By the way - I am a terrible sales person, but I have had a couple private inquires about how best to support my work. If you want to help support the journalism, a charitable donation to The New Lede
https://act.ewg.org/cXWUG66dJEeFKovViPxgpQ2 would be welcomed, no matter how small, just the sign of support is welcomed. And, of course, sharing the news, (and news tips with me) is always the best support!!!
Jul 28, 2022·edited Jul 28, 2022Liked by carey gillam
You go, Carey! Kevin Folta has been proven many times to be a tool of big ag and the chemical companies like Monsanto and Bayer. If anyone has doubts, about this, simply google him and you'll find a sordid history of his many misdeeds and questionable relationships even with his conjugal partner at one point. He is certainly a person with a a reputation for taking payments from chemical and GMO corporations and trying to hide or deny those facts.
A bunch of lobbyists and corporate PR lackies whipped up a smear campaign. People can see it for what it is. And, as I'm sure you know, it goes with the territory of standing up to power.
It’s sad and pathetic to see the agrochemical industry again resorting to tactics which sole purpose is to manufacture doubt. However, this does signal that the agrochemical industry is nervous that something could adversely impact their profits.
A similar clearly orchestrated event occurred when the Solicitor General recommended SCOTUS not hear the Hardeman appeal. We know how those efforts turned out.
If only we could see who’s actually greasing the wheels of this propaganda machine designed to defend and protect agrochemical profit by means of attacking perceived threats and manufacturing doubt. My guess - CropLife.
Folta, Entine, Kabat, and their respective affiliations (GLP, ACSH, etc.) are known propagandists. Pawns who sold out decades ago. Pay them no mind.
Propagandist? What did I write that is not factual, supported by the literature, and may be construed as "propaganda"? Propaganda is persuasive, often false, information designed to mislead to a particular political point of view. Apply that definition to my work and Gillam's work. Which one fits that definition better? Interested in your thoughts.
“ Glyphosate, according to the IARC, is less toxic than sunlight, cell phones, caffeine, table salt, and 10,000 times less of a risk for cancer as alcohol consumption.” - Kevin Folta
Kevin you asked -here’s an example where you are confusing Monsanto acute toxicity (LD50) comparisons with IARC carcinogenicity hazard assessments. Specifically in regard to table salt & caffeine. Why? In the context of carcinogenicity this isn’t factual nor is it’s carcinogenic comparison supported by IARC “literature” as you clearly tried to persuade with false and misleading information…
“But Ketchum [‘GMO Answers’ - funded by Monsanto, BAYER, BASF, Dow, DuPont] did more than provide questions, on several occasions it also gave Dr. Folta draft answers, which he the used nearly verbatim, a step that he now says was a mistake” - New York Times
Actually that's not true. When we were on the first GMO Answers conference call I asked abut the depth and scope of the answers they'd expect. I could write a book on any of the questions answered. They sent me ONE sample answer to one of the questions. It was damn good, but not 100% correct. So using their answer as a scaffold, I rewrote the answer so it was accurate. When Lipton blindsided me with the question for the hit piece, I didn't remember the details. But that's it! So the folks that make the claim that all answers were somehow generated by companies are lying through their teeth as usual. And best of all, I wrote 73 answers for GMO Answers without compensation, purely to educate. And those answers remain 100% correct a decade later.
Why did UF donate a Monsanto grant awarded to you to a food pantry? Seems odd. Oh and that was reported by the New York Times if I recall correctly. Didn’t you sue? And lose?
Because it was not a grant. It was a donation to the university they could use any way they please. Companies use boilerplate letters and don't understand how university accounting works sometimes. They made a no-strings-attached donation to the university, which the university used as they wished, which included stopping the threats against me, my family, and my lab. Diverting the donation was the first step.
I will have to go back and look at exact examples and will respond , but don’t worry, I mean what I say.
One problem with immediately citing examples of your Monsanto derived false narrative is the fact that I dismissed your stance, views, and regurgitated Monsanto rhetoric years ago once I realized you did not view science objectively nor independently. Thus no one takes your scientific views seriously, or in my case I just ignored you altogether.
Let me ask you this Professor….what information or credible material have brought to the Monsanto Roundup litigation? Have you testified in any hearings, court cases, or governmental inquiries? How about Entine & GLP? And why has none of Kabat’s epidemiological reviews made it one single courtroom?
And by the way, how many years were you a licensed commercial pesticide applicator - applying day in and day out? Wasn’t your dissertation on strawberry’s? GM strawberries? What does a classroom strawberry expert know about carcinogenicity?
To Entine’s credit he is an expert in marketing as that’s what he is. He’s a marketing guru for sale, but he, like you, lack true real world pesticide application experience and real world pesticide exposure knowledge. You and some of your UF buddy colleagues have done nothing more than what Monsanto told you to say and do to create a facade of independent science for Monsanto. A facade that backfired once your monetary connections to the company were identified and the resulting significant conflict of interest.
I'm a molecular biologist. I follow the interesting questions. The strawberry genome was a rubik's cube to me. Now that that's sorted out I'm working with designing new molecules for antibiotics and herbicides. Good times.
The roundup litigation still makes me wonder. I read the literature on glyphosate almost daily as it emerges, and my assessment matches that of every international regulatory agency that has reviewed it over the last 50 years- there is no special risk at normal exposure levels.
PROPAGANDA: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Review your own words:
Kevin Folta: “Avoid #GMO potatoes? The ones that decrease acrylamide, a carcinogen. “
Acrylamide is NOT a carcinogen. You were intentionally misleading the public.
The IARC classified it as as "probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)” glyphosate is classified in the same group.
Here you are shredding the IARC about processed meats, when the scientific consensus shows processed meats are contributing to prostate and breast cancers. Prostate cancer and myelomas are the leading cause of cancers among farmers.
You’re either ignorant of the skin cancers caused by sun exposure, or trying to mislead the public in the link shared by Carey Gillam, above:
Kevin Folta: “Glyphosate fell into IARC’s “probably carcinogenic” category, along with such dastardly things as eating processed meat, sunbathing too long and working as a hairdresser or barber. What does IARC consider much more dangerous than glyphosate? Drinking wine or beer or eating salty fish.
In other words, by any reasonable measure, glyphosate is not remotely dangerous. And even IARC said there is no persuasive evidence that trace amounts in food pose any serious hazard at all.”
More dangerous is tobacco as internet sleuths shared your financial interests with a tobacco company.
Kevin Folta: “ Not remotely dangerous”
Glyphosate Based Herbicides have numerous studies showing harm to wildlife and organisms at the base of the food chain.
Numerous studies in lab animals demonstrate GBHs affect reproductive changes even at levels considered safe by the U.S. EPA.
GBHs are destroying beneficial microbes contributing to antimicrobial resistance.
Herbicide resistance was anticipated as farmers are left to use GBHs more frequently. Herbicide-tolerant crops worked well at first, but over-reliance of the same herbicide led to the emergence of resistant weeds that have, together, forced farmers to incrementally: increase glyphosate application rates, spraying more often.
Kevin, I thought I’d chime in again because you stated you were interested in my thoughts, and also because I said I would. I am simply posting two things you said (not taken out of context, no need for the whole cherry-picking thing) that couldn’t be more contradictory of each other.
“Nobody tells me what to say, and nobody tells me what to think. Every point I make is based on evidence.” - Kevin Folta
“I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like” - Kevin Folta (email to Monsanto)
Yes, both quotations show the malicious intent of the people that published these quotations, out of context. The first is what I said, and is 100% true. The second is plucked from context. The labeling bills in Oregon and CO were featuring some absolutely horrendous misleading videos. Awful. They were designed to shock and scare, not educate. There was an effort among those opposed to labeling to generate a response to those TV spots. One suggestion was to write an OpEd. Another was to generate a petition among the scientists that reject the false information and scare tactics presented in the video. So I said that I was be glad to "write whatever you like" (the OpEd) or "sign on to whatever you like" (the petition).
And you can go back in my emails and see that's 100% correct.
So this should show you the evil intent of the folks that wish to harm public scientists' reputations by making false assertions out of high-cost gathered emails. There's nothing there for them to legitimately criticize, so they make it up. That shows what they really are all about.
Read "Silent Earth" by Professor of Entomology Dave Goulson. He relates how these companies fudge the research.
The effects of agrochemicals on invertebrates is serious but hard to investigate. Pollinators are so necessary in the food chain between wild and cultivated plants, to animals and humans. He describes how the agrochemical companies formulate a toxin, negative outcomes arise but which require independent but badly funded research to prove the links between toxin and effects to health etc. It's a cycle that agrochemical industry are always playing.
Hi, Dr. Kevin Folta here, the guy in the article. I usually don't respond to such things, but it is kind of important as a teaching tool. As in the article in question, she continues to mislead. Here are my responses to her claims.
1. Note that Gillam does not address the criticisms levied against her article. She attacks the scientists that levied the criticisms. Because we appropriately called out the distortions, she's angry and needs to disqualify expert opinion.
3. I did not "allow my name to be used on columns posted on an industry website that were written by industry PR teams." When the website GMO Answers came out I was asked to answer questions. Awesome. That's what I should do as a public scientists. In a conference call with all independent, unpaid writers, I asked about the scope and depth expected for answers. In response, the folks running the website provided a sample answer to one of the 72 questions I answered on the site. The answer was quite good, it was accurate. So I edited it, changed things around, clarified other aspect of it, essentially using that one as a template. That was one article of the thousands of things I've written. It gave red meat to those that want to cancel my voice, and that was a huge mistake I should have never given them. And that answer is 100% accurate and supported by a scientific consensus to this day.
4. In thousands of pages of emails etc provided and information subpoenaed in legal discovery, there was no place that I 'defended" "questionable activities in defense of Monsanto". I'm a scientist that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of technology. I don't care about the companies.
5. I did write a (freely available) email to a friend of mine that works for Monsanto (it's hard to be a plant scientist and not have old friends that end up there) "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like." What was the context that Gillam omits to make this look nefarious? There was a blatantly false and deceptive television commercial going on in Oregon and Colorado around the 2013 (?) labelling ballot initiatives. Lies, total disinformation. My friend and someone else (and you can go back and read those emails online) were soliciting scientists to respond to the false information. They suggested an op-ed or a petition. I replied, "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like." Context matters, but do you see how Gillam pulls quotes from context to make it appear nefarious?
6. The line "I'm grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on investment" is absolutely 100% correct. I didn't make that statement to a "Monsanto executive". I made it in an email to Charla Lord who is on the communications team at Monsanto. She was the one that sent the donation to my university to expand the science communication program. I was really grateful for the donation because it would allow me to teach more, hold more workshops where I trained scientists, farmers, academics, etc on the nuances of science communication. It would have been a great return on investment. I always over deliver. It's how I roll.
7. And yes, I published it in GLP. I appreciate GLP a lot as a source of scientific information and always am glad for the space they give me.
8. And I'm paid 9 months a year by a public university, also from a software company to do my podcast and by various websites that pay me for freelance content. I have no funding from Bayer, Monsanto (dead now 4 years) or any ag or biotech company. If there are factual problems with that content I'm always glad to discuss.
In the days of disinformation it is good to illuminate how we as public scientists are maligned by folks like Gillam. Those of us that discuss the science of chemistry, genetics, climate, vaccines, abortion, etc are targeted by these folks She's been on me for a decade, and while she's paid to write books and articles to trash the science and scientists, my work appears in scholarly journals with peer review.
Yes, you can buy Carrie's book for her personal distortion and spin. Or you can peruse a copy of my CV and understand what I really do in the interest of public service. I've paid a price personally and professionally because of false statements made by Carey and the people she works for. I'm contemplating sending a C&D on this article based on the distortions, but it is likely not worth the time and expense. Here's what I really have done in the public's interest over the last 30 years. Compare that to the trash CG and her cronies manufacture about me. It's gross. https://www.dropbox.com/s/pi4owsw3dxfopv7/220310%20complete%20CV.pdf?dl=0
Carey, I'm just disappointed that you refuse to address the legitimate criticisms of my piece, and instead go for boring, personal attacks. You and your cronies cost the taxpayer millions of dollars to capture tons of documents that never showed breaches of ethics or any malfeasance. Instead, you pulled, and continue to pull, words from context to make normal conversations seem like scandal Remember, you are the one being paid by industry to produce words inconsistent with the scientific consensus, not me. I swore a long time ago that I would never engage you after what you did to me and my family. But my commitment to illuminating the evidence and calling out disinformation is just too important. The fact that I spelled your name incorrectly is not the problem-- it is the fact that you cannot address the legitimate criticism, and instead choose stale arguments from bogus extrapolations.
Everyone knows you are a captured corrupted mouthpiece for the chemical industry, Keven. When you show up here to act out your fear and frustration by attacking the honest messenger, all you are doing is digging your hole deeper. You can't even control yourself because you must know you look like the shill you are when you keep up this act. You need to get some professional help for your psychopathy. Is Bayer paying you 600 dollars an hour to come here and make a fool of yourself? You better stick close to your industry-sponsored propaganda echo chambers because you are not helping your sponsors or yourself here.
Or you can just look to rulings of state & federal judges, appellate panels, the Solicitor General, and the Supreme Court of the United States to determine who’s spinning what. Kevin what are doing man?
It is informative that the one citation you made in your disinformation spew was to an industry placed propaganda piece, Kevin. It looks like you have gotten in so deep that you can't even tell the difference between facts and propaganda spin. You do a disservice to the institution you work for when you keep presenting yourself this way. Your credibility has sunk to the level of that of a typical troll. I think the reason you replied is simple. You can't help yourself. Your corrupt game has been exposed, and you are consumed by the fear your failure triggers in you. No one respects a liar and a shill for a genocidal industry.
Why the rise in food allergies in last 20 yrs? Glyphosate
Why can’t I eat sandwiches, pasta, donuts, etc?
Glyphosate
Why did I get diagnosed with celiac in 2011?
Glyphosate
Why did I eat mostly whole grains?
Healthy (right??? ONLY if organic!)
Why can I never enjoy them again?
Glyphosate
Why so much glyphosate in whole grain?
Kills/knocks down (desiccates) the wheat making for an easier harvest
Where else is this poison?
Almost everywhere you find corn, soy, sugar (used to desiccate sugar cane also!) cane/beets, vegetable oils (mostly corn/soy/canola) oats….
If you take away anything whatsoever from my rant (other than my clear anger for never again enjoying a fresh made gluten-containing donut, durum wheat pasta, inexpensive bread, etc…) do yourself and a family and never, ever, ever, ever eat non-organic whole grain (wheat, rye, barley, oats..) foods. Organic is great. Non-organic is likely poisoned. If you don’t have the celiac gene, you’ll probably be ok, but believe me (and my mother), you’d rather not find out the hard way.
If you're so certain Carey is on your side, why not read up on my comments (with the citations to back them up) on how dangerous alcohol is, even in small amounts. Then note how dismissive Carey is when she comes up against something she simply cannot deny. She won't answer questions because she knows she'd either have to lie to our face or face facts that glyphosate is nowhere near as dangerous as the claims she makes.
Glyphosate, despite the claims, has never been shown to cause celiac disease and the rise in food allergies has been caused by numerous factors which I discussed in my last book. If you can't eat things with gluten in them that's not down to a herbicide. People who eat organic their entire lives can (and do) develop it, because it's commonplace and was even before glyphosate was first formulated. It's an auto-immune disease so it's more common in women. (This is a fact, not an anti-woman conjecture. Women have better immune system than men so develop more auto-immune disease like lupus [SLE] and rheumatoid arthritis)
And many food allergies are self-reported. This means there's no one actually testing to see if these figures are accurate. While I expect there has been a rise (we're better at detecting such stuff now) the fact that people are more aware, many are (wrongly) self-diagnosing.
I developed symptoms of Morgellons Disease recently - entirely psychological in nature (at least in my case) but I know how to make a differential diagnosis for things like this. Not everyone is as lucky to have my education or the ability to think critically.
Oh by the way, organic foods use pesticides too - and pesticides by nature are TOXIC to target and non-target organisms.
Marc, you are well versed in the industry propaganda talking points. Do you get your information from the GLP and ACSH? It looks like the same misleading propaganda they use to spin the facts. The Bayer team is starting to look like the guys that can't shoot straight. Are they paying you the same as Kevin?
Everyone of your readers should be really Angry (I cleaned that up a lot) Everyone of your readers who has an elderly parent, children, honeybee producers, or pet owners should be screaming. Everyone should be as committed as Carey. This is for the health of us, our water, bees, birds, dogs. We as community members need to be as concerned as Carey is. We need to send letters to our elected leaders and ask, in writing and ask what are you doing to prevent the poison to our planet....People do not listen until there is pressure on them to respond. If we really do care, then we have to get involved. I live in Springfield, Mo. Monsanto/Bayer land. I went to the college and asked them about cleaning up the chemicals they are spraying. Answer "They give us a lot of money" ICK
Thank you for your tireless coverage of the Bayer/Monsanto machine. More people need to understand glyphosate and crop desiccation as it's related to our cancer risks. Please keep re-incorporating the urine sample study (80%) in your stories until it sinks in!
Unike you Carey, I'm an independent journalist -I haven't/don't work for US Right To Know or the Environmental Working Group or any NGO that has aligned itself with the Organic agriculture industry. Similarly, I don't/have not and likely never will, knowingly take money from Monsanto/Bayer or any Agrochemicals group or those representing them.
You can accuse all these people of working for Monsanto, Bayer, etc. but you seem to forget you effectively work for the opposing team. So how are you independent? You attack scientists like Professor Folta here with spun allegations taken and quoted, by my measure, totally out of context. This is a skill I picked up as a writer many years ago, just take a quote out of context (cite it so no one can accuse you of impropriety, because no one ever reads the cites) and then go on to explain why this person was a shill for Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc.
Your book Whitewash while brilliantly written, contains nothing substantive and if my memory serves you also enjoy a glass of wine, as many of us do from time to time.
By my calculations a single glass of wine contains more of a CLASS 1 carcinogen than a person like me (I've lived within a few miles of farming country my entire life) than the glyphosate I could be expected to ingest/inhale in a decade.
Would you like to step up an explain that one?
A class 2A carcinogen is not proven to cause cancer. Suspected, yes, but not proven and in fact (I'll have to check this) the internal discussions at Monsanto with people like Donna Farmer, are related to Roundup formulations, not the active herbicide. The thing is, that Roundup's surfactant as I recall is organic in nature. But I digress.
Alcohol in your wine directly or indirectly causes multiple cancers and other health problems including hepatic cirrhosis, is addictive to the point that it can cause severe dependence (wet brain) and kills an estimated 95,000 Americans EVERY SINGLE YEAR. That's almost as many people as Baum Headland estimated benefited from the Bayer settlement IN TOTAL.
If reporters covering the wine industry find evidence that wine makers are manipulating the scientific literature and colluding with wine regulators to hide the health risks of wine, I applaud all reporting on that topic.
Now it's clear to anyone with a brain that alcohol isn't just a dangerous drug, it's also a socially accepted one which is why no one would need to spin anything (and, to paraphrase Dr. Farmer) reporters, presumably aren't even looking at that.
As another example that everyone here can understand but isn't necessarily connected to cover-ups.
42,915 Americans died in car wrecks in 2020 according to recent figures.
In the same year, 299 people died (worldwide) in aviation accidents, presumably that number increased due to the 737 Max problem with MCAS. And before you remind me, yes I know that Boeing hid the problems from the regulators.
That's a difference of over >99 and I'm comparing apples (US deaths) to oranges (worldwide deaths).
But if a plane falls out of the sky because of a badly designed flight control system, pilot error, terrorism or (and this is horrible) a murder-suicide as happened with Germanwings, we're all over it like a rash.
The alcoholic drinks manufacturers don't NEED to cover up the fact that that alcohol is actually, demonstrably killing us by the 10s of 1000s because no one gives a damn. Yet. It's something that I'll be covering in the documentary.
You didn't answer the question, so let me repeat it:
"By my calculations a single glass of wine contains more of a CLASS 1 carcinogen than a person like me (I've lived within a few miles of farming country my entire life) than the glyphosate I could be expected to ingest/inhale in a decade.
Would you like to step up an explain that one?"
I want you to admit that you know (because I've told you multiple times) that alcohol causes not just cancer, but is killing us faster than just about every other thing? One study puts it at the number three cause of premature death in the USA behind obesity (2) and smoking (1).
The thing about this "collusion" as you call it, is rather a loaded word but nothing less than I would expect from someone who is paid to attack Big Agrochemical.
Or are you going to deny that you've made a decent income from doing just that (regardless of who is right or wrong) have you or have you not worked for industry pressure groups like USRTK?
You have posted nothing but straw-man attempts to divert and confuse the issue here. Hilarious that you accuse Carey of that. Projection isn't winning any points for you today. Marc.
You missed the comments where Carey is too chicken to admit she's paid by an industry which competes directly (or indirectly) with the people who make GMO crops and glyphosate herbicide.
She won't even answer a simple direct question because she knows that we both know the answer is going to expose her.
Now if I've posted a straw man fallacy, show me where. Carey did when she raised the issue of alcohol in wine and I've explained why that's a straw man. We both know the answer is multi-layered and complex, but there's still no denying that alcohol kills more Americans every single year than all other causes except obesity and smoking.
But she can't admit that because she drinks - as do I.
So if I've made a mistake, quote it and let's discuss.
Weak attempts to divert attention with false equivalent issues only show us the fear you and the other industry shills feel when Carey posts these facts.
I've compared statistics and point out that (to take your point) the amount of glyphosate, which has never been shown to cause cancer in HUMANS to the amount of alcohol we're exposed to.
Did you know that if you go near someone who is drinking or even sit in bar, you're inhaling small amounts of ethanol? Not that I've done the calculations but the fact we can smell the stuff says to me that that's a lot more than we might get glyphosate from direct ingestion.
Alcohol isn't contaminating my breakfast cereal, Marc. Most intelligent folks avoid carcinogens in food if they know they are there. You can't see or smell the carcinogen glyphosate, which is ubiquitous in our environment. You don't even need to go to a bar to be exposed. Your straw-man is humorous.
Wrong again, glyphosate is NOT and and has never been found to be a human carcinogen. There's a weak link in mice but unless you're a octogenarian mouse with keyboard skills, then you're safe.
You can't see alcohol either - and it's all over the place. We burn it as fuel and it's found in mouthwashes and even some food colouring. That's right, your organic food might have traces of alcohol in there even if you don't know that.
Did you know that one? So again, show me my straw man.
Shill. So you have EVIDENCE of that or should I call my lawyer and point out that you're defaming me? Be very careful making allegations that you can't back up, I'm not as patient as Kevin.
Alcohol isn't hidden in the food supply like pesticide residues are. People choose to drink alcohol. They don't have a choice with glyphosate. I have seen your "journalism," but only on industry propaganda AstroTurf sites. Kevin Folta's dishonesty and industry capture has been well documented in the mainstream media; I don't think your attempt to redeem his reputation will work. All you have done is show us that you and Kevin are cut from the same cloth.
If I'm cut from the same cloth as Kevin, then I'll take that as a compliment, so thanks for that.
You've seen me on Astroturf sites? Really? I wasn't aware I'd been published there - except for the odd comment. Of course, if you have an example, please do cite it.
And birds run away at the first sign of danger because they don't think for themselves.
I wish I was as clever as Kevin, while he might be naive, he's pushing the boundaries of human knowledge rather than smacking around the people who do.
By the way - I am a terrible sales person, but I have had a couple private inquires about how best to support my work. If you want to help support the journalism, a charitable donation to The New Lede
https://act.ewg.org/cXWUG66dJEeFKovViPxgpQ2 would be welcomed, no matter how small, just the sign of support is welcomed. And, of course, sharing the news, (and news tips with me) is always the best support!!!
You go, Carey! Kevin Folta has been proven many times to be a tool of big ag and the chemical companies like Monsanto and Bayer. If anyone has doubts, about this, simply google him and you'll find a sordid history of his many misdeeds and questionable relationships even with his conjugal partner at one point. He is certainly a person with a a reputation for taking payments from chemical and GMO corporations and trying to hide or deny those facts.
A bunch of lobbyists and corporate PR lackies whipped up a smear campaign. People can see it for what it is. And, as I'm sure you know, it goes with the territory of standing up to power.
It’s sad and pathetic to see the agrochemical industry again resorting to tactics which sole purpose is to manufacture doubt. However, this does signal that the agrochemical industry is nervous that something could adversely impact their profits.
A similar clearly orchestrated event occurred when the Solicitor General recommended SCOTUS not hear the Hardeman appeal. We know how those efforts turned out.
If only we could see who’s actually greasing the wheels of this propaganda machine designed to defend and protect agrochemical profit by means of attacking perceived threats and manufacturing doubt. My guess - CropLife.
Folta, Entine, Kabat, and their respective affiliations (GLP, ACSH, etc.) are known propagandists. Pawns who sold out decades ago. Pay them no mind.
Propagandist? What did I write that is not factual, supported by the literature, and may be construed as "propaganda"? Propaganda is persuasive, often false, information designed to mislead to a particular political point of view. Apply that definition to my work and Gillam's work. Which one fits that definition better? Interested in your thoughts.
“ Glyphosate, according to the IARC, is less toxic than sunlight, cell phones, caffeine, table salt, and 10,000 times less of a risk for cancer as alcohol consumption.” - Kevin Folta
Kevin you asked -here’s an example where you are confusing Monsanto acute toxicity (LD50) comparisons with IARC carcinogenicity hazard assessments. Specifically in regard to table salt & caffeine. Why? In the context of carcinogenicity this isn’t factual nor is it’s carcinogenic comparison supported by IARC “literature” as you clearly tried to persuade with false and misleading information…
“Orchestrate Outcry” sound familiar to you?
“Supported by literature” authored by whom? , Kabat, Entine/GLP, Monsanto, GMO Answers, ACSH? That literature?
“But Ketchum [‘GMO Answers’ - funded by Monsanto, BAYER, BASF, Dow, DuPont] did more than provide questions, on several occasions it also gave Dr. Folta draft answers, which he the used nearly verbatim, a step that he now says was a mistake” - New York Times
Hmmmm….
Actually that's not true. When we were on the first GMO Answers conference call I asked abut the depth and scope of the answers they'd expect. I could write a book on any of the questions answered. They sent me ONE sample answer to one of the questions. It was damn good, but not 100% correct. So using their answer as a scaffold, I rewrote the answer so it was accurate. When Lipton blindsided me with the question for the hit piece, I didn't remember the details. But that's it! So the folks that make the claim that all answers were somehow generated by companies are lying through their teeth as usual. And best of all, I wrote 73 answers for GMO Answers without compensation, purely to educate. And those answers remain 100% correct a decade later.
Why did UF donate a Monsanto grant awarded to you to a food pantry? Seems odd. Oh and that was reported by the New York Times if I recall correctly. Didn’t you sue? And lose?
Because it was not a grant. It was a donation to the university they could use any way they please. Companies use boilerplate letters and don't understand how university accounting works sometimes. They made a no-strings-attached donation to the university, which the university used as they wished, which included stopping the threats against me, my family, and my lab. Diverting the donation was the first step.
I will have to go back and look at exact examples and will respond , but don’t worry, I mean what I say.
One problem with immediately citing examples of your Monsanto derived false narrative is the fact that I dismissed your stance, views, and regurgitated Monsanto rhetoric years ago once I realized you did not view science objectively nor independently. Thus no one takes your scientific views seriously, or in my case I just ignored you altogether.
Let me ask you this Professor….what information or credible material have brought to the Monsanto Roundup litigation? Have you testified in any hearings, court cases, or governmental inquiries? How about Entine & GLP? And why has none of Kabat’s epidemiological reviews made it one single courtroom?
And by the way, how many years were you a licensed commercial pesticide applicator - applying day in and day out? Wasn’t your dissertation on strawberry’s? GM strawberries? What does a classroom strawberry expert know about carcinogenicity?
To Entine’s credit he is an expert in marketing as that’s what he is. He’s a marketing guru for sale, but he, like you, lack true real world pesticide application experience and real world pesticide exposure knowledge. You and some of your UF buddy colleagues have done nothing more than what Monsanto told you to say and do to create a facade of independent science for Monsanto. A facade that backfired once your monetary connections to the company were identified and the resulting significant conflict of interest.
I’ll be back in touch…be careful what you ask for
You should stick to strawberries…or is there no money in it?
I'm a molecular biologist. I follow the interesting questions. The strawberry genome was a rubik's cube to me. Now that that's sorted out I'm working with designing new molecules for antibiotics and herbicides. Good times.
The roundup litigation still makes me wonder. I read the literature on glyphosate almost daily as it emerges, and my assessment matches that of every international regulatory agency that has reviewed it over the last 50 years- there is no special risk at normal exposure levels.
PROPAGANDA: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Review your own words:
Kevin Folta: “Avoid #GMO potatoes? The ones that decrease acrylamide, a carcinogen. “
Acrylamide is NOT a carcinogen. You were intentionally misleading the public.
The IARC classified it as as "probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)” glyphosate is classified in the same group.
Here you are shredding the IARC about processed meats, when the scientific consensus shows processed meats are contributing to prostate and breast cancers. Prostate cancer and myelomas are the leading cause of cancers among farmers.
You’re either ignorant of the skin cancers caused by sun exposure, or trying to mislead the public in the link shared by Carey Gillam, above:
Kevin Folta: “Glyphosate fell into IARC’s “probably carcinogenic” category, along with such dastardly things as eating processed meat, sunbathing too long and working as a hairdresser or barber. What does IARC consider much more dangerous than glyphosate? Drinking wine or beer or eating salty fish.
In other words, by any reasonable measure, glyphosate is not remotely dangerous. And even IARC said there is no persuasive evidence that trace amounts in food pose any serious hazard at all.”
More dangerous is tobacco as internet sleuths shared your financial interests with a tobacco company.
Kevin Folta: “ Not remotely dangerous”
Glyphosate Based Herbicides have numerous studies showing harm to wildlife and organisms at the base of the food chain.
Numerous studies in lab animals demonstrate GBHs affect reproductive changes even at levels considered safe by the U.S. EPA.
GBHs are destroying beneficial microbes contributing to antimicrobial resistance.
Herbicide resistance was anticipated as farmers are left to use GBHs more frequently. Herbicide-tolerant crops worked well at first, but over-reliance of the same herbicide led to the emergence of resistant weeds that have, together, forced farmers to incrementally: increase glyphosate application rates, spraying more often.
Acrylamide is a risk factor, I agree, a minimal one. Same with glyphosate based on all current evidence.
Kevin, I thought I’d chime in again because you stated you were interested in my thoughts, and also because I said I would. I am simply posting two things you said (not taken out of context, no need for the whole cherry-picking thing) that couldn’t be more contradictory of each other.
“Nobody tells me what to say, and nobody tells me what to think. Every point I make is based on evidence.” - Kevin Folta
“I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like” - Kevin Folta (email to Monsanto)
Yes, both quotations show the malicious intent of the people that published these quotations, out of context. The first is what I said, and is 100% true. The second is plucked from context. The labeling bills in Oregon and CO were featuring some absolutely horrendous misleading videos. Awful. They were designed to shock and scare, not educate. There was an effort among those opposed to labeling to generate a response to those TV spots. One suggestion was to write an OpEd. Another was to generate a petition among the scientists that reject the false information and scare tactics presented in the video. So I said that I was be glad to "write whatever you like" (the OpEd) or "sign on to whatever you like" (the petition).
And you can go back in my emails and see that's 100% correct.
So this should show you the evil intent of the folks that wish to harm public scientists' reputations by making false assertions out of high-cost gathered emails. There's nothing there for them to legitimately criticize, so they make it up. That shows what they really are all about.
They always attack the messenger when they can't dispute the facts. Keep up with what you are doing. Their fear shows when they attack you.
Read "Silent Earth" by Professor of Entomology Dave Goulson. He relates how these companies fudge the research.
The effects of agrochemicals on invertebrates is serious but hard to investigate. Pollinators are so necessary in the food chain between wild and cultivated plants, to animals and humans. He describes how the agrochemical companies formulate a toxin, negative outcomes arise but which require independent but badly funded research to prove the links between toxin and effects to health etc. It's a cycle that agrochemical industry are always playing.
Hi, Dr. Kevin Folta here, the guy in the article. I usually don't respond to such things, but it is kind of important as a teaching tool. As in the article in question, she continues to mislead. Here are my responses to her claims.
1. Note that Gillam does not address the criticisms levied against her article. She attacks the scientists that levied the criticisms. Because we appropriately called out the distortions, she's angry and needs to disqualify expert opinion.
2. Her claims that a 2014 (snooze) donation from Monsanto to my university to help defray the costs of a science communication program were not disclosed is not true. The VP of my university clarified that, and be because of the threats, hassles and fallout from her social media (and others) the university moved the funds to a campus food bank. None went to me and they were never used for science communication. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/?sh=57fe4f32619a
3. I did not "allow my name to be used on columns posted on an industry website that were written by industry PR teams." When the website GMO Answers came out I was asked to answer questions. Awesome. That's what I should do as a public scientists. In a conference call with all independent, unpaid writers, I asked about the scope and depth expected for answers. In response, the folks running the website provided a sample answer to one of the 72 questions I answered on the site. The answer was quite good, it was accurate. So I edited it, changed things around, clarified other aspect of it, essentially using that one as a template. That was one article of the thousands of things I've written. It gave red meat to those that want to cancel my voice, and that was a huge mistake I should have never given them. And that answer is 100% accurate and supported by a scientific consensus to this day.
4. In thousands of pages of emails etc provided and information subpoenaed in legal discovery, there was no place that I 'defended" "questionable activities in defense of Monsanto". I'm a scientist that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of technology. I don't care about the companies.
5. I did write a (freely available) email to a friend of mine that works for Monsanto (it's hard to be a plant scientist and not have old friends that end up there) "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like." What was the context that Gillam omits to make this look nefarious? There was a blatantly false and deceptive television commercial going on in Oregon and Colorado around the 2013 (?) labelling ballot initiatives. Lies, total disinformation. My friend and someone else (and you can go back and read those emails online) were soliciting scientists to respond to the false information. They suggested an op-ed or a petition. I replied, "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like." Context matters, but do you see how Gillam pulls quotes from context to make it appear nefarious?
6. The line "I'm grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on investment" is absolutely 100% correct. I didn't make that statement to a "Monsanto executive". I made it in an email to Charla Lord who is on the communications team at Monsanto. She was the one that sent the donation to my university to expand the science communication program. I was really grateful for the donation because it would allow me to teach more, hold more workshops where I trained scientists, farmers, academics, etc on the nuances of science communication. It would have been a great return on investment. I always over deliver. It's how I roll.
7. And yes, I published it in GLP. I appreciate GLP a lot as a source of scientific information and always am glad for the space they give me.
8. And I'm paid 9 months a year by a public university, also from a software company to do my podcast and by various websites that pay me for freelance content. I have no funding from Bayer, Monsanto (dead now 4 years) or any ag or biotech company. If there are factual problems with that content I'm always glad to discuss.
In the days of disinformation it is good to illuminate how we as public scientists are maligned by folks like Gillam. Those of us that discuss the science of chemistry, genetics, climate, vaccines, abortion, etc are targeted by these folks She's been on me for a decade, and while she's paid to write books and articles to trash the science and scientists, my work appears in scholarly journals with peer review.
It's why I bothered to reply.
If you want the full down and dirty on Dr. Folta read Whitewash- The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science. https://www.amazon.com/Whitewash-Killer-Cancer-Corruption-Science/dp/1610918320 It won the 2018 Rachel Carson Book Award from the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Yes, you can buy Carrie's book for her personal distortion and spin. Or you can peruse a copy of my CV and understand what I really do in the interest of public service. I've paid a price personally and professionally because of false statements made by Carey and the people she works for. I'm contemplating sending a C&D on this article based on the distortions, but it is likely not worth the time and expense. Here's what I really have done in the public's interest over the last 30 years. Compare that to the trash CG and her cronies manufacture about me. It's gross. https://www.dropbox.com/s/pi4owsw3dxfopv7/220310%20complete%20CV.pdf?dl=0
A real stickler for facts, Folta is. Can't even spell my name consistently.
He’s probably wasted….Kevin what was that you wrote - ’Alcoholics Unanimous’?
Carey, I'm just disappointed that you refuse to address the legitimate criticisms of my piece, and instead go for boring, personal attacks. You and your cronies cost the taxpayer millions of dollars to capture tons of documents that never showed breaches of ethics or any malfeasance. Instead, you pulled, and continue to pull, words from context to make normal conversations seem like scandal Remember, you are the one being paid by industry to produce words inconsistent with the scientific consensus, not me. I swore a long time ago that I would never engage you after what you did to me and my family. But my commitment to illuminating the evidence and calling out disinformation is just too important. The fact that I spelled your name incorrectly is not the problem-- it is the fact that you cannot address the legitimate criticism, and instead choose stale arguments from bogus extrapolations.
Everyone knows you are a captured corrupted mouthpiece for the chemical industry, Keven. When you show up here to act out your fear and frustration by attacking the honest messenger, all you are doing is digging your hole deeper. You can't even control yourself because you must know you look like the shill you are when you keep up this act. You need to get some professional help for your psychopathy. Is Bayer paying you 600 dollars an hour to come here and make a fool of yourself? You better stick close to your industry-sponsored propaganda echo chambers because you are not helping your sponsors or yourself here.
Or you can just look to rulings of state & federal judges, appellate panels, the Solicitor General, and the Supreme Court of the United States to determine who’s spinning what. Kevin what are doing man?
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Only you would think anyone would buy that fiction in light of your documented history. tell us another one, Kevin. LOL!!
It is informative that the one citation you made in your disinformation spew was to an industry placed propaganda piece, Kevin. It looks like you have gotten in so deep that you can't even tell the difference between facts and propaganda spin. You do a disservice to the institution you work for when you keep presenting yourself this way. Your credibility has sunk to the level of that of a typical troll. I think the reason you replied is simple. You can't help yourself. Your corrupt game has been exposed, and you are consumed by the fear your failure triggers in you. No one respects a liar and a shill for a genocidal industry.
You have supporters out here!!
Why the rise in food allergies in last 20 yrs? Glyphosate
Why can’t I eat sandwiches, pasta, donuts, etc?
Glyphosate
Why did I get diagnosed with celiac in 2011?
Glyphosate
Why did I eat mostly whole grains?
Healthy (right??? ONLY if organic!)
Why can I never enjoy them again?
Glyphosate
Why so much glyphosate in whole grain?
Kills/knocks down (desiccates) the wheat making for an easier harvest
Where else is this poison?
Almost everywhere you find corn, soy, sugar (used to desiccate sugar cane also!) cane/beets, vegetable oils (mostly corn/soy/canola) oats….
If you take away anything whatsoever from my rant (other than my clear anger for never again enjoying a fresh made gluten-containing donut, durum wheat pasta, inexpensive bread, etc…) do yourself and a family and never, ever, ever, ever eat non-organic whole grain (wheat, rye, barley, oats..) foods. Organic is great. Non-organic is likely poisoned. If you don’t have the celiac gene, you’ll probably be ok, but believe me (and my mother), you’d rather not find out the hard way.
If you're so certain Carey is on your side, why not read up on my comments (with the citations to back them up) on how dangerous alcohol is, even in small amounts. Then note how dismissive Carey is when she comes up against something she simply cannot deny. She won't answer questions because she knows she'd either have to lie to our face or face facts that glyphosate is nowhere near as dangerous as the claims she makes.
Glyphosate, despite the claims, has never been shown to cause celiac disease and the rise in food allergies has been caused by numerous factors which I discussed in my last book. If you can't eat things with gluten in them that's not down to a herbicide. People who eat organic their entire lives can (and do) develop it, because it's commonplace and was even before glyphosate was first formulated. It's an auto-immune disease so it's more common in women. (This is a fact, not an anti-woman conjecture. Women have better immune system than men so develop more auto-immune disease like lupus [SLE] and rheumatoid arthritis)
And many food allergies are self-reported. This means there's no one actually testing to see if these figures are accurate. While I expect there has been a rise (we're better at detecting such stuff now) the fact that people are more aware, many are (wrongly) self-diagnosing.
I developed symptoms of Morgellons Disease recently - entirely psychological in nature (at least in my case) but I know how to make a differential diagnosis for things like this. Not everyone is as lucky to have my education or the ability to think critically.
Oh by the way, organic foods use pesticides too - and pesticides by nature are TOXIC to target and non-target organisms.
Marc, you are well versed in the industry propaganda talking points. Do you get your information from the GLP and ACSH? It looks like the same misleading propaganda they use to spin the facts. The Bayer team is starting to look like the guys that can't shoot straight. Are they paying you the same as Kevin?
Unlike Carey, I don't work for anyone in the industry so if you think I am, you'd better be prepared to withdraw that accusation or remove it.
I have no love for Monsanto nor Bayer and in fact, I'm writing some stuff at the moment that exposes some of their wrongdoings.
But these aren't industry talking points Ted, they are scientific facts. They fact you don't like them isn't my problem.
Sure, Marc. Carry on! LOL!
Game on Carey! Excellent work.
You know you’re hit a serious nerve or two when they send out the mob with lies!
Everyone of your readers should be really Angry (I cleaned that up a lot) Everyone of your readers who has an elderly parent, children, honeybee producers, or pet owners should be screaming. Everyone should be as committed as Carey. This is for the health of us, our water, bees, birds, dogs. We as community members need to be as concerned as Carey is. We need to send letters to our elected leaders and ask, in writing and ask what are you doing to prevent the poison to our planet....People do not listen until there is pressure on them to respond. If we really do care, then we have to get involved. I live in Springfield, Mo. Monsanto/Bayer land. I went to the college and asked them about cleaning up the chemicals they are spraying. Answer "They give us a lot of money" ICK
Chin up, Carey! You're doing an excellent job exposing corporate lies and their health consequences -- and the truth will win in the end.
Thank you for your tireless coverage of the Bayer/Monsanto machine. More people need to understand glyphosate and crop desiccation as it's related to our cancer risks. Please keep re-incorporating the urine sample study (80%) in your stories until it sinks in!
Unike you Carey, I'm an independent journalist -I haven't/don't work for US Right To Know or the Environmental Working Group or any NGO that has aligned itself with the Organic agriculture industry. Similarly, I don't/have not and likely never will, knowingly take money from Monsanto/Bayer or any Agrochemicals group or those representing them.
You can accuse all these people of working for Monsanto, Bayer, etc. but you seem to forget you effectively work for the opposing team. So how are you independent? You attack scientists like Professor Folta here with spun allegations taken and quoted, by my measure, totally out of context. This is a skill I picked up as a writer many years ago, just take a quote out of context (cite it so no one can accuse you of impropriety, because no one ever reads the cites) and then go on to explain why this person was a shill for Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc.
Your book Whitewash while brilliantly written, contains nothing substantive and if my memory serves you also enjoy a glass of wine, as many of us do from time to time.
By my calculations a single glass of wine contains more of a CLASS 1 carcinogen than a person like me (I've lived within a few miles of farming country my entire life) than the glyphosate I could be expected to ingest/inhale in a decade.
Would you like to step up an explain that one?
A class 2A carcinogen is not proven to cause cancer. Suspected, yes, but not proven and in fact (I'll have to check this) the internal discussions at Monsanto with people like Donna Farmer, are related to Roundup formulations, not the active herbicide. The thing is, that Roundup's surfactant as I recall is organic in nature. But I digress.
Alcohol in your wine directly or indirectly causes multiple cancers and other health problems including hepatic cirrhosis, is addictive to the point that it can cause severe dependence (wet brain) and kills an estimated 95,000 Americans EVERY SINGLE YEAR. That's almost as many people as Baum Headland estimated benefited from the Bayer settlement IN TOTAL.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
Care to explain that?
If reporters covering the wine industry find evidence that wine makers are manipulating the scientific literature and colluding with wine regulators to hide the health risks of wine, I applaud all reporting on that topic.
Now it's clear to anyone with a brain that alcohol isn't just a dangerous drug, it's also a socially accepted one which is why no one would need to spin anything (and, to paraphrase Dr. Farmer) reporters, presumably aren't even looking at that.
As another example that everyone here can understand but isn't necessarily connected to cover-ups.
42,915 Americans died in car wrecks in 2020 according to recent figures.
In the same year, 299 people died (worldwide) in aviation accidents, presumably that number increased due to the 737 Max problem with MCAS. And before you remind me, yes I know that Boeing hid the problems from the regulators.
That's a difference of over >99 and I'm comparing apples (US deaths) to oranges (worldwide deaths).
But when do reporters get involved in car wrecks? You know that it's News Fatigue (https://www.athensjournals.gr/media/2022-8-3-1-Fitzpatrick.pdf) because if we reported on every car wreck, no one would watch the news any more.
But if a plane falls out of the sky because of a badly designed flight control system, pilot error, terrorism or (and this is horrible) a murder-suicide as happened with Germanwings, we're all over it like a rash.
The alcoholic drinks manufacturers don't NEED to cover up the fact that that alcohol is actually, demonstrably killing us by the 10s of 1000s because no one gives a damn. Yet. It's something that I'll be covering in the documentary.
You didn't answer the question, so let me repeat it:
"By my calculations a single glass of wine contains more of a CLASS 1 carcinogen than a person like me (I've lived within a few miles of farming country my entire life) than the glyphosate I could be expected to ingest/inhale in a decade.
Would you like to step up an explain that one?"
I want you to admit that you know (because I've told you multiple times) that alcohol causes not just cancer, but is killing us faster than just about every other thing? One study puts it at the number three cause of premature death in the USA behind obesity (2) and smoking (1).
The thing about this "collusion" as you call it, is rather a loaded word but nothing less than I would expect from someone who is paid to attack Big Agrochemical.
Or are you going to deny that you've made a decent income from doing just that (regardless of who is right or wrong) have you or have you not worked for industry pressure groups like USRTK?
Clearly, you have more time on your hands than I do. I have to get back to work. Have a good day Draco.
First you set up a straw man, then you refuse to answer questions.
Thank you for proving the scientific side with evidence that you avoid direct questions.
You have posted nothing but straw-man attempts to divert and confuse the issue here. Hilarious that you accuse Carey of that. Projection isn't winning any points for you today. Marc.
Of course not Ted.
You missed the comments where Carey is too chicken to admit she's paid by an industry which competes directly (or indirectly) with the people who make GMO crops and glyphosate herbicide.
She won't even answer a simple direct question because she knows that we both know the answer is going to expose her.
Now if I've posted a straw man fallacy, show me where. Carey did when she raised the issue of alcohol in wine and I've explained why that's a straw man. We both know the answer is multi-layered and complex, but there's still no denying that alcohol kills more Americans every single year than all other causes except obesity and smoking.
But she can't admit that because she drinks - as do I.
So if I've made a mistake, quote it and let's discuss.
Weak attempts to divert attention with false equivalent issues only show us the fear you and the other industry shills feel when Carey posts these facts.
False equivalence? How so?
I've compared statistics and point out that (to take your point) the amount of glyphosate, which has never been shown to cause cancer in HUMANS to the amount of alcohol we're exposed to.
Did you know that if you go near someone who is drinking or even sit in bar, you're inhaling small amounts of ethanol? Not that I've done the calculations but the fact we can smell the stuff says to me that that's a lot more than we might get glyphosate from direct ingestion.
Alcohol isn't contaminating my breakfast cereal, Marc. Most intelligent folks avoid carcinogens in food if they know they are there. You can't see or smell the carcinogen glyphosate, which is ubiquitous in our environment. You don't even need to go to a bar to be exposed. Your straw-man is humorous.
What straw man? Quote it.
Wrong again, glyphosate is NOT and and has never been found to be a human carcinogen. There's a weak link in mice but unless you're a octogenarian mouse with keyboard skills, then you're safe.
You can't see alcohol either - and it's all over the place. We burn it as fuel and it's found in mouthwashes and even some food colouring. That's right, your organic food might have traces of alcohol in there even if you don't know that.
Did you know that one? So again, show me my straw man.
Shill. So you have EVIDENCE of that or should I call my lawyer and point out that you're defaming me? Be very careful making allegations that you can't back up, I'm not as patient as Kevin.
LOL!!! I would love to see you sue me. Bring it on, shill guy.
Drop your contact details in a PM and I'll forward it to my lawyer by close.
Alcohol isn't hidden in the food supply like pesticide residues are. People choose to drink alcohol. They don't have a choice with glyphosate. I have seen your "journalism," but only on industry propaganda AstroTurf sites. Kevin Folta's dishonesty and industry capture has been well documented in the mainstream media; I don't think your attempt to redeem his reputation will work. All you have done is show us that you and Kevin are cut from the same cloth.
If I'm cut from the same cloth as Kevin, then I'll take that as a compliment, so thanks for that.
You've seen me on Astroturf sites? Really? I wasn't aware I'd been published there - except for the odd comment. Of course, if you have an example, please do cite it.
I'm not surprised that you think being compared to Kevin is a compliment. Birds of a feather flock together.
And birds run away at the first sign of danger because they don't think for themselves.
I wish I was as clever as Kevin, while he might be naive, he's pushing the boundaries of human knowledge rather than smacking around the people who do.
That is some interesting alternative universe you are living in, Marc.
It's called having an education in logic and critical thinking