HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Antivaccine versus anti-G...

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:06 AM

Antivaccine versus anti-GMO: Different goals, same methods

Countering ideologically motivated bad science, pseudoscience, misinformation, and lies is one of the main purposes of this blog. Specifically, we try to combat such misinformation in medicine; elsewhere Steve and I, as well as some of our other “partners in crime” combat other forms of pseudoscience. During the nearly five year existence of this blog, we’ve covered a lot of topics in medicine that tend to be prone to pseudoscience and quackery. Oddly enough, there’s one topic that we haven’t really written much about at all, and that’s genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs, as you know, are proliferating, and it’s quite worth discussing the potential and risks of this new technology, just as it is worthwhile to discuss the potential benefits versus the risks of any new technology that can impact our health, not to mention the health of the planet. Unfortunately, GMOs have become a huge political issue, and, I would argue, they have become just as prone to pseudoscience, misinformation, and bad science as vaccines, with a radical group of anti-GMO activists who are as anti-science as any antivaccinationist or quack.

Leave it to that quackery promoter to rule all quackery promoters, Mike Adams, to give me just the opportunity to show you what I mean. Over the last couple of weeks, Mike has been in a fine lather about GMOs, with multiple posts with titles such as The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity and The evil of Monsanto and GMOs explained: Bad technology, endless greed and the destruction of humanity. In other words, it’s a series of post with Adams’ typical hyperbole. If you were to believe him, GMOs are the product of a plot by Satan, Monsanto, big pharma, and the government, and he’s not sure which one of these is the most evil of the bunch.

Not to be outdone, that other quackery supporter vying with Mike Adams to be the quackery supporter to rule all quackery supporters, Joe Mercola, also weighed in with a post entitled First-Ever Lifetime Feeding Study Finds Genetically Engineered Corn Causes Massive Tumors, Organ Damage, and Early Death. It also turns out that Mike Adams had pontificated about this very same study a couple of days before Mercola with a title equally ominous, Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early. Whenever I see the cranks pile on a study like this, my curiosity is piqued. I also noticed that Steve Novella had already discussed the study that had this not-so-dynamic duo in such a frothy lather. Of course, as you know, that a blogger as awesome as our fearless leader had covered a topic never stopped me from pontificating about the very same study before (well, actually, it has, but in this case it wasn’t enough to stop me). Besides, these sorts of studies are right up my alley, given that I’m a cancer researcher, and the study being touted as “smoking gun” evidence that GMOs are pure evil is such a an incompetently designed and performed study that it actually irritated me more than the usual bit of bad science that I discuss on occasion.

There’s a lot in common between anti-GMO activists and antivaccine activists. Perhaps the most prominent similarity is philosophical. Both groups fetishize the naturalistic fallacy, otherwise known as the belief that if it’s “natural” it must be good (or at least better than anything man-made or “artificial”). In the case of antivaccine activists, the immune response caused by vaccines is somehow “unnatural” and therefore harmful and evil, even though the mechanisms by which the immune system responds to vaccines are the same or similar to how it responds to “natural” antigens. That’s the whole idea, to stimulate the immune system to think that you’ve had the disease without actually giving you the disease, thus stimulating long term immunity to the actual disease! In the case of anti-GMO activists, the same idea appears to prevail, namely that, because GMOS are somehow “unnatural,” they must be harmful and evil. That’s not to say that they might not have problems and issues that need to be dealt with, but the apocalyptic language used by many of the anti-GMO activists like Mike Adams and Joe Mercola is so far over-the-top that it is very much like the language of the antivaccine movement. In fact, not surprisingly, antivaccinationists are often anti-GMO as well, and vice-versa, an example of crank magnetism in action. Indeed, Joe Mercola himself is one of the biggest backers of California Proposition 37, which would require the labeling of GMO-based food, having donated $1.1 million so far.


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

Sid



58 replies, 7895 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply Antivaccine versus anti-GMO: Different goals, same methods (Original post)
SidDithers Jun 2013 OP
FSogol Jun 2013 #1
graham4anything Jun 2013 #2
Orrex Jun 2013 #3
longship Jun 2013 #4
bunnies Jun 2013 #5
Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #9
bunnies Jun 2013 #11
Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #20
bunnies Jun 2013 #29
FarCenter Jun 2013 #10
bunnies Jun 2013 #12
FarCenter Jun 2013 #15
bunnies Jun 2013 #19
FarCenter Jun 2013 #32
bunnies Jun 2013 #35
FarCenter Jun 2013 #37
bunnies Jun 2013 #38
FarCenter Jun 2013 #39
AlbertCat Jun 2013 #22
bunnies Jun 2013 #25
Tumbulu May 2014 #47
HuckleB Mar 2015 #58
WovenGems Jun 2013 #6
Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #8
WovenGems Jun 2013 #14
Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #21
mythology Jun 2013 #30
mike_c Jun 2013 #7
mountain grammy Jun 2013 #13
SidDithers Jun 2013 #18
MattBaggins Jun 2013 #33
SidDithers Jun 2013 #34
MattBaggins Jun 2013 #36
zappaman Jun 2013 #16
SwampG8r Jun 2013 #17
whatchamacallit Jun 2013 #23
Rex Jun 2013 #24
SidDithers Jun 2013 #26
Rex Jun 2013 #28
ismnotwasm Jun 2013 #27
Progressive dog Jun 2013 #31
Tumbulu Jun 2013 #40
HuckleB May 2014 #41
Tumbulu May 2014 #42
HuckleB May 2014 #43
Tumbulu May 2014 #44
HuckleB May 2014 #45
Tumbulu May 2014 #46
HuckleB May 2014 #48
Tumbulu May 2014 #49
HuckleB May 2014 #50
COLGATE4 May 2014 #51
Tumbulu May 2014 #52
HuckleB May 2014 #53
Tumbulu May 2014 #54
HuckleB May 2014 #55
Tumbulu May 2014 #56
HuckleB May 2014 #57

Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:12 AM

1. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:18 AM

2. +1 K&R. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:18 AM

3. Happy to K & R

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:34 AM

4. R&K nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:18 AM

5. Yeah.

 

Because what could possibly be wrong with food being engineered to withstand repeated doses of poison. Silly, silly me for thinking poison is poisonous. Glass of round-up with breakfast, Sid? Drink up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:31 AM

9. Are you worried about the GMOs or the pesticides?

 

Pesticides are applied to both GMO and non-GMO crops, and their impact on humans is independent of whether or not the crop is GMO. Plenty to be worried about with pesticides.

No scientific basis for worrying about the health impacts of the GMOs themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:42 AM

11. For me, its the pesticides.

 

I buy organic whenever I can. But not all fruits and veggies are available all the time. Which means that I, unfortunately, occasionally buy food thats treated with poisons. I generally try to stick with with "clean 15" though. So the problem is, that a food that would normally be on the clean 15, could be a monsanto product instead. So while I think Im buying a less pesty food, I could really be buying a food dosed with a massive amount of round-up.

FWIW, I would prefer it if all produce came with labels that told me what toxins were applied to it, not just GM food. Beyond that I have a real issue with Monsantos terminator seeds, etc. But thats another issue. As far as the actual GM crops themselves, I havent seen any studies that would lead me to believe they are unsafe, without the poisons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:59 AM

20. ..

 

Which means that I, unfortunately, occasionally buy food thats treated with poisons.
I understand the resistance to that and the frustration at not being able to buy what you want. "Properly applied and managed", pesticide use on agricultural crops is not harmful. However, we know that unexpected things happen.

So while I think Im buying a less pesty food, I could really be buying a food dosed with a massive amount of round-up.
I don't think the problem is as bad as you think. Late season applications of roundup are rare, and not all crops are roundup ready. Those with the technology are soybeans, alfalfa, corn, cotton, spring canola, sugarbeets and winter canola. Only corn is part of the Clean 15. And, the reality is that a farmer cannot spray roundup on a mature corn crop with the typical pesticide application system.

I havent seen any studies that would lead me to believe they are unsafe, without the poisons.


btw, terminator seeds were never commercialized, so you needn't worry about that yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:23 AM

29. :)

 

Ill admit to being a bit paranoid about food. Im frustrated at all the chemicals and concoctions manufacturers put in or on it. I got really freaked out when I read that zucchini is now mostly GM in the US. It got me wondering how many other things were going to be had been slipped in that I didnt know about.

Thanks for telling me about the terminator seeds. I, for one, hope they never get commercialized. Too many small farmers struggle enough as it is. I watched the oldest family farm in the country go out of business a couple of years ago. Still breaks my heart when I drive by. If only I had a few million kicking around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:39 AM

10. Round-up is not poisonous to animals

 

Round-up works by inhibiting an enzyme that plants use to synthesize aromatic amino acids.

Animals do not have the enzyme and they do not synthesize these amino acids. Animals require these amino acids in their diet.

Round-up ready plants have a variation of the same enzyme, which is used by certain bacteria to synthesize the same aromatic amino acids. Therefore, they can survive the application of Round-up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:44 AM

12. Thats great for animals...

 

but Im not an animal. And I dont want to eat it round-up. Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:47 AM

15. Actually, you are an animal - all humans are

 

(Although, there is some small probability that you are just an automated posting program running in a server somewhere?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:55 AM

19. well...

 

You can have my portion of round-up then.


Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells

Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.

Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.


more at link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:26 AM

32. This is from the same team that did the later discredited study on GMO corn

 

The French team, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a University of Caen molecular biologist,


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:37 AM

35. ok. Heres another. A new US study:

 


Samsel and Seneff: Glyphosate Enhances Damaging Effects of Environmental Toxins

This study shows that glyphosate, the active ingredient of roundup, enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins.

Full study here: Gly, Modern disease,Samsel-Seneff
Abstract:

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.


http://gmoevidence.com/samsel-and-seneff-glyphosate-enhances-damaging-effects-of-environmental-toxins/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 12:36 PM

37. Condemning Monsanto With Bad Science Is Dumb

 

Did you see the latest indictment of Monsanto making the rounds? It's a "peer-reviewed" paper in the journal Entropy, co-authored by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, blaming glyphosate, the compound in the herbicide Roundup, for virtually all the ills that can befall us.

But here's the thing -- they made it up. Or, all but. They say, "We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is a 'textbook example' of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins." Exogenous semiotic entropy! That sounds serious. Google it, though, and you find that those three words occur together in only place. This paper. They made it up. At first, I thought the whole thing was one of those jargon-laden academic hoaxes but, alas, it isn't.

Slog through their argument (and, please, if you take this seriously, read the paper!), and you find it boils down to two things. Glyphosate, they claim, 1) inhibits CYP enzymes, which are active in lots of metabolic processes, and 2) disrupts gut bacteria, which are susceptible to its mechanism (disrupting the shikimate pathway), even though humans are not. Therefore, any condition that involves metabolic processes or gut bacteria must be affected by glyphosate exposure. QED!

Here's the list of ills they blame, at least in part, on Roundup: inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, Alzheimer's, autism, anorexia, dementia, depression, Parkinson's, reproductive issues, liver diseases and cancer.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html

You too can publish in Entropy for 1250 CHF, and you get to nominate your own peer reviewers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:23 PM

38. "harmful if swallowed or inhaled"

 

"seek medical attention". Now why would those things be on RoundUps MSDS sheet? Oh, no need to worry though, Monsanto assures us that roundup is "no more than slightly toxic". Phew! Im so relieved. Who doesnt love a little toxin, right?

http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/pest/pmsds/Roundup.PDF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #38)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:34 PM

39. Standard "our lawyers made us say that" text.

 

The Rat LD50 is > 5 grams per kilogram.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:00 AM

22. but Im not an animal

 

If you are this clueless about what you even are, then I'd suggest some scientific reading and study before you go on about GMOs.... or anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:06 AM

25. Like the study I already posted?

 

Or did you not bother to look at it in your rush to insult me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #22)

Tue May 6, 2014, 10:10 PM

47. Typical biotech bully- always ready to ridicule and intimidate

so tired of these tired old tactics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:29 PM

58. Indeed. But DU still doesn't understand that reality.

LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:34 AM

6. Debate error

It is forbidden to lump yourself into a group and cry that they are both being targeted unfairly. The anti-virus folks think wrongly as to cause of autism. The anti-GMO folks don't to be test lab rats for corporate America. And that be a huge difference. Apples and Oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WovenGems (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:29 AM

8. I disagree. I think both attitudes are the result of unfounded fear based on bad science.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:46 AM

14. Wrong

Anti vaccine = No science while anti GMO is combination of two things. One Mansanto is evil to the core. Making A GMO that spreads pollen then blaming neighbor farms of copyright violations. Then there is the fact that unlike other manmade foods GMO's just don't get tested in independent labs due once again to copyrights.
Do you agree with the Mansanto SOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WovenGems (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:00 AM

21. You're conflating health issues with business practices.

 

No, I don't like Monsanto's business practices, but that was not the topic at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:25 AM

30. I find that people who are unethical in one form

 

are usually unethical in others.

Besides the fact that we don't yet have long term studies on the effect of GMO food is not actually proof that they are safe. We have seen instances in which corn that was modified for use in feeding cows has gotten into the human food system resulting in allergic reactions. Additionally in the same time frame as the increase in use of GMO, we've seen major increases in obesity and allergies. Perhaps that's purely coincidental, but perhaps it's not.

There's also the long term impact of whether using antibiotics in food will cause antibiotic use to become less effective.

And given that Monsanto had a Republican congressman add an amendment to a budget bill that says the Department of Agriculture can't stop the production of a GMO even if it's found harmful. If Monsanto wasn't worried about the long term impact, why would they feel the need for such protection?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:05 AM

7. well I'll be damned....

Rec'd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:45 AM

13. I'm still skeptical of GMO's and trying to educate myself on this subject.

Thanks for the link.. I'll be checking into that site often.

I've long thought the anti vaccine hype detrimental to the health of children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:55 AM

18. Science Based Medicine is a great site...

It's been on my regular reading list for a long time. I've only recently been starting to link to blog posts there, and from scienceblogs.com, to try to combat the proliferation of woo that has been lately turning up in GD.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MattBaggins (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:33 AM

34. I know the name, but haven't read much of his stuff...

Thanks for the recommendation, tho. I'll check him out.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:42 AM

36. He is fair in his treatment

Truly one who is interested in the "scientific facts"

He often goes after medical researchers if he feels they are playing games with their data. He has been one of the leading voices in Europe questioning, whether Roche has been dishonest about the efficacy of Tamiflu.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:47 AM

16. Big REC and KICK! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:48 AM

17. well FFS dithers

damn
2 in one day
quit fucking with my head
now I have to carry the stain of having recced you twice in one day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:03 AM

23. Similar invective was used for those opposed to the unabated use of fossil fuels

Look where that got us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:05 AM

24. Why would you compare ignorant people to a conglomerates agenda?

 

Nice try with the comparison, but the intentions are very different between your two subjects. One is wrong about how medicine works and the other is just interested in making a profit above any overall health costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:10 AM

26. That's not the message in the article at all...

It's saying that many of the players in the anti-GMO movement use the same tactics, and are in fact many of the same people, as the cranks in the anti-vaccine movement, which poisons the credibility of the reasoned, rational activists who oppose genetically modified organisms.

Gorski uses the term "crank magnetism", which is perfectly descriptive.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:13 AM

28. Oh I see, missed that completely.

 

Yes I've actually seen that in play recently. Would have never linked the two groups otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:10 AM

27. The comments are just as interesting as article

Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:26 AM

31. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:56 PM

40. Typical tactic, always trying to paint

The people who call for labeling and testing of GMO's as anti science reactionaries when it is the business interests who pushed the regulators to allow these products out on the market untested and unlabeled.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Consumers Union have been pointing out for decades that science requires transparent testing, without which we can say nothing.

This is the propaganda talking point of the GMO industry - that anyone who questions the science is an activist and not a scientist. This has been their tactic since the '80's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #40)

Mon May 5, 2014, 07:51 PM

41. Since GMOs are the most studied form of plants in existence.

Last edited Tue May 6, 2014, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Your post is ludicrous and pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #41)

Tue May 6, 2014, 12:05 AM

42. Fiction??????

Where are these fictional studies published my friend?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #42)

Tue May 6, 2014, 04:30 AM

43. LOL!

Thanks for making my point.

Here are some of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that show GMOs to be safe:

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

Now where are the legitimate studies that support the hyperbole of the anti-GMO movement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #43)

Tue May 6, 2014, 03:33 PM

44. oh a mighty list of articles that no one can access! How wonderful and useful!

Oh yes, just what we need, paid for fake science in the thousands. And paid for by industry it is.

If it was real, we could all access it.

Tell me why the Bt toxin expressed in plants was allowed to be registered with the microbial produced Bt that is rendered nontoxic because it is bound up in a crystal form that can only be dissolved in a pH 10+ gut? Tell me why this toxin is now found in human bloodstreams. Tell me what idiot has the gaul to say that these are the same? If you think they are, then you have proven yourself not only ignorant but dangerous.

After that give me articles that I can read.

Until then, keep eating all those poisons to your hearts content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #44)

Tue May 6, 2014, 04:07 PM

45. Peer reviewed research that matters.

If you don't know how research works, you have no business discussing matters of science.

WOW! "Articles." LOL! Amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #45)

Tue May 6, 2014, 10:07 PM

46. Oh yes, resort to the old put downs trying always to ridicule others.

The take home message is that bullies took over science and continue to attack anyone who dares to question the safety of gmo's without the benefir of public testing.

Case in point you. Scientific papers, or peer reviewed papers paid for by industry are simply fictional articles as far as I am concerened.

And you have not answered the Bt toxin question.

That is because it is not defensible.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #46)

Tue May 6, 2014, 11:44 PM

48. You played games.

And you're still playing games. If you're intellectually honest, you'll stop, and you will acknowledge the scientific reality. Can you do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #48)

Wed May 7, 2014, 07:14 PM

49. You have the GAUL to make such an accusation?!!!

Shame on you and all of your lying bullying kind. FOR SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone following either of us can decide who is honest and who is not. Or perhaps not capable of comprehending the enormity of the disaster that screwing around with genes without understanding the consequences (or worse yet even testing the consequences) has created and will create for future life.

Shame on you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #49)

Wed May 7, 2014, 08:07 PM

50. I'm not the one who is lying, and I am not the one who is bullying.

In fact, accusing me of bullying is beyond the pale. We both know you're not being honest. We both know you haven't done the research. We both that you don't know the difference between an article and a peer-reviewed study. We both know these things, and yet you think I should be ashamed?

Until you challenge your beliefs by looking at all of the evidence, and stop promoting unsupported nonsense: Yes, SHAME ON YOU! You are hurting humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #50)

Thu May 8, 2014, 09:19 AM

51. Peer reviewed studies?

We don' need no stinkin' peer reviewed studies. Can't you understand - we're OUTRAGED!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #50)

Thu May 8, 2014, 11:36 PM

52. How do you know anything about me?

And you dare to accuse ME of lying?

Did I lie to the EPA about the expressed by plants Bt toxin being the same as that produced by the bacteria? Nope.

Did I run the first greenhouse trials of an engineered Bt toxin and find that it did not biodegrade in the same way as the bacterially produced one does? Yes.

And I scraped together my own money and paid to fly to DC to testify to the EPA a few times about it no less. Did they listen? Nope. Will they ever listen? Who knows? But the damage is already done, this toxin is now found in people bloodstreams doing who knows what?

Putting out gmo plants without testing them properly and openly is reckless and criminal.

And your saying it isn't so is not convincing. And insinuating that I know nothing is bullying. The typical tactic of the genetic engineering industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #52)

Fri May 9, 2014, 08:40 AM

53. Do you continue to make claims that you cannot support?

That's a rhetorical question.

Do you continue to ignore the science?

That's a rhetorical question.

I'm only saying what you're showing. You can make all the claims you want. You showed that you didn't know what peer-reviewed research is. Thus, you don't know anything about this stuff. Your experiment was published where, and peer reviewed by whom?

You have a long history of pushing conspiracy, anti-science stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #53)

Fri May 9, 2014, 01:54 PM

54. You exhibit all the typical qualities of the gmo rude squad

Last edited Sat May 10, 2014, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

You repeat things that are not true and that are insulting at the same time (oh haha you don't know the difference between a published scientific paper and an article!!!! How idiotic! Obviously NOT A SCIENTIST!!!" which is silly.

You attack me rather than the issues.

I worked in Biotech, I currently work as a plant breeder. I am a scientist. I have been aware of the fraud, lies and the silencing of any and all scientists who question or test gmo safety since the early 80's. The purging from the Land Grant Institutions of scientists who questioned safety was thorough and effective.

Your writing style mirrors those actions.

Ridicule and then dismiss. The only trouble is that until real testing has been done, it is all just bullying.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #54)

Fri May 9, 2014, 01:55 PM

55. Name one thing I have written that is not true.

Show me one time when you've actually attempted to engage in discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #55)

Sat May 10, 2014, 12:12 AM

56. Everything you write seems to cover it (nt).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #56)

Sat May 10, 2014, 10:32 AM

57. As usual you simply offer up a grand statement with no evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread