UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
too bad we vote with our dollars and there are still plenty of us out there who enjoy actual food.
they're out to get your food
Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
Figong
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it's just me, but I did say abstract in that post. Here's something else, so you have no misunderstanding as to where I am going with this post:
An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose.
So in short, no.. I did not copy/paste everything.. hence the 'abstract' idea - shocker, I know.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
this "experiment" was not done by a lab.
it was done by a french homeopathic "scientist" with no controls
no sourcing for his claims that the feed provided to the various groups of Onco-mice was even GMO or Non-GMO
no explanation or plausible method of action for the claimed results
the results "proved" that Roundup spiked water made the rats live longer and get fewer tumours
the sample was deliberately small, deliberately uncontrolled and deliberately made up of mice who were GMO's themselves, engineered to get cancer and die. for cancer research.
this shabby little publicity stunt has been shredded by the scientific community (even those not working for Monsanto) and has not been replicated. it CANNOT be replicated. because it was FAKED by a "scientist" dedicated to non-science to advance his agenda.
the only actual study that in any way raises any concerns over "GMO's" in general is one which showed a small toxicity in mice (non-cancermice) fed large ammounts of grain that expresses the BT budworm toxin. and this study examines the effects of eating foods which PRODUCE BT toxin, (which has been proved safe as a pesticide spray for decades) since plants that make BT will have higher levels of BT that plants sprayed with BT by traditional methods and with traditional safeguards.
and even that study showed minor toxicology results, which were asymptomatic, merely troubling. the BEST science available to date says BT toxin may not be a good idea, but we need more study.
this does not mean all GMO's are dangerous, and the claims that BT toxin in cotton somehow effects people who wear cotton clothing is just insane.
Figong
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that, and I follow - Forbes said it was a French research group, so figured that they wouldn't put a noose around themselves if it was some bang-up operation.. that clarifies it =)
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
no one said you copied and pasted everything?
nice attempt at pretending tho
echelon1k1
New Member
I took the time to read the one I posted. The male mice fed GM soy experienced changes in Sertoli cells. A new study, looking at the long term effects of the changes is needed, but I'd rather err on the side of caution as these short term studies have indicated abnormalities in sertoli cells, which are found in your balls, yep - testicles. Sertoli cells are responsible for aiding in the development of sperm.
So if anyone chooses to eat foods derived from GM crops they should be made well aware of any potential side effects and serious discussion is requried within the government and regulators as to the long term effects. BioTech companies should also be required to release in full, unredacted copies of their safety studies along with any relevant data, methods and sources...
Figong
Well-Known Member
and then pretend you dont know anything about the rest of the article
At what point did I do that? or was it due to the abstract I posted, and not commenting on the whole article? Looks like I pretended to pretend - awesome.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
"Why is it junk science? Are you saying that the lab that did the testing is not credible in any fashion? If so, why would a name like Forbes dare post such information, and potentially kill their name in the process? "
"Yes I read all of it, and am just thinking that you're not seeing the bigger picture"
like butter wouldnt melt in your fucking mouth
Figong
Well-Known Member
Yes, I did read all of it.. and is why I asked if Forbes was credible (assuming that they were) why they would put their head on the proverbial chopping block by posting something like they did, even with proviso.. the abstract paints a picture that doesn't look so good. I do not expect you and I to think the same, that'll never happen.. it just seems as if when I asked the question, you took offense to it. If you'd explained that whoever did the testing was mostly useless (other notes in the abstract /article aside) I could have easily entertained that. (Which is what Dr. Kynes did) I wasn't trying to argue with the "Are you saying that the lab did the testing is not credible in any fashion?" .. that was a legitimate question. I will make sure that I use <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags for any sarcasm in the future so you know as to whether or not it's a serious question. Same with the Forbes question, that was also a serious one. I do not know everything, nor do I claim to.. not once have I said that either. Thank you for your input on this subject matter =)
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
was my very first reply to you.
not only did it say it was junk science but it also noted that its been posted many many times in this thread
you expected me to write in my own words what you had just read for yourself in the fucking article? is that your style of fact checking?
every single person who comes here with that same study again and again should have their hand held while it is explained in kiddie words to them?
and the immediate switch from oh i know that but aren't you worried about this?
straight out of the playbook
Figong
Well-Known Member
Never knew that there was a requirement of reading 140~ pages before making a comment - in the last few I'd skimmed pre-post, there was no such article. My style of fact-checking is generally working out the source of the information. If you had known the French in question were not good in general (not specific to the citing) you could have just said so and I would have went and looked before saying anything further.
If you feel you must, then by all means keep up the good work
- as for immediate switch, it wasn't a switch.. but I wouldn't have expected you to figure that out. My hypothetical was selected on your words of 'junk data', which is supposedly (at least in part) the data that I managed to leave out or not acknowledge. If there is not 100% info, per what Forbes said.. can you, being the brilliant geneticist of the group please tell us the probability of any insect at all (pick one, any one) becoming resistant to any 1 specific BT corn strain is? No, you can't... not enough data - with inconclusive data, there is no certainty in that aspect. That said, how is it any more 'safe' than it is 'unsafe'? By all means, please enlighten me... not enough information is effectively genetic Russian roulette in this discussion, isn't it? As for playbook:
echelon1k1
New Member
If it's not bad enough the current GM crop technologies are largely unregulated, lacking rigourous oversight and at best a technology in it's infancy... Monsanto are working on an expanded type of GM tech.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408994/crops-that-shut-down-pests-genes/
Here's a report (pdf) by Dr Judy Carman of Flinders University on GMO wheat;
Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408994/crops-that-shut-down-pests-genes/
Here's a report (pdf) by Dr Judy Carman of Flinders University on GMO wheat;
Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties
And people here want to talk about junk science...
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Never knew that there was a requirement of reading 140~ pages before making a comment - in the last few I'd skimmed pre-post, there was no such article. My style of fact-checking is generally working out the source of the information. If you had known the French in question were not good in general (not specific to the citing) you could have just said so and I would have went and looked before saying anything further.
If you feel you must, then by all means keep up the good work
As for playbook:View attachment 2500922
that same silly french Flea Flicker play has been trotted out half a dozen times in this thread.
it's a trick play, and never had much chance of success.
Madden recommends you try a Running Play.
Figong
Well-Known Member
hahaha.. alrighty then, fullback trap..
that same silly french Flea Flicker play has been trotted out half a dozen times in this thread.
it's a trick play, and never had much chance of success.
Madden recommends you try a Running Play.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
"Mathey-Prevot counsels patience. At this point, he says, it’s too early to make claims about the safety of the technique. But, he says, that also means it’s too early to conclude that the ability to cause RNA interference is any more dangerous than current genetic modifications of food crops." ~http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408994/crops-that-shut-down-pests-genes/page/2/
this is currently INVESTIGATIONAL, not a wide scale experiment, and definitely not approved for use. should research into new types of nuclear reactors be abandoned as well? after all, these new designs havent been fully tested and thus COULD be even more dangerous than the old models. should we abandon research into hydrogen as a fuel source? after all, The Hindenburg was pretty conclusive...
your second citation also refers to a small scale experiment, and the expert who drafted this opinion starts off by saying what amounts to: "I don't know enough about the experiment to say anything definite, but I'm gonna Opine anyhow..."
these examples are examples of RESEARCH not products on the market, and as such they are precluded from sale.
theres also ongoing research into new, highly advanced pesticides which promise to target specific pests and remain harmless non-target critters. should this research also be abandoned "Just In Case"?
thats not how science works.
echelon1k1
New Member
Im well aware of that it was the point - current GM tech cannot be proven safe and no long term independent studies are available to show either way what the ingestion of GM Food will do to us humans...
You cant even construct a decent "strawman"... As I've said, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that current GM crops are safe for humans and animals, then development of new tech can occur. Monsantos "safety studies" are just examples of "junk science" all the pro-gmo pundants never address. The fact they will not make their data, methods, sources & observations publicly available is enough to raise suspicions. The strict user licencing agreements prohibiting scientific testing, aggressively enforced by monsanto, is telling of an organisation that has something to hide. Last time I checked they were not in anyway, shape or form involved with the national security establishment, so the level of secrecy involved is questionable. IPR and the such aside, I'd like transparency in corporations that are pivitol in the production of what we eat. I want to know exactly what they do about their products.
Many years ago, big tobacco denied the negative health effects of smoking, knowing all along their products posed a serious risk to an individuals health. We now know they were lying mofos...
The expert in the second link states;
Unfortunately, the finer details of these wheat varieties are not available to me because (1) theseGM wheat varieties are currently still under development and hence some information is not available for that reason, and (2) the CSIRO has retained crucial information from public view on the argument that it is Commercial Confidential Information. This information includes the names of genes expected to alter grain starch composition, the specific phenotypic changes occurring, when they are down-regulated and its application. This information is not known, and may never be known, to independent scientists such as myself or the general public. However, because they are GM varieties of wheat, they are subject to some regulation, so there is some information available publicly about them on the Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) website.
More research is needed and I cited that paper to support my argument.
As with the big tobacco saga, Monsanto have claimed for years Round-Ups safe, environmentally friendly and biodegradable. This has been proven wrong too. Now theyre modifying enzymes to tolerate poison and you see no problem with it. Selective breeding and gene manipulation are chalk and cheese.
Glyphosphates are being found everywhere even in human urine and youd allow them to come up with something better?
Its so environmentally friendly and biodegradable that monsanto have applied to raise the maximum permitted residue levels of glyphosphates in lentils because it just isnt breaking down as previously claimed.
I wonder if the same chemical compond would have the same effect on a different vegetable under the same conditions?
As Ive previously stated the Green revolution was heralded as the answer to global famine. That didnt quite work out so GMOs are now being heralded as the answer to hunger. I call bullshit...
GM Food an Agricultural Revolution
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
no dance there ...Never knew that there was a requirement of reading 140~ pages before making a comment - in the last few I'd skimmed pre-post, there was no such article. My style of fact-checking is generally working out the source of the information. If you had known the French in question were not good in general (not specific to the citing) you could have just said so and I would have went and looked before saying anything further.
If you feel you must, then by all means keep up the good work
while i have never claimed to be a geneticist i certainly can give you the probability its for the corn rootworm and p=1 (it has already happened)
see Bacillus thuringiensis (the bit that puts BT in your corn) is a naturally occurring bacteria and as such there is some resistance naturally occurring in the insect population
up untill now the insects were not in close enough quarters with the BT bacteria for nature to breed resistance to all of them (the ones without resistance out bred the ones with resistance)
by changing the forcing by exposing the worms to a higher level/ bt enriched environment it changes the natural forcing a little bit meaning the BT resistant worms are closer to competing with their resistant less cousins
they still arent super worms and they still have less advantage in a "bt" normal environment
once the farmer harvests the corn you take away their advantage
do this mean theres an epidemic of these root worms?
no their proportion of the population is minute
does this mean BT's unsafe?
no it does not mean bt is unsafe as you can remove the bt corn and remove the forcing
you can read about the rootworms in question here
http://farmindustrynews.com/corn-rootworm-traits/field-resistance-bt-corn-rootworm-trait-documented
Ninjabowler
Well-Known Member
The GMO link to strange disease
As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon's disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.
Prior to its reporting, the condition was dismissed as a hoax, but upon further investigation, the evidence pointed out that the disease was real and may be related to genetically modified food.
Despite this link being established, the CDC declared Morgellon's disease of unknown origin. Worse, the medical community could not offer any information to the public regarding a cause for the symptoms.
When a research study was conducted on fiber samples taken from Morgellons patients, it was discovered that the fiber samples of all the patients looked remarkable similar. And yet, it did not seem to match any common environmental fiber. When the fiber was broken down, and it's DNA extracted, it was discovered to belong to a fungus. Even more surprising was the finding that the fibers contained Agrobacterium, a genus gram-negative bacteria with the capacity of transforming plant, animal and even human cells.
Morgellon's disease is not the only condition associated with genetically modified foods. A growing body of evidence has shown that it may cause allergies, immune reactions, liver problems, sterility and even death. Moreover, based on the only human feeding experiment conducted on genetically modified food, it was established that genetic material in genetically modified food product can transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and still continue to thrive.
This makes me hungry, hey monsanto hitler, spin this one off............"wheres the study published?", i can hear it now lmao
these arent all lies that are being published. GMOs are bad for everyone genius.
SAY NO TO GMO!!!!!!!
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
morgellons exists nowhere but in the minds of crazy peopleThe GMO link to strange disease
As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon's disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.
Prior to its reporting, the condition was dismissed as a hoax, but upon further investigation, the evidence pointed out that the disease was real and may be related to genetically modified food.
Despite this link being established, the CDC declared Morgellon's disease of unknown origin. Worse, the medical community could not offer any information to the public regarding a cause for the symptoms.
When a research study was conducted on fiber samples taken from Morgellons patients, it was discovered that the fiber samples of all the patients looked remarkable similar. And yet, it did not seem to match any common environmental fiber. When the fiber was broken down, and it's DNA extracted, it was discovered to belong to a fungus. Even more surprising was the finding that the fibers contained Agrobacterium, a genus gram-negative bacteria with the capacity of transforming plant, animal and even human cells.
Morgellon's disease is not the only condition associated with genetically modified foods. A growing body of evidence has shown that it may cause allergies, immune reactions, liver problems, sterility and even death. Moreover, based on the only human feeding experiment conducted on genetically modified food, it was established that genetic material in genetically modified food product can transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and still continue to thrive.
This makes me hungry, hey monsanto hitler, spin this one off............"wheres the study published?", i can hear it now lmao
these arent all lies that are being published. GMOs are bad for everyone genius.
SAY NO TO GMO!!!!!!!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"morgellon's" is just shorthand for a set of symptoms. same as "autism" is just shorthand for a set of symptoms.
weak attempt at dismissal.