General Discussion

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

46. Anti-GMOer Benbrook's opinion piece DOES NOT represent the NEJM.

Mon Sep 14, 2015, 03:33 PM

Sep 2015

How do you fail to understand that a publication does not support everything that is published in it?

GMOs, Herbicides, and the New England Journal of Medicine
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/08/gmos-herbicides-and-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine/

The Dying Gasp Of Chuck Benbrook's Credibility
http://www.science20.com/science_20/the_dying_gasp_of_chuck_benbrooks_credibility-156906

Anti-GMO in the NEJM
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-gmo-in-the-nejm/

Why would you repeat a claim that is clearly not true?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Genetic engineering turns a common plant into a cancer fighter [View all] HuckleB Sep 2015 OP

Science... Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #1

On edit: HuckleB Sep 2015 #2

Perhaps I should have said, "Real Science, not mad science." Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #3

science without religion is lame SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #9

I perfer to take my science straight up Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #10

one of the many way you differ from Albert Einstein SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #13

One sure way to tell when someone has nothing to say Orrex Sep 2015 #15

Woo woo credo #36... SidDithers Sep 2015 #17

There are some clowns on this board that are so very easy SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #19

You mean you refer to science you don't like as that of "corporate shills." HuckleB Sep 2015 #21

Post removed Post removed Sep 2015 #22

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. HuckleB Sep 2015 #23

Post removed Post removed Sep 2015 #26

Awww. That's cute. Thanks for the kick. HuckleB Sep 2015 #27

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #28

No, I don't. I advocate for ethical choices, using evidence. HuckleB Sep 2015 #32

what is an ethical choice SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #33

I've done so, repeatedly. HuckleB Sep 2015 #34

It looks as if there is no philosophical rigor to your ethics SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #35

Oh, goodness. You think your choice to ignore most evidence means something. HuckleB Sep 2015 #37

you ignore reality SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #39

I don't ignore reality, and that's what bothers you. HuckleB Sep 2015 #40

Reality - Science - Ethics SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #47

Thanks for proving my point, again. HuckleB Sep 2015 #52

Science brought you antibiotics, vaccines, xrays, electricity, pacemakers, antivirals,and much more. Hoyt Sep 2015 #53

"Science" didn't "bring" us any of those things. AlbertCat Sep 2015 #63

Tell us Einstein's thoughts on Genetic Engineering Lordquinton Sep 2015 #55

Post removed Post removed Sep 2015 #60

I listen to real scientist AlbertCat Sep 2015 #62

Religion is lame MattBaggins Sep 2015 #14

. Major Nikon Sep 2015 #56

Religion with or without science is lame Orrex Sep 2015 #16

Religion is an insult to human dignity - Steven Weinberg...nt SidDithers Sep 2015 #18

Prove it. HuckleB Sep 2015 #20

I guess we'll be waiting for proof for a long time. Hmm. HuckleB Sep 2015 #24

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression & product of human weaknesses" progressoid Sep 2015 #29

Very very good SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #48

That is exactly what he is not doing. progressoid Sep 2015 #49

I suggest you read the 4 essays in his book Ideas and Opinions - Science /Religion SoLeftIAmRight Sep 2015 #50

science without religion is lame AlbertCat Sep 2015 #58

Science is.. PasadenaTrudy Sep 2015 #4

Very nice. I love it. -eom- HuckleB Sep 2015 #5

From this.. PasadenaTrudy Sep 2015 #8

+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Sep 2015 #25

that cant be right. genetic engineering is always bad. mopinko Sep 2015 #6

But, but, but...GMOs are bad! Evil! Owned by Monsanto! Deadshot Sep 2015 #7

Great. And that also means that GE could turn a common plant into a cancer producer. pnwmom Sep 2015 #11

No work is needed quaker bill Sep 2015 #30

in principle, I suppose that's possible... mike_c Sep 2015 #51

My tiny brain is having a hard time with this one. Rex Sep 2015 #12

the researchers inserted genes for the enzymes that make podophyllotoxin into... mike_c Sep 2015 #54

I see, thanks for explaining it to me. Rex Sep 2015 #57

not really, although that's a common misunderstanding.... mike_c Sep 2015 #61

And the goats on fire brigade will appear shortly. GoneOffShore Sep 2015 #31

Great news, BigPharma can now make a common chemo drug more cheaply. RiverLover Sep 2015 #36

In other words, you're going to keep pushing fiction-based fear about GMOs. HuckleB Sep 2015 #38

Yes, the New England Journal of Medicine & I are pushing fears not facts RiverLover Sep 2015 #42

An opinion piece by an individual does not represent the NEJM. HuckleB Sep 2015 #44

I know you have trouble distinguishing, but it is a FACT that New England Journal of Med RiverLover Sep 2015 #45

Anti-GMOer Benbrook's opinion piece DOES NOT represent the NEJM. HuckleB Sep 2015 #46

An opinion piece written by a 3rd party constitutes the official position of the NEJM? Major Nikon Sep 2015 #59

Damn it! Somebody has to say the worn-out line: I welcome our Plant Overlords. BlueJazz Sep 2015 #41

That's impossiable... Lancero Sep 2015 #43

So many medicinal plants... And so little time before they fall into our commercial paths JudyM Sep 2015 #64

There are a lot of such claims, but few are supported by strong evidence. HuckleB Sep 2015 #65

That's largely a function of the economics of scientific review. JudyM Sep 2015 #66

No, it's not. HuckleB Sep 2015 #67