanto et al Mislead Public Using Every Trick in the Book

GMO scarecrow in cornfield. Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Gareth Williams / Flickr, David Prasad / Flickr
Reading Time: 7 minutes

With a debate raging over whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe, it seems reasonable that people would look toward the media, academia and scientists for answers. But major biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Dow know this, too, and seem to be engaged in an effort to rig the results.

GMOs are produced by recombinant DNA technology. How it works sounds like science fiction, or something out of a horror movie. Imagine: Genes from an insecticide are inserted into the genome of the corn plant, thus producing a crop that resists insects. The insecticide is made from the protein of a bacteria closely related to anthrax, and it works by making the guts of the insect explode.

Critics, such as the Center for Food Safety, say that GMOs are insufficiently tested and may be dangerous. There are high-profile campaigns in three Western states to label GMOs as such, so that consumers can know what they are buying and eating. At the same time, food businesses have been scrambling to ban, or remove, the warning labels.

Are GMOs dangerous? For answers to such questions, we normally turn to reputable scientists associated with reputable universities. Surely we can trust them to give us objective information. Or can we? It turns out that biotech heavyweights like Monsanto, Bayer et al have been paying reputable people from reputable institutions to swing the debate in their favor.

A treasure trove of emails — obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by a US non-profit and acquired by The New York Times — reveals that academia is infested with professors who are paid to vigorously promote GMOs on behalf of the biotech industry, which also includes trade associations such as CropLife America.

And some academics have even sabotaged the efforts of others to publish facts that contradict the claims of these professorial shills for GMOs.

“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.”

But to learn how deep the problem goes, you would need to find the links to those emails, and dig through layer upon layer of them.

Of course, if you don’t have time for that, you always can rely on The New York Times to give you the low-down on Big Food’s propaganda efforts. Or can you? The Times — whose motto is “All The News That’s Fit to Print” — has published a curiously tame and seriously incomplete version of what is buried in those emails.

“Fit to Print”

On September 6, The New York Times website ran “Food Industry Enlisted Academics in GMO Lobbying War, Emails Show”, by Eric Lipton. The print edition featured a further watered-down headline: “Emails Reveal Academic Ties in a Food War.”  The emails themselves are presented only in the electronic version of the paper in a sidebar.”

1At first sight, the Lipton article is impressive. He exposes a number of individuals from various institutions, but focuses mainly on Kevin Folta — Chair of the Department of Horticulture at the University of Florida.

Folta secretly took expenses, and $25,000 of unrestricted money, from Monsanto to promote GMO crops. And Lipton reports a damning quote showing Folta’s close relationship with Monsanto, something he had previously denied:

“I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment,” Folta wrote after receiving the $25,000 check.

Lipton also mentions Folta’s participation, with other academics, in a website run by the biotech industry, GMO Answers. A PR firm hired by the industry provided questions from the public, such as, “Do GMOs cause cancer?”

But, as Lipton reports, Ketchum, the PR firm, did more than provide the questions — it also provided answers which Folta used nearly verbatim.

No Scientific Misconduct?

In the scientific community, none of this was exactly news. The basic facts had already been revealed in a leading scientific journal, Nature, by Keith Kloor, who also had access to the emails.

It is odd that this was first reported by Kloor, a pro-biotech journalist who works for a pro-biotech publisher. Or perhaps not so odd, given that Kloor went on to state that the emails “do not suggest scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta” — even after Folta was on record as denying he had received any biotech funding.

Not disclosing such funding is definitely considered scientific misconduct. So why did Kloor rush to exonerate him?

Was Kloor’s story a pre-emptive strike to defuse the issue of wider biotech corruption of academia? Was Lipton’s?

Damage Control?

The damning emails originally came to light earlier this year, when a newly-formed activist group called US Right to Know (USRTK) set in motion Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests directed at 14 (now 43) prominent public-university scientists. These academics were suspected of working with (and being paid by) the biotech industry and/or its PR intermediaries. (The emails released via FOIA — reputedly totalling in the tens of thousands — are the source of Kloor’s and Lipton’s highly selective reporting.)

One might think that if these 43 scientists had nothing to hide, such a request would have generated little attention outside academia.

In fact, the FOIA requests from USRTK triggered a huge outcry in various quarters about the “harassment” of public scientists. This led to op-eds in the LA Times, the controversial removal of scientific blog posts defending USRTK, and much else besides.

What would a good PR company recommend to its clients in such a situation? Preempt the upcoming firestorm: Have various media outlets run ahead of USRTK to publish a version in which small-fry like Kevin Folta are the villains. This lets other, more prominent players, off the hook.

So, if that was the strategy of the food industry and its allies, what exactly were they trying to hide?

Not “Fit to Print”

Here are just a few examples of what you would never guess — from reading The New York Times — is going on.

• Gates Foundation Funds Cornell University Training of GMO Spokespersons

Heavily involved in this project are senior members of the university’s administration, such as Ronnie Coffman, Director of Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Science, and Sarah Evanega Davidson, now director of the Cornell Alliance for Science, who were funded (to the tune of $5.6 million) by the Gates Foundation.

The Alliance is a PR project and international training center created for the promotion of GMOs with various events, such as their “Ask Me Anything” panels held at universities around the country. This was an idea originally pitched by Kevin Folta to Monsanto over a year earlier. Among the speakers invited by the Alliance to Cornell in September were Tamar Haspel (The Washington Post) and Amy Harmon (The New York Times).

• A Dirty Trick to Destroy an Opponent

A group of pro-GMO scientists colluded with the editor of a prestigious journal in hatching a plot to destroy the credibility of Russian scientist and GMO critic, Irina Ermakova. Her discoveries on the harmful effects of feeding GM soy to rats had caused a great deal of concern to the biotech industry.

First, Andrew Marshall, the editor of the journal, Nature Biotechnology, invited her to answer a set of questions about her work, giving her the impression this would be ”her” article. She was even sent a dummy proof with her name on it. But what he actually published was something else: Her comments, followed by a critique by scientists with no expertise in her specialized field, who tore apart her work using self-serving logic.

They replaced most of her references with those chosen to bolster their own case — falsely creating the impression she had no data to support her claims and no agreement among other specialists. Ermakova was neither told of the critique nor offered a chance to answer it, which would have been standard.

The scientists involved: Bruce Chassy, Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois. (As reported by

The New York Times article referenced earlier, he was also heavily involved in an effort to persuade the Environmental Protection Agency to drop its proposal to tighten the regulation of pesticides used on insect-resistant seeds). Vivian Moses (Professor Emeritus, King’s College, UK), Val Giddings (Senior Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation) and Alan McHughen (Professor, University of California, Riverside).

• Monsanto’s Ventriloquism Through 3000 Non-Existent Scientists

Professor C.S. Prakash (Tuskegee University) is the convener of the influential listserv AgBioWorld — the all-important conduit for a petition signed by 3000 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.

• Monsanto Manipulates American Association for the Advancement of Science

Nina Fedoroff (Pennsylvania State University) is the most prominent of the scientists referenced in The New York Times story. She was the 2011–2012 President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. During her presidency, Fedoroff, who is also a contributor to the Times, used her position to coordinate and sign a letter on behalf of 60 prominent scientists. This letter — which was based on disinformation about the risks of biotechnology — was sent to the EPA as part of an effort to defeat the expansion of their regulatory powers over the biotech industry.

The real coordinator was Monsanto, but Fedoroff participated in phone conferences and email exchanges with them — and the prominent lobbyist Stanley Abramson — and she gets credit in the emails for “moving the ball far down the field.”

• Money from the Biotech Industry to University of Florida

Kevin Folta’s home base, the University of Florida, received over $10 million from Syngenta; over $10 million from DuPont; over $1 million from BASF, and over $1 million from Monsanto. What did they get in return?

Label GMO Foods, Label GMO Professors

Folta rarely acted alone. Emails reveal that his networks are filled with economists, molecular biologists, plant pathologists, development specialists, and agronomists. Their role was to repel legislative, media, and scientific threats to the GMO and pesticide industries — all the while keeping their industry links hidden.

As one of them wrote, “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.”

In view of all of the above, it does not seem unreasonable to want GMO foods to be labeled as such. And perhaps the academics who speak for them should also be labeled.

Jonathan R. Latham, PhD is Co-founder and Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project; Editor of the Independent Science News website. He holds a Masters degree in Crop Genetics and a PhD in Virology, and was a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison. He has published papers in disciplines as diverse as plant ecology, plant virology and genetics. “The Twin Research Debate in American Criminology” (2015); “Transcomplementation and Synergism in Plants: Implications for Viral Transgenes?” (2008); “Transformation-induced Mutations in Transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety Implications” (2006).

Related front page panorama photo credit: Puppets on strings (Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Louish Pixel / Flickr).

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.


28 responses to “GMO Makers, Their Puppets in Academia, and The New York Times”

  1. 海味批發 says:


    […]please stop by the internet sites we stick to, which includes this a single, as it represents our picks in the web[…]

  2. Title

    […]that is the end of this report. Right here you’ll obtain some web-sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the hyperlinks over[…]

  3. Brad says:

    Only 25 comments after being published 6 months ago speaks volumes towards the content of this article.

  4. (Comment by reader @Summer_Burkes) stellar reporting by @whowhatwhy. #neverforget GMO-fed pigs give birth to bags of water

  5. editorsteve says:

    The system is clearly broken — but not just by corporate interests. Most junk science is indeed corporate-funded, but that is simply because companies have so much money to spend. I’ve been following corrupt research “against” all flame retardants, for instance. (Some of the retardants, most notably the already banned brominated “penta” and “octa,” transform to bad actors as they degrade in landfills… and that has been used to get people afraid of exposure to the entire class of chemicals, even before they have a chance to transform.)

    On GMOs, the issue to me is disarmingly simple. Age-adjusted incidents of food allergies and auto-immune diseases like asthma, lupus, various skin ailments and arthritis are increasing, even as air and water pollution, contaminants in water supplies, and use of persistent pesticides have all been in long-term decline since the 1970s. Some of that is due to better reporting and to over-medication, but the increase is so broad and so large that something is probably at fault in the food supply.

    “GMO-free” labeling is here and expanding, but what we really need to track effects of GMOs in the general population is detailed GMO labeling. Most people can probably ingest most GMOs perfectly safely, because nature has been randomly inserting rogue DNA into genomes since, well, since DNA became the basis for life on this planet. But I’d like to be sure, gene splice by gene splice. And if, for instance, a certain type of modification (we know that some people are indeed allergic to BT) has a subtle effect, good labeling will help us detect the effect.

    Plenty of science writers understand this, and understand that GMO crops can produce real environmental and cost benefits (although not as many as the GMO producers suggest…). But how does one explain Jane Brody’s mindlessly corrupt and stupid defense of labeling bans in the NYT last June ( if not by skillful PR work or corrupting payments?

  6. Kānāwai Māmalahoe says:

    Hawaii sees the impacts four times faster as global GMO/Pesticide ground zero. Monsanto paid Folta to fly to Kauai and testify against a bill for pesticide/GMO buffer zones, they still lost, they paid the most in history in propaganda to avoid tests in Maui and they still lost, they sued to overturn laws the people could not…now they are trying to hide in the DARK, we must hold elected representatives responsible and vote out those who pass a law to avoid GMO labels and tests or bans, the Orwellian SAFE aka DARK act is also against the tenth amendment of the constitution.

    • Paul Dell says:

      Small wonder that native Hawaiians seek to have the US government removed from their soil! Please stay vigilant and know that we intruders on the big continent support your efforts!

  7. Paul Dell says:

    Why should we be surprised? Chemical companies have been allowed to do as they please for a century. The ‘fact’ that they generally made non-consumables let them slip through the cracks until it was shown how they can kill by the side-effects of manufacturing alone. Dow still sells amazing volumes of styrofoam products specifically for food industry usage in spite of knowing the product was never to come in contact with hot foods due to instantly suffering surface melt releasing solvents into the food.
    It’s incredible we are all alive!

  8. Thomas Baldwin says:

    Jonathan Latham is one of 300 “scientists” that believe there is no consensus on GMO safety, disregards several entire scientific organizations, including AAAS, NAS, and AMA.

    Also, at least 75 of the 300 supposed “scientists” have zero publications.

    • TopherX says:

      576 pro-GMO comments eh? Most actual people have a variety of interests.

    • Good ad hominem attack. Very special.

    • TopherX says:

      Hey is someone has an honest argument to make then by all means I’d love to hear it. But if you are paid by a PR company to troll anti-GMO articles and attack the credibility of the writer, then you deserved to be called out for it.

    • TopherX says:

      Go check out their Disqus profile.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      So what, I’m a busy scientist and I don’t have time to comment on anything that doesn’t directly block world changing technologies. Which is why I comment on climate change and genetic engineering.

    • ragecry says:

      Scientists don’t troll GMO threads and websites, they have actual work to do and families to spend time with. You don’t seem very busy. Nice try though.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Do you have an actual point to make? Because you haven’t brought any real ones up in any of your posts. I mean any of them. Not a single one.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Scroll down you’ll see my pro-climate change comments.
      Now if you’ll excuse me, I have science to do.

    • ragecry says:

      The science of masturbation?

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Well I’m engineering something you’re eating. You define what that is.

    • ragecry says:

      Seems like that “science” isn’t keeping you very busy, so now you’re an “engineer”, but still posting obscure comments on the internet? I’m calling your bluff little troll. Your agenda is made obvious by the character attack you tried to pull. Pathetic attempt.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      You can’t call a bluff with out putting chips on the table. Yes, my research involves recombinant DNA, therefore, it takes engineering to make the gene function. Then, I do science confirm the function of that gene.

      The science and articles and labwork is just the stuff I do on 99% of the time I’m not confronting you.

    • ragecry says:

      What the fu##? You can’t even form sentences properly.

      99% of the time you’re confronting me? You mean the two or three comments I’ve made total?

      Let’s see some of your “science” and “articles” and “labwork”.

    • I wrote an article about the scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. Apparently, all the scientists were bought off by Monsanto. Or something.

      This is why almost all of the scientific community think that GMO deniers are exactly the same as climate change deniers…ignore science, cherry pick what they think is “real” science, use appeals to authority and conspiracy, and go for the ad hominem attacks.

      Left-wing science deniers are no different than right-wing science deniers. Except that I generally expect more out of fellow progressives.

    • razorjack says:

      More false equivalency arguments. GMOs and climate change are only remotely connected and many GMO critics are very concerned about climate change.

      The truth is out and we are all seeing how our academic, scientific, and governmental institutions are being corrupted, captured and compromised by the corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science cult ideology that must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.

      The industry keeps running their PR script driven shills into these discussions to try and disrupt the dissemination of the truth.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Nothing illustrates better the equivalency of anti-science fanatics then your statement.

      “The truth is out and we are all seeing how our academic, scientific, and governmental institutions are being corrupted, captured and compromised by the corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science cult ideology that must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.”

      Replace GMO pesticide industry .. with .. Global warming alarmists and you have your climate denier argument.

      You either agree with the major scientific organization AAAS, NAS, AMA, … ect on climate change, vaccines, genetic engineering safety, ect with a scientific consensus


      You’re a merchant of doubt.

    • SeaKat says:

      To tell the whole story: ”

      Let’s look more closely at the positions of the organisations that reportedly say GMOs are safe.

      American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

      In 2012 the board of the AAAS, headed by GMO promoter Nina Fedoroff, issued a statement claiming GM was “safe” and opposing the labeling of GM foods, which it said “can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers”.

      However, the board’s statement was promptly condemned by 21 scientists, including many members of the AAAS,
      as “an Orwellian argument that violates the right of consumers to make
      informed decisions”. The scientists warned in particular that the
      herbicides with which GMOs are grown “may induce detrimental health
      effects even at low exposure levels”.

      American Medical Association (AMA)

      The AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health has issued a statement opposing GMO labeling. The statement does not claim GMOs are safe.
      It acknowledges “a small potential for adverse events… due mainly to
      horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity”. It therefore
      recommends mandatory safety assessments prior to release of GM foods – a
      system which, as the statement said, is not in place in the US.

      The US National Academies of Science (NAS)

      The NAS has not issued any blanket claims of GMO safety. It did issue
      a report in which it analysed a range of plant breeding techniques and concluded
      that GM posed a higher risk of introducing unintended changes into food
      than any other crop breeding method other than mutation breeding – a method in which plant genomes are bombarded with radiation or chemicals to induce mutations.”

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Hmm.. someone can copy paste from gmwatch. Find me the NAS quote and I will eat my hat.

      How about these blanket claims

      NRC 1989 “no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modifcation of plants and microorganism by classic methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes”


      “Crops modified by molecular and cellular methods should pose riks no different from those modified by classical genetic methods for similar traits. As the molecular methods are more specific, users of these methods will be more certain about the traits they introduce into the plants (NRC 1987, 3)

    • Mugly Wumple says:

      I’m no biologist. I don’t understand how “classical” methods could modify a plant such that it contains the DNA of a bacteria. Could you please explain?

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Sure, take the sequences from any gene family and compare across kingdoms and you’ll see that Horizontal gene transfer is evident and wide spread.

      Then consider that the genetic code is universal and that we can engineer genes to function in any organisms exactly the same way across.

      Now consider the fact that I can do this much faster and cheaper than ever before.

      Try to consider the fact that in five years after beating Morse’s law by 3 fold in our sequencing and engineering capacity.

      The inevitable is that genetic engineering will out perform in every aspect.

      Thanks for consider, now I have some engineering to do.

    • Mugly Wumple says:

      I see. So “classically” we have employed horizontal gene transfer to produce the features we want in a creature as well as traditional breeding. I didn’t know that. I’d think the results of any guided horizontal gene transfer would be terribly unpredictable.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Yes. Sweet potatoes. All of the cultivated sweet potatoes contain DNA from Agrobacterium. Our gardening mother accidentally selected for strains containing the Agrobacterium, but the results are the same.

      Yes. It is highly imprecise, but acceptable. However, our genetic engineering methods very precise and future technology will give us editing capacity of a single base pair within 4 -6 billion base pairs.

    • Mugly Wumple says:

      Then how come no one ever came up with a glowing rabbit using classical methods? I get that natural gene transfer offers the possibility of a glowing rabbit, but realistically, it’s nigh impossible. GM makes the nigh impossible possible. Frankly, my opposition to GM is how it has been utilized and abused, not in its possibilities.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      The GFP rabbit(s) (there have been many to answer individual
      questions) don’t “glow”, they fluoresce under UV light. They have been produced to track individual proteins, which has given us undeniable insight into disease like Alzheimer’s, to narcolepsy and blindness. We can do this because we know the sequence of GFP from jelly fish and that if we attach the sequence to our desired protein we can track the movement and function.

      Our predictability and testing comprises our cumulative scientific knowledge. I don’t think you are against this utilization that gave us great insight despite the fact that
      it is not “natural”.

      Would you then consider sweet potato’s natural? None of the wild varieties contain the
      agrobacterium DNA. They have become transformed and only the way for them to
      exist is through the selectiveness of agriculture, which has always been
      removed from nature.

      I’d love to have a more in-depth conversation with you. You can
      voice to me your concern, as I am part of a research process to develop crops (some
      of which use genetic engineering solutions) your concerns are my concerns.

    • Joshua says:

      So, entire countries that ban GMOs are basing their decisions on speculation or just opinion or maybe it’s the science.… The science isn’t settled especially when “we are all seeing how our academic, scientific, and governmental institutions are being corrupted, captured and compromised”…well put Razorjack…the conflict of interests, the Corporatocracy is running rampant in the Once Great United States. Every Federal Regulatory sector is corrupt…it’s
      very simple.
      90% of all peer-reviewed scientific journals are owned by 6
      corporations, whose board members & editors have ties to BigPharma & BigAgra..This mirrors our major network medias…. 6 corporations own all networks, existing board members have ties to BigPharma and the majority shareholders of these Networks are BigPharma. As I say, “What, did you think Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc
      run all those pharmaceutical adds just for advertising revenue??….These
      Networks don’t have a choice in the matter, LOL”
      Top CDC Scientists state that the CDC committed scientific fraud regarding a DOJ-ordered Safety Study concerning the MMR vaccine. There are whistleblowers coming forward from the FDA, the EPA, about fraud. Over 30,000 accredited scientists from around the World have signed a petition against the so-called scientific consensus regarding climate change. These 30,000-plus scientists don’t disagree that the climate changes, It’s the model that’s the issue.
      Think people….Wake up!…Stop being asleep like sheep…..If you’re a paid shill, get a new job.

    • razorjack says:

      Maybe you should read the article we are commenting on.

    • razorjack says:

      Maybe you should read the article we are commenting on.

    • TZ says:

      While some scientists—often with ties to the chemical, biotech, and seed industries—claim that there is a scientific consensus on GMOs, there are many who disagree.

    • TZ says:

      There is no scientific consensus concerning GMO safety!

    • ragecry says:

      Skeptical Raptor, nobody gives a crap about your website, where you cry anonymously over ad hominem attacks in nearly every comment, and have a whole section of “Logical Fallacies” devoted to your own inability to have a conversation. That, and long winded articles about nothing. Keep churning out the same crap Jon Entine would be proud of, and better leave that donation sign up because it sounds like your Biology degree “from a top US research university” and your Biochemistry/Endocrinology degree “from a major US research university” isn’t paying the bills. Which one did you prefer – the TOP or the MAJOR university?

    • Comments editor says:

      According to your website -‘My areas of expertise are in medicine and science’.
      Could you please state your credentials ?

    • ragecry says:

      Skeptical Raptor, nobody gives a crap about your website, where you cry anonymously over ad hominem attacks in nearly every comment, and have a whole section of “Logical Fallacies” devoted to your own inability to have a conversation. That, and long winded articles about nothing. Keep churning out the same crap Jon Entine would be proud of.

    • Comments editor says:

      If you are indeed a scientist, you will be aware that the author holds academic degrees (including Ph.D) in Plant Science, Crop Genetics, and Virology. You will also be familiar, no doubt, with his papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

      Whether you agree with the author’s opinions or not, please maintain a civilized tone when commenting on this forum.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Please demonstrate how my tone is not civil. Are you implying this because I didn’t refer to Dr. Latham? This doesn’t convey a disrespect unless I purposefully call him “Mr. Latham”. Which, I do not.

    • Comments editor says:

      You referred to the author as a “scientist”, as opposed to referring to him as a scientist.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      Apologies. Perhaps I didn’t write this clear enough to make the distinction. I was referring to the list of “scientist”, which include veterinarians, medical doctors, natural pathic individuals that had not published a single scientific article.

    • Comments editor says:

      This contributor subsquently acknowledged that the author is a scientist as opposed to a “scientist”.

    • Thomas Baldwin says:

      acknowledgement, acknowledged.

  9. PecosinRat says:

    Dr. Latham, there are lots of “alex”s in the world, some of them undoubtedly paid by Bivens or Monsanto to post nonsense. Thank you for your efforts here. It was an extremely informative read!

  10. alex says:

    oh now i see mr Jonathan R. Latham, PhD you’re funded with money funneled and laundered through nonprofit, so there’s no tracing who give you funds, lol you think you’re a clever [PROFANITY DELETED] aren’t you

  11. alex says:

    this sort of reporting is why people shouldn’t smoke crack