According to Natural News, after blowing the lid recently on National Geographic‘s shameless endorsements for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and vaccines, we decided to pick up the latest issue of National Geographic to see who’s funding the magazine these days. Perhaps not surprisingly, nearly every ad was for pharmaceutical drugs, alcohol, GMOs or crop chemicals.
The May 2015 issue of National Geographic opens up with an ad on page six for “K9 Advantix II,” a flea, tick and mosquito drug for dogs that’s manufactured by Bayer Healthcare LLC. This particular product, which contains dangerous pesticides like permethrin, was exposed by Scientific American in 2010 for causing serious side effects in dogs, including rashes, vomiting, diarrhea and seizures.
On the very next page of National Geographic, a 10-page spread promoting genetically modified (GM) crops manufactured by Cargill poses as an in-depth article about “The Future of Food.” Rehashing the myth that GMOs are needed to feed the world’s growing population, this blatant biotech promotion piece is filled with lies about how GM soybeans are helping to protect against rainforest deforestation.
“Cargill is helping transport these (GM) crops to create a food-secure world,” reads the GMO puff piece.
For more information, log onto:
Wikipedia has had issues with the quality of writing, site vandalism, and the accuracy of information. The media has covered many scandals related to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
Inaccurate and false information and what is perceived to be a hostile editing climate have been said to have caused a decline in editor participation.
An alternative medicine non-profit called the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) began a petition on Change.org: “Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia: Create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing.”
In mid-January of 2014, the petition reached 7,000 signatures. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales responded to the request, “No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.
“Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
“What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of ‘true scientific discourse.’ It isn’t.”
Ethan Huff reported at Natural News “that WebMD had been contracted to receive $126,826 in taxpayer funds for each single 5,000-word review article it posted on scientific advances in a specific clinical topic. The site also received nearly $70,000 for a single four-minute video it posted from an opinion specialist. And an astounding $140,000 was awarded for a single eight-question online quiz posted to the site.”
”Anyone who relies on WebMD for impartial information needs to understand this story,” said Thomas Lifson of American Thinker. “I think the website made a colossal mistake, sacrificing its credibility. It has now harnessed itself to the most unpopular healthcare measure in American history.”
To see some fascinating and interesting clips regarding the truth about how Wikipedia, National Geographic and WebMD are manipulating news and information, one can easily log onto: