Expert panel rejects French study linking GM corn to cancer

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Forum Moderator

You state, and I quote "The tobacco lobby also fought real hard to pretend like cigarettes didn't cause cancer."

Please provide your proof that cigarettes cause cancer.

As far as I know - there is NO proof that cigarettes cause cancer as the biological pathway has not yet been identified. The only "proof" that cigarettes cause cancer to date is one of association - which proves correlation but not causation.

Am I mistaken?

Tired of Control Freaks


You are mistaken. I have studied this a lot because I quit smoking and switched to an electronic cigarette. The reason why smoking causes cancer is because the smoke itself is loaded with carcinogens. This is a proven fact. Anytime you have combustibles for have carcinogens. In cigarettes, there are tons of chemicals that also convert to other carcinogens during the burning process. The causation is the putting of these carcinogens into the body. Electronic cigarettes do not have carcinogens in them and they do not create smoke.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


You are going to argue that tobacco products do not cause cancer directly? Do you think there is not sufficient scientific evidence which proves that carcinogens cause cancer?


A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer. This may be due to the ability to damage the genome or to the disruption of cellular metabolic processes. Several radioactive substances are considered carcinogens, but their carcinogenic activity is attributed to the radiation, for example gamma rays and alpha particles, which they emit. Common examples of carcinogens are inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins, and tobacco smoke. Although the public generally associates carcinogenicity with synthetic chemicals, it is equally likely to arise in both natural and synthetic substances.[1]


I won't argue a known scentific fact. We can argue about semantics, direct link, indirect link etc. The fact remains that carcinogens are known to produce cancers. Period.


The primary risks of tobacco usage include many forms of cancer, particularly lung cancer,[82] kidney cancer,[83] cancer of the larynx and head and neck, breast cancer,[84][85] bladder cancer,[86] cancer of the esophagus,[87] cancer of the pancreas[88] and stomach cancer.[89]


en.wikipedia.org...

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


You are going to argue that tobacco products do not cause cancer directly? Do you think there is not sufficient scientific evidence which proves that carcinogens cause cancer?


A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer. This may be due to the ability to damage the genome or to the disruption of cellular metabolic processes. Several radioactive substances are considered carcinogens, but their carcinogenic activity is attributed to the radiation, for example gamma rays and alpha particles, which they emit. Common examples of carcinogens are inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins, and tobacco smoke. Although the public generally associates carcinogenicity with synthetic chemicals, it is equally likely to arise in both natural and synthetic substances.[1]


I won't argue a known scentific fact. We can argue about semantics, direct link, indirect link etc. The fact remains that carcinogens are known to produce cancers. Period.


The primary risks of tobacco usage include many forms of cancer, particularly lung cancer,[82] kidney cancer,[83] cancer of the larynx and head and neck, breast cancer,[84][85] bladder cancer,[86] cancer of the esophagus,[87] cancer of the pancreas[88] and stomach cancer.[89]


en.wikipedia.org...

~Tenth


Yes - carcinogens are known to CAUSE cancer. Agreed. At what dosage Sir do the carcinogens in tobacco CAUSE cancer (or any carcinogen).

I would argue that carcinogens are endemic to the environment. Sunshine is a Class A carcinogen. The same classification given to tobacco smoke. The poison is in the dose.

Scientists have been searching for over 80 years for the carcinogen in tobacco smoke that CAUSES cancer. For awhile, nitrosomines were implicated. Then they were cleared. The Polonium 210 was implicated. And after research - cleared. They have been onto benzo (a) pyrene for a number of years. But research has yet to link benzo (a) pyrene to lung cancer.

The reason why none of these carcinogens have been implicated is because the dosage in tobacco smoke is simply too low to be the cause of cancers.

As for the cancers you mention and please do some research a little deeper than Wiki (which can be edited at will) - please do some research on HPV

www.oralcancerfoundation.org...

Smoking has been cleared as the cause of breast cancer for many many years now - but antismokers make sure that the myth lives on

abcnews.go.com...

It wasn't the tobacco lobbyiests that LIED - They told the truth. That according to epidimiology - smokers seemed to get more lung and oral cancers than never smokers. But epidimiology cannot be used to proved CAUSATION. And research has never found the biological pathway by which tobacco smoke CAUSES any cancer. That, my friend, is the simple truth.

It was anti-tobacco that lied when they used epidimiology to prove CAUSATION instead of CORRELATION.

For decades, we were told that smoking CAUSES cervical cancer. We now know that cervical cancer is 100 % caused by several different strains of the HPV virus. It took more than 2 decades to identify all the strains that caused cervical cancer.

We now know that cancer of the mouth and throat is caused in the majority by HPV but they are still looking for other strains.

Some studies have found HPV dna is 25 - 80 % of lung cancers.

Study and study has shown that smokers are more social than never-smokers and are also bigger risk-takers. More social, willing to take risks includes more contact with the opposite sex and likely more kissing and more sex.

The link was never between smoking and lung cancer - it was between increased sexual activity and increased risk of contracting the cancer-causing forms of the HPV virus!

Now if you have any scientific proof that smoking CAUSES any lung cancer - then please feel free to provide it.

In response, I will provide you with the court transcipt of a case called McTear vs Imperial Tobacco. Tthe case was tried by Justice Nimmo Smith

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

The case was tried in Scotland but the most interesting thing about this case is not the verdict. The testimoney is what is interesting. The fathers of the modern anti-tobacco movement - four of them - all testified that smoking CAUSES lung cancer and that Mr. McTear died because of smoking.

The tobacco company hired expert scientists who testified as to the true state of the matter. That regardless of epidimiological studies, the biological pathway by which tobacco smoke CAUSES cancer has yet to be identified.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
To Forum Moderator

Here is the evidence that HPV causes oral and throat cancers

www.oralcancerfoundation.org...

healthland.time.com...

I have also studied the actual scientific reports - its looks like scientists are closing in on this nasty little carcinogenic virus.

That is maybe one thing that we can thank anti-tobacco for. By reducing the rate of smoking in the population - it was revealed that more and more never-smokers are getting lung cancer. This kinda blows the whole smoking causes lung cancer theory doesn't it?

healthpolicy.stanford.edu...

Stop listening to every soundbite on the news and start doing your own research!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Not real sure about this.
If something has a bad rep,I try to back up and let it pay off on someone else and see.
Sometimes that is the only power that I have.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

Not sure what this has to do with GMO but...


it was revealed that more and more never-smokers are getting lung cancer.

Can you point out where any of your links state that? I can't seem to find it. The link you posted says this:

Although smoking remains the predominant cause of lung cancer, lung cancer in never smokers is an increasingly prominent public health issue. However, data on this topic, particularly lung cancer incidence rates in never smokers, are limited.


All it seems to say is that lung cancer in never smokers is becoming an increasing issue and more data about it is needed. It does not say that lung cancer rates among never smokers are increasing.

You are claiming that smoking protects against lung cancer? If that is the case, why is it that the rate for never smokers doesn't even approach the rate for smokers?

The age-adjusted occurrence rate of lung cancer in case of never smokers (within the 40 to 79 age bracket) varied between 11.2 and 13.7 for every 100,000 person-years for males and between 15.2 and 20.8 for every 100,000 person-years for females. These occurrence rates are similar to the occurrence rates of myeloma in males (13.2 per 100,000) or cervical cancer in females (15.4 per 100,000) in the United States. In comparison, the age-adjusted rates, relevant to the incidence of lung cancer amongst current smokers in the same cohorts were about 12 to 30 times higher.

www.lungcancer-prognosis.com...


This kinda blows the whole smoking causes lung cancer theory doesn't it?
Not really. If there really is an increase it indicates that there are likely to be other environmental factors involved. Radon, asbestos exposure, so on. The difference in cancer rates between smokers and never smokers sort of blows the "smoking protects you from lung cancer" theory out of the water.
edit on 10/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


The group behind this study, the Higher Biotech Council, i wonder who sits on it and who funds them ?

We don't know whether or not a study is valid until we know who paid for it, how independent is it ?


QV.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage

I stand corrected - the link I provided did not say that the incidence of lung cancer was rising, merely that it was worth studying!

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Sorry - I read an awful lot of things.

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

Tired of Control freaks



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage

That is an important question but I have to get to work - will get back to you this evening. Hint- what is the definition of a never-smoker and smoker?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 
Alternative is to smoke real tobacco (without the additives) possibly charcoal/water filtered hooka
I tried Electronic cigarette...quit for 9 months and now switched to Ultra Lights from Lights



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I posted a thread yesterday but nobody commented on it
The French need to grow few pairs to make it work


ATS_LINK



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage

In answer to your question, please read the definition of smoker

www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

Examine especially the definition of the word "never-smoker". That is someone who has never smoked more than 100 cigarettes during their whole life. That equals 4 packs of cigarettes.

So if you are 15 and you spend a summer experimenting with smoking with your friends, then decide its not for you.....if you get lung cancer 50 years later at the age of 65.....you will be asked if you ever smoked. So being an honest person, you mention that you tried it but didn't like it. You will be asked to estimate if you smoked mabye 25 cigarettes or was it 50 or could it have been 100. If you admit that "yeah, might have been 100" ....guess what - you have a smoking related lung cancer!

It doesn't matter what type of lung cancer you have. You ARE a smoker and your lung cancer is counted as smoking related.

(Just for laughs, I checked with my grandson who is 16. He experimented with smoking when he was 14 but doesn't smoke now. I asked him to estimate how many cigarettes he smoked. At first he said about 50 or 60 but with just a little prodding, I got him up to 150. Not very hard either). So - if my grandson ends up with lung cancer 50 years from now...its because he is a smoker)

Now you will also need to understand that lung cancer is a disease of age - it starts at about 60 years of age and peaks in the early 70s and declines in the 80s decade. Yes - lung cancer can occur at a younger age but really its a statistical anomaly. This fact sheet from the CDC will confirm what I have just stated.



So if you look at the fact that people get lung cancer at that age and the fact that most smokers start smoking in their teens - you have to compare the prevalence of smoking in the population 40 - 65 years ago. This was the time period when smoking was VERY prevalent. As a matter of fact, most men smoked - about 71 percent of them. Now woman didn't smoke as much, at least publicaly because it was frowned upon. And no woman would admit to smoking but in fact, many smoked privately...generally woman smokers probably comprised at least 50 % of the female population.

And of course, how many people can truthfully remember whether they smoked 50 or 75 or 100 cigarettes 50 or 60 years ago?

So if you are any good at math, we can say that "smokers" by the medical definition of that term comprised about 60 % of the population.

So - if you are counting, what we have to date is that about 80 % of lung cancer occur in about 60 % of the population!

And then the other statistical trick that is used is to count metastsized cancer as lung cancer. You see, cancer can move to the lungs from other sites, like breast cancer. But medically speaking, lung cancer is a separate disease. If you have breast cancer and it moves to the lung - the cancer in the lung is still classed as breast cancer - NOT lung cancer.

Unless, of course you are a smoke - then suddenly, you lump metastisized cancer as true lung cancer (and doesn't that just expand the incidence of lung cancer in smokers?

Now I am going to refer you to a fact sheet on lung cancer for non-smokers.

lungcancer.about.com...

I am also going to quote this fact sheet




Overall, 10-15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50% occur in former smokers.)



if you are counting - that means that 60 to 65 % of lung cancers occur in people who DON'T smoke (many of who quit decades ago - male smoking peaked in the 1960s, female smoking peaked in the 1970s).

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage

In answer to your question, please read the definition of smoker

www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

Examine especially the definition of the word "never-smoker". That is someone who has never smoked more than 100 cigarettes during their whole life. That equals 4 packs of cigarettes.

So if you are 15 and you spend a summer experimenting with smoking with your friends, then decide its not for you.....if you get lung cancer 50 years later at the age of 65.....you will be asked if you ever smoked. So being an honest person, you mention that you tried it but didn't like it. You will be asked to estimate if you smoked mabye 25 cigarettes or was it 50 or could it have been 100. If you admit that "yeah, might have been 100" ....guess what - you have a smoking related lung cancer!

It doesn't matter what type of lung cancer you have. You ARE a smoker and your lung cancer is counted as smoking related.

(Just for laughs, I checked with my grandson who is 16. He experimented with smoking when he was 14 but doesn't smoke now. I asked him to estimate how many cigarettes he smoked. At first he said about 50 or 60 but with just a little prodding, I got him up to 150. Not very hard either). So - if my grandson ends up with lung cancer 50 years from now...its because he is a smoker)

Now you will also need to understand that lung cancer is a disease of age - it starts at about 60 years of age and peaks in the early 70s and declines in the 80s decade. Yes - lung cancer can occur at a younger age but really its a statistical anomaly. This fact sheet from the CDC will confirm what I have just stated.



So if you look at the fact that people get lung cancer at that age and the fact that most smokers start smoking in their teens - you have to compare the prevalence of smoking in the population 40 - 65 years ago. This was the time period when smoking was VERY prevalent. As a matter of fact, most men smoked - about 71 percent of them. Now woman didn't smoke as much, at least publicaly because it was frowned upon. And no woman would admit to smoking but in fact, many smoked privately...generally woman smokers probably comprised at least 50 % of the female population.

And of course, how many people can truthfully remember whether they smoked 50 or 75 or 100 cigarettes 50 or 60 years ago?

So if you are any good at math, we can say that "smokers" by the medical definition of that term comprised about 60 % of the population.

So - if you are counting, what we have to date is that about 80 % of lung cancer occur in about 60 % of the population!

And then the other statistical trick that is used is to count metastsized cancer as lung cancer. You see, cancer can move to the lungs from other sites, like breast cancer. But medically speaking, lung cancer is a separate disease. If you have breast cancer and it moves to the lung - the cancer in the lung is still classed as breast cancer - NOT lung cancer.

Unless, of course you are a smoke - then suddenly, you lump metastisized cancer as true lung cancer (and doesn't that just expand the incidence of lung cancer in smokers?

Now I am going to refer you to a fact sheet on lung cancer for non-smokers.

lungcancer.about.com...

I am also going to quote this fact sheet




Overall, 10-15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50% occur in former smokers.)



if you are counting - that means that 60 to 65 % of lung cancers occur in people who DON'T smoke (many of who quit decades ago - male smoking peaked in the 1960s, female smoking peaked in the 1970s).

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Well for one reason, it's very difficult to ensure that any particular product doesn't have GMO components in it since the source of the product ingredients isn't always easy to track. Corn and soy come from a wide variety of sources. The sign posted in the single canteen did not say there were no GMO products, it said this:

"as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."

www.cbc.ca...


I don't think it would be difficult at all. Right now it seems the majority of farmers use GMO and if their GMO product gets mixed in with non GMO then the new combination will be labeled GMO. It's pretty simple. Monsanto is probably fighting against the labeling because it's may comes off as a negative connotation.

Apparently Poland has banned GMO because it's killing honey bees, www.google.com... The pesticide the GMO corn makes is apparently killing the little guys. America is big on growing and selling corn.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
www.naturalnews.com...

I bet Monsanto had a hand in having these people dissmissed


Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.


So getting an expert panel together to dismiss the findings would have been a walk in the park



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
And the final nail in the coffin (probably wishful thinking....) - EU rejects report linking GMO to cancer in rats


The EU's food safety agency definitively rejected Wednesday a bombshell French report linking genetically modified corn to cancer, saying it failed to meet "acceptable scientific standards."

"Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Seralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards," the European Food Safety Authority said in a statement. "Consequently it is not possible to draw valid conclusions about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested," the agency said.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I am only going to speak from experience here.
We bought a hundred pounds of cheap scratch (GMO)
for the chickens.
Normally we would have gone through 50 pounds by now,
the chickens are turning their nose up to it,
and so are the mice/rats and the wild birds and the squirrels.
Less then 20 pounds of it have been consumed or stolen so far.
I have to admit that they don't want it,
and go back to organic scratch for them.
Look at all the links you want,
does anyone else here have similar story's,
of animals and the use of GMO's?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I think I will run my own experiment,
we have a bee hive in the wall at the guest house.
I am going to grind some of the scratch with a stone,
mix it with a GMO corn syrup that they sell us at the store,
and feed that to the bee hive that I need to get rid of.

I also have thousands of bees that come in for water everyday,
I could also grind some scratch and just add that to the water I give them.

If the scientists are correct no bees should be harmed.
edit on 28-11-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
I am only going to speak from experience here.
We bought a hundred pounds of cheap scratch (GMO)
for the chickens.
Normally we would have gone through 50 pounds by now,
the chickens are turning their nose up to it,
and so are the mice/rats and the wild birds and the squirrels.
Less then 20 pounds of it have been consumed or stolen so far.
I have to admit that they don't want it,
and go back to organic scratch for them.
Look at all the links you want,
does anyone else here have similar story's,
of animals and the use of GMO's?



It couldn't possibly be because you changed their diet and they have a preference for what they had before??

I know that used to happen a lot when we kept chickens.

I guess at least they duidn't get cancer!!


but seriously - linking everything to GMO on this kind of hearsay is what gives conspiracies a bad name!





top topics
 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join