GMO conspiracy theories

[Oxymoron]

For anyone who is interested, this is how it works:

http://www.genome.gov/27532724

What makes the epigenome change?
Lifestyle and environmental factors can expose a person to chemical tags that change the epigenome. In other words, your epigenome may change based on what you eat and drink, whether you smoke, what medicines you take, what pollutants you encounter and even how quickly your body ages. There is also some evidence from animal and human studies that indicates that what a female eats and drinks during pregnancy may change the epigenome of her offspring.
Most epigenomic changes are probably harmless, but some changes may trigger or increase the severity of disease. Researchers already have linked changes in the epigenome to various cancers, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and mental illnesses.

Content from External Source

How do changes in the epigenome contribute to cancer?
Cancers are caused by a combination of changes to the genome and the epigenome.

Content from External Source

Is the epigenome inherited?
Just as the genome is passed along from parents to their offspring, the epigenome can also be inherited. The chemical tags found on the DNA and histones of eggs and sperm can be conveyed to the next generation.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

IYO has there been sufficient statistically valid studies which indicate GMO foods are safe??

I'd agree with this:
http://www.apic-ak.cz/data_ak/12/v/GMOvyzkumDDB.pdf

[h=1]Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review[/h]
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

Content from External Source

Humans have been eating GM foods for 20 years, with no noticeable effects.

This article is a good overview of the Séralini affair

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/6048/full

If you want to see if a food or a chemical causes cancer in rats, you compare rats who have been fed the ingredient with rats who haven’t. But cancer is very common in rats, especially aged rats of the Harlan Sprague Dawley strain, which were used in this study: 74% of males and 89% of females will get cancer by the time they reach the end of their life.

With a background rate like that, you need a robust statistical analysis to make sure you’re seeing a real signal above the noise. Séralini’s paper did not provide that. Nor could it: the experiment seems to have been designed to make the analysis problematic. For one thing, he used only 20 control rats compared to 180 treated — a skewing that would make it more likely he’d pick up the tumours in the treated group. “The control group is inadequate to make any deduction. Until you know the degree of variation in 90 or 180 control rodents these results are of no value," explained Anthony Trewavas, professor of cell biology, at the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland. David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at the University of Cambridge, in England, and Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, offered, "Frankly, the paper makes a great case study for teaching how not to design, analyse and report a scientific experiment.”

See for yourself:

200 rats were divided into 10 groups; 10 males and 10 females in each group. One group were fed ordinary rat food and served as the baseline ‘control’. Three groups were given food comprised of a percentage of the GM corn that resists Round-Up (it’s called NK603): 11%, 22% or 33%. Three groups were fed the same percentages of GM corn that had been grown in the presence of Round Up. Another three groups were dosed with Round-Up alone by adding it to their water.

A high school student would know what to do next: apply a statistical test to look for differences in the treated groups and the controls. Of course, since the background cancer rate is so high, you would also want to be reassured that the effect is real by seeing that higher doses of GM corn produce higher rates of cancer.

But the authors did not do what many of their peers consider to be an appropriate statistical test.

“There does not appear to be a statistical analysis of the mammary tumours," noted Alan Boobis, professor of biochemical pharmacology, Imperial College London. “The statistical methods are unconventional, there is no clearly defined data analysis plan and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons,” said Tom Sanders, head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London.

In lieu of a robust statistical analysis, Séralini seems to have cherry picked the data. The females fed 11% GM corn showed a 30% increase in the number of tumours. But the females fed a 33% s dose showed a decreased number of tumours! And the males showed no differences in tumours between treated and controls.

THE AUTHORS CONCLUDED that there was a “threshold” effect seen with a low level of GM corn that disappeared at high doses. They could have equally concluded that GM corn at 33% of the diet protects you from cancer! And the fact that there was no effect seen in males? GM corn was interacting with the female hormones.

The more plausible explanation? “To be frank it looks like random variation to me in a rodent line likely to develop tumours anyway,” offered Trewavas.

Content from External Source

 

[Jazzy]

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!!

In all cases the genetic design is modified. Nature does it by natural selection (but also by retroviruses), humans by their own selection. A gene in a new position bears no relationship to its original position and is no more likely to be carcinogenic no matter what its origin.

This isn't clarification in your case, George, as it isn't in Oxymoron's. Both of you are totally ignoring reason in the service of emotion. Until you subside a little into reason you remain merely unpleasant rabble-rousers.

 

[George B]

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!!

What events lead to the conference? Eight months earlier,in July 1974, a call for a voluntary moratorium on certain scientific experiments using the emerging recombinant DNA technology startled the world-wide scientific community (1). This unprecedented action by a group of American scientists echoed reservations expressed at a Gordon Conference on nucleic acids the summer before (2). Both groups acknowl- edged that the new technology created extraordinary novel avenues for genetics and could ultimately provide exceptional opportunities for medicine,agriculture,and industry. Never- the-less, the scientists were concerned that unnfettered pursuit of this research might engender unforeseen and damaging con- sequences for human health and the Earth's ecosystems. In spite of widespread consternation among many scientists about the proscriptions,the validity of the concerns,and the manner inwhich they were announced,the moratorium was universally observed.One goal of the moratorium was to provide time for a conference that would evaluate the state of the new tech- nology and the risks, if any, associated with it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/92/20/9011.full.pdf

Content from External Source

 

[Oxymoron]

Don't sue us if you get cancer or anything else for that matter.... Learning from Big Pharma who also deny any culpability.

http://www.morphcity.com/home/94-monsanto-shifts-all-liability-to-farmers

February 21, 2011 Farmers like genetically modified (GM) crops because they can plant them, spray them with herbicide and then there is very little maintenance until harvest. Farmers who plant Monsanto's GM crops probably don't realize what they bargain for when they sign the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement contract. One farmer reportedly 'went crazy' when he discovered the scope of the contract because it transfers ALL liability to the farmer or grower.

Here is the paragraph that defines Monsanto's limit of liability that shifts it to the farmer:
"GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES."
G. Edward Griffin, author of 'The Creature From Jekyll Island', and numerous other books and documentary films, and Anthony Patchett, retired assistant Head Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County Environmental Crimes/ OSHA Division explain the consequences of the Monsanto contract in the video below.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

In all cases the genetic design is modified. Nature does it by natural selection (but also by retroviruses), humans by their own selection. A gene in a new position bears no relationship to its original position and is no more likely to be carcinogenic no matter what its origin.

This isn't clarification in your case, George, as it isn't in Oxymoron's. Both of you are totally ignoring reason in the service of emotion. Until you subside a little into reason you remain merely unpleasant rabble-rousers.

I think I have a solid understanding of the potential benefits and dangers since I engaged in this field of study for sometime . . . I participated in the moratorium above . . . my question to Mick was not emotional or "rabble-rousing" it was did he feel there had been sufficient statistically valid studies to conclude foods classified as GMO as safe?

 

[HappyMonday]

Oxy - I haven't been following this thread, just jumped in at the end, but it looks like you're starting to eulogise with your evidence a bit. Wait for a response to what you've posted, and try to rebutt the arguments presented to you, otherwise the thread will just degenerate.

 

[Oxymoron]

Guess Agent Orange and flamethrowers are the only next step when roundup fails.

Oh yes, we dealt with that before:

"superweeds" are now affecting up to 15 million acres of American crops.

Content from External Source

That will cost someone a few dollars but not Monsanto

PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE, FISH CRUSTACEA AND ENVIRONMENT
Do NOT contaminate dams, rivers or streams with the product or used container. When controlling
weeds in aquatic situations, refer to label directions to minimise the entry of spray into the water.

Content from External Source

PROTECTION OF CROP, NATIVE AND OTHER NON-TARGET PLANTS
Avoid contact with foliage, green stems, exposed non-woody roots or fruit of crops, desirable plants
and trees, since severe injury or destruction may result.

DO NOT apply under weather conditions, or from spraying equipment, that may cause spray to drift
onto nearby susceptible plants/crops, cropping lands or pastures.

Content from External Source

Some naturally occurring weed biotypes resistant to Roundup Biactive and other inhibitors of EPSP
synthase mode of action herbicides may exist through normal genetic variability in any weed
population. The resistant individuals can eventually dominate the weed population if these herbicides
are used repeatedly. These resistant weeds will not be controlled by Roundup Biactive or other
inhibitors of EPSP synthase herbicides. Since the occurrence of resistant weeds is difficult to detect
prior to use, Monsanto accepts no liability for any losses that may result from the failure of Roundup
Biactive to control resistant weeds.

Content from External Source

 

[HappyMonday]

*Sigh* Gish Gallop in progress.

 

[Oxymoron]

Oxy - I haven't been following this thread, just jumped in at the end, but it looks like you're starting to eulogise with your evidence a bit. Wait for a response to what you've posted, and try to rebutt the arguments presented to you, otherwise the thread will just degenerate.

Ok I'll try... just did not want to be accused of 'tacit agreement'

Sorry

 

[George B]

I'd agree with this:
http://www.apic-ak.cz/data_ak/12/v/GMOvyzkumDDB.pdf

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review


The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

Content from External Source

Humans have been eating GM foods for 20 years, with no noticeable effects.

This article is a good overview of the Séralini affair

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/6048/full

If you want to see if a food or a chemical causes cancer in rats, you compare rats who have been fed the ingredient with rats who haven’t. But cancer is very common in rats, especially aged rats of the Harlan Sprague Dawley strain, which were used in this study: 74% of males and 89% of females will get cancer by the time they reach the end of their life.

With a background rate like that, you need a robust statistical analysis to make sure you’re seeing a real signal above the noise. Séralini’s paper did not provide that. Nor could it: the experiment seems to have been designed to make the analysis problematic. For one thing, he used only 20 control rats compared to 180 treated — a skewing that would make it more likely he’d pick up the tumours in the treated group. “The control group is inadequate to make any deduction. Until you know the degree of variation in 90 or 180 control rodents these results are of no value," explained Anthony Trewavas, professor of cell biology, at the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland. David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at the University of Cambridge, in England, and Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, offered, "Frankly, the paper makes a great case study for teaching how not to design, analyse and report a scientific experiment.”

See for yourself:

200 rats were divided into 10 groups; 10 males and 10 females in each group. One group were fed ordinary rat food and served as the baseline ‘control’. Three groups were given food comprised of a percentage of the GM corn that resists Round-Up (it’s called NK603): 11%, 22% or 33%. Three groups were fed the same percentages of GM corn that had been grown in the presence of Round Up. Another three groups were dosed with Round-Up alone by adding it to their water.

A high school student would know what to do next: apply a statistical test to look for differences in the treated groups and the controls. Of course, since the background cancer rate is so high, you would also want to be reassured that the effect is real by seeing that higher doses of GM corn produce higher rates of cancer.

But the authors did not do what many of their peers consider to be an appropriate statistical test.

“There does not appear to be a statistical analysis of the mammary tumours," noted Alan Boobis, professor of biochemical pharmacology, Imperial College London. “The statistical methods are unconventional, there is no clearly defined data analysis plan and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons,” said Tom Sanders, head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London.

In lieu of a robust statistical analysis, Séralini seems to have cherry picked the data. The females fed 11% GM corn showed a 30% increase in the number of tumours. But the females fed a 33% s dose showed a decreased number of tumours! And the males showed no differences in tumours between treated and controls.

THE AUTHORS CONCLUDED that there was a “threshold” effect seen with a low level of GM corn that disappeared at high doses. They could have equally concluded that GM corn at 33% of the diet protects you from cancer! And the fact that there was no effect seen in males? GM corn was interacting with the female hormones.

The more plausible explanation? “To be frank it looks like random variation to me in a rodent line likely to develop tumours anyway,” offered Trewavas.

Content from External Source

So you feel GMO foods are safe based upon the tests used so far to test them?

 

[MikeC]

Don't sue us if you get cancer or anything else for that matter.... Learning from Big Pharma who also deny any culpability.

http://www.morphcity.com/home/94-monsanto-shifts-all-liability-to-farmers

So nothing at all to do with any tests showing a health risk from GMO then?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

For anyone who is interested, this is how it works:

http://www.genome.gov/27532724

What makes the epigenome change?
Lifestyle and environmental factors can expose a person to chemical tags that change the epigenome. In other words, your epigenome may change based on what you eat and drink, whether you smoke, what medicines you take, what pollutants you encounter and even how quickly your body ages.

Content from External Source

Your quote didn't mention ionizing radiation as a cause of this change. IR can come from past nuclear tests and leaks and the natural background or even cosmic rays. It is inescapable for the most part by lifestyle options mentioned, and in the case of natural background/cosmic rays truly inescapable. It is believed that naturally occurring radon gas is the second largest cause of lung cancer, but it is not that hard to mitigate in homes.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

Your quote didn't mention ionizing radiation as a cause of this change. IR can come from past nuclear tests and leaks and the natural background or even cosmic rays. It is inescapable for the most part by lifestyle options mentioned, and in the case of natural background/cosmic rays truly inescapable. It is believed that naturally occurring radon gas is the second largest cause of lung cancer, but it is not that hard to mitigate in homes.

These factors are inescapable you listed and radon is detectable and can be mitigated . . . our food supply is really a different issue . . . we can alter the food supply for the good or for error . . . seems we should error on the side of caution and be very slow and deliberate in manipulating it . . . I am not convinced we are being cautious enough . . .

Issues have been raised . . . what is the harm to design protocols acceptable to an independent panel of scientists which will remove the major concerns now being voiced . . . allowing the people who have a vested interest in a product to determine its safety is not good business . . . make the process transparent and independent of all industrial influence . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

Your quote didn't mention ionizing radiation as a cause of this change. IR can come from past nuclear tests and leaks and the natural background or even cosmic rays. It is inescapable for the most part by lifestyle options mentioned, and in the case of natural background/cosmic rays truly inescapable. It is believed that naturally occurring radon gas is the second largest cause of lung cancer, but it is not that hard to mitigate in homes.

To some people, the Hunza's may be described as 'backward', 'uneducated', 'ignorant'.

But who really are the ignorant ones... maybe the ones who call them ignorant?

It is not everyone's idea of a great lifestyle... but it suits them and why can we not learn from them and incorporate some of there practices, maybe we won't live as long and healthy lives as them, but small changes can go a long way to improving our health and longevity.

At the very least let us stop poisoning ourselves!

http://thepdi.com/hunza_health_secrets.htm

According to a number of sources, it is not uncommon for 90 year old Hunza men to father children. Hunza women of 80 or more look no older than a western woman of 40 - and not only any woman, but one who is in excellent shape.
They also force us to ask the following question: is there some secret technique that allows these people to live so long, and stay so healthy? The answer is yes – the Hunzas do know something we don’t. But there isn’t just one secret, there are many.

The first, and certainly the most important of these secrets concerns nutrition. Interestingly enough, the Hunza approach resembles that outlined by Hippocrates, father of modern medicine

The basic precept of their common notion of what constitutes a proper diet is simple: the food you eat is your best medicine.

Well, the basis of the Hunza diet, which to a large extent is dictated by the rather harsh climatic and geographical conditions of their home country, can be summed up in one word: frugality.

Hunza food is completely natural, containing no chemical additives whatsoever. Unfortunately, that is not the case as far as most of our food is concerned. Everything is as fresh as it can possibly be, and in its original unsalted state. The only "processing" consists of drying some fresh fruits in the the sun, and making butter and cheese out of milk. No chemicals or artificial fertilizers are used in their gardens. In fact, it is against the law of Hunza to spray gardens with pesticides. Renee Taylor, in her book Hunza health secrets ( Prentice-Hall 1964) says that the Mir,or ruler of Hunza, was recently instructed by Pakistani authorities to spray the orchards of Hunza with pesticide, to protect them from an expected invasion of insects. But the Hunzas would have none of it. They refused to use the toxic pesticide, and instead sprayed their trees with a mixture of water and ashes, which adequately protected the trees without poisoning the fruit and the entire environment. In a word, the Hunzas eat as they live - organically.

Content from External Source

And what about cancer rates?

Just to mention a few
http://www.cancer-coverup.com/brewer/brewer-05.html

There are a number of areas where the incidences of cancer are very low. Unfortunately, the food composition in these areas has never been analyzed. At the 1978 Stockholm Conference on Food and Cancer it was concluded that there is definitely a connection between the two, but since the relationship was not understood, no conclusions could be drawn [22]. The food intake has been studied by the author as far as possible from the high pH point of view. The results found will be discussed for a number of low incidence areas.

The Hopi Indians of Arizona
The incidence of cancer among the Hopi Indians is 1 in 1000 as compared to 1 in 4 for the USA as a whole. Fortunately their food has been analyzed from the standpoint of nutritional values [17]. In this study it was shown that the Hopi food runs higher in all the essential minerals than conventional foods. It is very high in potassium and exceptionally high in rubidium. Since the soil is volcanic it must also be very rich in cesium. These Indians live primarily on desert grown calico corn products. Instead of using baking soda they use the ash of chamisa leaves, a desert grown plant. The analyses of this ash showed it to be very rich in rubidium. The Indians also eat many fruits, especially apricots, per day. They always eat the kernels. The results indicate clearly that the Hopi food meets the requirements for the High pH therapy.

Content from External Source

The Pueblo Indians of Arizona

Some 20 years ago the incidence of cancer among the Pueblo Indians was the same as that for the Hopi Indians, since their food was essentially the same. But unlike the Hopi, these Indians have accrued certain items from outside their environment, hence supermarkets were installed in the area. Today the incidence of cancer among the Pueblos is 1 in 4, the same as the U.S. It is reported that there is a regular epidemic of cancer among them. It must be emphasized here that the high incidence of cancer is not due to what is in the supermarket foods, hut rather to what is not in it. It is essentially lacking rubidium and cesium and low in potassium.

Content from External Source

If you recall WHO predict 75% increase in cancer rates in the developing world... I wonder how they do that!

It is reported that there is a regular epidemic of cancer among them. It must be emphasized here that the high incidence of cancer is not due to what is in the supermarket foods, hut rather to what is not in it. It is essentially lacking rubidium and cesium and low in potassium.

Content from External Source

The Hunza of North Pakistan
Cancer is essentially unknown among the Hunza, but unfortunately their food has never been analyzed. Talks with Hunza themselves and with Hindu professors who have spent some time in the area, have thrown sufficient light upon the food intake to show that it meets the requirements of the High pH therapy. They are essentially vegetarians, and are great fruit eaters, eating ordinarily 40 apricots per day; they always eat the kernels, either directly or as a meal. They drink at least 4 liters of mineral spring waters which abound in the area. Fortunately this water has been analyzed and found to be very rich in cesium. Since the soil is volcanic in nature, it must be concluded that it will be rich in Cs and Rb, as well as K.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

Sounds like a bunch of urban legends there Oxy. There are plenty of people in the West who live very "healthy" lifestyle. But none of them are getting to 145.

If you recall WHO predict 75% increase in cancer rates in the developing world... I wonder how they do that!

With science. People in developing countries will get cancer because they live longer, because they are not dying of infectious diseases and malnutrition. That's the main reason, but is compounded by industrial and urban pollution, and smoking. Diet is a possible factor, but not a very big one.

http://www.inctr.org/about-inctr/cancer-in-developing-countries/

Large declines in mortality are projected to occur between 2008 and 2015 for all of the principal communicable disease, maternal, peri-natal and nutritional causes, with the exception of HIV/AIDS. Global deaths of HIV/AIDS are projected to rise from 2.8 million in 2002 to 6.5 million in 2030 – under a baseline assumption that antiretroviral coverage reaches 80% by 2012. Although age-specific death rates for most communicable diseases are projected to decline, the aging of the global population will result in significant increases in the total number of deaths caused by most non-communicable diseases (NCDs) – such as cancer – over the next 30 years. Overall, NCDs will account for 70% of all deaths in 2030 under the baseline scenario and, in 2010, cancer will become the leading cause of death. In high, upper and lower middle income countries, cancer deaths exceed all infectious deaths combined. However, low income countries in particular, which continue to contend with a heavy burden of infectious diseases are also struggling to deal with an ever increasing burden of cancer. These differences reflect the broad range of development across the world; the gap between high income and other countries remains large.
Unfortunately, death from infection is all too often replaced by death from smoking, which along with an unhealthy diet- lacking in fruits and vegetables with a high overall calorie intake, coupled to a sedentary life style, predisposes to a number of NCDs. Tobacco and diet, together account for up to 60% of cancer in high income countries. These risk factors, which are, in theory, avoidable, will take an increasing toll on the health of the emerging middle class, particularly in those countries which are rapidly developing, such as India and China. The increase in cancer deaths will not be small; the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) predicts that by 2030 there will be 27 million new cases and 17 million deaths per year – an extra 10 million deaths compared to 2005.

Content from External Source

So basically as the developing countries become more like the west, they live longer, so die more of cancer.

Are you still thinking this is evidence that GMOs are killing everyone?

 

[Oxymoron]

Sounds like a bunch of urban legends there Oxy. There are plenty of people in the West who live very "healthy" lifestyle. But none of them are getting to 145.

With science. People in developing countries will get cancer because they live longer, because they are not dying of infectious diseases and malnutrition. That's the main reason, but is compounded by industrial and urban pollution, and smoking. Diet is a possible factor, but not a very big one.

Unsurprisingly you attempt to hide the unpalatable truth:

These are not myths or legends... these are unpalatable facts which Big Pharma, Corporations and Governments do their level best to hide or ridicule.

Apart from warfare, poverty, murder, accidents, lack of basic medical supplies, unhygienic conditions etc... the major factor in mortality rates are down to poor or poisonous foods. This includes foods which not only have toxins added but essential nutrients removed.

You can poo poo all you like but it does not change the fact that 'The Western' populations have been 'conditioned', (exactly as you are now trying to carry on conditioning), to expect that 1 in 4 people getting cancer is somehow 'normal'

It is not normal, it is engineered... IMO and the opinion of very many highly intelligent researchers, doctors and scientists.

The evidence is right in front of you but you choose to say

Sounds like a bunch of urban legends there Oxy

Where is your evidence?

Do you deny the cited facts?....

The Hunza of North Pakistan
Cancer is essentially unknown among the Hunza,

Content from External Source

Some 20 years ago the incidence of cancer among the Pueblo Indians was the same as that for the Hopi Indians, since their food was essentially the same. But unlike the Hopi, these Indians have accrued certain items from outside their environment, hence supermarkets were installed in the area. Today the incidence of cancer among the Pueblos is 1 in 4, the same as the U.S

Content from External Source

Let me guess.... They are statistically unimportant or inconclusive.... like the rats...and the band played beleive it if you will

But make no mistake, there are a myriad of regions where cancer is unknown... and that doesn't sit well with the lie that we should expect to get cancer because we are living longer...

Well there are plenty of peoples who live long and prosper who are not subject to the ravages of cancer and other highly suspect diseases which suddenly decimate populations after being discussed, planned and worked on with massive funding... i.e. AIDS.

Yes these peoples are a living, embarrassing testament to the lie that is foisted upon the masses who are being culled.

What can be done about it.... maybe force them to submit to the same toxins as everyone else?

About the Hunza

http://www.cancerinform.org/article.html

Visiting medical teams found them cancer free. In 1973 Prince Mohammed Khan, son of the Mir of Hunza told Charles Hillinger of the LA Times the average age of his people is about 85. More importantly, they live vigorous and mentally alert lives up until a few days before they die. Only in recent years have the first few Hunza cancer cases been reported. That is due to a narrow road being carved in the mountain and food from the "civilized" world is reaching Hunza. In the 1970s the FDA mounted a widespread and erroneous media campaign alleging that amygdalin is toxic and dangerous because it contains cyanide. Yes, it does, in minute quantities. If you eat the seeds from a hundred apples in a day you risk serious side effects, possibly death. If you eat enormous amounts of anything you run serious health risks. Aspirin is twenty times more toxic than the same amount of amygdalin.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

The problem here Oxy is that you are already convinced you are right. Hence you'll simply ignore any contradictory evidence as simply part of the cover-up my big-ag. Why exactly would you believe your source over another random source, like:

http://biblelife.org/hunza.htm

The Hunza people were no different from other people who lived in isolated high mountain communities. Most of the books written about the Hunzakuts are simply fiction and myths flamed by the imagination into believing the Hunza River Valley was a magical Garden of Eden where people never got sick. The people of Hunza recognized a century ago that pretending to be centenarians brought visitors bearing money and gifts. They certainly must have been laughing after retreating to the privacy of their homes. Primitive people the world over have been known to tell tall tales about themselves to strangers visiting their land. Lying about one's age is as old as mankind. The people of Hunza are known for their consistent exaggerations of age in order to gain respect and social status. The social structure of Hunza encouraged lying and cheating as a profitable way to better one's self.

​

Scientific facts about Hunza have been impossible to obtain. Since the British first entered Hunza, the ruling Mir has placed a severe restriction on visitors to the valley. Permission was required from both Pakistan and the State of Hunza. Scientific studies or independent investigations were strictly forbidden. An invitation from the Mir of Hunza was essential to obtain a special-entry permit. As late as 1960 there were no hotels, no restaurants, and no stores to buy food. Chosen visitors were generally guests of the Mir in the capital of Baltit where they were told make-believe story instead of the truth about Hunza.

​

The Mir of Hunza never provided verification of the longevity of the Hunzakuts and never allowed others to investigate. The Hunzakuts of the past were no older than they appeared and may have actually been younger than they appeared. The longevity was a hoax from the beginning, and the diet did not produce a super-human race. Hunza could best be described as an isolated high mountain kingdom founded on betrayal and struggling for existence by deceiving the world.​

Content from External Source

Do you follow the argument that as people in developing countries live longer, then the incidence of cancer will increase? What do you think of it?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

According to a number of sources, it is not uncommon for 90 year old Hunza men to father children. Hunza women of 80 or more look no older than a western woman of 40 - and not only any woman, but one who is in excellent shape.

according to this website from Pakistan, older hunza women can look just as old as old women in the west, they do get cancer, and their average age is 52-53.

Local legend states that Hunza may have been associated with the lost kingdom of Shangri La which was mentioned in the Novel of James Hilton "The Lost Horizon". The people of Hunza are by some noted for their exceptionally long life expectancy, others describe this as a longevity myth and cite a life expectancy of 53 years for men and 52 for women, although with a high standard deviation.

http://www.travel-culture.com/pakistan/hunza_people.shtml

So, if an 80 year old Hunza woman looks no older than a western woman of 40 in excellent shape:



Then this Hunza woman must be, what, 400?



Oxy, you mght read John Clark's book to learn more about the Hunza.
http://biblelife.org/hunza.htm

 

[Oxymoron]

The problem here Oxy is that you are already convinced you are right. Hence you'll simply ignore any contradictory evidence as simply part of the cover-up my big-ag. Why exactly would you believe your source over another random source, like:

http://biblelife.org/hunza.htm

The Hunza people were no different from other people who lived in isolated high mountain communities. Most of the books written about the Hunzakuts are simply fiction and myths flamed by the imagination into believing the Hunza River Valley was a magical Garden of Eden where people never got sick. The people of Hunza recognized a century ago that pretending to be centenarians brought visitors bearing money and gifts. They certainly must have been laughing after retreating to the privacy of their homes. Primitive people the world over have been known to tell tall tales about themselves to strangers visiting their land. Lying about one's age is as old as mankind. The people of Hunza are known for their consistent exaggerations of age in order to gain respect and social status. The social structure of Hunza encouraged lying and cheating as a profitable way to better one's self.

​

Scientific facts about Hunza have been impossible to obtain. Since the British first entered Hunza, the ruling Mir has placed a severe restriction on visitors to the valley. Permission was required from both Pakistan and the State of Hunza. Scientific studies or independent investigations were strictly forbidden. An invitation from the Mir of Hunza was essential to obtain a special-entry permit. As late as 1960 there were no hotels, no restaurants, and no stores to buy food. Chosen visitors were generally guests of the Mir in the capital of Baltit where they were told make-believe story instead of the truth about Hunza.

​

The Mir of Hunza never provided verification of the longevity of the Hunzakuts and never allowed others to investigate. The Hunzakuts of the past were no older than they appeared and may have actually been younger than they appeared. The longevity was a hoax from the beginning, and the diet did not produce a super-human race. Hunza could best be described as an isolated high mountain kingdom founded on betrayal and struggling for existence by deceiving the world.​

Content from External Source

Do you follow the argument that as people in developing countries live longer, then the incidence of cancer will increase? What do you think of it?

Yes I follow that argument. I think it has some validity but I think it overplayed. Naturally, we must all die of something and discounting accidents, war etc the older we get the more statistically likely we are to die from a disease...cancer will no doubt have its part to play.

That argument however does not explain how many civilisations have virtually no or very low incidences of cancer... Hunza's being only one example.

Even your Bible based source, which seems very anti the Hunza people, acknowledges the very low incidences of cancer in the Hunza community. I do not advocate living a Hunza lifestyle, it seems very harsh, but they seem to like it and want to protect it, which appears to be part of the complaint against them from your source.

The Hunza people did grow apricots and eat the apricot kernel of the apricot pit. The apricot kernel does indeed contain vitamin B-17, and the people may have had a low incidence of cancer, but the apricot had nothing to do with the cancer rate in the Hunza people. Vitamin B-17 has never been shown to prevent or cure cancer. The dead Hunzakuts were never examined by anyone to verify the cause of death. It was never proven that they had a low incidence of cancer.

Content from External Source

But this thread is not specifically about the Hunzas or the Native American Indians or the Inuit etc, it is about the possible toxic effects and 'unproven safety' of GM R and to that end you have offered no viable evidence to indicate its long term safety.

In fact anytime anyone asks to see such evidence... silence appears to be their only answer.

What are people to conclude?

 

[Mick West]

I suspect the only "viable evidence of its long term safety" you would accept is to wait 50 years and see if there's any effect.

I'm not being silent. There have been lots of tests to see if there's any problem. No problems have been demonstrated. You say that's because of industry pressure and academic bias. But I don't think the entire worlds scientific community can be as easily hushed as you suggest. Nor do I hold the strongly negative view of science that you do. Scientists are people, just like you and me. Some have families, some do not. A very large number of them are scientists because they love science, not because they are penny pinching grant chasers. The scientific system worldwide is such that the truth will out.

And the Hunzas? Don't you think it's at all telling that this is the type of evidence that some anti-GMO (or "natural food") campaigners rely on?

 

[Oxymoron]

I suspect the only "viable evidence of its long term safety" you would accept is to wait 50 years and see if there's any effect.

I'm not being silent. There have been lots of tests to see if there's any problem. No problems have been demonstrated. You say that's because of industry pressure and academic bias. But I don't think the entire worlds scientific community can be as easily hushed as you suggest. Nor do I hold the strongly negative view of science that you do. Scientists are people, just like you and me. Some have families, some do not. A very large number of them are scientists because they love science, not because they are penny pinching grant chasers. The scientific system worldwide is such that the truth will out.

And the Hunzas? Don't you think it's at all telling that this is the type of evidence that some anti-GMO (or "natural food") campaigners rely on?

I see an extremely pertinent question, expressed in an extremely moderate manner, which has not been answered at all, let alone adequately, by anyone on this forum.

Issues have been raised . . . what is the harm to design protocols acceptable to an independent panel of scientists which will remove the major concerns now being voiced . . . allowing the people who have a vested interest in a product to determine its safety is not good business . . . make the process transparent and independent of all industrial influence . . .

 

[MikeC]

I see an extremely pertinent question, expressed in an extremely moderate manner, which has not been answered at all, let alone adequately, by anyone on this forum.

Your question about the safety of GMO being demonstrated was answered before you asked it in this post.

 

[Pete Tar]

What about the incidences of cancer in wild animals? Particularly herbivores? (grass is healthy right?).
Are there any significant studies?

 

[MikeC]

Apparently not.

 

[George B]

Apparently not.

I have one response . . .

http://weburbanist.com/2010/08/05/cigarette-advertising-a-vintage-look/

 

[Jazzy]

I have one response . . .

And it's always the same: irrelevant, out of context, trite, and agenda-laden. How old are you? (Rhetorical).

"Food" IS NOT "SAFE". It is actually POISONOUS. That is why we are equipped with KIDNEYS, and LIVERS, and DIE if they fail.

Define those terms first, please, before, you gallop off.

 

[Jazzy]

(grass is healthy right?). Are there any significant studies?

Not near brickworks, cement factories, power stations, or volcanoes, I think you'll discover. There are some studies I believe, but you'll have to chase them up.

 

[Oxymoron]

And it's always the same: irrelevant, out of context, trite, and agenda-laden. How old are you? (Rhetorical).

"Food" IS NOT "SAFE". It is actually POISONOUS. That is why we are equipped with KIDNEYS, and LIVERS, and DIE if they fail.

Define those terms first, please, before, you gallop off.

But I think you may find, some 'food' is safer than others

 

[Jazzy]

But I think you may find, some 'food' is safer than others

Which could be restated as "less dangerous' than others. But still "dangerous". We happily chomp away all our lives. But we die, frequently, from what we chomp. We moderate the dangers with specialized poison-removing organs, which we cannot outlast by more than a week if they fail.

Before you troll you'd better closely define. If you don't, you troll. You have been trolling so far, and I've been biting my lips trying not to be abusive. I have known several people who are no longer with us who needed those organs and died for the lack of their function. Today's science would have helped them, but they got sick too soon.

I hold with Mick's view "Scientists are people, just like you and me. Some have families, some do not. A very large number of them are scientists because they love science, not because they are penny pinching grant chasers. The scientific system worldwide is such that the truth will out." That's been my experience.

I don't think your views are in any way constructive. Quite the reverse.

 

[Oxymoron]

Which could be restated as "less dangerous' than others. But still "dangerous". We happily chomp away all our lives. But we die, frequently, from what we chomp. We moderate the dangers with specialized poison-removing organs, which we cannot outlast by more than a week if they fail.

Before you troll you'd better closely define. If you don't, you troll. You have been trolling so far, and I've been biting my lips trying not to be abusive. I have known several people who are no longer with us who needed those organs and died for the lack of their function. Today's science would have helped them, but they got sick too soon.

I hold with Mick's view "Scientists are people, just like you and me. Some have families, some do not. A very large number of them are scientists because they love science, not because they are penny pinching grant chasers. The scientific system worldwide is such that the truth will out." That's been my experience.

I don't think your views are in any way constructive. Quite the reverse.

The problem is, when people don't like that which other people say, they often tend to make it personal, sharp and or abusive, inc name calling. Many people do not find that in any way constructive. Or perhaps this is not about discussion, perhaps it is all about indoctrination... 'Agree or buzz off'?

I have not done that. I treat others as I would like to be treated. If you do not like my views... attack the views. By attacking ad hominem you lose not only the argument but all respect.

Scientifically: if you would care to comment in similar rational fashion... here are a few studies which underpin my argument that GM R needs more research and at the very least... people should 'be allowed' to choose by have mandatory notices of GM content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Cancer

Cancer cells require a mechanism to maintain their telomeric DNA in order to continue dividing indefinitely (immortalization). A mechanism for telomere elongation or maintenance is one of the key steps in cellular immortalization and can be used as a diagnostic marker in the clinic. Telomerase, the enzyme complex responsible for elongating telomeres, is activated in approximately 90% of tumors. However, a sizeable fraction of cancerous cells employ alternative lengthening of telomeres

Content from External Source

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent?id=uuid:07bc1e9a-6d5e-4a8d-ac46-0a6a683f4656&ds=DATA_FILE

The studies described in this dissertation are directed toward understanding one of the components of a mechanism that cancer cells use to escape apoptosis and maintain genetic stability, resulting in cellular immortalization. Telomeres are nucleoprotein structures at the ends of eukaryotic chromosomes that are essential for safeguarding genomic stability and in regulating the lifespan of cellular replication.

Because most somatic cells do not express detectable levels of telomerase, telomere-telomerase interactions are important in understanding cellular immortalization and aging, and developing specific anti-cancer therapeutics.

Content from External Source

http://www.scopus.com/record/displa...009AED97EC4717B6A452F.y7ESLndDIsN8cE7qwvy6w:2

[h=1]Evaluation of DNA damage in an Ecuadorian population exposed to glyphosate
We analyzed the consequences of aerial spraying with glyphosate added to a surfactant solution in the northern part of Ecuador. A total of 24 exposed and 21 unexposed control individuals were investigated using the comet assay. The results showed a higher degree of DNA damage in the exposed group (comet length = 35.5 μm) compared to the control group (comet length = 25.94 μm). These results suggest that in the formulation used during aerial spraying glyphosate had a genotoxic effect on the exposed individuals. Copyright by the Brazilian Society of Genetics.[/h]

Content from External Source

[h=1]Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells.[/h]Glyphosate (G) is the largest selling herbicide worldwide; the most common formulations (Roundup, R) contain polyoxyethyleneamine as main surfactant. Recent findings indicate that G exposure may cause DNA damage and cancer in humans. Aim of this investigation was to study the cytotoxic and genotoxic properties of G and R (UltraMax) in a buccal epithelial cell line (TR146), as workers are exposed via inhalation to the herbicide.
http://www.seasonswellness.com/tag/dna

Variables that can affect Telomere lengths include diet, exercise, oxidative stress, weight, insulin resistance, and toxic exposure. Studies have shown that Telomere test results are strongly associated with cardiovascular risks, chronic disease, and cancer.

Content from External Source

http://www.mmu.k12.vt.us/teachers/k...-12.html#Glycine_Glyphosate_and_Roundup-Ready


Very interesting that they are teaching (K12, what age group is that?) about telemeres and glyphosate.

Wonder what exactly they are teaching though?

Good question:

1. and -- is it possible for the Roundup-Ready genes to get into non-crop plants -- like weeds (and therefore make them "super-weeds")?

Content from External Source

Think we know the answer to that one!

http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Glyphosate-based-herbicides-are-toxic/19539684.html

Glyphosate-based herbicides

These effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm.

Content from External Source

 

[MikeC]

so dose matters - good - glad you cleared that up

 

[Jazzy]

The problem is, when people don't like that which other people say, they often tend to make it personal, sharp and or abusive, inc name calling.

You have introduced a set of scientifically absurd propositions with only a token regard to their prompt rebuttal, instead continuing with more general absurdities, answering no questions posed to you. THAT is trolling.

Many people do not find that in any way constructive. Or perhaps this is not about discussion, perhaps it is all about indoctrination... 'Agree or buzz off'?

And so is THAT hypocrisy, considering what you have just done.

I have not done that. I treat others as I would like to be treated. If you do not like my views... attack the views.

And so is THAT hypocrisy.

By attacking ad hominem you lose not only the argument but all respect.

Nice try, but I don't know you. I'm attacking YOUR ACTIONS.

Scientifically: if you would care to comment in similar rational fashion

At least you're consistently hypocritical. It's better trolling style to be inconsistent about that sort of thing. It keeps the opposition confused.

here are a few studies which underpin my argument

No they don't. In fact they don't make any sense at all. The question "exactly where is the connection?" I don't expect you to answer, as you don't answer questions.

You are dancing "gaps" here. YOU think they are gaps because you cannot see what is actually there. You may well have traction with others who also cannot see what is there, but to me you are a trolling "conspiracy theorist". And I feel affection for you.

Your senseless alarmism detracts from your argument. If there were any sense in it, then you would have an argument. By your very actions you reduce the strength of your argument. You have to get something right. So far, you've been wrong all the way.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm not proposing anything except an absence of bunk. Carry on bunking if that's all you can do. This site needs you.

 

[MikeC]

I have one response . . .

http://weburbanist.com/2010/08/05/cigarette-advertising-a-vintage-look/

What is the relevance of old cigarette adds?? When I looked at your link, expecting some interesting study into teh topic, all I thought of was why did you bother responding at all?

 

[Oxymoron]

You have introduced a set of scientifically absurd propositions with only a token regard to their prompt rebuttal, instead continuing with more general absurdities, answering no questions posed to you. THAT is trolling.


And so is THAT hypocrisy, considering what you have just done.


And so is THAT hypocrisy.


Nice try, but I don't know you. I'm attacking YOUR ACTIONS.


At least you're consistently hypocritical. It's better trolling style to be inconsistent about that sort of thing. It keeps the opposition confused.


No they don't. In fact they don't make any sense at all. The question "exactly where is the connection?" I don't expect you to answer, as you don't answer questions.

You are dancing "gaps" here. YOU think they are gaps because you cannot see what is actually there. You may well have traction with others who also cannot see what is there, but to me you are a trolling "conspiracy theorist". And I feel affection for you.

Your senseless alarmism detracts from your argument. If there were any sense in it, then you would have an argument. By your very actions you reduce the strength of your argument. You have to get something right. So far, you've been wrong all the way.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm not proposing anything except an absence of bunk. Carry on bunking if that's all you can do. This site needs you.

Cool... I appealed for a reasoned scientific debate but you seem indisposed to that suggestion, apparently preferring to carry on in a personal tirade against me... unsurprisingly not many people are prepared to put up with that and evidentialy, by the dearth of people with opposing views to you, forgo intercourse with this forum and take their intellect elsewhere.

Perhaps that is the goal and you interpret this as a victory?

Ok, if you cannot contain yourself to converse scientifically, perhaps you can at least manage to converse rationally?

I, and billions of other people feel that GMO products are unproven to be safe.

We would like to be able to choose whether or not we ingest said products.

Currently, and for more than a decade gone, we have been unable to do so because they and products which they are mixed with, are not labelled as being or containing GMO products.

We ask that these products are clearly labelled so we may avoid them.

We also ask that 'our food sources' are protected from contamination, directly and indirectly.

We do not wish to be told, 'you are ignorant and we know better so you will have to eat this or starve'.

If you feel these statements are unreasonable or alarmist or trolling... tough, get over it.

 

[Jazzy]

Cool... I appealed for a reasoned scientific debate/cut/victory?

Get past the hypocrisy and we'll have one, insofar as it's possible.

rationally?

I'm all for a new beginning.

I, and billions of other people feel that GMO products are unproven to be safe.

Feel away. Weigh what little information you have in the balance, if you can. What is "safe"? How will that be enforced? How much will it cost?

We would like to be able to choose whether or not we ingest said products.

Seems reasonable to me. On what basis? Compared with what? Morbidities due to the ingestion of "natural" food? How will that be enforced? How much will it cost?

Currently, and for more than a decade gone, we have been unable to do so because they and products which they are mixed with, are not labelled as being or containing GMO products.

That's true. Where do you draw the line? Privately-grown and marketed foods? Why? How will that be enforced? How much will it cost?

We ask that these products are clearly labelled so we may avoid them.

Why, so that you can avoid them? For what reason? How will that be enforced? How much will it cost?

We also ask that 'our food sources' are protected from contamination, directly and indirectly.

Good Lord. We're all against sin, aren't we? How will that be enforced? How much will it cost?

We do not wish to be told, 'you are ignorant and we know better so you will have to eat this or starve'.

Well, you went to school, I presume. There you were pointed in the right direction. (Education is "leading out" as from a cave). Then you left for a world replete with colleges of further education, and libraries (and now the web, but not in my youth) where you could, if you wished, have continued to educate yourself privately. You would then be sufficiently-equipped to direct yourself any way you wish. What's the problem? If someone actually told you that, I would suggest they were both right and wrong.

If you feel these statements are unreasonable or alarmist or trolling.

No.

But

At the very least let us stop poisoning ourselves!

IS ALL THREE.

Have you moved on since that?

 

[Joe]

John Stewart describes how the Monsanto Protection Act was snuck in under our noses.

​

 

[Cairenn]

There is NO 'Monsanto Protection Act'. Just another case of something being given a 'scary' name.

 

[Joe]

There is NO 'Monsanto Protection Act'. Just another case of something being given a 'scary' name.

Are you sure ? heres a Soros site that says otherwise THINKPROGRESS http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/10/1832621/monsanto-protection-act-power/?mobile=nc

 

[Joe]

There is NO 'Monsanto Protection Act'. Just another case of something being given a 'scary' name.

I think you just can't agree on anything I say even if I put up links from the other side of the political spectrum . You are in serious denial !