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.

 

10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: NJE777

Def Leppard also borrowed it from neil young.

i got something to say, it's better to burn out than fade away





posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Cosmic911

Right. As quoted, it was an independent lab hired by Monsanto.
And others in the pesticide industry, which reported the irregularities to the EPA.



And now I am. Knowledge is power, as they say, and liberating.
Not necessarily power, but it does beat ignorance.

While the increasing use of glyphosate resistant plants has increased the use of glyphosate, it has reduced the use of other herbicides which are considered more hazardous from both an environmental and human health standpoint. The thing is, as long as we're caught in the agribusiness/monoculture trap (one that seems hard to escape, with all the people it feeds), there are going to be downsides. From a scientific point of view, the risks of GM crops (none to low) and glyphosate(low) are not that different from the alternatives.

edit on 11/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not necessarily power, but it does beat ignorance. Yes, it beats ignorance, but knowledge gives you the power to make informed and intelligent choices.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Cosmic911




Yes, it beats ignorance, but knowledge gives you the power to make informed and intelligent choices.

Yup. So, if eating GM worries you, eat organic or look for that "non GM" lable because chances are, if you're not, you're eating GM and have been for a while now.

Me, I've got other things to fret about.

edit on 11/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I believe the most famous borrowing was by the late Kurt Cobain, who used it in a suicide note.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

as far as i'm concerned kurt just wasted his talent, and any and all talk about how tragic his death was is just a waste of time especially when you think about the part where he talks about Freddie Mercury and doesn't think about this song



nobody should give a damn, there are better ways to handle your problems.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

He didn't waste it. He left us with some great music.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Thanks for letting me know. I haven't hacked anything. In about 2010 the forums changed their provider or host. It is a glitch. It is not recording my flags with stars correctly.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NJE777

Sometimes I don't think my WATS score is correct.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
www.infiniteunknown.net...-129136

www.infiniteunknown.net...-129205

www.infiniteunknown.net...-129208

www.alternet.org...

Yet after years of evidence and scientific evidence, some just won't accept that GMO's, or certainly the corporations that produce then, have distorted lied and bribed its way through, do you seriously stand by still and believe this companies shills ?

Even the circumstantial evidence had those of a critical Mind going ummmm

a reply to: Phage



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaPred


Yet after years of evidence and scientific evidence, some just won't accept that GMO's, or certainly the corporations that produce then, have distorted lied and bribed its way through, do you seriously stand by still and believe this companies shills ?

GMOs have distorted and lied? How does that work?

I've looked for credible evidence. Your first link contains no evidence. Your second link is about glyphosate, not GM crops. Your third link is about glyphosate, not GM crops. Your third link is to a blog.


Even the circumstantial evidence had those of a critical Mind going ummmm
Yes, I can see that some people do hum. But the actual evidence doesn't actually show any danger in GM products. Those with a critical mind, who actually look at the evidence can see that.


edit on 11/16/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
You always banged on about peer reviewed science as if it the only credible science, now the former head of a multinational pharmaceutical company whoms now he editor for one of the most prestigious science journals in the world says take half of the science ....and throw it out the window
www.globalresearch.ca...

Just where have you been the last 12 months? Under a rock or in orbit, as time after time these biocorp companies keep getting caught lying cheating and selective of tests done and the results they utilise

www.prnewswire.com... plant-metabolism-suggests-peer-reviewed-study-calling-for-21st-century-safety-standards-300112959.html

Critical mind that

a reply to: Phage
edit on 16/11/2015 by AlphaPred because: Added

edit on 16/11/2015 by AlphaPred because: Added



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaPred
You always banged on about peer reviewed science as if it the only credible science, now the former head of a multinational pharmaceutical company whoms now he editor for one of the most prestigious science journals in the world says take half of the science ....and throw it out the window
www.globalresearch.ca...

Just where have you been the last 12 months? Under a rock or in orbit, as time after time these biocorp companies keep getting caught lying cheating and selective of tests done and the results they utilise

www.prnewswire.com... plant-metabolism-suggests-peer-reviewed-study-calling-for-21st-century-safety-standards-300112959.html

Critical mind that

a reply to: Phage


So, you're trying to refute peer-review with peer-review...?
And extremely poor peer-review as well.
Aside from the peer-review you're using not being in a very well recognised journal (therefore less people see it, therefore less people review it and the ones who do review it will undoubtedly have a bias as that's why they're reading it in the first place...) what it cites is a computer model.
As far as the paper shows, this has not been tested or verified so as a biological study, it is at best incomplete.
So that in itself, is contrary to the scientific method which it states it wants people to use.

Scientific method is based upon evidence.
This study shows no evidence, only a pre-determined prediction which, by looking at it's sources, seems to have been cherry-picked.

But the author did "invent" the email...
And it mentions formaldehyde...
So that's me convinced.


edit on 16/11/15 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Sorry double post
edit on 16/11/2015 by AlphaPred because: Meh



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Well if you use common knowlege, critical thought and the evidence provided world wide you simply get ridiculed and shouted at where's the science!
As some will only believe a man in a white coat - which thereby means that he is above reproach and criticism, saintly if you will
So I had to use something for the over educated but devoid of learning, something to read

Why you wanna take him up on his $10 million bet?
Didn't think so


Oh and hang on ....the former CEO of pfitser and now editor in chief of the New England science journal not well recognised .......thanks for proving a point tho
a reply to: Pardon?



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Please post legitimate sources if you're going to bring up things like this.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
What you referring to ?
What do you consider legitimate ?
Obviously Monsantos word is as good as the gods to you
Even thought they've been caught lying cheating deceiving and withholding research and results for decades
Glyphosphate since the '70s , Glyphosphate being the corner stone of Monsantos GMO empire

Accept that the last 50 years must be questioned as all our beliefs and faith have been based on now admitted lies
a reply to: THEatsking

Anyone that can still defend Monsanto is either paid ......or incredibly stupid


edit on 16/11/2015 by AlphaPred because: Added for stupid



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Scientific Journals, scholastic sources, etc.

A website like that is anything but legitimate.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Hey I point the way to where information is concentrated, from there it's your job to explore and grow....my life doesn't revolve around holding people by the hand around the Internet. If all you can find is positives about gmo's and Monsanto ....perhaps try expanding your search

The hypocrisy stinks here, that science good coz I agree with it ...that science bad because I don't ...prove it with peer reviewed....haha peer reviewed but not very good, so basically all the peer reviewed science saying gmo's are good (regardless of how poor the science was and the cherry picking of results) is correct and anything to the contrary is bad .......because you say so

You keep eating the stuff, I'll stick to organic and we'll see who's children and grandchildren are better off .....if you even make it as far as grandchildren

And just to add .....so all the countries now banning or restricting the use of GMO's are what ? Hysterical? Stupid? Or perhaps they're seeing first hand the damage done

How many countries do you see out there demanding gmo's? I only see western puppet nations trying to force implement them ....most countries are trying to get rid but of course .....they're all wrong arnt they
a reply to: THEatsking


edit on 16/11/2015 by AlphaPred because: Added



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join