If GMO were used to rapidy develop strains, could it become safer?

OGEvilgenius said:
What on earth do you need? Of course there's been diversity loss. Even just monocropping does that to some degree.

Another example where a study is simply not needed, at all.

As far as what should be featured in those publications, that's entirely up to the publishers.
Click to expand...

What I need are confirmed examples of the claims from non-interested investigators. So far all I can find is speculation and modeling. cn

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5484/1481.short
 
Grandpapy said:
Stumbled on this, you got to love "America". http://www.naturalnews.com/035688_Monsanto_honey_bees_colony_collapse.html
Click to expand...

Another interest-group blog site. ~sigh~
And the hinge of the article is pure speculation. cn

Now that Beeologics is owned and controlled by Monsanto, the company is sure to completely avoid dealing with the true causes of CCD and IAPV as they pertain to Monsanto's crop technologies -- GMOs and their chemical counterparts. So going into the future, it seems expected that Beeologics will come up with "scientific breakthroughs" that deny any link between CCD and GMO technologies, and instead blame mystery pathogens and other factors that require more chemicals to eliminate.
Click to expand...
 
OGEvilgenius said:
Because there are large numbers of studies, including those done by Monsanto themselves (which passed FDA approval, of course former Monsanto execs run the FDA), indicating they are not safe.

You have to have an overwhelmingly gigantic ego to think we can fuck with nature like this in a safe way.

Forget that the actual products are dangerous, they also are dangerous in many other ways. Namely genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is vitally important to survival. Always has been, always will be. Species not diverse, die.

As far as "there's never been a documented case" - well, when side effects build over time in a species that takes quite a while to develop (humans, vs say rats) it takes a while to show up. And since there were no serious studies done prior to release (and the short term ones indicating organ damage and other side effects were ignored) to test for safety of a relatively new product - the information you require to accept these things as dangerous (or even potentially dangerous) lacks significantly. Monsanto scientists admit fully that these organisms produce unintended proteins that have unknown effects.

Here's some things definitely happening over the past 20 years or so (GMO crops have been around since the early 90's):

Allergic reactions and allergies in general are increasing at a high rate.
Cancer rates have climbed steadily over this period as well.

And the only long term study we have indicates cancer is a side effect of at least one GMO crop.

This stuff never should have been released. The fact the government will grant a monopoly on nature - even more disgusting and disturbing and clear evidence IP law is not beneficial to society on any level at all.
Click to expand...

Vague hand waving. Cite some studies to back up your claims.

All I can do is laugh at the bolded part. The country has been trending toward legalizing pot for twenty years also. Maybe legalized marijuana, or thinking about legalized marijuana causes allergic reactions and cancer, I am pretty sure the prez and AG will back you up on that claim.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
It actually has to be studied for a study to exist, there are no good models that exist to do so that are considered ethical. I can prove to you allergies have dramatically increased and I have spoken to at least one Allergist who suspects it's the widespread introduction of new foods that produce proteins the body has never seen or dealt with before because that seems to be the most likely and reasonable answer.

You really don't need to do a study to see the obvious connection, but certainly it should be done. Good luck designing it.

This is some more compelling data IMO.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-is-genetica_b_882238.html
Click to expand...


so i can find case studies on ONE person who had an allergic reaction to the blue dye used to target the radiation therapy for her cancer, but you cant find a single reference to a single case of GMO-related allergic reaction?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm1112719

dude.

time to put on your critical-thinking cap.

if GMO crops caused even a single person to have an allergic reaction, lawyers and paid experts from around the world would descend on this single case like flies on shit.

the deep pockets of the Genetic Research Companies (of which there are many,, not just monsanto) guarant=ees that they are watched by shysters and ambulance chasers with the sort of vigilance you dont find outside of north koraen voting booths.

but nobody has found the golden ticket.
 
Jenny McCarthy says vaccines cause autism. Maybe it is vaccines that are causing all the allergies and cancers and killing the bees?
 
desert dude said:
Jenny McCarthy says vaccines cause autism. Maybe it is vaccines that are causing all the allergies and cancers and killing the bees?
Click to expand...

no, it's cannabis!

"Police are warning that when cannabis plants reach the final stages of maturity the odour they release has carcinogenic properties. Officers who deal with the plants use ventilation masks and protective suits and people who have plants in their home, especially anyone with young children, may be exposing their family to a health risk." ~Harborough Mail on 3rd March 2012 . now deleted and pretending as if it never existed bongsmilie

the page for the original URL (saved cuz it was so hilarious) is now 404-Delete Fucking Everything! http://www.harboroughmail.co.uk/news/crime/drugs-factory-raided-1-3578914
but the hilarity continues here:
http://www.thefix.com/content/marijuana-smell-cause-cancer9791

and here::
http://www.clear-uk.org/corby-police-claim-cannabis-odour-is-carcinogenic/

but you can totally trust the Eco-fringe, cuz they arent liars and assholes driven by agendas and greed.

 
Grandpapy said:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2035152?journalCode=esthag

What I was really looking for was doc's from France in 2007-8 where they and several others had banned it, before it came to the US.
Click to expand...

a government banning something is not evidence that thing should be banned, or that it's dangerous.

if that were so, then cannabis would be the most dangerous plant on earth.


"Jack Wallace, president of the Coalition of Neighborhood Association, says the smell is coming from the backyard of a home growing medical marijuana plants. CBS13 did not have the specific address of the home but was told it’s located in the Cresthaven neighborhood.
The nine homes within 100 feet of the residence growing pot plants suffer greatly because, in the fall when the smell is at its peak, “they can’t use their backyards during that time, they can’t use their swimming pools, they can’t be in their backyards,” homeowner association member Marge Wallace said.
Jack Wallace says he’s the voice of several frustrated neighbors.
“Most of them are afraid to speak out for possible retaliation,” he said.
But all of the neighbors want the City Council to pass an ordinance banning backyard medical marijuana plants, says Wallace.
“It doesn’t prohibit them from growing it, it just regulates how they grow it,” he said." ~http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012...ents-want-pot-pulled-from-neighbors-backyard/

posted in TLDR form cuz it's so hilariously retarded.

lol progressives.
 
Grandpapy said:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2035152?journalCode=esthag

What I was really looking for was doc's from France in 2007-8 where they and several others had banned it, before it came to the US.
Click to expand...

Bans can be from any cause, esp. in Europe where there is such a strong popular sentiment against GM that they can pass laws based on just the sentiment. Proves nowt though.

I am not interested in legislative aerobatics but in actual documented dieoffs unambiguously, directly attributable to GM crops. That was the claim iirc. cn

<add> The cited bit from pubs.acs.org is about bees and pesticides, not GM.
 
cannabineer said:
Bans can be from any cause, esp. in Europe where there is such a strong popular sentiment against GM that they can pass laws based on just the sentiment. Proves nowt though.

I am not interested in legislative aerobatics but in actual documented dieoffs unambiguously, directly attributable to GM crops. That was the claim iirc. cn

<add> The cited bit from pubs.acs.org is about bees and pesticides, not GM.
Click to expand...

Give me time.........lol http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10


 
Dr Kynes said:
so i can find case studies on ONE person who had an allergic reaction to the blue dye used to target the radiation therapy for her cancer, but you cant find a single reference to a single case of GMO-related allergic reaction?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm1112719

dude.

time to put on your critical-thinking cap.

if GMO crops caused even a single person to have an allergic reaction, lawyers and paid experts from around the world would descend on this single case like flies on shit.

the deep pockets of the Genetic Research Companies (of which there are many,, not just monsanto) guarant=ees that they are watched by shysters and ambulance chasers with the sort of vigilance you dont find outside of north koraen voting booths.

but nobody has found the golden ticket.
Click to expand...

I just gave you evidence. Peanut allergies are increasing dramatically (insert any other GMO crop in this sentence as you please). What's changed about Peanuts? One thing. Your critical thinking skills are what need brushing up, not mine.

And like I said, there are no study designs that exist that are accepted or ethical. So good luck with that.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
I just gave you evidence. Peanut allergies are increasing dramatically (insert any other GMO crop in this sentence as you please). What's changed about Peanuts? One thing. Your critical thinking skills are what need brushing up, not mine.

And like I said, there are no study designs that exist that are accepted or ethical. So good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that allergy is a complex condition that is not fully understood. There's no guarantee that peanuts are the cause of peanut allergy, or an secondary marker for something still undiscovered. You're tiptoeing close to the edge of the correlation/causation fallacy imo. cn
 
cannabineer said:
Part of the problem is that allergy is a complex condition that is not fully understood. There's no guarantee that peanuts are the cause of peanut allergy, or an secondary marker for something still undiscovered. You're tiptoeing close to the edge of the correlation/causation fallacy imo. cn
Click to expand...

It's hard to ignore that the incidence rate has increased 250% and only one variable has dramatically changed. Doesn't change the fact that Dr Kynes is over the top wrong about this.
 
Grandpapy, the last two are not about GM at all. The previous one can be summarized as "we have incomplete data suggesting but not establishing toxicity of GM feeds in certain animals", but not the thing claimed: known dieoffs caused by eating GM.

I despair of you retracting the claim, even though you're citing irrelevancies. cn
 
OGEvilgenius said:
It's hard to ignore that the incidence rate has increased 250% and only one variable has dramatically changed. Doesn't change the fact that Dr Kynes is over the top wrong about this.
Click to expand...

So much more than one variable has changed. Imo much of the allergy spike might have to do with the popularity of household antiseptic cleaners/disinfectants. But that too is correlation and not causation. I have the hunch but cannot show hard data confirming that mistrained immune systems are at the heart of allergy problems. cn
 
cannabineer said:
Grandpapy, the last two are not about GM at all. The previous one can be summarized as "we have incomplete data suggesting but not establishing toxicity of GM feeds in certain animals", but not the thing claimed: known dieoffs caused by eating GM.

I despair of you retracting the claim, even though you're citing irrelevancies. cn
Click to expand...

Despair not, I recall the GM as being "treated" and becoming systemic where bee's pick up the insecticide in the plants pollen, I just need to find the one (web site I read it on 6 mo ago) that ties it together for you./er me.
 
Grandpapy said:
Despair not, I recall the GM as being "treated" and becoming systemic where bee's pick up the insecticide in the plants pollen, I just need to find the one (web site I read it on 6 mo ago) that ties it together for you./er me.
Click to expand...

I respect that neonicotinoids seem to be really bad for bees.
But that is separate from the GM crop tox problem. Neonicotinoids are not produced by GM, but by old-fashioned industrial chemistry. cn
 
cannabineer said:
I respect that neonicotinoids seem to be really bad for bees.
But that is separate from the GM crop tox problem. Neonicotinoids are not produced by GM, but by old-fashioned industrial chemistry. cn
Click to expand...

Ok, I see. n/m Continue with despair.....Your insight into the near future is astounding!
 
Grandpapy said:
It's not that they would, but a industry who's product that is banned in several countries for widespread loss of biodiversity, years later introduce it here only to have it do the same widespread damage. They and the FDA are not a good stewards of the earth and I for one do not trust them.
Click to expand...
This is the claim I am challenging.
Grandpapy said:
Ok, I see. n/m Continue with despair.....Your insight into the near future is astounding!
Click to expand...

And this is, as far as I can see, an effort to throw sand into my eyes. You're not a fair fighter. You have not confirmed or even addressed the claim. i have patiently pointed out how your links were incorrectly offered as relevant, and you've attempted repeated diversion. In the immortal words of Diogenes: Du'uude. cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top