Open Insulin Project

Comment at Truthout interview about Open Insulin Project's attempt to create a cheaper insulin product for diabetes patients:

Regulations [patents] are tools of power [pharma] to control information [assign who gets to profit]. Secrecy and control of information are enemies of democracy. Transparency and informed choice gives power to the voter/buyer, not the candidate/seller.

Anthony DiFranco is attempting to re-generate the information [insulin patents] controlled by large pharma into marketable drugs. He will have the option of secret patents [like pharma] or open patents [any producer can use]. Open patents are more transparent and give consumers more informed choice.

The real enemies

Comment at Truthout:

Governments organize people into large collectives so economic leaders can put them to work and skim the fruits of their labor. [CEOs, major stock holders, central committee members (communist countries), etc don’t actually make a product or service that their companies sell for profit. They take credit for the goods made by their workers and are given the value of the goods as payment.] Wars are the forceful taking of other land *and* workers by governments for their economy. Wars are a way for governments to get more workers from whom they can take labor and gift them to their economic leaders.

The common narrative has always been nations are at war but the stakes of war tell a different story. Workers are at constant, unending conflict to protect them/ourselves from the ravages of economic leaders. It’s time to realize that the real conflict is between workers and economic leaders who concentrate their power by profiting from workers. United we workers stand, indeed.

Trumpism isn’t politics or ideology; it’s idolatry, a cult

Comment at DWT:

The Rise of Trumpism
(1) Sensory organs evolved over billions of years to provide animals mechanisms to detect and interact with their natural environments in order to survive.
(2) Theistic religions disengage human sensory input from knowledge of the universe/environment. Believing does not require seeing; invisible god(s) are real.
(3) Right wing media feeds the cognitive dissonance opened by religion (Christian Right) an unending stream of logical fallacies about American culture and politics. This completely hobbles the critical thinking ability of their audience and makes them ever more receptive to, as the Bible would say, false idols.
(4) Enter Donald J. Trump, who spent a lifetime gilding his own image with gold colored dust, onto the pedastal built by right wing media to elevate idols to the level of God.

Trumpism isn’t politics or ideology; it’s idolatry, a cult. The cure will involve mass cult recovery.

Only the most gullible among us, who believe in the existence of all powerful beings in the universe can disengage reality from rhetoric to actually believe the response of Sarah Huckabee Sanders in this exchange:

[A reporter asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders, POTUS DJT's spokesperson,] "Clearly there is a concern from some Republicans that the president is not always being as truthful as he could be," Hallie Jackson continued. "How does he plan to address that?" 

[She answers,] "I think by being truthful and transparent as he has every single day."

When 'semantics' is not 'playing games with definitions'

Comment thread at C&L:

stephen byrne Capitalism is based on trust. When trust is eroded, the system can and will collapse. Yet capitalism, by its very nature, tempts its adherents to swindle, cheat, lie and confuse. How do we correct that? Obviously, through a strict regiment of regulation. It's what keeps capitalism honest.

SkepticalPartisan to stephen byrne
Regulation are tools of the powerful. In the rare occasions the larger public has more power, they are written to benefit the public. Unfortunately, more often than not, the rich have more power and they both rewrite regulation *and* change the rules of enforcement to benefit themselves. A major tactic is regulating secrecy and control of information, both enemies of democracy. Transparency and informed choice gives power to the voter/buyer, not the candidate/seller.

Rebel Tuba to SkepticalPartisan
If regulation is the tool of the powerful, why are so many of them fanatically in favor of DE-regulation?

SkepticalPartisan to Rebel Tuba
As a practical matter, regulation/deregulation are a matter of semantics and not enforcement. Rules that outlaw informing consumers (for example, preventing testing for BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy) are backed by the same power of the state as rules requiring informing consumers (example, caloric/nutritional content). Bank 'deregulation' is the government enforcing banks' right to protect (not disclose) their information. Bank 'regulation' is government enforcing public's right (disclosure) of bank information. In the former, regulation is the exercise of banks' power; the latter is an exercise of public power. Considering most laws in recent years have served the interests of the wealthy, public power has been on the wane for decades.

Rebel Tuba to SkepticalPartisan
That's much too narrow a example and too narrow a view. Telling banks they can't pursue certain opportunistic and risky investments is the opposite of refusing to allow them to gamble with other people's money in the most dangerous ways, and that is NOT 'semantics' any more than opposing situations in general are semantics. That's playing games with definitions.
Your example of one small aspect of bank regulation and deregulation is deceptively narrow. It covers many, many more details than that, and most of them don't come down to 'semantics'. Not to mention that there are far more aspects of regulation/deregulation other than banking.

SkepticalPartisan to Rebel Tuba
"If regulation is the tool of the powerful, why are so many of them fanatically in favor of DE-regulation?"
The powerful ask for and get regulation that favors them and calls it deregulation. The power of the state backs the enforcement of all regulations. Without state backing, enforcement is vigilantism.
-semantics means 'meaning of word, phrase or sentence.'
-regulation means government telling industry something *must* be done; enforced through law; criminal charges possible.
-deregulation means government telling industry something *cannot* be done; enforced through law; criminal charges possible.
In this less 'narrow' illustration, does the government enforce regulation differently from deregulation? How does the law treat deregulation differently from regulation?

I thought I was clear!

States and corporations practice censorship

Comment thread at TRNN:

Gideon Levy was interviewed about: Israelis Shut Out Palestinian Calls for Freedom

SkepticalPartisan • 18 hours ago
This is why I support and watch independent journalism like TRNN. It's not only state sponsored/enforced censorship; MSM self censors their content on behalf of their financial interests. Secrecy and control of information is the enemy of democracy. Governments and private institutions use regulation to control information. Greater transparency enables informed choice which gives power to the voter/buyer, not the candidate/seller.

peepsqueek  to SkepticalPartisan • 11 hours ago
Can you think of anyone that does more censoring than Islamic Countries, repression of free speech and expression?
With the exception of Israel, all Middle East and North African Countries are signatories to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19: "There shall be NO crime or punishment EXCEPT as provided for in the Sharia."
Article 24: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia."
Article 25: "The Islamic Sharia is the ONLY source of reference for the explanation or clarification of ANY of the articles of this Declaration."
The Jews of Israel are the only religious and ethnic minority int he Middle East that have the full right of self determination. The banner of Islam flies over 99.9% of the Middle East land mass. What would you be asking if the the situation was reversed?

SkepticalPartisan to  peepsqueek • 9 hours ago
You illustrate the exact point of my comment. Our media censors information about Israel - we do not know and cannot respond without knowledge. Israeli media also censors what their internal media reports to their residents/citizens. We have been told about censorship in Islamic Countries which enables you to comment and take a position. Information about Islamic censorship gives you the choice to act. There's little media coverage of Israeli censorship.
And yes, I agree and acknowledge Islamic Countries censor. My original comment applies across the board without regard to borders, boundaries or religions.

peepsqueek to  SkepticalPartisan • 7 hours ago
We know a lot more about Israel because they have a whole range of non-Government media and foreign press all over Israel. Israelis do not have to be afraid to speak to anyone, nor do they have to be afraid to criticize the Israeli government. There is freedom of association, speech, and expression, and Israeli Jews,

SkepticalPartisan  to peepsqueek • 7 hours ago
I am an anonymous commenter; my opinion is largely irrelevant. And yes, "Israeli Jews, Christians, and Arabs come and go as they please"... but only in undisputed parts of Israel; there is very little freedom of movement which also restricts associated in the Gaza and the West Bank. That is why I originally commented. I appreciate TRNN providing Gideon Levy the opportunity to give a Palestinian slant. I want TRNN to continue to seek and report unreported stories and viewpoints. Political coverage in the U.S. is largely limited to the very narrow spectrum defined by the two major parties; anything slightly left or up, down and sideways are either labelled extreme or ignored. The control of information removes choice and thus democracy from voters/consumers.
BTW, do residents of Gaza and the West Bank have their own media to tell their stories? Or are they dependent on Israeli and international media?

peepsqueek  to SkepticalPartisan • 7 hours ago
Gaza and the West Bank have never in history had their own newspaper. The first newspaper in the area was the Palestinian Post, which became the Jerusalem Post after Israel became an independent state.
As far as walls and fences, before the occupation and the walls and fences, who protected the Israeli civilian population from regular attacks? Now there are very few attacks. Who is protecting the civilian populations in the other 28 conflicts and border wars around the world today involving repressive Islamic regimes? Are they all freedom fighters and martyrs for Islam?
Just for balance and proper context, there are many walls and barriers involving Muslim Countries: Malaysia-Thailand border, Melilla border fence in Spain, Indo-Bangladeshi barrier, Indo-Burma barrier, Indian Kashmir barrier, Iran-Pakistan barrier, Kazakh-Uzbekistan barrier, Kuwait-Iraq barrier, Pakistan-Afghanistan barrier, Russia/Chechnya, Saudi-Yemen barrier, Arab Emirates/Oman, Saudi/Yemen, Turkmen/ Uzbekistan, Egypt/Gaza, Syria/Turkey, Sudan/Sudan, Kenya/Somalia, etc, and many more walls and fences within Muslim Countries to separate different sects from having at each other.

SkepticalPartisan to  peepsqueek • 6 hours ago
"...for balance and proper context..."
Thank you for your continual reinforcing of my original comment. Knowledge is power. Without knowledge of the barriers you describe, we have no foundation upon which to voice support or dissent; without a voice, our votes can only support the the story we are spoon fed. I would appreciate any efforts by TRNN to interview people affected by the barriers you list.

peepsqueek  to SkepticalPartisan • 6 hours ago
Without those barriers there was chaos-- religious, tribal, sectarian, and nationalistic violence. There are 7.5 billion people on the planet today, in a world with dwindling resources. Without these lines, there would be continuous violence and chaos. This is why the Western world does business with all these Middle East dictators and totalitarian governments that maintain some measure of control, even though they are repressive governments.

SkepticalPartisan  to peepsqueek • 6 hours ago
The political leaders of "the Western world does business with all these Middle East dictators and totalitarian governments". It isn't clear that the people and voters of the Western world would choose to do "business with all these Middle East dictators and totalitarian governments". Voters need information to make decisions. Without transparency, voters are choosing between packaging with no clue of what's inside, like choosing between multiple doors in a game show; they could all be hiding the same 'prize'.

Secrecy aids the powerful

This is a post at DailyKos with links briefly summarizing efforts by regulatory agencies and industry to avoid regulation and keep information away from the public. This is the Intercepted article.

We need universal whisteblower protection and much, much greater transparency.

some of the links in the post:

PoisonPapers.org

The Bioscience Resource Project

Center for Media and Democracy

Science is based on data

Comment at Down with Tyranny:

"Replace "climate" with "hell" and this would be the same reasoning used for the fire and brimstone version of religion."

This is essentially arguing [climate] science is like religion. While there are some similarities, they are very important and significant differences. Both science and religion arise from the same social need; in the face of complete uncertainty, people want rules of behavior/conduct to avoid catastrophic outcomes. Religions codify collections of old anecdotes into rules of conduct. For example, biblical strictures against adultery/infidelity likely arise from a tragic outcome of one adulterous incident. But not all affairs will end in tragedy. This is akin to associating good fortune to a charm because you happened to be wearing it on the day of a good event (promotion,favorite team winning). Religions use old anecdotes to predict the future. Scientific conclusions are based on carefully and precisely collected data (if properly controlled, a set of anecdotes can form a set of data). Scientific predictions based on data are restricted to well defined circumstances. For example, science predicts two doses of measles vaccine are 97% effective. When suffiently complete data is available, science is remarkably accurate in its predictions.

You have the right to make any choices that affect your individual well being; choose religion if that is your preference. When your actions affect the well being of the larger community, choose the path of minimum harm with most accurate predictive value. Science has proven to be a far better fortune teller than religion.

Comments of the day

At Truthout, "Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson has compared people with pre-existing health conditions to cars that have been in accidents.":

Life is a pre-existing condition; it always precedes death. According to GOP reasoning, the pre-existing condition of life makes all living persons ineligible for medical insurance. It would seem we must die to become eligible.
/s

At Truthout, Corporate Agricultural Dumping: Growing the Wealth Gap:

Pressure to increase yields due to agricultural dumping also promotes greenhouse gas release and pollution through fossil fuel powered mechanization, transport & production as well as ever increasing use of agricultural chemicals.

At C&L, Trump's 'Pardons' Are A Threat To Democracy:

There is a big problem shared by Antonin Scalia's concept of Constitutional originalism and biblical literalism... language is symbolic. It is not possible for any language to be literally 'literal'. Written and spoken words are *always* subject to interpretation. 

The U.S. Constitution has a literal component in setting the framework of the U.S. government but it is also has an equally important aspiration component, just read the preamble. If DJT or any other politician is permitted to reduce the Constitution to only its literal elements (as would be the case if he pardons his family, cohort and himself), they would negate the founding values and precepts which have forged a collection of disparate individuals, ethnicities, languages and cultures into this country. We would turn in what Margaret Thatcher once said, "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."

At TRNN, Data, Algorithms & Artificial Intelligence: Where is AI Innovation Taking Society?:

"...intellectual property rights cover a lot of things like patents, trademark, copyright, industrial designs, so basically everything that we touch, at one point or the other, has been impacted by intellectual property." 

Intellectual property is the DNA of economies; just as change in DNA evolves new species, change of information/intellectual property evolves economies. Regulation of intellectual property (patents, trademark, copyright, industrial designs, etc.) determines who controls economies. Corporations and their executives derive their power from control of massive amounts of information (examples: Microsoft, big pharma). Issues of income, wealth and power inequality all derive directly and indirectly from the concentration of power through control of information. True reform requires much greater transparency.

Worst case climate disruption

New York Magazine has published The Uninhabitable Earth, an article by David Wallace-Wells. Read it.

Gaius Publius at Down with Tyranny has published a commentary. My comment:

(1) Fossil fuels are a substitute for organic labor (humans and animals)... think automobiles vs. walking or horse power; hand tools/assembly vs. power tools/robots; even labor intensive harvesting of wind sailing vs. fuel burning ships. 

(2) Burning fossil fuels was/is en economic issue/problem. The economic argument against mitigating the greenhouse effect has won so far. The solution to climate change must also include an economic solution. 

(3) Ecosystems and environments capable of sustaining human life are the seed corn of all economies. Without ecosystems able to grow food crops, economies cannot and will not exist.

He might advance single-payer

Comment at Truthout:

Dr. Paris said, "Letting Obamacare fail, I think, is what the president has implied that he could do pretty easily. The next cost-sharing subsidy payment is due out Thursday. And if he doesn't continue to fund that, the insurance companies are going to go into even more chaos and uncertainty." 

Should DJT actually increase the level of chaos in the currently messy healthcare system, the support for a user friendly, low red tape, single payer system will only increase.

Comment at TRNN where Dean Baker opines states will not be able to establish single payer health care alone:

DEAN BAKER: ...So they're counting on two big pots of funds, the Medicare and Medicaid pots, going to this single-payer system. 

Under a block grant system, like those proposed by the GOP, states would get the Medicare and Medicaid pots. Small grants would force states to maximize heath care returns for each dollar spent. There is practically no dispute that single payer is the most cost effective system of health care delivery... e.g., states have no choice but go single payer.

DEAN BAKER: ...So you have to tell those people that they could keep their own doctors. In many cases, that won't be true because they'll stay outside the system. 

Single payer means there is only one insurer which recompenses health care providers for services given. A doctor who doesn't accept insurer payments will be forced to limit their practice to only those patients who will cover the total costs of their medical care out of their own pockets. It becomes a numbers game - how many doctors will find enough rich patients to support their practice? Most general practitioners won't.

Economics drive Israeli - Gaza relationship

Comment at Truthout:

"...until we start dealing with Gaza as a political problem rather than an economic problem or religious problem, until we start addressing the political drivers that animate resistance from Gazans -- the right of return, the right to self-determination -- Dr. Sourani spoke very eloquently about the right to live and the freedom of movement -- until we start talking about these political rights, the situation in Gaza isn't going to change." 

It's the economic incentives that drive the politics. There are individuals and institutions that are profiting from the plight of the Palestinians; they are the ones making the politics as they are. The Israeli military 'earns' billions in U.S. military aid to defend against threats from Palestinian terrorists (has parallels to 'fear for my life' defense in extrajudicial police shootings in the U.S.). Israeli construction companies earns millions (billions?) building settlements in the occupies territories. Israel profits from export of Palestinian sourced products. 

Another metaphor: the living conditions in Gaza are completely man made. Climate disruption is also man made. In many places on the planet, climate disruption may lead to a level of disruption equal to or surpassing that of Gaza today. Men have made these situations. Men can mitigate these situations.

Regulation is the exercise of power

Comment at TRNN:

Regulation is a tool and exercise of power. There will always be winners and losers whenever something is regulated... so regulation tends to further empower the already powerful. Much of regulation is related to control of information - this video is about information pertaining to drug safety. Safety regulations also involve information in that public knowledge (information) would be a source of public pressure to correct violations or improved consumer confidence in a service or product. To resolve the constant calls for regulation & deregulation (there's no difference if government is involved), transparency gives power to individuals (worker & consumers choose their employers & consumption with full knowledge).  

BTW, regulation & deregulation is not bad in itself. It's bad because they concentrate power and power is the root of much evil.

Similar comment at Truthout:

Regulation are tools of the powerful. In the rare occasions the larger public has more power, they are written to benefit the public. Unfortunately, more often than not, the rich have more power and they both rewrite regulation *and* change the rules of enforcement to benefit themselves. A major tactic is secrecy and control of information, both enemies of democracy. Transparency and informed choice gives power to the voter/buyer, not the candidate/seller.

How he resembles devout people

Comment at C&L:

DJT has an authoritarian's respect for the law: he follows it to the sub-micron distance. He flouts ethics rules, norms and conventions because they have no enforcement consequence; no 'rule of law'. Devout followers of religion have a similar view of ethics. For them, right and wrong are predetermined by an outside force (Jesus, Muhammad, bible, koran, etc.); for DJT, 'letter of the law'. Individuals do not have the perspicacity or even the responsibility to determine the rightness or wrongness of their action.

Further proof DJT is not Presidential material. Rule books are nice and fine (actually not) for the 'known knowns'; unfortunately for DJT, U.S.A. and the planet, presidents are responsible for 'known unknowns' *and* 'unknown unknowns'.

Finally...

...an economists writes about the larger economic costs of information control. My comment at Truthout:

Controlling information and secrecy is pivotal to the imbalance of economic and political power at the root of many of today's problems. Current POTUS hides his tax returns, business relationships and lies at every opportunity. Former POTUSs prosecuted whistleblowers, spied on Americans, and lied to the world about weapons of mass destruction. Big pharma and chemical companies use patents and proprietary information to make enormous profits and hide injurious outcomes/information. Other industries profit from patent licencing and copyright of information. These all have costs to consumers, workers, voters, and citizens in various forms including purchase price, exposure to unknown chemicals, loss of right(s) to contest disputes (against private and public institutions) and loss of right(s) to make informed decisions. 

The greatest reform to our political and economic system can only come about through a massive increase in information transparency at all levels. Markets aren't free because consumers don't buy with full knowledge of the products (pollution controls, worker's rights/safety, social costs, etc). Citizen's aren't free because voters don't vote with full knowledge of candidates (candidates lie, financial support, etc). Whistleblower protect is a good starting point and we should expand from there.

James McGill Buchanan preceded Milton Friedman

Comment at Truthout interview discussing role of economist James McGill Buchanan in development of modern right wing libertarian thought:

The goal of the Kochs and their ilk is to concentrate all the power (economic and otherwise) into their greedy little hands. The greatest opposition tool is information transparency; the second is critical/analytical thinking skills. The problem is the powers that be control information (via pro-corporate regulation - intellectual property & 'national security' secrets) and education policy (Republican Secretary of Education; pro-corporate university endowments).

Theories of inequality antecede economic benefits

Comment at Truthout where historian Ibram X. Kendi discusses the root and cures of racism in America:

Dr. Kendi clearly defined the causal relationship: economic benefit precedes racist ideas precedes persistent cultural racism. This relationship applies to *all* manner of division, not just racism. 

Economic benefited class -> 'theory' of inequality -> policy and culture of inequality 

some examples:(1) big Republican donors -> trickle-down/supply-side economics -> 'deregulation' & right to work(2) religious right -> abortion is murder -> post Roe v. Wade abortion restrictions(3) POTUS DJT (and other politicians) -> 'illegal' aliens are criminals -> mass deportation 

The cure for these inequities is not embedded in their theories or policies. Because they are rooted in economic inequality (unequal economic power), their cure is to equalize economic power. And the secret to decentralizing power is information transparency/dissemination. The wealth/power of modern corporations and institutions are derived directly from the information they control or 'own' (patents, copyrights, trademarks, branding, proprietary/trade secrets, 'national security' secrets, etc.). Looser controls on information would increase opportunities for economic competition and, over time, decrease economic disparity.

Transparency is the opposite of regulation, not deregulation

Comment at TRNN segment about 'deregulation' in light of the Grenfell Tower fire in London:

Regulation/deregulation concentrates power within the state (regulators) and/or private institutions (corporate/capitalist interests). Transparency disseminates power to the citizenry, the opposite of regulation/deregulation. Control of information (regulation) is the root of many political/economic ills.

Illegal status

TRNN answered some questions I had about undocumented immigrants:

Apparently, not having documentation is not in itself a crime-

being here if you're undocumented is not a crime, it's a civil offense.

But entering illegally is a crime (in comments)-

However, it’s also important to distinguish between "unlawful presence" and "unlawful entry". 

An undocumented immigrant who entered the United States improperly would have committed a crime, a misdemeanor.

So the  the deportation of undocumented aliens with no criminal behavior should require proof of criminal behavior... one that the Trump administration is not honoring.

Need transparent elections

My comment a C&L post decrying legitimacy of elected officials in light of their lack of transparency:

The intent of the first amendment's free speech right is the freedom to speak truth to power without threat of imprisonment. In a democracy, power lies in the voters, so speech directed at voters (press) is free of government intervention. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has allowed media to lie in supposed news programs. The damage to media credibility is amplified by accusations of liberal bias and fake news. We now have a President whose every word has questionable veracity.

For years I have said the greatest reform to our political and economic system can only come about through a massive increase in transparency. Markets aren't free because consumers don't buy with full knowledge of the products (pollution controls, worker's rights/safety, etc). Citizen's aren't free because voters don't vote with full knowledge of candidates (candidates lie, financial support, etc).

Great post.

Maybe rude is more effective

Not the most diplomatic comment I've ever left. Truthout article titled Greece Has Been a Laboratory on a Way Out of a Capitalist Crisis:

Government austerity sucks the calcium from the bones of workers and sells it off to give 'tax relief' to the rich (depletes worker productivity by reducing healthcare and education/skills). Privatization sucks all the valuable materials out of public infrastructure and sells it for scrap (leaving behind unreliable roads & bridges requiring user fees). Then the power brokers, policy makers, and especially the economists who designed such ponzi-esque schemes get to express their shock and dismay that an economy without productive capacity can't produce. Unfortunately, they profit while the workers pay the price.

Sign of fear

The New York Times published an op-ed by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein arguing that Democrats need to shift to the center if they want to win elections. At TRNN, Nina Turner says Democrats lost because they've lost touch with their voters. My thoughts (comment at TRNN link):

As I see it, the Penn & Stein op-ed in the NYT was a pre-emptive attempt to frame the debate. In other words, the only news worthy of print ("All the News That's Fit to Print") is defined by the tiny ideological differences between Republicans and establishment Democrats. All other ideas and positions are 'extremist' views and unworthy of print. An excellent example of this bias was the way the NYT covered Bernie's campaign - by not covering it, they deemed his positions and policies 'not fit to print'. The galvanized resistance to the GOP healthcare plan and growing calls for single payer probably has the establishment quaking in their boots.

Agricultural chemicals are ecological drugs

Comment I left at Truthout post describing a neonicotinoid study conducted under 'real world' conditions of its effects on bee health to mixed results:

These findings are entirely predictable; their ambiguity buys their manufacturers more time to further market them as 'safe'. What the public often doesn't understand is the relationship between agricultural chemical(s) and the ecosystem (crop fields). A useful metaphor:
agricultural chemical :: agricultural condition :: ecosystem/environment/crop field
this relationship resembles -
drug :: disease/illness/infection :: patient

Neonicotinoids are chemicals (agricultural 'drugs') used to treat crops/fields to kill unwanted insects; antibiotics are chemicals (drugs) used to treat patients to kill pathogenic bacteria. But the outcome of a course of antibiotics is not always as intended - they can kill beneficial bacteria; they can't kill resistant bacteria; they may have synergistic or antagonistic side effects with genetics/drugs/diet/smoking/alcohol/etc - in other words, <a href= "https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-do-drugs-affect-people-differently-understanding-factors-sharma" >drugs do not affect all patients the same way</a>, some respond well, others experience dangerous side effects. By the same token, not all crop fields will respond the same way to the same pesticide/agricultural drug. In some instances (Germany), neonicotinoids did not have the side effect of bee (beneficial insect) deaths; in other cases (Hungary and the UK), neonicotinoid had the side effect of higher levels of bee death. This is true for all agricultural chemicals, including fertilizers, plant/animal hormones, animal antibiotics, pesticides and herbicides.

By the way, Bayer is a major drug producer; these are issues they regularly address with regards to drug safety/regulation. Pharmaceutical drugs must have a thoroughly tested/documented safety and efficacy record before they can be marketed to patients. The standard is lower for agricultural chemicals. With their experience and expertise, Bayer should have no difficulty meeting higher safety standards for agricultural chemicals. The question for the public is how much risk is tolerable?

GOP healthcare bill will tank the economy

Comment at C&L:

Healthcare is currently about 6% of the economy. If the 'mean' GOP deathcare bill manages to cut medical spending and give a hefty tax cut to the wealthy (and kill a number of Americans along the way), this will also have major effects on the larger economy. On the positive side, the funeral industry will grow (/s). On the negative side, taxes cuts for rich people does not change their consumption; it's removing money from the economy; all sick people and their families will be forced to cut their discretionary spending to pay for medical care. The end result, the medical sector of the economy will expand relative to the shrinking of all other parts of the economy.

Good job GOP! (/s)

Related comment at C&L:

Or any perspective outside her donors, no, make that investors. The transfer of healthcare spending on sick Americans to wealthy 'taxpayers' (better described as capitalists plunderers) will make sick Americans spend their discretionary funds on medical care. The rest of the economy will lose out, especially the leisure sector. GOP, the party that will destroy all prospects of future prosperity.