Jon Entine

Dad, journalist, iconoclast, founder - ag biotech/biomedicine/sustainability/ethics. Emmy-winning TV news producer, book author

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

I've been writing about the fact that the press narrative on bee and insect health has been wrong since 2013--more than two dozen articles. Here's my first one, in Forbes. The entire campaign to ban neonicotionid insecticides and other crop chemicals because they allegedly kill insects in massive numbers is absolutely not supported by science...and never has been: https://t.co/d3PHfncnGG

[@camjenglish @camjenglish]

The so-called "beepocalypse" has always been a myth. @JonEntine, @DrLizaMD and I will explain why tomorrow at 12 pm central. Until then, here's some background reading to get you up to speed. 🧵 https://t.co/zrJHjepcF7

[Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum]

Literal definition of Orwellian

[Liza Lockwood @DrLizaMD]

Curious to hear your thoughts on who should fund these trials & why?

Every single drug that gets launched undergoes a rigorous regulatory process that takes 10-15 years & costs $1 billion.

During COVID, drug companies donated multiple doses of hydroxychloroquine to evaluate its efficacy in trials.

It was found to be ineffective….

By doctors who were using the drug to try to save patients.

And the companies then got lambasted for innovating their way out of the pandemic.

I would love to hear some creative ideas for how to approach this from thoughtful doctors on this platform.

Operation Warp Speed was an attempt to address the pandemic expediently.

Remember, the industry scientists were all locked down, masked, social distanced & their kids were out of school, too.

We’re all in this together.

So I’m asking these questions in a good-faith effort to understand,

1) What would you do differently?

2) How would you design a study that proves safety & efficacy from the bench to the bedside?

3) How would you pay for that study?

4) If it costs $1billion dollars to get a drug from the bench to the bedside, before the costs of scaling up manufacturing to produce enough for the population, how do you propose to recoup that money so your company doesn’t go broke (and then nobody gets the drug)?

Let me be clear - I don’t think Americans should be shouldering all of the costs for R&D.

I do want to understand the ideal way to design and conduct a study that doctors and patients would trust.

So let’s hear your thoughts - from across the spectrum of different perspectives.

@CoffeeBlackMD @toxicologist12 @notaproviderMD @SacksDisa @anish_koka @ZiadKazzi @mass_marion @chris_komatsu @HSRdirector @dr_jon_l @tylerblack32 @real_doc_speaks @DrDiGiorgio @IanCopeland5 @whitfieldlewis6

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

Reality star-turned-LA mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt is often critical of "toxic #PFAS" after his Palisades house burned down, which has been a central narrative of his political campaign.

He's angry at both the fire and at the most effective method to fight it, but he's not alone. The #EPA is currently phasing out PFAS in its fire policy. Join the discussion with @jonentine, @DrLizaMD, and @camjenglish.
https://t.co/Du7RYmFalv

[@camjenglish @camjenglish]

"Responsible" social media moderation is censorship.

Disagree? Join the debate tomorrow.

Details below!

[Liza Lockwood @DrLizaMD]

Come join me, @JonEntine & @camjenglish tomorrow to talk about misinformation, disinformation and censorship.

https://t.co/oTNN35YvK7

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

Europe and the U.S. do not approach social media disinformation the same way, even when that information is humanity-moving. Is responsibility censorship? Join the convo, with @JonEntine, @camjenglish, and @DrLizaMD https://t.co/pnMNgNYkOY

[Tony Morley @tonymmorley]

“Not just one of the many good cultures and societal systems — not a culture on par with others — but, thus far, the best system of civilization humanity has ever had.” — The West Is Good, @tonymmorley, @NRO https://t.co/bGFaV2vbH1 🗽

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

https://t.co/0CBRQI1Kks

[Scott Hamilton Kennedy @scotthamkennedy]

Their Coffee Is More Toxic Than Glyphosate
Last week Del Bigtree (@delbigtree) and Food Babe (@foodbabe) rallied outside the Supreme Court against glyphosate. I've met these people. I exposed them in my films. They are not honest brokers.
And they weren't alone. Cory Booker (@corybooker) and AOC (@aoc) are taking the bait on Glyphosate as evil— politicians I respect on a lot of issues. But not on this one. The science doesn't care about your team.
The global scientific consensus is clear: the EPA, EU, Canada, Japan, and Australia have all concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer at real-world exposures.
Oh — and their coffee is more toxic than glyphosate. Scientifically speaking.
More receipts coming. Including a deep dive into IARC — the organization behind the "probable carcinogen" claim — and why they'll be front and center in my next project: TOXIC
Stay tuned.

@marklynas @bayer
#Glyphosate #Roundup #FoodEvolution #ShotInTheArm #MAHA #PeopleVersusPoisin #FoodScience #ScienceMatters #Monsanto #IARC #SupremeCourt

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Here are the numbers on glyphosate https://t.co/0CBRQI1Kks

[Scott Hamilton Kennedy @scotthamkennedy]

Their Coffee Is More Toxic Than Glyphosate
Last week Del Bigtree (@delbigtree) and Food Babe (@foodbabe) rallied outside the Supreme Court against glyphosate. I've met these people. I exposed them in my films. They are not honest brokers.
And they weren't alone. Cory Booker (@corybooker) and AOC (@aoc) are taking the bait on Glyphosate as evil— politicians I respect on a lot of issues. But not on this one. The science doesn't care about your team.
The global scientific consensus is clear: the EPA, EU, Canada, Japan, and Australia have all concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer at real-world exposures.
Oh — and their coffee is more toxic than glyphosate. Scientifically speaking.
More receipts coming. Including a deep dive into IARC — the organization behind the "probable carcinogen" claim — and why they'll be front and center in my next project: TOXIC
Stay tuned.

@marklynas @bayer
#Glyphosate #Roundup #FoodEvolution #ShotInTheArm #MAHA #PeopleVersusPoisin #FoodScience #ScienceMatters #Monsanto #IARC #SupremeCourt

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

https://t.co/zbOxHB5h4G HOPE YOU CAN COMe! Dr. Liza Lockwood, Jon Entine and Cameron English.

[Liza Lockwood @DrLizaMD]

Peptides, dewormers, vitamin infusions, chelation & supplements!

Alt-med or new frontier?

Come share your thoughts with me @camjenglish & @JonEntine.

See you in 5 minutes😁

https://t.co/d27G9OMLI1

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

In the new study, published in @JAMANetworkOpen, researchers scrutinized advertising revenue from 11 news sites flagged for spreading health misinformation, including false claims about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines,' reports @LizSzabo for @CIDRAP.

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

Environmental Working Group, @ewg, is back with its annual, science-bending Dirty Dozen list of fruits and vegetables. Should you be afraid to eat kale and strawberries? Find out with toxicologist @DrLizaMD, @camjenglish & @JonEntine.
https://t.co/BPLYqED67n

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

To learn more about the Dirty Dozen's rubber chicken math and its annual panic-for-profit campaign (and if you should avoid blueberries), join the discussion with toxicologist @DrLizaMD, @camjenglish, and @JonEntine. https://t.co/BPLYqED67n

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

“Agri-food misinformation creates anxiety, uncertainty, and confusion among farmers and consumers,” says Ataharul Chowdhury, an agricultural scientist. “Our first priority is to raise awareness of the issue among the scientific community, policymakers, advisory professionals, farmers, and the public,” adds @ataharul, who has started an initiative that investigates agri-food #misinformation around the world and provides online resources that debunk common #food and #agriculture myths. https://t.co/XQ0EzdCzW1

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

Is America’s prohibitionist approach to drug policy actually making the opioid crisis worse? Join @DrLizaMD and @camjenglish on the latest podcast, as they explain the science of black market opioids, trace the evolution of illicit use, and confront uncomfortable policy questions. #OverdoseCrisis #OpioidEpidemic https://t.co/7sVa5ovARC

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

RFK, Jr. is considering changes that could prompt the handful of companies that make most shots for American children to stop selling them here. To play out RFK, Jr.'s vision of a vaccine-free America, two @Stanford professors ran thousands of simulations to figure out the average number of deaths and disabilities this vision would cause over a 25-year period, as reported by @propublica.

Here's what they found ... on average: 23,000 paralyzed by polio; 290,000 deaths by measles; 41,000 babies (eventually) born with congenital rubella syndrome; and an average of 138,000 deaths from diphtheria. Worse-case scenario for diphtheria? Over a million deaths. #AntiVax #PublicHealth https://t.co/x7uQbK08ZU

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Mike, It wasn’t a hallmark study…it wasn’t even a study. It was a review of research—nothing like a study. It was retracted not because any information was incorrect but for one reason only: the authors did not disclose their relationship with Monsanto. If you know anything about research protocols, in 1999, no scientist disclosed conflicts of interest. That became standard years later. This was a nothing burger of a review and has had zero influence on any of that 16 or so risk agencies that subsequently reviewed studies on glyphosate. There have been approximately 4,200 ACTUAL studies on glyphosate since that review—again not a study. Of those 4,200, less than 115 have shown any potential link to cancer—an insignificant percentage. Almost all of them are petri dish and rat studies—the lowest of the low on the significance scale. The European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemical Health Agency did the most recent review three years ago. They reviewed more than 2,000 studies and released a 12,000 page report concluding glyphosate is not carcinogenic and not particularly toxic—far less than ANY (ineffective) organic alternative, that’s for sure. They renewed glyphosate’s registration for 10 more years. Honestly, there is almost zero serious debate among mainstream and university based scientists on this. There is a small cadre of activist scientists who work hand in hand with tort lawyers. About the same percentage of climate scientists who deny the human impact on climate.

[Genetic Literacy Project @GeneticLiteracy]

This is funny. Toby Rogers is a crank, working for a joke of an organization, quoting a documented organic industry front group that was started by the Organic Consumers Association—Which, like Brownstone, is an anti-vaccine, natural and wellness industry grifter organization. I’m honored by your recognition that the Science Literacy Project is rated “pro-science” with “High Credibility” by every independent journalism watchdog agency, You and your compatriots: not so much.

[Jon Entine @JonEntine]

Mike, It wasn’t a hallmark study…it wasn’t even a study. It was a review of research—nothing like a study. It was retracted not because any information was incorrect but for one reason only: the authors did not disclose their relationship with Monsanto. If you know anything about research protocols, in 1999, no scientist disclosed conflicts of interest. That became standard years later. This was a nothing burger of a review and has had zero influence on any of that 16 or so risk agencies that subsequently reviewed studies on glyphosate. There have been approximately 4,200 ACTUAL studies on glyphosate since that review—again not a study. Of those 4,200, less than 115 have shown any potential link to cancer—an insignificant percentage. Almost all of them are petri dish and rat studies—the lowest of the low on the significance scale. The European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemical Health Agency did the most recent review three years ago. They reviewed more than 2,000 studies and released a 12,000 page report concluding glyphosate is not carcinogenic and not particularly toxic—far less than ANY (ineffective) organic alternative, that’s for sure. They renewed glyphosate’s registration for 10 more years. Honestly, there is almost zero serious debate among mainstream and university based scientists on this. There is a small cadre of activist scientists who work hand in hand with tort lawyers. About the same percentage of climate scientists who deny the human impact on climate.

[Mike Young @micyoung75]

The preemption distinction is fair and I’ll take the correction on framing. The regulatory consensus on glyphosate is real. What isn’t answered by that consensus: why the hallmark safety study was retracted after Monsanto ghostwriting was documented, why Bayer settled for $10.9 billion if the science was settled, and why Pam Bondi’s former lobbying firm was registered to work for Bayer three weeks before the executive order. The science question and the corruption question are separate. Both deserve honest answers.