New variant E. coli Outbreak

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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?

King Mob

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...

King Mob

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?

King Mob

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

King Mob

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.

33

ed2hands wrote: »

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..

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

Kingmob follows the line, he dare not deviate.

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

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

Sorry not interested in watching a propaganda piece because you're not interested in engaging in a debate.

33

Scrappychimow wrote: »

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

Fukking comedian, when's your next show?

33

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry not interested in watching a propaganda piece because you're not interested in engaging in a debate.

I am!

Actually watch it, you may learn something!

Scrappychimow

And theres no way ecoli could be found in agricultural pastures as the lazer beams from the spaceship that does all them crop circle things would kill the bacteria.

33

King Mob wrote: »

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?

Yes I am, you are a follower of what you are told, I seek and find, I will not seek for you.

33

Scrappychimow wrote: »

And theres no way ecoli could be found in agricultural pastures as the lazer beams from the spaceship that does all them crop circle things would kill the bacteria.

Go Away or I'll spray some roundup in your mush.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry not interested in watching a propaganda piece because you're not interested in engaging in a debate.

I'm interested, but don't have the time just now. Maybe another day. Fair enough if you don't feel the need to watch it. Propaganda or not, it clarifies the point on the vast differences between selective breeding of old and current tech. As you know, there is so much info out there and anyway it's not the OP.
The point you made that above somewhere that less pesticide is now needed i have a feeling is not accurate either based on this:

http://www.gm.org/gm-organisms/impact-of-gm-crops-on-pesticide-herbicide-use/

ed2hands

Scrappychimow wrote: »

And theres no way ecoli could be found in agricultural pastures as the lazer beams from the spaceship that does all them crop circle things would kill the bacteria.

:PI would call that stupid, but that would be offensive to stupid people.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

Yes I am, you are a follower of what you are told, I seek and find, I will not seek for you.

I've asked you to point out the horrible nasty GMed food we're all eating.
Note how I didn't said it didn't exist, nor suggest you're stupid for believing it.
But instead of directly answering those very simple questions you attack me personally.

If you really do want to engage in an actual adult debate that might challenge your beliefs, those questions are still waiting to be answered.