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.

 

anti sperm GMO corn intended for human consumption

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


excuse you but your 'article' is from 2001 ... just a wee bit outdated wouldn't ya say?
perhaps when you get current with your information, then maybe you could actually contribute to the conversation.

Excuse you, but the OP's linked articles are based on the one from 2001 published in the Guardian and are therefore just as out of date. And by based, I mean quote-mined in a really dishonest fashion. And why are you putting article in quotes? Are you implying that the article in the Guardian isn't really an article? Do you have more current information that you can contribute to the conversation? Why do you think science has an expiration date when no new facts have been brought to light?




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I doubt that this would actually cause sterility in men..Here's a somewhat disturbing image.


Say you drink a bottle of spermicide.

Will it kill your sperm? No it wouldn't. Unless the corn has some way if lowering the testosterone or sperm production in men.. which I doubt it does.. I would highly doubt it to be effective.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Very Scary!! Good Find! This should be on the front page of ATS!! and every other major news outlet...what is going on!!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Reply to post by iterationzero
 

Excuse you, but the OP's linked articles are based on the one from 2001 published in the Guardian and are therefore just as out of date. And by based, I mean quote-mined in a really dishonest fashion. And why are you putting article in quotes? Are you implying that the article in the Guardian isn't really an article? Do you have more current information that you can contribute to the conversation? Why do you think science has an expiration date when no new facts have been brought to light?

I do not need excusing, i didn't quote or reference an extremely outdated piece of material.
as for the OP, i happen to agree with his opinion and didn't need to read his references, however i certainly referenced more recent findings ... shame you didn't bother to make the effort.

If you feel the OPs references are out of date then talk to the OP, not me. This is not a new subject for me and i have no desire to re-read old news ... if you want to comment on old news, feel free.

I didn't put the OPs article in any quotes, what are you talking about?
I did paste excerpts from the articles i referenced and sourced each or didn't you bother checking?

Do you have more current information that you can contribute to the conversation? Why do you think science has an expiration date when no new facts have been brought to light?

comprehension and effort sure seem to be stumbling blocks for you ... i Did reference NEWER findings, try reading a little. i Did input New information to the conversation, where's yours?

If you're new here, that's what we do, quote important phrases from applicable articles with excerpt block notations and source info for those who want to know more. Before attacking me personally (which is against T&C btw), you really should evaluate or attack the information and content ... that is playing nice ya know?

Science has an 'expiration date' ???
Really? just where did you get that from?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Say you drink a bottle of spermicide.

Will it kill your sperm? No it wouldn't. Unless the corn has some way if lowering the testosterone or sperm production in men.. which I doubt it does.. I would highly doubt it to be effective.

you are welcome to your doubts but for someone to ingest a bottle of spermicide, well, they aren't wrapped to tightly to begin with ... a better analogy might include ... GMO consumption has led to permanent and irreparable organ damage and failure in multiple tests sooooo since the sperm production in men isn't managed by a major organ, the GMOs probably won't sterilize them, even though science says otherwise.

Curious question: knowing that major organ failure has occurred previously, are you really willing to risk your chances of procreation for a kernel of corn?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   



Any corn with this gene would only act as a topical spermicide. Whip some cream corn and cool whip together and put it under the hood. Or, more likely, have the process tied in with chlorophyll production and storage so as to keep the antibodies bound to the stalk (a basic understanding of botany goes a long way - a pepper plant infused with a gene to make a chemical can produce peppers, and even leaves devoid of the chemical with the chemical produced and contained within the root system). Following corn harvests, the stalks are also processed to obtain the antibodies and other chemicals they may be producing to be used in spermicides and other applications.

The funny thing is that it's a "green" solution. Rather than using large industrial chemical processing facilities - we can use an open field and some plants to do the same thing.

Reasoning with environmentalists and self-proclaimed health nuts is like herding chickens... not sure why I try.


You try because even if one in a million readers gets it then you have made a difference. S&F for you. I've never thought of it that way.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I do not need excusing,

Given your attitude toward Astyanax, yes you did.


i didn't quote or reference an extremely outdated piece of material.

No, but the OP did and then you criticized another member for posting the source article for the OP's links. And you even provide a reason for your hypocrisy of turning a blind eye...


as for the OP, i happen to agree with his opinion and didn't need to read his references,

Yeah, because that's a sound way to go about making a critical evaluation of the information provided. Don't read things.


however i certainly referenced more recent findings ... shame you didn't bother to make the effort.

You referenced more recent findings regarding BT, glycophosphate, and crop yields. I didn't see you reference anything regarding the antibodies referenced in the OP.


If you feel the OPs references are out of date then talk to the OP, not me. This is not a new subject for me and i have no desire to re-read old news ... if you want to comment on old news, feel free.

I wasn't the one who criticized someone for posting "outdated" information.


I didn't put the OPs article in any quotes, what are you talking about?

Really? I must be delusional... from your own post:


excuse you but your 'article' is from 2001

See the quote there?


I did paste excerpts from the articles i referenced and sourced each or didn't you bother checking?

None of them were germane to the OP, which is the material I'm interested in regarding this thread.


comprehension and effort sure seem to be stumbling blocks for you ... i Did reference NEWER findings, try reading a little. i Did input New information to the conversation, where's yours?

No, you referenced zero new information regarding the antibodies mentioned in the OP and then went on to criticize another member for posting "outdated" information regarding that topic.


If you're new here, that's what we do, quote important phrases from applicable articles with excerpt block notations and source info for those who want to know more. Before attacking me personally (which is against T&C btw), you really should evaluate or attack the information and content ... that is playing nice ya know?

I've been here longer than you, which is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Further, I haven't attacked you, I've attacked your post. Here it is again:


excuse you but your 'article' is from 2001 ... just a wee bit outdated wouldn't ya say?
perhaps when you get current with your information, then maybe you could actually contribute to the conversation.

I'm not sure where you're from, but where I'm from this isn't "playing nice". So let's go back over this again - Astyanax linked the source article for the two articles mentioned in the open post for this thread. You criticized him for bringing "outdated" information to the discussion, even though the two articles presented by the OP are just quote-mining exercises with commentary. You then suggest that he needs to "get current" with his information regarding the antibodies discussed in the articles linked by the OP. And this is "playing nice"?


Science has an 'expiration date' ???
Really? just where did you get that from?

You said, quite clearly, that Astyanax needs to "get current" with his "outdated" information because his "'article'" is from 2001. The implication seems pretty clear.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Aim64c is saying stuff that doesn't make sense...and thing with eating spermicide is totally invalid.

Ok OP, well it might be hoax but I wouldn't be surprised if this was really researched.
I think the worst scandal is that they don't identify when GMO's are in food, it doesn't make sense.

It is part of our rights as humans to know this.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


ok so here are the relevent questions to be clear
quoting myself

steralization is only what we know of what else is "hidden" in the GMOs

is it possable "other" modifications have occcoured either intentional or unintentional to the genes of the corn crop?


if this does not spell out clearly
there is things "hidden" in your food in the genetics of the food you eat
the average person has no way to check to see what "extra" genes have been added and what they do


the average consumer would be unlikley to make an informed decition and would not have the required education or equipment to test to see what genes have acually been changed


i dont know about you but i wounder if this is the real reason GMO labeling has been stopped
is it not the right of all people to have children?
is this really in our food?
has anyone woundered why sperm counts have been dropping?

i dont know about you but i wounder if this is the real reason GMO labeling has been stopped
is it not the right of all people to have children?
is this really in our food?
has anyone woundered why sperm counts have been dropping?


question IS THIS REALLY IN OUR FOOD?
answer THE AVERAGE CONSUMER WOULDNT KNOW WHATS BEEN DONE TO THEIR FOOD
does that mean any creative genetisist could place anything in the genes and we as consumers would have no chance of ever knowing
like the people with BT in the blood
question what other "traits" have been added that we know nothing off?

why is labeling GMOs banned?
what makes labeling GMOs such a bad idea?


and are you ready to trust the same group who said that BT Toxin cannot "travel through the gut wall"
and now we find BT Toxin the blood stream of many people who didnt even know they were eating it


we were told numerious times that bt toxin could not make it into the blood stream as was the fear prior to this stuff entering the food supply
what else is being "transported" with the bt through the gut wall?


glycofosphate is entering water ways and streams and poisening frogs


this stuff is causing more damage than just frogs

quoting aim64c

How can you make that demand when you can't even begin to document the chemical reactions that occur within the cell? Let alone the entire life cycle of a plant, digestive and metabolic processes of humans, and factor in genetic diversity across the human species?

It's like asking me to prove that building a pond in my back yard will not cause any adverse weather changes over the next ten thousand years.


so if the systems are so complex why does the FDA say this stuff is eqivelent to normal corn and requires no testing? you clearly point out how complex the systems involved are, so why is this accepted as if it was "normal non GM corn?

the real question we should ask our selves is
"what could be in our food without us knowing"
could someone find a single gene and create a crop for setalization?

what other genes could be effected without us knowing?

would the members here have the ability to genotype and cross match GMO corn and prove there is nothing else "hidden" in the sequence?

would the average consumer?
could a single gene switch the corn to a "seceret" steralint?

would we ever know if they did?

i accept the controversal nature of the links i posted but i clearly asked the question

is this really in our food and how would we know what has been changed without a lab and technitions?

and lastly if this is really in our food would you eat it and trust the same people who said bt would not make it into the blood stream?

do you really know what your eating?

xploder



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


thank you for your well thought out responces
and clear information and links to sources
you have supplied high quality material to the thread and
because of the importance of the topic and your clearly logical arguments
i am going to star your post


if the people were to ever get hiold of the truth in these matters there would be a quick orderly transition of GMO crops back to natures real food, it may take years to clean up all the damage to soil, streams, wild life and humans.

it all starts with education

and you have educated me on this subject and i thank you as heartly as i can

it is a pleasure to read your material
and i hope this sensational headline will draw attension to the dangers of hidden genes
and all of the destruction that goes with this type of farming

i just hope people ask
what else can be hidden in these GMO crops?
and how would we know?

xploder



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Dear it doesn't matter anymore what Monspanto GMO will do they already did it their poisonous crap is not in the blood of the next generation born and to be born.

They already has poisoned the America and Canadian population children will be born sterile and with the ability to procreate and for those that are lucky enough by the third generation of their crap they will be anomalies on their genital organs.

Thanks monspanto and their greed they just decimate the human race within 100 years.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
hi im 24 with slight problems same as many as it turns out my sperm turned to jelly hard to ejaculate looks vile many other have this just a quick search in google jelly sperm comes up with alot of results maybe this is why and have not found an answer as to why yet either -_-.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


im in favour of some gmo, and even i think this is going to far



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
At this point there have been many studies done on animals showing the damaging effects of various GMO foods.

One time when it became public was in 2001 when dozens of farmers used GMO corn as feed which resulted in infertile hogs.





Whether it's used on humans or not; it can prevent babies from being born.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The last studies done on GMO from Canada shows that unborn babies are already infected with the pesticides used on the seeds.

These children will be born with their DNA already tampered by the insecticides in the blood.

Once this is in the DNA is not going go anywhere and the children will be affected for life, transferring this mutating DNA into their offspring's.

The damage of GMO on humans are not to be felt in our generation but on the generations to come.
edit on 31-5-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Funny thing about "rights". We like to believe that we have rights, and are shocked and outraged when someone tramples on them.

But when you talk "rights" on an international level, you have a wide swath of what people tend to view as their "rights". Me? I like to think of it like this: is it something that a human is designed to do, when living in the way we were created (our basic, cave dwelling self). If it is, then it is a right. Child bearing, freedom of movement, freedom to keep fruits of ones labors, etc.

But when you consider that someone can attempt to infringe on those rights, then you have something more muddled Now, to keep what is yours, you have to defend it. Much like a leopard, dragging its kill into a tree

So then, it becomes obvious that "rights" are something we give ourselves. We, as individuals, define what our rights are. You can claim you have a right to free beer, for example. But the next part is, defending that right.

This is where we, at least us Americans, fall flat. We are unwilling to defend our rights.

Regardless, if you feel that you have the right to have children, then by God have children. If someone disagrees with you, it is then your duty to defend your right. You must be willing to defend your own rights. If you aren't, then all the hyena's wanting your kill will end up taking it from you (by force if necessary).



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Maybe it is time for us to let some other life form have a go at it. We sure have made a mess of things. I have been checking out this site. www.vhemt.org...
You could not pay me to bring a baby into this messed up world.
edit on 5/31/2011 by fixer1967 because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


excuse you but your 'article' is from 2001 ... just a wee bit outdated wouldn't ya say?

More than a bit. Yet that is the article on which the Chicken Littles’ flap is based. It is they, not I, who are outdated.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Honor93
 


excuse you but your 'article' is from 2001 ... just a wee bit outdated wouldn't ya say?

More than a bit. Yet that is the article on which the Chicken Littles’ flap is based. It is they, not I, who are outdated.



i quoted you because you seem to think this is a chicken little situation and by acosiation
this is a non issiue

can you please cross check the genotypes of your local corn to dispell my fears
oh you cant huh?
well neither can i
neither can you
so how can you tell me
go back to sleep nothing to see here
when almost anything can be "accidentally" inserted

xploder



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

I am not in the least interested in dispelling your fears, XPLodER. That’s a job for someone who loves you, or at least a paid therapist.

The point, which has now clearly been made, is that the article you posted was a farrago of nonsense based on the author’s seemingly deliberate misunderstanding of a newspaper article – not even an article in a science magazine, far less a peer-reviewed journal! – that appeared more than a decade ago.

A load of old tripe, in fact. You admit as much by going off at a tangent about GMO food labelling instead of sticking to the point. Why are you doing that? Because you know there is no point.

*


reply to post by iterationzero
 

Thanks for getting my back, iterationzero. Poor Honor93!



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join