Excerpt from Seattleorganicrestaraunts.com
http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/dupont-history/
Dark History of DuPont
DuPont is an American chemical company and the world’s third largest producer of chemicals, agrochemicals, polymers, safety materials, electronics and genetically modified seeds. DuPont has its facilities in over 70 different countries and after ExxonMobil and Dow, DuPont is the third largest producer of chemicals in the United States.
Monsanto and DuPont are deeply rooted within the US government
Every year, DuPont pays millions of dollars to food lobbyists to buy politicians and memebers of congress. Last year DuPont spent about $4.8 million for lobbying. In fact, most of the food lobbyists who aggressively pursue the policies of DuPont & Monsanto have worked or are working for the government. In 2008 presidential campaign Obama mentioned that the department of agriculture wasn’t the department of agribusiness and he promised to put people’s need ahead of politics. However after his election, he appointed officials in charge of USDA or FDA that have been defending, lobbying or working for biotech companies like Monsanto and DuPont. Here are the lists of these individuals:
Check the article link for names.
Maybe you can see why I would question your motives for writing this article. I wonder who you work for.
What is your point? Did @irime advocate Monsanto & DuPont? I think you should read more carefully. Furthermore you can read her blog and find out that she is doing a PHD in Molecular Biology in Germany and does not work for any of those corporations.
You are totally missing the point of the post.
No reason to check out irime's blog. I checked out your blog. Cloud Atlas is my favorite movie. I absolutely live by the quote on your banner. I do not trust accepted mainstream science. We are lied to by governments and people in power on a mind blowing scale. Are you so sure the institutions where you were "educated " were telling you the truth? Unless you work for the dark side we are on the same side. We want the truth. My comment was an attempt to get people to question where and who their "facts" come from. These corporations control the institutions of education. Everyone thinks they have the real facts because they believe in their sources.
There is no such thing as "mainstreem science", there is just science & faith-based systems. It doesn't matter who makes an assertion, what matters is how you reach a conclusion. The scientific method provides the tools to verify if a hypothesis can be accepted with an acceptable degree of certainty.
This post highlights how most people just believe stuff based on nothing but faith and emotion instead checking it out themselves or better yet use the scientific method to test a conclusion. Dismissing something just because it comes from a particular source is just as bad as accepting something else because it originates from "trusted" one...both are different faces of the same coin.
Acceptable degree of certainty is not fact. What was thought to be a proven scientific fact 50 years ago today can seem down right silly. The scientific method was used by the "scientists" who said cigarettes were safe. We can't all spend our lives in a laboratory, researching, we must choose someone to believe. Knowing who employs a "scientist" is very important. The criminal corporations have proven time and again they will lie about science to achieve a desired end.
So you are saying every university in the world, every biotech start-up, every brewery, every state, every research institution and every planetarium is a criminal corporation?
I know it seems hard to understand, but most scientists decide to be scientists because they love what they are doing. As a matter of fact, to be a scientist you spend roughly 3-4 years in college, 3-5 years working on your PhD, 1-3 years on post-doc (all this in universities usually), and then start out with roughly 40k a year. It is a lot of effort and not a lot of gain. So stating that science is all about money is absolutely wrong. Science is more passion than people think. Science is not about dollar signs. So I would rather trust a peer-reviewed paper, than a magazine that needs blow up every minor story to intrigue people to buy their paper (same applies to websites). I think that scienctists are more critical than all the conspracists that claim to be critical.
Yes, theories change. But that is because science is critical with itself and considers new evidence that arises (which I cannot say about most "scepticists". Cheers
Well said.
Sorry to disappoint you, but my involvement in science is a lot less sinister than you seem to imagine. Here is a post were I wrote about my story:
https://steemit.com/science/@irime/the-story-of-a-curious-child-that-became-a-scientist-how-i-got-into-science
TL;DR: I was just a very curious person who was always interested in understanding how nature worked, and I studied really hard during many years to be able to work at what I do. My latest work was centered in cancer research - and no, I was not sponsored by any evil company, I was just trying to understand the molecular mechanisms that make cancer resistant to treatment, because we want to find a way to cure it.