Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. => Topic started by: Tommy on November 15, 2016, 10:24:01 pm
-
http://redrockdaily.com/monsanto-scrambling-bury-breaking-story-dont-let-go-unshared/
-
Thanks Tommy. I forwarded the link.
-
This is a hack job going after Monsanto at best. That's exactly why no one is picking it and reporting it. Scientifically, it's garbage and it should be treated as such.
"The testing and analysis was performed at the request of FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW!, in coordination with THE DETOX PROJECT, which gathered additional scientific evidence from around the world and included a compendium of independent research on glyphosate." There's also been no peer review so they can report anything they want. Their agenda is very clear if you look up the organizations so I'd not believe diddle of what they claim until they can be peer reviewed to check the "facts".
http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/
"The statement about 0.1 ppb being the lower limit for harm to human health is misleading, as only one of the studies listed as providing support for that claim actually tested an amount that low; the test was performed on mice, not humans, and it used the word "potential", not "probable". The FDA's limit for allowable concentrations in drinking water, though controversial, is is 700 ppb, though there are a number of studies using animals that have found evidence of potential harm below that level"
-
Thank you D Coates! I wanted to debunk this yesterday but didn't have the energy. My BS meter was going crazy as soon as I opened that link. Any web page that is that sensationalist or has that many click bait advertisements is not to be trusted, especially when it comes to scientific information.
-
Thank you D Coates! I wanted to debunk this yesterday but didn't have the energy. My BS meter was going crazy as soon as I opened that link. Any web page that is that sensationalist or has that many click bait advertisements is not to be trusted, especially when it comes to scientific information.
Just about anything on the internet is not to be trusted. With the exception of beekeepers, of course, who are almost always trustworthy insofar as they all have opinions, which may be right...or not.
-
I disagree Dallas. There are plenty of fantastic and very reliable sources on the web.. we have all the knowledge in the world at our finger tips with the Internet. Unfortunately, we also have all the world's crap at our fingertips, you just need to now how to filter it out. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, and always check the resources.
I just meant I will not ever believe scientific info I find on a website with banners such as "DID BRANGELINA REALLY CHEAT? CLICK HERE TO SEE BRAD'S REACTION"
-
http://naturalsociety.com/17-scientists-speak-out-monsantos-roundup-is-causing-cancer
-
https://www.intellihub.com/admhttps://www.intellihub.com/admits-monsantos-glyphosate-probably-causes-cancer-chemical-found-75-air-rain-samples/its-monsantos-glyphosate-probably-causes-cancer-chemical-found-75-air-rain-samples/
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/052862_Glyphosate_Roundup_cancer.html
-
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/glyphosate-roundup-linked-cancer-lymph-tissue-new-study
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POhtOUp15as
-
Thank you D Coates! I wanted to debunk this yesterday but didn't have the energy. My BS meter was going crazy as soon as I opened that link. Any web page that is that sensationalist or has that many click bait advertisements is not to be trusted, especially when it comes to scientific information.
So only websites that are sponsored by large corps are to be trusted?
-
So only websites that are sponsored by large corps are to be trusted?
Yes Flyboy I get all my scientific information from BigPharma.com ... Is there an eye rolling emoji?
Read my next post down from the one that you quoted:
There are plenty of fantastic and very reliable sources on the web.. we have all the knowledge in the world at our finger tips with the Internet. Unfortunately, we also have all the world's crap at our fingertips, you just need to now how to filter it out. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, and always check the resources
You need to know what sources are accurate, what are complete bunk (Brangelina ads are a good sign), and what sources are biased. I was lucky in my university degree teaching me a great deal about peer reviewed scientific articles, studies etc. People can form an opinion based on whatever they like but if they google "glyphosate causes cancer"and go to the first Google result, do you think they're accurately researching the issue?
-
So only websites that are sponsored by large corps are to be trusted?
Yes Flyboy I get all my scientific information from BigPharma.com ... Is there an eye rolling emoji?
Read my next post down from the one that you quoted:
There are plenty of fantastic and very reliable sources on the web.. we have all the knowledge in the world at our finger tips with the Internet. Unfortunately, we also have all the world's crap at our fingertips, you just need to now how to filter it out. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, and always check the resources
You need to know what sources are accurate, what are complete bunk (Brangelina ads are a good sign), and what sources are biased. I was lucky in my university degree teaching me a great deal about peer reviewed scientific articles, studies etc. People can form an opinion based on whatever they like but if they google "glyphosate causes cancer"and go to the first Google result, do you think they're accurately researching the issue?
"
So I get that you did not bother with my link. Wouldn't want to spoil that good mind with facts.
My link to her was not based on a MahaguruGoogle search because for the record Stephanie Seneff is leading the pack in regards to research on the topic of glyphosphate. https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
She won't get rich on it, as nobody who casts a shadow on a large corporation does.
I am sure that you are aware of the soft underbelly of the "scientific" world where money is king. Money unfortunately pays for the "genteel" websites that you seem to be referring to. I am sure that having gone through the university system, being an avowed "skeptic" you must have noticed the connection between "scientific research" and corporations sponsoring it... wink wink... and how universities and indeed professors live on the proceeds of science, so lets not upset our corporate sponsors wink wink....
Reminds me of the cartoon I saw once that showed this young researcher getting a blast from his professor who in essence says:
"The heck you've found a cure for cancer, we depend on the research grants".
Then of course there are the lobbyists/politicos who get stuff like glyphosphate/aspartame etc. "approved" with no long term studies and how that system works. There are enough books on that topic to fill a library.
So having said this, maybe check out Stephanie's website and the studies she has referenced and maybe you will understand why Monsanto has been losing money. You can fool some of the PPL some of the time....
Here is a start on her resume:
" Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. She has published over 170 refereed articles on these subjects, and has been invited to give keynote speeches at several international conferences. She has also supervised numerous Master's and PhD theses at MIT. In 2012, Dr. Seneff was elected Fellow of the International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA).
In recent years, Dr. Seneff has focused her research interests back towards biology. She is concentrating mainly on the relationship between nutrition and health. Since 2011, she has published over two dozen papers in various medical and health-related journals on topics such as modern day diseases (e.g., Alzheimer, autism, cardiovascular diseases), analysis and search of databases of drug side effects using NLP techniques, and the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health. "
-
No fan of Monsanto here, but with internet credibility being discussed I'd like to share a link to a video of Sharyl Attkisson talking about corporate interests and their manipulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU)
I was surprised to find Wikipedia can be manipulated so easily.
I'm old enough to remember the news stories of farmers being sued out of business by Monsanto. Yep, back when news was news. Since then I've yet to come across something positive about them.
-
Bobism, Great link.
Some of y'all have a good time assuming all the bad "news" from questionable sources is correct and convince yourself the sky is falling. As a past "greenie" I remember back in the 70's all the claims of this and that. I was scared to death and was convinced once all the claims came true people would have to take the claims seriously. The 80's passed, then the 90's, then the 2000's. More and more doom and gloom claims were made through those decades too. I'm still waiting for the promised ice age that was hyped in the mid 70's. It was the same time when "Jungles" became "Rain forests." I've gotten to where I now understand this is how they raise funds and stir the pot, so to speak. Money is claimed to the the root behind it and conspiracies to cover the "truth" are tossed out too. Hogwash.
If it's so easy to prove why has it not been done? There are all types of trial lawyer who'd LOVE to take a big bite out of Monsanto's fat wallet. Those lawyers have got deep pockets but they don't see the so easily claimed "smoking gun." Why?, apparently the claims aren't valid. Until there's a successful lawsuit or class action lawsuit this is nothing but propaganda spouted and respouted by groups with the same or similar agendas. Repeat the same thing enough, and eventually it's hopefully going to be perceived as the truth. Though it's not...
To me the goal here is to change the public perception not find the actual truth.
-
Bobism, Great link.
Some of y'all have a good time assuming all the bad "news" from questionable sources is correct and convince yourself the sky is falling. As a past "greenie" I remember back in the 70's all the claims of this and that. I was scared to death and was convinced once all the claims came true people would have to take the claims seriously. The 80's passed, then the 90's, then the 2000's. More and more doom and gloom claims were made through those decades too. I'm still waiting for the promised ice age that was hyped in the mid 70's. It was the same time when "Jungles" became "Rain forests." I've gotten to where I now understand this is how they raise funds and stir the pot, so to speak. Money is claimed to the the root behind it and conspiracies to cover the "truth" are tossed out too. Hogwash.
If it's so easy to prove why has it not been done? There are all types of trial lawyer who'd LOVE to take a big bite out of Monsanto's fat wallet. Those lawyers have got deep pockets but they don't see the so easily claimed "smoking gun." Why?, apparently the claims aren't valid. Until there's a successful lawsuit or class action lawsuit this is nothing but propaganda spouted and respouted by groups with the same or similar agendas. Repeat the same thing enough, and eventually it's hopefully going to be perceived as the truth. Though it's not...
To me the goal here is to change the public perception not find the actual truth.
Nice try, Monsanto has been the ones who have been making most of their recent years profits off of the farmers that they have been suing.
My links were to scientific data, not "the sky is falling stuff". "Sky is falling stuff" is the same as the "lets just keep driving off this cliff" stuff. I quoted science not "belief" systems.
-
Nice try, Monsanto has been the ones who have been making most of their recent years profits off of the farmers that they have been suing.
Most of their profit has been made off the farmers they've been suing? You're willing to die on that field with that definitive claim?
If not, let's stop with the "semi truths" that are trying to be masqueraded as fact. If so, do me a huge favor and back this up. Show me the "profits" they're showing on their public revenue statements. Then, show me the legal cases where they've won in numbers that get close to the profits they show on their revenue statements in those respective years.
You can't. Just like your claims of scientific "facts" it's hogwash. If it's so easily repeatable and accepted why hasn't a class action suit been successful? Because it's not scientifically repeatable, i.e., it's pseudoscience.
-
Nice try, Monsanto has been the ones who have been making most of their recent years profits off of the farmers that they have been suing.
Most of their profit has been made off the farmers they've been suing? You're willing to die on that field with that definitive claim?
If not, let's stop with the "semi truths" that are trying to be masqueraded as fact. If so, do me a huge favor and back this up. Show me the "profits" they're showing on their public revenue statements. Then, show me the legal cases where they've won in numbers that get close to the profits they show on their revenue statements in those respective years.
You can't. Just like your claims of scientific "facts" it's hogwash. If it's so easily repeatable and accepted why hasn't a class action suit been successful? Because it's not scientifically repeatable, i.e., it's pseudoscience.
I understand that you make/made a living as a lawyer and as such, the art of arguing and it's associated hyperbole* has been honed to a fine edge, particularly since you have been doing it for so long. Interestingly you share the field with Hilary: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/hillary-clinton-gmo-support-monsanto-ties-spark-ba/
I notice that you also did not read the science that I linked to and you referred to work done by an employee of MIT with a list of degrees that I also included on my post, as "Pseudoscience". MIT will be interested in knowing of your opinion. Very clever as a lawyer to avoid the topic of import and go off on another rant. Isn't that referred to as "obsfucation" **.
I do not intend to "die on that field" to back up anything I say, as well you no doubt would never 'die on that field' to back up all of the nonsensical things that you have said over your long and illustrious career. After all you only get to die once. That is called in layman's terms "exaggeratin' ", :grin: but in legal terms it would be puffery.***
* hy-per-bo-le
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
** To totally obscure with non-germane information in a verbose manner, with the intent to provide a non-answer, and provide total befuddlement.
*** In law, puffery is a promotional statement or claim that expresses subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally. Puffery serves to "puff up" an exaggerated image of what is being described and is especially featured in testimonials.
-
You understand I am/was a lawyer? I've never been in the legal field in any way shape or form. Complete nonsense like much of what you claim. You have no way of knowing if I did or didn't read the link you posted. If I found an MIT grad that claimed the moon was made of cheese would you automatically believe it? They are after all an MIT grad and couldn't possibly have a biased agenda (sarcasm intended)
Thank you for making my point very clearly. Cheers. :wink:
-
You understand I am/was a lawyer? I've never been in the legal field in any way shape or form. Complete nonsense like much of what you claim. You have no way of knowing if I did or didn't read the link you posted. If I found an MIT grad that claimed the moon was made of cheese would you automatically believe it? They are after all an MIT grad and couldn't possibly have a biased agenda (sarcasm intended)
Thank you for making my point very clearly. Cheers. :wink:
Oops, made a mistake. Thought I had read that in a prior post. So you are saying that you read the science that SS posted on her site. Great and what part did you specifically disagree with?
-
D Coates I might love you. I can't stand all this jumping up and down about EEEVVIILLLL corporations who are destroying the world. They've made crazy advances in their fields, GMO foods are (for the most part, before you start quoting specific examples) totally fine by my book - that's humans being humans (and it's pretty cool).
Fact is glyphosate has never been proven repeatedly and beyond doubt to be harmful. Some studies say yes, some say no. Yes, if you drink a bottle of the stuff you die, yes it can probably increase the risk of certain cancers at certain concentrations (much like pretty much anything else in your life, including but not limited to alcohol, air pollution, sunburn, cured and smoked meats such as ham and bacon) but who cares? If you aren't a teetotalling vegetarian that never goes in the sun you obviously don't care about increased risks of cancer, so stop jumping up and down about whether or not glyphosate might be harmful just because Monsanto makes it.
-
Plural, you've made many assumptions and mistakes of me so far.
Though I have a college degree I've watched enough of the video link to realize I am simply not educated enough in what she's talking about to understand her. I am not going to assume she's correct nor incorrect. In the field I am in I could throw all kinds of jargon about that would leave all but those in this industry scratching their heads too. However, there are plenty of lawyers who do understand her language and if she's got something plausible enough to believe they have a snowballs chance in hades they'd roll the dice to try to take a big bite out of Monsanto. They don't. Actions speak louder than words here.
What is your educational background that you can understand exactly what she's talking about? Or, is it that she's saying what you want to hear/believe but you have no idea if what she's saying is true? Being an MIT grad is final card played to support her credibility. No one from MIT could be biased or a cracked pot? Seriously..., ask yourself these questions.
PhilK, I was in Brisbane about 6 weeks ago flying back to the states. Had some 4X, Brisbane Bitter and brought some Tim tams back for the kids.
-
I don't know about the good or bad of thier products and I do use roundup if I feel like it. I do however believe that the genetic stuff being patented and then polinating another crop that used differrent seed is none of their buisness
So to my mind it pays to be leary of any inity that is profit motivated from isulation companys that sold asbestas to baby powder companies to the guy down the street that said he got the car from a little old lady from passadina. They have the money to try and prove it is their profit and not yours and just because they end up bing wrong, they won't go to jail so the incentive is there.
So the point was made that monsanto has money and if anybody found a way they would try to get it, I say the same thing motivates monsanto and I am glad that they get watched but I am using thier products at this time.
Cheers
gww
-
My point is that I would like the PPL who choose to know, to be aware of the science regarding glyphosphate. If someone chooses to consume products which contain it, like the first poster showed, then great, we all pick our poison.
I (and my daughters and their children) ditched those manufactured foods long ago anyways, as well as cut back substantially on my bread consumption for a couple of reasons. One was that I was starting to lose sight of my toes :cheesy: and the other is that farmers apparently use glyphosphate to kill the wheat so they can harvest it on a schedule in chosen weather. I say great, good luck to them, but I ain't buyin their product so good luck to those who do. It's better for the pension system if there are less subscribers after those same rascals in government that gamed the corporate world also stole from the pension system.
I think it's amusing that PPL feel they have a right to force others what to eat and believe that labeling of whats in food is a sin. Again I say good luck to 'em as I do my best to grow my own food and therefore limit my garbage intake.
-
So what you're saying is you don't actually understand science of the link you're promoting as proof of the evils of glyphosate? You have no idea if what she's saying is actually true but you're promoting it as proof? Do you see the flaw here?
-
So what you're saying is you don't actually understand science of the link you're promoting as proof of the evils of glyphosate? You have no idea if what she's saying is actually true but you're promoting it as proof? Do you see the flaw here?
Again I suggest that ya' actually read it my friend. Even if you don't understand every word you get the jist of it. Then you can choose.
As I said, I ain't selling anything, just being the messenger and you know it's not a wise thing to shoot the messenger.
-
Again I suggest that ya' actually read it my friend. Even if you don't understand every word you get the jist of it. Then you can choose.
As I said, I ain't selling anything, just being the messenger and you know it's not a wise thing to shoot the messenger.
I completely disagree that you're not trying to sell something. You're selling this a proof of your position though you yourself don't even understand if it's real. There could be (and invariably is) one thing that's being left out or ignored that allows her to make these claims that supports her agenda. This makes this whole thing garbage. But, the ill informed will tout her claims as proof and using her MIT degree as proof of her credentials.
However, what I do understand that those who do live in this language apparently aren't buying it as there's no class action lawsuit. She makes it sound so simple yet clearly it isn't otherwise it'd be in the courts. Ignore that fact all you wish but, layers love class action suits against huge companies. There's clearly something floating in your punchbowl of proof.
There's nothing to read, it's a video and I've seen enough to know I don't know the terms she's using, if they are being used correctly, and if what she is claiming is even plausible. Apparently you don't know any of this either but are willing to accept it because it supports your position. Even if something supports my position unless I understand it I won't quote it. Quoting something as "proof" when you don't understand it seems highly hypocritical and a great way to get used as a parrot to carry someone else's water.
-
Bck on post # 13 I gave her website. Here 'tis:
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
-
... farmers apparently use glyphosphate to kill the wheat so they can harvest it on a schedule in chosen weather.
What do you mean by 'apparently'? Who told you this? Why do you believe it?
That sounds like absolute crap to me. Using glyphosate would in no way, shape, or form make a crop ready to harvest. Farmers plant their crops knowing how long it will take for them to ripen and knowing when they want to harvest. If you poisoned an avocado tree that had half ripe fruits, do you think you could harvest and eat those fruits? No. Same goes for wheat. Also, do you think farmers repeatedly spraying their crop fields with plant killing chemicals is a smart way to ensure they can grow crops the next season..?
Sounds like another instance where a little common sense and being skeptical of what you have heard or read could really help.
PhilK, I was in Brisbane about 6 weeks ago flying back to the states. Had some 4X, Brisbane Bitter and brought some Tim tams back for the kids.
Hope you enjoyed it mate! I live about 2 minutes form the XXXX brewery. Was it hot while you were here? It's been stinking hot recently!
-
Bck on post # 13 I gave her website. Here 'tis:
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
This is a goldmine, have you looked at who is funding her talks and papers?
'Seeds of Truth' are one of her biggest sponsors judging by your link, and they don't even have a website, just a Facebook page. They quote no credible sources, are militantly against 'big corporations' and wax lyrical about harmful vaccines causing autism.. so it's safe to say we can discredit them immediately.
'Kokua Market' is another sponsor in part. They are a whole foods store in Hawaii, not a scientific or higher education facility. Reckon they might have something to gain by supporting her anti-glyphosate agenda...?
'Green Formosa Front' and 'HaoRan Foundation' don't seem quite so crazy, but are very green-leaning Taiwanese organisations who also clearly have an agenda in supporting anti-Monsanto views.
In fact, a few of her talks are about vaccines leading to autism... this is a subject for another day, but essentially came from a fraudulent study years ago, has never been proven since, and has been disproved time and time again by science. She also seems to think glyphosate causes autism, which I have not managed to find evidence of in any other scientific literature. The fact she is supporting a very clearly false idea in this regard shows that even people form MIT can be crackpots.
Earlier the issue of scientific papers being backed by 'big corporations' was brought up. This does happen in the scientific world unfortunately - people will pay scientists to conduct research to find the answers they want to get. Yes, it's very true that if a paper is funded by Monsanto it's likely to be a source of biased information.. but the same goes for the other way. If her supporters are a bunch of anti-vax greeny crackpots then it is likely she is a biased source of information. Another reason we need to remain skeptical of what we read, and look into things a little deeper. Seeing who funded the paper is always a dead give away in whether you can trust it.
-
Here 'tis from the maker of roundup
http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20Staging%20Guide.pdf
-
Bck on post # 13 I gave her website. Here 'tis:
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
This is a goldmine, have you looked at who is funding her talks and papers?
'Seeds of Truth' are one of her biggest sponsors judging by your link, and they don't even have a website, just a Facebook page. They quote no credible sources, are militantly against 'big corporations' and wax lyrical about harmful vaccines causing autism.. so it's safe to say we can discredit them immediately.
'Kokua Market' is another sponsor in part. They are a whole foods store in Hawaii, not a scientific or higher education facility. Reckon they might have something to gain by supporting her anti-glyphosate agenda...?
'Green Formosa Front' and 'HaoRan Foundation' don't seem quite so crazy, but are very green-leaning Taiwanese organisations who also clearly have an agenda in supporting anti-Monsanto views.
In fact, a few of her talks are about vaccines leading to autism... this is a subject for another day, but essentially came from a fraudulent study years ago, has never been proven since, and has been disproved time and time again by science. She also seems to think glyphosate causes autism, which I have not managed to find evidence of in any other scientific literature. The fact she is supporting a very clearly false idea in this regard shows that even people form MIT can be crackpots.
Earlier the issue of scientific papers being backed by 'big corporations' was brought up. This does happen in the scientific world unfortunately - people will pay scientists to conduct research to find the answers they want to get. Yes, it's very true that if a paper is funded by Monsanto it's likely to be a source of biased information.. but the same goes for the other way. If her supporters are a bunch of anti-vax greeny crackpots then it is likely she is a biased source of information. Another reason we need to remain skeptical of what we read, and look into things a little deeper. Seeing who funded the paper is always a dead give away in whether you can trust it.
So you also have not elected to read the research, just jump to conclusions. Have fun.
-
Flyboy, thanks for that link - I had no idea that was a practice in use. That seems crazy to me, but I'm certainly no farmer.
As for the rest of it, I won't waste my time reading research that is clearly biased, not to mention written by a 'scientist' who believes in the anti-vaccination movement. As I said, I'm not claiming glyphosate is entirely safe, but I also don't believe it to be the monstrous chemical that people jump up and down about.
I believe this thread will serve to any others reading it as encouragement to dig deeper, and not take things at face value. Scientific literature is fantastic but not without its biases either way, and that needs to be scrutinised whenever we view it. Unfortunately reviewing scientific literature is not a skill taught to most, unless you're in a scientific field, so a lot of people just tend to believe whatever they read, no matter who wrote it or where they read it.
I'm sure I could find you lots of 'evidence' that the world is flat if I was to search for it.
-
World isn't flat. I'm a commercial pilot and I have seen the curvature. LOL
I know what you are saying and I get it.
BTW One of my grandsons was injured by a vaccine. One if his eyes turned inward, which is exactly what Dr. Moulton a Canadian Doctor warned about. But I am not entering into that clearly unwinnable war. My daughters are risking more vaccines tho.
-
"Scientific literature is fantastic..."
Yes. Literally...
"The bulk of the world?s knowledge is an imaginary construction."--Helen Keller
-
My daughters are risking more vaccines tho.
Now I really wish I had the eye rolling emoji.. I certainly hope they get those vaccines. Only people in a first world country would ever start imagining that vaccines were evil. I'm sure there are millions of people around the world hoping against hope that they could be in a position to "risk" getting a vaccination.
"Scientific literature is fantastic..."
Yes. Literally...
Only if you're referring to the "extraordinarily good" definition of the word. You can't possibly think all scientific literature is made up or imagined, and if you do think that there is no point in ever trying to discuss otherwise. Helen Keller was certainly very wrong on that one.. she really thinks that the majority of the world's knowledge is just made up?
-
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesscientificstudies.htm
We all have our limited models of the world. The scientific method is a very limited, but useful model. I can't tell you how many things have been proven and then disproven in my life. Things that were good for you, bad for you, good for you. In reality everything in the universe is connected to everything else, but in order to manage that and solve problems we create models that are limited to what we believe are the important issues and we manipulate things within that model until we hit its limits. When we do, we either discard that model and build a new one or we can't solve the next problem. None of those models are reality. They are simplified stripped down versions of reality that we construct with our imaginations. As E.P. Box pointed out, they are always wrong, but sometimes they are useful.
-
My daughters are risking more vaccines tho.
Now I really wish I had the eye rolling emoji.. I certainly hope they get those vaccines. Only people in a first world country would ever start imagining that vaccines were evil. I'm sure there are millions of people around the world hoping against hope that they could be in a position to "risk" getting a vaccination.
"Scientific literature is fantastic..."
Yes. Literally...
Only if you're referring to the "extraordinarily good" definition of the word. You can't possibly think all scientific literature is made up or imagined, and if you do think that there is no point in ever trying to discuss otherwise. Helen Keller was certainly very wrong on that one.. she really thinks that the majority of the world's knowledge is just made up?
Sorry I didn't notice my typo. I meant to say that they are not risking any more vaccines.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know of three PPL close to me who have had serious vaccine problems;
1. my daughter whose son had his eye turn and required a very painful operation which he had to be awake for in which the Drs did some unbelievably cruel things to "straighten" the eye out. His screaming for a considerable period of time was the main clincher.
2. The son of a workmate of mine was autistic within a short period of time of receiving the "jab".
3. A close relative who interestingly enough is a Yale and Harvard grad MD (top of the class) with 2 specialties who used to roll his eyes at my warnings about vaccines for the same reasons given above. (Websites seemed to be not dignified. You know, those pesky ads) One of his children went into a coma within hours of the "jab" and was out for a couple of days. The child is also very slow in learning to speak and seems to be a bit slow generally. I believe their other child also had issues coming from it's "jab" but they weren't quite as obvious.
You can believe whatever you like, but I say that the vaccine schedule of nowadays is criminal. They give vaccines for ridiculous things and pack a large # of them together in one shot. Some of the things they give vaccines for are absurd, like sexual transmitted diseases that you might find on the streets of Mumbai. Like a 2 year old is going to have sex.
The movie "Vaxxed" is all about a whistleblower at the CDC who participated in a cover-up of the results of some vaccine studies. This guy's conscience bothered him so much that after 15 years, he blew the whistle on the results that showed amongst other things that the rates of autism were about double in the black male population. He and his coworkers had falsified their results so as to show there was no problems with the "jab". He had covertly kept a copy of the "real" results.
The crazy part is that even tho he blew the whistle, he can only have the matter examined if he is asked by Congress to testify. So all those wise and honest individuals must ask him to come forward to testify.
I heard that Trump and his wife are aware of the movie and met with the author, so we may see some results on that front, unless the rascals that tried to keep him out by various means at their disposal, manage to do him in.
Everything that I have heard is that there is way too much vaccines, way too soon. In other words they are using too many different vaccines altogether, given to children whose immune systems are not capable of handling them because they are too young. The really bizarre part is that the vaccines have never been tested/studied on children, as it is not legal or ethical to test drugs on children. So the dose is an adult dose, which they are giving to a child 1/10 to 1/30 the size of an adult.
The pseudoscience involved in this is astounding. It's basically "eeny meenie miny mo".
The bottom line is that the vaccine schedule is a goldmine to Pediatricians because if there was no 'Vaccine Schedule' parents would have no reason to bring little Johnny and Suzie to see the pediatrician.
Of course the vaccine business is practically the only major money maker for the drug companies now that antibiotics are being frowned upon due to MRSA and no new ones are being developed. You can be certain that vaccines will be coming out for everything and anything.
-
Of course the vaccine business is practically the only major money maker for the drug companies now that antibiotics are being frowned upon due to MRSA and no new ones are being developed. You can be certain that vaccines will be coming out for everything and anything.
Prove that statement. You can't help tripping over yourself can you? So I find an MIT grad that says you should be getting vaccines you're going to change your position because they're an MIT grad? You apparently understand this even less than the Roundup info you were posting as "facts." You're willing to assume it's big Pharma and their "jab" just trying to make money because it fits your world view. The Polio vaccine shows up and Polio disappears, is that a big Pharma conspiracy? All of the vaccinations are just a money making conspiracy by big Pharma and big Medical? Are you saying Canada's single payer healthcare system is in on this too? Just like it appears you're assuming, Roundup is big Ag only trying to make money selling deadly chemicals? In your mind it appears it's always some evil company that out to do harm that's why "Monsanto" appears to be such a hot button for you.
This reminds me of some protesters I ran across this weekend while enjoying the Plaza lighting ceremony in Kansas City. They were chanting all types of , pro-green, socialist/communist, anti-capitalist, anti election results slogans while carrying a Soviet flag. I at least had a good discussion of the evils of communism and socialism with my children (they're vaccinated, ...and doing fine). The last chant they had was "By any means necessary." Let that sink in. They'd be willing to do ANYTHING to get their vision (destruction of "evil" corporations, capitalism, internal combustion engines, election results, redistribution of wealth, seizing of personal property, etc.) of "social justice" enacted no matter the logic and following loss of life that must ignored. Gulags anyone? We'd be living in mud huts if they had their way. Once I finished listening to their ignorant half baked messages, I chuckled at the fools I went on my merry way and enjoyed capitalism at it's finest.
-
Jesus, flyboy, really? There is nothing so wrong as the anti vaccine movement.. except maybe homeopathy. Every credible scientific study has found them to be perfectly safe in the majority of cases. The most laughable thing about your whole post is that you call vaccines pseudoscience.. you. While you believe in the anti-vaccination movement (which is literally not based in science).
Nothing you said about dose of vaccines is true, nothing you said about 'vaccines not being studied on children' is true - ever heard of clinical trials? You know that no drug is ever approved without proof that it is safe to be used, right? I can't just put crap in a syringe and start injecting children and say "well there's no way of testing it so let's see what happens". Vaccines are given to children at a young age because that is when they work.. you need to have a basic understanding of the immune system. I will not be accepting evidence from a movie called 'Vaxxed', just the same as I won't watch a movie called 'The Beauty of Vaccines' and quote it as a reliable unbiased source.. again, you need to know how to present and find credible unbiased evidence.
What age was your grandson when his eye rolled in? You know hundreds of thousands of people have that problem and get surgery to correct it, right? Both my brothers had it when they were younger. I doubt very much it was from the vaccine. There has been NO link to autism with vaccinations. None. Zero. They just don't cause autism, sorry. Yes, you can have a reaction to a vaccine - just like you can have a reaction to a bee sting, a peanut, shellfish, pollen, the list goes on. If a few people have a bad side effect from vaccines that save literally millions of lives a year is that worth it? Absolutely yes. I bet you were vaccinated as a kid, lucky you.
The bottom line is that the vaccine schedule is a goldmine to Pediatricians because if there was no 'Vaccine Schedule' parents would have no reason to bring little Johnny and Suzie to see the pediatrician.
Oooohhh I'm pretty sure they would have a reason to go.. you know, when they get polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough etc etc. The diseases they can get vaccinated against. If you think all paediatricians do is give vaccinations then you obviously have no idea about that profession either.
The tragic thing about anti-vaxxers is that it's not the people making the decision who will suffer - it's their kids. They shouldn't be put in danger of contracting perfectly avoidable diseases because you believe in some garbage with no scientific backing. I firmly believe parents should be prosecuted for not vaccinating their children. The good thing about our society is that enough people are vaccinated to provide 'herd immunity' (look it up) to unvaccinated children so they are still unlikely to get sick. Unfortunately this reinforces to the anti-vaxxers that they were right in their decision... but the more unvaccinated kids there are, the weaker herd immunity becomes, until eventually it fails and we start getting kids becoming sick and possibly dying (I think I remember there was a measles outbreak in California this year? .. that really shouldn't be happening in 2016).
You know in countries that can't afford vaccines/have poor health care etc there are enormous rates of preventable diseases in children, and many thousands of them die.. that should be enough proof to you. If you don't want vaccines for yourself as an adult, that is fine, you're unlikely to get sick anyway and if you do it;s your own stupid fault, but don't expose children to fatal diseases from some unfounded fear of vaccinations... I hope against hope that none of your grandkids become sick because of your family's beliefs. My brother is a paediatric cardiologist and when he was doing his training he watched a young boy die for whooping cough because his parents didn't vaccinate him. Apparently it's truly a horrific way to die, and he said they darn sure changed their tune about vaccines after that.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa6JuI0CDc0&feature=youtu.be
-
Good post.
I like your avatar. :happy:
Jim
-
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/07/pesticide-found-in-70-percent-of-massachusetts-honey-samples/
-
That video has been out since '13 nothing's been banned and yet bees haven't disappeared. Is he still in business or did his doom and gloom come true? Did you happen to notice he's pouring what appears to be OA drip and there are 2 pads of unknown stuff in the various open hives he shows? Those are insecticides as well aren't they? He doesn't think those could have an impact on the success or failure of his queens? What are the interactions between the insecticides he's combining there? You can believe what you want but one of my apiaries sits next to hundreds of acres that are rotated between neonic corn and soybeans. They've done just fine for the past 10 years. I've got another apiary that's not as near crops. I can tell no difference between the hives though the ones near the neonics produce more honey. It's not due to the neonics though. Those hives are near a highway and there's better forage Neonics are such a boogie man to some.
As for the Harvard study. Okay, so neonics have been found in 70% of pollen samples. But at what numbers? PPM, PPB, PPT? Huge difference there but that wouldn't grab the headlines the same. They mention CCD but no CCD cases have been found in almost 10 years but the neonics are still out there at numbers that are at least as high as they were in 2006. The sky has not fallen as many claimed.
-
Yep. He's still in business. http://sunparlorhoney.ca/
2013 was a bad year for him. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/heinz-closure-affects-local-beekeeper-in-a-big-way-1.2475583 Assuming he's got 60K in each hive he's got 1,000 hives. 1/2 are claimed to have died but he lost his largest customer.
What's this?.... http://www.ontariofarmer.com/sitepages/?aid=5073&cn=TO%20PLACE%20A%20WORD%20AD%20IN%20ONTARIO%20FARMER%20&an=Varroa%20mites%20are%20biggest%20concern%20for%20Ontario%92s%20beekeepers%20
"Like others beekeepers in Ontario, Congdon deals with a more troublesome pest ? the varroa mite. Research from the University of Guelph indicates the varroa mite is, by far, the biggest factor linked to colony mortality in the province."
Wait... I thought he said neonics we're going to destroy us all...
-
http://www.beemaster.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=49397.40;last_msg=430821
-
http://embols.com/2016/09/04/monsanto-loses-gmo-permit-in-mexico-judge-sides-with-the-bees-2/
-
http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17344-us-farmers-in-retreat-from-all-gmo
-
http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=20309
-
http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=20309
"Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment."
Sure looks like an activist organisation. No bias there... :tongue:
http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17344-us-farmers-in-retreat-from-all-gmo
GM watch... Good Grief, look at the name of the organization. They'd push a nun down a flight of stairs if they thought it would help.
http://embols.com/2016/09/04/monsanto-loses-gmo-permit-in-mexico-judge-sides-with-the-bees-2/
Eboles. I don't know anything about them but they like to talk about supposed "scientific" research but they don't list sources. That's a huge red flag. Looking at who they're quoting sure shows a clear bias as well.
Keep throwing excrement up on the wall praying something will stick. Clearly, you can find all the doom and gloom stuff you want but that doesn't make it true. If only people put this kind of effort into defeating varroa. 26 posts and more than 1/2 are about anti neonics. Looks like you're more interested in pushing an agenda that actually talking about bees. The avatar appears that way as well.
-
Thanks D Coates
What nice and refreshing words you have and by the looks of your avatar you look like your gonna blow a gasket. You may need to pop a pill and calm down. Since you know it all, would you please tell me how many sheets of T paper should a person use when wiping? I figured a know-it-all would know.
Thanks have a nice day.
-
well this thread devolved into a large pile of used paper real quickly. :angry:
-
Thanks D Coates
What nice and refreshing words you have and by the looks of your avatar you look like your gonna blow a gasket.
It's "Bill the cat" from the Bloom County cartoon. He's already pretty chill.
You may need to pop a pill and calm down.
Nah, if you actually knew me you know I'm very relaxed.
Since you know it all, would you please tell me how many sheets of T paper should a person use when wiping? I figured a know-it-all would know.
Heck I don't know it all. That's why I'm here, I'm trying to learn. Whenever something is presented as fact I think for myself and do a little research to find if the info and the source reporting it is on the up and up. When it turns out it's not credible I make sure to point it out so the info is not parroted on as fact. As for the amount of toilet paper to use. For those of you who are so interested in "saving the world" you can follow Sheryl https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/apr/23/musicnews.music However, I don't know nor do I care.
Thanks have a nice day.
You too.
-
One thing that does pop into my mind every once in a while though I don't take much too seriously or investigate much but genetic crops being planted almost exclusively make me think that if something ever comes along that affects that crop adversly would other like crops still be around to pick up the slack.
I don't base this on any fact but it is just something that pops in my brain here and there.
Cheers
gww
-
http://www.thelocal.de/20160225/tests-find-cancer-inducing-chemical-in-german-beers
-
One thing that does pop into my mind every once in a while though I don't take much too seriously or investigate much but genetic crops being planted almost exclusively make me think that if something ever comes along that affects that crop adversly would other like crops still be around to pick up the slack.
I don't base this on any fact but it is just something that pops in my brain here and there.
Cheers
gww
If I am understanding you properly, I agree that having a smaller and smaller group of genetic strains in the food chain it makes humans much more vulnerable to a mass problems with agriculture from something that attacks those strains.
As far as GMOs I just plain do not trust them. I just grow what I can for us.
-
Flyboy
Yes That is what I ment.
gww
-
http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/22/gm-crops-now-banned-in-36-countries-worldwide-sustainable-pulse-research/#.WE4cQb00KiE
-
http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16877-increasing-number-of-deaths-due-to-glyphosate
-
More unsubstantiated chicken little drivel published by a activist organization with no studies to back up the claims. If there were actually studies showing a direct causal relationship between glyphosate and death there would be lawsuits as far as the eye can see. Why aren't there? No proof, no studies, just garbage press released like this waiting for the followers to parrot and the unsuspecting to consume and convert to the cause. Do I have an inherent trust of chemical companies? Nope, but I review studies on both sides enough know what's been found so far and to recognize garbage when I see it. This... is utter garbage.
What'll be ironic is when something serious does actually show up it'll be ignored because this type of fake agenda driven "news" has caused so many to become numb to these sensationalistic claims.
-
One thing that does pop into my mind every once in a while though I don't take much too seriously or investigate much but genetic crops being planted almost exclusively make me think that if something ever comes along that affects that crop adversly would other like crops still be around to pick up the slack.
I don't base this on any fact but it is just something that pops in my brain here and there.
Cheers
gww
There are a number of places (government things like USDA and nonprofit organizations, universities, etc.) that collect and maintain stores of seeds of every plant that can be found anywhere.
If the need arose, supplies of seeds could be ramped up fairly quickly by these places, in cooperation with for-profit seed companies.
I've seen labs where plants ate cloned from tiny leaf cuttings, which are grown into plants in s growth medium, thenl planted and grown to maturity in soil. Many, if not most, Christmas trees are grown this way, cloning a perfectly shaped tree thousands of times in the lab. An orchid dealer told me he would buy a prize orchid for thousands of dollars, send it to a lab where they would clone it in this way, then have hundred of cloned orchids to sell for $100 each.
-
More unsubstantiated chicken little drivel published by a activist organization with no studies to back up the claims. If there were actually studies showing a direct causal relationship between glyphosate and death there would be lawsuits as far as the eye can see. Why aren't there? No proof, no studies, just garbage press released like this waiting for the followers to parrot and the unsuspecting to consume and convert to the cause. Do I have an inherent trust of chemical companies? Nope, but I review studies on both sides enough know what's been found so far and to recognize garbage when I see it. This... is utter garbage.
What'll be ironic is when something serious does actually show up it'll be ignored because this type of fake agenda driven "news" has caused so many to become numb to these sensationalistic claims.
I hear the Old 'Tobacco Institute' is hiring... :cheesy:
-
There are a number of places (government things like USDA and nonprofit organizations, universities, etc.) that collect and maintain stores of seeds of every plant that can be found anywhere.
If the need arose, supplies of seeds could be ramped up fairly quickly by these places, in cooperation with for-profit seed companies.
I've seen labs where plants ate cloned from tiny leaf cuttings, which are grown into plants in s growth medium, then planted and grown to maturity in soil....
That's interesting. I always wondered if you could somehow grow a plant from a piece of leaf.
-
I hear the Old 'Tobacco Institute' is hiring...
Oh, if was only so easy. And bottom line there are no reputable (i.e. scientifically based, and repeatable) studies that glyphosate is linked to diddle when used properly. I'm all ears to new data, but "news" like this insults the intelligence.
-
The really interesting thing is after a certain stage of development, you can see an almost-microscopic plant in the agar agar (I think that's what it's called). It's rocked back and forth all the time
-
The really interesting thing is after a certain stage of development, you can see an almost-microscopic plant in the agar agar (I think that's what it's called). It's rocked back and forth all the time
Fascinating DB.
Years ago a friend of mine who had grown up on a farm used to collect I believe it was willow branches and soak them in water (which was in the sun) for a week or so and then use the resultant water as a root growth stimulant. I believe he said that there was some sort of rhysomes in it, that encouraged roots to form and he would put anything in this water to get it to root.
-
I think I read that willow was used in poltrist (or what ever) and placed on wounds and also chewed and had asperin properties.
cheers
gww
-
I think I read that willow was used in poltrist (or what ever) and placed on wounds and also chewed and had aspirin properties.
cheers
gww
I had not heard of the poultice part but I knew that the chemist Bayer in Germany years ago had analyzed it chemically and figured out how to make it synthetically (Aspirin).
Years ago when I was tapping birch trees for sap, I started out using willow branches for spouts but had to stop as the orange (salicylic acid) came out in the sap making it uneatable.
-
Fly boy
Heck, I could have been thinking moss on the poltice, My memory is not what it used to be.
Cheers
gww
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/056115_glyphosate_lawsuits_Monsanto_cancer.html
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/055987_PCBs_Monsanto_liver_damage.html
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/055822_Monsanto_Hillary_Clinton_fundraiser_Charles_Burson.html
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/055725_Monsanto_glyphosate_cancer.html
-
I've seen labs where plants ate cloned from tiny leaf cuttings, which are grown into plants in s growth medium, then planted and grown to maturity in soil....
That's interesting. I always wondered if you could somehow grow a plant from a piece of leaf.
It's called 'micro-propagation' if you should want to look up more info on the web. I believe you can use coconut milk as a medium. If you decide to try this, you'll need a scrupulously clean work area to avoid airborne contamination from wild yeasts, bacteria etc.
It may also be relevant to this thread, that the major chemical companies are stockpiling seed-banks. They say it is to preserve stocks from which to access genetic material in the future, should those plants cease to exist. This activity can be seen in both positive and negative lights, depending upon one's leaning.
Tommy - I consider your method of posting just a link without including any of your own thoughts or views to be the behaviour of a mindless parrot, or that of an old fish-wife spreading gossip, and to be totally disrespectful towards the membership of this forum.
People here deserve thoughtful personal comment or debate. That - as I understand it - is the function of chat forums, which are not intended to be simply vehicles for the canvassing of 3rd party articles.
If you should think these articles are particularly important, then I suggest you post them in the REPRINT ARTICLE ARCHIVES sub-forum (which is dedicated to such a purpose), rather than the Main Posting Forum.
LJ
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/055987_PCBs_Monsanto_liver_damage.html
Tommy,
I used to work for a hydroelectric facility (largest underground powerhouse in the world) I remember one of the upper management guys going on about the whole thing with PCBs was nonsense, created by the media. It was obviously a waste of time to argue with the guy.
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/055822_Monsanto_Hillary_Clinton_fundraiser_Charles_Burson.html
I love the quote
"Hillary Clinton, known as the Bride of Frankenfood, is a longtime supporter of Monsanto, a corporation whose deceptive tactics of collusion, intimidation and bullying are a perfect fit for the Clinton regime, which even a former FBI official now describes as a criminal operation."
-
What I think about this thread
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
-
OK folks, I have had multiple reports of this topic getting out of hand and have issued 2 warnings to folks in 2 days about personal attacks of others. We can agree to disagree and keep the conversation civil. I suggest everyone review the forum bi-laws referencing personal attacks. Let's all take a deep breathe and relax. I do not want to lock down this topic, but will if the personal attacks continue.
-
What I think about this thread
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
:wink:
That's a perfect analysis of this thread!
-
What I think about this thread
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Love it. It can be claimed anything and everything will eventually kill you if look hard enough. There's a whole batch of folks signing petitions on youtube against dhmo. It shows how gullible people can be to "scientific" hype and will sign their name without actually looking into what dhmo actually is. Dhmo can be spun to look as bad as any chemical out there.
-
https://gmoawareness.org/gmo-facts/
Follow the money.
-
I struggle to understand how this fits in the general beekeeping section, but anyway might I suggest a trip to 'Friends of the Earth' there might just be a little less advertising and considerably less click bait.
-
As per their own website
"Are GMOs safe?
Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In 61 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment."
Inflammatory rhetoric at the end and no actual answer to their own question. Which means there's still NO proof of diddle. Just an effective PR spin campaign that's worked in 61 countries. The DHMO website and youtube videos show how easily folks will roll over when inflammatory "evidence" is presented.
GMO Awareness (the website linked in the above post) mission statement
"We believe that genetically engineered foods (a.k.a. genetically modified organisms or GMOs) have no place in farming or in our food system and that they pose a serious threat to health, the land, family farms, nature and the environment."
Yeeaaaaa, there's more than a bit of bias going on here... They're clearly already voting for conviction though no evidence had been presented nor trial had. Fortunately in the US it's the presumption of innocence until it's proven otherwise.
-
Modifying genetic traits have been going on for more than 30,000 years. Since 1973, scientists have sped up the process.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/
Most people I know fear GMO crops and I don't understand why. If science could remove the gene from a particular crop so the plant didn't get a disease then pesticide use could be reduced or eliminated. Nutrition, flavor, etc. could all be improved by adding and subtracting genes.
-
But, you know, somebody can hit emotional buttons by coming up with things like "frankenfood" to frighten people.
-
But, you know, somebody can hit emotional buttons by coming up with things like "frankenfood" to frighten people.
And that's exactly what they do.
Who would be for Frankenfood? Please sign this petition, and we do accept donations to help save the planet from (fill in the corporate boogie man dejour)....;)
No actual scientifically valid data to support the claims so resorting to name calling and claims of corporate/government/greed conspiracy are the tactics that are used.
cpekarek, Interesting article, thanks for posting.
-
https://www.organicconsumers.org/scientific/pesticides-linked-bee-decline-first-time-countrywide-field-study
-
Looking at these posts on GMO's, all the different chemicals from pesticides, herbicides no one knows what out come they will have on us or the bees. I know that I eat GMO's nearly ever day, residues from many chemicals, and I believe there is going to be a price. The mixture of different chemicals and proteins could have affects that no saw coming, it may take a generation or two to show up. Here in Australia l am seeing a lot of people I know having kids with problems and it's getting worse.
-
Looking at these posts on GMO's, all the different chemicals from pesticides, herbicides no one knows what out come they will have on us or the bees. I know that I eat GMO's nearly ever day, residues from many chemicals, and I believe there is going to be a price. The mixture of different chemicals and proteins could have affects that no saw coming, it may take a generation or two to show up. Here in Australia l am seeing a lot of people I know having kids with problems and it's getting worse.
The problem is that these exact same complaints/concerns can be voiced about conventionally bred crops.
The difference is that GMO crops go through ridiculously extensive levels of safety testing, and conventionally bred crops go through almost none. You're significantly more likely to run into a conventionally bred vegetable that causes problems than a genetically modified one - and history bears that out.
-
>The difference is that GMO crops go through ridiculously extensive levels of safety testing...
That's crazy talk. They were GOING to do extensive testing and then they turned the genes loose and they were in all the corn so all the testing went out the window. Pretty much the same with other crops as well. Apparently the GMO crop scientists with their PHDs didn't know that corn was wind pollinated. They were going to keep human food and animal food separate until the testing completed. But that never happened because the genes immediately showed up in all the corn... and the USDA either had to tell everyone there would be no corn chips this year or let it slide...
-
>The difference is that GMO crops go through ridiculously extensive levels of safety testing...
That's crazy talk. They were GOING to do extensive testing and then they turned the genes loose and they were in all the corn so all the testing went out the window. Pretty much the same with other crops as well. Apparently the GMO crop scientists with their PHDs didn't know that corn was wind pollinated. They were going to keep human food and animal food separate until the testing completed. But that never happened because the genes immediately showed up in all the corn... and the USDA either had to tell everyone there would be no corn chips this year or let it slide...
What specific genes are in corn that have not been safety tested?
Current laws in the USA specify that new GMO crops need be tested for all know allergens and all known potentially allergenic proteins and amino acids (essentially anything that can survive our gut). In contrast, conventional crops need no testing.
For instance, if a team of scientists carefully plan a single base pair edit using CRISPR, they need test the results for every known potentially toxic protein. On the other hand, a botanist can expose a plant to mutagenic chemicals (or radiation) making random changes all over the plants genome, and not only sell its offspring without any testing, can sell it as organic.
There is a reason there has never been a single illness or death attributable to GMO crop reactions, but harmful conventionally bred vegetables regularly make it to market. (There are literally dozens of examples over the last couple decades - the lenape potato for instance, or cellery with psoralen levels so high they burned people skin).
-
Crazytalk
What specific genes are in corn that have not been safety tested?
I think the point being made by michael is any testing is after the fact cause they let the genie out of the bottle before the testing not after. Its probly still being tested just like eating a yokeless egg was good for thirty years before they decided it was better to go ahead and eat the yolk also.
I am sure the test is on going.
gww
-
Modifying genetic traits have been going on for more than 30,000 years. Since 1973, scientists have sped up the process.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/
Most people I know fear GMO crops and I don't understand why. If science could remove the gene from a particular crop so the plant didn't get a disease then pesticide use could be reduced or eliminated. Nutrition, flavor, etc. could all be improved by adding and subtracting genes.
If.
Yes, "IF" only the gene could be inserted or replaced from one to another.
However.
Unless they have dramatically changed things, some years back it wasn't that simple. They took a segment of the DNA, which included the gene desired, and used ballistics or bacteria to insert them into cells of the target organism. If using the special bacteria, this also included a part of their DNA in the process. The target cells were not controlled where the DNA went, but were selected for later. How did they select? If the gene was not readily apparent, they had other genes included, antibiotic resistance, etc. which could be selected for. No use growing a bunch of plants to find out they didn't have the gene.
The gene was either inserted randomly with the ballistic approach or where the bacteria chose. Is that a good place? Could all this "junk" DNA surrounding the desired gene have other functions as they are finding out more and more? Suppose this junk DNA turned on or off other DNA in the target plant? What if the DNA wasn't controlled and expressed all the time or the wrong times?
So yes, you have a modified plant that produces substances that kills corn borers, or what not. Does it do other things? Does it fail to do what it should? What happens if this extra DNA came from an animal or bacteria and created compounds that combined with the target plant compounds to produce what?
What if?
What if we really don't know what we're doing?
I've read (of course that may not be true) that just the process disturbs the plants DNA even if a gene is not inserted.
If it was like computer code, can't really see the problem. And DNA is like computer code, just that we're hiring 5th graders to write a website database for us and .... OOPS, didn't know that would happen.
And comparing Genetic Engineering to classic plant breeding I don't think is really relevant.
-
This probably says it better than I did:
Release of GM mosquito Aedes aegypti OX513A (http://www.econexus.info/publication/release-gm-mosquito-aedes-aegypti-ox513a)
c. Unpredicted and unintended changes / side effects: It is widely recognised that the insertion of transgenes can lead to changes that have neither been intended nor predicted and are seemingly unrelated to the nature of the gene inserted. Documented cases include higher lignin content in transgenic herbicide tolerant soybean plants and Bt corn plants, lowered vitamin content in transgenic squash, increased rate of out-crossing and altered root formation in herbicide tolerant Thale Cress. The reasons why and the mechanisms behind these changes are not always understood and would require further investigation.
Read the link for more about what I was talking about.
-
>What specific genes are in corn that have not been safety tested?
That were added, I assume is what you mean. Humans were eating what was in corn for millennia of course. But now we added the gene to make Bt toxin. We know a small amount of Bt toxin is something we get all the time. But not in the amounts we are not consuming. We also added the Round-up ready gene, which is less likely to be problematic, but still we don't know. Then, of course, separate from GMO but related to poisons we have never ingested at these levels, we have neonics...
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html
-
Crazytalk
What specific genes are in corn that have not been safety tested?
I think the point being made by michael is any testing is after the fact cause they let the genie out of the bottle before the testing not after. Its probly still being tested just like eating a yokeless egg was good for thirty years before they decided it was better to go ahead and eat the yolk also.
I am sure the test is on going.
gww
I know what Michael meant. I asked him to provide evidence of his claim that this stuff was released to the wild without safety testing.
-
>I know what Michael meant. I asked him to provide evidence of his claim that this stuff was released to the wild without safety testing.
They certainly did not document what they did NOT test. I actually talked to one of the people who were testing what was then called "starlink" corn back in the late 1990s and what they were testing for was it's effect on Monarch butterflies. The assumption was that Bt toxin was safe for humans because the organic farmers had been using Bt (not Bt toxin) on their plants for years and that had been generally considered safe. Still the intent was to only use it for animal feed and then after observing the effect on animals, consider if it would be approved for human consumption. But immediately the gene showed up in all the corn.
How do I prove a negative? Show me the evidence that human testing on the Bt gene in corn (and therefore the Bt toxin in people) before Starlink was let loose on the public in 1999.
-
Wikipedia articles on StarLink Corn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarLink_corn_recall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism_containment_and_escape
-
A scientific paper giving the sequence of events:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240687/pdf/ehp0110-000005.pdf
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/business/national-academies-biotechnology-conflicts.html?_r=0