tupac chopra
Veteran Member
I would say that we could interpret "raising serious concerns" by looking at what it was contrasted with.
Prove? Probably none.
-
Features
GMO video by Potholer54
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
Underseer
Contributor
There. Was that so hard?
None of the science establishes a link between GMO and negative health effects.
As someone else in this thread mentioned (Billby?), poo-fertilized produce kills people every year. We can prove that it kills people every year. You cannot show one single death attributable to GMO. You cannot even establish a link between GMO and serious health problems. Are you using sloppy logic and sloppy citations to question the use of poo-fertilized produce?
How do you explain the difference between your response to GMO produce and poo-fertilized produce?
You've allowed yourself to form opinions from within an echo chamber. Rather than own up to the fact that you're taking a position not supported by the evidence, you're digging your heals in and trying to defend your position with poor logic and citations that don't actually disprove the position you are arguing against.
I don't understand why you are so resistant to admitting that you're wrong. Goodness knows, I've held positions on other topics far more embarrassing than this, but at least I didn't take this much time to admit that I was wrong on those topics when people at this forum corrected me and showed that they had better evidence supporting their position.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,341
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
With so many anti-science fanatics putting so much time and effort into promoting any study that can, with the most favourable spin, be in any way interpreted as hinting that GMO food might be harmful, the Seralini study is a pretty solid indication that GMOs are harmless.
I mean, even a total idiot would avoid using such a poor study as their flagship argument if there was something less woeful available.
That Seralini is the best they've got tells us very clearly that they've got nothing.
All that we get from the anti-GMO lobby is innuendo; placeholders for evidence; half-arsed appeals to nature; and a handful of deeply flawed studies.
Twenty years ago, one might have been forgiven for paying at least some heed to claims that the sky would fall. But you really would have to be truly moronic to accept a claim that the sky has fallen, and we just didn't notice.
If GMOs cause cancer, WHERE IS ALL THE CANCER?? Rates are similar now to what they were twenty years ago; rates of change are similar in the US, where GMO food is common, and in the EU where it is banned.
Fuck off with the vague hints about possible harm. Put up, or shut up. Show me the health problems. If there were any, then would anyone still be banging the Seralini drum?
I mean, even a total idiot would avoid using such a poor study as their flagship argument if there was something less woeful available.
That Seralini is the best they've got tells us very clearly that they've got nothing.
All that we get from the anti-GMO lobby is innuendo; placeholders for evidence; half-arsed appeals to nature; and a handful of deeply flawed studies.
Twenty years ago, one might have been forgiven for paying at least some heed to claims that the sky would fall. But you really would have to be truly moronic to accept a claim that the sky has fallen, and we just didn't notice.
If GMOs cause cancer, WHERE IS ALL THE CANCER?? Rates are similar now to what they were twenty years ago; rates of change are similar in the US, where GMO food is common, and in the EU where it is banned.
Fuck off with the vague hints about possible harm. Put up, or shut up. Show me the health problems. If there were any, then would anyone still be banging the Seralini drum?
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
Proof is what happens with maths. How many prove they are safe?
IOW I didn't say what you think I did.
The scientsists have concerns. More testing is needed
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
If I question GMO's it's not a personal attack on you.
Your response here indicates you are too emotional about this.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,341
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
That was not directed at you personally, but at the anti-GMO lobby (and by extension, other anti-scientific lobbies), who collectively strive to make the world a worse place to live for us all.
I think a certain degree of anger at fuckwits who are too stupid to grasp that their 'contributions' to life are directly harmful to others is more than justified. The Dunning-Kruger effect kills people. And opposing GMOs is one manifestation of this effect.
People who don't know shit should fuck off and leave those who do know something to get on with it. If they want to participate, then first they need to learn enough to be capable of a contribution that is not counterproductive.
If someone offers to clean your house by setting fire to it, his good intentions count for nothing. He is a dangerous moron, and respecting his opinions is not appropriate. The more insistent he is that he really wants to help, the more dangerous he becomes; and no matter how friendly or well intentioned he might be, telling him in no uncertain terms that he should fuck off is likely your best option.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
OK. So those who manage to get patents for their GMO get to the position of controlling the seed market? This, to me is the real problem with GMOS. Corporations controlling who plants what even to those in adjacent fields is more than a little troubling. As far as Genetic modifications go I see no more harm there than via selective breeding. Its just that these SOBS get to control the marketplace with their stuff. Everything the deniers have said here are not getting anywhere with agricultural patents. The problem with GMOs is market control by GMO producers.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
Here is what you said in a response to me.
It just makes it worse when you say it then try to wriggle out of what you said or make pathetic excuses.
Why not link to some science rather than making this personal.
All you seem to do is make assertions and emotional comments. Can we have some science. I have linked to quite a few papers.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,341
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I can see how that would be a problem; but it has fuck all to do with GMOs - there are no substantive differences between IP law or patent protection practices in the GM Seed business and in the non-GM seed business; or indeed in most other businesses.
That you believe there is speaks volumes about the effectiveness of anti-GMO propagandists.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,341
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I was unclear about to whom my statement was addressed, and I apologised to you, as it may have appeared that it was addressed at you personally.
I have linked to plenty of science on this topic in replies made directly to you.
I have no intention of making this personal. If you won't accept my word for what I intended by what I wrote, then I have no way to counter that.
Whatever your opinion might be regarding my level of knowledge of biotechnology, surely you have to agree that I am the sole authority when it comes to my own opinion?
That you choose to stick with your beliefs, rather than take my word for it, on a subject where I cannot help but be more authoritative than you, tells me all I need to know about the deep flaws in your epistemology.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
You did not apologise, you made a lame excuse...but whatever
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
Wrong. In fact the worst that the editor of the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Dr A. Wallace Hayes, could say that it was inconclusive.
All you have is assertions that show you don't understand the study.
Even 1 year ago many scientists objected to the censorship of the study.
150 scientists condemn retraction of Séralini study as bow to commercial interests
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,341
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
You appear to think that 150 is a lot of scientists. It is not.
150 scientists (and this is presumably scientists in total, not scientists in a relevant discipline) who support your idea can reasonably be characterised as 'almost no' scientists, or as 'a very small minority of' scientists.
There are more than twice that number of well respected universities in the world that have faculties of biological sciences. 150 scientists is a pathetic degree of support; indeed, it is worse than just one or two, because it demonstrates that the topic at hand has been widely considered - it isn't some esoteric subject that only a few people at one or two faculties is aware of - and yet it has only managed to attract 150 supporters (and if those supporters were in relevant fields, I am sure your source would not have missed the opportunity to say so).
As I said above:
Claiming the support of 150 scientists might sound impressive to people who rarely meet a scientist, and who therefore might be forgiven for thinking that 'scientists' are a rare breed. But your claim is only half complete. When you claim support by quoting numbers, you need to include the denominator.
If you polled 170 scientists and found 150 who supported you, that would suggest consensus.
If you scoured the entire world, and only found 150 who supported you, that would suggest that you have merely demonstrated that any sufficiently large sample of humans will include some crazy people.
That, instead of presenting your findings as "150 from a sample of x", you present just the enumerator, indicates that your source is attempting to sway the ignorant by any means possible, with no regard whatever for honesty, probity, or accuracy. In short, you are repeating a lie, either because you are not sufficiently knowledgeable to recognise it for the lie that it clearly is, or because you don't care whether or not it is true, as long as it supports your agenda.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
No 150 is not a lot. But the point is you have no numbers at all. The only thing I can see that you linked to in this thread is a dodgy facebook page.
In other words as usual you have your dreary monologue full of assertions.
Here we have a thread in the science section yet you never link to any science to support your opinions
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,341
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Either you suffer from amnesia, or you are aware that I and others have done so, many times, and on many threads, on this board.
It is futile for me to repeat myself; If you ignored my links the first time I posted them, then likely you will simply ignore them again; If you did not ignore them, then you don't need them posted again.
I am aware that you constantly re-post the same old refuted shit over and over again; Perhaps you are under the impression that repetition is in some way related to truth? If so, I can assure you that it is not. Despite Margaret Thatcher's claim to the contrary, a lie repeated thrice remains a lie.
You have got nothing, and you repeat it endlessly. I have plenty of evidence, and I have presented it more than enough times for anyone who is genuinely interested in seeing it. If you want to see it again, you can find it using the search function on this board; or you can use Google Scholar, or any number of other sources. I am not going to do your homework for you.
A whole 150.
Sounds like the kind of creationist rumbling that inspired "Project Steve".
If the study was "inconclusive" then it was inappropriate for the paper written to claim to have found positive evidence that GMO corn caused cancer in rats. Therefore retracting the article was the correct decision.
Your "endsciencecensorship" link contains a Q&A section defending the Seralini study.
One of the sections is:
http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/why-2-years
"Why 2 years?".
I have a question about that. It states that 2 years is appropriate because 90 days is too short. Nowhere does it mention the natural tumor rate in the strain of rat used in the study. Why not?
I agree that a longer term study should be done. But the primary criticism isn't that the study was 2 years in duration. The primary criticism, one that was part of the rational behind retraction, was that the animal chosen was inappropriate for 2 years because of its natural spontaneous tumor rate. The Seralini apologetics website completely ignores that criticism.
One of the sections is:
http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/why-2-years
"Why 2 years?".
I have a question about that. It states that 2 years is appropriate because 90 days is too short. Nowhere does it mention the natural tumor rate in the strain of rat used in the study. Why not?
I agree that a longer term study should be done. But the primary criticism isn't that the study was 2 years in duration. The primary criticism, one that was part of the rational behind retraction, was that the animal chosen was inappropriate for 2 years because of its natural spontaneous tumor rate. The Seralini apologetics website completely ignores that criticism.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
OK..the answer is that Seralini's study was a repeat of Monsanto's toxicological study. Monsanto's study used Sprague Dawley rats, so Seralini also used these rats, which are recommended for such a study.
After Seralini obtained the raw data from Monsanto's original 90 day study (by taking Monsanto to court as Monsanto tried to keep it secret) the team was concerned that there may have been liver and kidney damage . So, Seralini wanted to do a toxicological study over the entire life cycle of the rats. To see if there were toxicological problems that weren't evident in a 90 day study, but became evident after 90 days. They weren't looking for tumours they were looking for organ damage (which they seemed to find).
However even though it was not a cancer study they were required to note and report all tumors, which they did. They noted there were more tumors and larger tumors in the rats fed the GM corn.
The problem is that as it was a toxicological study they only used ten rats per group, but a cancer study would have required 50 rats per group. So they could not draw any conclusions about the number of tumors.
The problem was not the kind of rat because humans get a lot of tumors also if we look at the entire life of humans, but the problem was that one would need a much larger group of Sprague Dawley rats in order to draw any conclusions.
Sprague Dawley rats can be used for cancer studies but you would need to use 50 rats per group. But it was never intended as a cancer study. One problem stems from the fact that tumors must be reported even if its not a cancer study, and that tumors tend to show up after 90 days, so we saw a lot of tumors.
So the question that will now be looked at is will we see anything statistically significant if we do a proper cancer study
Last edited:
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
Sigh.....except they don't claim that either the GM corn or Roundup cause cancer.
They merely recommend more study be done. They noted the tumors, as is required and recommended more study
So it was inappropriate to retract the study.
Monsanto's propaganda campaign has been to claim that Seralini's team was doing a cancer study that didn't use enough rats for a cancer study and to claim that Seralini was claiming that they had proof that GM corn causes cancer.
Neither of these things are true but Monsanto has been effective in muddying the water