Personally, I've witnessed the most shilling with any comment about Israeli control of the media or our government. Now watch in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Came here to say this exact thing. It even trumps 911 posts.

I can set my watch to JIDF disinfo in this sub.

It permeates on every level. The best counter ops do. Everyone look alive gentleman! Take no one at face value, analyze it all, no matter the source.

Oddly enough, it was this realization that got me active and interested. It was easy to see the puppet strings, even from the perspective of someone a-political. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking notices it.

/r/GMOMyths, /r/VaccineMyths, /r/FluorideMyths, /r/FrackingMyths all exist for a reason... Nuclear power and fossil fuels also have a strong PR presence on reddit as well. I'm sure there are way more.

[deleted]

Great video, thank you.

/r/FrackingMyths and /r/FlourideMyths don't exist.

Frackingmyths exists and is private. Fluoridemyths exists, and was misspelled in that comment. /r/FluorideMyths

/r/FlourideMyths appears to be largely anti-Flouride.

Why misspell it twice in a row?

/r/FlourideMyths is the wrong spelling, this one is owned by Moooooooose and there's no content.

/r/FluorideMyths is the correct spelling, this one is owned by #1 Monsanto lover JF_Queeny, part of his "myths" network for people who "like making fun of hyperventilating slack jawed conspiracy nuts".

part of his "myths" network for people who "like making fun of hyperventilating slack jawed conspiracy nuts".

Is there one for making fun of Sandy Hook deniers?

I'm not a shill (whatever that means anymore). I believe that GM crops are going to be a main reason we don't starve, vaccines are irrefutably good for public and personal health, and nuclear power is an excellent bridge between fossil fuels and greener energy sources. I think fossil fuels need to gtfo and fracking is a terrible idea.

I am just a normal ass person, with normal ass views. This is the internet, people are going to disagree with you; especially when you push minority opinions on a massive forum.

You are not special, the government is not paying people to disagree with you on the Internet. And if they were it would be a waste of money, because most people already disagree with you on a lot of issues.

You have an opinion; express it freely, defend it strongly. Just dont cry foul play when it is refuted.

That's cool - there are folks like you in the world, and then there are people whose entire post history is nothing but defense of a major multinational company. If you don't believe me, watch this video on astroturfing and when you're finished head over to /r/shills.

With respect to GM feeding the world, that's demonstrably false. We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, yield differences between organic and GMO are exaggerated, and one third of all food produced worldwide simply goes to waste. Rather than modifying food, we should probably spend some money to stop throwing perfectly good food away.

Also, humans spend a HUGE portion of our farmland and resources feeding our cows and livestock. Rather than wasting food and water feeding cows which will eventually feed us, we could be using all those crops and water just feeding more people. This is a basic argument that I hardly ever see. There is more than enough food to feed the world.

Vertical farming is an incredibly efficient way to grow food and is starting to gain some traction. Some operations recycle 100% of the water they use! Not to mention it takes a fraction of the land, growing cycles are independent of weather variables, and LED lightning is helping reduce the overall energy load. I'm very optimistic in this regard.

Except bacon is good. I would take the non-exaggerated 34% greater yield of GMO and feed it to pigs so I could eat bacon.

Or you could acquire some of the hundreds of tons of wasted produce that grocery stores throw out regularly. No need for GMOs.

GMOs aren't about producing more food, they're about increasing yield. If you can use less land to produce the same amount of food, there are fewer emissions, less water used, less habitat destruction, and fewer pesticides sprayed. Often yield is increased by reducing spoilage rather than increasing biomass.

Yes that is a sore spot for me als, but I'm afraid it's not as simple as "let's just take this excess over here and put it in this deficit over there". Having worked in food service and knowing a few in the grocery and deli business, the amount of waste is unreal. Not just " gee, these things didn't sell and now they are spoiled". There is so much waste of good edible food.

For instance, the deli of my local Kroger throws out everything that they do not sell rather than donating it to a shelter or food bank because the shelters become reliant on their waste. If local deli has a good day of sales and doesn't give anything to the shelter, they pitch a fit because they don't have another source of food for that day. Honestly, that's why they just throw it out.

There are other reasons food is wasted that are monetary; a cafe I worked years ago would not let us eat expired food because then we wouldn't buy a lunch or dinner from them.

It's true that the numbers for the amount of waste and hunger are appalling, but the solution is not trivial, possibly dangerous (due to food borne pathogens), and probably wasteful in other measurable ways, such as transportation and man-hours.

Transportation? Man-hours? Keep it local. You're not going to be trucking food hundreds of miles. Homeless and needy are everywhere. You know what else is everywhere? Coffee shops. There are thousands of Tim Horton's shops in Canada, and each of them throws out all the unsold baked goods every night. Combine those with every other food dispensery that throws out food nightly. We're not even counting the grocery stores here. Food is being thrown out in every town, and every town has poor people who need it.

I've heard estimates over 40%, close to 50%, for the amount of food that's thrown out in the US without ever being consumed by anyone.

I thought we were talking about feeding pigs.

You can't grow leafy greens in the desert. You also can't ship food in refrigerated trucks there, so people in non-arable regions often suffer from vitamin A deficiency.

If you engineer rice to produce vitamin A, now you can ship them a cheap and nutritious form of vitamin A.

Besides, it's not about producing more food - it's about producing the same amount on less land. Increasing yield results in fewer emissions, less water consumption, less habitat destruction, and fewer pesticides used.

Yes, I always expect the Vitamin A rice argument to be brought up by a pro-GMO advocate, because it's the most used argument. It has been proven ineffective, but since I'm not in a position to dig up the articles to prove that, I'll leave that topic there.

My whole point is that GMOs are unnecessary, and cause more overall damage to the planet than good. We simply don't NEED them, despite some people try arguing that we do. It's as if some people ignore all other solutions for feeding the world except for GMOs. We have dozens of better solutions that just aren't being tried, because there aren't millions of dollars to be made there unlike in GMOs. Monsanto does not want to better the planet, they want to increase their monopoly.

It has been proven ineffective

No it hasn't. It's barely been given a chance, though. I have rebuttals if you actually want to dig up your sources.

My whole point is that GMOs are unnecessary, and cause more overall damage to the planet than good.

They don't cause more damage relative to non-GMO crops, and by increasing yield they decrease emissions/farmland/water and pesticide use.

We have dozens of better solutions that just aren't being tried, because there aren't millions of dollars to be made there unlike in GMOs.

Why would a company spend money on a non-optimal approach?

Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly and there are plenty of independents.

"They don't cause more damage relative to non-GMO crops, and by increasing yield they decrease emissions/farmland/water and pesticide use."

There are plenty of organic and progressive agricultural practices that take care of all of those issues anyway. I'm not going to go dig up each and every one because this has dragged out quite a bit. But again, no need for GMOs. My guess is that you subscribe to news sources with a mainstream pro-GMO stance rather than any of the many alternative sources which discuss progressive agriculture and ancient effective agricultural techniques. Look into it, you might be pleasently surprised. It's sad that in today's North American market, Monsanto is part of a system that pushes common farmers into buying into their set of products due to primarily financial reasons. Our current system makes it very difficult to make any major progress in terms of farming methods in North America.

Why limit our options? Farmers overwhelmingly choose to buy GMO seeds, why tell them to change?

I subscribe to peer-reviewed science. GMOs increase yield, reduce pesticide use and increase farm-level biodiversity.

If GMO crops didn't spread like a plague and infest other neighboring crops via cross-pollination, I'd agree 100%

They don't, not more than any other cultivated crop.

They have been known to spread to neighboring crops, forcing some organic farmers to re-locate or shut down

No more risk than non-GE, non-organic. Organic is a meaningless label anyway.

Ill check out that video, thanks

Food production has always been linear, while population growth has always been exponential. So we might have enough food for now, but what happens in 100 years?

Also no one seems to know exactly wtf is going on with the climate. We cannon assume we will always have the same amount of temperate landmass from which to farm.

Lets not foget about the bees either! we need to reduce our dependency on pesticides; genetically modifying crops is the best way of going about this.

I would agree that GM crops are more important for the future than the present. But the future is what scientific experiment is all about.

Nobody cares what you believe, they want to see evidence

I believe this post.

You are not special, the government is not paying people to disagree with you on the Internet. And if they were it would be a waste of money, because most people already disagree with you on a lot of issues.

Propaganda online is pretty cheap. Many people don't watch TV anymore. Even if it was really expensive, why do you think the government wouldn't waste money? I normally see people claiming the government wastes money. Now, since it is convenient for your argument, suddenly the government tightens up the budget? Besides that, you seem to have never even attempted to google this. I'll do it for you.

• Wired: Get ready for the robot propaganda machine

• CBC News- Bureaucrats monitor online forums

• The Guardian: British army creates team of Facebook warriors

• Glenn Greenwald: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

• Glenn Greenwald: Hacking Online Polls and Other Ways British Spies Seek to Control the Internet

• Times of Israel - The internet: Israel’s new PR battlefield

• GCHQ’s “Chinese menu” of tools spreads disinformation across Internet- “Effects capabilities” allow analysts to twist truth subtly or spam relentlessly.

• The Guardian-With Israel's foreign ministry organising volunteers to flood news websites with pro-Israeli comments, Propaganda 2.0 is here

• The Guardian: Internet Astroturfing

• BBC News: US plans to 'fight the net' revealed

• Israel is paying internet workers to manipulate online content such as Wikipedia (2 minute video)

• Buzzfeed: Documents Show How Russia’s Troll Army Hit America

• NY Times- From a nondescript office building in St. Petersburg, Russia, an army of well-paid “trolls” has tried to wreak havoc all around the Internet — and in real-life American communities.

• CENTCOM engages bloggers

• WIRED: Air Force Releases ‘Counter-Blog’ Marching Orders

• Military Report: Secretly ‘Recruit or Hire Bloggers’

• The Guardian: Israel organizes volunteers to flood the net with Israeli propaganda

• The Guardian: Israel ups the stakes in the propaganda war

• Huffington Post- Israel To Pay Students For Pro-Israeli Social Media Propaganda

• BBC News: China's Internet spin doctors

• Air Force ordered software to manage army of fake virtual people

• HBGary: Automated social media management

• NPR: Report: U.S. Creates Fake Online Identities To Counter 'Enemy Propaganda'

• The Guardian: US spy operation to manipulate social media

• Huffington Post- Exposing Cyber Shills and Social Media's Underworld

• Turkey's Government Forms 6,000-Member Social Media Team

• Why Reddit moderators are censoring Glenn Greenwald’s latest news story on shills

• ADWEEK: Marketing on Reddit Is Scary, But These Success Stories Show Big Potential

• BBC news: Amazon targets 1,114 'fake reviewers' in Seattle lawsuit

• New York Times: Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company, reached a settlement with the State of New York over its attempts to fake positive consumer reviews on the Web. The company had ordered employees to pretend they were satisfied customers and write glowing reviews of its face-lift procedure on Web sites

• Security researchers at VeriSign iDefense can put a price on your Facebook account. As a recent attempt to sell 1.5 million accounts shows, social networking credentials are gaining value in the cyber-underworld.

• Shill Detection Study: Battling the Internet Water Army: Detection of Hidden Paid Posters [PDF]

• Wikileaks: Reddit cofounder consulting for Stratfor to bring in the social media dollars

• US military studied how to influence Twitter users in Darpa-funded research

• A vote on a new submission can significantly alter its chances of making the front page. "Changing the hive mind -- How social media manipulation affects everything" by Tim Weninger at TEDxUND

• REP Hank Johnson calls for investigation into a disinformation operation against American journalists who investigated the government's use of internet disinformation and smear campaigns

• http://www.boostupvotes.com/

• Reddit Secrets- Buy Reddit upvotes

• Reddit Secrets- Buy pre-aged, established Reddit accounts so your PR team can blend in

• Confession of Hillary Shill from /r/SandersForPresident

• User infiltrates Israeli shill operation and dumps evidence. These shills specifically target certain users for downvotes and upvotes. A perusal of one targeted redditor's history is very good evidence that he indeed is being targeted for downvotes on /r/worldnews

• Shill whistleblower, claims to have derailed discussions and called people anti-semites, ruined reputations of users by searching their account history, amongst other things.

• Fracking shill whistleblower spills the beans on Fracking Internet PR

• /r/netsec talks about gaming reddit via sockpuppets and how online discourse is (easily) manipulated.

• Whistleblower and subsequent investigation: Paid trolls on /r/Bitcoin

One or more of these domains are banned by reddit sitewide FYI. I've approved your comment but just something for you to be aware of. Some of the default subs probably wouldn't and don't do so, meaning a post like this would sit there unread.

Boostupvotes probably. Thanks for the heads up.

I've no doubt paid activists exist. But I severely doubt they exist in the numbers alleged by some people, and no-one has ever bothered to explain why they would bother expending any significant energy on a sub that has now fallen out of the top 100, with barely 3% the subscribers of /r/worldnews and fewer than /r/gentlemanboners.

That's even discounting the, shall we say, rather strong belief system inherent here. Given the relentless frequency with which these allegedly "shilled" topics reach the top of the sub here, if I was paying anyone, I'd be demanding a refund.

I've no doubt paid activists exist. But I severely doubt they exist in the numbers alleged by some people

One person can control 10, 20, 50 accounts. It seems like there are so many of them.

no-one has ever bothered to explain why they would bother expending any significant energy on a sub that has now fallen out of the top 100, with barely 3% the subscribers of /r/worldnews and fewer than /r/gentlemanboners.

Top post on this sub is on the front page of 350,000 people. This sub, as well as many others probably has a few different groups manipulating the discussion. It would cost 100 bucks or so to spread propaganda to many thousands of people, assuming you paid them for a few hours during peak traffic with 20 accounts or whatever. Worth it? Maybe. If it's a government, they are known for wasting money. The more shilling organizations out there, the more likely that one of them will be interested in this subreddit.

That's even discounting the, shall we say, rather strong belief system inherent here. Given the relentless frequency with which these allegedly "shilled" topics reach the top of the sub here, if I was paying anyone, I'd be demanding a refund.

Again, government waste. Could also be a testing ground, or training newcomers, etc. Use your imagination.

Top post on this sub is on the front page of 350,000 people. This sub, as well as many others probably has a few different groups manipulating the discussion. It would cost 100 bucks or so to spread propaganda to many thousands of people, assuming you paid them for a few hours during peak traffic with 20 accounts or whatever

So, in the top posts currently we have "Israel’s Command of White House and US Congress, Financed by $6bn through the AIPAC Lobby in Washington" and "California’s Largest Tribe Bans GMO Crops and Genetically-Engineered Salmon" And there's nothing out of the ordinary about either topic on this sub.

Who, exactly, is benefiting from the supposed promotion of these stories? It certainly isn't the JIDF or Monsanto, the two most commonly-alleged shillers.

So, in the top posts currently we have "Israel’s Command of White House and US Congress, Financed by $6bn through the AIPAC Lobby in Washington" and "California’s Largest Tribe Bans GMO Crops and Genetically-Engineered Salmon" And there's nothing out of the ordinary about either topic on this sub.

If I ran a shilling organization, I'd run it efficiently. The only thing that I would care about is the top post in the hot queue, and possibly any posts that will make their way to the hot queue. Why? Compare the votes. Many posts on here will hit 5-6000 upvotes. The second to the top post will normally be around 100-200 upvotes. Today is a bad example because of the time the posts were displaced, but I want you to keep an eye on this difference from now on. That is only counting the people who vote. I'll estimate how many actual people will see a post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/about/traffic

25,000 unique IP addresses (unique people) per day actually go into /r/conspiracy, mostly from their front page into the comments section of only the top submission. There are a very small number of people who venture further into the subreddit. This is not counting how many people see the top post without looking at the comments. That would be significantly more. I'll be conservative and estimate that 50,000 people see the top post. That is 50,000 people who may want to spread this information to other areas of Reddit, facebook, twitter, etc. It could end up being hundreds of thousands of people who see a piece of content because one crazy conspiracy nut posted it on here.

Are you beginning to see why the plethora of organizations out there could be interested in what is posted to this sub and Reddit in general? Maybe they don't focus tons of time on this subreddit, but they focus on other subs and to justify a paycheck, shills will mess with this subreddit as well when there isn't much going on elsewhere. There are tons of possibilities.

Also, I organized tons of relevant information on /r/shills. Have you browsed the content there?

As for the AIPAC post, that one was actually number 1 at 6:45 pm EST, then another post skyrocketed within an hour and took it's place. On the link above, you will notice that peak traffic is about 7:00 to 9:00 pm EST. If they only care about the top post and only care about peak traffic (remember- efficiency), then this makes sense.

I'm not a shill (whatever that means anymore). I believe that GM crops are going to be a main reason we don't starve,

Are you a gambler?

GMO's are a Pandora's box. Even the best scientists with the best intentions taking precautions to mitigate any foreseeable consequences have a major problem: The effects of genetic modification on the target organisms and on other interacting organisms CANNOT be reliably foreseen. To say otherwise is sheer hubris.

And these organisms reproduce.

We're not talking about cross-breeding dogs or apples, or grafting one kind of fruit tree into another, we are talking about introducing genetic material from one species into another - like incorporating genetics from bacteria into corn, potatoes and other crops, or adding genes from one type of animal to another to enhance certain traits, protect from pests and diseases, etc.

Again, these organism reproduce in the wild, and when they do, the traits of the offspring often shock the GMO scientists themselves.

Scientific American - August, 2010

Genetically Modified Crop on the Loose and Evolving in U.S. Midwest

GM canola plant refugees from farms in North Dakota bear multiple transgenic traits

Excerpt:

"We found transgenic plants growing in the middle of nowhere, far from fields," says ecologist Cindy Sagers of the University of Arkansas (U.A.) in Fayetteville, who presented the findings August 6 at the Ecological Society of America meeting in Pittsburgh. Most intriguingly, two of the 288 tested plants showed man-made genes for resistance to multiple pesticides—so-called "stacked traits," and a type of seed that biotechnology companies like Monsanto have long sought to develop and market. As it seems, Mother Nature beat biotech to it. "One of the ones with multiple traits was [in the middle of] nowhere, and believe me, there's a lot of nowhere in North Dakota—nowhere near a canola field," she adds.

So, through natural crossbreeding - in the wild - the Canola did what Monsanto had TRIED to do with all of their resources - and failed.

So then, if nature can, on its own, create totally unpredicted traits that are see as FAVORABLE to short-sighted humans, what traits and changes are likely to occur that are unpredictable and UNFAVORABLE?

Do we really want to know?

Human nature is such that if we can do something, we almost always WILL do it, because, well, why the fuck not?

If they can weaponize genetic modifications, they will. If they can genetically modify humans to create a hard-working obedient and docile slave-worker class, they fucking will.

Science fiction? Not even. And once loose in the wild, these changes are irreversible, potentially permanently changing entire species, as well as other species that feed on and interact with them - FOREVER.

Yay GMO's?

There is no difference between introducing genetic elements from GE crops into the world and introducing genetic elements from modified non-GE crops into the world. When you cultivate a crop developed by non-GE methods like mutagenesis, hybridization, somatic cell fusion, etc, you are posing exactly the same risk. There are no risks exclusive to genetic engineering.

will you go nuts posting a rant if anyone wants GMO food labeled?

GM crops have and will continue to destroy non-gmo parts of our ecosystem.

Even if the crops are safe for humans, what about all the other organisms that feed off them?

Also if you think fluoride in your water is good for you, you probably think chlorine in your water is good for you.

Can't really help a person with a lack of common sense.

Personal insults gain you nothing in a discussion. Also, common sense is all but irrelevant in science. Also, I made no mention of fluoride.

Ok, on to GMOs! The term GMO covers a huge range. I was referring to GM crops. I am not an expert, but I have done some personal research and had several conversations with my roommate, who is working on his phd in biology with a specialization in botany. He is currently working on what I am about to outline below.

GM crops are safe for humans. We already eat them all the time. Since the dawn of civilization we have been selectively planting crops that: produce a favorable yield,are disease resistant, are pest resistant, ect. This IS genetic modifying, it quite literally changes the genetic code, its just quite slow. What they are working on now is essentially the same thing. Except they go in at the molecular level and manually alter the dna code to produce the same outcome. Its the same thing, it just doesnt take generations to succeed.

Edit: And also almost every single thing humans have done since the industrial revolution has destroyed ecosystems.

Why is this simple truth so hard to realize?

High Fructose Corn Syrup - a gmo

Here's one google search about it:

Without knowing it, the HFCS in your body may be setting the stage for health problems including: Diabetes. Know how HFCS worsens diabetes, which is mainly rooted in insulin problems. Metabolic syndrome. ... Damage to your immune system. ... Speed-up aging process. ... A load of dangerous mercury poisons.

(IS FUCKING TERRIBLE FOR YOU AND HIGHLY ADDICTIVE)

Corn Starches and Corn Syrups (WHICH ARE BAD FOR YOU)

ARE IN ALMOST EVERY PROCESSED FOOD IN NORTH AMERICA EVEN CANS OF SOUP

Have that healthy Yogurt with your immune damaging HFCS! http://www.divinecaroline.com/self/wellness/surprising-products-contain-high-fructose-corn-syrup

Please, I'd love to hear how a Coca Cola (not really a food just a bunch of chemicals) is good for you. That high fructose corn cancer sure is delicious.

The same people that allow you to buy BATTERY ACID IN A BOTTLE, tell you it is okay to eat Genetically FUCKING MUTATED food.

Tell me what do these three things have in common? REFINED SUGAR, WHEAT, COCAINE.

(The answer is that all three are chemically treated plants that are highly addictive in nature, all of which have obvious negative health effects.)

http://www.vega-licious.com/the-sugar-trap-sugar-is-more-addictive-than-cocaine/

They use the same pesticides they put on your potatoes as chemical warfare. AND THEY ADMIT IT. Monsanto MANUFACTURED AGENT ORANGE.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/agent-orange-background-monsanto-involvement.aspx

They put fluoride in your WATER. YOUR DRINKING WATER. And chlorine so that when you shower you gas yourself.

http://chriskresser.com/is-your-daily-shower-making-you-sick/

Why are all the bees dying?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950

I could go on forever, honestly. Congrats on your friend with the institutionalized education that was probably funded in part or all by corporations/corrupt government.

Every single thing I said here is true. Please tell me more about these GMOs. Gluten has done exceptionally well over the years at making hundreds of thousands of people intolerant to it.

http://paleoleap.com/11-ways-gluten-and-wheat-can-damage-your-health/

Did you know cigarettes are not as bad for you in countries that aren't in North America? Do you know why? The CHEMICALS THEY SPRAY ON THE TOBACCO PLANTS. Compare a pack of cigarettes like Indonesia's for tar, nicotine, etc. ALL READINGS ARE LOWER. Your tobacco providers do not care because they are in it to PROFIT FROM YOU.

There is not 1 legitimate reason we need to modify our food the same reason there is not 1 legitimate reason we need to fluoridate our water, we have more than enough space on this planet to yield normal crops for every single person. Making the plants immune to bugs that our ecosystem needs to thrive isn't exactly ideal, actually it's beyond stupid. Kind of like all the other reasons to GENETICALLY MODIFY AN ORGANISM ON OUR PLANET. Please understand the domino effect this type of ideology creates long term. Science is like a religion, don't blindly follow it. You can't use "but science" as an argument and provide no other evidence of your claims. GMOs are clearly NOT good for you.

The fact that people don't understand how Fluoride affects PH balance is foolish. Old women realize they shouldn't feed their plants tap water because its too acidic (causes cancer because negative ph balance is carcinogenic) and then they turn around and down a glass of it themselves into their own body.

Talk about denial.

You're not even wrong. Stop trusting those nutjob websites. How could you possibly ignore the concept that those websites want to make you believe nonsense so you keep visiting them for compelling headlines. You seem to be a "critical thinker" but as soon as a paranoid schizophrenic makes a blog post they are 100% right with no possible rebuttals.

Not all HFCS is GMO, and there's no chemical difference between GMO and non-GMO HFCS.

GMOs aren't killing the bees. "…there is no correlation between where GM crops are planted and the pattern of CCD incidents."

tell you it is okay to eat Genetically FUCKING MUTATED food.

Every crop you eat has been heavily modified. Think about how Shih Tzus and Dobermans come from the same early canines... we have caused massive genetic changes to the crops we eat. Corn used to be the size of your thumb, bananas used to be inedible, watermelon used to resemble a nut.

They use the same pesticides they put on your potatoes as chemical warfare. AND THEY ADMIT IT. Monsanto MANUFACTURED AGENT ORANGE.

First of all, the chemical division of the company formerly known as Monsanto is now owned by Pfizer, not the seed biotech company formed in ~2002 now known as Monsanto. But we'll ignore that with a handwavy "well they profited off of it".

There are no employees of the seed biotech company that worked for the chemical division which produced Agent Orange. The US government forced Monsanto, along with a handful of other companies, to produce AO by enacting The War Measures Act, and Monsanto warned the government that shoddy manufacturing would result in toxic contaminants.

Check out this quote:

"When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the 'military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the 'civilian' version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the 'enemy,' none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide."

• Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, 1990
  

I get that this is /r/conspiracy but thinking that non-coeliac gluten sensitivity is a thing is ridiculous.

I appreciate your thorough responses but will require time to check over some of the information. The particular links weren't sole sources for my opinion, just the ones most convenient to send at the time. I don't really trust much I've read about only once.

Cool, cool. Here are some more resources. I don't mean to gish-gallop, just trying to be comprehensive. I have bolded links which I consider the most credible.

Quotes from major scientific bodies agreeing GMOs are safe

GMOs increase yield, reduce pesticide use and increase farm-level biodiversity

(cultivating monocultures is not a result of the developmental technique used for the seed)

GMOs are substantively equivalent to non-GMOs so there is no reason to label

Glyphosate is perfectly safe when used according to label

Labeling would cost untold millions and require a complete infrastructure overhaul

There is not a monopoly, and plenty of independents develop GMOs

I noticed you spend a vast majority of time trying to fight in favor of this narrative here from your post history and are just regurgitating links you've planted on other people in related "debates."

Seems to me your information is biased as you clearly have something to gain from winning this argument.

I am simply dispelling myths with evidence.

You are making baseless accusations and ignoring rebuttals.

Look at the evidence I've presented, don't ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You have to understand that the sources of your information come from government appointed and funded scientists that are in bed with the same companies being criticized.

Do you considers things like Coca Cola paying nutritionists millions to lie about their product?

Don't hide behind the guise of a scientist, especially if they have something to gain from what they are saying.

You're herer trying to convince me using Glyphosphate (a known carcinogen) is good for you (or at least not bad) because it doesn't kill humans as badly as random tiny farm pests. How much money did Monsanto drop to have that information released?

Well we are poisoning you! Just not enough for you to notice directly! Good stuff.

All you're providing is baseless accusations with no evidence. Monsanto is the same size as Whole Foods. Does 7/11 control the govt and all scientists? 7/11 is much larger.

GM crops have and will continue to destroy non-gmo parts of our ecosystem.

There's no real difference between GE and non-GE, but besides that GE crops don't pose a greater risk of "destroying parts of our ecosystem" than non-GE crops. Adoption of GE crops has actually increased biodiversity on farms, and monoculturing has nothing to do with what kind of developmental technique was used to produce the seed.

1 easy example of GMOs destroying parts of our ecosystem. I'm sure there are thousands more.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950

Global Research is a quack factory of pseudoscience.

"…there is no correlation between where GM crops are planted and the pattern of CCD incidents."

well explained & upvoted (though I disagree on nuclear)

You had no problem with this statement?

You are not special, the government is not paying people to disagree with you on the Internet. And if they were it would be a waste of money, because most people already disagree with you on a lot of issues.

This is fantasy denier bullshit. Shills are routinely reported on even in the mainstream media.

you shill, are the sort of person who made me unsubscribe from conspiracy

You're not being subtle enough

I don't care. The big conspiracies here are mostly non existing or the result of corporations cutting costs and maximizing profit. Don't let me stop you from worrying on GMO or water fluoridation or whatever, I moved on.

They're not going to come to insignificant places like /r/conspiracy though, no one has any influence here and nothing discussed or planned here affects the world in any meaningful way.

You're fine, people whose day job it is to come in here and defend the government and all of its' actions as a day job are not. And these people exist, look up astroturfing for a starter.

The fluoride issue really gets me. There is now plenty of evidence of its adverse effects, including epidemic fluorosis. Yet no one seems to care. It gets so little attention in the media. And when one city tries to finally do something about it by ending the fluoridation of their water, an onslaught of lobbyists descend on the city and get the decision reversed.

I did some research into Iodine recently. From what I've read it lets the body excrete fluoride and bromide, and helps with metabolism.

Its natural in our bodies and I have also read that a lot of people in the west have an Iodine deficiency so the body cant combat fluoride as well, it's our diet I think.

Japanese people eat lots of seafood (naturally high in Iodine - especially seaweed like Kelp) and they have very low cancer rates, which is another benefit of Iodine, it has anti-carcinogenic properties.

There is a world of research only a google away, here's the first one on duck duck go - https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/minerals/health-benefits-of-iodine.html

edit: Also Japanese men have less lung cancer even though they smoke more, this is a possible reason.

edit2: There could also be other reasons for this though - http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/lungcaparadox.htm

I tried increasing my iodine intake, but it gave me bad acne.

Could likely be a detox symptom, I certainly would try it for a more prolonged period of time before deciding it's not for you.

There is a world of research only a google away, here's the first one on duck duck go

Because when I want cold hard facts, I use "I feel lucky" after a simple Google.

And then when I see the facts are from people who have a vested interest in convincing me to be "natural", then I know I've found the real deal.

I was clearly advising people to research it themselves, and you putting words in my mouth about finding the "real deal" is dishonest.

There was a post about rebuilding tooth enamel in explainlikeim5 that was just overrun with pro-fluoride comments. It was pretty crazy to see how much they wanted to push fluoride in toothpaste and in water.

[deleted]

and they'd still think it's a conspiracy simply because of Alex's association

http://i.imgur.com/nmPEH72.jpg

These aren't just shills. The media and shills have created a drove of groupies on these issues a kin to religious fanatics. They shill on endlessly about the topics like gospel all to stroke their own ego and force their flawed authority worshiping views on others.

Look at the vaccine, 911, shooting, and GMO followings created in the populations. Some PR groups have got really good at fostering hate-based and fear-based fanatic cause groupies.

Skepticism is the umbrella term for this kind of religion.

Like DrSultanPhDD said, you just need to get other people to champion their knowledge by feeding them the knowledge you want to perpetuate. Skeptic websites fulfill this goal by arming people with talking points which they never had to research or verify themselves.

It's bothersome because I consider myself a skeptic, but I have a very hard time relating to most of these "skeptic" folks or their agendas. Reading a blog article which claims to be skeptical or claims to debunk a myth, and then making an assumption the article was correct, is not how one practices skepticism.

This new form of skepticism is a way of saying "other people questioned this before and luckily we already have the answers you need, there is no reason to question any further you silly human we've already done all the work!"

Their research literally consists of googling 'x topic debunked' - and then they get a +1 for their world view and never have to spend a single second pursuing real critical thinking over the issue.

Yeah, I prescribed to that mode of thinking once, but quickly moved on when I realized the people supplying the info are anonymous nobodies whose credentials consist of spending too much time on the internet and not enough time in reality.

Yeah I do some work with a few guys like that and you just hear them rattle off all the talking points for new atheism, go on about how a belief in god is intellectually lazy, anti vaxxers are so stupid, conspiracy theorists lol, yet then they claim they're anarchists and don't trust the government.

Skepticism is the umbrella term for this kind of religion.

Except because it requires evidence instead of faith it's the literal opposite of every single religion.

Evidence like the kind anyone can publish online? Or evidence like the kind Scientology comes up with? Or evidence like the kind that gets intentionally destroyed and kept out of the story? Or evidence withheld by the funding company because it showed negative results instead of positive for their own product? Or evidence like the polygraph? Or evidence like the glove with OJ's DNA on it? Or is it testimonial evidence? Anecdotal evidence? Awww shit this is going nowhere, just like the point you tried to make.

Evidence like the kind anyone can publish online?

Dude, you're the one who posts non-peer-reviewed research and ignores peer-reviewed.

Not "anyone can publish" online but you seem to ignore that fact by a simple ad hominem.

Not "anyone can publish" online

I'm guessing he means blogging = publishing. ;)

Ever heard of hierarchy of evidence? Got a case against it?

Yes many people are essentially trying to convince themselves that they're safe and there's nothing to be concerned about. Of course better people are taking care of all of us and their morals are impeccable. It's perfectly normal that industrialized murder is the most resource-consuming activity on our planet, that's just fixing everything don't worry.

These groupies exist because most people don't have time to research, converse, and process topics this complex. They've busied themselves with their families, technology, entertainment, and the constant paper chase. So when it comes time for something as "banal" as political issues, they simply choose the best-fit packaging presented by their preferred "trusted media source" and run with it.

Not to act as a functional substitute for a homegrown and verified ideology about the world, per se. More to have something reliable to shoe horn into conversation should it stray from insert-NFL-team-here and the latest celebrity whore to get exploited by the machine.

And they are often not interested

Bingo. Why pay shills when you can have people shill for you for free. People will always champion their knowledge as the best, and if you only feed them the knowledge you want them to have ..

We all know who's behind GMO. On fluoridation - it's the powerful pro-fluoride lobby. And I don't mean the public one comprised of dentists. I mean the phosphate mines as well as mind control industries

When the official story doesn't make sense, you start looking around and find stuff like this:

How We Got Fluoridated (1999)

Along with the shaping of public attitudes, industry influenced key government agencies. The US Public Health Service (USPHS), and later, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cooperated, to a surprising degree, in the economical disposal of industry's toxic fluoride waste materials. As a result of agency appointments and hiring of industry-funded scientists, these government agencies became closely identified with the motivations of industry. In the process, they have had to ignore serious adverse effects on human health - from fluoride as well as a number of other toxic chemical compounds. In the easy choice of catering to industry, these Agencies incrementally abandoned their own basic charge of promoting human and environmental health.

This identification with industry was true regarding air pollution, and later epitomized in water fluoridation, with the USPHS eventually setting the goal of mandatory national fluoridation by the turn of the century. EPA later rationalized this goal by calling it an efficient way to recycle waste.

As a consequence of the realignment of the Public Health Service into a strong supporter of fluoridation, research in academic institutions also came under the control of big industry on this feared pollution issue. Control over research in academic institutions was brought about through the giving and withholding of government grants and research contracts. All government support of academic institutions was channeled through the industry biased Public Health Service. These pressures and incentives grew as industry grew. Applied relentlessly over the years and decades, the fluoride industry's influence on academia has now spanned most of the 20th century.

By way of economic incentives the American Dental Association (ADA) also became a prominent and active promoter of fluoridation. This came about through the influence of a small clique pretending to speak for all dentists. While the public has tended to see ADA as an unbiased professional organization, it is, in fact, a trade group, with predictable motivations. The role of ADA in fluoridation has been that of an opportunist. It has received ongoing financial support from the USPHS, itself a virtual arm of big industry. ADA alleged an ethical role on the part of dentists based on their claim that fluoridation would reduce dentists' income. But expensive cosmetic dentistry required to hide the effects of fluorosis actually increased the incomes of dentists. As a result, the dental trade association has become an ideal front for big industry in their scheme to dump fluoride waste products at a profit.

Influencing the US medical community was also of crucial importance to the success of the fluoridation scheme. Thousands of American Medical Association members came to be dependent on grants from the National Institutes of Health (a part of the USPHS) for most of their support. A majority of medical schools also came to recognize their increasing dependence on government grants via USPHS. One effect of this influence was minimizing the subject of fluorosis in medical texts. Consequently, the majority of dentists and physicians know very little about chronic fluoride poisoning.

Industry's unstated motivation behind water fluoridation was to find an economical means for disposal of their accumulating fluoride waste products, and to avoid claims for compensation by workers harmed by airborne fluoride on the job. USPHS supports this industrial strategy while at the same time actively assisting industry in a cover-up of their fluoride air pollution problems. Today, through regional and county health offices, USPHS influences city councils to override previous ballot decisions against fluoridating public water, thereby subverting the basic principles of democratic government, as well as compromising public health.

32% DuPont, 30% Monsanto, 10% Syngenta, 6% Bayer. Not a monopoly, if that is what you are implying

Oh, and here's some independently developed GMOs. Notice how almost none are actually being cultivated commercially? That's largely because of anti-GMO rhetoric funded by organic firms making it very difficult to jump all the regulatory hurdles. The anti-GMO movement is part of the reason big biotech dominates.

[Citation needed].

you need citation proving fluoride is needed in the water

I think a mind control claim is far wilder than the dental benefits. You may argue that if there are dental benefits there are better ways to get it--fine. But to claim mind control? I think I speak for most rational people when I say WTF?

Take DMT, and then you'll realise how much you don't want someone fucking with your pineal.

true but there is no need to prove it, for something like adding a chemical to water supply onus is on the supporters to prove beyond shadow of a doubt it is good for you and I don't mean having anyone with motive to lie do the studies and I don't mean opinions of dentists who make profits from people having bad teeth.

well there is fluoride in my water and I feel like I still have my agency so I think the onus is actually on the detractors to prove the mind control claim. AFAIK if the conc. is low enough then the commonly cited issue of fluoridosis is not really a problem but what do I know

[deleted]

You are completely right. (The dose makes the poison!) However I would like to see the evidence of fluoride's poisonous effects at very low doses

Sorry, I deleted my post so I could add more to it without the edit showing up. You're a fast one.

ORIGINAL: There is a concentration of lead and mercury at which you wouldn't notice ill effects. You may be experiencing them without knowing it. At higher concentrations, problems become evident. At even higher concentrations, diseases emerge. Go even higher and you die. What is this? A poison. How much poison is good for you? It depends on why you are taking it. Is the benefit of it greater than the side effects of it?

EDIT: It is worth noting that lead was once added as a sweetener and people used it for a time before realizing it was so harmful. Mercury was used as a medicine, but again, observation of ill effects caused that to end too.

We are stupid monkeys that usually follow the leader, perceived authority. Only a small minority actually questions authority, even though proclaiming that oneself does is a popular thing to do.

There is plenty of evidence that fluorine is poisonous to life. Low concentrations are safer, but the safest dose of any poison is zero. So what if the level of poison we are subjected to causes few visible effects other than perhaps arthritis, dental fluorosis or somewhat rare kidney issues? Aside from the dental fluorosis, we just don't make the connections, just like those in the past failed to do over things we now see as obvious. Have some mercury. It will cure what ails you? It's shiny I guess.

Also, the reason why we don't put any other poisonous substances (aka drugs) into the water supply is because we cannot control dosage. The follow the leader effect keeps us supporting fluoride, because to question adding it to the water supply means that we have to question authority, which currently strongly supports adding it.

I like the way you're thinking, don't think I'm a shill or anything lol. But there are hundreds of studies, many of which are side by side case studies of communities with and without fluoridated water. I concede they may not have found some weird effects if they were not thinking to measure, but I mean people have been crying foul on fluoride for a long time so I really just find it hard to believe these connections wouldn't turn up over the years.

The concentration is "low," but it becomes high if you look at aggregate fluoride exposure (1 + 1 = 2, very simple math), which causes dental and skeletal fluorosis in certain groups because of the amount of water needed per day, specific foods eaten that contain fluoride pesticides, amount of toothpaste absorbed, and possible genetic sensitivity to fluoride. At best, you could say that we are preventing cavities while increasing dental and skeletal fluorosis.

Here's a few examples:

The fluoride in green/black tea was not measured accurately. Now we know it can be up to 9ppm, which is more than twice the maximum contaminant level for drinking water. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100714104059.htm

African Americans are twice as sensitive to fluoride. This was known all the way back in 1962. 1962 internal memo, PDF

Chicken nuggets have high fluoride content because of the deboning process

In its proposed prohibition on sulfuryl fluoride, EPA acknowledged that the pesticide's residues on food are "responsible for a tiny fraction of aggregate fluoride exposure" but deemed that children's total contact with fluoride in the environment -- through drinking water as well as toothpaste -- posed an excess risk of tooth and bone damage.

This week's twin fluoride restrictions reflect "a growing consensus that Americans are exposed to too much fluoride," EWG senior vice president for research, Jane Houlihan, said today. "It raises the concern that, for many decades now, the public has been overexposed."

First approved for use as an anti-termite insecticide more than 50 years ago, sulfuryl fluoride was federally registered for use on food in 2004 and 2005 by Dow AgroSciences

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/11/11greenwire-epa-proposes-phaseout-of-fluoride-based-pestic-97414.html

(Obama reversed this decision so it's still used on food. Thanks Obama)

aggregate fluoride exposure (1 + 1 = 2, very simple math)

If the math is so simple perhaps you could get it right? You are neglecting excretion (plasma half life of 3-10 hours). Also, fluoride does not build up in soft tissues, only in the bones and teeth (same ref). Is that really a problem? Because AFAIK dental fluorosis is an aesthetic issue only, and most of the time it is only visible with excellent lighting and magnification (by the dentist). Indeed, except for the most severe cases, teeth with fluorosis are more resistant to cavities.

Given that fluoride is naturally occurring, is present in a lot of water naturally and in tea apparently, would you not think if it were so harmful the body would have evolved some active excretion or defense? (There is passive excretion in kidneys by the glomerulus but not active in the tubules like sodium for example.)

If the math is so simple perhaps you could get it right? You are neglecting excretion (plasma half life of 3-10 hours). Also, fluoride does not build up in soft tissues, only in the bones and teeth (same ref). Is that really a problem? Because AFAIK dental fluorosis is an aesthetic issue only,

Here is a breakdown of the mathematical failure of fluoride regulations. You may also be surprised to find out that certain people will coincidentally consume high fluoride foods, and so we need to do something either about the water or the food to avoid risks to subpopulations. Fluorosis is also affected by nutritional status. Moderate and severe fluorosis also exist.

Given that fluoride is naturally occurring, is present in a lot of water naturally and in tea apparently, would you not think if it were so harmful the body would have evolved some active excretion or defense? (There is passive excretion in kidneys by the glomerulus but not active in the tubules like sodium for example.)

This is a severely flawed argument. Arsenic is also naturally present in some water supplies and we are able to comprehend that it is beneficial to avoid it.

The greatest threat to public health from arsenic originates from contaminated groundwater. Inorganic arsenic is naturally present at high levels in the groundwater of a number of countries

Except even with such "low levels" a most recent study published in 2015 claims 12% may have the condition (given 0.7 ppm fluoridated water)

yeah but if you make a post like this you don't have your agency so can't be trusted. all about the agency!

lol good talk. cheers!

there is no need to prove it

The burden of the proof is always on the person making the claim. Nobody can disprove water is used as a mind control device - you would have to inspect too many things and people. However, the burden of proof is on you - you need to prove it is so in the first place.

you are one making the claim

Depends on how you couch the term "mind control".

As in, mind control doesn't have to be an active process.

Denying mind control exists in our society is kind of myopic in light of that clarification.

Could you clarify what you mean by that? I am a little confused

Mind control doesn't have to involve a mad scientist placing a hapless victim in a machine, or a evil hypnotist. It's so much easier than that.

Let's do a little exercise. When you see or hear the word TERRORIST, whats the first thing that comes to mind?

You don't have to respond with your answer. But if you do, be honest.

Enemy of the state.

You are referring to nuerolinguistic programming which is entirely different from an alleged chemical agent

Edit: all responses so far tell me what mind control isn't. Idk what you people do mean by it though

An enemy of the state is not automatically YOUR enemy. Fact.

NLP is part of it, yes. Medium of delivery counts as well. It's said that watching television for as little as 60 seconds makes one's brain move into what is called a "low alpha wave" state. Which is a way of saying that television opens you up to suggestion. Deep, subconscious suggestion.

We already know that advertising is designed to appeal to your core subconscious so that you feel good when you see Brand X in the store and buy it. Once you unlock that knowledge of how to program the human mind, a lot of things become possible. You have a direct pipeline for your messaging, delivered straight to your target audience in a way that makes compliance not only probable, but likely in a sizable segment of the population. Anyone that doesn't comply or resists can easily be earmarked as a "conspiracy theorist" and society will do the work of shutting them down, shutting them up, and otherwise marginalizing that person. And thus, any competing messaging is lost to peer pressure and the ingrained drive to conform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okcBjJ2FNtY

I do not in any way seek to deny or demean NLP. Way to derail the fluoride discussion

I didn't say you did? You brought NLP into this.

And this is not a separate discussion from fluoridation. Flouride seems to especially collect around the pineal gland, a poorly understood part of the brain that is said to affect consciousness, spirituality, and how we regulate our connection to what we call 'reality' and our higher selves.

So far, it's been the only legitimate motivation I've seen for mass fluoridation - to get people to accept a State sanctioned father figure instead of realizing the divinity within each of us and honoring it.

I didn't say you did? You brought NLP into this.

I was asking for what you meant by mind control with respect to fluoride; you brought up the word terrorist. Seems unrelated to me, so I pointed that out by implying you are trying to use NLP to bolster the argument on an unrelated topic. Rather than backtrack to actually substantiate your claim, you just delved deeper into NLP.

And this is not a separate discussion from fluoridation.

How?

Flouride seems to especially collect around the pineal gland,

Citation Needed

So far, it's been the only legitimate motivation I've seen for mass fluoridation - to get people to accept a State sanctioned father figure instead of realizing the divinity within each of us and honoring it.

Lmao nobody has ever used that argument except for truthers. Again, citation needed.

truthers

While I applaud you making your slant visible, I will let you know I have no interest in partisan bickering.

Citation Needed

Cited out of order for relevancy:

Fluoride does not accumulate in brain. Of all tissues, brain has the lowest fluoride concentration [Jenkins, 1991; Whitford, 1996; Ekstrand, 1996]. It is generally agreed that the blood-brain barrier restricts the passage of fluoride into the central nervous system. The human pineal gland is outside the blood-brain barrier [Arendt, 1995]. It is one of a few unique regions in the brain (all midline structures bordering the third and fourth ventricles) where the blood-brain barrier is weak. Cells in these regions require direct and unimpeded contact with blood [Rapoport, 1976]. Therefore, pinealocytes have free access to fluoride in the bloodstream. This fact, coupled with the presence of HA, suggest that the pineal gland may sequester fluoride from the bloodstream.

{...}

The purpose was to discover whether fluoride (F) accumulates in the aged human pineal gland. The aims were to determine (a) F-concentrations of the pineal gland (wet), corresponding muscle (wet) and bone (ash); (b) calcium-concentration of the pineal. Pineal, muscle and bone were dissected from 11 aged cadavers and assayed for F using the HMDS-facilitated diffusion, F-ionspecific electrode method. Pineal calcium was determined using atomic absorption spectroscopy. Pineal and muscle contained 297±257 and 0.5±0.4 mg F/kg wet weight, respectively; bone contained 2,037±1,095 mg F/kg ash weight. The pineal contained 16,000±11,070 mg Ca/kg wet weight. There was a positive correlation between pineal F and pineal Ca (r = 0.73, p<0.02) but no correlation between pineal F and bone F. By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone.

http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

In other words, Flouride has been indicated to accelerate calcification of the pineal gland.

Here you go, first paper I found searching "fluoride in water paper":

Health Canada supports water fluoridation as a public health measure to prevent dental decay. Dental disease is the number one chronic disease among children and adolescents in North America; fluoridation can therefore be an important public health measure,” says Dr. Peter Cooney, Health Canada’s Chief Dental Officer. “The big advantage of water fluoridation is that it benefits all residents in a community, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education or employment.”

https://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-75/issue-6/451.pdf

But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

Ok, even assuming what benefits our teeth does not cause IQ loss and that Harvard scientists are wrong, and assuming that the sodium fluoride in the water helps teeth as much as the higher quality calcium fluoride in toothpaste, why add it to water? What about vitamin D, B-12, omega 3, zinc, etc? Why not add some calories too? Why not serve up Brawndo?

Interesting questions, my guess is that pretty much everyone drinks water, but not everyone brushes their teeth regularly. As for why not adding other things, beats me - I hope you follow up with some research. I'm still waiting for more info on "mind control industries".

But also not everyone gets their daily dose of vitamins and minerals, it would make more sense if they added a small amount of all those things into the water but instead it is just fluoride which is known to lower cognitive ability(and if you want to get into crazier ideas it helps calcify the pineal gland) which makes their argument highly suspicious.

big shocker. are you a bot?

I'm a moderator of a 170k reader subreddit, what do you think?

• "You need to provide a citation"
• "Here you go!"
• "LOL, you a bot?"

ummm yeah I can see them using a bot as a mod. and you replied with a copy pasted thing that didn't apply to what I said so it was like you didn't even read it first, just responding to a keyword your program found on reddit.

you need citation proving fluoride is needed in the water

This doesn't apply now?

Health Canada supports water fluoridation as a public health measure to prevent dental decay.

go back and reread

You mentioned that "phosphate mines as well as mind control industries" are pro-fluoridation. I asked you for a source for those claims, you retorted that I need a source for claims that fluoridation is needed in water at all, so I cited that it's good for dental decay. So I've proven my point. Now either you can refute my point by either citing another paper claiming otherwise, prove that my citation is invalid, or we go back to the main issue - me asking you for a citation that "phosphate mines as well as mind control industries" are pro-fluoridation.

ahh ok. I never said that you didn't mean to reply to me

You might want to get a little more perspective on that one paper which covers one country which you found as the first search result on Google. Other countries are strongly against medication of any kind being added to a drinking supply, which happens to cover fluoride as well. Probably because their government represents the wishes of the people who just want clean unadulterated water as a basic necessity of life.

http://imgur.com/0tbbcCN

;)

. Probably because their government represents the wishes of the people who just want clean unadulterated water as a basic necessity of life.

A good chunk of the people on those countries would probably like access to clean drinking water as a start:

http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/thumbs/1805c933-493c-4b85-be16-ad06eb342332/medium/access-to-safe-drinking-water_de64.jpg

[deleted]

Well then I'm sure if you do a perspective study comparing England to any of those others you would find some important differences then right? Still waiting for what those might be

Outside of 9/11 and politics, these are the next 2 most popular conspiracies.

Ok... Im going to be called a shill, but let me give you the opinion of somebody who understands these topics, and has done research on both sides.

Let me start with GMO. Im a Biology major, I worked in a university research laboratory for 2 years in college. Personally, I feel like people who oppose GMO just don't know any better. GMO and genetic technology has been slandered and demonized in the media, thanks to Monsanto. This technology is amazing, we have discovered a way to identify what parts of DNA are responsible for a specific function of an organism (plants, animals, fungi..). We know what part of a plant's DNA codes the enzyme that is responsible for 'Vitamin A' synthesis. This knowledge is applied to humans. We can identify the error in your DNA will cause diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and even cancers. However, sometimes there are mistakes, and a modification can have an unintended outcome. These are impossible to predict. It's like knowing the final outcome of a chess game based on the first move. But these mistakes are not a conspiracy to make people sensitive to gluten, or autistic. Its simply a new technology taking its course and finding its place in the world.

Fluoride on the other hand... I believe it has no purpose in our water supply other than keeping rich people rich. I believe it once had a positive effect, before oral hygiene was common, but now it's just a relic. I don't believe it has any effect now. It might not have even been effective to begin with, it just strikes me as something a lobbyist would try to sell to the government to make money.

GMO's are a good thing because they can help us create better plants, but I feel we do not know enough about the human body and genetics in general to say with certainty that these modified plants are good for us. Not to mention seeing strawberries the size of tangerines is just scary when the ones I grow are the same size as raspberries. I like things natural because natural has a proven track record.

I'm really on the fence with GMOs. No huge issues with them but I'm a bit wary of their effects on the body. The way companies use GMOs to cause farmers to buy more seeds is just ridiculous though.

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://ow.ly/uzTUy)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (bit.ly/1u6fHay)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” (http://bit.ly/1kJm7TB)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

They're all bought and paid for and so are you!!1!

/s

I agree with your points about technology being wonderful. There some 'genetic modifications' that have been done in the past that have helped saved millions or even billions of people from starving.

The only issue is that technology is a double edged sword and it can just as easily be used for evil. directly or indirectly.

If we only allowed things that could never be used for an evil purpose, we'd be back in the stone age IMO.

Indeed. I didn't mean that we couldn't use them, we just have to be vigilant and ensure that they aren't used for evil.

I'm more concerned that we'll miss out on opportunities because we're pandering to fears rather than using the data.

I'm curious how you arrived at your opinion about fluoride. There is evidence that it still helps.

Lack of fluoride in Calgary drinking water leads to rise in kids' tooth decay, study indicates

Im just a skeptic. Personally I don't care one way or the other about fluoridation. I don't believe it causes harm, not enough evidence to support it.

Like I said above, I feel like with oral hygiene becoming more common, fluoridation is less necessary. However, that article made me think.. how many 10 year olds brush their teeth daily? I know I didn't. Ive never had a cavity, maybe fluoride is to thank.

Interesting study. Especially the part it takes 2.5-3 years for the trend to appear. I never really meant it was not effective to begin with, just its not needed anymore. I was wrong about that too! It makes sense though, maybe as an adult you take better care of you teeth than children, so fluoridated water is needed for children's health. I would like to see a study on adults without fluoridated water.

I think that parents take care of their kids' teeth... for every kid with bad dental hygiene, there must be a parent with bad dental hygiene.

Personally, I don't follow the recommended practices of brushing at least twice a day (or after every meal) and flossing every day. I hate flossing, but those newer plastic floss holders are better... I just brush once a day, or skip it if I'm super tired. I have had 1 cavity my whole life (in a tooth flaw?). But my wife, who brushes more consistently than me has had lots of cavities. She also grew up on reverse osmosis water, which could be a factor, but I think she also is unlucky in her genes. Anyway, my point is that some people are lucky with a genetic resistance to cavities. So those kinds of people might think it's less of a problem than it is.

My impression is that the dental medical world also thinks fluoridation is still helpful.

check out the paid troll Decapentaplegia have a meltdown in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3yulru/venezuela_just_got_on_board_with_banning_all_gm/

paid troll

Proof?

I also didn't see much of a meltdown there, but sure that's cool. Call out users and break one of the rules of the subreddit just because you don't like someone.

Edit: The downvotes are cute, but all they tell me is that it's okay in this community to insult others for no reason other than that they disagree with you. This is precisely what's wrong with this community, and one of the many reasons people find it so difficult to listen to you.

Says the guy with a fairly new account devoted solely to conspiracy topics on reddit.

It's funny how time and time again someone will call out a user as a troll or shill, and then like clockwork some other random user such as yourself shows up to defend them and demand proof. Your reaction to this accusation, which wasn't even directed at you, is quite telling.

The proof that you are asking for is against reddit rules to provide, but you knew that didn't you? I know you know, because it's a common demand which apologists like you make when they come to the aid of a shill or troll. You know what's also common? Stating the insult was because someone disagrees with you. Maybe the insult was due to recognizing a certain pattern of behavior and validating that hunch by finding many other users and even entire threads outlining the same concerns.

The kind of "hard proof" you demand is not really necessary when the evidence is littered all over the user's account history anyway.

Decapentaplegia exhibits the behavior of someone getting paid to do what he does. He spends nearly every day ranting about GMO labels being a very very (very scary!) bad idea and bombards random threads with countless other pro-GMO talking points. Why? Because he's a kid with a hobby? Naw, I doubt it. Most kids would rather play Nintendo, and most adults would rather be making a living through an honest career.

That was on point and very eye opening and dude said, what if it's his hobby?

If it's your fucking hobby to get on and shill for corporations for free, you are just as bad or worse than the motherfuckers getting paid to do it. I'd say that makes it worse cause it's akin to being a fanatic sheep.

Who are you to tell me what to do on Reddit? I don't work for anybody. I just like proving idiots wrong, because all the non-idiots of the world can see right through this bullshit.

I stand by my comment. I believe some things about history that most people don't, but I don't make it my mission to go and correct every last person I can find with a poor grasp on history. Insert seven letter two word sentence here.

They all have the same training so use the same tactics and phrases, makes them easy to spot

Who is "they?"

fairly new account devoted solely to conspiracy topics on reddit.

9 months is new? Really moving the goalposts there. As for this account, well duh. It's my conspiracy account, not my main. Hence why it's only posted in conspiracy forums. Go figure, right?

It's funny how time and time again someone will call out a user as a troll or shill, and then like clockwork some other random user such as yourself shows up to defend them and demand proof. Your reaction to this accusation, which wasn't even directed at you, is quite telling.

Quite telling of what? That I'm tired of how fucking offensive this community is for no reason other than to preserve it's echo chamber?

The proof that you are asking for is against reddit rules to provide

No it isn't. Not that it matters, because YOU DON't HAVE ANY. Because guess what? You're wrong. 99.9% of the time these accusations are bullshit. I ask for proof because it is NOT OK to just insult random users for no reason. It's childish.

when they come to the aid of a shill or troll

You still have literally no reason to believe they are one. If you have a reason, why don't you discuss it?

when the evidence is littered all over the user's account history anyway.

So apparently the evidence that I'm asking for breaks site rules, and yet "it's littered all over the user's account history anyway?" That doesn't compute. If you have proof, that's all I ask for, and yet I've never once been presented with any.

Decapentaplegia exhibits the behavior of someone getting paid to do what he does. He spends nearly every day ranting about GMO labels being a very very (very scary!) bad idea and bombards random threads with countless other pro-GMO talking points. Why? Because he's a kid with a hobby? Naw, I doubt it. Most kids would rather play Nintendo, and most adults would rather be making a living through an honest career.

So he has an interest or enjoys arguing or vehemently disagrees with people, etc. etc. etc.. You still have LITERALLY NO PROOF that he's paid to do so. Literally none. Maybe it is his hobby. "Naw. I doubt it." What a strong argument. You sure removed that possibility!

So for all your rambling all you managed to say was "I don't have proof, actually, but it's there, I swear, and people have literally no reason to regularly disagree with me unless they're paid."

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'd love to hear it. I'm not offended by criticism, unlike many others here, such as /u/Horus_Krishna_2.

getting furious doesn't help you.

I'm not furious, actually. I'm quite calm. I used caps to make sure the user I responded to didn't miss important points, as he clearly already has previously.

Thank you for projecting, though. It's nice to know you care.

clearly furious. my advice is log off, go for a walk, take deep breaths

You're positively adorable. I don't think I would like to take advice from the likes of you though, I'm afraid. I would hate to be like you in any way.

label it

You're so cute, Horus.

label it

^ paid troll comes to fellow paid trolls aid

Indeed. Pathetic bunch of strawmen.

I wonder how they sleep at night.

I suppose they must be in china or india and it's either this or starve. but still. why not be a farmer or something with dignity?

I would be stunned if they even know that word "dignity". I think they're just Western careerists who have no conscience whatsoever.

But they'll be in for a big surprise when Judgement Day comes.

Your high horse is quite beautiful, you know. Did you train it yourself?

Mostly US military bases

seems the thing they would outsource, like torture, to try to keep quiet

Quite well. My life doesn't revolve around insulting others and pretending I'm always right and those who disagree are shills or trolls. Thanks for caring though.

So because I don't attack somebody for disagreeing with me, I'm a shill? How pathetic.

if you come to the aid of paid trolls who post gmo propaganda 24/7

Some people just like to argue. The ones who I suspect of being paid trolls are the flat-earthers, the anti-semites, Alex Jones worshipers, holo-plane theorists, and other super-fringe whackos that make conspiracy theories look totally nuts.

I agree some like to argue but have the opposite view. someone that conveniently likes to argue pro corporation stances like pro GMO stuff is likely paid to. someone that believes in something religious in nature like flat earth is likely just an innocent idiot.

Maybe you are right, but there are also a lot of people out there that think they are geniuses "cuz science" and they have to flaunt their big brains to keep their egos afloat.

I also agree that most flat Earthers are genuine, but I think the idea was propagated as a psi-ops as per the methods recommended by Cass Sunstein. The link is to a bit I wrote about his paper on how to destroy conspiracy communities. It doesn't go all-out in suggesting that false conspiracies should be propagated by infiltrators, but it does talk about how to infiltrate groups.

They wouldn't be spending all day in /conspiracy though

Why not?

Oh it's way more fun on here than /r/news.

yeah it's true cass let the cat out of the bag on a lot of things. I am not saying it's 100% either way, and that there are no paid flat earthers at all. I don't know, just going with my best educated guess. cass has motive to pay people to deny legit things like 9/11 and gmos but something like flat earth, has less motive to push that.

Do you have proof he's a paid troll? I doubt it.

no need. safe to assume he is.

By what reasoning? You can't just assume something just because you want to, and you certainly can't go around insulting them for it. It's childish and utterly pathetic.

just don't be a shill and that will prove you're not a shill.

Ah, you're just trolling. I see now. Good day.

says the paid troll

Look at their post history, most of their comments are in threads about GMO's. Even their posts are all pro-GMO.

So when I look at horus's profile, and I see anti-GMO posts, does that mean he's paid by organic firms?

So? There are dozens of people here whose posts include exclusively anti-GMO view points, or exclusively anti-vac viewpoints etc. I don't assume they're shills, because that logic doesn't follow.

Why are there people in this sub that post constantly about one conspiracy or another and nothing else? Probably because they enjoy it, or (think) they are knowledgeable about it. Not because they're paid to do so.

Sandy Hook is the most shilled topic there is. Period. It is unbelievable how many people who lived in Newtown and knew the victims hang around conspiracy sites. TPTB did not expect this level of inquiry and are working hard to discredit skeptics. Anyone who spends 15 minutes researching it knows it was a hoax.

You should've seen the reaction a certain user got on reddit about a year or two ago when he/she started actively examining all of the evidence and pointing out inconsistencies. This user had three accounts and two subreddits (one of them private) banned and deleted completely and hasn't been heard from since. I've only seen something like that happen on reddit a couple other times and for equally suspicious events/theories.

Very scary

You might like:

Hi, I'm Dr. James Fetzer, author of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, AMA! (Dec 2015)

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

LOL - Sandy Hook "truthers" are the lowlifes of the conspiracy community. Seriously, a person would have to be the most gullible kind of moron around to believe that shit.

What's your go to proof?

[deleted]

Except for the part where nearly every facial feature is slightly different, right? 99.9% verified my ass haha. By whom? Every link I found was another idiot blogger who thinks he knows everything and can't tell blatant differences between two human beings.

"Independently verified" meaning crackpot blogs.

Wuts a conspiracy community?

Vaccines and 9/11 are close seconds.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill for something. To others, you may give the exact same impression that you're getting from them.

[deleted]

Agreed.

So far I always get the idea that people who jump directly to this argument are trolls.

Hey, if you want to disagree by simply dismissing the opposition and ignoring alternative points of view, you're entitled to do so.

Seems a bit closed minded for someone on /r/conspiracy though.

lol, you're cute

What a terribly ironic comment.

Elaborate

"Not everyone who agrees with you is a shill"

"Everyone who says that is a troll"

You don't see how you're basically an example of his comment? You immediately turn around and generalize and insult an entire group of people simply because you don't like his opinion.

Welcome to the joke :P

Edit:

And I never said anything about liking or disliking the opinion. The dismissive "oh, so everyone who doesn't agree with you is a shill" is a logical fallacy and viable tactic were you to be disrupting a thread, anyway.

Feel better now that it's typed out?

Don't forget vaccines.

It's weird being a science nerd because then you like GMOs and post about it but you don't actually get paid.

I want my shillbucks. :(

Contemplate your arrogance.

Same. The technology behind 'GMO' has the potential to really change the world for good. It has the potential to cure degenerative disease, cancer, and other terminal illness. 90% of people hear 'genetically modified' and immediately think its bad, and honestly I believe this is intentional. GMO is always portrayed negatively by the media. I was in biology research in college and trust me, these people (scientists) are just like you and I.

Fluoride im on the fence about. I don't believe it's a mind control conspiracy, but I do think it's not needed in our water supply and the only reason it still exists is because of lobbyists. Its like circumcision, it once had a medical benefit, but now it is just done because, why not?

If you ever get the chance, check out a book called The Fluoride Deception. It's full of sources and citations proving without any doubt that adding highly toxic chemical waste products from the fertilizer and nuclear industries (which is what water fluoridation is) has never been about improving peoples' tooth health.

'highly toxic chemical waste' is a red herring.

I dislike loaded nature of that statement. There are plenty of products that are from at least one point of view waste products of other processes. We put chlorine in water to prevent bacterial contamination but chlorine is a waste product from some perspectives, and it was a chemical weapon in WW1. Sausages could be thought of as a waste product of pig breeding. And the soil we grow vegetables in is a waste product of geological weathering of rocks. Are they therefore bad?

A molecule made by natural means is exactly the same as one made by a nuclear reactor.

What do you believe fluoridation has been about?

'highly toxic chemical waste' is a red herring.

No it isn't. Sodium fluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are literally toxic byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer and nuclear industries, among others. This is where these compounds came from historically. Now most of our "fluoride" comes from China, so who the fuck really knows what's in it?

What do you believe fluoridation has been about?

Have you ever read a book called The Fluoride Deception before? If not, you should.

Because those are two which have a lot of facts/evidence from a variety of sources on both sides (the validity of said sources is always up for debate depending on your point of view).

9/11, jews, governmental conspiracies are always far more circumstantial. They revolve around reports, allegations and theories based on the above.

Don't forget about the 9/11 topics. Shill HQ.

I do LOVE Reddit though, no forum I've ever been on has allowed users to speak about the subject of shilling/sockpuppetry. I've been banned hundreds of times. Even when it's so overly obvious that someone is a shill, you may not accuse them.

I think one of the chief human conditions along with greed/selfishness is the captain save-a-ho mentality. You got a mixture of shills and passionate people just on the other side of the fence. They think they are doing "good work" by coming in here and telling us how wondeful GMOs or cap and trade or vaccines are. All I'm asking: why is it such a big goddamn deal to look into corporate sponsored research? They make us seem looney for questioning peer reviewed journals when the peers are bought and paid for.

The thing about the fluoride. I'm not saying it's horseapples, but I do tend to rely on my own first-hand experience as truth, which means that I feel every bit as anti-authoritarian, anti-government and pro-truth drinking the fluoridated municipal tap while watching in disbelief of the WTC7 tower falling in video, the burned cars and molten steel hemmoraging from the building....as I am now, on well water with zero fluoride. My point is, I've not seen a difference in my mind, ergo nothings wrong with fluoride as far as I am concerned. Other effects, perhaps but I couldn't detect them so they must have been sufficiently subtle for me to say I don't believe in the fluoride deception.

That said, if enough people don't want it in their water, well goddammit take it out. And it's clear enough people don't want it in our water! This is what makes me mad. They won't act democratically or listen to the will of the people. They've spoken. They want it gone.

Now what's happened between 2002 and now is anyones guess. I've only been off the fluoride for 3 yrs now so it's not that. Or maybe I'm resistant because I did LSD. Or maybe it's ELF waves or lilly wave induction from cellphones. Or doritos. Or fox news. It's anyones' guess. (my money's on fear, anger and fox)

I've had the exact opposite experience since I've stopped drinking fluoridated tap water.

Historically, what they were adding to water was literally highly toxic waste products from the nuclear and phosphate fertilizer industries, among others. These substances are so toxic that they require hazmat suits to handle and if they were to spill on a road somewhere it would be a public emergency. Now we import most of it from China so there's really no telling what is or isn't in it considering China's horrible history of regulating pollution and industrial corruption.

Also consider that if you live in the US you're still getting your daily dose of flouride every time you take a shower, every time you wash your dishes/utensils and then use them, every time you drink a soda, every time you eat out at a restaurant, most times you eat something made in a grocery (fruits and vegetables were likely washed in fluoride water), etc. It isn't easy to eliminate completely by any means.

Is the Reasonyoummake FlourideeeGMO wierd is to trickBOTs?

Big time shilling on any post about crisis actors, such as: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3nmab3/oregon_shooting_hoax_they_love_to_shove_it_in_our/

What exactly is the shilling going on there? The OP is saying the guy's family is high on drugs.

And look who always magically appears out of nowhere

It's almost as if I read Reddit!

I would say vaccines, GMOs, chemtrails and UFOs.

9/11 takes the cake, then those other ones

Also geoengineering, mind control (so silly isn't it?), and gangstalking (so silly isn't it...everyone knows that's schizophrencs)

Vaccines are shilled harder.

1.) I would consider those being political topics, and I'm a great and powerful political scientist. 2.) Fukushima much?

And satanists.

See!

I would argue everything is political somehow. Nonetheless I would agree on the GMO thread I am arguing with somebody right now from the 275 legislators who voted against labeling. Haven't gotten into it yet on fluoridation.

nonpolitical topics

Hm. I'm gonna need you to define what you mean by that, OP.

Vaccines too

YES they have the most money behind being against them. The war on GMO and Fluoride is still being one though. Slowly.

There are some brave shills in here by the way :)

They still dare to come in this topic with their bulverism and do what they always do, ridicule and question everything.

They should make this a sticky in this sub; http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/

Also RoundUp. Monsanto has a huge PR team

true but there is no need to prove it, for something like adding a chemical to water supply onus is on the supporters to prove beyond shadow of a doubt it is good for you and I don't mean having anyone with motive to lie do the studies and I don't mean opinions of dentists who make profits from people having bad teeth.

lol good talk. cheers!

you are one making the claim

Vertical farming is an incredibly efficient way to grow food and is starting to gain some traction. Some operations recycle 100% of the water they use! Not to mention it takes a fraction of the land, growing cycles are independent of weather variables, and LED lightning is helping reduce the overall energy load. I'm very optimistic in this regard.

"Not everyone who agrees with you is a shill"

"Everyone who says that is a troll"

You don't see how you're basically an example of his comment? You immediately turn around and generalize and insult an entire group of people simply because you don't like his opinion.

Depends on how you couch the term "mind control".

As in, mind control doesn't have to be an active process.

Denying mind control exists in our society is kind of myopic in light of that clarification.

Except bacon is good. I would take the non-exaggerated 34% greater yield of GMO and feed it to pigs so I could eat bacon.

Take DMT, and then you'll realise how much you don't want someone fucking with your pineal.

It's almost as if I read Reddit!

. Probably because their government represents the wishes of the people who just want clean unadulterated water as a basic necessity of life.

A good chunk of the people on those countries would probably like access to clean drinking water as a start:

http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/thumbs/1805c933-493c-4b85-be16-ad06eb342332/medium/access-to-safe-drinking-water_de64.jpg

I like the way you're thinking, don't think I'm a shill or anything lol. But there are hundreds of studies, many of which are side by side case studies of communities with and without fluoridated water. I concede they may not have found some weird effects if they were not thinking to measure, but I mean people have been crying foul on fluoride for a long time so I really just find it hard to believe these connections wouldn't turn up over the years.

It has been proven ineffective

No it hasn't. It's barely been given a chance, though. I have rebuttals if you actually want to dig up your sources.

My whole point is that GMOs are unnecessary, and cause more overall damage to the planet than good.

They don't cause more damage relative to non-GMO crops, and by increasing yield they decrease emissions/farmland/water and pesticide use.

We have dozens of better solutions that just aren't being tried, because there aren't millions of dollars to be made there unlike in GMOs.

Why would a company spend money on a non-optimal approach?

Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly and there are plenty of independents.

All you're providing is baseless accusations with no evidence. Monsanto is the same size as Whole Foods. Does 7/11 control the govt and all scientists? 7/11 is much larger.