Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)

CSI was begun as a paranormal discrediting group about three decades ago (1976) by a rogue man named Kendrick Frazier, who is now the editor of the online “Skeptical Inquirer,”–the official journal of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Frazier also authors anthologies, including one named “Science Under Siege.” The main mission of the center, the group, and the journal alike is to convince Americans that there is no danger whatsoever in consuming GMOs, genetically modified organisms in food, which means people should never be worried about eating synthetic, chemical pesticides and toxic herbicides, whether they are contained in the plants genes or sprayed on them before processing and consumption. The “Committee” is a program of the Center for Inquiry (CSI), listed as a nonprofit educational organization. Founding members of CSI include science writers, scientists and academics. A list of the CSI fellows is published in each issue of the magazine. Writers for CSI have included Carl Sagan, James Randi and Isaac Asimov.

 

Online magazine “Skeptical Inquirer”

Add another science geek to the GMO shill list. Just like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye the “Science Guy,” Kendrick Frazier will say anything to confuse people about the dangers of GMO, as witnessed and published on alternative media exposing charlatans of the biotech industry on a regular basis. (1) (2) The main goal of a biotech shill is to convince any skeptics of GMO and/or vaccines that there is no harm in consuming (or injecting) known carcinogens or pesticide toxins or heavy metals or synthetic preservatives or even altered genes from insects and bacteria. The platform of the genetically modified “huckster” is to get well paid, whether legally or not, to push chemical-agriculture’s best propaganda–that confuses the laymen consumers who may be second guessing putting so many poisons in their bodies regularly, or even at all.

 

Mr. Kendrick Crosby Frazier, who is now about 73 years of age, has authored more than a handful of books and claims to promote “scientific inquiry,” but a closer look by any investigative consumer or journalist reveals much more than that. As Kendrick claims to critically examine pseudoscience and “fringe-science,” he pushes that GMO propaganda like there’s no tomorrow. Will he become as popular as Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Bill Nye recently “fell in love” with Monsanto and everything GMO, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn’t know the difference between GMO and traditional, selective breeding (of plants or organisms). Or, they both know and were paid very well to push lies, because their name and character is already popularly synonymous with science facts and their science background, so it would be easier for the media to push the GMO lies through them. (3) (4) And then there is the Monsanto puppet Dr. Kevin Folta, the horticulturalist out of the University of Florida who got caught accepting $25,000 to say and write “anything” Monsanto told him to say or write. That story was exposed by the US Right to Know group using the FOIA–Freedom of Information Act. (5)

 

Kendrick and his cohorts will tell you all about how “Food safety is an important and emotionally charged issue.” That’s because health enthusiasts get furious when science geeks push toxic pesticides on people as healthy and safe for the environment. People like Kendrick are simply pointing out the obvious, that people who are emotionally charged about the GMO conversation, mean business. There’s nothing worse than disinformation and misinformation and miseducation. We all want our food to be clean and safe, but even organic can contain heavy metal toxins, so there is a task at clearing the confusion for the typical uninformed consumers, especially in America, home of biotech and chemical-agriculture that’s banned all around the rest of the developing world. Health enthusiasts have all figured out that alternative news is the place to find the truth about health and food safety, and the MSM is nothing but misleading lies and purported myths based on pseudo-science and falsified studies done by the industry themselves.

 

Frazier is just part of the whole disinformation campaign led by biotechnology

By relying on corporations to grow (in laboratories) genetically mutated seeds, grow them in fields laced with toxic fertilizers, spray the crops (fruits and vegetables alike) with toxic herbicides (that means weed killer) like Roundup, process them with fungus and mold-killing chemicals like bleach, ammonia, more Roundup, color them with petroleum-based dyes, wax them with more shiny chemicals, process them into “raw materials,” pack them into cans, plastic and boxes with BPA and BHT (more “complex” chemicals they’ll tell you won’t hurt you), and finally market them as “all natural” or “zero calorie” or simply never labeling them as GMO, consumers are leaving their food safety in the hands of some of the cruelest criminals on planet earth–food and pesticide scientists.

 

Pesticide-pushing apologists, scientists and lying academics

Apologists like Frazier will push anything the Big Food industry tells them to push, even gluten, that sticky wheat-head that contains all kinds of toxins and stops up the human digestive tract and the intestines and is a major culprit of massive inflammation, constipation, and chronic, preventable diseases–and too many to name. Nicknamed “Frankenfoods” because the mad scientists create them in laboratories with chemicals and mass experimentation, genetically modified foods can contain dangerous pesticide combinations and genes that come from insects and deadly bacteria. Currently, there are no US regulations on GMO and no labels, so the industries can use as much of these toxins as they want, and they FDA, EPA and CDC will not interfere. This leaves it wide open to shills like Frazier and his “Committee for Skeptical Inquiry” to push GMO propaganda and confuse them, convoluting a very sensitive and important subject, on many different levels. Frazier will flat out tell you that “there is no legitimate scientific controversy over the safety of GMOs, and that cannot be further from the truth.

 

There is NO scientific consensus on GMO safety

A fictional World Scientific Consensus about GMO has been perpetuated over recent years in mainstream media outlets and is proclaimed as “science” and “science-based” and “evidence-based” by the very manufactures, distributors and sellers of genetically modified organisms in agriculture in the United States of America. There is no world scientific consensus on GMO. It is a completely fabricated version, since scientific safety research – and that which is NOT done by the industries in question, is not readily made available to the public. Most Americans are “in the dark” concerning the real scientific community discussion–regarding this thirty-year-old experiment called “transgenics.” The current “think tanks” between rogue industry scientists, hack journalists and pro-GMO “reporters” are nothing more than propaganda mixed with delusions of grandeur.

 

ABC News poll shows 93% of Americans favor mandatory labeling of GMO

Not only do Americans want to label toxin-infused products and produce, but more than half, and that’s 160 million people, believe GMO is UNSAFE and would use such labeling to AVOID GMO food. GMO pseudo-science is attempting to quell those warranted fears that GMO causes cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and more. In fact, the term “transgenic” means scientist in laboratories (and this would NEVER happen in Nature normally) insert the genes from distant species and other kingdoms of life, like bacterium, into plants humans will consume. CSI attempts to blur these lines of information and base knowledge in order to promote GMO. It’s that simple. It is not complicated as the propagandist scientists and biotech shills would have us all believe. Simply having a science, chemistry, botany, biology or horticulture background does not mean one is capable or even interested in educating consumers properly about clean food. There are still unforeseen consequences of consuming pesticides, although many a health detriment has been exposed already, by science-based research done through independent studies that are NOT influenced, paid for, or altered by biotech industry insiders. (8)

 

CSI has even gone so far as to convolute the methodology of GMO by saying people are misunderstanding evolution and “our place in the natural world,” as if somehow nature would insert the genes of synthetic, chemical pesticides into corn, soy, and cottonseed. Even vaccines today contain genetically modified experimental genes from chickens, embryos, mosquitoes, bacteria, and viruses with new strains and combinations of strands that do not have cures (like swine flu vaccines and HPV).

 

The committee for skeptical inquiry calls health enthusiasts paranormal

Though CSI says on their website they promote critical investigation, that’s the last thing they want to happen regarding consumer actions. The committee wants to come to faith-based conclusions for everyone and have everyone believe their final interpretation and take it all at face-value. Biotechnology is only thirty years young. It is fringe science, controversial and they make extraordinary claims about it regularly, saying it can feed the world in a food crisis, avoid droughts, use less water, use less pesticide, use less herbicide, increase farmer’s yields, promote sustainability, and so on and so on. Biotech does not really encourage objectivity or impartial inquiry, but rather attempts to “assassinate” the character and credibility of anyone and any organization that questions its safety and sustainability. (7)

 

How did CSI and the “Skeptical Inquirer” get popular?

After a couple of decades of “debunking” anything paranormal, Kendrick Frazier beefed up his team of debunkers and added several biotech shills and hack scientists who fully support propagandizing anything GMO, and the website and journal gained much traffic and attention, as the chemical-agriculture industry in general spends millions in different arenas of misinformation to mislead consumers who question the risks of consuming GMO foods regularly, or even at all.

 

Defining and Redefining the Term “Skeptics

A skeptic is a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions or what seems rational and therefore accepted as the “norm.” The “skeptical public” in the eyes of biotechnology are the people who don’t understand how dangerous GMOs are, and so they are more likely to be brainwashed into believing they are good, useful, healthy and so forth, if presented with the right lingo, jargon and pro-GMO propaganda, sort of the way Adolf Hitler convinced millions of people he was a legitimate ruler with a legitimate mission, though he was a complete psychopath. Many Americans are skeptics, afraid to believe that so much infrastructure in the United States is built on deception of consumers, that biotechnology targets this crowd, being the most valuable at the store and at the voting booths.

 

CSI steeped in skeptic thought manipulation and breeding confusion about GMO, just like hoax website GMOAnswers.com

Just like CSI, the website gmoanswers.com is ironically not scientific at all, but rather a response to the valid, monumental concern that health enthusiasts have about this new technology of GMO that is experimental and infantile in it’s depth of true research regarding safety, efficacy, and resistance to bugs, weeds and crop disease. The top questions posed and answered by the biotechnology constructed Q&A (home page) of GMOAnswers.com addresses several concerns they have most likely received from skeptics and scientific or holistic person’s questioning their tactics and less-than-thorough science proof.

 

Sources:

(1) http://www.truthwiki.org/neil-degrasse-tyson/

(2) http://www.truthwiki.org/bill-nye-science-guy/

(3) http://www.csicop.org/si/show/no_health_risks_from_gmos/

(4) http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/adding-a-fish-gene-into-tomatoes-zmaz00amzgoe.aspx#axzz2zdVVXwu9

(5) http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16438-new-report-probes-pro-gmo-journalists

(6) http://www.truthwiki.org/gmo-answers-biotechnology-website-gmoanswers-com/

(7) http://www.truthwiki.org/skeptics/

(8) http://www.gmoseralini.org/en/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revisions

There are no revisions for this post.

3 Responses to “Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)”

  1. une site de rencontre gratuite December 10, 2015 at 12:32 pm #

    Hi, i believe that i saw you visited my weblog thus i got here to return the prefer?.I’m attempting to to find things to enhance my
    site!I assume its ok to make use of a few of your ideas!!

  2. anonymizeit.com December 10, 2015 at 1:18 pm #

    It is important to note that properties found downstream
    are more susceptible to floods and water damage.
    The lesson here is that once a business has a customer they need to
    switch gears to a “customer retention” model that includes
    empathy, cheerfulness, and accommodation. Many Homeowners’ Associations have rules barring the use of metal
    roofing, written under the assumption that only vertical-panel metal roofs exist.

  3. www.bikenightsusa.com December 16, 2015 at 12:01 am #

    I payy a visit daily a few sites and information sites to read posts, however
    this weblog offers feature based posts.

Leave a Reply