Conceit

This article was shared on Facebook by Mr. Glen Gary of Toronto:
“Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine. The development of this class of insecticides began with work in the 1980s by Shell and the 1990s by Bayer.[1] The neonicotinoids were developed in large part because they show reduced toxicity compared to previously used organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Most neonicotinoids show much lower toxicity in mammals than insects, but some breakdown products are toxic.[2] Neonicotinoids are the first new class of insecticides introduced in the last 50 years, and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid is currently the most widely used insecticide in the world.[3]…

industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies’ claims of safety have relied may be flawed, concluding that, “A high acute risk to honey bees was identified from exposure via dust drift for the seed treatment uses in maize, oilseed rape and cereals. A high acute risk was also identified from exposure via residues in nectar and/or pollen.”[6] An author of a Science study prompting the EESA review suggested that industry science pertaining to neonicotinoids may have been deliberately deceptive, and the UK Parliament has asked manufacturer Bayer Cropscience to explain discrepancies in evidence they have submitted to an investigation.”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid

When I was young I knew of one child with cancer, no adults. It was a small town, bad news travelled like lightening. My research includes data (primary sources) on over 60,000 subjects who died before 1950, and I have cause of death information on a small sample of them. A few of the subjects died of cancer, very, very, very few. Some did though, so the medical profession could and did identify the disease of cancer, as it usually became quite progressed before death occurred.

Now I know scores of people battling cancer, and observe a huge industry grown to battle the disease. I wonder if ill-health has become a pre-commodity asset, the sick need medicine, health care and research into their disease. I wonder, if I were a corporation or large financial entity, making money dealing with the disease, would I really be too keen to find a solution, prevention or cure? Would I “guide” research towards compassion or profit?

I’ve wondered where all this cancer is coming from, it is a new trend that does’t seem to get much recognition as a developing trend.
So I wonder about neonicotinoid and our food supply, among other things.

Remember thalidomide, and lead poisoning from early canned goods? Corporate science (corporations fund science, private and public) concerns itself with scientifically measured “death rates” and “side effects”. In my opinion, “science” is failing to ask pertinent questions, and so “measuring” only certain answers or parameters, because the answers to those unasked, pertinent questions would impact the flow of national/international capital, and profit-making at all scales. Obfuscation becomes an even more efficient strategy when the effects of a substance or practise are cumulative or delayed. Human’s do not seem like such an intelligent species when viewed from the larger picture.

I fear the bees are not the only population at risk.

The great conceit of greed is that it so easily becomes totally self-serving, and by this virtue in turn becomes self-destructive in a complex and interactive universe.

Worldly Distractions

Weather

-11 °C
Condition: Light Snow
Pressure: 101.7 kPa
Visibility: 16 km
Temperature: -11.4°C
Dewpoint: -14.4°C
Humidity: 79 %
Wind: SSW 17 gust 32 km/h

Quote

“The smaller the mind the greater the conceit.”
Aesop
620 BC – 560 BC

Addendum:

Where my blog entry ended up today: http://www.cafepharma.com/companies/info/Bayer%20: