New variant E. coli Outbreak

Oracle

There's something strange and suspicious about this E. coli outbreak. I heard it also containes some DNA sequence from the plague bacteria. I thought it likely, that this is some genetically engineered lab-created bug, it has all the hallmarks:

* It's easily spread:

The Health Protection Agency said it was likely to be a new variant of the rare strain O104 - possibly with a newly acquired ability to infect large numbers of people.

* It's highly infectious and toxic:

Scientists at the Beijing Genomics Institute in China are also reported as saying the new form was "highly infectious and toxic".

* It hasn't been seen in a widespread outbreak before:

The World Health Organization said the variant had "never been seen in an outbreak situation before."

* It affects crucial body organs and functions and can be fatal:

It can cause the deadly complication - haemolytic-uraemic syndrome (HUS) - affecting the blood and kidneys.

Professor Gad Frankel, from Imperial College London, the Sanger Institute and the Medical Research Council, said: "This is a new combination and a deadly combination....

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13626499

Also the bacteria’s true origin remains unknown. This is despite the fact that all victims lived in developed Western European countries. Even more surprising, most of the cases of illness occurred in Germany, a country with a rich history of research in microbiology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Koch

In addition, the early involvement of national health agencies and NGO's, such as the WHO, UK Health Protection Agency, Genetics and Research Institutes, etc..., would also lead me to believe things may not be as they seem.

seanmacc

It does stink to high heaven alright just like the Swine Flu outbreak. Everytime one of these pandemics breaks out it leaves me suspicious of UN Agenda 21. The disease my not be the disease itself but the cure administered. Are our governments releasing these man made diseases so the can sterilize large proportions of the population covertly by vaccine and curing programmes?

amacachi

Sorry about that guys. I told our lecturers we shouldn't have been messing with E. Coli in first year.

seanmacc

seanmacc wrote: »

It does stink to high heaven alright just like the Swine Flu outbreak. Everytime one of these pandemics breaks out it leaves me suspicious of UN Agenda 21. The disease my not be the disease itself but the cure administered. Are our governments releasing these man made diseases so the can sterilize large proportions of the population covertly by vaccine and curing programmes?

Well since the swine flu outbreak was originally meant to wipe out Mexicians, then when that didn't happen it was to be an excuse to enforce mandatory vaccinations which then also didn't happen, I suspect there'll be little to the usual scaremongering from the CTer crowd this time around either.

thebman

I'd be more worried about them blaming the spannish first.

Me thinks its deflection on their part to try to save the German economy some bad press that has backfired rather than a simple mistake.

Hope they get taken to the cleaners when the spannish go after them for compensation.

seanmacc

King Mob wrote: »

Well since the swine flu outbreak was originally meant to wipe out Mexicians, then when that didn't happen it was to be an excuse to enforce mandatory vaccinations which then also didn't happen, I suspect there'll be little to the usual scaremongering from the CTer crowd this time around either.

The swine flu vaccine in itself is not mandatory but you try going to your doctor and get the seasonal flu jab without the swine flu vaccine as the two are now combined.

shanered

I am varfy wary of all these things, especially the way big pharama tried to push the vaccinations on everybody, what was that all about?
Now doctors are trained to say every flu is the swine flu.....

Monty Burnz

seanmacc wrote: »

The swine flu vaccine in itself is not mandatory but you try going to your doctor and get the seasonal flu jab without the swine flu vaccine as the two are now combined.

I never bother with the flu jab, but then I've never managed to come down with the flu.

I presume the reason they are pushing the swine flu jab - if they are - is for epidemiological reasons. I'm not sure of my ground here to be honest, but I seem to recall reading that you don't need to vaccinate too high a percentage of the population to make a big dent on the transmission of a disease. 30% or so would be enough to make a substantial difference in how serious an outbreak is (I think ). Perhaps someone with more knowledge of epidemiology could help me out.

seanmacc

seanmacc wrote: »

The swine flu vaccine in itself is not mandatory but you try going to your doctor and get the seasonal flu jab without the swine flu vaccine as the two are now combined.

But at the time of the initial outbreak the CTer claim was that you would either take the vaccine or be arrested and put in a camp.
The above, if true, is a very very far cry from that.

But then this was after the swine flu didn't wipe us all out.

hooradiation

Oracle wrote: »

There's something strange and suspicious about this E. coli outbreak. I heard it also containes some DNA sequence from the plague bacteria. I thought it likely, that this is some genetically engineered lab-created bug, it has all the hallmarks:

* It's easily spread:

* It's highly infectious and toxic:

* It hasn't been seen in a widespread outbreak before:

* It affects crucial body organs and functions and can be fatal:

I am curious - if these are the hallmarks of a "genetically engineered lab-created bug" then what are the hallmarks of one that occurs naturally? That is to say, how can you tell the difference between the two, given the criteria on display here are so vague and wide reaching as to encompass any and all outbreaks.

Oracle wrote: »

Also the bacteria’s true origin remains unknown. This is despite the fact that all victims lived in developed Western European countries.

I fail to see the relevance of this. Tracing any kind of outbreak will take time.
What leads you to believe that the location of the origin of this outbreak has been tardy?

Oracle wrote: »

Even more surprising, most of the cases of illness occurred in Germany, a country with a rich history of research in microbiology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Koch

Again, what is this relevance of this?

Oracle wrote: »

In addition, the early involvement of national health agencies and NGO's, such as the WHO, UK Health Protection Agency, Genetics and Research Institutes, etc..., would also lead me to believe things may not be as they seem.

The fact that a central European outbreak of a rare E.Coli strain has prompted a response from agencies that have the ability to respond and are close to the affected area is not something i would find surprising.
Why do you believe this is noteworthy and what is it an indication of?

Talk E

Forensic evidence emerges that European e.coli superbug was bioengineered to produce human fatalities.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032622_ecoli_bioengineering.html#ixzz1OVRxm7Ef

(NaturalNews) Even as the veggie blame game is now under way across the EU, where a super resistant strain of e.coli is sickening patients and filling hospitals in Germany, virtually no one is talking about how e.coli could have magically become resistant to eight different classes of antibiotic drugs and then suddenly appeared in the food supply.

This particular e.coli variation is a member of the O104 strain, and O104 strains are almost never (normally) resistant to antibiotics. In order for them to acquire this resistance, they must be repeatedly exposed to antibiotics in order to provide the "mutation pressure" that nudges them toward complete drug immunity.

So if you're curious about the origins of such a strain, you can essentially reverse engineer the genetic code of the e.coli and determine fairly accurately which antibiotics it was exposed to during its development. This step has now been done (see below), and when you look at the genetic decoding of this O104 strain now threatening food consumers across the EU, a fascinating picture emerges of how it must have come into existence.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032622_ecoli_bioengineering.html#ixzz1OVRsuq94

hooradiation

Setting aside the second half of the article and it's speculation for the moment, the core of their argument is an argument from incredulity.
That is, when they say "It is virtually impossible to imagine how this could happen all by itself in the natural world." they then take their incredulity at that prospect as proof positive that it could therefore never happen.

This is a fallacy and given that their entire argument comes from that initial fallacy i am reluctant to consider it further.

RGDATA!

shanered wrote: »

Now doctors are trained to say every flu is the swine flu.....

ludicrous statement in fairness.

amacachi

Loving that link Talk E, this is probably my favorite bit:

On top of that, this O104 strain possesses two genes -- TEM-1 and CTX-M-15 -- that "have been making doctors shudder since the 1990s," reports The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...). And why do they make doctors shudder? Because they're so deadly that many people infected with such bacteria experience critical organ failure and simply die.

Genes are bacteria now.


EDIT: Found another great one.

Now, remember: All this is happening on the heels of the EU ban on medicinal herbs and nutritional supplements -- a ban that blatantly outlaws nutritional therapies that help keep people healthy and free from disease. Now that all these herbs and supplements are outlawed, the next step is to make people afraid of fresh food, too. That's because fresh vegetables are medicinal, and as long as the public has the right to buy fresh vegetables, they can always prevent disease.

No agenda here!

Talk E

amacachi wrote: »

Loving that link Talk E, this is probably my favorite bit:

Ok great, make it good :pac:

amacachi wrote: »

Genes are bacteria now.

It states "this O104 strain possesses two genes".

Not.. "genes are bacteria".

amacachi wrote: »

EDIT: Found another great one.

amacachi wrote: »

No agenda here!

After reading the whole report all that you can conjure up is "No agenda here" ?

There is an agenda, congratulations.

Now can you figure out what the agenda is ?

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

There is an agenda, congratulations.

Now can you figure out what the agenda is ?

That Natural News has a reason to promote fear and uncertainty about actual medicine and real doctors while promoting various quack treatments advertised on the site?

amacachi

It's all problem, reaction, solution at work here. First cause a PROBLEM (a deadly strain of e.coli in the food supply). Then wait for the public REACTION (huge outcry as the population is terrorized by e.coli). In response to that, enact your desired SOLUTION (total control over the global food supply and the outlawing of raw sprouts, raw milk and raw vegetables).

That says more that anyone else can tbh. Also the amount of errors/lies in that article would require me to have more fingers to count them all.

amacachi

King Mob wrote: »

That Natural News has a reason to promote fear and uncertainty about actual medicine and real doctors while promoting various quack treatments advertised on the site?

You cynic.

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

That says more that anyone else can tbh. Also the amount of errors/lies in that article would require me to have more fingers to count them all.

Hrmm.. something sounds familiar here.

It's all problem, reaction, solution at work here. First cause a PROBLEM (a vast medical conspiracy that gives you deadly substances). Then wait for the public REACTION (huge outcry as the population is terrorized by the evil conspiracy and their evil concoctions). In response to that, enact your desired SOLUTION (Sell people quack treatments that cure the ill caused by the evil conspiracy and the ills they don't want cured).

Talk E

amacachi wrote: »

That says more that anyone else can tbh. Also the amount of errors/lies in that article would require me to have more fingers to count them all.

I dont believe there are any lies there. It's a matter of opinion.

TIP.
(You dont have to use a single finger for each error/lie. You can use the same finger repeatedly and count in your mind.)

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

You cynic.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure Mike Adams is a true believer in the crap he spouts.
Just making the point that his site as well as other alt. medicine sites have just as much to gain as the evil mainstream doctors, and therefore they should be viewed with the same suspicion.
But because they happen to help support the CT narrative, they are not.

amacachi

Talk E wrote: »

I dont believe there are any lies there. It's a matter of opinion.

TIP.
(You dont have to use a single finger for each error/lie. You can use the same finger repeatedly and count in your mind.)

The suggestion that mutations leading to resistance don't happen randomly is a lie. I'm also going to go ahead and say that it's a lie that the big bad guberments want us to not eat fresh fruit and veg when they spend huge amounts on advertising to encourage us to. But then again, I'm sure they're not as awesome as the stuff you can buy online.

Also maybe you can count that well, not everyone can/

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Well since the swine flu outbreak was originally meant to wipe out Mexicians, then when that didn't happen it was to be an excuse to enforce mandatory vaccinations which then also didn't happen, I suspect there'll be little to the usual scaremongering from the CTer crowd this time around either.

Here is a mad idea - How's about you discuss the topic rather than the "CTer crowd"?

Talk E

amacachi wrote: »

The suggestion that mutations leading to resistance don't happen randomly is a lie. I'm also going to go ahead and say that it's a lie that the big bad guberments want us to not eat fresh fruit and veg when they spend huge amounts on advertising to encourage us to. But then again, I'm sure they're not as awesome as the stuff you can buy online.

Also maybe you can count that well, not everyone can/

You mean this ?

lthough the actual process is more complicated than this, the upshot is that creating a strain of e.coli that's resistant to eight classes of antibiotics requires repeated, sustained expose to those antibiotics. It is virtually impossible to imagine how this could happen all by itself in the natural world.

Lets be honest here, it doesn't actually say "that mutations leading to resistance don't happen randomly"

"It's virtually impossible to imagine".

It is extremely rare.

It's starting to seem that you have an agenda of your own. Might need an abacus to count the errors in your last few posts.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

In response to that, enact your desired SOLUTION (Sell people quack treatments that cure the ill caused by the evil conspiracy and the ills they don't want cured).

Yeah, I understand.

Sales of the drug Tamiflu have skyrocketed since the outbreak of swine flu in April, bolstering the profits of the drug's maker, Roche

Roche, based in Switzerland, said Thursday that sales of Tamiflu in the first half of 2009 tripled to 1 billion Swiss francs ($931 million), spurred by retail sales and the stockpiling of the drug by governments and corporations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24roche.html

amacachi

Talk E wrote: »

You mean this ?


[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Lets be honest here, it doesn't actually say "that mutations leading to resistance don't happen randomly"

"It's virtually impossible to imagine".

It is extremely rare.

It's starting to seem that you have an agenda of your own. Might need an abacus to count the errors in your last few posts.

More this: "they must be repeatedly exposed to antibiotics in order to provide the "mutation pressure" that nudges them toward complete drug immunity."


I do have an agenda as it happens, however mine isn't fuelled by profit. I notice you didn't address my point about the whole "They want us to stop being allowed fresh fruit and veg!" thing.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is a mad idea - How's about you discuss the topic rather than the "CTer crowd"?

I was. I was explaining why I doubt any of the predictions in the OP will come into effect as they have been made before for other scenarios and have always failed.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, I understand.

So do you think sites like Natural News are reliable or not?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I was. I was explaining why I doubt any of the predictions in the OP will come into effect as they have been made before for other scenarios and have always failed.

Depends who you listen to. Many theories were postulated, some were off and some were actually right i.e. that the whole gig was hoax which transferred billions from the coffers of the governments to big pharma.

(I'm sure you are going to argue this but don't bother, not interested.)

King Mob wrote: »

So do you think sites like Natural News are reliable or not?

No idea. Never/hardly ever visited. What I do know is that debunkers/skeptics/pseudo-skeptics hold alternative medicine in the same contempt as they do "conspiracy theories" and other forms of "woo". So I <edit:> don't think that you would be a good person to discuss and learn from because I suspect that you would have an irrational hatred of alternative health.

Talk E

amacachi wrote: »

"they must be repeatedly exposed to antibiotics in order to provide the "mutation pressure" that nudges them toward complete drug immunity."

You think this is a lie ?

amacachi wrote: »

"They want us to stop being allowed fresh fruit and veg!" thing.

Well, they do. Take a look in your supermarket, is it filled with fresh organic fruit and vedge ? or is it filled with gm sh!t ?

amacachi

Talk E wrote: »

You think this is a lie ?

No, I know it is.

Well, they do. Take a look in your supermarket, is it filled with fresh organic fruit and vedge ? or is it filled with gm sh!t ?

Both, though the "GM" **** is cheaper. Funny though, crops have been "genetically modified" for millenia, it's only when people in scary white coats do it that it's deemed bad. Also wasn't there something in the wikileaks wires about the EU trying to prevent the quick adoption of GM stuff like the US had already done?

ed2hands

"Looking for a new hobby? Why not try 'debunking', which seems to be growing in popularity and requires little except a narrow viewpoint and a handful of faulty arguments.

The first step in becoming a debunker is to immediately relinquish that title and establish your credentials by calling yourself either a skeptic or a scientist. Never mind that you are actually trying to impose your personal viewpoint on others, rather than following the scientific process and applying critical thinking to all sides of the argument. Actually, the best debunkers are those that don't even know their true identity, having such poor critical thinking skills that they truly believe that that they are exhibiting all the open-mindedness and mental sharpness of the true skeptic or scientist. The real top-notch debunkers have a force-field of ignorance that is nigh impenetrable.
Okay, next you'll need a few handy tools. The best method, being a pseudo-skeptic, will be to take some of the skeptic's best tools and misuse them. First up, that venerable favourite, Occam's Razor, which implies that the simplest explanation is often the best. The trick for the debunker is to take Occam's Razor and use it not as a handy rule of thumb to aid critical thinking, but instead to impose it as a literal and immutable law of the universe which immediately destroys your opponent's arguments. Don't worry that complicated things happen all the time, thus disproving the 'Law of Occam'. That would make things complicated.
Just in case you're caught without your bag of tricks, and cornered by a rabid pack of CTers, I recommend busting out a move I like to call 'The Extraordinary Sagan'. Espouse with great enthusiasm that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Ignore the fact that a true scientist would say that all claims require the same proportion of evidence. Someone might even point out this statement isn't meant to be taken literally, but should be seen in terms of the acquired evidence of human experience (e.g. if you know from past experience throughout your life that a ball falls down when you drop it, and then someone says their ball fell 'up' yesterday, you would require evidence of a proportion to prove this singular event over the accumulated evidence of your life experience). The best thing is, you can apply this to all sorts of things inappropriately, like the discovery of a secret chamber, lost city, or lost knowledge, where the application of acquired knowledge is virtually without merit.
There are plenty of other tools and techniques to be had, and mastered, with a minimum of effort. Found a fraud, or a badly performed experiment? Immediately use "guilt by association" to apply this judgement to all researchers and theories in this particular line of inquiry. Did somebody earn some money, or at least get a small grant for their research? Obviously, you can tar them with the brush of the con-man, or at the very least label them opportunists, who are not at all interested in scientific integrity (because we all know that scientists and skeptics don't make any money)."

:rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Depends who you listen to. Many theories were postulated, some were off and some were actually right i.e. that the whole gig was hoax which transferred billions from the coffers of the governments to big pharma.

And the ones that you agree were off the mark (swine flu was going to wipe us all out/sterilise us all)are the exact same ones that the OP is putting forward.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

(I'm sure you are going to argue this but don't bother, not interested.)

A very open minded and mature way to discuss something as usual.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No idea. Never/hardly ever visited.

Now you're simply avoiding the issue because the straight answer makes you start asking uncomfortable questions.
The reasons most CTers dismiss anything from evil mainstream medicine apply equally well to any of the crap posted on Natural News.

Now do you think that Natural News is any more or less trustworthy than mainstream medical sources?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I do know is that debunkers/skeptics/pseudo-skeptics hold alternative medicine in the same contempt as they do "conspiracy theories" and other forms of "woo". So I <edit:> don't think that you would be a good person to discuss and learn from because I suspect that you would have an irrational hatred of alternative health.

Ok, you can pretend that's the reason you're not listening if it make you feel better.
But the reason I'm putting forward in this instance for not trusting sites like Natural News is the same reason CTers always use to dismiss actual medicine.
They stand to gain from the information they put out, therefore they fabricate the information for their benefit.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

There are plenty of other tools and techniques to be had, and mastered, with a minimum of effort. Found a fraud, or a badly performed experiment? Immediately use "guilt by association" to apply this judgement to all researchers and theories in this particular line of inquiry.

Oracle wrote: »

Also the bacteria’s true origin remains unknown. This is despite the fact that all victims lived in developed Western European countries. Even more surprising, most of the cases of illness occurred in Germany, a country with a rich history of research in microbiology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Koch

In addition, the early involvement of national health agencies and NGO's, such as the WHO, UK Health Protection Agency, Genetics and Research Institutes, etc..., would also lead me to believe things may not be as they seem.

ed2hands wrote: »

Did somebody earn some money, or at least get a small grant for their research? Obviously, you can tar them with the brush of the con-man, or at the very least label them opportunists, who are not at all interested in scientific integrity (because we all know that scientists and skeptics don't make any money)."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72617815&postcount=25

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72593325&postcount=607

ed2hands wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Rolleyes indeed.

ed2hands

:pac:Ah now King Mob both you and i know that that little post of mine wasn't meant to be used against the others like that, but it was predictable enough that it would be. It was aimed squarly at you and in a light-hearted way (hence the rolling eyes).

By the way, i noticed in trying to turn it around on to BB and someone else, that you linked to a completely different thread and poster. Can i ask did you ask that posters permission to be used in such a manner???
Just drop me a line if you ever want to use anything i said on another post (and the answer will be no).:)
In fairness to you, i have noticed you arguing the point very well and very fairly on other threads sometimes; just not on this occasion- hence the humerous passage i found; it also applies to many regular posters here IMO.



Now back to THIS thread just briefly as the baba is waking up soon.

Up above somewhere you said:
"I was explaining why I doubt any of the predictions in the OP will come into effect as they have been made before for other scenarios and have always failed."

Can you point out for me please where in the original post it makes any predictions? And also can you explain your scientific reasoning for said doubt? (Just if you want to)

Also this:
"And the ones that you agree were off the mark (swine flu was going to wipe us all out/sterilise us all)are the exact same ones that the OP is putting forward."

The OP as far as i'm aware hasn't yet made any sort of connection yet, rather has supplied plain reported facts and asked us to discuss them.
Your whole argument on this thread seems to be based around allusion and reference to completely different CT's; in your words "the usual scaremongering from the CTer crowd".
I suppose you haven't mentioned lizards yet, so thanks for that.:D

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

:pac:Ah now King Mob both you and i know that that little post of mine wasn't meant to be used against the others like that, but it was predictable enough that it would be. It was aimed squarly at you and in a light-hearted way (hence the rolling eyes).

Oh I realised that was aimed at me, but I thought the strawman it was putting forward applied so much better to the arguments the CTers were using.

ed2hands wrote: »

By the way, i noticed in trying to turn it around on to BB and someone else, that you linked to a completely different thread and poster. Can i ask did you ask that posters permission to be used in such a manner???
Just drop me a line if you ever want to use anything i said on another post (and the answer will be no).:)

well I remembered seeing that post and realised how it was exactly the thing the passage you copy pasted was talking about, hence why I linked it.
And no I didn't ask permission, nor did I see a reason why I should.

ed2hands wrote: »

Up above somewhere you said:
"I was explaining why I doubt any of the predictions in the OP will come into effect as they have been made before for other scenarios and have always failed."

Can you point out for me please where in the original post it makes any predictions? And also can you explain your scientific reasoning for said doubt? (Just if you want to)

Actually looking back I should have been refering to the second post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72597925&postcount=2

There's no particular scientific reason to doubt the suggestions made in it, just experience in seeing these exact same claims every time there's a new disease in the news.

ed2hands wrote: »

Also this:
"And the ones that you agree were off the mark (swine flu was going to wipe us all out/sterilise us all)are the exact same ones that the OP is putting forward."

The OP as far as i'm aware hasn't yet made any sort of connection yet, rather has supplied plain reported facts and asked us to discuss them.
Your whole argument on this thread seems to be based around allusion and reference to completely different CT's; in your words "the usual scaremongering from the CTer crowd".
I suppose you haven't mentioned lizards yet, so thanks for that.:D

Again I should have said the second post.
And as I've said the exact same claims have been made here before and they've all failed to come to pass, just replace E.coli with swine flu or bird flu or SARS....

ed2hands

amacachi wrote: »

No, I know it is.


Both, though the "GM" **** is cheaper. Funny though, crops have been "genetically modified" for millenia, it's only when people in scary white coats do it that it's deemed bad. Also wasn't there something in the wikileaks wires about the EU trying to prevent the quick adoption of GM stuff like the US had already done?

Amacachi, trying to claim that what farmers did hundreds of years ago is comparable to current GM manipulation is completely ridiculous. Are you saying that selective breeding is the same as introducing pesticides into the genes of crops? Preposterous.

And regarding your opinion about governments and eating fruit and veg. I would suggest it is that Big Pharma are the ones that don't seem bothered by us not eating enough organic food. This policy trickles down naturally to the medical industry, ie your local GP, who has little or no training in nutrition but plenty of knowledge about chemical cures from the blitz of marketing they get before they even qualify.
The pharmaceutical and GM industry is in business to make money as all corporations are by LAW required to do. Hardly any regulation of Monsanto for instance has ensured that a large part of the world population are effective guinea pigs in a vast un-controlled experiment. Individual govts as such haven't had much choice in the matter or a chance to debate it even. Thats just the GM food part. The bodies that are required to licence and test drugs are all paid for by...Big Pharma. Regulators financed by...Big Pharma. Academics, testers and medical journals are all in receipt of finance. Now please don't pigeon-hole me as someone who thinks all medicine is evil and useless. What i do know is that it's been co-opted for financial gain and for other agendas to shove unwanted, unneeded and very possibly harmful drugs down our throat.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

Amacachi, trying to claim that what farmers did hundreds of years ago is comparable to current GM manipulation is completely ridiculous. Are you saying that selective breeding is the same as introducing pesticides into the genes of crops? Preposterous.

It's precisely the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_resistance_in_fruit_and_vegetables

Some plants are more resistant to certain pests and diseases. Cross breeding those plants with the desired crop gives them the same resistance.
This technique has been used for centuries.

The only difference is now we understand how this occurs, can identify the genes involved and get the same effect without wastefully breeding generations of plants to get it.

But then, pretending it's science gone mad is so much more eye grabbing than the truth.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

It's precisely the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_resistance_in_fruit_and_vegetables

Some plants are more resistant to certain pests and diseases. Cross breeding those plants with the desired crop gives them the same resistance.
This technique has been used for centuries.

The only difference is now we understand how this occurs, can identify the genes involved and get the same effect without wastefully breeding generations of plants to get it.

But then, pretending it's science gone mad is so much more eye grabbing than the truth.

Far more complex than that i'd say. GM then was natural. Now it isn't. Far from it. Splicing, using other species' genes. Using pesticides in genes? We're eating 'ROUND UP' you know, the same stuff i use on weeds in the garden. All rubberstamped by George Bush and co. and rushed through before anyone could notice. Weedkiller. Doesn't sound safe to me.
Pretending? Nobody is pretending to be anything other than deeply concerned of the implications.
I'm sure you've seen this for instance? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvGddgHRQyg

hooradiation

ed2hands wrote: »

Far more complex than that i'd say. GM then was natural. Now it isn't. Far from it. Splicing, using other species' genes.

That's an appeal to nature. It assumes that because something is natural it is good and, therefore, the inverse.
This is a fallacy and should be avoided.

ed2hands wrote: »

All rubberstamped by George Bush and co. and rushed through before anyone could notice. Weedkiller. Doesn't sound safe to me.

Doesn't matter what it sounds like to you. That's irrelevant. Neither is who it was "rushed through" by.
What matters is what evidence there is for your claim.
So, what do you have?

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

Far more complex than that i'd say. GM then was natural. Now it isn't. Far from it. Splicing, using other species' genes. Using pesticides in genes? We're eating 'ROUND UP' you know, the same stuff i use on weeds in the garden. All rubberstamped by George Bush and co. and rushed through before anyone could notice. Weedkiller. Doesn't sound safe to me.

But that's precisely what they have been doing for hundreds of years.
Taking the pest resistance from one species then breeding it into the other.

The trait is not the same thing as "Weedkiller", but then it doesn't sound as scary.
The pesticides like Round Up can't be spliced into genes because it isn't a genetic thing in the first place.The fact you say it is displays either dishonesty were you're twisting what's actually happening or ignorance were you simply don't actually understand what you're talking about.

Ironically by genetically modifying plants to be more resistant to pest and diseases farmers in fact don't need to use as much of the nasty weedkiller you're afraid of when growing the plants.

And double ironically you're starting to use the "guilt by association" tactic your copy pasted article accuses us nasty skeptics of using.

ed2hands

You can argue semantics if you want King Mob. I didn't have time to post a long refutation of the ridiculous simplification and falsity of your statement that GM technology today is exactly the same as what they've been doing for hundreds of years. There are reams of info on the web that anyone can check out to verify falsitiy. I'm neither dishonest or ignorant for holding that view. This dishonesty thing is like a broken record with you it seems. Anyone with an alternative view to your own personal view is dishonest?
I'm stating that i'm against GM tech in general. Maybe i'm double or triple ironic. Couldn't care less:).
I don't intend to persue this any further on this thread, so you can have the last word on it if it makes you happy...

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

You can argue semantics if you want King Mob. I didn't have time to post a long refutation of the ridiculous simplification and falsity of your statement that GM technology today is exactly the same as what they've been doing for hundreds of years. There are reams of info on the web that anyone can check out to verify falsitiy. I'm neither dishonest or ignorant for holding that view. This dishonesty thing is like a broken record with you it seems. Anyone with an alternative view to your own personal view is dishonest?
I'm stating that i'm against GM tech in general. Maybe i'm double or triple ironic. Couldn't care less:).
I don't intend to persue this any further on this thread, so you can have the last word on it if it makes you happy...

No need for the last word really, you've already said it:

Actually, the best debunkers are those that don't even know their true identity, having such poor critical thinking skills that they truly believe that that they are exhibiting all the open-mindedness and mental sharpness of the true skeptic or scientist. The real top-notch debunkers have a force-field of ignorance that is nigh impenetrable.

ed2hands

Indeed they do:pac:

amacachi

ed2hands wrote: »

Far more complex than that i'd say. GM then was natural. Now it isn't. Far from it. Splicing, using other species' genes. Using pesticides in genes? We're eating 'ROUND UP' you know, the same stuff i use on weeds in the garden.

I've done a decent amount of studying of this and as King Mob said the difference now is that we understand what we're doing. The old breeding methods were used to get specimens with apparently favourable characteristics but with no way of knowing what other genes were being passed down.

33

King Mob wrote: »

But that's precisely what they have been doing for hundreds of years.
Taking the pest resistance from one species then breeding it into the other.

NO they haven't!, I want what you look for so often, proof, are you trying to suggest that GM today is just as it always has been?, if u believe so just say it and wait there till I get back to you and put you in the naughty chair.

33

amacachi wrote: »

I've done a decent amount of studying of this and as King Mob said the difference now is that we understand what we're doing. The old breeding methods were used to get specimens with apparently favourable characteristics but with no way of knowing what other genes were being passed down.

That's bollox, plain and simple, do you know what they do to get what they get?, no you don't!, if you did you wouldn't come out with such tripe.

EDIT:
A decent amount of what exactly?

33

33 wrote: »

NO they haven't!, I want what you look for so often, proof, are you trying to suggest that GM today is just as it always has been?, if u believe so just say it and wait there till I get back to you and put you in the naughty chair.

Yes they have.
Since agriculture began farmers have been selectively breeding and cross breeding to select specific traits such as resistance to certain diseases which are beneficial.
This is the exact same thing done in genetically modified crops just without the randomness and inefficiency of selective breeding several generations to get the specific trait you want.

The only reason you think otherwise is because you've swallowed scary sounding propaganda from the anti-science crowd.

33

King Mob wrote: »

Yes they have.
Since agriculture began farmers have been selectively breeding and cross breeding to select specific traits such as resistance to certain diseases which are beneficial.
This is the exact same thing done in genetically modified crops just without the randomness and inefficiency of selective breeding several generations to get the specific trait you want.

The only reason you think otherwise is because you've swallowed scary sounding propaganda from the anti-science crowd.

So since agriculture began farmers have been breeding frogs with strawberries?.

Listen kingmob go look at what GM really is then come back when you have a grasp of it, your talking bollox again, this is cross species trading and crossing animals and plant gene's, if farmers were getting their goats to spunk all over corn or wheat and something became of it I'd say you were right, but your not, so take your PC nose out of your fairytale books and face reallity.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

Far more complex than that i'd say. GM then was natural. Now it isn't. Far from it. Splicing, using other species' genes. Using pesticides in genes? We're eating 'ROUND UP' you know, the same stuff i use on weeds in the garden. All rubberstamped by George Bush and co. and rushed through before anyone could notice. Weedkiller. Doesn't sound safe to me.
Pretending? Nobody is pretending to be anything other than deeply concerned of the implications.
I'm sure you've seen this for instance? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvGddgHRQyg

King Mob, I admit this was a bit rushed and garbled earlier. I think this short vid will clear the matter up a bit for a start and it contains what i was attempting to say more or less. Your opinion would be of interest..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ5OxdIq5DY

33

33 wrote: »

So since agriculture began farmers have been breeding frogs with strawberries?.

Listen kingmob go look at what GM really is then come back when you have a grasp of it, your talking bollox again, this is cross species trading and crossing animals and plant gene's, if farmers were getting their goats to spunk all over corn or wheat and something became of it I'd say you were right, but your not, so take your PC nose out of your fairytale books and face reallity.

And since you're so obviously more educated in this matter, could you point to examples of actual crops that have been given animal genes that are actually used for food?
Or perhaps you can show that the vast vast vast majority of genetic modification isn't the exact thing I described?

Scrappychimow

Its obvious a rotten e- coli turnip was ****ed out the window of an alien spaceship into aldis warehouse.