General Discussion

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

201. So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.

Reply to truebrit71 (Reply #199)

Thu Sep 12, 2013, 03:56 PM

Sep 2013

Goodness.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

363 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Andrew Weil, his woo, and anti-GMO hysteria... [View all] Archae Sep 2013 OP

This scientific illiteracy of the left... roseBudd Sep 2013 #1

What is this? Propaganda? WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #3

No, I don't jump on bandwagons because it is popular on the left roseBudd Sep 2013 #21

It may not be a bandwagon, but it sure feels like WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #58

+ 1,000 Berlum Sep 2013 #84

What do you call what Seralini did, which was unethical animal abuse? roseBudd Sep 2013 #99

I don't have a side. WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #181

Yes. It's "Poo" Berlum Sep 2013 #23

Poo flingers post pictures... roseBudd Sep 2013 #55

You are confusing poo with woo Berlum Sep 2013 #59

Another picture roseBudd Sep 2013 #63

Pictures are worth a Thousand Points of Poo, Inc. Berlum Sep 2013 #85

I don't want to consume food that is produced using cow poo... roseBudd Sep 2013 #100

It doesn't matter how sweet you say it is Generic Other Sep 2013 #9

All good, except: NuclearDem Sep 2013 #10

Says who? Argumentum from popularity roseBudd Sep 2013 #56

Only the corporate view is allowed Precisely Sep 2013 #96

Science is true, whether you believe in it, or not... roseBudd Sep 2013 #102

if science is true there's no need to "believe in it" Precisely Sep 2013 #112

There are plenty of scientificallly illiterate people who don't believe in reality roseBudd Sep 2013 #141

Overgeneralizing doesnt equal truth Precisely Sep 2013 #166

There is "no till" organic and the idea that GMO farming reduces carbon emissions is bogus since KurtNYC Sep 2013 #279

It is if it's not an informed opposition Scootaloo Sep 2013 #132

Monocropping precedes GMO. Climate change means we need biotechnology roseBudd Sep 2013 #142

People will starve to death regardless Scootaloo Sep 2013 #180

"...scientific illiteracy of the left..." me b zola Sep 2013 #11

So nothing but logical fallacies ^ roseBudd Sep 2013 #22

Just as on the right... Archae Sep 2013 #45

I have noticed a correlation between one type of woo... roseBudd Sep 2013 #57

Exactly! HuckleB Sep 2013 #182

R&K for no woo. nt longship Sep 2013 #2

Woo causes harm... roseBudd Sep 2013 #24

Can I say you are full of poo? WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #65

Very true. Union Scribe Sep 2013 #70

I Fucking Love Science. Always have. roseBudd Sep 2013 #77

Propaganda. Pure and simple. WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #4

Weil is a quack. Archae Sep 2013 #8

Massive load of corporate horsepuckey about "the rice mentioned in OP" Berlum Sep 2013 #25

Fine. Reporters know more about real science than scientists do. Archae Sep 2013 #46

You seek out, that which confirms your bias... roseBudd Sep 2013 #62

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #64

You just got here maddezmom Sep 2013 #69

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #71

LOL maddezmom Sep 2013 #74

"all too often kills and maims followers" Precisely Sep 2013 #83

Just think about it. Archae Sep 2013 #104

My brother the colon irrigator ran into Coretta Scott King... roseBudd Sep 2013 #105

Really. That's what you think? Precisely Sep 2013 #113

That's what I KNOW. Archae Sep 2013 #117

you think Precisely Sep 2013 #120

Because I've seen it advertised. Archae Sep 2013 #121

Good thing you don't overgeneralize Precisely Sep 2013 #122

so much for strict science eh. KurtNYC Sep 2013 #287

My mother is alive thanks to multiple meds for atrial fibrillation & high BP... roseBudd Sep 2013 #123

Um ... why did you have high blood pressure and need 5 bypasses in the first place? MH1 Sep 2013 #136

You may be right, BUT... Archae Sep 2013 #138

My father was not overweight, ate right, played tennis, triple heart bypass roseBudd Sep 2013 #144

You lost all credibility TM99 Sep 2013 #154

Please explain what you mean by "anti-GMO hysteria." Big Blue Marble Sep 2013 #5

I usually don't even open threads with the word "woo" in the subject line. Raksha Sep 2013 #17

Yes, woo is bad for business Precisely Sep 2013 #6

Woo is about parting gullibles from their money roseBudd Sep 2013 #26

Which is different from Precisely Sep 2013 #61

Pharmaceuticals have to establish efficacy... roseBudd Sep 2013 #68

the efficacy of preventative health Precisely Sep 2013 #72

And no doctor I know denies or disparages that principle... roseBudd Sep 2013 #79

...henceforth identified as POO (corporate "science" & allied mega-funded corporate propaganda) Berlum Sep 2013 #92

POO kills and maims!! Precisely Sep 2013 #94

"anti- gmo hysteria" tells me all I need to know. niyad Sep 2013 #7

20 years ago laundry_queen Sep 2013 #12

+10 avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #14

"Anti-GMO hysteria".. unreal.. Kaua'i is having a Huge Cha Sep 2013 #20

That is a logical fallacy roseBudd Sep 2013 #28

LOL, so because you can't see the relationship it doesn't exist. Mkay. nt laundry_queen Sep 2013 #133

Accusing someone you know nothing about of being a climate change denier... roseBudd Sep 2013 #145

LOL, speaking of non sequitur laundry_queen Sep 2013 #153

"I'm waiting for reputable studies. There currently aren't any." False roseBudd Sep 2013 #156

So your argument is laundry_queen Sep 2013 #173

Yeah, that too. Raksha Sep 2013 #18

DU rec... SidDithers Sep 2013 #13

Woo makes people feel like they are special roseBudd Sep 2013 #29

When you life someones work, you should cite the source. n/t TheBlackAdder Sep 2013 #40

Life someone's work? shenmue Sep 2013 #51

Lift Tree-Hugger Sep 2013 #93

"anti-GMO hysteria" avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #15

Actually not. roseBudd Sep 2013 #31

Is there any credible evidence that GMO food poses a legitimate health risk? Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #16

Youbetchaa. Google is your friend. Berlum Sep 2013 #27

Yeah...I was told the same thing about my kid's autism by the anti-vaxxers. I'll pass. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #47

No. Seralini's research doesn't show what woosters claim roseBudd Sep 2013 #32

Is there any ethical reason that labeling shouldn't be required pnwmom Sep 2013 #157

Yes. Stacks of it. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #187

Umm. Nope. HuckleB Sep 2013 #188

To be clear, you are suggesting that there is NO research proving that GMO is BAD for people... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #189

To be clear, the consensus of the science is quite clear. HuckleB Sep 2013 #191

Please answer my question. You are saying that there are no ill-effects to GMO at all... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #194

In other words, you didn't read my answer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #197

So you won't answer my very simple, straightforward question. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #199

So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question. HuckleB Sep 2013 #201

Please direct me to the answer to my direct question. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #205

And you keep pretending. HuckleB Sep 2013 #208

That is NOT an answer to the question i asked though, is it? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #212

It does answer your question. HuckleB Sep 2013 #215

The only game here is you not wanting to answer a very simple question. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #218

Again, it has been answered. HuckleB Sep 2013 #228

It's rather amazing that with stacks of evidence jeff47 Sep 2013 #251

Google doesn't work for you either...? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #291

Apparently you need google to find out what "peer reviewed" means. jeff47 Sep 2013 #296

Again, try Google, I neither have the time, nor the inclination to school yet another... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #299

So....mountain of evidence, and you can't manage to deliver a single pebble? jeff47 Sep 2013 #305

I may not agree with many coporations business practices such as Monsanto but I do not liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #19

Big organic needs for peole to believe in woo roseBudd Sep 2013 #34

Big organic? Beaverhausen Sep 2013 #89

So you didn't know... roseBudd Sep 2013 #101

OMG Precisely Sep 2013 #98

I love the idea of "Big Organic".... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #190

So you think Organic companies have your best interests in mind? HuckleB Sep 2013 #193

So you think that there's a cartel of organic producers..furtively plotting the demise of the poor.. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #198

Try paying attention. HuckleB Sep 2013 #200

Try answering a simple question truebrit71 Sep 2013 #202

Try reading the answer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #204

I'd love to. Where is the answer? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #207

Nice denialism, dude. HuckleB Sep 2013 #209

Nice avoidance, dude. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #214

Awww. He just can't stop pretending. HuckleB Sep 2013 #217

Aww. He just can't answer a simple question. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #220

Do you think there's some magic that prevents Monsanto from buying organic companies? (nt) jeff47 Sep 2013 #254

do you approve of monsanto going after farmers whose fields MONSANTO has contaminated, suing niyad Sep 2013 #42

link please roseBudd Sep 2013 #80

A quick google will give you plenty of examples Marrah_G Sep 2013 #111

that is the funniest thing I have read today. PLEASE tell me you forgot the sarcasm icon, because niyad Sep 2013 #115

GMOs harm the intestines of the animals who eat it. Ask the farmers who've taken sick animals off it Precisely Sep 2013 #97

link please roseBudd Sep 2013 #106

Google Precisely Sep 2013 #114

I don't need to. I know all about Carman. roseBudd Sep 2013 #129

What about unlabeled GMO foods and people with allergies? pnwmom Sep 2013 #158

Just slapping a "GMO" label on it won't help. jeff47 Sep 2013 #259

Someone with allergies would know to avoid it, just as I have to do when pnwmom Sep 2013 #263

My point is why get hung up on a literal GMO label jeff47 Sep 2013 #275

We should do both. But Ted Kennedy fought for decades to have better labeling and in the end, pnwmom Sep 2013 #284

There's no reason to make that allergen list permanent jeff47 Sep 2013 #293

But how are new allergens ever going to get recognized unless the ingredient pnwmom Sep 2013 #297

Same way gluten allergies were. jeff47 Sep 2013 #304

At the time I was diagnosed, it took the average Celiac 11 years to get diagnosed. pnwmom Sep 2013 #306

And that still doesn't change the need to stick with what we can prove. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2013 #343

But if we don't know an ingredient is in our food, there's NO chance of linking pnwmom Sep 2013 #356

Well... HuckleB Sep 2013 #298

Ermm... ananda Sep 2013 #30

How "scientific." Archae Sep 2013 #37

As a personal friend of Dr. Weil, I call LIAR on that article. Why post this BS? Coyotl Sep 2013 #33

The shoe fits roseBudd Sep 2013 #35

Agreed. Archae Sep 2013 #36

Yeah we get that you and rosebud are in cahoots. WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #67

Yeah, we're part of the "BIG CONSPIRACY" Archae Sep 2013 #78

The SCIENCE CONSPIRACY.... roseBudd Sep 2013 #81

Weil like Mercola is laughing... roseBudd Sep 2013 #82

That article is also laden with BS. I know for fact from first-hand experience. Coyotl Sep 2013 #38

Right-wing Corporate Poo Flinging, Inc. (R) is a fact of life. Berlum Sep 2013 #48

Excellent point. Corporate monopoly on medicine is important. Coyotl Sep 2013 #50

What truth? roseBudd Sep 2013 #53

What's not true in the article? HuckleB Sep 2013 #183

Because being full of woo while accusing others of woo is big fun. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #192

BS. HuckleB Sep 2013 #206

I know, Monsanto and GMO are awesome and safe. Roundup - I love spraying it right from the bottle.. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #221

And a pointless response is so cool. HuckleB Sep 2013 #225

How about some photographic evidence? tenderfoot Sep 2013 #271

And another one pushes Seralini! WOW! HuckleB Sep 2013 #276

Stop lobbying for Monsanto and prove that GMO's are safe then I'll stfu. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #286

Oh, brother. HuckleB Sep 2013 #288

Union of concerned scientists... sounds like the concerned women of America. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #295

You don't know about UCS? And you lie about GLP? HuckleB Sep 2013 #300

Oh well. No GMO popcorn for me. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #307

Science doesn't care. HuckleB Sep 2013 #309

I heard marijuana causes insanity - science said so - it must be true. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #312

No, science didn't say those things. HuckleB Sep 2013 #314

I don't know him personally but agree this a lie and it's crap. nt Raine Sep 2013 #210

As a former farm owner and Food & Water Watch Volunteer... TheBlackAdder Sep 2013 #39

no, because you are threatening THEIR scientifically-based beliefs. no evidence to the contrary niyad Sep 2013 #41

So we disparage science? How is that different than climate change deniers? roseBudd Sep 2013 #108

As a son of 6 generations of farmers NickB79 Sep 2013 #75

now that sounds like a more accurate assessment of what is happening. liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #86

And lets not forget GM papaya... roseBudd Sep 2013 #110

to all who defend gmo food, answer this: if this genetic tinkering is NOT dangerous, niyad Sep 2013 #43

They don't want the labeling because they know that consumers don't want these products. Gormy Cuss Sep 2013 #44

exactly. notice how they have no response? niyad Sep 2013 #54

What's in a GMO Label? roseBudd Sep 2013 #124

Ooo, a blog post by a 'myth buster' type. laundry_queen Sep 2013 #134

^ A subject line with no rebuttal roseBudd Sep 2013 #146

I don't need to post studies laundry_queen Sep 2013 #152

Still false. All myths that show you have zero understanding roseBudd Sep 2013 #165

I understand plenty. laundry_queen Sep 2013 #171

I don't care how many Monsanto-approved studies are out there. pnwmom Sep 2013 #177

That's because consumers are fearful Union Scribe Sep 2013 #66

there's propaganda on both sides. It's impossible to know the truth. Real scientific research liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #73

No, it's because people inherently think of food as natural Gormy Cuss Sep 2013 #87

this. nt La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2013 #95

And who would want ascorbic acid if it were labeled as such? roseBudd Sep 2013 #109

amazingly enough, some of us actually KNOW what ascorbic acid is, and sodium chloride, but nice niyad Sep 2013 #116

Oh, but poo pictures are fine roseBudd Sep 2013 #126

since I have neither used that word, nor posted pictures, that remark cannot possibly be addressed niyad Sep 2013 #140

Logical falllacy not based in science roseBudd Sep 2013 #107

keep trying. I need the laughs. niyad Sep 2013 #118

so GMO foods would fail in the marketplace- or be niche- like organics are. Sounds fair to me. bettyellen Sep 2013 #150

wrong. Labeling is for risks. roseBudd Sep 2013 #163

oh bullshit. labeling is there for consumer to use to make decisions and there is no good reason to bettyellen Sep 2013 #175

Why are so many working so hard to create unjustified fear about GMOs? HuckleB Sep 2013 #184

in other words, you don't HAVE an answer that doesn't involve huge wads of money, yes? niyad Sep 2013 #319

So you can't explain why working to foment baseless fear is a good thing. HuckleB Sep 2013 #323

From Cracked.com... Archae Sep 2013 #49

The Fact is: there's no evidence to suggest GMO mutant crops are safe Berlum Sep 2013 #52

That is false. That you don't know that is false roseBudd Sep 2013 #125

Your claim of 'falseness' is patently false Berlum Sep 2013 #164

Cracked.com! fuck yeah! my go-to source for scientific information! KG Sep 2013 #60

no kidding. nt laundry_queen Sep 2013 #88

At the articles from Cracked, most times they are linked to credible sources. Archae Sep 2013 #119

As opposed to Mother Jones & Huffington Post roseBudd Sep 2013 #130

Ha! I just saw that article and it reminded me of this thread. Dr. Strange Sep 2013 #135

kicked and recommended.... mike_c Sep 2013 #76

It starts with nutrition Precisely Sep 2013 #90

Nice post. sagat Sep 2013 #91

I worked in the health food industry for quite some time... Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2013 #103

I have a scientist friend that laundry_queen Sep 2013 #137

The studies don't support his views. Your anecdotal evidence is the worst kind roseBudd Sep 2013 #149

LOL laundry_queen Sep 2013 #151

Your claim of lack of studies is false roseBudd Sep 2013 #159

LOL, nice try getting me to out my friend. laundry_queen Sep 2013 #172

Genetically Modified Organisms ~ Gosh, what could possibly go wrong? Zorra Sep 2013 #127

It's good Science Precisely Sep 2013 #139

Yeh, they proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt in Fukushima, didn't they? Zorra Sep 2013 #143

^ non sequitur roseBudd Sep 2013 #162

GM crops created superweed, say scientists Zorra Sep 2013 #174

Read this morning about genetically modified insects Precisely Sep 2013 #168

Ever eat corn? jeff47 Sep 2013 #273

A few months ago I asked something similar. Archae Sep 2013 #338

Antivaccine versus anti-GMO: Different goals, same methods SidDithers Sep 2013 #128

So you hate GMO�s because they are untested. What about feelbetteramine from the health store? roseBudd Sep 2013 #131

Re-read the article... SidDithers Sep 2013 #186

kick for that fantastic article Orrex Sep 2013 #161

There is no connection between the two. pnwmom Sep 2013 #178

DU has become the go-to place for assinine Rightwing propaganda. "anti-GMO hysteria" my ass. nt Romulox Sep 2013 #147

You nailed it. We are a magnet for Rightwing Corporate propaganda -- aka POO Berlum Sep 2013 #148

Science isn't rightwing propaganda, it is the opposite roseBudd Sep 2013 #155

Um, you know the Torygraph is a right-wing paper right? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #226

Yes, and rightwing propaganda is not science. JackRiddler Sep 2013 #328

Certainly a phrase the Monsanto PR department would approve of -- or perhaps authored villager Sep 2013 #176

Oh yes. Anti-GMO hysterics. Pro-environment purists. Organic idiots. pnwmom Sep 2013 #160

Denying science goes to credibility roseBudd Sep 2013 #167

"Climate change dictates that we need biotechnology." Precisely Sep 2013 #169

I'm not denying science. And neither is Don Huber, retired Agri prof. at Purdue University pnwmom Sep 2013 #170

Really? I'm not buying it. HuckleB Sep 2013 #185

No, you're buying the industry crap. pnwmom Sep 2013 #196

No, I'm not. HuckleB Sep 2013 #203

Explain to me how it is "anti-science" pnwmom Sep 2013 #211

You are pushing all the usual, long-debunked nonsense. HuckleB Sep 2013 #219

So GMO's are actually great, and all of the countries that have banned them have been snookered... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #223

Again, pay attention. HuckleB Sep 2013 #231

Um. Perhaps YOU should pay attention... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #238

Pushing BS pseudoscience sites is not helpful. HuckleB Sep 2013 #242

Neither is responding without having read what was posted. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #246

You haven't read any of what I've posted. HuckleB Sep 2013 #252

Your link debunks nothing. pnwmom Sep 2013 #229

In other words, as usual, your preconceived notions are all that matter. HuckleB Sep 2013 #232

You're talking to the guy in the mirror because you have no answer to this: pnwmom Sep 2013 #233

And you think that makes everything else go away. HuckleB Sep 2013 #236

"Many other scientists have called out" The Scientific American on the issue pnwmom Sep 2013 #245

No link coming from me. HuckleB Sep 2013 #248

I've been paying attention since 1989 and the L-Trytophan debacle. pnwmom Sep 2013 #258

And you offer up one of your usual attempts at distraction. HuckleB Sep 2013 #262

Right. Personal comments are so much more useful than actual logic or data. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #266

Logic and data are only useful to you... HuckleB Sep 2013 #272

Your only contribution to a reasoned discussion was a link to an industry site. pnwmom Sep 2013 #277

Nope. HuckleB Sep 2013 #285

If we have to shill for big Ag get the red out Sep 2013 #179

IF GMO'S WERE GOOD FOR YOU - THEY WOULD WANT THEM TO BE LABELED! Not going in my body. grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #195

They are as good for you as any other type of food. HuckleB Sep 2013 #213

Absolute BULLSHIT. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #216

Here's the thing. HuckleB Sep 2013 #222

And the science says GMO's are BAD.... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #224

No, it doesn't. HuckleB Sep 2013 #227

Yes it does. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #237

You found a fear-mongering site pushing BS pseudoscience. HuckleB Sep 2013 #240

You posted a response not having read the material. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #244

You clearly did not read the links I posted to sites that actually dig into the science. HuckleB Sep 2013 #247

"You've got to spend some time with the real science"... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #257

NO! HuckleB Sep 2013 #261

Without reading the report...damn that is scientific... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #265

So you think you can push crap upon others and then make excuses when they point that it's crap. HuckleB Sep 2013 #268

You haven't read it, but offer your opinion...tell me again how I'M the one that's full of crap... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #289

Once again you prove that haven't read any of my posts. HuckleB Sep 2013 #290

As previously stated the site can be whatever it wants, the report, with it's SCIENCE... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #294

No matter how many times you make the claim, it's not science. HuckleB Sep 2013 #301

READ.THE.REPORT. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #303

Yes, it's fun to misquote actual science with the aim of misinforming others. HuckleB Sep 2013 #311

Then why don't you want them labeled? grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #230

Let's label every single method for changing the properties of plants! HuckleB Sep 2013 #234

Can't answer my question? If it was good for you - they would want it to be labeled, heck, they'd grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #241

Your question was answered. HuckleB Sep 2013 #243

HAHAHA. You're not to be taken seriously then. That was a reply, not an answer. grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #250

So, I answer, but you pretend I didn't. HuckleB Sep 2013 #255

A reply is not an answer. If they were good for you, grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #269

My reply is a complete and thorough answer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #274

HAHAHAHAHAHA. BuhBye;) I hope they pay well! grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #278

How much do you make pushing unjustified fear upon the public? HuckleB Sep 2013 #281

Not enough! LOL grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #282

You mean "too much." HuckleB Sep 2013 #292

Did Kenji help write that I wonder? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #302

Interesting reply. LanternWaste Sep 2013 #326

Well, my reply was a very clear answer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #329

Not you as well.... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #249

I've writtin him/her/it off as a paid corporate Shill at this point, LOL grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #253

Where's my check!? HuckleB Sep 2013 #256

That's the conclusion I have to draw as well.... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #260

DERP! HuckleB Sep 2013 #264

Seriously, that's the best you've got? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #267

Now that is a cute hat. HuckleB Sep 2013 #270

ROFL!!! OMG, I'm dying!!!! grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #280

Tumor pics and info: grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #235

Really? You trotted out Seralini? HuckleB Sep 2013 #239

AN ORGANIC FARMER AND A GENETICIST WALK INTO A FIELD HuckleB Sep 2013 #283

K&R idwiyo Sep 2013 #308

No independent research, no science. Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #310

None of your claims are true. HuckleB Sep 2013 #313

Does Monsanto and co allow independent research on their products? Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #315

Genetically engineered science Precisely Sep 2013 #316

You failed to write science in all caps and therefore didn't convince me!!!11!! Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #318

LINK PLEASE Precisely Sep 2013 #320

Really? HuckleB Sep 2013 #321

Derp di derp? Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #340

What's wrong with people Precisely Sep 2013 #317

Nothing. HuckleB Sep 2013 #322

That sentence may be a bit off Precisely Sep 2013 #327

Nope. HuckleB Sep 2013 #330

Who the $%&& are you TALKING about? Precisely Sep 2013 #339

So all these people pushing fear without evidence to justify fear aren't pushing fear? HuckleB Sep 2013 #345

"all these people" Precisely Sep 2013 #352

So, you have nothing but lies to offer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #361

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Precisely Sep 2013 #362

Where is the independent study showing that GMO food causes long term harm? Glassunion Sep 2013 #324

The problem with that equation is that hybridization only happens via genetic modification. HuckleB Sep 2013 #331

No it does not. Glassunion Sep 2013 #333

Thus, you admit that don't understand how biology, chemistry and genetics work. HuckleB Sep 2013 #334

So please oh wise one enlighten me on the difference. Glassunion Sep 2013 #335

Uh, are you serious? HuckleB Sep 2013 #336

I feel it is you that does not understand the science. Glassunion Sep 2013 #337

Just a kid playing tough with Dad's dictionary. nt Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #341

You're offering up a very simplistic definition that ignores how those things happen. HuckleB Sep 2013 #344

If you can't explain it simply, you probably don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein Glassunion Sep 2013 #348

No, you're ignoring the cellular level, and that's just for starters. HuckleB Sep 2013 #349

I am ignoring nothing. Glassunion Sep 2013 #350

Yes, you are. HuckleB Sep 2013 #359

I'm afraid I am not. Glassunion Sep 2013 #363

Big Ag certainly has good branding. LanternWaste Sep 2013 #325

Really? HuckleB Sep 2013 #332

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #342

That the shills for the chem-companies don't want labels tells you everything you need to know. Romulox Sep 2013 #346

Buddhist Economics and A GMO rethink by Pamela Ronald HuckleB Sep 2013 #347

Corporate woo -- "nothing to see here! Trust us! Dismiss all critics! This stuff is good for you!" villager Sep 2013 #351

Bullshit. Archae Sep 2013 #353

Yes. You're quite comfortable spouting corporate-sanctioned versions of it. villager Sep 2013 #354

You really hate ACTUAL science, don't you... Archae Sep 2013 #355

Says the poster with the one-word "bullshit" replies? villager Sep 2013 #357

Read above. Archae Sep 2013 #358

+1,000,000,000 .... 000 HuckleB Sep 2013 #360