wrong result, more research is needed


Recommended Posts

article, pictures

http://www.dailymail...ath-humans.html

I heard that this study was done on the sneak so it wouldn't be sabotaged fixed. The industry must protect itself. More studies will be done to fudge the data and protect the industry find the truth.

"Only 30 per cent of the control rats developed tumours"

Sounds like they purposefully chose a strain of rats prone to tumors. No mention of what the control group was fed.

Not enough information provided - appears to be junk science on first pass.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

You both can believe what you want. Plenty of ambiguity exists on all sides and that leads to unresolveable partisanship. The article cited ended with a disclaimer by Prof. Anthony Trewavas of Edinburgh. Enter "Prof Anthony Trewavas" into a search engine and read all you care to. Myself, I have no general problems with genetically modified organisms in that even maize (corn) is the result of human selection to create desired plants. In Tibet, they cross cattle with yaks to produce the hybrids they need. It is an old story.

That said, epigenetics and genetics both open the door to questions about certain individual strains. While I have no phobia about GMOs, neither do I ignore every warning. Here, the scientists on both sides have records of partisan support, both their lending their work and their taking money for it. On the one hand, objectivity is surely lacking. On the other, theory informs experiment: if you have no idea what you are looking for, you never find anything. The truth will out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every kind of grain current consumed is a genetically modified hybrid. Humans were making hybridized grains as long ago as 4000 ybp.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every kind of grain current consumed is a genetically modified hybrid. Humans were making hybridized grains as long ago as 4000 ybp.

Ba'al Chatzaf

They used selection, not a gene gun. Monsanto takes a gene from one species and fires it into the DNA of another species. That is roughly like taking a line of source code from one computer program and inserting it randomly into the source code of another computer program. This is not the same as selection. Do not confuse the 2 methods. By the selection method, you would never get a cross between a goat and a spider, a tomato and a fish, a corn and a bacteria, a cat and a jellyfish, a cow and a human.

In India, it is normal to let cattle eat the cotton plants after the cotton is harvested. No problem, and it's good for them. But when the cotton plants were GE, all the cattle that ate it died. That is one of many examples.

What Monsanto does and what people did for thousands of years are 2 different things. You can't judge the gene gun method by the selection method. If you do that, you are doing philosophy, not science, and not even good philosophy. You must look at the independent scientific research. By 'independent', I mean it is not done by or funded by a company that fudged the study to sell the product.

Remember the proverb: "When money speaks, the truth is silent." In physics maybe the peer review process is squeaky clean, but not so where there is a multi-billion dollar industry involved. They can be crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly. And don't trust the FDA (Fraud and Deception Administration).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You must look at the independent scientific research. By 'independent', I mean

it is not done by or funded by a company that fudged the study to sell the product.

In physics maybe the peer review process is squeaky clean, but not so where

there is a multi-billion dollar industry involved. [,,,]. And don't trust the FDA (Fraud

and Deception Administration).

Many groups claim to be independent but as often as not they have motives of their

own and are as biased if not more than those they attack.

Company funding does not cause any more or less bias any than socialist government

funding. Often less in companies where the profit motive involves corporate reputation.

Physics is not squeaky clean and it is a multi-blllion dollar business with deep government

pockets involved.

Do your own research as much as possible and unless you have the entire facts behind

3rd world claims I would steer clear of using them as evidence. Like Global Warming or

the Ozone Hole - it is always happening worst where no one ever goes and it is easy to

control or fabricate the information with no indenpendent means of verification.

Dennis

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