What's the matter with TED Talks?
I think this outrageous statement merits comment:
http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science
Anti-GMO is red-flagged, but pro-GMO isn't.
By lumping together criticism of biotechnology with quack pseudoscience, the folks at TED are making a huge disservice.
Another red-flagged topic is "food as medicine" and then it gets lumped together with "vaccination=autism" in the same sentence. If we cannot talk about "food as medicine" this probably means that they will not allow any criticism of the food processing industry or pesticides. Even Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle could get banned for talking critically about food.
Notice how viewpoints supportive of Monsanto, GMO, pesticides and the food processing industry are NOT red-flagged.
Particularly galling is their use of a Forbes magazine article as reference. Is Forbes a scientific publication? Hasn't Forbes been an outlet for global warming deniers? And who is Emily Willingham anyway?
I believe those people on our side who have given TED Talks in the past should speak up and write an open letter demanding these folks clarify their alarmingly vague letter on "bad science".
Don't get me wrong, there ARE hoaxers in the anti-GMO movement, and I have repeatedly called them out in public. I have no use for Gary Null or Mike Adams/Natural News as I have always found them unreliable and are a constant source of embarrassment to the movement. I would never use Global Research as a reference- they are no good- and I always keep Aporrea, Voltaire Net and Russia's RT at arm's length.
In any case, I never thought much of TED, I have always found it way too mainstream, self-celebrating, narcissistic and elite. As we say in Puerto Rico, "comemierdas".
Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero
http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science
Anti-GMO is red-flagged, but pro-GMO isn't.
By lumping together criticism of biotechnology with quack pseudoscience, the folks at TED are making a huge disservice.
Another red-flagged topic is "food as medicine" and then it gets lumped together with "vaccination=autism" in the same sentence. If we cannot talk about "food as medicine" this probably means that they will not allow any criticism of the food processing industry or pesticides. Even Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle could get banned for talking critically about food.
Notice how viewpoints supportive of Monsanto, GMO, pesticides and the food processing industry are NOT red-flagged.
Particularly galling is their use of a Forbes magazine article as reference. Is Forbes a scientific publication? Hasn't Forbes been an outlet for global warming deniers? And who is Emily Willingham anyway?
I believe those people on our side who have given TED Talks in the past should speak up and write an open letter demanding these folks clarify their alarmingly vague letter on "bad science".
Don't get me wrong, there ARE hoaxers in the anti-GMO movement, and I have repeatedly called them out in public. I have no use for Gary Null or Mike Adams/Natural News as I have always found them unreliable and are a constant source of embarrassment to the movement. I would never use Global Research as a reference- they are no good- and I always keep Aporrea, Voltaire Net and Russia's RT at arm's length.
In any case, I never thought much of TED, I have always found it way too mainstream, self-celebrating, narcissistic and elite. As we say in Puerto Rico, "comemierdas".
Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero
0 Comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Suscribirse a Comentarios de la entrada [Atom]
<< Página Principal