It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Monsanto announced plans to sue Maui, Hawaii after voteres passed a moratorium on GMO

page: 11
89
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnnyBgood

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: johnnyBgood
a reply to: Phage

I really don't get your argument. Your links just further prove that i am right. The farmers crops were contaminated with out the farmers knowledge, somehow monsanto found out and sued them. This is what I have claimed and you said was false.

My source says the same thing as your source except in greater detail so what gives?





The defendants do not deny the presence of Roundup Ready canola in their fields in 1998, but they urged at trial that neither Mr. Schmeiser nor Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. have ever deliberately planted, or caused to be planted, any seeds licensed by the plaintiffs containing the patented gene.


souce


Did you study the findings? From your source:



[119] Yet the source of the Roundup resistant canola in the defendants' 1997 crop is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement which relates to the 1998 crop. It is clear from Mr. Schmeiser himself that he retained seed grown in 1996 in field number 1 to be his seed for the 1997 crop. In 1997 he was aware that the crop in field number 2 showed a very high level of tolerance to Roundup herbicide and seed from that field was harvested, and retained for seed for 1998.

[120] I find that in 1998 Mr. Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which seed he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that seed was the primary source for seeding and for the defendants' crops in all nine fields of canola in 1998.



The findings are irrelevent to my point. My original point was that farms are being contaminated with gmo pollen and then the farmers are being sued which is a fact.

Monsantos poison crops are ruining natural crops and heirloom seeds and instead of Monsanto being held liable they are actively being rewarded via our backwards and corrupt fascist legal system.

Monsanto should be forced to take measures to protect the surrounding area from contamination or cease to operate. At the very least they should not be able to successfully sue people for damages that they (monsanto) caused in the first place.

This is just an attempt by large biotech corps backed by the US gov to put all non gmo farms out of business so the entire food supply can be patented and controlled. This is evil 101, control the food, control the world.


On the contrary, the findings are fundamental to your point. If you read the case and findings, it becomes quite clear that:

* There are doubts raised about how any of the supposed contamination happened
* The judge believes the farmers deliberately re-planted round-up ready seeds in hopes of avoiding licensing fees

This differs significantly from your clear-cut narrative that a farmer is being sued for being the unfortunate victim of cross-pollination, doesn't it?




posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Just some food for thought: Bill Gates is being held accountable for his vaccine crimes in India by the Supreme Court. To me, getting parents who don't speak English to sign a contract written in English after telling them it's consent for their child to get a vitamin shot but in reality the children are given a vaccine test, is malicious. Especially when the children can sometimes be held prisoners at school until they get the vaccine shot


Bill Gates is a wealthy corrupt ass hole who deceives you into thinking he does good



1) Ad hominem
2) Lacks citation
3) Makes no compelling argument that Gates acted out of malice



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

Phage has got a point. Quite a few of them, really. I went into this subject with a very open mind and I came out with a few core observations that guide my thinking on the issue:

* Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately by stupidity
* Motive to profit is not motive to malice
* For fears about Monsanto's products to be founded, the narrative requires not just an evil mustache-twirling genius, but an improbably large number of them in collusion-- I suspect there's a good joke about herding evil geniuses to be had here


-Knowingly selling harmful products isn't stupid, it's malice.
-U.S corporations number one goal is to make money, no matter if people are killed. Again, knowingly selling harmful products when you say they are safe is malice.
-How about just looking at the research that shows GMO messes with your RNA.



I've read through the entire thread and the only case cited I've found so far having to do with Monsanto's alleged predatory lawsuits is the one involving a farmer who knowingly and admittedly tried to circumvent the licensing system. That's not cross-pollination, that's getting a copy of Windows from your buddy and crying foul if Microsoft catches you.

If you have read through the entire thread than you would see that Monsanto can sue farmers through a loop hole and by getting the courts to agree that the farmers knew ahead of time what they were doing.


Nothing would please me more than to hear a sensibly voiced, reasonable argument with citations showing the gaps in my knowledge that demonstrate the clear harms of GMOs. Similarly, I would love to hear a strong argument that Monsanto's business practices are any more vile than most similarly sized multinational corporations. So far I hear a lot of:

* Ad hominem attacks suggesting that Phage's arguments don't require attention because he's clearly a GMO shill
* Hand-waving with the suggestion that it's "all out there for you to find" if you only but look in response to requests for particular citations
* Embarrassing scare tactics that seem to be trying to develop a grand narrative that implies Monsanto's putting Mustard Gas in everything


Did you take a look at the studies I posted where
A: GMO messes with your RNA. Even if the cow you ate was fed GMO, it will still mess with your RNA. - Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA
B: Rats fed GMO soya: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile -GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile

No we're not implying that Monsanto puts Mustard Gas into everything, we're saying it messes with your RNA & has other bad health effects.


Since this forum has more than a tint of conspiracy theory underpinning it, I would submit to you this: what if Monsanto's PR team is terribly clever and has stoked the fire around these crying-wolf fears knowing that it would ultimately discredit the opinions of their decriers. It would be useful political capital to have in your back pocket if you ever did make a serious mistake... and when you're a corporation that large dealing with subject matter that complicated, you're bound to make a mistake sooner or later.


That's just an added bonus. Everyone who stands to gain money from this will discredit anyone who points out the harm of GMO/Monsanto. It happens all the time and with all subjects, corporations can't lose money so if they have to discredit someone and ruin their reputation.

Here is an example of wanting to discredit people, to show you it does exist.


The US authorities have studied online sexual activity and suggested exposing porn site visits as a way to discredit people who spread radical views, the Huffington Post news site has reported.

It published a document, leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, identifying two Muslims said to be vulnerable to accusations of "online promiscuity"

NSA 'planned to discredit radicals over web-porn use'


As you dislike anyone who doesn't provide links and tells you to look things up for yourself, I can't wait to see your links to counter everything you think is wrong.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Sorry I thought you had heard about this topic as it has been all over ATS & even talked about on 'Out of the Box' an ATS radio show. I can provide you with links:

India Holds Bill Gates Accountable For His Vaccine Crimes (and others)

'Out of the Box' : topic 2- Bill Gates held accountable for his vaccine crimes
Sorry, I don't know where to find the old shows so you can listen to them again. I think the archives for shows but I don't know where to look on ATS for it.

Yes this does make a compelling argument that Gates acted out of malice. When you allow for these things to happen than that is intentionally doing ill will.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
-Knowingly selling harmful products isn't stupid, it's malice.
-U.S corporations number one goal is to make money, no matter if people are killed. Again, knowingly selling harmful products when you say they are safe is malice.
-How about just looking at the research that shows GMO messes with your RNA.


But you have not satisfied the burden of proof. You've done nothing to show that:

- GMO is provably harmful
- Monsanto believes GMO to be harmful

Simply saying such things with righteous indignation does not make them true. Let's get to your research in the next block.



Did you take a look at the studies I posted where
A: GMO messes with your RNA. Even if the cow you ate was fed GMO, it will still mess with your RNA. - Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA


This study shows no such thing. It says that ingested plant matter can be expressed in the RNA of the consuming organism. It most certainly does not say anything about GMO or GMO "messing with your RNA." This is a bit like saying because you can prove a door exists, you know that your suspect passed through it. There remains much to be done to logically demonstrate what you allege to be true.



B: Rats fed GMO soya: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile -GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile


In science, one study does not a concrete truth make. Observe the UK's NIH has different findings:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats."

Note also that the study to which you refer was not peer reviewed and was not published through any traditional scientific venues. See the discussion here:

skeptics.stackexchange.com...



No we're not implying that Monsanto puts Mustard Gas into everything, we're saying it messes with your RNA & has other bad health effects.


I'm not sure about that -- I think the claims are broad and vague and I doubt Mustard Gas was brought into the discussion accidentally.



That's just an added bonus. Everyone who stands to gain money from this will discredit anyone who points out the harm of GMO/Monsanto. It happens all the time and with all subjects, corporations can't lose money so if they have to discredit someone and ruin their reputation.

Here is an example of wanting to discredit people, to show you it does exist.


The US authorities have studied online sexual activity and suggested exposing porn site visits as a way to discredit people who spread radical views, the Huffington Post news site has reported.

It published a document, leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, identifying two Muslims said to be vulnerable to accusations of "online promiscuity"

NSA 'planned to discredit radicals over web-porn use'


As you dislike anyone who doesn't provide links and tells you to look things up for yourself, I can't wait to see your links to counter everything you think is wrong.


I think you've misunderstood me. I don't dislike anyone in this discussion. I just think the affirmative position in this debate is dubious and poorly sourced. You don't need to convince me that reputation assaults are a real thing. There's nothing new under the sun. But I think you may have missed my point. Unscientific fear mongering regarding GMO does more to undermine legitimate criticism than Monsanto could ever do on their own.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Sorry I thought you had heard about this topic as it has been all over ATS & even talked about on 'Out of the Box' an ATS radio show. I can provide you with links:

India Holds Bill Gates Accountable For His Vaccine Crimes (and others)

'Out of the Box' : topic 2- Bill Gates held accountable for his vaccine crimes
Sorry, I don't know where to find the old shows so you can listen to them again. I think the archives for shows but I don't know where to look on ATS for it.

Yes this does make a compelling argument that Gates acted out of malice. When you allow for these things to happen than that is intentionally doing ill will.


I'll look into the claims, but I think your worldview is overly polarized. Let's assume that Gates' actions did lead to harm for a moment. Are we to believe that all of his charity work is a cover for this particular malicious operation? Is it not more likely, in such a scenario, that he was well intentioned but mistaken?

You do realize that the lobby for your anti-Gates case here is entirely prefaced on discredited theories that link autism to vaccines, right?
edit on 19-11-2014 by JohnnyElohim because: I'd originally said the poster's worldview was "a bit adolescent." On a second read I realized it was rude. My apologies.

edit on 19-11-2014 by JohnnyElohim because: Oops, typo.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   



Yes it does mess with your RNA, not just your DNA. Again I will prove this and you post any evidence you have against it. Oh and you will love this site because you can't trash it & say "it's invalid because of the site it is on"
Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA



Below is an article from the same source you used above. It discusses the GMO/Rat study you just linked. Is it invalid because of the sight it is on?

Nature



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

They did have to invent a crop that won't die because of Round Up.
No. They didn't have to. Crops were not being sprayed with RoundUp because spraying crops with RoundUp would kill them. Crops were not dying because they were not being sprayed with RoundUp until RoundUp Ready plants were developed.
 



A: GMO messes with your RNA. Even if the cow you ate was fed GMO, it will still mess with your RNA. - Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA


You know that the study is not about GM plants, right? I guess I should also point out that the paper says nothing about "messing with RNA" because you seem to think it does.

But it is a very interesting study. It found that when mice were fed rice their LDL (cholesterol) levels rose. It talks about how that happens.

In agreement with the reduction of LDLRAP1 in the mouse liver, LDL levels in mouse plasma were significantly elevated on days 3 and 7 after fresh rice feeding (Figure 6G).

www.nature.com...

 



Bill Gates is being held accountable for his vaccine crimes in India by the Supreme Court.
No. Bill Gates is not being held accoutable for anything by the Indian Supreme Court.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: johnnyBgood

Don't bother wasting your time, there are people who will never see what we see about Monsanto.

They will ignore facts you have said and twist other things around.

Any product that messes with your RNA is bad for you and any company who produces products that mess with your RNA & deny it are evil. That's the bottom line.


Agreed, I am moving on.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   
originally posted by: JohnnyElohim


But you have not satisfied the burden of proof. You've done nothing to show that:

- GMO is provably harmful
- Monsanto believes GMO to be harmful

Simply saying such things with righteous indignation does not make them true. Let's get to your research in the next block.

Just because I haven't satisfied the burden of proof to you does not mean that GMO isn't harmful or that Monsanto does not believe it to be harmful.

The fact that Monsanto refuses to do long term studies to find out if GMO is actually harmful (which I heard in an interview done by CBC radio with a PR rep from Monsanto Canada for your evidence) even after all this time, should be proof enough that Monsanto does know their product is harmful.


This study shows no such thing. It says that ingested plant matter can be expressed in the RNA of the consuming organism. It most certainly does not say anything about GMO or GMO "messing with your RNA." This is a bit like saying because you can prove a door exists, you know that your suspect passed through it. There remains much to be done to logically demonstrate what you allege to be true.

Actually it does. If you knew about one of the fundamental arguments against GMO is that it messes with your RNA and the GMO supporters say "this is claim is false", you would know that this does prove it. The following articles help explain it, I know it's a bit long but please stick with it to see how the study I posted is proof.
Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup- tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide
Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity


In science, one study does not a concrete truth make. Observe the UK's NIH has different findings:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats."

You are right, one study does not make something true. However, there are two types of studies: those funded by Corporations/Governments and those that aren't. I tend to lean towards those who aren't funded by those who stand to loose the most money. After all, U.S corporations number one goal is to make money.


Note also that the study to which you refer was not peer reviewed and was not published through any traditional scientific venues. See the discussion here:

skeptics.stackexchange.com...


Senior Neuroscientist Irina Ermakova of the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, first presented the data at the 11th Russian Gastroenterological Week (in a section on Nutrition and GMOs organized by the Moscow-based National Association for Genetic Safety) at the Russian Academy of State Service in Moscow, October 10–12, 2005. In December 2005, she spoke at the conference, "Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants and Risk Assessment", in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The paper detailing her preliminary results was published in the Proceedings of the conference. She since has submitted a paper to a Russian peer-reviewed journal and is currently preparing other papers for consideration by peer-reviewed scientific journals in English.

On the first page, when I first posted this study, I said:
Now some will say that this study is invalid due to the 4 "experts" who criticized her work but it should be noted that those "experts" were so intent upon "shooting the messenger" that they criticized aspects of her work on which they themselves had no expert knowledge. The editor of Nature Biotechnology,(who published the article) Andrew Marshall himself is forced to admit this. When asked whether the four would be acceptable as referees in a peer-review process, he replies evasively that for "some aspects" they might be included. But in practical questions about feeding studies or regarding animal physiology and toxicology all four referees should have had professional expertise. They had sought additional expertise, says Marshall. One can imagine where. Because the four men are not impartial or unknown. They are all well known as GM spokesmen, with a variety of relationships with industry.
More on Science and Scientist Abused




I'm not sure about that -- I think the claims are broad and vague and I doubt Mustard Gas was brought into the discussion accidentally.

That's funny because you are the one who "accidentally" brought it into the discussion. I did a search, page 9:

* Embarrassing scare tactics that seem to be trying to develop a grand narrative that implies Monsanto's putting Mustard Gas in everything
( Click here to see it: JohnnyElohim )
Now who is the "evil mustache-twirling genius"?


I think you've misunderstood me. I don't dislike anyone in this discussion. I just think the affirmative position in this debate is dubious and poorly sourced. You don't need to convince me that reputation assaults are a real thing. There's nothing new under the sun. But I think you may have missed my point. Unscientific fear mongering regarding GMO does more to undermine legitimate criticism than Monsanto could ever do on their own.


Yes you clearly did miss the point, you think it is unscientific because the scientist has been discredited.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   
originally posted by: anton74


Below is an article from the same source you used above. It discusses the GMO/Rat study you just linked. Is it invalid because of the sight it is on?

Nature


No, it is invalid because it was funded by people with a variety of relationships with the industry. From the first page of this thread, when I first posted the article.

On the first page, when I first posted this study, I said:
Now some will say that this study is invalid due to the 4 "experts" who criticized her work but it should be noted that those "experts" were so intent upon "shooting the messenger" that they criticized aspects of her work on which they themselves had no expert knowledge. The editor of Nature Biotechnology,(who published the article) Andrew Marshall himself is forced to admit this. When asked whether the four would be acceptable as referees in a peer-review process, he replies evasively that for "some aspects" they might be included. But in practical questions about feeding studies or regarding animal physiology and toxicology all four referees should have had professional expertise. They had sought additional expertise, says Marshall. One can imagine where. Because the four men are not impartial or unknown. They are all well known as GM spokesmen, with a variety of relationships with industry

More on science and scientists abused



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sabiduria

No. They didn't have to. Crops were not being sprayed with RoundUp because spraying crops with RoundUp would kill them. Crops were not dying because they were not being sprayed with RoundUp until RoundUp Ready plants were developed.

Really, I had no idea that crops couldn't be sprayed with Round Up until it was invented. /end sarcasm. When Monsanto discovered that Round Up was killing crops, back in the 70's, they had to make crops that were resistant to Round Up. Why is that so hard to comprehend?




You know that the study is not about GM plants, right? I guess I should also point out that the paper says nothing about "messing with RNA" because you seem to think it does.

Actually it does. If you knew about one of the fundamental arguments against GMO is that it messes with your RNA and the GMO supporters say "this is claim is false", you would know that this does prove it. The following articles help explain it, I know it's a bit long but please stick with it to see how the study I posted is proof.
Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup- tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide

Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity


No. Bill Gates is not being held accoutable for anything by the Indian Supreme Court

You and I have already had this "discussion" and I'm not wasting my time again.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   
originally posted by: JohnnyElohim


I'll look into the claims, but I think your worldview is overly polarized. Let's assume that Gates' actions did lead to harm for a moment. Are we to believe that all of his charity work is a cover for this particular malicious operation? Is it not more likely, in such a scenario, that he was well intentioned but mistaken?

His actions did lead to harm, we don't have to guess here, the article talks about the harm done.

I didn't say anything about his charity work being a cover for this particular malicious operation. I have no idea nor would I have any idea if there are other malicious operations that he is involved in that the charity work could be covered for. Please don't keep twisting my words.



You do realize that the lobby for your anti-Gates case here is entirely prefaced on discredited theories that link autism to vaccines, right?


No it's not, did you listen to the interviews with Shawn Siegel?



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

When Monsanto discovered that Round Up was killing crops, back in the 70's, they had to make crops that were resistant to Round Up. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
RoundUp is a herbicide. RoundUp was invented to kill plants. It was not "discovered" that it killed plants. Why is it so hard to understand that crops were not sprayed with RoundUp so crops were not being killed by RoundUp.



If you knew about one of the fundamental arguments against GMO is that it messes with your RNA and the GMO supporters say "this is claim is false", you would know that this does prove it. The following articles help explain it, I know it's a bit long but please stick with it to see how the study I posted is proof.
Neither article says anything about GMOs "messing with RNA". They are about RoundUp and glyphosate. You obviously did not read them. Too long for you?






edit on 11/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
A typical David & Goliath story.

Maui needs to stop picking on poor little Monsanto.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
[quote

No, it is invalid because it was funded by people with a variety of relationships with the industry. From the first page of this thread, when I first posted the article.

On the first page, when I first posted this study, I said:
Now some will say that this study is invalid due to the 4 "experts" who criticized her work but it should be noted that those "experts" were so intent upon "shooting the messenger" that they criticized aspects of her work on which they themselves had no expert knowledge. The editor of Nature Biotechnology,(who published the article) Andrew Marshall himself is forced to admit this. When asked whether the four would be acceptable as referees in a peer-review process, he replies evasively that for "some aspects" they might be included. But in practical questions about feeding studies or regarding animal physiology and toxicology all four referees should have had professional expertise. They had sought additional expertise, says Marshall. One can imagine where. Because the four men are not impartial or unknown. They are all well known as GM spokesmen, with a variety of relationships with industry

More on science and scientists abused

Are you saying they had a conflict of interest? Look at the picture in the link below and tell me she doesn't have one as well. She is standing 3rd from the right.

Link

The article you linked merely says that she was right and they where wrong. Lack of expertise doesn't make a valid question invalid.

This happened in 2007, why hasn't she replicated the study or found someone to peer review her work. She hasn't even updated her website since then.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
The fact that Monsanto refuses to do long term studies to find out if GMO is actually harmful (which I heard in an interview done by CBC radio with a PR rep from Monsanto Canada for your evidence) even after all this time, should be proof enough that Monsanto does know their product is harmful.


Which is it, then? That they do not know if their product is harmful, or that they are deliberately working to corrupt the planetary food supply with poison? We can't have it both ways. Regarding long term studies, you must admit that GM crops have been around a long time indeed:

www.nofamass.org...



Actually it does. If you knew about one of the fundamental arguments against GMO is that it messes with your RNA and the GMO supporters say "this is claim is false", you would know that this does prove it. The following articles help explain it, I know it's a bit long but please stick with it to see how the study I posted is proof.
Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup- tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide
Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity


You are conflating several things here:

* Alleged glyphosate toxicity
* Alleged GMO toxicity
* A vector of influence on long-term gene expression (RNA)

The original source you posted supports the idea that consumption of plant matter can influence RNA expression. It says nothing about GMO, nor about glyphosate. This most recent source says only that glyphosate at sufficient concentrations can be toxic. You may not realize that people utilize glyphosate for all manner of mundane applications on a regular basis. It has been and will be an aspect of the environment for some time. According to the EPA, whose credibility you cannot dismiss with mere hand-waving, a human being sustained on a diet of purely glyphosate treated foods at the maximum acceptable levels will experience no adverse affects:

www.epa.gov...



You are right, one study does not make something true. However, there are two types of studies: those funded by Corporations/Governments and those that aren't. I tend to lean towards those who aren't funded by those who stand to loose the most money. After all, U.S corporations number one goal is to make money.


Argumentum ad hominem. You can't simply dismiss all of the authorities because you distrust authorities nor is it sensible to accept the view of a vast minority because it confirms your worldview. This is precisely the behavior of the climate denier cartel -- find 1% of the scientists who agree with them and wave away the 99% they don't as establishment shills. It's not intellectually honest.



Senior Neuroscientist Irina Ermakova of the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, first presented the data at the 11th Russian Gastroenterological Week (in a section on Nutrition and GMOs organized by the Moscow-based National Association for Genetic Safety) at the Russian Academy of State Service in Moscow, October 10–12, 2005. In December 2005, she spoke at the conference, "Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants and Risk Assessment", in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The paper detailing her preliminary results was published in the Proceedings of the conference. She since has submitted a paper to a Russian peer-reviewed journal and is currently preparing other papers for consideration by peer-reviewed scientific journals in English.

On the first page, when I first posted this study, I said:
Now some will say that this study is invalid due to the 4 "experts" who criticized her work but it should be noted that those "experts" were so intent upon "shooting the messenger" that they criticized aspects of her work on which they themselves had no expert knowledge. The editor of Nature Biotechnology,(who published the article) Andrew Marshall himself is forced to admit this. When asked whether the four would be acceptable as referees in a peer-review process, he replies evasively that for "some aspects" they might be included. But in practical questions about feeding studies or regarding animal physiology and toxicology all four referees should have had professional expertise. They had sought additional expertise, says Marshall. One can imagine where. Because the four men are not impartial or unknown. They are all well known as GM spokesmen, with a variety of relationships with industry.
More on Science and Scientist Abused


This is much like complaining that people speaking out about climate change have invested in green energy. It takes more than a common interest to devalue their argument. With or without specialization, they are bonafide scientists who are qualified at minimum to criticize the way in which a study was conducted, which is exactly the focus of their criticism.



That's funny because you are the one who "accidentally" brought it into the discussion. I did a search, page 9:

* Embarrassing scare tactics that seem to be trying to develop a grand narrative that implies Monsanto's putting Mustard Gas in everything
( Click here to see it: JohnnyElohim )
Now who is the "evil mustache-twirling genius"?


I'm not sure, but I think perhaps I should be flattered. In all seriousness, though, you're correct -- I must have been mixing up threads. It's commonly invoked, but wasn't here. Apologies.


Yes you clearly did miss the point, you think it is unscientific because the scientist has been discredited.


I think it's unscientific because an overwhelming majority of legitimate scientific studies are dismissed with conspiracy theory hand-waving ("they're all establishment shills") in favor of a very small number of controversial studies that dissent. You do of course realize that a scientist who is specialized in biosciences is very likely to work somewhere in the GM industry. Just as you'd argue that they're poison fruit, one could argue that they are the most qualified to speak on the matter. It's not that it's impossible for the dissenters to be correct in this case, but it's a remote possibility with an enormous burden of proof.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I've missed the point. Kudos for the jab, though.
edit on 22-11-2014 by JohnnyElohim because: Fix broken quote wrappers.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
His actions did lead to harm, we don't have to guess here, the article talks about the harm done.

I didn't say anything about his charity work being a cover for this particular malicious operation. I have no idea nor would I have any idea if there are other malicious operations that he is involved in that the charity work could be covered for. Please don't keep twisting my words.


I'm not twisting your words, Sabiduria. I'm following them through to their natural conclusion. You seem incapable of accepting that Bill Gates could actually be acting out of goodwill. Your reason for asserting this was presumably to deny my point that a "motive to profit" is not synonymous with a "motive to malice." I'm not interested in getting into a tit-for-tat with you regarding the controversy to which you refer -- it's salient neither to my point nor the topic. You are implying that Bill Gates acted out of malice. I think that's ridiculous.



No it's not, did you listen to the interviews with Shawn Siegel?


No, and I don't care to. As I say above, it's not salient to the point. I should have refrained from pointing out the absurdity of vaccine paranoia -- it doesn't matter here. The point is, you're living in a dark and stilted world if you can't understand that people who do things you disagree with may be acting with just as much conviction as you do. The world is infinitely more complicated and contoured and you do yourself no favors working so hard to find the black and white.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join