|
CommieGIR posted:Oh thank goodness. Says I don't have any valid claims Doesn't make any valid claims So my original statement was "GMOs are about profit oh my god it's like monetary gain rules the world of something crazy!" Why don't you tell me about how profit doesn't motivate people to innovate. Please explain comrade. Last time I checked there wouldn't be GMOs unless there was a profit margin to be exploited in some way shape or form. More grain means more people can eat means more people can buy grain because it's cheaper because there's more of it. I know this might be crazy but did you know that we evolved from hunters and gatherers because of food surplus? Being able to efficiently end food scarcity by increasing the amount of food that can be created while reducing the work load would leave more people to be able to do things other than subsistence farm, you know like innovating or making something other than Lentils. WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Oct 15, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Says I don't have any valid claims You have a whole thread to catch up on, Mr War Correspondent. Nothing you claimed just now is backed evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You have a whole thread to catch up on, Mr War Correspondent. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/03/07/173611461/in-a-grain-of-golden-rice-a-world-of-controversy-over-gmo-foods  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice Vitamin A deficiency doesn't exist it's a jew conspiracy guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure he's pro GMO and citing greenpeace sarcastically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
When someone with incomprehensible English grammar and an aggressive loudmouth face off, who wins? STAY TUNED
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:I'm pretty sure he's pro GMO and citing greenpeace sarcastically. He forgot to wear his tinfoil hat so the GMO's took over his mind and stole his attention to detail (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
wait what it looks like we're having a shitposter who is trying to troll OMG GMO morons but because most people itt don't actually have a problem with GMOs he's mostly trolling himself 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:12
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Etalommi posted:I'm pretty sure he's pro GMO and citing greenpeace sarcastically. Go look at his other posts in other threads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Go look at his other posts in other threads. I can't be arsed, but from what he's posted here it's really hard to come to any other conclusion than that he's in favour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:40
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:When someone with incomprehensible English grammar and an aggressive loudmouth face off, who wins? STAY TUNED S-Sorry I'm late! Which one should I be this time?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
This is a well-written, critical, and frankly bizarre article on how being a clueless dipshit can still create conflicts of interest. http://www.buzzfeed.com/brookeborel/when-scientists-email-monsanto quote:I was confused, to say the least. Earlier in the summer, Vern Blazek had contacted me on Twitter asking if I would be on the same podcast. I replied, on Twitter, that it was possible and to email me, but I never heard from him again. Even more baffling, when I checked the show’s website, I saw that Folta had been a guest on the show in June. So I wrote back to Folta: Was he actually Blazek? Did he interview himself? Folta's response is that he is a clever comedian and Brooke Borel just didn't get the joke. Like, I get trying new things to engage people, but come on. Deception is never a viable outreach tactic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:This is a well-written, critical, and frankly bizarre article on how being a clueless dipshit can still create conflicts of interest. That author is so loving butthurt about being out of the loop. They barely bother to make it clear that Folta himself gets no money from Monsanto (and all of that is public record).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
I am not sure what to make of this story: Contaminating Our Bodies With Everyday Products. On the one hand, it's based on reports from the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the Endocrine Society, both reputable international organizations. On the other hand, it's full of statements like: quote:Tracey J. Woodruff of the University of California, San Francisco notes, “One myth about chemicals is that the U.S. government makes sure they’re safe before they go on the marketplace.” In fact, most are assumed to be safe unless proved otherwise. and: quote:For now, experts say the best approach is for people to try to protect themselves. Especially for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, and for young children, try to eat organic, reduce the use of plastics, touch cash register receipts as little as possible, try to avoid flame-retardant couches and consult the consumer guides at ewg.org.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
I saw that too and did a little digging. The FIGO article (http://www.figo.org/sites/default/files/uploads/News/Final%20PDF_8462.pdf) seems mostly reasonable at first glance but focused on the global scale (less about the U.S., more about 3rd world countries with serious pollution problems) and is a bit broad/vague in it's recommendations and call to action. However, on food it primarily cites http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/5/888.long which has some worrying language. quote:Millions of pounds of synthetic pesticides are applied annually in US conventional (nonorganic, resource-intensive) agriculture.16 Pesticidess can spread beyond the crops and farms where they are applied to the wider environment, where they can contaminate air, water, and soil.17,18 Pregnant women are exposed to agricultural pesticides primarily from food, water, air, and soil. This exposure is ubiquitous among pregnant women in the United States Both the use of "synthetic" and "nonorganic" are problematic - while it's being cited by something that is focused on synthetic chemicals, it itself is supposed to be about general health issues caused by our food chain. It doesn't try to establish that they are worse, it just doesn't make mention of natural pesticides or organic farming at all. Figure 1 is "percent of pregnant women with detectable levels of analyte", and says "all are linked to adverse reproductive and developmental health outcomes. The cumulative health impact of all of these chemicals has not been studied" but does not actually say anything about the volume detected or whether that's enough to produce an effect. They continue to have that same flaw or use studies with large dosages to say that exposure matters or probably matters throughout the article. The overall point of FIGO/ENDO is one I'm going to have look into more. We know chem companies can be pretty nasty - a lot of the dirt that sticks on Monsanto is from it's previous incarnation as a chem company. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I am not sure what to make of this story: Contaminating Our Bodies With Everyday Products. That first quote is actually basically accurate - most chemicals (with the exception of certain categories like food, drugs, and pesticides) in the US are presumed non-harmful until proven otherwise. Of course, that's because they've given their pre manufacture notification to the EPA and the EPA has decided nothing in their chemical makeup poses enough of a risk to require specific testing. The ~10% that do have a prima facie risk do have to do safety testing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That first quote is actually basically accurate - most chemicals (with the exception of certain categories like food, drugs, and pesticides) in the US are presumed non-harmful until proven otherwise. It was less that and more the unironic use of "chemicals" that was triggering klaxons for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It was less that and more the unironic use of "chemicals" that was triggering klaxons for me. I think the article is generally garbage, even if the citations have some validity. Its too much of an appeals to ignorance and fearmongering over chemicals. A good response: http://foodscienceinstitute.com/2015/11/30/nicholas-kristof-scares-us-with-chemical-misinformation/ quote:Kristof’s main launching point is an opinion piece in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics on “reproductive health impacts of exposure to toxic environmental chemicals.” This is not a research paper and cites no new research in the area. And, note that this journal ranks 67th among obstetrics journals. Kristoff tackled this same theme in 2009, and was taken to task by Peter Lipson in the Science Based Medicine blog. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
I always get a kick out of organic lovers who think that organic food isn't sprayed with pesticides
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Hey thread, I'm in an argument over the new GMO Salmon, is there some literature on the subject?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:33
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Hey thread, I'm in an argument over the new GMO Salmon, is there some literature on the subject? A ton, some of it even decent, what are the specific claims at issue?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A ton, some of it even decent, what are the specific claims at issue? I cited the FDA's findings which tested for some chemicals in the fish compared to fish from '92 and got: quote:It's not about chemicals. It's about what the immune system perceives as foreign to the body and attacks and sometimes attacks the body as well as a result. It's not panic, just ask a parent of an autistic kid that stopped providing gmo wheat to their kid and has seen massive improvements. I've seen it first hand. quote:The body can because certain gmo would or could never occur in nature and wouldn't survive in nature without chemicals we use to grow them. I'm very familiar with the fda process and it is completely corrupt including outside reports they site since the few major companies at play also own or control most of the other reporting companies. If you want to believe the fda does its job and is actually there to protect you go ahead but it's just not true. They looked the other way 50 plus years ago when we started radiating wheat crops and haven't done much to prevent dangerous food products from entering the market since. They only react when the mass public has outrage or enough people get hurt or die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I cited the FDA's findings which tested for some chemicals in the fish compared to fish from '92 and got: This is not an argument you're going to win. Facts and reason have no value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Yeah do yourself a favor and laugh and walk away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
The GM salmon "debate" is the sort of depressing thing that shows why I bother to fight all the little bullshit, like labels, and keep pushing for education and outreach. Instead of a rational discussion about what is actually different about the salmon, and what we need to do about it, and what we have done about it, we get stuck at "GM therefore deadly" and people just make up garbage to fit that conclusion. The debate over this fish is older than I am.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I cited the FDA's findings which tested for some chemicals in the fish compared to fish from '92 and got: You're dealing with someone who thinks that avoiding GMOs can cure autism, what are you hoping to achieve by engaging with that level of naive stupidity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You're dealing with someone who thinks that avoiding GMOs can cure autism, what are you hoping to achieve by engaging with that level of naive stupidity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Instead of a rational discussion about what is actually different about the salmon, and what we need to do about it, and what we have done about it,
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:He's otherwise a reasonable guy I guess I just don't like seeing people fall into these holes. Don't go at him about GMOs, then. Talk about the emotional hold that magical thinking can have on all of us at times. His arguments about salmon are a symptom, not the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I would like to know more. Here's a start, but really, it's not what you're looking for: http://www.popsci.com/aquadvantage-salmon-8-faqs Seriously, don't try arguing about the salmon with this dude. It's not about the salmon. It's about an identity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Wait, where can you find GMO wheat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Wait, where can you find GMO wheat? None is commercially available but MON 71800 does exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Wait, where can you find GMO wheat? The dude is saying that the technically non-GMO method of radiation mutagenesis is dangerous. Because mutations are evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
I thought you could blast things with radiation and still qualify as GMO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:I thought you could blast things with radiation and still qualify as [non-]GMO. He's using mutagenesis as an example of the FDA failing to do its job, because he thinks that mutagenesis is unhealthy. And then he's saying "See? Mutagenesis was bad, the FDA failed to ban it, and now they've failed to ban GMOs which are also bad, therefore the FDA doesn't protect us from bad things"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
I will not allow capitalist radiation to sap and impurify my precious natural food genes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:He's using mutagenesis as an example of the FDA failing to do its job, because he thinks that mutagenesis is unhealthy. And then he's saying "See? Mutagenesis was bad, the FDA failed to ban it, and now they've failed to ban GMOs which are also bad, therefore the FDA doesn't protect us from bad things" Oh I got GMO and non-GMO backwards, serves me right for posting in the midst of finals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Hey is this the thread for people blowing a gasket at family for believing in osteopathic medicine and/or suggesting it helps with a problem you have which you really really think it doesn't? Quick E/N to mention that I just had a huge argument with my sister over the topic of osteopathic treatment and migraines (I get them once a week. There's nothing apparent in my body as to why it happens (no brain cancer, no massively displaced bones, muscles)) and how such treatment might affect me getting rid of them. Yet all three osteopath I DID end up trying after peer pressure all suggested I had migraines for different reasons. Already this shows to me that they're not able to know what they work on. I'll skip the rest but: is there something there? Is it me that's just unknowledgeable? Is there a secret migraine "cure" or some poo poo people know? Because that was my argument: if there was a cure, I would have been suggested it by my Neurologist, who's actually one of the top migraines researcher in NA/Canada. Then to just hear : "No they're just there to sell you pills!" And such bollocks rile me up, acting like I'm not seeing osteopath out of wanting to stay sick forever, as if I love the pain for some reason. Thread? Thoughts? Edit:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_Canada A supposed distinction between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine in Canada. Popoto fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
There's not a lot of evidence disproving it because it's snakeoil garbage that relies on belief. It's like astrology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There's not a lot of evidence disproving it because it's snakeoil garbage that relies on belief. It's like astrology. Where I'm at a lost is when I keep receiving the argument that:"others have tried it and after a year and half their migraine went away! She was a sceptic like you before but after trying for a year her migraines that she had forever went away!" And as you say, I can't find anything about them not working for migraines. Just positive reinforcement. Edit: I'm so mad right now I feel like if it's not medicine then they should not have a right to call it Osteopathic medicine. In fact the word Medicine should not be used legally for anything other than proven medical stuff. Argel bargl Popoto fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
StarMinstrel posted:Hey is this the thread for people blowing a gasket at family for believing in osteopathic medicine and/or suggesting it helps with a problem you have which you really really think it doesn't? You can always tell if it's a scam by whether they tell you "those other doctors just want to sell you pills". Of course these "doctors" just want you to get better, they'd never charge you for a service that you don't need! QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:35
|
|