French study "Roundly criticized" - Just addressed that, Mike. Now the 'hundreds of studies you cite, where are they, please, and who funded them? (That topic is covered extensively in several documentary films about GMO - you will find that Monsanto funds the vast majority of these in the 'self-policing' effort which has been placed upon it by a largely non-functioning and entirely absent-from-process FDA)
You also still cannot satisfactorily explain how I know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is without your help, or even without Purdy's assistance - therefore by your logic, I must be 'making it up'... you do realize that's what he's saying, don't you? He's describing an endocrine disruptor in very, very specific terms.
As well, I've already demonstrated the links:
a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).
b - Purdy's observation that certain epidemiology can essentially be "mapped" across the human spectrum, purely by the presence of these chemical elements in soil and water at toxic concentrations.
c - The presence and 'human intervention' required to produce IRREGULAR, TOXIC concentrations of barium, aluminum, et al in vivo within human populations and resulting epidemiology
Open question: Anyone here know what 'myelin' is, where it's found in the body, in what form it takes, or what it's function is in a healthy human? Why a scientist might possibly mention 'myelin' without building an entire thesis on it (eg, because the information is commonly known)? Pathological symptoms in unhealthy tissue? In what diseases the 'myelin sheathing' is damaged or disrupted, and the mechanism/s thereof? Anyone?
So apparently what you're saying here is that established science 'doesn't exist' simply because established scientists, having 'done their own research', already know what they're talking about - and therefore they use their own terminology, not having need to use language you may understand, and therefore they don't need to 'reinvent the wheel within their chosen fields, assuming a bit of 'common knowledge' being shared among the readers -
then I must ask, is 'your particular understanding' now somehow a 'prerequisite' for established science? And if so, by whose authority do you claim that to be?
I'll leave you with this thought on GMOs - go ahead, have a nice bowl of it for breakfast if you'd like (BTW, this is NOT the first time GMO grass has killed cattle via cyanide poisoning - how do you think they knew what to look for?:
http://www.inquisitr.com/262111/gen...-begins-releasing-cyanide-kills-texas-cattle/
GMO grass: Safe and effective for your fields and lawn. Assuming you can tolerate cyanide. And good luck with that, assuming you have the stomach for it.