Biotechnology

National Academy of Sciences Invites Creationists to Testify on the Validity of Biological Evolution: Well, Actually a Bunch Anti-Biotech Activists

|

Quackery
naturalnews

The National Academy would (I hope) never solicit testimony from creationists about the findings of evolutionary science. But when it comes to biotech crops, the National Academy has succumbed to the moral equivalent of listening to creationists. How? By inviting numerous neoluddite charlatans testify before a National Research Council (NRC) panel that is working on a new report evaluating the safety of modern biotech crops this week. The anti-technology activist groups that appeared before the NAS panel include the Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, ETC Group, Institute for Responsible Technology, Union of Concerned Scientists and Consumers Union.

Jon Entine, who heads up the invaluable Genetic Literacy Project, also testified and warned the NAS panel about how inviting the claque of anti-biotechnology quacks to appear before them will backfire.

From Entine's testimony:

I don't question the sincerity of the concerns of those invited about the future of food and farming any more than I would question the fervent belief of a Young Earth Christian that the earth is 6,000 years old. And I appreciate the bind that you faced in organizing this project. While not respected in the broader science community, some of those invited are part of the public conversation, just as creationists are part of the debate over evolution.

You face pressure to demonstrate to skeptics of GE that the NRC and by proxy the American people are listening to their concerns. Perhaps it made sense to invite science's harshest critics. But panel members, don't assume that those who will have spoken will ultimately embrace this process. Emboldened by the implicit endorsement that an appearance at the Academy confers, they will resume their campaigns to scare the public about a safe technology. Don't be shocked that for years to come, they will make hay that they have been "consulted" by the National Academy of Sciences about GMOs. Don't be surprised that when you issue your report in 2016, you will be ridiculed for holding what they will then characterize as a "rigged NRC process".

That's even more of a reason that if your goal is to demonstrate your leadership, it's critical that you speak out about what the consensus science shows—no wavering or hedging to appease critics that fail to use good science. You may have to take a forceful and uncomfortable stand in the face of vocal criticism. Science is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on whether a whale is a fish or a mammal…

The scientific consensus does not mean the public embraces sound science on GMOs anymore than the certainty of natural selection closes the public debate over evolution. Polls indicate half of Americans believe in creationism or God-guided evolution…

You, this panel have an opportunity to end this charade, this faux debate over GMO safety: There are simply no credible studies in top flight journals—and none that has been repeated—that suggest serious likely safety issues that would not also apply to conventional or organic foods.

Entine's whole testimony is well worth reading. Let's hope that the NRC panel takes it to heart.

For more background, see my article, "The Top 5 Lies About Biotech Crops."

Addendum: H&R commenter J. Browne sent me this relevant email which I asked to post:

I was on a National Research Center evaluation team a while ago as an external data analyst. We held three hearings on the topic and one of them was specifically to include viewpoints that were very much outside the norm in the field. Those individuals play their same tune years later, but the noise would have been much louder had they been excluded. This is something the NRC knows from experience.

So it doesn't seem odd to me that they would invite anti-biotech activists to a hearing on the topic. Now, if they give their views many pages in their report, then you have an argument. Entine's will have a point.

Good points. We will see how the NRC treats the charlatans in its report. Still, I think that Entine's point stands:

Don't be shocked that for years to come, they will make hay that they have been "consulted" by the National Academy of Sciences about GMOs. Don't be surprised that when you issue your report in 2016, you will be ridiculed for holding what they will then characterize as a "rigged NRC process".Don't be surprised that when you issue your report in 2016, you will be ridiculed for holding what they will then characterize as a "rigged NRC process".



NEXT: More Obamacare Enrollment Data, More Obamacare Enrollment Questions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ron, do you and Jon Entine need some alone time together?

  2. But when it comes to biotech crops, the National Academy has succumbed to the moral equivalent of listening to creationists.

    Bailey:

    *twists knife*

    *smiles*

    Francisco:

    *laughs hysterically*

    1. But when it comes to biotech crops, the National Academy has succumbed to the moral equivalent of listening to creationists.

      Oh my stars!

  3. If someone figured out a way to use creationism as a tool against capitalism, you damn well better believe creationists would be testifying before the National Academy of Sciences.

    It has nothing to do with science Ron. It is about politics. These people are totalitarian. That means every single aspect of life is about politics.

    1. Ron might be listening, but he can’t remove his lips from Jon Entine’s cock long enough to say anything. I hear that they’re going to go hatefuck some Creationist Christfags together after he swallows though!

      1. I really don’t get what your deal is.

        1. I’ve come to the conclusion, after reading his posts on numerous articles, that he’s just not all that mature.

          1. Maybe I’m just not ok with the bullshit that is frequently spouted by some of the writers here. I’m 95% on board with this publication, but the 5% that comes from Dalmia, and ENB, and occasionally Ron here makes me embarrassed to be lumped together with other “libertarians.”

            1. It’s not your opinions that lead me to that conclusion.

              1. Hmmm, I’m just exaggerating to match the tone of the article. Would it be more mature to say that calling Creationists neo-Luddite charlatans and then block quoting a personal hero’s condescending explanation of science for 5 paragraphs is insufferable and demonstrates a complete lack of ability to actually argue a point?

                1. He didn’t call Creationists that.

                  Neo-Luddite charlatans was the descriptor of the anti-biotech people.

                  1. It was a comparison to creationists. That was the unnecessary and lazy part

        2. Did you read the article? The gist of it I got was “Christians are Luddite morons, Entine is God!” Maybe I just need to take a closer look…

          1. b: Surely you are not saying that all Christians are creationists who reject the massive evidence for biological evolution?

            1. I’m not. I just think comparing creationists to “neo-luddite charlatans” is as unnecessarily harsh and unreasoned as claiming that you’re too busy sucking John Entine’s cock to make a good argument.

              Neither one is particularly nice, founded on evidence, or appropriate in scientific debate.

              1. He specifically compared creationists to “neo-luddite charlatans” in the context of a science meeting on evolution.

                The amazing part of this is how you intentionaly strip out the context, then complain with outraged pornographic insults, then act further outraged when everyone else understands exactly how fucked up your brain is.

                1. explain to me how neo-luddite charlatan makes any sense in that context? Or are you also unaware of what those words mean?

                  1. Because it’s describing the anti-biotech people.

                    Kinda how Creationists describes the anti-evolution people?

          2. No, the gist of it it was plainly written. Anti-GMO activists are as useful when discussing GMO as creationists are when discussing evolution.

            One could call creationists evolution-luddites, but you the paranoid think that means they are luddites with respect to everything else.

            If the Dog Owners Club doesn’t invite dog haters, that doesn’t mean dog haters are also cat haters.

            But go ahead and msconstrue this post too. You’re good at jumping to misconclusions.

            1. Can you give me one good reason besides spite for using creationists as a foil in this article?

              1. If he had used dogs and cats, would you have complained about singling them out?

                What are you, a creationist with an inferiority complex? Did the scientists pick on you as a kid?

                1. No. I just think it’s lazy to unnecessarily use the common libertarian fodder as a foil for an argument you can’t even make yourself. Hence the block quoting of a mightier than thou hack who can’t do more than fall back on “scientific consensus” to make a point.

                2. I’ve been a hit and runner for about a decade and there is some truth to the claim that Reason writers, on occasion, take cheap shots at Christians. I think it reflects a lack of self-esteem.

              2. They are scientifically illiterate assholes who try to push their cracked beliefs into laws?

                1. What laws are Creationists trying to get passed? I’m being totally serious, I don’t know. I have no idea how old the Earth is, but I’m certainly not a young-Earther. But I also can’t think of any legislation that that belief would encourage.

                  1. Laws directing that creationism be taught in schools as a valid competing theory to evolution.

                    1. Wait, that’s a thing? People are pushing for laws requiring that? I need to read more mainstream news!

                  2. What laws are Creationists trying to get passed?

                    They’ve tried to take legal steps to get creationism, intelligent design, or whatever other alternate theory of abiogenesis they want to call it, taught alongside evolution in public schools.

                    Which, it may behoove us as libertarians to point out, wouldn’t really be an issue if we didn’t have public schools in the first place.

                    Ironically enough, Catholic schools teach a bog standard evolution curriculum in science class. It is, however, followed up by mandatory theology class where you learn that god is revealed through nature, and, due to his omniscience and omnipresence, must therefore have created the process itself.

                    FWIW, the decade-outdated science texts I learned from in school don’t really reflect current thinking on biological evolution either.

                    1. I appreciate the edification. I was totally unaware.

              3. Can you give me one good reason besides spite for using creationists as a foil in this article?

                It’s the way of the Cosmo.

    2. If someone figured out a way to use creationism as a tool against capitalism, you damn well better believe creationists would be testifying before the National Academy of Sciences.

      And Government said, “Let the rise of the oceans slow, and let the planet begin to heal.” And it was so. Government called the new ground “wetlands”, and the receding waters He called “endangered marine habitats”. And Government saw that it was good.

  4. The scientific consensus does not mean the public embraces sound science on GMOs anymore than the certainty of natural selection closes the public debate over evolution. Polls indicate half of Americans believe in creationism or God-guided evolution. We see the same split between public opinion and science on the safety of vaccinations, on anthropogenic impacts on global warming?and with GMOs.

    OK buddy. Plenty of scientists agree with evolution and believe in God — these are not necessarily contradictory. And don’t get me started on “consensus” around anthropogenic impacts of global warming…

    1. That’s just what a neo-Luddite charlatan christfag would say!

      1. Am I the only non-Christian who hates that stupid “Darwin” fish that people put on their cars? So you’re an atheist, good for you. Do you need to profane someone else’s religious symbol to send that message?

        1. I think it’s hilarious that they use a non-existent animal eating an existent animal to demonstrate their superior understanding of science.

        2. I don’t hate it for being a thumb-in-the-eye to theists, I hate it because I despise every little bit of useless self-expression that people plaster on their bumpers under the vain and specious assumption that somebody cares what they think.

          1. ^^THIS^^

            It is just a sign telling the world you are a smug asshole. I don’t have a lot of use for scientologists. That said, I can’t imagine putting some idiotic bumper sticker on my car gratuitously sticking my finger in their eyes. Why do that other than just to be an asshole?

            1. Look John, part of their religion is being an asshole…

              1. What do you mean, ‘part’?

        3. Am I the only non-Christian who hates that stupid “Darwin” fish that people put on their cars? So you’re an atheist, good for you. Do you need to profane someone else’s religious symbol to send that message?

          Respectfully, how is the fish with the feet any different than the fish without the feet?

          So you’re an atheist Christian, good for you. Do you need to profane someone else’s religious symbol ideas to send that message?

          1. Fransisco, the fish has nothing to do with Darwin. It is a reference to the whole loaves and fishes thing. That symbol was never intended or thought of as anything other than a way for people to identify themselves as Christians.

            So yes, the the fish with feet is just atheists being assholes because that is how they roll.

            1. The fish is a way of flouting your religious beliefs to people who don’t give a shit what you believe. (i.e Christians being assholes)

              The fish with the feet is athiests pointing out that the need to tell everybody you’re a Christian is being an asshole, by being an asshole back.

              1. Except Christians are saying “I’m a Christian” with the fish. Atheists are saying “Fuck Chritians!” with the Darwin footfish eating the fish.

                I’ve never seen a fish with “IHS” in it eating a flying spaghetti monster or Darwin footfish.

                  1. Dude! I take it back

                  2. LOL. That is funny. Oh well. Such are the wages of bumper sticker wars.

                    I fail to see how any of it is anything but asinine. But that is just me.

                  1. I already took it back! I stand corrected again 🙂

              2. Saying “I am something” is not “flouting your beliefs” by any reasonable definition. So one saying “I am this” isn’t making any statement on you or about anything other than them.

                You do realize you are answering my point that atheists are tiresome assholes by being one yourself? Why are you guys so fucking pissed off all of the time? Seriously, what about rejecting God makes someone such a tiresome smug asshole who feels the need to stick a finger in the eye of everyone else who dares disagree with them?

                You of course have no idea this is the case and would never admit it even if you did. But to most non atheists, meaning theists and agnostics, atheists come across as smug, grim tiresome assholes. There is a reason why they are generally the most unpopular religious minority in every poll you see. That doesn’t come from nowhere.

                1. J: You might be amused by my article, “Why Do So Many Believers Think Atheists Are Worse Than Rapists?

                  As I disclose in the article: I have been “out” as an atheist since by early teens, and as far as I know I have never suffered discrimination based on my lack of belief in an omniscient Sky God.

                  Also some of my best friends are believers. No, really.

                  1. That is because you are not an asshole Ron. No wonder some of your friends are believers. You probably don’t fit in very well with other atheists.

                  2. Any of them black, Ron?

                  3. “As I disclose in the article: I have been “out” as an atheist since by early teens, and as far as I know I have never suffered discrimination based on my lack of belief in an omniscient Sky God.”

                    I’m guessing you were never in the services.

                2. But to most non atheists, meaning theists and agnostics, atheists come across as smug, grim tiresome assholes.

                  See, this is what Ron meant by confirmation bias.

                  1. The polls are what they are SF. You tell me why so many people loath atheists.

                    Confirmation bias can go both ways. Maybe it is me being biased thinking it is because they are assholes or maybe it is your confirmation bias in thinking everyone but you is just a big irrational meany.

                    1. That atheist that only lives in your head sure is a right bastard, John.

                    2. No sf. They are just boring What tiresome way to live one’s life even if it were true who could believe it without dying of boredom.

                3. You do realize you are answering my point that atheists are tiresome assholes by being one yourself?

                  Um…who started this?

                  flye|9.16.14 @ 3:00PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                  Am I the only non-Christian who hates that stupid “Darwin” fish that people put on their cars? So you’re an atheist, good for you. Do you need to profane someone else’s religious symbol to send that message?

                  1. Yes Fransisco, I am just as big of an asshole as your typical atheist. The difference is I am honest about it. It is not so much that atheist are such assholes. Thee are a lot of those. It is that they have no self awareness beyond their giant persecution complex.

                    1. John, I was having a civil debate until you called me an asshole. Fuck off!

                    2. I believe you roll a d8 to attack and a d20 for the glancing snark.

                4. And who called whom an asshole first?

                  So yes, the the fish with feet is just atheists being assholes because that is how they roll.

                  1. I still think the footfish is a hilarious self commentary on the scientific ignorance of your average armchair Darwinist.

                    1. Why. I think it’s rather clever play on the debate. Life started in the oceans and moved to land. The fish is a Christian symbol. A fish with feet is genius.

                    2. It’s funny for a group that claims that it is ridiculous to believe in a magic sky god to think that it is not ridiculous to believe in a footfish.

                    3. Um…who believes in a footfish?

                    4. I dunno…I just assumed that demonstrating that your footfish can eat my jesusfish you were claiming that your footfish is stronger than my jesusfish (your and my are not referring to you and me, FDC, but rather the Darwinist and the Creationist).

                    5. Awwwwwwwww!!!!!

              3. The fish is a way of flouting your religious beliefs to people who don’t give a shit what you believe. (i.e Christians being assholes)

                Pretty sure you mean flaunting, and the ichthys symbol long predates the existence of motor vehicles with bumpers upon which to display it.

                Wrapping up your public identity in your personal convictions, religious or otherwise, is a bit sanctimonious perhaps. Probably to about the same extent that wrapping up your public identity in your post-ironic mockery of symbology that holds no meaning for you is a bit juvenile.

                1. It’s about on par with wearing a “Fuck The Yankees!” shirt instead of a “Red Sox” shirt.

                  Which… wait, I’ve turned myself around on this.

              4. The fish is a way of flouting your religious beliefs to people who don’t give a shit what you believe. (i.e Christians being assholes)

                AKA Free speech.

                The fish with the feet is athiests pointing out that the need to tell everybody you’re a Christian is being an asshole, by being an asshole back.

                AKA Free speech.

                1. But with a footfish?

            2. Actually, the fish is a symbol of Thrice-Great Hermes, and the Christian use of it is to claim that Jesus of Nazareth is–in effect–the reincarnation of the neoplatonic Hermes. In this, and many other ways, Christianity absorbed and marginalized neoplatonism in the fourth and fifth centuries CE. The fishnet was the way to calculate the square-root of 3 before the calculus and fits very importantly in gematria and the quest for wisdom.

              The darwinist use of the fish (fishnet) symbol is much the same–it is an attempt by Darwinism to claim itself as the heir apparent to Egypto-Greco-Judeo-Christianity and thousands of years worth of collected human wisdom. But the claim of Darwinism/Marxism/Rationalism to mastery over human nature is as misplaced as the claim that reason dominates the unconscious, or that the tail wags the dog.

              The struggle between modern Christianity and Darwinism/Marxism/Atheism is old and tired, and both are increasingly irrelevant in the postmodern age. What we need is a new wisdom tradition that accepts the best of ancient wisdom while embracing the best of science.

          2. f: Tiktaalik – a fossilized fish with feet, from about 400 million years ago.

            1. Those pictures look like arrowheads. And if those “footfish” are so good at eating real fish, then why aren’t there any left?

              1. And if those “footfish” are so good at eating real fish, then why aren’t there any left?

                Isn’t it obvious? Climate change.

                1. I want a pet footfish!

          3. I use this one, personally.

    2. It is sad how idiotic language like “scientific consensus” has invaded the public dialog.

      1. J: Of possible interest is my article, “Scientific Consensus Redux.”

        1. Thanks. And I wasn’t taking about AGW so much as just how annoying the term “consensus” is in these areas. You don’t determine objective truth by vote.

          1. J: “Science is not a democracy.” – from Entine’s testimony cited in blogpost.

            1. Keep sucking Entine’s dick, Ron.

            2. Bracketed by–

              it’s critical that you speak out about what the consensus science shows?no wavering or hedging to appease critics that fail to use good science.

              and

              The scientific consensus does not mean the public embraces sound science on GMOs anymore than the certainty of natural selection closes the public debate over evolution.

              Entine comes off looking confused–as if the scientific democracy he prefers is correct–but any science that disagrees with him is invalid.

  5. my co-worker’s step-sister makes $67 hourly on the computer . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her check was $15870 just working on the computer for a few hours. over here….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

    1. If your co-worker’s step-sister really has that much free time, why does she need you to promote this? Why doesn’t your co-worker’s step-sister tell us herself?

      1. Because her time is worth $67 an hour of course!

        1. Any chance you publish a newsletter?

          1. Yes. It’s called libertarians trolling libertarians.

            1. I snickered.

              1. I think it throws them of because we agree on like 90% of everything…

  6. “We don’t get to vote on whether a whale is a fish or a mammal.”

    Fascist.

    1. In a sense we do. We don’t get to vote on what they are but we sure as hell get to vote on what we call them.

      1. Right, tell it to Pluto. Never forget!

        1. If Pluto is a dog, what kind of animal is Goofy?

  7. But when it comes to biotech crops climate science, the National Academy IPCC has succumbed to the moral equivalent of listening to creationists.

    Why is this not an equally accurate statement?

    1. The IPCC listens to creationists?

    2. And what’s wrong with listening to creationists? Isn’t it fundamental to free speech that the best remedy to ideas you disagree with is more speech?

      I think Young Earth theology is idiotic, but I don’t want to ban them from speaking on evolution at a government-sponsored panel.

      1. There’s a difference between prohibiting them from speaking (bad) and not inviting them to your comment sessions (not bad).

        1. True, but the difference is much smaller when the government’s involved.

      1. This whole thread is already drowning in a sea of it.

        1. I haven’t even seen an opinion on the issue yet. This is the least contentious thread on an RB article I’ve ever seen!

      2. Yes Ron, confirmation bias, you know like when the climate stops warming for 19 years contrary to your predictions and you immediately develop elaborate sets of explanations without once considering that your underlying theory might be wrong.

          1. maybe. But maybe not. I am thinking perhaps the people whose careers depend on the theory being true are going to be pretty prone to confirmation bias, especially when there are lots of governments feeding them money.

      3. Or confirmation bias that might occur when billions of dollars and the importance of your entire field of study depend on the results turning out one way.

        You mean that kind of confirmation bias Ron?

        1. How dare you suggest that a researcher would fudge numbers in order to obtain a grant!

  8. Perhaps a regulatory specialist can enlighten me – is the NAS legally required to get input from the public – including the weirdos – before issuing a report or taking similar action?

    Sometimes a federal agency is required to solicit, and read, public input on a proposed regulation. So anyone (or at least anyone with a lawyer) gets to send in their comments, regardless of whether they’re full of crap or not.

    1. Seemed to me they were inviting the crackpots precisely so they could say, yeah we heard from you too.

      And now I’ve defended a government agency, creationists, and Red Sox fans in one thread. Damn if this day didn’t take a wrong turn.

  9. Heuristic: Groups with “Concerned”, “Consumer”, “Public Interest” or “Responsible” in their names are always bollocks.

    Hasn’t failed me yet.

    1. Concerned, Responsible, Active Consumers for the Public

      (interest)

      1. Wait, Concerned, Responsible, Active Consumers for the Public Interest, Pro-Environment.

        1. Well, give me a grant and I’ll improve the acronym.

          1. How about consumer kayakers?

            1. Kickboxers!

    2. Sigivald|9.16.14 @ 3:44PM|#
      Heuristic: Groups with “Concerned”, “Consumer”, “Public Interest” or “Responsible” in their names are always bollocks.
      Hasn’t failed me yet.”

      Ass “Fair” to the list.

  10. I’m of the opinion that the best way to discredit bad ideas and bad theory in general is to air it in the most public way possible. It removes from the proponents of such the mantle of persecution which they can use to gain sympathy, and exposes everyone else to their arguments and the alternatives. Of course, if the national academies were actually independent and not so involved in official policymaking – you know, like, actual science – there would be no real reason for anyone to give a shit.

  11. if consensus is a determiner of what is or is not the correct answer then we must bow down to the Muslim religion because there are more of them than there are of either Christians or Scientist. May you all enjoy your new order by consensus. I on the other hand shall continue to be the outlier who questions all religions sciences and governments and when I find one that not only tells the truth but knows the truth then I will be a part of normal society.

  12. Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, ETC Group, Institute for Responsible Technology, Union of Concerned Scientists and Consumers Union

    Look, this isn’t going to be a balanced discussion unless we also hear from the Center for Reckless Food, the Institute for Irresponsible Technology, and the Union of Unconcerned Scientists.

    1. The problem is that the Unconcerned Scientists weren’t concerned enough to form a Union.

  13. By inviting numerous neoluddite charlatans testify before a National Research Council (NRC) panel that is working on a new report evaluating the safety of modern biotech crops this week.

    But Ron, sweetheart, where do you think you live? The NAS is filled with neoluddite charlatans who peddle things like climatey-changey and other such claptrap, making the anti-GMO crowd their ideological next of kin.

  14. Can a Creationist chime in? I don’t know if people are supposed to listen to me or not, I know it’s taboo and everything…

    But isn’t the NAS basically the exact same thing as the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged? I mean if close to 90% of your funding comes directly from the Federal government, why would any true skeptic believe that anything coming from the NAS wouldn’t have a bias toward increasing federal power anyway? Anti Bio-Tech means more federal oversight. As does Global Warming alarmism. Why would the NAS not by default support these ideas?

    One more question; IF the NAS goes full Anti Bio-Tech and claims that GMO’s causing cancer is a fact, and even succeeds in having the Supreme Court proclaim that this shall be taught in public schools and that it’s illegal to teach competing theories, will Ron Bailey jump on board and call everyone who doesn’t agree a neo-Luddite?

    Of all the Federal Government’s stories, propaganda, and official explanations, none have been so closely guarded and forced upon the public in the U.S. via the heavy hand of law in the last sixty years as the Theory of Evolution. No scientific theory has had the Supreme Court rule that it must be taught to my children, and that no competing theories may be taught beside it. It may be completely or partially true, and it may not, but I don’t see how having a skepticism of what the government holds as the most sacred truth earns me a place of ridicule from fellow Libertarians.

    1. “One more question; IF the NAS goes full Anti Bio-Tech and claims that GMO’s causing cancer is a fact, and even succeeds in having the Supreme Court proclaim that this shall be taught in public schools and that it’s illegal to teach competing theories, will Ron Bailey jump on board and call everyone who doesn’t agree a neo-Luddite?”

      I doubt it. You seem to think we are following NAS’ lead. Not so. We are happy when it does do science.

  15. Doesn’t Libertarianism imply a mistrust of centralized government bureaucracy. Seems so at Reason unless they are talking about the medical / health /science field. When it comes to the FDA, CDC etc seems Reason bows and worships.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.