Companies Hide Dangers; Attack Scientists
As we have discussed the abuse of science for Global Warming purveyors, here is something else to consider. While this may not be concrete evidence they seem to have some pretty good evidence to say GMO food should not be used. One issue is trying to ever know if it is in your food supply or not.
Campaign contributions!
Money that helps to keep conniving old farts for professional politicians in office.
I think, in the near future once the farming communities realize how the climate will effect growing crops and develop and utilize hydroponic methods, indoors...away from the coming climate extremes that we will no longer need Pesticides, weed killers or GMOs...and the compartmentalized mindless creatures will shrink away in the corner and perhaps a new, mindful, integrated and moral scientific community will be born.
GMO means knowing exactly what changes you are making. That does not make the changes good or bad, of course, each change has to be evaluated on it's own basis. This is why using GMO as if it were a single thing is absurd.
It's technology. If you are anti-GMO you are anti-technology. Feel free, of course, to be opposed to the product which is round-up resistant if you have evidence that it is dangerous.
So until we change our health protocols to deal with the causes and not the symptoms; get back to real natural foods and perhaps more responsible, honest science only then we will start to live longer like those that are living into their 90's now.
That makes all the difference in the world over the long haul...they had it good when they were young. Today...the young are bombarded by the worst of all those things.
Another interesting fact is that on some of the Caribbean islands they smoke real unprocessed tobacco and there is no cancer there...I learned that from people who lived there.
I'm just pointing some objective observations that put into question all this rhetoric...you have to look at the big picture. Nothing is as it seems these days.
I will revert back to my original point....obesity and laziness is such a major factor that any effect by these other issues is either insignificant, or covered up by the effects of weight and lack of exercise.
Foods loaded with processed and fake sugar and no exercise is one of the main problems but we also are eating poison meat and pesticide laden fruits and vegetables which our parents or grandparents didn't have and most people bought or grew their food locally...not to mention there were a lot less people living in the cities...
The whole way of growing our food has changed, the environment has changed in many purposed, natural and unintended ways due to a shear lack of Wide Scope Accountability...-accentually- considering all possibilities and if you get it wrong you take action and fix it- not keep it quiet until someone dies due to your incompetence.
I've only been studying this stuff for twenty years now and haven't even had so much as a cold during that time.
Lon way to ask for a biological start point. Poppy's did they start in Asia. Cocoa plant in the Andes of South America? What did Africa contribute? Ah yes....people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis
Ah yes...running their pot farms in Oregon.
I have been reading: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M Drunker. He goes back to the beginning and points out the problems, misconception, attitudes and hubris inherent in the scientific community. No doubt there is fraud and coercion here.
I could be observed that much of these perversions are purposed and if one has doubt then why does it seem that every head and many employed by the FDA come from Monsanto. It also is very clear that rigorous testing has never been done, they are convinced that they are only engaging in a natural process.
Well Nature or even your fathers good eugenics of combining two different apples to get a new variety never involved, aids viruses, monkey parts, or by passing the natural barriers nature provides for each species.
At best...the creatures that engage in this process are highly compartmentalized and unaware and at worst...are engaged in depopulation which will not only endanger conscious human life but all life on this planet.
And there is no scientific reason for making the distinction. Genes are genes how they got there is less important than what they do.
What ever happened to responsibility, accountability, common sense and doing no harm to the end users of your product or services.
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/inde...
Then there are sites that call out what The Hill reports:
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO...
2012:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2...
Here is a good discussion on the issue with the Rat Study and why Monsanto's 90 day study was less efficacious than the 2 year study:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Trut...
Before they released this mess, there should have been short, medium and long term studies, rigorously tested and publicly available. Because of "secrecy" and concerns about "proprietary data" (and you could suspect a "give a rat" attitude) that was not done, and there is also some concern that a whole boatload of Monsanto exe's are in the FDA. Conflict of interest? I am not sure of "The Hills" propaganda roots, whether they are pro any group, but I would say that after the issues of the past ( and current ones such as the issue of bovine hormones added to dairy and meat causing early puberty and accelerated growth in girls) the unintended consequence factor is such that great care is needed when creating these things. I do not see our government, or large conglomerates as necessarily having "great care". Call me a skeptic, but that's how I see it.
easily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9...
"Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of http://NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
Tags: GMO study, cancer tumors, organ damage
(NaturalNews) Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That's the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto's genetically modified corn.
The study has been deemed "the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats." News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors... tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.
"Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in 'shocking' new cancer study" wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. (http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/tec......)
It reported, "Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females."
The Daily Mail reported, "Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec......)
It goes on to say: "The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."
The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs. You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GM corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.
The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO..."
Here is where you find the dilemma: There were objections that the variety of rat used is predisposed to develop tumors. That seems very strange, in that such a strain would then be useless for such research, which also then implies either the person doing the research was stupid, or manipulative. Can't say either way. The correct rebuttal to all of this would have been to do a follow up study, with a variety of rat known to not have any such defect (why would that variety ever be used at all?), and see if the data is the same. The wiki article is very well cited, and seems to be the opposite side of the coin from the Hill article. My real problem is I cannot believe either side of this story, in that there is such a huge influence between money, power, corporations and anti corporation groups, that each is in a propaganda war, and manipulation appears to be on both sides. Meanwhile, everyone misses the main target: Is this crap indeed safe and non toxic?
My cancer tissue was sent to CA for a oncotype genetic test which allowed me to decline chemo. Markers are in the low normal range now. Insurance wouldn't pay for the $4K test so testing company wrote it off as research expense.
I stopped asking that question because nobody seemed to be able to understand the difference between the two or what that difference might mean!
Critical Thinking is DEAD.
Just another example.
If the GMO'd seeds lets plants resist Roundup, it should be a simple test to see if the FRUIT of the plants contains more Roundup (or anything else that might be dangerous to us) than the non-GMO Roundup-UN-resistant breeds!
But 'they' NEVER provide that data, so I have no 'view' until they do... just the question they don't seem willing or able to answer...
Like finding tumors in rats fed GMO grain... Well, shit, dude, WE Don't Eat GMO Grain... we eat the stuff that GROWS ON the Plants that Grow from those seeds.
The danger is implied, not demonstrated.
This is Not Fucking Rocket Surgery!
Critical Thinking IS DEAD.
Cheers!
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...
note: probably biased, but some references
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphos...
Seems a bit more balanced.
https://entomology.ca.uky.edu/ef130
The "scholarly" view.
We eat the seeds that the Seed Grain Plants Produce!
So if someone says GMO seeds are dangerous, I object to that illogical 'conclusion.'
If Roundup is sprayed onto crops before harvest, the problem is NOT the GMO SEEDS from which the crops grew, it's any residual Roundup that's absorbed By The Crops! You could call that a misuse of Roundup, not GMO technology.
THAT's Critical Thinking in operation.
Sorry.
I do not know if the 'fruit' from the plants grown from GMO seeds retain the same genetic markers of the seeds planted to grow them.
Interesting question. That makes sense (what you said) but still leaves unanswered questions.
Good points!
Monsanto actually has several choices, I'd guess... do the contractual-limitation route, like a copyright kind of thing, or try to make enough profit off the initial sale of the GM seeds to cover losses to 'future competitors.'
Then again, if Monsanto's GM folks are REALLY up to the job, they would be looking at GM-ing seeds so that the seeds Of The Offspring Plants do NOT produce Roundup-resistant plants!
THAT would be a coup and a hard one to fight in court, eh?
Wonder if they're working on that. I'm not usually the first or only 'layman' to think of things like that...
:)
:)
Farmers, Monsanto... etc.,...
It's certainly possible to modify or breed organisms to be dangerous or to be safe and the safety has to be determined independent of the means of making the genetic change.
I'm quite skeptical of this. If GMO modified corn (which modification?) is so dangerous lots of people should be dropping dead by now.
More anti-science hype.
This is a difficult issue to understand, as a layman.
If you have expertise in this apecific area, I'd like to hear it, William.
Qui bono.
Is there any 'time limit' ever expressed when looking at "long term risks"?
I never seem to hear any specification on that.
I heard an old joke about 'acetylsalycilic acid causing universal sterility after ten or twenty generations' use...'
But 'aspirin' hasn't been around, per se, long enough to meet that 'threshold of safety' or be proven to NOT cause universal sterility...