ah, this is why if you ask them something, you have the same answer and they say it's a consensus exactly like in the middle ages, you were asking to the priest, what is a truth in no, you ask to these scientists and regulatory agencies. what is the truth and they act in the same manner as magician? you know, because they work on secret compounds with secret effects. they say that you cannot delish that however they say they have the truth. i if you spend a huge amount of money doing study a study or something where there's a lot of confidential information there that you don't want another company to copy

paste. of course not. i mean, you might have spent years all over sources. so people time, a lot of time and money on doing this research. what else does is it i'm allies with all of that and publish the results? so it will publish, it will come out with the statement at the end. and it will publish the results, but it will publish all the details and what a lot of people don't see because there are people for relative eyes because that's actually a lot of people. but some people want to see everything. that's fine. i think now it's actually all been published, but you're talking about several 1000 pages. i don't know who in his white mind would sit down and read through all of those pages. i think some parts can be blacked up, but i would insist that that's to do with privacy. so the relationship between all companies and research institute and universities is quite strong. as i mentioned before, in many parts of the world, it tends to be the public sector developing the thanks to relationship with the

company. maybe the company donated the technology. the problem in europe, for example, is that in s, so that you mentioned before, they have scientists assessing the products. and the scientists have a obligation to have no conflict of interest. that means they have to have, have no relationship whatsoever with industry ever. so if you are a scientists in europe, having any kind of dealing with a company close at the number of avenues of work later. so again, we are really champions and creating difficulties for ourselves in europe, but the rest of the world is a part of the problem and something else that needs to be changed is all the industry is fund many laboratories and funds studies through the universities,

which to certain extent has to be done because the universities don't have enough money. but the problem then becomes that when the universe, when the monsanto, for example, draft a paper and they go straight it and they need to slap a name onto it, they'll go to the university and say, you know, remember that lab we bought for you, or remember that study we funded through university. now we need your help, and that's the problem. there's a circular, synergistic effect between the universities needing the money and the company's being willing to provide it. but it's sunday collecting, putting around, or jo hollingsworth for months santo. and with me is my partner, eric lasker, and to his right is john kayla. and next to john is mimi line line, am i

me? ah ah, thank you very much for your colleagues to the 2nd panel which will look at the transparency and use of scientific studies. and one of the guys said in the united states and hopefully will provide insight into the so called monsanto papers. thank you very much. for inviting me to be here today as a journalist for some 30 years now, i'm someone who has spent most of my life focusing on facts pursuing the truth. i spend roughly 20 of those 30 years delving into the dealings of monsanto. and i can confidently tell you that the story of the company's top selling chemical life to say, is not one of truth, but one of deceit is sort of a treasure trove look inside a very big and powerful company that has been very secretive for decades. and

a lot of the information is quite alarming when it comes to public health and safety associated with the use of their popular product license 8 and round it. another way in which montana has manipulated regulators and the public is by establishing networks of scientists around the world to support its agenda and its message about the safety of this chemical, monsanto, and, or the monsanto back let's, it's a task force, pays them the lobby regulators they author papers, essentially to push this message that the chemical is safe. there are many individuals and there are many types of different relationships that we've seen in these documents. you can see here that professor david kirkland is one such paid, expert montana was relied on in the

ah, in 2012. my son was very worried about gene toxicity. questions arising from black to say, research when it engaged, kirkland, monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting. what bill hayden's wrote in the email, i think i was just naive and it clearly did not lead to any policy decision. we all have decades of experience in the industry, and therefore we have reputations to maintain. and that means that there is no point in us being responding to the influence of one stakeholder over another because those reputations would be destroyed, i can say absolutely. and trust the golly categorically this paper was not ghost written. we all import our own sections to the paper. there was no input,

involvement or influence of the review by monsanto. thinking care. well, it seems apparent. monsanto actually fears real independent, authentic science, montana said itself, it feared the i r f. review when it found in 2014. this is before i sat down before the classification. monsanto says it fears this. it says internally that it knew it had vulnerable in epidemiology toxicology. geno talks, muslim officials even predicted the glass if they would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to f, as in echo you know, as a process is defined as a peer review and i understand that and that i don't have a problem with that peer review problem in this case is that's not what was done. nobody went back and verified the findings on the original studies. and by failing to verify those findings, it cascaded through the tire review process,

such that you don't have the answer which is based on the best science. i think this is important to mention that we are doing the proper independent assessment at the accordion with the resources that we have enough. so according to the regulation that focus on the use of the active settings and based on that we generate the risk assessments regarding the independence from industry is clearing the legislation. i will say the say is the basic principle, the company that wants to market something the you must pay for the assessment. so this by these are conducted by industry. there is no doubt. the current process is typically flawed. it is time to have an independent panel of scientists evaluate the way in which the science is reviewed. there's a need for the regulatory agencies to re analyze the data, and there is a need to public, publicly release all of the analyses and data to improve the transparency of this process. these are not the actions of

a company that has nothing to hide. this is not how you promote a product. this is that's actually proven safe. this is how you whitewash unfortunate and unprofitable facts. this is not by accident, but by design, and it serves monsanto very well, but it does not seem that it serves the public interest. thank you. the monsanto prepared certain documents for the registration and the report if you look at it, has taken directly certain language from the monsanto documents and just placed it in the report. so there's a lot of concern about whether they're really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against or at monsanto's requests. so that is not an independent assessment. how can we therefore expect that on the basis of such robust scions and i'm quoting industry, we can make a decision. politicians in the you can make

a decision to protect their people. that if somebody you know has said hello to the industry at some stage in his life, that should not mean that that particular scientists should be banned from a panel. or research has been funded somewhere by someone. many of the scientists that have a lot of them have now left the organization and their science panels because they have been accused of having worked with the industry. but since when does that make a scientists dishonest? the why should having worked with the industry some years ago on a small project. at some stage i did, i'm a scientist by training. and when i was in university, of course, i was looking for a grant to do my research. because some research can cost a lot of money. i was helped by industry. i haven't spoken to that particular industry now for many, many years. it's been a long time since i was call it. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as

a scientist. ah. i look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings accept where's the shorter the conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. the point obviously is to great truck rather than fear i would take on various jobs with the artificial intelligence real summoning the theme and

a little bout most protects its own existence, was the special ed summer solutions where we look at the solutions. i'm here with stacey herbert, and we've got a special guest right out there, mcloud of gold money dot com. he writes amazing pieces over. there are lots of blog posts, research and all sorts of stuff. i recommend you check it out, your latest pieces out there called too much liquidity and inflation access and consumer prices. so this is definitely the biggest theme of 2021. and that is inflation. she called the real thing a little slow, letting them go by susan. well, the longer i was going to go and see me when you have a week when you have a meeting in the room initial,

but they didn't explain me. i'm going to spell them. let me know which i'm going for the script and we'll get you started with you soon as you move in to when you finish the mental begin complete illusion actually done on the, on the financial young, moody, an illusion. you lose, you could shoot it to the lower problem. ah, ah, now you're going to be in the region where inference is very high and other regions

look at europe for, for regulation. ah. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps regulation, which is trying to shake, which is database in which as much as possible decides results being influenced by, by i would say by noise or by just emotions and fear in when science meets values, then it's becoming complicated, we come with science with evidence, we do a scientific process of risk assessment, but then this evidence is given on another stage. on the policy level, there believes emotions values come in. and what we see is if

politicians don't like the outcome of our risk assessment, they don't question their belief. they question the validity of the process. so basically if it's a, comes with an opinion, let's say on the, on the continue it's insecticides politicians love. if so, they want the food, so you are protecting the bees, you're doing the right thing. really good to act on there. so we all applaud to you, and if the same process with the same people, we use the same scrutiny cause we the conclusion, let's say implies the same. people say, i'm sorry, i don't like this outcome. if so, she would not say that dr to say this relatively safe, so as to must be corrupt. i find this very bizarre, you know, regulations is independent of corporate influence and,

and it's everything is tested actually tested and with a lot of money and our authorities are looking at it independently. i don't know where these people have been living even in some of the mainstream journals, you do find reports that clearly explain that this is not happening. we are seeing corporate capture not only in the sciences it sciences is one of the fields we see corporate capturing in every walk of like me. oh i i'd like to say seems to be very highly charged. not because of the safety of dr.

hussain, but because of gm, because of monsanto, because of international trade, maybe even because of inequality with global traits, you facade it's too much for calling to see when to push out to vote and vote in over a 1000000 remarks. son, martin luther directly to index interested in people. soft. good see trick is a 1000000 dollar fill out soon but of course if the scientist works for the company, that's a different story. but i think we need to be a little bit more realistic about what it is we want. do we want the best scientists to assess the products to get to make sure they're safe? or do we want to make sure there's no conflict of interest? what is the objective? is it the safety of the product? because of the conflict of interest of the, of the scientists?

i think we need to be a bit more honest and trustworthy without falling into the mistake sense. so that's not something that we are looking for. i mean the, the, the experts we use are as independent as possible. but i think also here, it's not black or white. it's not, sir, or one that's not a digital binary approach. we have to find the right balance between the best expertise, which means people that have done research, the people that are with both their feet in the scientific endeavor. and on the other end to make sure that there is no conflict of interest. and if i may say or something, i think europe needs to make a decision whether we know i think i stop here. yes, i don't lead too far. oh,

well they shook up there. that's shown us a $100.00 for a nation. i live in the village to my unit, but a lot of stuff that i 100 funding for the last are going to you know, that i live in like one after that all of them little us. but i like abandoned, but i'm into the country home. i can see that when i get off the list. but if it is not, can that me so yes, precautionary principle is and guys to fix. and it is,

i think the issue for europe and economy in general because it reduces the willingness of investment. ah, there is a risk in registering a new purchase. this is a risk. this is a benefit. i'm a willing to take this risk. yes or no. and the regulation today gives us an answer . if you look at the car off today, it's much safer than the car yesterday. you know, the 1st car that i drove in when i was a boy and my father was writing, had no safety belt and has no, no airbag no, no abs and, and yet z a call maker was not a murderer. it is a car was a and it was a very safe car for the time. and i'm not saying that the bessie says off 1950. you

know where fantasy, but by then they were very weak bessy side. and then we discover that they have some side effects and then the regulation evolves and regulation becomes more demanding. and especially sides are bond or are withdrawn from the company. and that's normal, that's normal evolution of any industry. the power of innovation doesn't come from the big companies to be companies are too big to be innovative anymore. they just want to preserve that privileges, but they're not innovating anymore. or it look at, look at the the g m and the pesticides were dealing with g m plants that were developed 30 years ago. nothing has changed. it's b, g, and other side resistance since the beginning. it's old chemical, partial innovation. the innovation is that we now have, in addition to round of ready and run a business complaint, we have become resistant plans and to for d resistant plays. so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that

innovation has to get out. it just has to get the benefit versus risk, right? what is the ratio willing to accept on the arm, and even if it's very small, in order to have a safe and affordable food supply? ah, to me, the defining factor in the future will also be around acro food system. if we manage to get our, in my view dysfunctional agrifood system on a sound, environmental, economic, social, and economic basis, then we solve everything else will come from even climate change in these things, health issues and mental issues, social issues, there collateral,

they're all part of the of the whole thing that is connected and the connect, the connecting center piece is food and how he produces, ah, ah, because we see the world as it is we are in fact and the border edge of the revolution. because human kind is able to do it, but how much time that will take, how much misery that will create. i don't know, but that's i'm only, you know, there is a french writer called p. b. he said, this is

a cali bree affair. so i'm just a little bird in the system doing my job as much as i can. great for me. oh yeah. you want to or something we need to as she goes i can certainly add that. we're hopeful, i mean, i'm happy to say, you know, in europe we're not going to give up. we're not going to. there are lots of other technology. there's not just about g m o, there are lots of other technologies coming up and the companies are committed to invest in europe as well, despite it being so uncomfortable is a euphemism to work here. i

i in

in oh i is your media a reflection of reality the in a world transformed what will make you feel safe for tyson lation community? are you going the right way or are you being that somewhere? direct? what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted,

you need to defend the join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. use a special a summer solutions where we look at the solutions. i'm here with stacy herbert ne, we've got a special guest, stacy right out there mccloud of gold money dot com. he writes amazing pieces over there are lots of blog posts, research and all sorts of stuff. i recommend you check it out, your latest pieces out there. called too much liquidity and inflation assets and consumer prices. so this is definitely the biggest theme of 2021. and that is inflation driven by a dreamer shaped by those in

me i think we dare to ask me o 2, don't to leave your room. no movers, we knew she was she who it's ready to love me because she knew she wouldn't be a little girl for the study of to me if she could totally traditional but she's she's

actually she is. she was doing the best for me was upset for me and lasted with metro. okay, sure. yeah. so i love this and this is what i need from the new new new which is the new i see executable football once you put up on that all set up for me, i got it up on that. got me. ah, the ah,

the headlines here on our team to national power is refusing to reveals while jerry at the locations of radioactive. busy waste 6 decades owner problem. colonial problems conducting nuclear tests often use host tucker calls and claims the n. s a spied on its communications and leaked private emails to join with, alleging that it's old because he tried to secure an interview with a russian president. also off for a year of coal to defend the police and us democrats pick up an ex police officer as their candidate for the new york city. man that has new york state governor declares a gun violence disaster emergency i .