Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
Iraq was the wrong target. Absolutely.
Your thoughts on genetically modified Food ?
- Thread starter billy4479
- Start date
Trousers
Well-Known Member
Sometimes when I move my butt cheek to try sneak a silent fart, it back fires on me and becomes a loud squeaker.
That's unfortunate.
Christina594
Member
So--- Tomatoes altered with the DNA from arctic fish is just nature 'sped-up" ?
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Grasshopper, you may have not yet mastered the ancient art of cheek grab-n-separate. With practice, you too can learn the art of releasing deadly Silent Giants.
billy4479
Moderator
Two words
Scientific fraudOn two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[SUP][117][/SUP] The first incident involved Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). The United States Justice Department closed the laboratory in 1978, and its leadership was found guilty in 1983 of charges of falsifying statements, falsifying scientific data submitted to the government, and mail fraud.[SUP][118][/SUP] In 1991, Don Craven, the owner of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. Craven, along with fourteen employees were found guilty of similar crimes.[SUP][119][/SUP]
Monsanto has stated the Craven Labs investigation was started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered irregularities, that the studies have been repeated, and that Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven Labs or IBT.[SUP][1 source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Effects_on_fish_and_amphibians[/SUP]
You are mixing issues. Large corporate greed and Fraud versus Genetic Engineering as a tool which can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. A traditional plant breeder can just as easily falsify tests as well as a gene splicer.
Trousers
Well-Known Member
Speaking of fraud, the study your crap article is based on was found to be completely flawed and not worth a shit except to mouth breathers that hate science.
You are convinced that GMOs are "toxic."
I am waiting to see some actual evidence.
That does not mean I am convinced of anything, except that you are closed minded and stubbornly ignorant. You seem to think junk science is fine when it backs up your opinion, but when peer reviewed studies are shown, you claim they are the result of a government cover up.
You are just like the climate deniers.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
No, what you said was:
Which is bullshit.
1. It doesn't matter whether it's from a natural source or not, CH2O is CH20.
2. Formaldehyde below certain thresholds are benign regardless of source
3. The government also encourages vaccination with vaccines that contain small quantities of formaldehyde.
And as I already said, the quantity of formaldehyde inside a vaccine is LESS than the amount you currently have in your body.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Yes it does. Why would a chemical that is in foods you eat (naturally occurring, like in apples and nearly everything else) and that your body produces naturally be unsafe to inject at levels below what you make yourself? CH2O is CH2O. It's not a combination of tons of different chemicals like marijuana, it's a single simple organic compound. A ridiculously common organic compound. So simple that it occurs in space. There is absolutely no danger at the levels inside vaccines. Anyone that says otherwise is ignorant or brainwashed.