|
-Troika- posted:The idea is stupid on the face of it. "hmm let's stick needles into people's body this will relieve pain" I am guessing that it started more as "I am trying to exquisitely torture this man, but when I poke here it has the opposite effect."
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:37 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I am guessing that it started more as "I am trying to exquisitely torture this man, but when I poke here it has the opposite effect." You're confusing medicine with rough sex again, AA.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're confusing medicine with rough sex again, AA. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm looking for academic sources, ideally theory pieces or texts used in med schools. I got one excellent text, How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine, earlier and I'm hoping for similar. http://libguides.rug.nl/CAT_guide/pico Hope it helps
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 13:19
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Here's a link to a system used in several teaching hospitals for medical students to use as an appraisal tool for publications. Usually, they're required to present several of these per year. I love you.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Well it looks like labeling is going to be the de facto law of the land. Thanks to the ignorance of Vermont's voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:33
|
|
Rhandhali posted:Well it looks like labeling is going to be the de facto law of the land. Thanks to the ignorance of Vermont's voters. FDA may sue and claim field occupation.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:FDA may sue and claim field occupation. Yeah, labeling is a quintessential preemption area. In fact, the FDA labeling organic statute has a specific preemption section. 21 CFR 100.1(c)(4) and Turek v General Mills are some key interpretations. Vermont's law seems pretty ripe for a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yeah, labeling is a quintessential preemption area. In fact, the FDA labeling organic statute has a specific preemption section. 21 CFR 100.1(c)(4) and Turek v General Mills are some key interpretations. Vermont's organic laws are being threatened by the FDA just as they ripen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Vermont's organic laws are being threatened by the FDA just as they ripen. They should've used some Monsanto fertilizers to speed up the process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
So my former rep in the Minnesota state house (I moved out of her district) wrote this about GMO labelling: http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-scientist-lawmaker-case-gmo-labeling.html To me it sounds like instead of dealing with any actual problems caused by GMOs, she's just saying it's easier to scare everybody. I mean, going to the rBGH example, the problem with that isn't with the GMO, it's with the effect on the cow. Same with roundup ready, it's not that the GMO itself did anything bad, it just enables something else. It just seems... lazy. But the only reason I even bother to post it is that she's an actual scientist, with a PhD in biophysics and has actually worked in research in teaching (until gender discrimination in her department caused to run for office). It was back in the 70s that she was educated so obviously she's not up on everything that's happened, but I'd think that she'd at least have the ability to see the problem with her argument. Or, since she's wrong on some other factual things, it's possible that she's just wrong on this, I don't think her PhD makes her infallible, just wondering if this was some kind of new novel argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Vermont's organic laws are being threatened by the FDA just as they ripen. You know, that was actually completely unintentional on my part?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:So my former rep in the Minnesota state house (I moved out of her district) wrote this about GMO labelling: http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-scientist-lawmaker-case-gmo-labeling.html Nope. She fails to address any of the actual concerns with labeling laws. Namely that it implies a health risk and potentially kills a useful tool, like what happened to irradiated produce, and that it is a more a tool of anti-information than it is actually informative. The rBST example falls flat on it's face because they want a mandatory general label for all GMO products, not an optional negative label for a specific one. When she says quote:These are some of the reasons why GMO labeling seems to me, as a scientist, to be a reasonable response to consumers' health and environmental concerns. quote:And it's hard to make the case that labeling would be some kind of significant threat to the food industry, given that 64 countries already mandate it and continue to thrive. quote:Indeed, industry opposition is far from universal. quote:It is already federal law that anything labeled "organic" must be GMO-free And the Upton Sinclair quote at the end is just a fancy way of calling everyone who disagrees with her a shill who's opinion is purely based on monetary interest. Which is what you have to do when you fail to present any argument of any substance. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:45
|
|
Etalommi nails every part about why her argument is bad. The big one in my eyes is that if rBST is bad, then label freaking rBST. Overinclusiveness and vagueness are the greatest problems of GMO and organics labels. Also,quote:In 2003 she introduced a bill to repeal the ban on first-cousin marriage in Minnesota, but it died in committee.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Reality's latest anti-GMO bias: 11% to 57% Monarch extinction likelihood over 20 years. Nature's a totally corrupt publication though, probably receiving secret anti-GMO money from the Obama administration. Which, incidentally, has issued a strategy to reverse the so-called Monarch and bee declines. It's Solyndra all over again, folks!! Obama wastin' my taxes!! Also, does anybody wanna read my company's internal call to donate to their SuperPAC? I don't think I have the pro-TPP form letter one anymore, but I've got the one on GMO labelling. If anybody's curious about the nuts-and-bolts of how companies do political engagement post-Citizens United.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Go away, Mofabio.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Go away, Mofabio. Since I posted about this last, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has put the Monarchs on the endangered species list, Obama has specifically named the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean production as the primary stressor to the Monarch population, and even endorsed ideas floated in this thread (wild Midwest prairie habitat expansion). It's pretty funny watching a thread of smart, science-oriented people put their fingers in their ears about it, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Since I posted about this last, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has put the Monarchs on the endangered species list, Obama has specifically named the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean production as the primary stressor to the Monarch population, and even endorsed ideas floated in this thread (wild Midwest prairie habitat expansion). What you apparently aren't grasping is that this has nothing to do with GMO, other than living things are involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Since I posted about this last, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has put the Monarchs on the endangered species list, Obama has specifically named the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean production as the primary stressor to the Monarch population, and even endorsed ideas floated in this thread (wild Midwest prairie habitat expansion). No one's putting their fingers in their ears about it. Mitigating habitat loss is a good way to deal with the issue. Whining about GMOs is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What you apparently aren't grasping is that this has nothing to do with GMO, other than living things are involved. So, Obama listed the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean crops as the first primary stressor of monarch populations. Is this thread still pretending to not know that American corn and soybean is almost entirely GMO?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
It's not GMOs. At best it's herbicide resistant GMOs but the root of the issue is the use of herbicides. The solution is to limit herbicides or mitigate the effects of them. Talking generally about GMOs as a technology includes many present and future strains that have nothing whatsoever to do with herbicides or milkweed. It's disingenuous and risks vilifying a useful technology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:So, Obama listed the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean crops as the first primary stressor of monarch populations. This has absolutely nothing to do with GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This has absolutely nothing to do with GMOs. Again, fingers in the ears. How are corn and soy production both primary stressors, if not for their recent conversion to GMO? I'm honestly curious how this works on your planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:So, Obama listed the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean crops as the first primary stressor of monarch populations. If DuPont had invented an herbicide that would kill milkweed and not corn, Monarch buttertly habitat would be in the same condition. It's not a GMO problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Again, fingers in the ears. This has literally nothing to do with GMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:So, Obama listed the loss of milkweed in corn and soybean crops as the first primary stressor of monarch populations. That has nothing to with the crops being GMO or not. It has to do with total land area under cultivation. It would likely be even worse if they were using lower producing conventional strains. You gigantic nonce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:If DuPont had invented an herbicide that would kill milkweed and not corn, Monarch buttertly habitat would be in the same [bad] condition. Yes... you realize you're describing Roundup-ready GMO corn, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:That has nothing to with the crops being GMO or not. It has to do with total land area under cultivation. It would likely be even worse if they were using lower producing conventional strains. You gigantic nonce. Might wanna look up nonce, I don't think it means what you think it means. Mofabio posted:Yes... you realize you're describing Roundup-ready GMO corn, right? And he's saying it's something that could just as easily happen with a non-GMO corn strain if you banned GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Yes... you realize you're describing Roundup-ready GMO corn, right? There's a distinction here that you clearly are incapable if grasping. Farmers don't want milkweed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:That has nothing to with the crops being GMO or not. It has to do with total land area under cultivation. It would likely be even worse if they were using lower producing conventional strains. You gigantic nonce. Declines in milkweed abundance are well documented and highly correlated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified corn and soybeans6, which now constitute 89% and 94% of these crops, respectively, in the U.S. How much is Obama paying these corrupt scientists to lie???
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Declines in milkweed abundance are well documented and highly correlated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified corn and soybeans6, which now constitute 89% and 94% of these crops, respectively, in the U.S. Milkweed was actually in a boom state for quite sometime, because it turns out it grows best within and right beside farmland as opposed to the natural state of the area. Because of this, there was a lot more monarch food for a while, so what we're likely seeing is a closer return to what their populations were like before widespread cultivation allowed milkweed to gorw much better. We went over this last time you kramered in and started hootin' and hollerin' about GMOs and your inability to comprehend statistics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Might wanna look up nonce, I don't think it means what you think it means. I don't disagree, but that's all theoretical. GMO corn and soy actually exist, and I'm talking about the effects of those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Yes... you realize you're describing Roundup-ready GMO corn, right? Are you really this obtuse? Milkweed has long been considered an intractable weed that farmers wanted to be rid of. People have been working on just such an herbicide for years. Roundup-ready corn got there first, but such a product would have existed eventually regardless. Nobody thought that Monarchs would be threatened by such a product.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:11
|
|
Mofabio posted:Declines in milkweed abundance are well documented and highly correlated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified corn and soybeans6, which now constitute 89% and 94% of these crops, respectively, in the U.S. You already linked that article, you colossal rear end in a top hat. Setting aside the sampling and projection problems, it does none of the things you seem to wish it to do. We've already discussed the milkweed problem's separation from the use of GM crops. We've already discussed the mitigation steps being taken. We've already answered all of your problems. You ignore everything we say. There's no benefit in further communication, beyond establishing a record of your intellectual dishonesty for other people who come into the thread. GO AWAY.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Yes... you realize you're describing Roundup-ready GMO corn, right? The GMO crop works perfectly for its purpose. The purpose might be socially lovely, but that's not a scientific shortcoming. It makes corn, it keeps fields weed-free, and there are no unintended side-effects. The loss of Monarch butterflies is a tragedy of the commons, not a lack of safety/control in GMO technology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Milkweed was actually in a boom state for quite sometime, because it turns out it grows best within and right beside farmland as opposed to the natural state of the area. Because of this, there was a lot more monarch food for a while, so what we're likely seeing is a closer return to what their populations were like before widespread cultivation allowed milkweed to gorw much better. I guess that's why they're on the endangered species list now, and have an 11 to 57% chance of extinction in 20 years. This thread honestly believes GMOs have no effect on Monarch populations. Wow. edit: Infinite Karma posted:there are no unintended side-effects quoting for posterity. you guys should make this the thread title. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You already linked that article, you colossal rear end in a top hat. Setting aside the sampling and projection problems, it does none of the things you seem to wish it to do. We've already discussed the milkweed problem's separation from the use of GM crops. We've already discussed the mitigation steps being taken. We've already answered all of your problems. You ignore everything we say. There's no benefit in further communication, beyond establishing a record of your intellectual dishonesty for other people who come into the thread. GO AWAY. Calm down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Nobody thought that Monarchs would be threatened by such a product. I agree! Good thing there were no unintended side-effects. Crop protection research has shifted to HT GMOs, not targeted herbicides. So your weird counter-example is pretty laughable, given that industry research is currently chasing Monsanto's market and post-neonicotinoid pesticides. Weren't you the chemist who pretended to be an industrial safety specialist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I guess that's why they're on the endangered species list now, and have an 11 to 57% chance of extinction in 20 years. Yes that's why. Because there's no actual evidence of GMO being the cause, outside of your desperate attempt to flail against them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
In what universe is a broadleaf weed killer successfully killing broadleaf weeds a side-effect. That's the effect, dude. It's the only effect. The problem is 100% on purpose. Again, what's the solution? Ban herbicides? Ban GMOs? Ban removing weeds from farms? Expose yourself for the pure Luddite you are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:49
|
|