Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
No, you are right. no sand, I was stepping down, because you were addressing CM and I was addressing Treated CM. My mistake.
If GMO were used to rapidy develop strains, could it become safer?
- Thread starter Canna Sylvan
- Start date
No, you are right. no sand, I was stepping down, because you were addressing CM and I was addressing Treated CM. My mistake.
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
I retract my claim.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you gave no evidence, you gave opinion. the percentage of people with peanut allergies has not gone up.
claiming peanut allergies or (any allergies)are the result of GMO products is specious.
there were allergies LONG before there were GMO crops.
in the 70's and 80's the econauts and healthfood hucksters were selling tinned vegetables and "depletion of our external biology" by using non-natural fertilizers and whatnot.
protip: amish people get allergies too...
GMO is just the latest in a long line of boogeymen set forth by the people who sell magic charms to repel boogeymen and other monsters under your bed.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the incidence rate of peanut allergies has NOT gone up 250% only the insane over-reporting in the press and hysteric fear of "peanut contamination" has exploded with that kind of growth.
lets see some reportage and some sourcing on that claim.
even USA Today or the New York Times would do, since they usually offer their sources for backtracking.
but heres a little nugget for ya:
"Medically, an allergic reaction is defined as an IgE-mediated response to an allergen, usually a food protein. This strict definition separates food allergy from food intolerance and hypersensitivitymetabolic conditions, such as lactose intolerance and coeliac disease, which do not involve the immune system. However, we don't have an easy way to make the diagnosis, said Hugh Sampson, a professor of paediatrics and immunobiology at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (New York, NY, USA). People also tend to overestimate the extent of food allergies: the rates of perception of food allergies are often up to four times greater than the rates of true food allergies, because people confuse allergy with intolerance or even cases of mild food poisoning (Woods et al, 1998; Kristjansson et al, 1999; Pereira et al, 2005; Venter et al, 2006a, b). Skin tests can confirm an IgE-mediated reaction; a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge then verifies the diagnosis. At the moment, the only way you can really objectively diagnose a food allergy is by feeding the person the food, which has a certain hazard, said Clare Mills, head of the allergy research team at the Institute of Food Research (Norwich, UK)." ~http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679775/
read the whole article, it lays out the case for your argument and the countercase (my argument) and ends with the conclusion that while gross numbers of allergic reactions are up,, as well as the public perception and awarenes, the overall rate of allergy is not.
also of course, as always more study is needed.
but then i took a shit this morning, and it seemed darker in colour than my shit from yesterday, so i need a $500k grant from the NIH to study my turds. this study could take as much as 10 years, so i may need another grant after a few years to continue my research.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Interesting ... but off-topic. Nobody has been able to confirm that GM crops have been killing livestock. I homed in on this as suspected rumor, and so far rumor seems all it is. cn
echelon1k1
New Member
Do your research before talking out of your arse again... Do you class agressive tumours as an advantage over non-GM foods? I would invite you to start eating monsantos round up ready produce then tell me how you feel... Here's a great example of what it does to rats and as you should know they test shit like that on rats before people.
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
The truth is the FDA doesn't independently test monsantos products grown from GMO seed but rather rely on Monsanto to submit their own scientific research and the conclusions they've reached. They don't mention female reproductive disorders, soft tissue cancers, male sterility, birth defects and the list goes on.
Heres another paper by Dr. Dr Michael Antoniou, Head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King’s College London School of Medicine, UK. He's considered and expert so I encourage you to refute his results. Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Do your research before talking out of your arse again... Do you class agressive tumours as an advantage over non-GM foods? I would invite you to start eating monsantos round up ready produce then tell me how you feel... Here's a great example of what it does to rats and as you should know they test shit like that on rats before people.
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
The truth is the FDA doesn't independently test monsantos products grown from GMO seed but rather rely on Monsanto to submit their own scientific research and the conclusions they've reached. They don't mention female reproductive disorders, soft tissue cancers, male sterility, birth defects and the list goes on.
Heres another paper by Dr. Dr Michael Antoniou, Head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King’s College London School of Medicine, UK. He's considered and expert so I encourage you to refute his results. Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides
well i would ordinarily point out that your citatins are not in any way dealing with GMO crops,, but are in fact relating entirely to the use of herbicides, which by their very nature are dangerous substances, seeing as how they are POISON.
however, since you delight in making snide comments and inserting your australian (and therefore presumably prosthetic) nose into this discussion, ill respond in the vernacular to which you are accustomed.
Get Buggerd You Cunt.
a rebuttal in free verse
Ohh Echelon, sweet Echelon, You presume to be a genius
Your citations are irrelevant, and your logic it is specious
The Herbicide you so deride was no part of the OP's thesis
We're talking GMO's, not skanky queensland ho's
So your expertise in syphilis wont please us.
also, the phrase "Heres another paper by Dr. Dr Michael Antoniou" implies that you are providing another study. this is the SAME study you posted a link to before. the same study the polar bear already explained was about HERBICIDES not GMO crops.
linking to a study, then linking to page 8 of the SAME study is not offering two citations. it's especially hilarious when the study (singular, not plural, only one, not two not three but ONE, 1, Uno) is completely unrelated to the subject at hand which is the claim that GMO crops are dangerous to the eaters of said crops.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and thus you have offered up a valid and in fact completely true and relevant reason to despise monsanto.
fortunately the courts worldwide have been smacking monsanto in the nuts with a cricket bat when they try to press their claims.
but monsanto isnt the only Gene-Giant that wants to lay claim to the genetic code like it's a letter to Penthouse Forum (your letter becomes their property when published, read the fine print.) they are just the most commonly recognized name.
i treat monsanto's copyright claims on genetic expressions the same way i do with copyright claims on TV shows broadcast over the air.
"you put it in the public air, so if it winds up on my DVR or on my VCR you cant bitch. you threw it up for all to grab, so fuck you with a steamshovel lawyer man."
if i find a seed in my produce from a shop i save that seed and plant it. i havent bought tomatoe melon or pepper seeds in a decade or so.
sometimes in the spring i cast cantaloupe seeds into the shrubbery and open spaces around town. workers trying to extract a cantaloupe vine from city hall's shrubbery is hilarious to watch.
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
No. The title suggests that the plant is dangerous in it's present state, I disagree. I feel if any modifications are made, they will benefit the Corp. and not the plant.
Example: They could come up with powdery mildew resistant strain, but you maybe unable to clone or fertilize. They will recoup the monies spent developing one way or another, it's the code of the Corp. structure.
At this time, The only improvement I'm looking for in a strain, is the amount of duration between bowls.
echelon1k1
New Member
read it first you fucking dumbass one of the control groups was feed GM maize but a readneck cocksmoker would have a hard time with the big words.... Yes another study in the same post. A total of two. missed the lesson on numeracy i take it.
Syphilis & QLD now. Your just pissed you can't return your wife to AUS zoo for a store credit or refund, considering your dick rotted off. You could still fuck her with that nose of yours tho mr zionist...
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and if i do a study of the results of high velocity 180 grain 10mm copper jacketed slugs on the skulls of laboratory mice,, and all the mice die, does this prove that the group of mice fed Starlink corn instead of Purina Rat Chow were killed by GMO corn?
or does it prove that shooting mice with a 10MM automatic results in mouse splatters all over my laboratory wall?
your brain is malfunctioning, and your quips are simply poorly rewritten vesions of mine own.
plus a little nazi propaganda thrown in for swank.
how nice.
Herr Shceckelgruber must be pleased with your cleverness.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
None of you at getting the point of the OP. I now have a Michael J Fox level of GMO understanding smart phone. So now I can become blunt.
How safe are the various GMO methods? These are the methods I know about.
Transformation:
mutation breeding by exposing the plant to radiation
gene gun which bombards the plant with particles
Selection:
After transformation, the majority of the cells are still the original. The whole organism is exposed to either a pesticide or antibiotic(sometimes both) which kill the non-selected cells, leaving only selected. Once the transformed cells are the only ones left, they're regenerated using plant culture methods.
Here are the concerns. Those cells are part of the genome. The selection genes have no purpose but for a parasitic take over during development. Our freedom fighters against world hunger promise selection genes cannot cross over to other species, such as bacteria. But, it has been shown in optimal lab conditions, it can cross with bacteria. Why this is a problem, is when our friendly gut bacteria get transformed, they no longer perform their proper function and we humans can no longer acquire all our nutrition.
GMO is designed to be used with pesticides, anti-fungals, etc, which can become pretty nasty. They're not designed for conventional farming methods. Monsanto has enough money they can silence their mistakes which have cost lives, such as livestock death.
How safe are the various GMO methods? These are the methods I know about.
Transformation:
mutation breeding by exposing the plant to radiation
gene gun which bombards the plant with particles
Selection:
After transformation, the majority of the cells are still the original. The whole organism is exposed to either a pesticide or antibiotic(sometimes both) which kill the non-selected cells, leaving only selected. Once the transformed cells are the only ones left, they're regenerated using plant culture methods.
Here are the concerns. Those cells are part of the genome. The selection genes have no purpose but for a parasitic take over during development. Our freedom fighters against world hunger promise selection genes cannot cross over to other species, such as bacteria. But, it has been shown in optimal lab conditions, it can cross with bacteria. Why this is a problem, is when our friendly gut bacteria get transformed, they no longer perform their proper function and we humans can no longer acquire all our nutrition.
GMO is designed to be used with pesticides, anti-fungals, etc, which can become pretty nasty. They're not designed for conventional farming methods. Monsanto has enough money they can silence their mistakes which have cost lives, such as livestock death.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
bunny, nobody is arguing for the texas sharpshooter approach to gene splicing, not only is that method super expensive to use, it provides moslty hideous mutations and freakish monstrosities that die moments after their trip through doctor brundle's teleportation booths.
gene splicing is done with care, under carefully controlled conditions, nobody simply tosses critters into the gamma ray chamber to see what will happen.
most GMO products flop anyhow due to the lack of buyers confidence, and the prohibition on these products by the EU and other transnational groups and nations.
in fact i cant think of a single commercial success with GMO products outside animal feed cotton and other non-human food products.
shit, the flav-r-savr tomatoe was such a dismal failure that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who actually ever tried one.
on a personal note, i tried the Flav-r-savr tomatoe in the 80's or the 90's...
it tasted like crap. the premise was to create a tomatoe that could be refigerated without losing it's flavour. their "success" was making a tomatoe that tasted like it was already refrigerated, and thus mealy, and bland even when totally fresh.
this was not huge success, this was fail.
it did not however taste like fish, despite having fish genes spliced in, nor did i become a hideous monster with a craving for human flesh (at least not any more than usual)
eating genetically modified foods will not turn you into a mutant any more than eating regular foods will turn you into a carrot.
contrary to the popular (and hysterical) assumption, eating a thing does NOT incorporate the genetic material of that thing into your own genome. if that were true, echelon would actually BE a giant syphilitic kangaroo cock.
echelon1k1
New Member
kynes your wifes giving you some great info there didn't know you could get STDs from roos. but i don't go around sticking my australian and therefore presumably prosthetic nose up their muffs... How is your wife these days?