Science denial Ted Talk.

studiorat

Vaccine hysteria, GMO fear and herbal medicine craze: all point to tha public's growing fear of science and reason.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-04-13&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

Michael Specter on the dangers of science denial.

Truthrevolution

studiorat wrote: »

Vaccine hysteria, GMO fear and herbal medicine craze: all point to tha public's growing fear of science and reason.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-04-13&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

Michael Specter on the dangers of science denial.

What about the fact that herbal medicine can be beneficial to your health, that vaccines can be detrimental to your health and that GMO crops can damage vital organs?

Yitzhak Rabin

Truthrevolution wrote: »

What about the fact... that GMO crops can damage vital organs?

Evidence please.

RoboClam

Truthrevolution wrote: »

What about the fact that herbal medicine can be beneficial to your health, that vaccines can be detrimental to your health and that GMO crops can damage vital organs?

What "Facts" would these be exactly?

bonkey

This seems to belong elsewhere. Its nothing to to with CT

Truthrevolution

yekahs wrote: »

Evidence please.

Monsanto's own studies

Capt'n Midnight

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Monsanto's own studies

Please read the charter.

r3nu4l wrote: »

please remember that this is a scientific board.
During discussions please do not refer to subjective or emotional experience as evidence for your claims. Instead, please provide credible scientific links where possible.

This is not AH or CT

Three people died of measles in Ireland in 2000 because of scaremongering over vaccines. That and your posts elsewhere, means you are getting this ONE warning.

If you wish to state 'facts' you will need to provide links from either Monsato's own site or from reputable scientific sites.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

Evidence please.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/gp_briefing_seralini_study.pdf

Brown Bomber

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you wish to state 'facts' you will need to provide links from either Monsato's own site or from reputable scientific sites.

Fair Enough...

But are your claims not "facts"? Unsupported and unlinked?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please read the charter.
Three people died of measles in Ireland in 2000 because of scaremongering over vaccines. That and your posts elsewhere, means you are getting this ONE warning.

Why the double standard?

Truthrevolution

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please read the charter.

This is not AH or CT

Three people died of measles in Ireland in 2000 because of scaremongering over vaccines. That and your posts elsewhere, means you are getting this ONE warning.

If you wish to state 'facts' you will need to provide links from either Monsato's own site or from reputable scientific sites.

When first discussing this subject i was posting in the CT forum so a warning in this instance would be uncalled for.However the charter here does state that evidence is required so i will oblige.......

After legal action was taken against Monsanto recently they were forced to reveal their own studies which indicated that GM crops can cause liver and kidney damage.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html

Recently the rotarix vaccine had to be recalled after fears of contamination in the vaccine of a live pig virus where it is estimated aroung 30 million people could be affected......

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/22/rotavirus.vaccine/?hpt=T2

Also Baxter "accidentally" contaminated their vaccine last year with a live avian flu virus which almost went public.......

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=14709

Evidence that Glaxosmithkline's swine flu vaccine additives can sterilise humans.......

http://organichealthadviser.com/archives/polysorbate-80-in-swine-flu-vaccines-infertility-in-humans

Dont worry theres plenty more evidence out there but i think that will be enough for the time being.Now that i have provided reputable links you can retract your warning.

Scarinae

Truthrevolution wrote: »

After legal action was taken against Monsanto recently they were forced to reveal their own studies which indicated that GM crops can cause liver and kidney damage.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html

...

Dont worry theres plenty more evidence out there but i think that will be enough for the time being.Now that i have provided reputable links you can retract your warning.

You call the Daily Mail a reputable link? This week they claimed that turning on the light to use the toilet at night time can give you cancer...
You'd be better off linking to whatever source they based their story on, if they haven't changed it significantly (which is unfortunately very common)

Capt'n Midnight

Truthrevolution wrote: »

When first discussing this subject i was posting in the CT forum so a warning in this instance would be uncalled for.

You initially made unsubstantiated claims on a subject that has been discussed ad nauseum and these claims were directly contrary to majority of the scientific / medical community.

And then despite two requests for evidence you then posted another unsubstantiated claim.


The warning was given at that stage, because this is a thread about scaremongering and IMHO you have been doing a lot of that elsewhere.


You were given the opportunity to back your claims with links to reputable scientific sites. And yes they do exist because there a little debate on these subjects, admittedly most of it is on the fringe. And when you drill down into stats there are somethings that are counter-intuitive.


However, the request was specifically for reputable scientific sites.

However the charter here does state that evidence is required so i will oblige.......

will it be nature or the lancet or nih.gov ?

Nope - it's the Daily Mail
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269512464297
lots of links to the Daily Mail web site about "stuff that causes cancer"
If you've not seen it before it's worth a laugh.


The next two media (not science sites) links refer to contaminated vaccines. NOT the vaccine itself. Pure scaremongering.

The first was a previously undetectable contaminant, which has no known effects in humans, once the technology was in place to detect the contaminant the vaccine was recalled.
The next was human error, it happens.

The last link related to injecting baby rats with very large doses of an ingredient used in some vaccines*and a lot of foods. Again there was no problem with the concept of vaccination, just with an added ingredient.

You said it can sterilise humans, but even if this was true, without providing a link that shows that it's possible with the amount you get in a vaccine you are just scaremongering, especially considering that it is a food additive.

Obese people have fertility problems, so food can sterilise people, we aren't going to ban food anytime soon.

Dont worry theres plenty more evidence out there but i think that will be enough for the time being. Now that i have provided reputable links you can retract your warning.

The instruction to you was for links from reputable scientific sites, instead you liked to non-scientific sites.

Akrasia

There are very good reasons to be wary of GMO foods that range from the possibility of cross contamination (and the resultant loss of the natural biodiversity) to the unexpected consequences and effects the newly introduced compounds can have on the soil, and wildlife (especially the kinds of GMOs that are designed to produce their own pesticides, or be resistant to particular types of Proprietry pesticides like 'Round-up Ready Soy" which can lead to the overuse of dangerous pesticides and damage to the natural ecosystem, thereby diminishing the soils natural ability to recover and forcing even greater need for artificial fertilisers.)

There are economic and sociological reasons for opposing GMOs, specifically, an opposition to the private ownership of life, and the argument that switching from traditional farming to GMO agriculture massively increases the costs for farmers in the developing world and due to the nature of the switch over, once the new crops are planted, it can be very difficult to go back to the traditional varieties at a later date (you can only store seeds for x length of time, in the time it takes for the farmers to realise that the new farming methods are uneconomical, their supplies of traditional seeds may no longer be viable, or the soil composition might have changed so that traditional varieties no longer grow as well

Dave!

Akrasia wrote: »

There are very good reasons to be wary of GMO foods that range from the possibility of cross contamination (and the resultant loss of the natural biodiversity) to the unexpected consequences and effects the newly introduced compounds can have on the soil, and wildlife (especially the kinds of GMOs that are designed to produce their own pesticides, or be resistant to particular types of Proprietry pesticides like 'Round-up Ready Soy" which can lead to the overuse of dangerous pesticides and damage to the natural ecosystem, thereby diminishing the soils natural ability to recover and forcing even greater need for artificial fertilisers.)

There are economic and sociological reasons for opposing GMOs, specifically, an opposition to the private ownership of life, and the argument that switching from traditional farming to GMO agriculture massively increases the costs for farmers in the developing world and due to the nature of the switch over, once the new crops are planted, it can be very difficult to go back to the traditional varieties at a later date (you can only store seeds for x length of time, in the time it takes for the farmers to realise that the new farming methods are uneconomical, their supplies of traditional seeds may no longer be viable, or the soil composition might have changed so that traditional varieties no longer grow as well

Are there any significant nutritional reasons to eat organic though?

And Michael Specter gives an example of some sort of rice that's been genetically modified to include amounts of vitamin A (?), which helps prevent blindness. Isn't that a good thing?

/I know nothing about GM food, so more asking out of interest

5uspect

A recent review of organic food has shown no additional nutritional benefit.
Ben Goldacre has a nice write up on it on BadScience.

A lot of the risks mentioned regarding GM crops apply to the introduction of any new crop.
Additionally Monsanto have non-GM breeding programs where they use genotyping to perform seed selection.

Truthrevolution

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

will it be nature or the lancet or nih.gov ?

Nope - it's the Daily Mail
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269512464297
lots of links to the Daily Mail web site about "stuff that causes cancer"
If you've not seen it before it's worth a laugh.


The next two media (not science sites) links refer to contaminated vaccines. NOT the vaccine itself. Pure scaremongering.

The first was a previously undetectable contaminant, which has no known effects in humans, once the technology was in place to detect the contaminant the vaccine was recalled.
The next was human error, it happens.

The last link related to injecting baby rats with very large doses of an ingredient used in some vaccines*and a lot of foods. Again there was no problem with the concept of vaccination, just with an added ingredient.

You said it can sterilise humans, but even if this was true, without providing a link that shows that it's possible with the amount you get in a vaccine you are just scaremongering, especially considering that it is a food additive.

Obese people have fertility problems, so food can sterilise people, we aren't going to ban food anytime soon.


The instruction to you was for links from reputable scientific sites, instead you liked to non-scientific sites.

You are clutching at straws here.The nih.gov or the Lancet, the Dr Wakefield paper that was retracted because he was finding a link between autism and the MMR vaccine?

http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield2.pdf

Ok now the bizzare claim you make of an "undetectable contaminant"???
If its undetectable then how did they find it??
And if it has no effect on humans then why did they think it so important to recall it??

And the next one - human error :pac:
When manufacturing vaccines these mistakes are next to impossible.The stringent safety controls and hygeine measusres of these companies are specifically designed to ensure these things can not happen.Have you ever worked in a pharmaceutical plant??
These vaccines could have potentially caused mass pandemic but sure hey its just "human error"

The swine flu vaccine link you said there was no adequate source to prove it, there are links from the CDC as well as information on the site stating the volumes used in the vaccine.

With regards to the Daily Mail article i posted, are you denying that Monsanto were taken to court?? And forced to show a study that linked GM foods with organ damage??

Its a very apt. name for this thread, science denial.

Truthrevolution

Akrasia wrote: »

There are very good reasons to be wary of GMO foods that range from the possibility of cross contamination (and the resultant loss of the natural biodiversity) to the unexpected consequences and effects the newly introduced compounds can have on the soil, and wildlife (especially the kinds of GMOs that are designed to produce their own pesticides, or be resistant to particular types of Proprietry pesticides like 'Round-up Ready Soy" which can lead to the overuse of dangerous pesticides and damage to the natural ecosystem, thereby diminishing the soils natural ability to recover and forcing even greater need for artificial fertilisers.)

There are economic and sociological reasons for opposing GMOs, specifically, an opposition to the private ownership of life, and the argument that switching from traditional farming to GMO agriculture massively increases the costs for farmers in the developing world and due to the nature of the switch over, once the new crops are planted, it can be very difficult to go back to the traditional varieties at a later date (you can only store seeds for x length of time, in the time it takes for the farmers to realise that the new farming methods are uneconomical, their supplies of traditional seeds may no longer be viable, or the soil composition might have changed so that traditional varieties no longer grow as well

This is probably a more scary aspect, GM monopoly.As somebody pointed out there are some benefits to GMO foods but i definitely think the negatives far outweigh the positives.

5uspect

Truthrevolution wrote: »

With regards to the Daily Mail article i posted, are you denying that Monsanto were taken to court?? And forced to show a study that linked GM foods with organ damage??

Its a very apt. name for this thread, science denial.

Then post a link to the court case from a reputable source.
You could probably find the ruling itself on-line.

The Daily Fail is far from a reputable source for anything.

Truthrevolution wrote:

Ok now the bizzare claim you make of an "undetectable contaminant"???
If its undetectable then how did they find it??
And if it has no effect on humans then why did they think it so important to recall it??

Can you read?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The first was a previously undetectable contaminant, which has no known effects in humans, once the technology was in place to detect the contaminant the vaccine was recalled.
The next was human error, it happens.

Akrasia

Dave! wrote: »

Are there any significant nutritional reasons to eat organic though?

And Michael Specter gives an example of some sort of rice that's been genetically modified to include amounts of vitamin A (?), which helps prevent blindness. Isn't that a good thing?

/I know nothing about GM food, so more asking out of interest

Its unclear if there are significant nutritional differences, but the differences in ecology between intensive agriculture and organic agriculture are pretty immense, and when we're talking about global agricultural paradigms, we can not ignore the ecology.

I am not opposed to very careful GMO R&D. It needs to be very highly monitored and regulated before it gets widely adopted, even if this runs counter to commercial considerations.
(the same applies to any other kind of geo-engineering)

bonkey

Dave! wrote: »

Are there any significant nutritional reasons to eat organic though?

I thought we were discussing GM vs. non-GM? Why ask about organic?

bonkey

I'm not aware that Monsanto did their own studies concluding organ damage.

This study did make some headlines about a possible link to organ damage in mammals (tested on rats)....and AFAIK, the immediate fallout was Monsanto saying the methodology was flawed, and the researchers more-or-less saying the same in response regarding Monsanto's own studies.

PDN

Fishie wrote: »

You call the Daily Mail a reputable link? This week they claimed that turning on the light to use the toilet at night time can give you cancer...

Rather apt since I've always felt much of the Mail's "journalism" was pissing in the dark! :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

Dave! wrote: »

Are there any significant nutritional reasons to eat organic though?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8174482.stm

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.

Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.

The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.

There is nothing in organic food that makes it more nutritious.

Flavour is a personal preference though.

20goto10

We are part of nature. Everything we do is natural and within the confines of nature.

Capt'n Midnight

20goto10 wrote: »

We are part of nature. Everything we do is natural and within the confines of nature.

Actually one of our key traits is that unlike other species we can import energy from outside an ecosystem.

Most other species in an ecosystem can't and so there is negative feedback when they exploit it too much. If foxes eat most of the rabbits on an island and then the foxes starve so the remaining rabbits have a chance to repopulate.

Humans are a major extinction event. So far we haven't wiped out a species with global distribution, but there are relatively few of them. Species that are tied to an ecosystem are far more vulnerable. Humans can come in and kill all the rabbits and then have a go at eating all the foxes too, and go fishing and eat seaweed and eat the tubers they brought from the mainland, and can go back to the mainland when they've wiped out the island.