• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Monsanto/GMO woo vs science

thfcsteff said:
Scara. Here you go. It is absolutely NOT a done and dusted scientific situation. Read through the entire document. There is MUCH to be done still in terms of confirming 'safety' in this field. Again, believe YOUR science if you wish, I choose not to.

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

Here is who they are.

http://www.ensser.org/about/

Note, not for profit. Whether you want to admit it or not, those words make a lot of difference when it comes to the nature of how some scientific data on ANYTHING, from GMOs to climate change issues, is both conducted and reported.


By the way, I consider it a despicable joke that any body of 'scientists', let alone 'laureates' would suggest that objecting to (and providing counter information against) the production of golden rice might be considered a 'crime against humanity', I mean seriously, shall we make a list of 'crimes against humanity' which are far greater, even when it comes to food for the people on this planet?
Click to expand...
Here's a bit of background on ENSSER. They might have a grand name, but that doesn't make them a respectable body in any way:

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ho-national-academy-of-sciences-on-gm-safety/

If you'd like an actual paper, a proper study that uses data, then here:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595?scroll=top&needAccess=true
This has analysed well over 1700 studies and those writing come to the same conclusion as I do.

If, for some reason, you feel the need to believe not for profit organisations more than others (there's no good reason to), then try Biofortified. They collect peer reviewed studies in their Genera database - free for you to search whenever you wish:
http://genera.biofortified.org/

On a slightly related note, if you're interested in working out your own thought processes and why you think the way you do (I personally love doing this, it's opened my eyes on a number of occasions but I know many don't) then try the following links. They're both written by people who know more about how the human brain works than you and I ever will, and they're very good at explaining the traps our own brains lay for us.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/7-propaganda-talking-points-against-gmos/
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....spelling-consumer-fears-of-gmos/#.UlBUOyRJNOE
 
I think I am done here. Once again, and with an added attempt at suggesting I have never considered my 'own thought processes' which (frankly) made me chuckle given the source (keep working on it mate - as we all must) you have proven a theory I first ventured a while ago, which is a total and utter disregard for anything which does not suit your perspective. I am probably no better at this point, thus we have reached an impasse. Before I go (and to further underscore a point I made about outlet versus agenda on both sides) here are some thumbnail facts on the also impressively-named yet fundamentally flawed 'geneticliteracyproject'...

http://www.truthwiki.org/genetic-literacy-project/

Biofortified are interesting as a group and yes, I find their pieces more trustworthy.

IF The Tandfonline study does actually echo your opinion, then you are communicating poorly. First of all, one paper does not make a summer, let alone a closed door on the subject, secondly the paper itself admits that intense debate continues and communication from the scientific communities requires far better communication.

Here is an interesting Harvard study on GMOs and pesticides...




Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
thfcsteff said:
I think I am done here. Once again, and with an added attempt at suggesting I have never considered my 'own thought processes' which (frankly) made me chuckle given the source (keep working on it mate - as we all must) you have proven a theory I first ventured a while ago, which is a total and utter disregard for anything which does not suit your perspective. I am probably no better at this point, thus we have reached an impasse. Before I go (and to further underscore a point I made about outlet versus agenda on both sides) here are some thumbnail facts on the also impressively-named yet fundamentally flawed 'geneticliteracyproject'...

http://www.truthwiki.org/genetic-literacy-project/

Biofortified are interesting as a group and yes, I find their pieces more trustworthy.

IF The Tandfonline study does actually echo your opinion, then you are communicating poorly. First of all, one paper does not make a summer, let alone a closed door on the subject, secondly the paper itself admits that intense debate continues and communication from the scientific communities requires far better communication.

Here is an interesting Harvard study on GMOs and pesticides...




Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
Truthwiki?

Do you know why truthwiki was started? It was because Mike Adams (yet another anti-vaxxer and believer in free energy) got fed up with Wikipedia continually asking him to back up his claims with references and replacing them with all those pesky facts.

This is how he announced the launch:

A site that dares to tell the truth about controversial and alternative topics: free energy, consciousness, parallel universes, the Federal Reserve, fluoride, aspartame, vaccines, etc… plus all the people and corporations who need to be exposed for who they truly are.
Click to expand...

It's basically Wikipedia rejects who have no factual backing for their claims so have to resort to using a wiki with no standard of evidence at all.

Again, it's not my perspective I ask people to align with, it's that of the scientific community.
 
Last edited:
In which case I expect to see lawsuits towards the bearers of such information. Which I haven't. In this case it is a clever strategy - why draw any further attention to them? As for the old cry of 'scientific community', you simply refuse to acknowledge that when certain studies are sponsored by certain people, certain results become inevitable.



Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
food/nutrition "science"...isn't.

there are a multitude of confounding variables and most of the outcomes studied are chronic in nature such as T2 diabetes, heart disease, strokes, most cancers and "all cause" mortality whatever the feck that is. "chronic" in this context means long term BUT no studies are done for a period of for example 10 years within the confines of a metabolic ward because they are just too prohibitively expensive. it is mostly statistics and probabilities and extrapolation without any concrete data.

even the much vaunted NHANES studies or Framingham or the Nurses Studies over "decades" collected data via memory recall. I can't even remember what I had for breakfast last week.

furthermore when the etiology of most chronic diseases are disputed even to this day, what exactly are these studies confirming in the cascade of a particular disease as to what causes it and in what time frame.

definitive..it is most certainly NOT.
 
spasm said:
food/nutrition "science"...isn't.

there are a multitude of confounding variables and most of the outcomes studied are chronic in nature such as T2 diabetes, heart disease, strokes, most cancers and "all cause" mortality whatever the feck that is. "chronic" in this context means long term BUT no studies are done for a period of for example 10 years within the confines of a metabolic ward because they are just too prohibitively expensive. it is mostly statistics and probabilities and extrapolation without any concrete data.

even the much vaunted NHANES studies or Framingham or the Nurses Studies over "decades" collected data via memory recall. I can't even remember what I had for breakfast last week.

furthermore when the etiology of most chronic diseases are disputed even to this day, what exactly are these studies confirming in the cascade of a particular disease as to what causes it and in what time frame.

definitive..it is most certainly NOT.
Click to expand...


You had Shreddies on Tuesday, I think. (I don't know if that is any help?)

[Or was it Golden Rice...]
 
thfcsteff said:
I think I am done here. [...] we have reached an impasse [...] agenda on both sides.

http://www.truthwiki.org/genetic-literacy-project/
Click to expand...

Part of the point presented by Scara and myself is an objective evaluation of evidence across disciplines. If a source of information or a way of evaluating evidence is valid in one area it should also have some validity in another.

So I had a look at truthwiki. Some quotes from some of the first articles I had a look at:

On climate change: http://www.truthwiki.org/climate-change-global-warming/
More than 30,000 scientists say “Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming” is a complete hoax and a lie based on ZERO scientific evidence
Zero global warming activity on Earth over the past 18 years
Government insider, NASA consultant, climate prediction expert, and top scientist blows the whistle on climate change scam
Click to expand...

On Andrew Wakefield: http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-andrew-wakefield/
now known as one of the most courageous holistic doctors in the world, dedicating decades of his life to validated research exposing the vaccine-autism-gut bacteria connection
Click to expand...

On Chemotherapy: http://www.truthwiki.org/chemotherapy/
The bottom line is that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival, so the establishment just tells people they can manage the symptoms until they die, and it’s a big lie
Click to expand...

On Wikipedia: http://www.truthwiki.org/wikipedia-2/
[...]a closer look reveals a catalogue of mainstream information rife with error, bias, and omission of some of the most important facts in the realms of health, environmental safety and agricultural sustainability. Founded with 99% pornography “trafficker” revenue, Wikipedia’s cofounder Jimmy Wales(1) took his web search engine called “Bomis” and created his own “online encyclopedia” full of bias, misinformation, and total lack of information regarding alternative health
Click to expand...

These are the people you're relying on for information both for you own understanding of this topic and to provide arguments to those who disagree with you. If this represents" an impasse", and you think the fact that there is "an agenda on both sides" is a good defense of using a source like this I struggle to take you seriously at all on this topic.

Ending up quoting people like these in an argument is comparable to watching South Park and finding yourself in agreement with Cartman. It should be the spark of a real evaluation of one's reasoning up this point. Because it doesn't mean that you're wrong on this given topic, but it's a massive red flag. I don't think you would accept these people as a source from anyone disagreeing with you on anything - nor should you.
 
braineclipse said:
Part of the point presented by Scara and myself is an objective evaluation of evidence across disciplines. If a source of information or a way of evaluating evidence is valid in one area it should also have some validity in another.

So I had a look at truthwiki. Some quotes from some of the first articles I had a look at:

On climate change: http://www.truthwiki.org/climate-change-global-warming/


On Andrew Wakefield: http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-andrew-wakefield/


On Chemotherapy: http://www.truthwiki.org/chemotherapy/


On Wikipedia: http://www.truthwiki.org/wikipedia-2/


These are the people you're relying on for information both for you own understanding of this topic and to provide arguments to those who disagree with you. If this represents" an impasse", and you think the fact that there is "an agenda on both sides" is a good defense of using a source like this I struggle to take you seriously at all on this topic.

Ending up quoting people like these in an argument is comparable to watching South Park and finding yourself in agreement with Cartman. It should be the spark of a real evaluation of one's reasoning up this point. Because it doesn't mean that you're wrong on this given topic, but it's a massive red flag. I don't think you would accept these people as a source from anyone disagreeing with you on anything - nor should you.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on trotting out all this scientific data? The science is only part of the issue. People don't want to eat it because they feel it infringes on their freedom of choice. What of that do you not understand?
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Why do you insist on trotting out all this scientific data? The science is only part of the issue. People don't want to eat it because they feel it infringes on their freedom of choice. What of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

What parts of my post are you talking about exactly? I was talking about the trustworthiness of the source used by Steff.

The conversation I jumped (back) into between Steff and Scara was one specifically about a scientific consensus. That is, as you say, part of the issue. How is this not fair to discuss?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back