If Neil deGrasse Tyson were popular a generation ago, he would have shilled for Big Tobacco and insisted that smoking cigarettes doesn’t cause cancer

To his many gushing fans, he’s basically an all-knowing science oracle who can’t be questioned on anything in this particular field of study. But to everyone else, Neil deGrasse Tyson is little more than a shameless sellout to the cult of scientism, which in the modern age means actively shilling for biotechnology and crop chemicals. But if Tyson had occupied the platform he holds today a generation ago, this would have meant aggressively pushing tobacco and cigarettes as safe and healthy – which you can be sure he would have done for the right price.

It’s one of those funny little things about life – the fact that the more things seem to change, the more they actually stay the same. Celebrity-status authority figures like Tyson, whether they gravitate towards politics, business, science, or some other niche, tend to be driven by one thing, and one thing only: Greed. It doesn’t matter if what they peddle on the masses is even true or right, so long as they receive a hefty paycheck for being the status quo mouthpiece on that particular subject.

For Tyson, this subject is “science,” though very little of what he says or does is even true, let alone remotely scientific. By all appearances, Tyson says only what’s politically correct at any given time. Currently, that means pushing the man-made global warming myth, promoting evolution, and praising genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) whenever he gets the chance. And if he had been around 50 years ago, Tyson would have been on television mocking “cigarette deniers” and claiming that tobacco is awesome – because “science.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson: The king of Fake Science

Much like he does today, Tyson likely would have spent much of his time making the rounds at conferences all around the world advocating that people smoke cigarettes because they’re just so gosh-darn great for health. He would have pointed to tobacco industry science as backing for this, suggesting that tobacco boosts immunity or something – whatever the industry was claiming at the time in order to boost corporate profits.

Had PowerPoint existed back then, Tyson probably would have shown visual slides with actors dressed as doctors claiming that more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette, to boisterous applause from his audiences. This was mainstream “science” back in the 1930s, after all.

Things have obviously changed in today’s world, but no bother – fake science charlatans like Tyson are more than willing to adapt. Consider the new “documentary” film Food Evolution, which is the food industry’s version of these old tobacco ads. Tyson is a narrator for this deceptive piece of propaganda, which is nothing more than a crafty marketing piece for Monsanto and the rest of the chemical fake food industry.

It’s been proven without a doubt that Food Evolution intentionally presents only one side of the story – the side that supports GMOs and patented crop technologies – while censoring anything that might challenge it. This is right up Tyson’s alley, being exactly what he does on a daily basis when he shills for chemical corporations by lying to the public – all in the name of “science,” of course.

“That the film’s intended purpose was to serve as an industry-messaging vehicle is no secret,” writes Stacy Malkan for U.S. Right to Know, a non-profit advocacy group that works to challenge the status quo narrative on GMOs.

“The film’s credibility suffers from [its creators’] choice to embrace only the science and scientists who side with the chemical industry players who profit from GMOs and the chemicals used on them, while ignoring science and data that doesn’t fit that agenda.”

Sources for this article include:





comments powered by Disqus