Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ashotep

GMO corn to be highly toxic

124 posts in this topic

Posted (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 by Simbi Laveau
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~snip

Ok, what is highly toxic? You can answer that, I hope.

In the current context and from well observed incidences on this thread alone ... I propose : your mentality and your lies ...

You call me stupid and ignorant ... I know I am not and on more that numerous occasions I have proven to the satisfaction of many learned and well informed individuals of with myriad levels of respected and or certified disciplines or professions that I am not.

- henceforth I conclude with sufficient evidence that you are the blatant liar.

Proven and documented ... no need for 'Angels and God' regardless of what your ' "angels" and "god" ' tells you.

~snip

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 ...

~snip

:lol:

But you just know what the reply would be ... the blame is always on someone and something else ... when hydrogenated and saturated fat was proven to be causing complications they blame Cholesterol then when that was proven to be wrong, they blamed 'bad' Cholesterol ... then the blame was on fat in common food intake and they went on to skim milk and made more profits out of spreading misinformation ... then it was eggs and then they just blamed the consumers ... 'bad' parents ... lifestyle ... bad purchase choices and habits.

How long has the proposed Anti bacteria Anti fungal Anti Virus supplements, steroids and hormones in farmed animals to make them better and healthier for the people and solve Global Food Supply Shortages and 'eradicate' Famine ? Antibiotics as common cure all ? ... and then blame other sources for the side effects ?

Toxic just means if you drop dead in 'five seconds' to them and highly toxic must mean more than ten people that must drop dead in five seconds ... :lol:

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .[...]

Boomer
As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment.
(Netherwood et al, Nat. Biotech. 22, 204 - 209 (2004))

[...]

If you've eaten gmo anything ,in the last ten years,your DNA has been altered .

[...]

Of course, all became potatoheads, posts from ignoramuses just proves that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In the current context and from well observed incidences on this thread alone ... I propose : your mentality and your lies ...

[...]

Funny thing, hysteria about India farmers suicides caused by GMO turns out to be socioeconomic problem, neat. Highly toxic (without slight attempt to present supporting data) claim goes down the drain

And you accuse me of lies?! Brilliant... As I already stated, anti-GMO craze is nothing more but hypocrisy/ignorance/lies driven hysteria.

[...]

- henceforth I conclude with sufficient evidence that you are the blatant liar.

[...]

If that so? Heh, anti-GMO crowd failed on almost every claim... Where did I lied, huh?

[...]Global Food Supply Shortages and 'eradicate' Famine ? Antibiotics as common cure all ? ... and then blame other sources for the side effects ?

[...]

Read this, efking hypocrite with bloody hands:
In 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of genetically modified food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme on the basis of the Cartagena Protocol.[35][36] This left the population without food aid during a famine.[37]
(bolding mine, link)

Edit: missing letter

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing, hysteria about India farmers suicides caused by GMO turns out to be socioeconomic problem, neat. Highly toxic (without slight attempt to present supporting data) claim goes down the drain

And you accuse me of lies?! Brilliant... As I already stated, anti-GMO craze is nothing more but hypocrisy/ignorance/lies driven hysteria.

Sure sure ... nothing more ... you have already proven to be a liar with poor reading ability and poorer comprehension skills ... why boother eh ?

If that so? Heh, anti-GMO crowd failed on almost every claim... Where did I lied, huh?

You just did ;)

Read this, efking hypocrite with bloody hands:

(bolding mine, link)

Edit: missing letter

Sure ... show me something more of what I've not read before on these elaborate schemes and their lies. For what else do they claim that is the anti and non GMO crowd should be responsible for ? The Tsunami ? THe Swine and Avian Flu pandemic ? Why not pin everything else on us eh ?

Got a kitchen sink in there somewhere ?

Tell me one thing though ... my little efserf ... why are all your sources PR for these Big Corporates ?

*Notice I use capitals as I am afraid I might offend you and your angels and gods. ;)

Zambia may have attempted to boycott GMOs because they, along with most of Europe, understand the ecological issues that persist with GM food. The U.S. has seen a widespread adoption of genetically engineered corn, cotton and soybean crops since 1996. About 93% of soybeans are Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready strain, meaning Monsanto’s herbicide RoundUp is inserted into the genome of the soybean. Nearly 70% of corn and cotton are GM corn and GM cotton. More than 1/3 of all the cropland in the U.S. is GM. The diversity of strains of corn, cotton, soybeans, and sugar beets are diminishing. This trend must be reversed, as crop diversity is one of the most fundamentally important resources for human life on earth. Crop diversity allows us to rise and meet the challenges of changing climates and constantly evolving pests and diseases. Even a “super-strain” will become susceptible to these elements at some point. Seed diversity, and sustainable practices such as seed saving is what will continue to yield crops, and feed the world.

.... Recent studies have concluded that Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide causes birth defects. However, this information may not be entirely new to the scientific community. A recent report reveals that industry regulators studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as far back as the ‘80s that RoundUp’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals. This information was not made public. Regulators have consistently misled the public about glyposate’s safety. Keep in mind, this is the chemical that is present in 93% of soybeans in the U.S.

link

In 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of genetically modified food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme on the basis of the Cartagena Protocol.[35][36] This left the population without food aid during a famine.[37] In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize.[38] However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."[39][40]

wiki link

What ? Not the anti GMO paranoid population ? Tell me ... what IS the Cartagena Protocol and what is its purpose ? :lol:

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an international agreement on biosafety, as a supplement to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Biosafety Protocol seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by genetically modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology.

The Biosafety Protocol makes clear that products from new technologies must be based on the precautionary principle and allow developing nations to balance public health against economic benefits. It will for example let countries ban imports of a genetically modified organisms if they feel there is not enough scientific evidence that the product is safe and requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities such as corn or cotton.

The required number of 50 instruments of ratification/accession/approval/acceptance by countries was reached in May 2003. In accordance with the provisions of its Article 37, the Protocol entered into force on 11 September 2003. Afghanistan became the 165th country to ratify the Protocol on 20 February 2013.[2] In addition to member countries, the European Union is a party to the Protocol, making the total number of parties 166.[2]

wiki link

Wow ... paranoid huh ? Safety ? Why if there is no possibility of the need for caution ? Are they all mad ? Or are you the liar .... my little efserf ?

Or maybe they are the liars ? Why don't you go enlighten them ? Wait ... you DO care about Biosafetydoyou not ?

Objective

In accordance with the precautionary approach, contained in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of the Protocol is to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of 'living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology' that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account

Hmmmm adverse effects ...

Many scientists argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk.

Genetic modifications often have significant unforeseen consequences, both in the initially modified organisms and their environments. For example, certain strains of maize have been developed that are toxic to plant eating insects (see Bt corn). It has been alleged those strains cross-pollinated with other varieties of wild and domestic maize and passed on these genes with a putative impact on Maize biodiversity.

Subsequent to the publication of these results, several scientists pointed out that the conclusions were based on experiments with design flaws. It is well known that the results from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods of analysing DNA can often be confounded by sample contamination and experimental artifacts. Appropriate controls can be included in experiments to eliminate these as a possible explanation of the results - however these controls were not included in the methods used by Quist and Chapela.

link

Scientists ? Really ?? Risks ?

What happens if all the insects are gone ? No need for bugs in your world eh ? Just hire people to take over the duties in the natural world huh ? How smart ...

Just slot right in the ecological vacuum. Brilliant ....

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also at the same time be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.

Wow ... how about a car that runs on water ?

Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, The Non-GMO Project and Organic Consumers Association say that risks of GM food have not been adequately identified and managed, and have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Opponents say that food derived from GMOs may be unsafe and propose it be banned, or at least labeled. They have expressed concerns about the objectivity of regulators and rigor of the regulatory process, about contamination of the non-GM food supply, about effects of GMOs on the environment and nature, and about the consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.

wiki link

Hmmmm paranoia and ignoramuses ? My little efserf ?

The value of current independent studies is considered by some to be problematic because, due to restrictive end-user agreements, independent researchers sometimes cannot obtain GM plants for study. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology".[26] Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results.

Wow ... just open up and say "Ahhhh ... yum yumm " :lol: EPA says "NO" :rofl:

~

That is why you are a liar ... these links has been here and there and yet you keep insisting it does not exist ...

or is it because you do not read any that is posted here ?

As you evidently will never read all that I've posted because it you do read it at all, I would not have the need to post any because these are not secret or obscure.

You are just a liar who keeps wanting to believe in your world of lies and insists on isulting others who do not see it your way ...

You see ... the mind does not see simple or complicated ... it just sees clearly ... and to see clearly you need to see with a clear mind ... and with a clear mind you can see both sides of the equation ... and not only be blinded by one ...

~

You have a nice day my little efserf ;)

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Wow, impressive, I'll give you a time to come out with fallacies, you just posted....Tthere will be none. We all fed by anecdotes... Do I have to explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, impressive, I'll give you a time to come out with fallacies, you just posted....Tthere will be none. We all fed by anecdotes... Do I have to explain?

Fallacy you Fallacy me ... we dance around the truthful Non GM Tree ... at least no need for the insults ... Do I have to spell it out ?

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow folks, debate nice please... No need to be uncivil to get one's point across.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wait... WHAT?!!! All this GMO fearmongering has FALLACY/HYPOCRISY/LIE written all over it. Gimme a break...

The same research as in mutation breeding outcome case plus more.

Read Hilander's last link, and try to put some gears in the brain.

Please, spare me, I don't want to hear anecdotes from series "I can feed 400 from 1 acre".

Wait... WHAT?!!! Now its socioeconomic problems? Let me guess, Monsanto traveled back in time and created socioeconomic problems. Thats neat and sound...

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?

Oh dear..., you are missing the point totatlly. You are ranting on about hypocracy. Don't you see that Somone being a hypocrit says nothing about the argument they are giving. I'll give you an example. I argue that it is evil to kill Somone, then you say but you throw baby's from cliffs. Yeah so.... It's still evil to kill wether I throw babies from cliffs or not. You are continuing to think you are are somehow invalidating the FACT the GMOs pose severe health and other risks to the by pointing out the flaws in others. In FACT, if an 'organic' farmer uses spent nuclear fuel to cure his pigs of cancer ( i made this up) would not change the validity of his argument that GMOs are dangerous. His highly dangerous practice has nothing to do with GMOs and are two completely different subjects .

Do you get it now? Pointing out flaws in others to discredit their arguments is asinine. No one gives a rats ass what you think about organic practices it might be hypocritical and it might not. It's only an attempt on your part to muddy the waters. The discussion is about GMOs.

Questioning bad science and corporate greed is not a conspiracy theory ;)

I'm not worried about the the gene itself. I happen to know that enzymes and acid in my stomach will denature the proteins making these genes into mush. This is continually the wrong approach. The gene itself is most likely not a problem it's what we do with it that is dangerous. I.e dumping tons of herbicides and pesticides on nearly every crop. It's lunacy to declare the gene itself safe without understanding the system and its impact as a whole. More diversion and corporate word smithing.

There is more than anecdote, when it comes to sustainable agriculture. Farmers keep books, pay taxes, and have bank accounts there genius.

I'm beginning to wonder if you you have paid any attention to what's going on or are in that particular industry or something. You seem to be ignoring the facts on purpose and looking for diversions away from the facts. Why on earth would you think that dumping more and more herbicides and pesticides without fully understanding the ramifications would be a good thing? Rolling the dice with our food supply seems retry moronic. Do you have any thing to offer showing that what GMOs allow people to do is safe?

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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?!

I was simply responding to your post regarding all of the problem with "non-GM" crops. I felt that you were trying to divert the attention away from GMOs to all of the problems that are also incurred by "organic" farming. My particular problem with your source of information was that the company that owns the website admitted to putting out Journals disgiused to be scientific studies when really they were just sponsored stories (read:paid for) by Big Pharm (specifically Merck).

Did you actually check out the article? Again, this brings me to my number one problem with GMOs. I did check out your links. I don´t give the second much credit but it is certainly hard to ignore the first one. Just as in the article that I linked you to, there are many highly-respected scientists that come down on both sides of this issue. It seems difficult to find long-term studies that offer conclusive results around the effects of GMOs on an individuals health. It seems everyone has their agenda. As third-eye mentioned, you trust in your sources and he trusts in his. If there was real definitive proof that all GMOs are not harmful to an individual, I think this thread would be a lot shorter. There seems to be real genuine concern on behalf of many highly-respected scientists that there just hasn´t been enough research done to conclusively state they are safe. I have already acknowledged in a previous post that the study from the OP is questionable at best. I´ve also clearly stated why your links to your study are dubious IMO.

That being said, here is another link that discusses the negative effects of Round-up on mammals. I find it hard to ignore this pesticide as it is by far one of the most commonly used throughout the world. If you dig, I´m sure you will find problems with the source just as many have with sources that claim that it is safe.

Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.

Full Pdf study can be downloaded from link. http://www.mdpi.com/...-4300/15/4/1416

Here is another interesting article that I just came across posted today.

Pesticide use is skyrocketing across the Midwestern U.S. corn belt, as biotech companies like Syngenta and AMVAC Chemical watch their pesticide sales spike 50 to 100 percent over the past two years, NPR reported Tuesday.

The culprit? Bt corn—a type of genetically engineered corn with insecticide built into its genes.

Variations of this corn strain—peddled across the world by large multinationals including Monstanto and Syngenta—are giving rise to Bt resistant insects and worms, studies show.

NPR reports that resistant 'pests' are decimating entire cornfields across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Yet, now that the targeted insect killings are not working, big agribusiness is simply throwing pesticides at the problem instead of moving away from GMOs.

This is despite warnings last year from the Environmental Protection Agency that unrestrained use of Bt corn will off-set the balance of the ecosystem.

The revelation comes after scientists recently warned that pollution runoff from Midwestern farms, carried to the ocean by the Mississippi, is slated to create the largest ocean dead zone recorded in the Gulf of Mexico, choking marine life that crosses its path.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/09-6

Edited by jugoso
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Do the GMO - NON GMO grain taste test yourself my friend. The mice, squirrels, geese, ducks, deer, pigs, horses and cattle know the difference and avoid GMO grains when they have a choice. It is a proven fact that our White House and Monsanto's cafeterias serve strictly organic foods. Big Agra and Big Pharma have fooled with Mum Nature! That fooling around is not good for anyone nor was it good for GMO grain fed rats that grew large tumors posted world wide on the Net!

There is a dark side to all of this fooling my friend! Most of it is for fiat bills called money and a monopoly of their biotech seeds making our foods rotten tech!

People don't have a choice when they should have labels showing GMO ingredients. But there are lists showing all the big food brand names to avoid! :hmm:

It looks like I woke this one up big time! Hilander and I don't get e-mail notices of action. I hope most of you do.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When that great Life ceral commercial was aired a million + times. Genetically Modified plants had no biotechi Organisms in our (cereal) foods. GM was cool by it's self giving the food science folks credit for better tastes, colors and sizes. Tomatoes and veggies have run the gamut of change the same way. Broccoli came into being from a roof top garden in New York City! :tsu:

I still think the whole movement against lab tampered FRANKENGMOs as OUR bioengineered "seeds of life" & labeling for the concerned consumer world wide will always be, "A rough row to hoe!" :sleepy: Mainly because too many say, " Hey! So what......"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello WhowUKiddin!

That link was a super contribution to Hilander's hot topic, sometimes off topic. LOL

It is bookmarked at this pc like many UM guests will bookmark if for further references. Thanks and sharpen your best hoe for the rough row ahead with Big Agra, Big Pharma and a too big for it's pants Washington D.C.!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think finding out GMO causes cancer will be like when they finally realized the HPV virus gives men cancer of the throat. It will go on for years until they can come up with a test that proves it came from GMO corn.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Perhaps it won't take years before the truth on GMO foods causing cancer is discovered....

New Study Links GMO Food To Leukemia

A groundbreaking new study published in the current issue of the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases reveals the potential "leukemogenic" properties of the Bt toxin biopesticides engineered into the vast majority of GMO food crops already within the US food supply. ...

http://www.greenmedi...o-food-leukemia

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WhoUKiddin,

Thanks for the new study the GMO fans/skeptics (of Hilander's thread) would find a way to debunk in a 1,000 words or less. I have it bookmarked, Tweeted, and early on I voted this one 5 Stars. Voting is legal here after you register as a member. You don't need to show an I.D. either!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WhoUKiddin,

Thanks for the new study the GMO fans/skeptics (of Hilander's thread) would find a way to debunk in a 1,000 words or less. I have it bookmarked, Tweeted, and early on I voted this one 5 Stars. Voting is legal here after you register as a member. You don't need to show an I.D. either!

:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilander and WhoUKidden, thumbs up again!

This was a surprise this evening from Twitter. Things are getting serious!

This link is here to advise all to watch your backs, watch the fields next to your home or subdivision as a fore warning. This past fire chief does not condone what this link implies. Posting this is just a heads up on a vastly popular web site!

https://twitter.com/BurnFields

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor would I condone burning someones field. That wouldn't hurt Monsanto but it would the owner. If the fire gets out of hand and kills someone that will get you charged with manslaughter maybe even murder.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Going to have to call you on your source AGAIN. I would just paste the link but I have the sneaking suspicion you are not looking t the other material tht has been presented to you. Your link is from a study in 2003. Look at what happened in 2007

The Editor of a prestigious biotechnology journal has admitted that he allowed his journal to be used as a vehicle for a premeditated attack on Russian scientist Irina Ermakova. December's on-line edition of "Nature Biotechnology" contains an extraordinary admission that he was closely involved in a plan by four scientists to "set up" Ermakova and then to seek to dissect and dismiss her scientific methods and her results (1).

In the September 2007 edition the journal published an "experimental feature" which gave Bruce Chassy, Vivian Moses, Val Giddings and Alan McHughen free space to attack the work of Irina Ermakova, whose findings (on the deleterious effects of GM soy on rats involved in feeding experiments) had caused profound concern in the GM industry and across the world (2). In certain quarters the decision was taken to "shoot the messenger." So Ermakova was invited by the Editor, Andrew Marshall, to answer a set of questions about her research methods and her findings, and she willingly agreed to this, assuming that this would be "her" article. She was even sent a dummy proof which had her name on it as author. She was never told the names of the four men who were intent upon attacking her work, and never given sight of their comments. Most of Ermakova's references were removed, and replaced with references chosen by her critics to bolster their case. What is more, when the article appeared in print it had Andrew Marshall's name on it as author. GM Free Cymru has described the full sequence of events very carefully (3), and is in no doubt that this was a deliberate "set-up" by a journal which fell far short of the standards to be expected in mainstream academic publishing (4).

Following the publication of the article there was a storm of protest relating largely to the unethical practices employed by the journal in its treatment of Ermakova, and letters poured in not only to the Editor of "Nature Biotechnology" but also to senior personnel in the Nature / Macmillan publications empire. The editor was forced to accept a detailed defence of her science by Ermakova herself, and a series of complaints relating to the manner in which she had been treated. He also had to agree to publish five out of the twenty or so critical letters which he received from other scientists, and to print a rather feeble and convoluted "justification" concerning his notorious "publication experiment." In a further unprecented move, Marshall placed the full correspondence between himself and Ermakova onto the Nature Biotechnology web site. All of this material went on- line on the Nature Biotechnology web site on 7th December 2007 (5).

In his article (6) Marshall refused to apologize for his actions, and put everything down to mistakes and misunderstandings. But he has at least had the good grace to admit that his removal of Ermakova's references did indeed give the impression to readers that her work was "inferior and unsupported by the literature"; that the dummy proof should never have been sent with her name on it; that she was indeed misled into the belief that the article would be hers; that she was not fully informed as to the publication process or the intention of the feature article; that he, as Editor, should never have accepted comments made jointly by the four critics, and for which no one individual would accept responsibility; that he published criticisms relating to a perceived lack of data in her answers without giving her an opportunity to provide that data; and that he deliberately withheld from Ermakova the names and the comments of the four critics, since he viewed the article as an exercise in journalism rather than an exercise in scientific publishing.

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/involvement_ermakova.htm

What kind of true "Scientific Journal" employs these types of practices?

Of course, all became potatoheads, posts from ignoramuses just proves that...

BMK.....what exactly is your problem and why do you continue with all of the derogatory comments in many of your posts? Can´t you just present your argument without resorting to name-calling?

I think my position is summed up rather clearly here. With an obvious lack of truly unbiased studies, how are you SO SURE that bt Corn is safe.

BT CORN: IS IT WORTH THE RISK?

Human health and environmental risks

The promise of this technology has been largely overshadowed by concerns about the unintended effects of Bt corn on human health and the environment. Cry protein toxicity, allergenicity, and lateral transfer of antibiotic-resistance marker genes to the microflora of our digestive system threaten to compromise human health. Despite these alarming possibilities, the risks to human health appear small based upon what is known about the bacterial endotoxin, its specificity, and confidence in the processes of plant transformation and screening[9]. The task of determining the levels of such risks, however, are immense. Human diets are complex and variable. How can we trace the acute or chronic effects of eating GM ingredients when they are mixed in with many other foods that may also present their own health hazards? It is even more complicated to determine the indirect risk of eating meat from animals raised on transgenic crops. These tests take time, and the results of clinical trials are not always clear-cut. It will likely take decades before we can know with any certainty if Bt corn is as safe for human consumption as its non-GM alternatives[10].

We currently know very little about the actual ecological risks posed by Bt corn. Bt corn may be toxic to non-target organisms, transgenic genes may escape to related corn species, and ECB and other pests may become resistant to Cry proteins

http://www.scq.ubc.ca/bt-corn-is-it-worth-the-risk/

With respect to the last sentence this has already proven to be true as I linked in my last post

Pesticide use is skyrocketing across the Midwestern U.S. corn belt, as biotech companies like Syngenta and AMVAC Chemical watch their pesticide sales spike 50 to 100 percent over the past two years, NPR reported Tuesday.

The culprit? Bt corn—a type of genetically engineered corn with insecticide built into its genes.

Variations of this corn strain—peddled across the world by large multinationals including Monstanto and Syngenta—are giving rise to Bt resistant insects and worms, studies show.

NPR reports that resistant 'pests' are decimating entire cornfields across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Yet, now that the targeted insect killings are not working, big agribusiness is simply throwing pesticides at the problem instead of moving away from GMOs.

This is despite warnings last year from the Environmental Protection Agency that unrestrained use of Bt corn will off-set the balance of the ecosystem.

http://www.commondre...ne/2013/07/09-6

Nice deal for the companies involved. Sell them the seed that is supposedly resistant to certain insects and when this proves to not be the case, sell them a whole bunch of pesticides.

Edit: add links

Edited by jugoso
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nor would I condone burning someones field. That wouldn't hurt Monsanto but it would the owner. If the fire gets out of hand and kills someone that will get you charged with manslaughter maybe even murder.

Hello Hilander, active members here and distinguished Guests, :unsure2:

Twitter fed news....

Burn "sugar" baby burn!. :blush:

This news from Oregon state is so far blacked out from mainstream news media. I still need to finish the article but early in it makes a claim that many people hand pulled GMO sugar beets and set them on fire! Upwards of 40 tons of sugar beets as you will note reading this subdued news! Where will this end Hilander? It's another example of a country divided that President Abraham Lincoln warned us about. :no: Americans not so interested in healthy food or labeling of GMO's drink their cities fluoridated tap water dulling their minds. :passifier:

http://www.realfarma...media-blackout/

When a torch lights up crops in Hungary or tons of donated bags of GMO seed corn in Haiti, those stories make the news

Now to send off a PM to the OP addressed above with a link to these 9 pages of heated discussions on GMO's. :devil:

:blush: Edited by me minutes later so noted below just to add "ed" to correct "address". The UK's Mysterial mysteries web site has never had a time limit for editing.

Edited by Malaria_Kidd
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

REF: The crop field arson case above....

Follow along at Twitter's newest U.S.A./GMO crop fields "potential" arsonists here... :whistle:

@BurnFields

Search #Burn the Fields on Facebook

I Tweet Hilander's "GMO corn to be highly toxic" about twice a week. Hello to the 17 Guests here now and many thanks to any Twitter followers who light up my 13 topics lost in the dark pages when I Tweet them from @Malaria_Kidd. :yes:

Edited by Malaria_Kidd
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor would I condone burning someones field. That wouldn't hurt Monsanto but it would the owner. If the fire gets out of hand and kills someone that will get you charged with manslaughter maybe even murder.

I know which one I'd have more problem with, taking a life like that or doing time for it. The former, especially if it's a farmer's life. They try to provide us with food so we ought to be thoughtful. If anyone would burn a field, I sincerely hope they know a bit about how fire spreads and prevent it from spreading to forests and living areas.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.