bmk1245 Posted July 4, 2013 #76 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Perhaps you should check into the etymology of the word "wetback": http://en.wikipedia..../Wetback_(slur) It is generally used as a derogatory term and is certainly considered to be by most of the Mexicans I know. [...] Ok, if you see it inappropriate, I won't use it. As Bade explained already, that term describes very hard working people (of course, it can be used in derogatory way, but that wasn't my intention). But hey, can I use sweat-shirted-cheap-hands instead of w word? [...] Increased yields do not always translate into benefits for the farmers as price is based on supply and demand. [...] Increase in total income. Is that enough? [...] When you use the word farmer are you referring to small independent ones or those that are controlled by large corporations? [...] All. [...] I don´t think I said that it was. However, they, amongst other large corporations have used this to dominate the seed industry.[...] That scheme has advantages, and disadvantages, as everything in the world. Do you think running after gazillion breeding firms (some legit, some -SCAM) is better? [...] IWith respect to your first question, I really can´t answer as the study does not provide any information regarding methodology. In looking into it further, I also have questions about their methodolgy and conclusions.. Can you provide any links regarding your second statement. Do you have any conclusive results showing that GM vs. non-GM corn is equal in nutritional value¨? With pleasure:Data from the literature has corroborated many times the substantial equivalence in major nutrients and minerals and trace elements in maize kernels of GM compared to isogenic control maize (Brake and Vlachos, 1998; Sidhu et al., 2000). [...] All these data suggest a similar nutritional value for the feed material derived from the modified plants (Aumaitre, 2000; Flachowsky et al., 2000; Spencer et al., 2000).(A.Aumaitre et al,, Livest. Prod. Sci., 74 (2002) 223–238).,Whats more interesting (from the same review) Other comparative GM data observed in Germany, France and Spain showed that the level of deoxynivalenol (873 ug /kg) was sixfold higher and the level of zearalenone (256 same ug /kg) was eightfold higher in non Bt infested maize compared to genetically modified grain (Valenta et al., 2001). Although the concentration of these mycotoxins detected were lower than the level considered as deleterious for animals (D’Mello and McDonald, 1997), these results demonstrated the advantage better pest control and an advantage using the GM maize compared to its conventional counterpart for use in human food and animal feed. As you see, stick always has two ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 4, 2013 #77 Share Posted July 4, 2013 You do realize nearly your entire argument is a Tu quoque fallacy ( apeal to hypocrisy). It's completely fallacious to point out the flaws in an opposing viewpoint as hypocritical.[...]Wait... WHAT?!!! All this GMO fearmongering has FALLACY/HYPOCRISY/LIE written all over it. Gimme a break... [...] In terms of what kind of research they should be doing considering how infiltrated their products are into our food supply. Yes!!!! Not in literal terms but the basic equivalent. [...] The same research as in mutation breeding outcome case plus more. [...] Why? [...] Read Hilander's last link, and try to put some gears in the brain. [...]On a side note properly managed land is 10 times more productive and non of these side effects.[...] Please, spare me, I don't want to hear anecdotes from series "I can feed 400 from 1 acre".[...]This is a socioeconomic problem. [...]Wait... WHAT?!!! Now its socioeconomic problems? Let me guess, Monsanto traveled back in time and created socioeconomic problems. Thats neat and sound... [...]Destroying those jobs because round up ready crops can accept copies amounts of glycophodphates is silly to even think about as solution to suicides. I seriously can't believe Somone is actually using that as rhetoric. What Bt cotton has to do with Roundup Ready line and "glycophodphates"? Of course, if you spray glyphosate (with adds) solutions on Bt crops, it will be bad, even disastrous. I don't think that is the case.BTW, spraying less Bt pesticides is bad or good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jugoso Posted July 4, 2013 #78 Share Posted July 4, 2013 (edited) Ok, if you see it inappropriate, I won't use it. As Bade explained already, that term describes very hard working people (of course, it can be used in derogatory way, but that wasn't my intention). But hey, can I use sweat-shirted-cheap-hands instead of w word? No need to be sarcastic. Didn´t you see my response to Bade? (post #76) Increase in total income. Is that enough? Actually, no it isn´t. Using total income as the yardstick is the equivalent of using the GDP to gauge the prosperity of the average person IMO. With pleasure: (A.Aumaitre et al,, Livest. Prod. Sci., 74 (2002) 223–238)., Whats more interesting (from the same review) Is it a peer-reviewed study or a sponsored article? Your source has proven to be unreliable in the past. At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewedacademic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[39][40][41][42] Merck has described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[43] In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that these were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that this "was an unacceptable practice. http://en.wikipedia....d_controversies They have been proven to be a paid shill for a pharmaceutical company by putting out sponsored articles to look like peer-reviewed journal articles. Anyone who does this has blown all credibility. Why on earth should they deserve to be trusted by anyone? Edited July 4, 2013 by jugoso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 4, 2013 #79 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I mean what is the big deal if there are some people who rejects GMO ? If I don't like marshmallows and don't eat marshmallows would I be called stupid or ignorant or being part of the 'savages' community ? [...] Who on Earth forcing you to eat corn (be it GM, or not), or derivatives. Are you that mentally challenged that you can't take knife and chop other vegetables and make soup/salad?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 4, 2013 #80 Share Posted July 4, 2013 No need to be sarcastic. Didn´t you see my response to Bade? (post #76) [...] Sorry, my bad (without sarcasm). [...] Actually, no it isn´t. Using total income as the yardstick is the equivalent of using the GDP to gauge the prosperity of the average person IMO. [...] Well, I don't have data on every farm, so I rely on surveys (might be biased, I admit). [...] Is it a peer-reviewed study or a sponsored article? [...] There were no conflicts of interest noted in the paper. [...] Your source has proven to be unreliable in the past. [...] In... where? Link? [...] They have been proven to be a paid shill for a pharmaceutical company by putting out sponsored articles to look like peer-reviewed journal articles. Anyone who does this has blown all credibility. Why on earth should they deserve to be trusted by anyone? Link?BTW, how do you think anti GMO papers appear? Seralini? Rings a bell? Who sponsored his research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 4, 2013 #81 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Who on Earth forcing you to eat corn (be it GM, or not), or derivatives. Are you that mentally challenged that you can't take knife and chop other vegetables and make soup/salad?! You just contradicted yourself ... The reluctance to labeling and the attempts to monopolize future crop output in the market is in itself quite evident of the intentions to force it on the consumers ... What's it to you anyway ? You've seen the lies perpetuated and the increasing numbers from the Scientific Community that is beginning to be aware enough to be concerned ... answer those concerns instead of just condemning and hurling insults. Or is insults all that you have ? ~ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 4, 2013 #82 Share Posted July 4, 2013 You just contradicted yourself ...[...]Is that so? Where did I contradicted myself? Just a question: can you make distinction between apples and pie? [...] The reluctance to labeling and the attempts to monopolize future crop output in the market is in itself quite evident of the intentions to force it on the consumers ... What's it to you anyway ? You've seen the lies perpetuated and the increasing numbers from the Scientific Community that is beginning to be aware enough to be concerned ... answer those concerns instead of just condemning and hurling insults. Or is insults all that you have ? ~ Do Scientific Community enlightened you about dangers "I want save my seeds"? Do you really want to crap/vomit further you can see from pretty natural causes (or simply die in convulsions)?Seriously, try to find Hybrid: The History and Science of Plant Breeding, by Kingsbury . Its not pro GMO, Its worth to read, I can assure you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 4, 2013 #83 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Is that so? Where did I contradicted myself? Just a question: can you make distinction between apples and pie? It is neither apples nor pies ... you have your sources, you believe your sources ... I have mine ... and I trust mine. So what's it to you anyway ? You eat your GMO ... we eat our natural ... so what is the big deal ? YOu have been contradicting yourself from the very first moment you hurled insults instead of evaluating the topic of discussion ... apple and pie ? You have no idea. Do Scientific Community enlightened you about dangers "I want save my seeds"? Do you really want to crap/vomit further you can see from pretty natural causes (or simply die in convulsions)? Seriously, try to find Hybrid: The History and Science of Plant Breeding, by Kingsbury . Its not pro GMO, Its worth to read, I can assure you. What are you babbling about ? Do you see crap/vomit here ? Really ? You assure me ? Coming from you I'd sooner see you die first drowning in your GMO crap/vomit. So you like your GMO ... does that give you the authority to call people who don't stupid ? Ignorant ? So you have your 'scientific' sources that you trust ... does that give you the right to label others ' crap / vomit ' ? Is that what you call the good GMO motto ? Tell me by what authority that gives you that right to endow yourself with such smartness that which allows you to insult others that do not adhere to your point of view ... ~ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jugoso Posted July 4, 2013 #84 Share Posted July 4, 2013 There were no conflicts of interest noted in the paper. In... where? Link? Link? Damn, I just wrote a rather lengthy reply and thought I posted it but I guess it´s floating around cyberspace. I´ll keep this one shorter and still try to hit the major points. I will connect the dots for you as it seems necessary to do so. Elsevier B.V. (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɛlzəvir]) is a publishing company which publishes medical and scientific literature. It is a part of theReed Elsevier group. Based in Amsterdam, the company has operations in the United Kingdom, USA, and elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier ScienceDirect is website operated by the Dutch publisher Elsevier http://en.wikipedia....i/ScienceDirect Which leads me back to my previous post that did have the link: At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[39][40][41][42] Merck has described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[43] In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that these were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that this "was an unacceptable practice http://en.wikipedia....d_controversies Any company that tries to pass off paid sponsored stories as scientifically peer-reviewed journal articles should not be trusted. period BTW, how do you think anti GMO papers appear? Seralini? Rings a bell? Who sponsored his research? Don´t try the ol´switcheroo on me. Seeker has already called you on your Tu quoque fallacy and I´m not going to bite. In which post did I mention Seralini? Why not chew on this for a while signed by 828 scientists from 84 different countries. I am in agreement with much of what they are requesting but would be happy if they just labelled the damn stuff already and allow the consumers to make an informed decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jugoso Posted July 5, 2013 #85 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Forgot to include link for the article regarding the last part of my post. http://naturalrevolution.org/828-world-scientists-write-open-letter-to-all-governments-concerning-gmos/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 6, 2013 #86 Share Posted July 6, 2013 It is neither apples nor pies ... [...] Neither? Do products you are using have listed ingredients? If so, don't buy with corn derivatives, if you don't like corn. You don't like apples? Don't buy apples... etc, etc, etc, and etc. [...]. you have your sources, you believe your sources [...]I never said I believe, I do not believe, and I prefer not to believe, I read scientific literature (peer reviewed ), and then make my decision. [...] I have mine ... and I trust mine. So what's it to you anyway ? [...] The same sources that will sell you untested snake-oil? [...]... we eat our natural ... so what is the big deal ?[...] Big deal is appeal to nature, well know fallacy. [...]YOu have been contradicting yourself from the very first moment you hurled insults instead of evaluating the topic of discussion ... apple and pie ? You have no idea.[...] Excuse me, darling, but you threw marshmellows. Again, don't like corn products? Don't buy it, simple. [...]What are you babbling about ? Do you see crap/vomit here ? Really ? You assure me ? Coming from you I'd sooner see you die first drowning in your GMO crap/vomit. [...] And we are closing to the fun part. Ever heard of killer zucchini? Can you bring similar (or worse) outcome from consuming GM food? I dear you - bring it on.BTW, I suggested you to read book on history of breeding, conventional (natural) breeding, but, since you can't comprehend simple paragraph of two sentences in my post, reading that book will be quite challenge for you... [...]Tell me by what authority that gives you that right to endow yourself with such smartness that which allows you to insult others that do not adhere to your point of view ... God... With all bunch of angels... Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 6, 2013 #87 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Damn, I just wrote a rather lengthy reply and thought I posted it but I guess it´s floating around cyberspace. I´ll keep this one shorter and still try to hit the major points.[...] Annoying feature. With UM, I use notepad for longer responses, cause had same issues. [...]I will connect the dots for you as it seems necessary to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier http://en.wikipedia....i/ScienceDirect Which leads me back to my previous post that did have the link: http://en.wikipedia....d_controversies Any company that tries to pass off paid sponsored stories as scientifically peer-reviewed journal articles should not be trusted. period Don´t try the ol´switcheroo on me. Seeker has already called you on your Tu quoque fallacy and I´m not going to bite. In which post did I mention Seralini? Why not chew on this for a while signed by 828 scientists from 84 different countries. I am in agreement with much of what they are requesting but would be happy if they just labelled the damn stuff already and allow the consumers to make an informed decision. I merely pointed out double standards/hypocrisy ... Bur thats funny: you accuse me of fallacy, and in the same breath you throw fallacious argument into the play. What it has to do with authors of the paper, or journal? Or journals, authors of particular paper, used data from?! Please, come up with your own lines, instead of parroting woowoo'er, who run away after exposing his sheer ignorance... Forgot to include link for the article regarding the last part of my post. http://naturalrevolu...oncerning-gmos/ Neat...But check it out: Seven Scientific Academies Support GM Crops, plus Vatican scientists support such "ungodly creature"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 7, 2013 #88 Share Posted July 7, 2013 ~SNIP God... With all bunch of angels... Happy? Fallacies ... on second thought, more tell me more of your delusions ... it is quite entertaining ... ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 7, 2013 #89 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Fallacies ... on second thought, more tell me more of your delusions ... it is quite entertaining ... ~ Thats it? Thats the only brainfart you can exhale?Again, if GMO is so highly toxic, how many people were hospitalized, huh? How many fell seriously sick after consuming GMO, huh? How many got cancer from it? Check CDC statistic on cancer incidences before 1997, and after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 7, 2013 #90 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Thats it? Thats the only brainfart you can exhale? ~snip Interesting ... humans don't normally exhale in that manner ... tell me how is it that you are able to fart in such a unique manner ? Or Is it an unfortunate side effect due to consuming GMO produce ? How long have you been farting in such a manner ? Has it been pleasant for those close to you if any or loved ones, those that might love you enough to tolerate that quirkiness in you ? Or Is it just something the 'Angels' from that god that you know of that tells you that ? Have you been documented to fart in such a manner ? I mean proven 'Scientifically" according to your standards of what and how science is defined of course ... Thanks in advance for your interesting contribution to the world of GMO knowledge ... Sincerely I await ... Kind regards ... ~ just me ~ ~ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 7, 2013 #91 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I thought so, no proof of GMO corn to be highly toxic. What a surprise. And that bogus claim Goes down the drain BTW, you should get rid off the third eye, and grow more grey matter instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 7, 2013 #92 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I thought so, no proof of GMO corn to be highly toxic. What a surprise. And that bogus claim Goes down the drain BTW, you should get rid off the third eye, and grow more grey matter instead. More of your breath farts ? Can I document this as 'scientific' proof ? I'll note the date and time ... how often do you fart in such a manner in the course of a day ? Do you have any recollections of it before consuming GMO corn ? Tell me more about the so called 'angels' and this 'god' that you derive your authority from ... Did they tell you GMO corn is safe to eat and not toxic ? Or I'm sorry ... I apologise ... not highly toxic ...did they consume it too ? Or is it only you that consumes it ? Thanks in advance again for your interesting revelations to our knowledge of GMO corn ... Sincerely I again await ... Sincere regards ... ~ just me ~ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 7, 2013 #93 Share Posted July 7, 2013 More of your breath farts ? Can I document this as 'scientific' proof ? I'll note the date and time ... how often do you fart in such a manner in the course of a day ? Do you have any recollections of it before consuming GMO corn ? Tell me more about the so called 'angels' and this 'god' that you derive your authority from ... Did they tell you GMO corn is safe to eat and not toxic ? Or I'm sorry ... I apologise ... not highly toxic ...did they consume it too ? Or is it only you that consumes it ? Thanks in advance again for your interesting revelations to our knowledge of GMO corn ... Sincerely I again await ... Sincere regards ... ~ just me ~ Again, how many were hospitalized after consuming GMO? How cancer rates "behave" in US before 1997, and after? Very simple questions. Five three year old would comprehend. No answer? No surprise, again, because all this anti-GMO craze is nothing but unhealthy hysteria, driven by paranoia and ignorance. I only hope, more people like Mark Lynas will come into senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 7, 2013 #94 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Again, how many were hospitalized after consuming GMO? How cancer rates "behave" in US before 1997, and after? Very simple questions. Five three year old would comprehend. No answer? No surprise, again, because all this anti-GMO craze is nothing but unhealthy hysteria, driven by paranoia and ignorance. I only hope, more people like Mark Lynas will come into senses. Oh I don't know ... yet ? How do you know what caused cancer that is questioned in the first place ? Nicotine ? Carbon monoxide ? Lead ? Or just plain genetically prone ? Or is it cancer no GMO ... no cancer yes GMO ? How do you associate or correlate the number of increase or decline to GMO produce or not ? Care to share more of your 'scientific' sources ? Or the 'Angels and your god' did identify to you which is which ? Care to offer some legitimacy to your claims proposed on the connection between the variation of the number of cancer cases in regards of consuming or not of consuming such produce ? Paranoia i can understand and I even sympathise even, with empathy ... ignorance ? Well that depends on where the insults originate from ... Tell me more of your evidence of numbers ? What else do you associate with this wonder GMO produce as having a positive or maybe negative influence on ? World wide car accident rates ? Occurrences of rape and incest cases ? What about murder rates in relation to population ratios ? Are the numbers in decline or the opposite ? Is it due to the availability of GMO not highly toxic corn ? And in what manner and how did you correlate the association ? By assumption or supposition or postulation ? Or is it just something that the 'Angels and this god' that you mention of just happened to reveal to you one day ? If so when did this happen ? Do you have any proof ? Any verifiable or documented material presented ? This has been most interesting and I most appreciate your time and effort to initiate this mind expanding exercise ... I am most grateful I await your response with great anticipation ... YOurs with sincere regards ... ~ just me ~ PS - Oh send my regards too to the 'Angels and this god' that you speak of .. ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 7, 2013 #95 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Oh I don't know ... yet ? How do you know what caused cancer that is questioned in the first place ? Nicotine ? Carbon monoxide ? Lead ? Or just plain genetically prone ? Or is it cancer no GMO ... no cancer yes GMO ? How do you associate or correlate the number of increase or decline to GMO produce or not ? Care to share more of your 'scientific' sources ? Or the 'Angels and your god' did identify to you which is which ? Care to offer some legitimacy to your claims proposed on the connection between the variation of the number of cancer cases in regards of consuming or not of consuming such produce ? Paranoia i can understand and I even sympathise even, with empathy ... ignorance ? Well that depends on where the insults originate from ... Tell me more of your evidence of numbers ? What else do you associate with this wonder GMO produce as having a positive or maybe negative influence on ? World wide car accident rates ? Occurrences of rape and incest cases ? What about murder rates in relation to population ratios ? Are the numbers in decline or the opposite ? Is it due to the availability of GMO not highly toxic corn ? And in what manner and how did you correlate the association ? By assumption or supposition or postulation ? Or is it just something that the 'Angels and this god' that you mention of just happened to reveal to you one day ? If so when did this happen ? Do you have any proof ? Any verifiable or documented material presented ? This has been most interesting and I most appreciate your time and effort to initiate this mind expanding exercise ... I am most grateful I await your response with great anticipation ... YOurs with sincere regards ... ~ just me ~ PS - Oh send my regards too to the 'Angels and this god' that you speak of .. ~ Again, bring GMO corn to be highly toxic proof on table. Simple.BTW if you can't see sarcasm, once again, get rid of the third eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 7, 2013 #96 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Again, bring GMO corn to be highly toxic proof on table. Simple. BTW if you can't see sarcasm, once again, get rid of the third eye. Which table ? The table that you cover with 'sarcasm' ? Define highly toxic ? Enough to cause cancer ? Or enough to raise complications that might lead to cancer ? What levels of toxicity are you referring to ? In an immediate sense ? Or levels that might cause concern in a year or perhaps two ? How long is one expected to consume this not 'highly' toxic corn that you mention ? Get rid of the third eye ? Did those 'Angels or the god' that you mentioned further endowed you with more authority and powers to now command and instruct the use of usernames ? Or is it the 'physical' third eye that is reputed to exist in the brain? Do you propose that I have it surgically removed ? Why ? Just because you don't believe that I am worthy of it like everyone else or is it just because you are adamant that you have won 'this' argument ... ? Were we arguing ? Frankly I was just engaging in a debate ... even if it was an argument ... what cause have you to judge that just because you do not accept or acknowledge a different point of view as a declaration of 'victory' ? I know ... the 'Angels and this god' that you mention told you so didn't they ? What else did they tell you .. that you will never die of cancer because you consume these not highly toxic corn ? Or because you are deemed 'special' ? How often do you consume these produce by the way ? I am curious to know. Again I await your response ... YOurs in doubt and sincerely ~ just me ~ ` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 7, 2013 #97 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Yeap, no answer to the simple question... Tells a lot... edit: BTW I almost see bubbles forming on the corners of you mouth, third eye (which you should get rid of).... Edited July 7, 2013 by bmk1245 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 7, 2013 #98 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Yeap, no answer to the simple question... Tells a lot... edit: BTW I almost see bubbles forming on the corners of you mouth, third eye (which you should get rid of).... And where are your answers to my numerous queries may I ask ? Simple answers is where simple minds gather them, and also lazy minds too ... THe answers are many and is open to inquiring minds ... not 'undisclosed', unlabelled and revealed pointedly to ones own profit or gloatingly expounded ... Yes I must thank you for those bubbles ... I am sorry ... but I haven;t had such a good laugh since ... well just last month actually ... ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted July 7, 2013 #99 Share Posted July 7, 2013 And where are your answers to my numerous queries may I ask ? [...] You mean answers to such blatant stupidity as [....] World wide car accident rates ? Occurrences of rape and incest cases ? What about murder rates in relation to population ratios ? [...] ??? What Seralini et al research "revealed"?! [...] Simple answers is where simple minds gather them, and also lazy minds too ... THe answers are many and is open to inquiring minds ... not 'undisclosed', unlabelled and revealed pointedly to ones own profit or gloatingly expounded ... Yes I must thank you for those bubbles ... I am sorry ... but I haven;t had such a good laugh since ... well just last month actually ... ~ Again, bring GMO corn to be highly toxic in discussion. Heck, I don't know how to more emphasize that...Ok, what is highly toxic? You can answer that, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simbi Laveau Posted July 7, 2013 #100 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) The reason there are no "rates" for gmo issues in humans,is because THEY DO NO STUDIES . Know why that is ? The ONE study they did in 2001 ,PROVED ,the gmos DNA markers entered cells in our gut bacteria ,AND ALTERED IT'S DNA AND THEN REPLICATED ITSELF ,repeatedly . They knew this from examining stool samples only ,and forwent doing biopsies on stomach tissue ,for fear it too,would be altered. The fact the GMOS DNA replicated itself in our gut,also proved you can stop eating gmos ,but they're still in your system ,indefinately . If you've eaten gmo anything ,in the last ten years,your DNA has been altered . There are articles about this on line. Just google it . So,to do a true human gmo study ,would PROVE gmos latch onto living hosts DNA,and alter it,which is what causes...what is that .. you know,mutated DNA replicating.....its on the tip of my tongue . Rates of that,have GONE THRU THE ROOF ,in the last ten years ... In any case,they won't ever do a human study ,as it would blow up in their faces ,big time . Ddduuhhhhhh Edited July 7, 2013 by Simbi Laveau 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now