GMO conspiracy theories

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They didn't JUST attack it for using particular rats.

That was one problem among many, the sum of which is "a lousy experiment"

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm?WT.mc_id=RSS&emt=1

I have already debunked the 'prone to cancer' myth/lie and yet they are so dumb they list it as their first complaint:rolleyes:

I see no difference in 'numbers of rats used' in the other studies which I quoted and I strongly suspect all the other myriad of trials used similar numbers a well as this seems standard practice... albeit absolutely shameful.

Are you or anyone else suggesting the other trials are invalid/unprofessional whatever...?

This is a clear and utter whitewash rubbish and anyone who believes differently should be forced to eat it themselves.

Like I said... Yum Yum, enjoy
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have already debunked the 'prone to cancer' myth/lie and yet they are so dumb they list it as their first complaint:rolleyes:

What exactly did you debunk? They are prone to cancer. This was not discussed in the study. It's been misrepresented in anti-GMO literature.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I see you read it... not.


Yes - precisely - when you have rats that are known to grow an extraordinary number of tumours you have to show that you are accounting for the "normal" number of tumours, and they didn't even do that. that is just basic design of any experiment - show that you have accounted for the "normal background" situation.

Why do you think that highlighting such an obvious error in the experiment somehow validates it??
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Oh what a web we weave when we practice to deceive

Oxy, Mick showed a detailed listing of the inadequacies of the study you trumpeted yesterday.

24 hours later, I see you cannot respond to the self evident inadequacies of the experimental design, reporting and analysis.
Concession by default.

Insect, plant, and microorganism resistance to pesticides[even organic ones], weedkillers and even antibiotics is a problem, but not a reason to cease use of any of these. There are strategies to safely use them, and practices that are self-defeating and encourage resistance. The article discusses how this is being done.

You may not know it, oxy, but glyphosate was used before glyphosate resistant GM crops were around, beginning about 30 years ago. The herbicide mentioned in the BBC article is 50 years old. It was a chemical used to make Agent Orange, not Agent Orange itself, which is a section of the BBC article you didn't quote.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Not to mention that the trouble with Agent orange was not the herbicides that made it up but the dioxin that was a contaminant.

But as soon as anyone mentions "Agent Orange" all the loonies say "oooeeer... agent orange = evil" - without a thought for what the actual problem with it was.

2,4 D has been used as a herbicide worldwide before and after the agent orange disaster - it was released commercially in 1946. It has a half life in soil of about 10 days, no known link to cancer, and because iof it's prolonged use worldwide is one of the most studied herbicides ever!
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
don't put it in your compost, else you'll be seeding your whole land with diseases.
Hi Jay. Generally I agree with you but on this occasion, no.

If compost heap temperature is managed so that its ferment temperature exceeds 50 degrees C for several days, then the thermophilic bacteria either chelate or ingest both inorganic and organic poisons of ALL types. (They're the ones responsible for igniting haystacks.)

Spores, seed, metals, viruses, bacteria, any chemical or biochemical compound you care to name that isn't especially radioactive*. They are either eaten or chelated so well that only thermophilic bacteria might suffer anew. Those bacteria are the very fires of hell when given their ideal conditions. "God's" biochemical pioneers have had three billion years of practice before we arrived late to the party.

Of course, just exposure to sunlight and the atmosphere does the job if you are prepared to wait.

This "threat" is imaginary, and like all the others, built on pseudoscience.

The whole genetic "argument" demonstrates the lack of understanding of the arguer in this topic. Genes are common to all life and have no "identity". The genes we have are our true history. (That's enough, Ed.)

* I dare say they can't handle radioactivity just as we can't. Even so, there might be some specialists about...
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Hi Jay. Generally I agree with you but on this occasion, no.

If compost heap temperature is managed
Sure, I've had a dry compost heap burn up on me, not literally fire but much of it disintegrated into something close to ash. The operative word about composting pathogens for a homeowner is "if" he gets a hot pile. Many homeowners don't know how to get a pile to heat up, I think mostly because of mass since a smallholder might only accumulate a heap during the fall and it is harder to get it to heat up as weather gets cooler, or they just don't get the C/N ratio right. For such a person who might have a dozen dried up tomato plants amounting to less than five pounds the loss isn't that great. I probably had a truckload when I farmed and put them on the burn pile even though I could make a hot pile. I once had 500 tomato plants turn into stinking mush in 24 hours due to some wilt, and an open-pollinated heirloom variety which was susceptible.

I used to make some tremendous piles with fall cut hay and truckloads of shredded leaves I picked up from homeowners. My prime N source was too-hot-to-use chicken/turkey manure from a local producer. I built a 5 foot long and 5 foot wide fork tine attachemnt for my front end loader and could make a 50x 20 ft long pile. Had to use a 2" fire hose to wet it down.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Oxy, Mick showed a detailed listing of the inadequacies of the study you trumpeted yesterday.

Well here we have it laid out bare:
24 hours later, I see you cannot respond to the self evident inadequacies of the experimental design, reporting and analysis.
Concession by default.

You haven't responded in 24 hrs so you give TACIT agreement/concession/permission...

This is the way the government agencies and the elite operate.... if you do not object to what we intend to do... we take that as compliance/acceptance.

Why do you think I have my Tag: "You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?"

I know they operate on this basis... they 'test the water' seeing how adverse the reaction is. If the reaction is too strong, they back of a bit... bring in a milder version... then a bit later a bit more... and more.. until they get what they want anyway.

But even by NWO standards... I think you take the biscuit in demanding rebuttal to your satisfaction, (which can never be acheived because you will not back down despite all the evidence).

I have rebutted the NWO report in depth already and no, I do not concede at all.

Specify what further aspects of the bunk you need to be debunked because it is purely a gish gallop of puerile temper tantruming ASFAICS.


You may not know it, oxy, but glyphosate was used before glyphosate resistant GM crops were around, beginning about 30 years ago. The herbicide mentioned in the BBC article is 50 years old. It was a chemical used to make Agent Orange, not Agent Orange itself, which is a section of the BBC article you didn't quote.

Thats right I did not quote that bit... I provided a link so people could actually view the article. I noted Mick provided no such link which is quite strange, even after further enquiry there was still nothing forthcoming... Then I saw why!

So lets get to the basics here... Who is happy to eat this stuff... now tell the truth?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thats right I did not quote that bit... I provided a link so people could actually view the article. I noted Mick provided no such link which is quite strange, even after further enquiry there was still nothing forthcoming... Then I saw why!

So lets get to the basics here... Who is happy to eat this stuff... now tell the truth?

Where was there a missing link? I must have missed that.

I have no problem eating GMO products. I'm no industry fan-boy, but I don't see any good evidence that they are unsafe, and I see a lot of bunk. It's very low on my list of priorities.

I did vote FOR the GMO labeling proposition here in California though. While it was seriously flawed, the industry BS campaign turned me against them.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
A part of the problem with these rat studies is images like:



The average reader just sees GMO = Cancer, when really most of the rats got tumors because they were bred to get tumors.

I was referring to the fact there was no link, which is unusual as you normally provide a source. I questioned it and stated the facts of the experiment must have been set out in the article but you still did not supply a source so I looked it up myself. I wouldn't have mentioned it other than I was being criticised for selectively picking out text, (which I had to type myself as the copy paste function was disabled on that section).

I do not see any bunk around this issue. It was a proper scientific study which surpassed all previous studies as it followed through to end of life.

I stated at the outset I thought the numbers of rats studied were to low and actually disgracefully so but this appears to be the norm as the myriad of other cancer research trials also used very low, (some lower), of these type of rats and these studies are not being criticised or negated so one naturally has to ask ... why this one?

Mick, if you are brave enough, (note compliance with politeness rules),:) (note the smiley), to eat this stuff after seeing these pictures and and seeing the results of this test... what can I say.

I would be interested to see how many others will claim the same.

Do you have any similar test results and data... I understand there were earlier tests which ran for much shorter time spans. It would indeed be interesting to see which breeds and numbers etc these other tests used?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Here is the actual report.

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

Abstract
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated
with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In
females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible
in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles
were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and
before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified
by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5
times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked
and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large
palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very
significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters
were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of
Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
 

solrey

Senior Member.
So lets get to the basics here... Who is happy to eat this stuff... now tell the truth?

We pretty much eat strictly organic, mostly locally or self produced. I don't support industrial monoculture nor most aspects of GM foods. Yet I still agree that the French GM corn study is seriously flawed to the point of being totally invalid. The study itself, and those who cling to it, aren't exactly lending credibility to the anti-gmo movement.

cheers
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
We pretty much eat strictly organic, mostly locally or self produced. I don't support industrial monoculture nor most aspects of GM foods. Yet I still agree that the French GM corn study is seriously flawed to the point of being totally invalid. The study itself, and those who cling to it, aren't exactly lending credibility to the anti-gmo movement.

cheers

Hi Solray, Have you read the actual report?

Do you mind saying in what regard you find it flawed?

There are some links to previous tests in the report, I am trying to see in what ways they differ. So far I note they generally use the same strain of rat.

Any comments would be appreciated.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14252-seralini-and-science-an-open-letter

[h=2]Seralini and science: an open letter[/h] Tuesday, 02 October 2012 11:31

extract:

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
http://www.occupymonsanto360.org (http://s.tt/18OnD)

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Erio_Barale-Thomas
[h=2]Conflicts of interest[/h] In his letter, Barale-Thomas takes Seralini to task for failure to declare a conflict of interest in his paper, namely the fact that Seralini is president of CRIIGEN, the independent research group based in France, which contributed funding to the research. CRIIGEN's contribution to funding the study was declared in the paper.
However, in his letter condemning Seralini, Barale-Thomas seems to have been less than open about his own conflicts of interest. He gives his affiliation in the letter only as president of the SFPT. But his LinkedIn page (29 November 2012) tells a different story. It states that since 2003 to the present he has been principal scientist at Janssen Biotech, which is part of the Janssen Pharmaceutica group of companies that belong to Johnson & Johnson.[4][5]


Erio Barale-Thomas's LinkedIn page 29.11.12


Confirming this position is a video "customer testimonial" by Barale-Thomas for digital technology, in which he is described as "Erio Barale-Thomas (Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical R&D, Beerse, Belgium)".[6]
Prior to joining Janssen he was a pathologist at the genetically modified crop and chemical company Bayer CropScience (1998-2003).[7]
So Barale-Thomas has a vested interest in reassuring the public about the safety of genetically modified organisms, which are central to Janssen's interests and to his own position – and in attacking Seralini's study, which cast the safety of GMOs into doubt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was referring to the fact there was no link, which is unusual as you normally provide a source. I questioned it and stated the facts of the experiment must have been set out in the article but you still did not supply a source so I looked it up myself. I wouldn't have mentioned it other than I was being criticised for selectively picking out text, (which I had to type myself as the copy paste function was disabled on that section).
[...]
Mick, if you are brave enough, (note compliance with politeness rules), (note the smiley), to eat this stuff after seeing these pictures and and seeing the results of this test... what can I say.

I didn't give a link because that's THE image, the one that everyone uses. It's everywhere. The particular usage was from the Daily Mail in the UK.

But it was to illustrate a particular problem - it's basically being portrayed as "this is what happens to rats when you feed them GMO corn". Which is total nonsense. That is what happens to that breed of rats, full stop. The rat on the right (L) was actually NOT FED GMO CORN! See this is EXACTLY the problem I was trying to discuss. Most of the rats got tumors, because that's what they are bred to do. But where are the photos of rats in the control group with tumors? It was claimed that the control group got less, but there are various problems with the study.

You seem to basically be ignoreing all the reasons why the study is not particulalry useful, as listed above by the European Food Safety Authority, and relying instead on an appeal to emotion by a misleading interpretation of things like this image.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I didn't give a link because that's THE image, the one that everyone uses. It's everywhere. The particular usage was from the Daily Mail in the UK.

But it was to illustrate a particular problem - it's basically being portrayed as "this is what happens to rats when you feed them GMO corn". Which is total nonsense. That is what happens to that breed of rats, full stop. The rat on the right (L) was actually NOT FED GMO CORN! See this is EXACTLY the problem I was trying to discuss. Most of the rats got tumors, because that's what they are bred to do. But where are the photos of rats in the control group with tumors? It was claimed that the control group got less, but there are various problems with the study.

You seem to basically be ignoreing all the reasons why the study is not particulalry useful, as listed above by the European Food Safety Authority, and relying instead on an appeal to emotion by a misleading interpretation of things like this image.

So what is the problem... I keep trying to find out?

Is it the type of rat used.... most studies like this use this strain of rat

Is it there were not enough rats... How many would you have liked to see?

If you can't tell me what is wrong with the study... how can I rebut or agree or even discuss?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So what is the problem... I keep trying to find out?

Is it the type of rat used.... most studies like this use this strain of rat

Is it there were not enough rats... How many would you have liked to see?

If you can't tell me what is wrong with the study... how can I rebut or agree or even discuss?

I already posted this list:


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm?WT.mc_id=RSS&emt=1
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I already posted this list:


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm?WT.mc_id=RSS&emt=1


Like what... Why is it in BIG RED LETTERS... Hardly scientific is it? Who did it? And WHY?


Ditto

Absolute rubbish. It is exactly the same strain used in all previous tests. It is known on every level that these rats are prone to cancer... which is precisely why they are used in virtually all such tests.

As I have been forced to repeat ad nauseum... it is the significant INCREASE in tumours in the test groups compared to the control group, which were fed normally.

This clearly shows that GM R is tumour promoting as otherwise there would be no increase!

Similarly if you had a different food type for the rats which showed a decrease... the different food would be tumour inhibiting

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Erio_Barale-Thomas


I would say a control group is for all the different experiments... it is ridiculous to demand identical control groups for all groups.

And to add

Ergo 5 'control groups' of 10 rats would be 50 rats leaving 46 test rats... Are these people even sentient. Are these the type of 'scientists' we want to entrust our lives and our childrens lives to?

Do I really really have to go on debunking every asinine, disingenuous and completely biased 'critique'?

Can you please read the link I provided and use normal reasoning and then list any 'true' concerns?

Here it is once again: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Erio_Barale-Thomas
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Well then - since you know better about control groups and accounting for the propensity of these rats to grow tumours, I expect you'll be rewriting the rules of scientific experiment shortly.

Let us know when you publish them.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well then - since you know better about control groups and accounting for the propensity of these rats to grow tumours, I expect you'll be rewriting the rules of scientific experiment shortly.

Let us know when yuo publish them.
Seems to me because of the seriousness of the findings, no matter how flawed, someone of authority would have a repeat of such research done with extreme care, transparency, and expediency . . . if this has been done great . . . if not why not????
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Like what... Why is it in BIG RED LETTERS... Hardly scientific is it? Who did it? And WHY? Ditto
Absolute rubbish. It is exactly the same strain used in all previous tests. It is known on every level that these rats are prone to cancer... which is precisely why they are used in virtually all such tests. As I have been forced to repeat ad nauseum... it is the significant INCREASE in tumours in the test groups compared to the control group, which were fed normally. This clearly shows that GM R is tumour promoting as otherwise there would be no increase! Similarly if you had a different food type for the rats which showed a decrease... the different food would be tumour inhibiting. I would say a control group is for all the different experiments... it is ridiculous to demand identical control groups for all groups. Do I really really have to go on debunking every asinine, disingenuous and completely biased 'critique'?
You have neither understood or debunked anything. Quite obviously.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I added the red highlighting to demonstrate that they were objecting to a range of things, and not just the type of rats.

As I have been forced to repeat ad nauseum... it is the significant INCREASE in tumours in the test groups compared to the control group, which were fed normally.

This clearly shows that GM R is tumour promoting as otherwise there would be no increase!

You keep saying it, but that does not actually make it true. Given the low sample sizes, it's quite possible that the results were those of chance. Scientifically spreading it is not "statistically significant", defined as having a P value of less that 0.05. None of the results crossed this criteria for statistical significance.

In addition to the several other methodological problems listed in the responses to the original article, and in other places, this is simply not strong evidence of anything.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I added the red highlighting to demonstrate that they were objecting to a range of things, and not just the type of rats.



You keep saying it, but that does not actually make it true. Given the low sample sizes, it's quite possible that the results were those of chance. Scientifically spreading it is not "statistically significant", defined as having a P value of less that 0.05. None of the results crossed this criteria for statistical significance.

In addition to the several other methodological problems listed in the responses to the original article, and in other places, this is simply not strong evidence of anything.

Well just for starters
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/glyphosate.cfm

So the amount of glyphosate administered to the rats was 7000% less than the unenforceable 700 ppb that they recommend as a safe dose so to be honest you are probably in big trouble anyway.

Hence probably one of the reasons why cancer rates are rising so high in developed countries and in the U.S in particular.

Currently 1 in 3 people are expected to have cancer in their lifetime.

So what part of the criticism
In his critique of Séralini's study, Barale-Thomas argues that Séralini used too few animals (ten per sex per group, total of 20 per treatment group) and that his experiment was thus "underpowered"[8] – in other words, too weakly designed to justify conclusions drawn.

When juxtaposed against...
....do you have difficulty with.

Is it not clear that there is a specific contradiction between the complaint and the constraints?

Why would that be?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Cancer rates have decreased, not increased.
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/ReportNationRelease2012

I don't have a problem with that criticism of double standards (although i've not looked into it in detail). What I have a problem with is the suggestion that the results are statistically significant, when they are not.

They are far more statistically significant than results using the same or less numbers of rats which were conducted prior to this study as the previous studies only looked at the results of 90 days.

OECD 408, the 90-day rodent feeding trials that Séralini decided to extend to a long-term period in his study, requires ten animals per sex per group.[13] This is the same number that Séralini used. It is also the same number that Monsanto analyzed for blood and urine chemistry in its 90-day tests on GMOs, including the test that concluded NK603 maize was safe to be marketed.

These tests decided it was safe.... is that all it takes to get something passed as safe when you are the great Monsanto?
Apparently so. But it should not be so. The safety certificate should be revoked until proper tests are done.

So why were the following tests deemed sufficient to pronounce the product as safe?

Below deals with the projected increase in cancer in less developed countries as western foods - poor diet, lack of exercise etc but I think they are really referring to the western junk food causing it. The west already has it, (junk food), thats why our cancer rates are so high.

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worldwide-cancer-incidence-predicted-to-rise

For the west... I would trust the BBC for most accurate reporting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14140424

I suppose it is all down to who you believe in the info wars
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
More people get cancer because people live longer. The actual incidence of cancer has not increased.

More from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19703834



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15480754

 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Quoting OECD as a benchmark for these trials is dishonest.

OECD 408 is a TOXICITY trial guideline.

Carcinogenic studies are covered by OECD 451:

Why not use the guideline that is SPECIFICALLY FOR STUDY OF CANCERS??
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Quoting OECD as a benchmark for these trials is dishonest.

OECD 408 is a TOXICITY trial guideline.

Carcinogenic studies are covered by OECD 451:

Why not use the guideline that is SPECIFICALLY FOR STUDY OF CANCERS??


But yes... lets have a MAJOR STUDIES, into toxicity and cancers with scientific consensus from both sides that the trial formats meet all standards and prove GM safe and are in the interests of the consumers safety.

Until then, all GM should be deemed unsafe until proved otherwise
 

MikeC

Closed Account

Indeed - which is why it is invalid - trumpeting "we've found cancer", in a study deigned to measure toxicity, among mice designed to grow cancer, and not accounting for those cancers is NOT VALID!

But yes... lets have a MAJOR STUDIES, into toxicity and cancers with scientific consensus from both sides that the trial formats meet all standards and prove GM safe and are in the interests of the consumers safety.

Well we already have 1 toxicity study that failed to find any toxicity in an extended trial - Seralini's!!

Until then, all GM should be deemed unsafe until proved otherwise

Despite the utter lack of any indications that they are unsafe in any regard??
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Indeed - which is why it is invalid - trumpeting "we've found cancer", in a study deigned to measure toxicity, among mice designed to grow cancer, and not accounting for those cancers is NOT VALID!

Again for those still obviously unable to grasp the very simple kindergarden concept... it is the massive increase in cancers in the test groups when compared to the control group.

And if it had been found that the non control group, (those being fed with minute amounts of GM R), had significantly less cancers than the control group... do you think this study would be being attacked...?

No you and Jay and Monsanto and everyone else would be running around saying "look at these amazing results, even at 0.1 ppb R in water + GM grain "we have independent proof that GM R foods contain anti cancer properties"... everyone should be eating them and it should be added to the water in even greater quantities than are already permitted, i.e. over 700 ppb.


Well we already have 1 toxicity study that failed to find any toxicity in an extended trial - Seralini's!!

Massive increase in cancer growth does not constitute 'toxicity'... How amazingly enlightened you are!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity
Despite the utter lack of any indications that they are unsafe in any regard??

So you are happy that it is safe despite the fact that the rats outside the control group had massively increased instances of cancer growth... that is your scientific evidence that GM R is safe/non toxic is it? Wow!!!

So despite your and Jays obvious fanaticism to expose other people to the risks of being force fed GM R, we have still yet to hear whether you both are personally actually eat the stuff?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Again for those still obviously unable to grasp the very simple kindergarden concept... it is the massive increase in cancers in the test groups when compared to the control group.

And if it had been found that the non control group, (those being fed with minute amounts of GM R), had significantly less cancers than the control group... do you think this study would be being attacked...?

It would be attacked if it claimed the result was statistically significant when it was not.

I toss a coin ten times, it comes up heads seven times, and tails three. Does that then prove that heads it more likely to come up than tails.

I repeat it with another coin. I get seven tails and three heads. Does this prove the coin has different properties?

No, because the results are not statistically significant.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It would be attacked if it claimed the result was statistically significant when it was not.

I toss a coin ten times, it comes up heads seven times, and tails three. Does that then prove that heads it more likely to come up than tails.

I repeat it with another coin. I get seven tails and three heads. Does this prove the coin has different properties?

No, because the results are not statistically significant.
IYO has there been sufficient statistically valid studies which indicate GMO foods are safe??
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It would be attacked if it claimed the result was statistically significant when it was not.

I toss a coin ten times, it comes up heads seven times, and tails three. Does that then prove that heads it more likely to come up than tails.

I repeat it with another coin. I get seven tails and three heads. Does this prove the coin has different properties?

No, because the results are not statistically significant.

Then why bother with the tests in the first place if they show nothing, especially when Monsanto have done even less conclusive tests and deemed them GM R as safe?

On what basis are they deemed safe?

On far less conclusive tests than the one you are attacking, that's what on.

It is blatant manipulation for financial gain or for something far far darker.

As George asks
"has there been sufficient statistically valid studies which indicate GMO foods are safe??
"

The answer is no there has not, because the Monsanto tests used the same strain of rats in similar or less numbers over a mere 90 day period... so how can that be valid?

And why has it been approved for many years for human consumption or even animal consumption, i.e. even allowed in the food chain?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
So you are happy that it is safe despite the fact that the rats outside the control group had massively increased instances of cancer growth... that is your scientific evidence that GM R is safe/non toxic is it? Wow! So despite your and Jays obvious fanaticism to expose other people to the risks of being force fed GM R, we have still yet to hear whether you both are personally actually eat the stuff?
Good nutrition increases the growth of cancers. "You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?" In your case you had better keep talking. You have already demonstrated your need for science education to everyone except yourself. Now's the time to get some.

George B said:
IYO has there been sufficient statistically valid studies which indicate GMO foods are safe?
All food is GMO. That's how it proliferates - by genetic change. The first human-induced genetic modifications are now around 12,000 years old, but modification has been the name of the game for billions of years. Food is not necessarily "safe" in the first place.

Very little of today's foods have been validated by "sufficient statistically valid studies". Fear appears to be your "cargo cult". Don't deceive yourself.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
This topic is even more important than the trans fats which are now widely banned but which were foisted on consumers for many years exactly like the GM R is currently.

Do you really want to be consuming it only to be told in a few years .... 'we made a mistake it is highly carcinogenic?'

Too late mate!

http://www.bantransfats.com/
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...s-of-lives-will-be-saved-uk-told-1946458.html

The GM R likely has the ability to adversely affect not only those who consume it but future generations who do not.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Good nutrition increases the growth of cancers. "You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?" In your case you had better keep talking. You have already demonstrated your need for science education to everyone except yourself. Now's the time to get some.


All food is GMO. That's how it proliferates - by genetic change. The first human-induced genetic modifications are now around 12,000 years old, but modification has been the name of the game for billions of years. Food is not necessarily "safe" in the first place.

Very little of today's foods have been validated by "sufficient statistically valid studies". Fear appears to be your "cargo cult". Don't deceive yourself.
Oh . . . I didn't know that selective breeding was the same thing as cross species gene splicing and using recombinant DNA . . . thanks for clarifying that issue for me!!
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories about Senator Kelly Loeffler's Campaign Staffer, 20, Killed in Car Crash. Election 2020 2
Mick West Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia Election 2020 20
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
skephu Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing Practical Debunking 25
Marin B Garrett Graff : "Bungling" is a more likely explanation for government conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 7
Dick Holman How many people follow multiple conspiracy theories? Practical Debunking 12
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
MikeG Body Armor Order Indicates Major Military Deployments Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
deirdre Zika Virus: News, microcephaly and conspiracy theories Health and Quackery 14
Critical Thinker Fareed Zakaria: An angry victim of the Internet misinformation websites, speaks out Practical Debunking 11
Trailspotter The Spreading of Misinformation Online Practical Debunking 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories, Bad Reporting, Bunk, and the Malheur Militia Incident in Burns, Oregon Conspiracy Theories 74
MikeG Debunked: Mandatory Vaccines for Veterans Conspiracy Theories 11
MikeG Strong Cities Network Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Inside The Lonely Lives Of Truthers, Still Looking For Their Big Break 9/11 46
MikeG Debunked: Government to Nationalize Food Supply Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG Military Trains Conspiracy Theories 7
keefe Climate change and conspiracy theories - Lewandowsky General Discussion 3
Mick West Tianjin Explosion - Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 58
M Guccifer Claim: Nuclear attack in Chicago or Pennsylvania 2015 Conspiracy Theories 11
MikeG Claim: Charleston Shooting was a False Flag Conspiracy Theories 22
Whitebeard Germanwings Airbus Crash Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 89
Auldy Why is The Monarchy The Subject of Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 19
Mick West Charlie Hebdo Conspiracy Theories - Ignore or Address? Conspiracy Theories 255
Jay Reynolds Conspiracy Theories hamper fight against Ebola Conspiracy Theories 25
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
Josh Heuer Paul Walker's unfortunate death - conspiracy theories General Discussion 1
nanotchi Conspiracy Theories being advertised Conspiracy Theories 2
AluminumTheory Super Typhoon Haiyan - HAARP & Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 102
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top