Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Horrifying Tumors, new study.

GalwayGuy2 · 24-09-2012 10:36PM

Because of Run To Da hill's past post, I vote to move it to the conspiracy theory forum:P

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 10:36PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

GMO Global Alert: The Truth Has Been Revealed video.

http://www.zengardner.com/gmo-global-alert-the-truth-has-been-revealed/

You're right, the conversation was getting a touch rational there.

steddyeddy · 24-09-2012 10:43PM

What about gm animals like dogs? Selective breeding is also a method for genetic engineering but the techniques are not as refined.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 10:49PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

What about gm animals like dogs? Selective breeding is also a method for genetic engineering but the techniques are not as refined.

That point is often made. Selective breeding is far more uncontrolled and chaotic than "molecular" GM- tens of thousands of genes mixed with tens of thousands of genes. Of course they don't cross species divides, which seems to be one of the things that really freaks most people out about molecular GM.

Sarky · 24-09-2012 11:04PM

run_to_da_hills, SuperInfinity, please just stop. You're getting so much wrong about molecular biology, evolution, probability and genetics that you are actually causing me physical pain. Watch tv. Read a book on genetics. Have a ****. Anything but this rubbish. kthx

SuperInfinity · 24-09-2012 11:37PM

Sarky wrote: »

run_to_da_hills, SuperInfinity, please just stop. You're getting so much wrong about molecular biology, evolution, probability and genetics that you are actually causing me physical pain. Watch tv. Read a book on genetics. Have a ****. Anything but this rubbish. kthx

Sarky I have read about 8 books on this subject. One was a small "booklet", another I got from a library, read through and didn't understand lots of it, the others were all fine. The rest revealed lots. I worked my way through two genetics textbooks. I read them carefully and went through every relevant part of them, including stuff that I probably would never need to read or see.

Everything I said was 100% valid. I'd ask for an example of some sort of discrepancy in what I've said, but I know you're full of **** so don't want you to imagine yourself finding something.

Good joke troll.

Run_to_da_hills · 25-09-2012 12:00AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Because of Run To Da hill's past post, I vote to move it to the conspiracy theory forum:P

Where is the conspiracy?

Its kind of obvious that these giant multinationals AKA Monsanto are fcuking about with nature with total disregard to its consequences as long as they can fill their arse pockets just like their big pharma buddies.

In an other interesting note, look behind the scenes of Monsanto and the very man that was to make the whole GM issue transparent in his previous election manifest, he lied, but of course that's nothing new. That's in his nature,

Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

humbert · 25-09-2012 12:17AM

If I was a lobbyist for Monsanto I'd pay Run_to_da_hills to sit at home all day posting this stuff. It does more damage to the anti-GM argument than a good pro-GM argument ever could.

Sarky · 25-09-2012 12:45AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Sarky I have read about 8 books on this subject. One was a small "booklet", another I got from a library, read through and didn't understand lots of it, the others were all fine. The rest revealed lots. I worked my way through two genetics textbooks. I read them carefully and went through every relevant part of them, including stuff that I probably would never need to read or see.

That's great. I have 3 microbiology degrees and work in bioinformatics. I've written "booklets" on the subject. I deal with genetically modified organisms all the damn time. I analyse DNA to see which bits do what, which bits affect other bits, and extract the bits that look useful so people can insert them into different species to better understand them, or work out the specific biochemical pathways that let DNA produce proteins. I analyse protein sequences to see which DNA mutations cause changes in protein shape and function.

I think you've overlooked or just decided not to see the massive explosion in sequencing and genomics technology in the last few years. We already have the "backups" for the crops you're so sure will disappear forever. We already have working models of important genomes. We already know what changing genes in those models will do. You seem to think no testing is done. That's just rubbish, the industry is constantly researching and generates terabytes (and growing exponentially) every day. You seem to think that any genetic change will drastically modify a food's edibility. That's also rubbish, the only way you'll make a food poisonous is by adding genes that generate poisonous proteins, or proteins that will modify existing chemicals making them dangerous. But of course, like I mentioned above, testing is done to ensure this doesn't happen. In fact, there's buggerall you've posted in this thread that has any solid basis in reality at all.

Never mind the synthesised insulin people have been mentioning, more than half the world's antibiotics are derived from bacteria. Usually the genes that manufacture them are inserted into completely different species for easier mass production. Shall we just get rid of those antibiotics, in case these GM bacteria break free and start causing super-duper disease and demanding equal rights?

I'm not going to say I don't think you fully understand what you're talking about. I am actually pretty damn sure you don't fully understand what you're talking about. But hey I'm just a trained microbiologist with about a decade of education and work experience in the field, I should just shut up, right? :pac:

Everything I said was 100% valid. I'd ask for an example of some sort of discrepancy in what I've said, but I know you're full of **** so don't want you to imagine yourself finding something.

Good joke troll.

See, here you go with the insults again. If you have a case to make, you do it with evidence and logic. None of that requires being crude and childish. Very little of what you've posted has any validity. Plenty of other posters have shown you why. You've told them to shut up or similar. This is not a rebuttal. I know this is After Hours but still, try harder. Or just stop. Either's good.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-09-2012 09:44AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Nazi approach to killing people was very effective in 1944, but it wouldn't fly today in the age of instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. It's hard to keep a concentration camp a secret these days, especially if millions of people are being processed through them. If the Nazis had cell phone cameras in 1944, somebody would have snapped some photos, uploaded them to "NaziTube.com" and the whole cover would have been blown. (Or YouTube would have censored the videos and protected the Nazis from being outed, because YouTube routinely censors videos that expose bad government.)

Fast forward six decades or so, and you've got our modern world.

So you are saying that if 6 million people were killed today we'd all sit up and take notice ?

5.4 million people died in the Second Congo War.

That was just FOUR years ago.

During the Arab spring it was very easy to shut off communications. A few satellite phones and perhaps 100 ham radio operators were the only contact with the outside world. Internet was turned off at the 'border' a simple editing of routes and a whole country is disconnected.

To catch people they simply blocked HTTPS , anyone who then used non secure links to gmail, facebook and twitter was indetifyable and tracable.

Look at how blackberry allow governments to run the servers in their countries.

Anyone who thinks that homeland security / NSA doesn't have some protocol to gmail data in exceptional cases is fooling themselves

Capt'n Midnight · 25-09-2012 09:52AM

planetX wrote: »

We haven't evolved biologically to eat any cultivated grains...

We're omnivores. We've evolved to have a good stab at most things.

Unlike dogs we can handle chocolate.

We do have problems, most other animals don't need Vitamin C and Vitamin A is very toxic to us.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's a concept that's been thrown around a lot by fans of the paleo diet. The basic argument goes that we couldn't have had time in the 10,000 years since grains came into our diet to evolve in response. But we evolved to deal with cow and goats milk in the same time period, and it's starting to look like grains have been in our diets for much longer than that anyway. It's a plausible idea, and one I liked when I first heard of it, but it's not actually supported by evidence.

LOL at paleo diet

paleo diet is as genuine as the farms that Marie Antoinette had at Versailles.

real paleo diet would be bush tucker , like the San or the Australians
and oddly enough they don't burn off more calories than we do

SuperInfinity · 25-09-2012 06:04PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We're omnivores. We've evolved to have a good stab at most things.

A good aul' stab is far from a stake through the heart, which is what we could do if we were eating what we are finely evolved to eat. Again it's not so much that we're all going to die or get extremely sick soon after eating them, it's more this constant eroding away of the natural specimens of the species.

Sarky says above that we already have many of the natural genomes, and that is really very positive if we do. However, even if we were able to build them from the genome alone already, or even if we had seed banks in many countries with all the natural seeds in them, and even if there were some atomic-bomb style defences against them ever being infiltrated... the problem remains that the second a GMO is let out, it starts to affect the entire ecosystem. If it's a small change, sometimes some kind of balance develops and things go on as normal. However large changes can cause a chain reaction over the whole ecosystem, where one organism has to drastically alter itself and then in reponse to that another one does also and so on. Such ecosystem catastrophies have been observed directly (as referenced to in The Simpsons about the danger of bringing non-native animals into a different country), and seen on a wider scale throughout evolution, it's called "punctuated equilibrium". There is equilibrium for a while, then something sets off a chain reaction and huge changes take place in lots of organisms, they all evolve and adapt. With GMOs who knows where it would all end. Now this evolutionary chain reaction is a widely known effect, not some sort of radical loony green idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Unlike dogs we can handle chocolate.

So what, I bet there are lots of things dogs can eat that we can't. Your point = useless. A lot of monkeys love coffee, it doesn't really mean very much.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL at paleo diet

paleo diet is as genuine as the farms that Marie Antoinette had at Versailles.

real paleo diet would be bush tucker , like the San or the Australians
and oddly enough they don't burn off more calories than we do

There are many people engaged in many types of "paleo" diets. I personally object to the term, because noone knows for certain what the "paleo" diet was like. A lot of people think it had very little carbohydrates percentage wise, which I doubt.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-09-2012 06:12PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

A good aul' stab is far from a stake through the heart, which is what we could do if we were eating what we are finely evolved to eat.

|What are we 'finely evolved to eat' ?

SuperInfinity · 25-09-2012 06:23PM

Oh use your imagination and a little bit of research ffs. There are lots of theories going around, the one thing they all have in common is that they are all completely against GMOs.

Ziphius · 25-09-2012 06:33PM

Moreover, where do you draw the line Superinfinity? No domestic crops whatsoever? Should we all be eating diet of prehistoric Savannah dwellers? Ice age Europe? Only plants and animals native to Ireland? Should we eat only raw foods?

Domestic crops have been selected because they are perfectly adequate human nutrition. They've been domesticated (you could say evolved) by us as a food source. Only a tiny fraction of the worlds plants have been domesticated. There are many things that we just can't digest properly -- grass for example.

You're right, punctuated equilibrium isn't some fringe political idea but neither is it a wholly accepted part of mainstream evolutionary biology. Invasive species can certainly cause problems but I don't think they can necessarily cause the impetus need for a dramatic species radiation.

Ziphius · 25-09-2012 06:38PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Oh use your imagination and a little bit of research ffs. There are lots of theories going around, the one thing they all have in common is that they are all completely against GMOs.

It's a valid point. The least you can do is substantiate your argument.

enfant terrible · 25-09-2012 06:44PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Nazi approach to killing people was very effective in 1944, but it wouldn't fly today in the age of instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. It's hard to keep a concentration camp a secret these days, especially if millions of people are being processed through them. If the Nazis had cell phone cameras in 1944, somebody would have snapped some photos, uploaded them to "NaziTube.com" and the whole cover would have been blown. (Or YouTube would have censored the videos and protected the Nazis from being outed, because YouTube routinely censors videos that expose bad government.)

Fast forward six decades or so, and you've got our modern world. All the same types of psychopathic killers still run the world's most powerful governments and corporations, but they've figured out that in order to kill people, they've got to do it a little more covertly.

Specifically, there needed to be a way to get people to voluntarily kill themselves.[/I]

http://www.naturalnews.com/037290_Zyklon_B_GMO_food_weapons.html

The North Korean's still do it the old fashioned way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_22

SuperInfinity · 25-09-2012 07:01PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Moreover, where do you draw the line Superinfinity? No domestic crops whatsoever?

Domestic crops aren't exactly what we should eat, but we can make do with them. The ideal scenario would be no domestic "us" either, all humans would live in Sub-Saharan Africa. However I return to the point about GMO crossbreeding being a potentially irreversible scenario, that is the critical danger facing the ecosystem today.

Ziphius wrote: »

Should we all be eating diet of prehistoric Savannah dwellers? Ice age Europe? Only plants and animals native to Ireland? Should we eat only raw foods?

Well, most paleo people would argue that people in Ice Age Europe were eating incorrectly as well and humans never evolved substantially from our African selves. There's a sizeable amount of "paleos" that eat cooked food, Dr. Wrangham has claimed that cooked food was around for a lot longer than thought initially and humans are well evolved to eat cooked food. Personally I try to avoid cooked food and eat as much fruit as I can, however foods like brocolli, carrots, cauliflower, brussels sprouts appear to be loaded with nutrition and they are also cheap and last longer than fruit and are a lot cheaper. I used to try to eat them raw but lightly cooked, I figure they are still pretty good. At least significantly better than beans, peas and of course grains, which are practically inedible raw and very unlikely to have been eaten by our ancestors.

Ziphius wrote: »

Domestic crops have been selected because they are perfectly adequate human nutrition. They've been domesticated (you could say evolved) by us as a food source. Only a tiny fraction of the worlds plants have been domesticated. There are many things that we just can't digest properly -- grass for example.

It's true that "artificial selection" by humans so far, by farmers, is in some ways similar to "natural selection" by humans themselves of fruit. However genetic engineering is nothing like that, it is a totally artificial process where in many cases nothing like it would ever occur in nature, and causing chain reactions. A good analogy is that of radiation. Some radiation occurs naturally, other radiation is created by humans but is quite small and could pass as being quite natural. However massive amounts of radiation are fatal to humans, so we can't treat them all as the same way.

Ziphius wrote: »

You're right, punctuated equilibrium isn't some fringe political idea but neither is it a wholly accepted part of mainstream evolutionary biology. Invasive species can certainly cause problems but I don't think they can necessarily cause the impetus need for a dramatic species radiation.

Not necessarily no. If a car dealer told you there was a possibility of the brakes falling apart at any given time but it wouldn't necessarily happen would you buy that car?

Ziphius wrote: »

It's a valid point. The least you can do is substantiate your argument.

Figs are a very popular fruit among the other great apes today and they can get a lot of them, I used to buy them raw for a while but they are extremely expensive that way since they go off very fast. Now I buy them dried, three or four packs a week, not as ideal as raw but at least I can eat them this way. Humans are great apes, it stands to reason that a large fraction of our ancestors' diet was composed of figs.

Bananas, oranges, melons, grapes (I think), apples were more in Asia. Pineapples commercially available today are unfortunately usually a hybrid, grapefruit is a hybrid of limes and oranges. Tomatoes, cucumbers, coffee, chocolate are New World foods not available in Africa. However they may have co-evolved with new world monkeys (who share our lineage). Berries were also less available in Africa.

I'm not into the idea that paleo man was an extensive meat eater, even though many/most "paleo" do think that. The other great apes generally prefer nice fruit to animal protein, however it's true that they generally get some sort of protein one way or the other, often by eating insects like termites or eggs.

Ziphius · 25-09-2012 07:49PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Bananas, oranges, melons, grapes (I think), apples were more in Asia. Pineapples commercially available today are unfortunately usually a hybrid, grapefruit is a hybrid of limes and oranges. Tomatoes, cucumbers, coffee, chocolate are New World foods not available in Africa. However they may have co-evolved with new world monkeys (who share our lineage). Berries were also less available in Africa.

I'm not into the idea that paleo man was an extensive meat eater, even though many/most "paleo" do think that. The other great apes generally prefer nice fruit to animal protein, however it's true that they generally get some sort of protein one way or the other, often by eating insects like termites or eggs.

So, and please don't take this the wrong way, you base your diet on that of extant great apes?

This just seems an arbitrary cut of point for me. I mean humans and chimps have diverged for 6 million years. Why stop at that point and not go back any further?

SuperInfinity · 25-09-2012 08:07PM

Ziphius wrote: »

So, and please don't take this the wrong way, you base your diet on that of extant great apes?

This just seems about of an arbitrary cut of point for me. I mean humans and chimps have diverged for 6 million years. Why stop at that point and not go back any further?

Because they are the closest thing to us that are still alive and in their natural habitat, that's why. It makes perfect sense, and there is no room for this "arbitrary cut off point" argument you are so fond of making here. I might even go so far as to say it's "arbitrary" when you decide to pull out that argument.

The only way it would make sense to go back further would be if we were trying to find out what an even more distant ancestor of ours would have ate, which could make sense in a couple of ways to know what might and might not be suitable for us, but the closest relative of ours... provided they did not go off on some strange tangent in their evolution since which they did not... is generally the best bet.

Now I'm putting this site on a special block list (chrome extension), with no prejudices attached to this post, just stating I am doing it. And may not see any more posts on this topic.

Ziphius · 25-09-2012 08:29PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Because they are the closest thing to us that are still alive and in their natural habitat, that's why. It makes perfect sense, and there is no room for this "arbitrary cut off point" argument you are so fond of making here. I might even go so far as to say it's "arbitrary" when you decide to pull out that argument.

And I thought we were starting to get along :P

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The only way it would make sense to go back further would be if we were trying to find out what an even more distant ancestor of ours would have ate, which could make sense in a couple of ways to know what might and might not be suitable for us, but the closest relative of ours... provided they did not go off on some strange tangent in their evolution since which they did not... is generally the best bet.

Well, why don't we just infer from our more distant relatives. What about monkeys, or lemurs, or tree shrews? This is essentially what you're doing.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Now I'm putting this site on a special block list (chrome extension), with no prejudices attached to this post, just stating I am doing it. And may not see any more posts on this topic.

It was fun.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-09-2012 08:35PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Moreover, where do you draw the line Superinfinity? No domestic crops whatsoever? Should we all be eating diet of prehistoric Savannah dwellers? Ice age Europe? Only plants and animals native to Ireland? Should we eat only raw foods?

We should go back to eating primordial soup.

Ziphius · 25-09-2012 08:41PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We should go back to eating primordial soup.

A source of 20 essential amino acids :pac:

Run_to_da_hills · 25-09-2012 09:20PM

GM food banned in Monsanto canteen.

"Monsanto, the biggest promoter of genetically modified food, was hoist with its own petar when it was disclosed that it has a staff canteen in which GM produce is banned".

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html

shedweller · 25-09-2012 09:35PM

Does the fact that this news article is on an independent paper mean this didn't really happen? Or that it is lies?

And regarding the "choice" bit. I recall them suing farmers for having the downright cheek to have some of their product growing on their fields, despite them not buying it, but rather, having it blow across into their fields. Choice?

My arse!

steddyeddy · 25-09-2012 10:13PM

In fairness I am pro gm (not pro monsanto) but I dont think there is much need for anyone saying "Im a scientist everything I say is right and no one else has an opinion". People can look at this scientifically withouth being a scientist.

humbert · 25-09-2012 10:21PM

shedweller wrote: »

Does the fact that this news article is on an independent paper mean this didn't really happen? Or that it is lies?

I think it means they can't afford spell-checkers.

Somnus · 25-09-2012 10:42PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

GM food banned in Monsanto canteen.

"Monsanto, the biggest promoter of genetically modified food, was hoist with its own petar when it was disclosed that it has a staff canteen in which GM produce is banned".

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html

If you read it, it says the company that stocks the canteen is Sutcliffe Catering, not really Monsanto's choice what a different company decides to include or not include in their meals. Not much of a story.

I also notice how you have no response to Sarky now that he's quite rightly shown he knows what he's talking about. All though that doesn't particularly surprise me.

This thread has gone out of control!

steddyeddy · 25-09-2012 10:45PM

Dr.Poca wrote: »

If you read it, it says the company that stocks the canteen is Sutcliffe Catering, not really Monsanto's choice what a different company decides to include or not include in their meals. Not much of a story.

I also notice how you have no response to Sarky now that he's quite rightly shown he knows what he's talking about. All though that doesn't particularly surprise me.

This thread has gone out of control!

In fairness sarky went about that in the wrong way. Im in a similar position to him (biochemistry not micro) and my argument would never consist of telling a person they didnt know what they were talking about.

Somnus · 25-09-2012 10:49PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness sarky went about that in the wrong way. Im in a similar position to him (biochemistry not micro) and my argument would never consist of telling a person they didnt know what they were talking about.

I don't see why not though. There's a point when you run out of nice ways to say something. I don't see a problem in someone who know's better telling me I'm wrong.
I recently finished my own degree in genetics/cell biology. Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think it's fair to say anyone with a background in the field would have a better idea of what they're talking about.

Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Horrifying Tumors, new study.

Comments