- This topic has 1 reply, 18 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hungary and France have tried with varied success to ban GMO, usually get hit with attacks from Monsanto and USA Govt or NGO’s and dirty under handedness.
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]So companies want to engineer plants that have a greater yield and make their own pesticides so that we can reduce the spraying of harmful chemicals on our plants (and into the air) and feed more people. How is that a problem?[/quote]
No one is checking to see if the pesticides that you eat when you consume such plants are good for you. It is possible that what poisons the pest which consumes the crop can slowly poison humans that consume the crop.
The French study DID check how Round-up and a diet of GMOs affected those rats. Did you see the tumors? Do we have an increase in cancer? Do we have a lot of very sick people who have gastro problems that were never seen before? Selective breeding and genetic engineering are two entirely different things. They are not even close and it is a complete and utter myth that GMO crops will feed the world. It’s actually quite the opposite, but some people cannot be convinced no matter what evidence is put to them. A friend of mine just wrote this article. Maybe it will elucidate certain areas that have been misunderstood.
http://cms.herbalgram.org/heg/volume9/10October/Prop37GMOeditorial.html?t=1349287977
[quote=”VictoriaLST
“Genetic engineering” involves a choice. We start with the wolf and chose characteristics that yield a Golden Retriever.We start with a 10cm ear of corn and end up with a 50cm ear that is sweeter, more tender, and bi-colored.
We take a gene from one species, insert it into another species and get a new source of insulin or vitamin A enrichment.
Are people still going to starve? Probably. Die of disease? Probably. But research will always pay a dividend.
[/quote]
You sound like a believer in science. Scientists are only human. Like politicians, scientists can favor the interests of those paying them. Just look at all the drugs that have had to be pulled off the market due to insufficient science on the part of those in the pay of Big Pharma. If you are unaware, go to Mercola.com and input “Big Pharma”. There’s nothing inherently virtuous or perfect about science. Maybe the scientist makes a mistake and gets Rosemary’s baby instead of a healthy child. Maybe Monsanto can sell more seed with inherent pesticides so no one cares to investigate possible diseases or the fact that the crop is high maintenance. So what if farmers in India are committing suicide when their crops fail due to Monsanto’s mistakes and misrepresentations and they can’t afford another round of seed. I guess they are just collateral damage OK’d by the God of Science. In this case the only party in receipt of the research dividend is Monsanto.
There is no more science for the sake of science. Anyone who thinks that might want to read the Ascendency of The Scientific Dictatorship. Science is bought and sold to whoever can afford to get the results they want or need. Data are routinely withheld; clinical trials are skewed and manipulated to produce whatever result they want. And that is what has happened with GMOs, but it is backfiring like crazy. Instead of the Bt toxin crops doing what they were intended to do they have spawned superweeds and superbugs that can only be managed by obscene amounts of — guess what — ROUND-UP! Surely there has to be a special hell for the mad scientists at Monsanto who sold the public a complete and utter lie.
[quote=”maravilla”]The French study DID check how Round-up and a diet of GMOs affected those rats.
Thank you for the correction. I have seen them now. I had not gotten to the video when I wrote the comment.[quote=”maravilla”]The French study DID check how Round-up and a diet of GMOs affected those rats. Did you see the tumors? Do we have an increase in cancer? Do we have a lot of very sick people who have gastro problems that were never seen before? Selective breeding and genetic engineering are two entirely different things. They are not even close and it is a complete and utter myth that GMO crops will feed the world. It’s actually quite the opposite, but some people cannot be convinced no matter what evidence is put to them. A friend of mine just wrote this article. Maybe it will elucidate certain areas that have been misunderstood.
http://cms.herbalgram.org/heg/volume9/10October/Prop37GMOeditorial.html?t=1349287977%5B/quote%5D
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]Finally, a scientific study! Unfortunately, it was published in a journal backed by Green Publishing which has a serious bias against GMOs. I had the article reviewed by a PhD physiologist with 27 years in research. He concluded that the study: used too small a sample, does not include multiple species, has no claim of P-values (statistical significance), and showed results that are not dose-dependent. In addition, a valid study can be replicated and must be replicated by other labs to be trustworthy. Please don’t refer me to any more videos that are designed to provoke an emotional response, not a logical one. Thanks.[/quote]
Please disclose who paid for the review and what financial interest you or the reviewer has/had in GMO crops or research.[quote=”VictoriaLST”]First, don’t attribute things to me that I did not say.
Second, I don’t “believe”, I think.
Third, of course the videos played the emotional card – big bad corporation out to harm your family is emotional. Playing on fear is emotional. Science is fact.
Finally, this will be my last post on the subject. We will just have to agree to disagree.[/quote]
No one’s thoughts go uninfluenced by their beliefs. Since you went to the trouble to have a review done of the French study, it appears that you have a strong interest in GMO crops. Please don’t leave the discussion without letting us know what, if any, interest you and the reviewer you hired have in GMO crops or research.
[quote=”maravilla”]There is no more science for the sake of science. Anyone who thinks that might want to read the Ascendency of The Scientific Dictatorship. Science is bought and sold to whoever can afford to get the results they want or need. Data are routinely withheld; clinical trials are skewed and manipulated to produce whatever result they want. And that is what has happened with GMOs, but it is backfiring like crazy. Instead of the Bt toxin crops doing what they were intended to do they have spawned superweeds and superbugs that can only be managed by obscene amounts of — guess what — ROUND-UP! Surely there has to be a special hell for the mad scientists at Monsanto who sold the public a complete and utter lie.
[/quote]often science lies for its own reasons-to defend something.and attack what is against, despite the evidence to contrary. We see this a lot of discussions on creation,etc….also, science is expensive and hence, we see much of it is fueled by cut thraot academia and Big Biz……
Money corrupts everything, even truth. Science is no exception. The root of all evil is also the root of GMO plants. Here we have yet another example of how monatized economy based on manufactured scarcity can be lethal.
[quote=”sprite”]Money corrupts everything, even truth. Science is no exception. The root of all evil is also the root of GMO plants. Here we have yet another example of how monatized economy based on manufactured scarcity can be lethal.[/quote]
True, a few can manipulate and control, not freedom….
[quote=”camby”][quote=”sprite”]Money corrupts everything, even truth. Science is no exception. The root of all evil is also the root of GMO plants. Here we have yet another example of how monatized economy based on manufactured scarcity can be lethal.[/quote]
True, a few can manipulate and control, not freedom….[/quote]
[quote=”maravilla”]There is no more science for the sake of science. Anyone who thinks that might want to read the Ascendency of The Scientific Dictatorship. Science is bought and sold to whoever can afford to get the results they want or need.[/quote]
These comments can’t pass without comment.
I take strident exception to the quotes by maravilla/sprite/camby on science and scientists. I am explicitly reminded of DCM’s tagline Krugman quote.
I have been a practicing oceanographer and marine biologist with an international reputation for over 40 years; in the area of harmful algal blooms [red tides]. In retirement for 5 years, I do the same research that I did in the previous 38 years, the exception being that now I receive neither a salary, nor research funding. In other words, my profession is now my hobby. Many of my retired colleagues throughout the world do exactly the same. The C.R. situation is bad for Tico and Tica scientists who, though generally dedicated, suffer from low salaries and lack of resources.
Of course there are hired guns in the science world (big pharma and big tobacco come immediately to mind), but to tar brush all science and scientists is not only uninformed and untrue, but demeaning to both scientists and the accuser.
😡i don’t think any of us painted all scientists with the same tar bush, but is there corruption in science? absolutely, and it’s not just in big pharma or big tobacco. it is probably less so in your area of expertise unlike other areas where billions upon billions in profits are at stake. The book I mentioned — The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictationship — is a scholarly attempt to uncover the areas in which science is dictated by dollars. I didn’t write the book, so don’t shoot the messenger. There should be science for the sake of science; it should be pure and not influenced by an agenda, but alas, that is not always the case. you can say it isn’t so, but you can also say a cow is a pig, but that doesn’t change what it really is.
The dilemma, I think, is that sooner or later somebody has to pay the bills. Sr. Pharg may be pursuing his science unpaid and in retirement, but I’ll bet somebody is helping feed him whether that’s Social Security, a pension, or whatever. By a very long shot, not every dedicated scientist can afford to both work for free and also provide his or her own material resources. The days of the nobleman scientist are far behind us. Just ask the physicists working on the super collider. Sooner or later, somebody has to pay the bills.
And that’s where the sponsors come in whether they’re government or the private sector. Fer shure, money will dictate the research priorities and, to some extent, the findings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
