The Future of GM Technology...

leopold99 said:
odd indeed.
every case is a fraud, hoax, uninformed, misleading, quakery, etc, etc.

No, but every case he has used to support a specific point was found to be untrue.
Click to expand...
anyway:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/newPathogenInRoundupReadyGMCrops.php

from the above link:


maybe you and sceptical can point me to these peer reviewed tests.[/QUOTE]

No need.

Because 86% of our Corn and 93% of our Soybeans and 93% of our Canola oil comes from GM products, and all three (mainly first two) are used in our Animal feed,

SO

IF there actually was "cell damage and reproductive problems associated with animals that have consumed GM feed", it would be friggin obvious.

But it's not.

Arthur
 
Same Wiki article

In January 2005, Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5m fine for bribing an Indonesian official. Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002, in a bid to avoid Environmental impact assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees". Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002.
 
For your reading pleasure, a rat study:

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.
Click to expand...

Please read all the way through it(er-well, at least skim heavily)...they mention the potential for kidney leakage towards the bottom.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical said:
leopold

This is where you need to be very careful with your references. The one you just posted is by Dr. Mae Wan Ho. She has a long history of publishing total bulldust, including support for biodynamics - which I pointed out earlier to Ultra.

If you use discredited 'experts', then your references are discredited before you begin.

Here is a reference to Mae Wan Ho on acupuncture.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/acupunc.php

I quote :

"The organism is thus a system in which energy is stored in a coherent form, the energy remaining coherent as it is mobilized throughout the system. Notice that I have substituted ‘coherent energy’ for the usual concept of ‘free energy’. Coherent energy, as I shall explain presently, is stored in a range of space-times in which it remains coherent, and is tied to the characteristic space-times of natural processes. I say ‘characteristic space-time’ instead of the usual ‘characteristic time’ because in the new physics since Einstein's relativity theory, space and time are no longer separable. (Indeed, organic space-time is very different from the linear, homogeneous, space and time of Newtonian physics (see Ho, 1998).) ‘Free energy’, on the other hand, has no relationship to space or time, and is a notoriously vague concept. "

Technobabble used in lieu of science.
Click to expand...
i specifically asked for the peer reviewed tests.
 
ULTRA said:
Yes they did. Wiki.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto So don't preach to me about getting facts right.
Click to expand...

Because this is a NON ISSUE, it's about DDT and thus is not relevant to the issue of GM food.


BUT, you were completely WRONG about your two prime assertions that people had been infected by GM viruses.

So I'll continue to ask you the same question you dodged:

Isn't it odd that every case you think supports your claim turns out to be FALSE?

When are you going to concede that you have formed your opinion based on facts which when examined turned out NOT to be true?

WHEN?

Arthur
 
ULTRA said:
And if you thought Monsanto was bad, Pfizer got fined 2.3 Billion by the FDA.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/08/pf...utors-david-r-henderson-charles-l-hooper.html
Click to expand...

Did you read the damn article???

What Pfizer did was promote some of its drugs for so-called "off-label" uses--that is uses the FDA has not approved for those drugs. Then, when doctors appropriately and legally prescribed these drugs for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, Pfizer had the gall to charge the government for the drugs the patients received. That got Pfizer charged with fraud and allowed attorneys general to proclaim that they were combating fraud and protecting the American public by slapping Pfizer with this colossal fine. In reality, they were only protecting the FDA's dubious powers by coercing a successful American corporation. Instead of feeling proud, the attorneys general should feel ashamed.
Click to expand...
:shrug:

Arthur
 
Not at all. Just like you supposedly looking up monsanto producing DDT on wiki and somehow not seeing the article on them producing DDT. Then FALSELY claiming they did not produce it. Sheer Hypocracy.
 
adoucette said:
So I'll continue to ask you the same question you dodged:
Arthur
Click to expand...
and the peer reviewed evidence that GM foods are safe? where are those?
i've been reading about this putzai (spelling?) affair.
it seems his paper was called on two aspects:
1. he published his paper before it was peer reviewed
2. after it was reviewed by 6 reviewers it seems the control group wasn't feed "the proper potato".

do you really expect me to believe this? a world renown scientist that specializes in exactly the experiment he was conducting used a shoddy method?

you know something? it's your grandchildren that will reap the fruits of your stupidity
 
Congratulations to Chimpkin

That is the first decent reference posted by anyone on your side of the debate in 8 pages of this thread. Took you guys long enough!

Couple of problems with using it to support your argument.
1. It is a preliminary study, and more work is needed to confirm results.
2. No indication if the corn varieties tested are actually in use.
3. No real world back-up to suggest that the preliminary findings actually mean anything in terms of the wider world. In other words, this is a laboratory study and may not apply outside the lab.

So it is a good reference in that it appears to be good science. It is not a good support for your position, since it is still just another expression of vague concern with no real evidence that the concern means anything.

Nevertheless, my compliments to Chimpkin for actually finding some good science.
 
Oh, but it doesn't end there, how about killing children?
"In 2001, a group of Nigerian minors and their guardians sued Pfizer in US federal court under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) alleging that the company violated customary international law by administering Trovan to minors in Kano during the meningitis outbreak. The plaintiffs in Abdullahi v. Pfizer claim that the drug was given without the informed consent of the children and their parents. The plaintiffs further claim that the drug trial led to the deaths of 11 children and serious injuries to many others."

They eventually settled out of court.. http://www.business-humanrights.org.../LawsuitsSelectedcases/PfizerlawsuitreNigeria

And people think these companies care about their products safety? Oh, what naivety! I could go on producing these all night!
 
ULTRA said:
Not at all. Just like you supposedly looking up monsanto producing DDT on wiki and somehow not seeing the article on them producing DDT. Then FALSELY claiming they did not produce it. Sheer Hypocracy.
Click to expand...

BS

I looked up DDT on Wiki and according to Wiki Monsanto didn't make it and so when I posted it I specifically wrote: "According to Wiki".

That's ENTIRELY DIFFERENT then you claiming that GM viruses infected people when there is NO SOURCE that supports your claim.

So AGAIN, you made TWO claims about infection by GM viruses.

Each one turned out to be FALSE.

Arthur
 
It says "commercialized" at the top of the study...meaning those three corn varieties are currently being marketed.

It is preliminary, yes, and the study's author admits that..

But the toxicity evident in just three months of feeding, versus controls, is pretty alarming.
 
adoucette said:
BS

I looked up DDT on Wiki and according to Wiki Monsanto didn't make it and so when I posted it I specifically wrote: "According to Wiki".

That's ENTIRELY DIFFERENT then you claiming that GM viruses infected people when there is NO SOURCE that supports your claim.

So AGAIN, you made TWO claims about infection by GM viruses.

Each one turned out to be FALSE.

Arthur
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it is true.

"The oft-repeated refrain that "transgenic DNA is just like ordinary DNA" is false. Transgenic DNA is in many respects optimised for horizontal gene transfer. It is designed to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes"

"The health risks of horizontal gene transfer include:

"Antibiotic resistance genes spreading to pathogenic bacteria.
Disease-associated genes spreading and recombining to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases.
Transgenic DNA inserting into human cells, triggering cancer."


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php
 
Skeptical said:
Congratulations to Chimpkin

That is the first decent reference posted by anyone on your side of the debate in 8 pages of this thread. Took you guys long enough!

Couple of problems with using it to support your argument.
1. It is a preliminary study, and more work is needed to confirm results.
2. No indication if the corn varieties tested are actually in use.
3. No real world back-up to suggest that the preliminary findings actually mean anything in terms of the wider world. In other words, this is a laboratory study and may not apply outside the lab.

So it is a good reference in that it appears to be good science. It is not a good support for your position, since it is still just another expression of vague concern with no real evidence that the concern means anything.

Nevertheless, my compliments to Chimpkin for actually finding some good science.
Click to expand...

Having finished reading the paper I found that I could not quite find a smoking gun in it.

Did a little look see and found this rebuttal:

For reasons not stated, the authors did not address the numerous deficiencies of their statistical re-analysis that had been reported by several international regulatory agencies (FSANZ 2007; EFSA 2007a; EFSA 2007 b; Monod 2007). Instead, they chose to focus on the issues raised in a later published report by Doull et al., 2007. In the absence of new data and the failure of the authors to acknowledge that the interpretation of toxicity studies does not only involve statistics but requires the need for biological context, FSANZ is of the opinion that the recent article from Séraliniet al. provides no grounds to revise its previous conclusions on the safety of food derived from MON 863 corn. The FSANZ assessment concluded that food derived from MON 863 corn is as safe and wholesome as food derived from other commercial corn varieties.
Click to expand...

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sci...s/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm

Arthur
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top