Voters And FBI Put On Alert: Massive Deceptions Found In The No On 37 Campaign

page: 2
52
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   


Just to clarify, no adverse health effects have been officially noted as of yet, regardless of some recent press releases have stated.


The above quoted statement is not true.
The work of Dr, arpad pushtai showed with no equivocations that the GMO potato he was testing caused severe and lasting damage to the rats he was testing.

And officialdom is doing everything it can to maintain the Lie that "GMO's are SAFE".

How do you expect to be able to make a decision based on safety, as to whether or not you eat them, when, The main GMO producers refuse to allow their products to be used in independent clinical trials.
They choose who gets to test their product, and are indifferent to how unbiased the researchers are to the results, they still continue to skew evidence by steering results through crony investigations that have until now not been fair, unbiased tests.

Dr Arpad pushtai showed damage to the endocrine system and stomachs of his test subjects in less than ten days, Based on this finding alone, by an independent non partisan professional at the top of his profession who was working for the GMO industry at the time, shows that further non biased, non partisan research needs to take place as a matter of urgency.
That kind of research is still waiting to be done, the seeds and resulting products are denied researchers such as Dr pushtai, it seems free independent research is something the politicians and GMO industry do not want to see happen.

The resulting gag order and dismissal from the Rowett institute at which he was working, resulting from a call from the Prime ministers office (Tony Bliar) shows in no uncertain terms, there is no political appetite for "Bad Press" where GMO's are concerned.

Both sides of the GMO argument have at times used unfair tactics, it seems one side is doing it out of financial and political reasons, the other, out of desperation to want to see the truth.
Those of us in the middle consuming this poisonous product are left without fair results from which to educate ourselves as to the truth.
If the companies did not want this to be the case, that we are denied access to the truth, people like dr pushtai would be allowed to do the research and bring the findings directly into the open.

Dr pushtai is eminently qualified, and exercises eminent domain when producing results from his fields of, Molecular Biology, Biology, Nutrition, in respect to GMO's, In 1999 he was the go to person, at the top of his profession, this is why he was asked to do the research, He believes because he was seen as "Pro" GMO at the time, that he would have found ways to hide negative results, and present a favourable study.

He is a man of integrity, and has shown this by presenting the facts of his study and the resulting destruction of his professional working life, is not something he expected to happen.





posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


The thing that gets me about this is where is their argument? Why do they have a problem with people being aware of it and being able to make up their own minds.

The people demanding this information be added just need to push with one argument "why are they so scared to be open and honest?"

If I were uneducated about the whole issue of GM that alone would make me vote yes on labelling. What the hell do they have to lose through having to tell people exactly what is in these products?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 

I at no time claimed that they were not bad for you, but your OP made it seem like it is proven fact.

I realize there was a French study that had some results, but it has been met with some criticisms.

Claiming things as fact until there is a significant consensus helps no one and just confuses the matter.

Needless to say, if a piece of GMO food was placed before me, I would probably push it away

edit on 7-11-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)


I understand your points on this, I too have seen the arguments about the validity of the results and the research itself.

However, who am I more inclined to trust, the massive corporations that have done everything in their power to affect law, confuse the public, blatantly lie and continue to spend massive amounts of money on suppressing the truth or any form of debate, or a group of scientists who actually have far fewer interests themselves in falsifying information?

Yeah, every single time my money is going to be on those without a vested interest in lying to people.

However I look at the conflicting arguments, I will always come back to the same opinion that we cannot and must not trust corporations who have a sole intention of controlling food supplies and making massive profits in the process. We know what these people are capable of in every other industry, and the idea that we should just allow them to play with what we consume for their own greed is insane to me.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by The X
 


The proof is in the potato...or pudding


This is becoming less about food & more about freedom~

∞LOVE
mayallsoulsbefree∞



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by The X
 


You must have conveniently missed my second post where I state:


As I mentioned in my previous post, I am in no way a supporter of GMO foods..My point was that no significant statistical data has been presented in a peer reviewed journal stating the adverse health effects of these modified food products.


Please present me with the Journal where GMO foods have been officially deemed unsafe for human consumption and I will gracefully retract my comments.

Anyone can spit out a summary of a study, but a single instance of negative occurrences related to the consumption does not make it scientific fact. I merely wanted to reinforce that a much larger and broader scientific consensus is required to “Officially” deem these food as hazardous.

All you are doing is fear mongering predicated on insufficient evidence.

To conclude, as I have reiterated several times already, I am in no way in favor of GMO foods, I just want to emphasize the need for caution when making claims that are yet to be proven fact.

So, as previously stated please provide me with the peer reviewed Journal stating “GMO FOODS ARE HAZARDOUS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTIONS”. Please and Thank you.

Edit: Here is a peer reviewed journal, similar to how you posted your video.


Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods
Results of a search of the PubMed database for publications on feeding studies for GM crops.

By Dr. Christopher Preston,
Senior Lecturer in Weed Management,
University of Adelaide;
christopher.preston@adelaide.edu.au



Methods

The search strategy I used included the search terms (genetically and modified and food) coupled with crop species with known genetic modifications, including maize, soybean, canola, cotton, potatoes, tomatoes and peas. Searches also included the word transgenic instead of genetically and modified. A large number of hits were obtained by this search strategy, with most having little or nothing to do with GM food tests.

I collected papers that had:

1. An abstract in PubMed;

2. Were a research publication, not a review or commentary

3. Reported a feeding study involving food or food products from GM crops (not purified proteins from other sources such as bacteria or other GM products) in the abstract;

4. Test subjects were mammals, birds or fish; and 5. Reported at least one measure of comparison with non-GM food.



Conclusions

There are at least 42 publications extractable from the PubMed database that describe research reports of feeding studies of GM feed or food products derived from GM crops. The overwhelming majority of publications report that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test animals. The two studies reporting negative results were published in 1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published. Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species.

Link
Just because i can post this article does not mean it is true, regardless of the credibility of the author or the sources used. I use this as an example because it is easy to throw out random points in an attempt to garner support.


In relation to the OP, I am in full support of tagging these products as i believe it is a persons right to know where their food is coming from and the possible, if any, health risks associated with that product.

Further, i do not doubt Dr Arpad pushtai intentions or quality of research, nor do i deny the possibility of an elaborate cover-up. For me personally, I require more evidence that GM foods are actually hazardous before i join the band wagon. I will be the first to admit that not enough study is being conducted on these GM foods and the possible consequences if integrating them more into our diets. I will end this point by saying more research on both sides of the fence needs to be conducted. There are legitimate researchers, like the one you have linked, out there that will validate Dr Pushtai's findings....I hope.

Hope this helps you
God speed, from one arm chair expert to another
edit on 8-11-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Could not agree with you more. Thank you for seeing my point.

I just would like some discretion, as i would expect on any scientific progress, on this type of investigation. People are very quick to point the finger when something is seen as "unnatural".

People need to take this “chill pill “ I have developed. No scientific merit behind it though



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
On behalf of Californians, I apologize for being a stupid state and buying into the lies paid for by all $45 MILLION donated by big food and big agra.

I didn't buy the lies but a crap load of my fellow statesmen did. Whats sad is that even my friends who have no idea about GMOs and actually don't even give a crap about healthy eating have heard my pleas, they STILL decided to buy into the B.S. advertisements and thought they were educated enough to reject prop 37.


Pathetic...
edit on 7-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


i'm with you...living in california, i didn't believe that people would actually fall for those lame commercials, that had farmers practically saying they would go bankrupt if they had to tell you what was in the food you eat.
but i live in a a voting district that had a 25 year old, that had a rich father and never work a regular job in his life, who just got out of college in june 12' that is neck to neck in votes to be a US congressmen. so..i too... am embarrassed about my fellow californians. dumb and stupid, do not respect state boundaries
edit on 8-11-2012 by jimmyx because: addition



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I do not believe for one second that Prop 37 did not legitimately pass. Think about it, Monsatan and other GMO using/producing corporations put $45 MILLION to defeat one bill from one state. That should make you wonder. California is the most liberal state in the country. They have more vegetarian cafes, vegetarian grocers, raw food stores, organic food everywhere, yet, a bill to label GMO's didn't pass in Cali? BS, pure BS. I hope to god the scumbags at Monsanto and anyone responsible for corruption and fraud be brought to justice. This crap has got to stop.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
If they wont do it, we should do it ourselves. Print out some labels and get to work people.

Label It Yourself






posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


I suggest that you read this...

www.soilassociation.org...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ciscoagent
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


I suggest that you read this...

www.soilassociation.org...


Read it. THough compelling and well put together;

1. That is not a peer reviewed journal
2. Biased researchers on behalf of this "Organic Movement", from her other work, she is a big business activist.

Let me reiterate...again. I am not trying to disprove the theory that GM foods are bad. But as of yet, there has been no solid scientific foundation that claims "GM FOODS ARE HAZARDOUS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION".

Why is that point being missed over and over again.

I agree that there is substantial anecdotal evidence supporting the claim and as I have mentioned numerous times, more research is required.

People are derailing this thread trying to argue me on this simple point.

GM food should be labeled and people need to be aware that we don’t have all the information. Nuff said….



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


The thing that gets me about this is where is their argument? Why do they have a problem with people being aware of it and being able to make up their own minds.



They do not want o compete with non GMO foods. That is the only reason! They want to monopolize the entire seed to table industry etc... It is so very un American I for one am amazed that people are not rioting!
edit on 8-11-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


I apologize, I do not have time to watch the video now, but I will at some point.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am in no way a supporter of GMO foods..My point was that no significant statistical data has been presented in a peer reviewed journal stating the adverse health effects of these modified food products.

I at no time claimed that they were not bad for you, but your OP made it seem like it is proven fact.

I realize there was a French study that had some results, but it has been met with some criticisms.

Claiming things as fact until there is a significant consensus helps no one and just confuses the matter.

Needless to say, if a piece of GMO food was placed before me, I would probably push it away

edit on 7-11-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)


Thats like saying that car accidents dont kill people. they die because their heart stopped, yes their head was squashed and they where smashed into pieces, but it wasnt the crash that killed them if their hearts had kept beating they would have been alive still.

so yes GMO foods give you a lower standard of health or living, they dont kill you, they just lead to your death from a myriad of other sources.
edit on 8-11-2012 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AmenStop
 


Wow that was not my point at all.

I will not debate this anymore with people who are unable to comprehend my point.


Stay on topic about the labelling issue of GM products please. Its about stickers on food..shiny stickers



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


The thing that gets me about this is where is their argument? Why do they have a problem with people being aware of it and being able to make up their own minds.

The people demanding this information be added just need to push with one argument "why are they so scared to be open and honest?"

If I were uneducated about the whole issue of GM that alone would make me vote yes on labelling. What the hell do they have to lose through having to tell people exactly what is in these products?


My thoughts exactly. If what they said is true that GMO foods are not harmful to us, then why not let people see the label on food products? Surely they would have nothing to hide according to "their" research so why suppress the GMO labeling? They know what's at stake once the populace becomes aware of the junk that gets put in their food.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
edit on 8-11-2012 by Staroth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Staroth
 


If more people saw this video and asked more questions as to why we let scum introduce cancer causing chemicals in crops then that would solve a lot of our food problems there, but they don't. People continue to stuff their faces and while Monsanto gets fat off the profits rather than in the waistline. There's always next time.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


I apologize, I do not have time to watch the video now, but I will at some point.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am in no way a supporter of GMO foods..My point was that no significant statistical data has been presented in a peer reviewed journal stating the adverse health effects of these modified food products.

I at no time claimed that they were not bad for you, but your OP made it seem like it is proven fact.

I realize there was a French study that had some results, but it has been met with some criticisms.

Claiming things as fact until there is a significant consensus helps no one and just confuses the matter.

Needless to say, if a piece of GMO food was placed before me, I would probably push it away

edit on 7-11-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)


No significant consensus? But you have to realize that there will never be a significant consensus because the people that know won't tell you, and they'll discredit anyone with proof who does.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayson

Originally posted by Kali74
There is not one single reason that GMO products should not be labeled as such. The original reasoning (I forget who) was that the people are too dumb and it will scare people off buying any product with the label. Give me a break. A true conspiracy if ever there was one.


I agree with the original reasoning especially if it helps civilization as a whole by making it easier to grow cheaper more plentiful and more nutritious crops.

I wouldn't be happy if eating them gave me cancer 50 years down the line, but I would take that if the alternative was starvation tomorrow.

I swear I remember reading something years ago about irradiating foods to make them last a long time. How you could cut down on loss due to spoilage and increase food yields and profits that way, but the companies were being required to label the foods as being irradiated and it scared uninformed people away from buying them because of their fear of the word "radiation".

It feels wrong to say this, but maybe people should be kept in the dark sometimes for the good of everyone? Especially if them not knowing won't hurt them. I mean, you might like a dish served somewhere. You'd probably be happier not knowing if it were made of bugs or something equally as gross. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
edit on 7-11-2012 by Mayson because: (no reason given)


Absolute crap about feeding the world. Many GMO crops yield LESS, require twice the water, produce super weeds - they AIN'T feeding the world or solving starvation. That is such a joke.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Could not agree with you more. Thank you for seeing my point.

I just would like some discretion, as i would expect on any scientific progress, on this type of investigation. People are very quick to point the finger when something is seen as "unnatural".

People need to take this “chill pill “ I have developed. No scientific merit behind it though



Ah yes there is hard evidence and it happens to be the first real long term study by scientist who have no financial ties to Monsanto


The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...


it is peer reviewed and all the bought and paid for scientific critiques and smears of that study have been debunked there is a thread on it here: www.abovetopsecret.com... With more links corroborating it.

Here is another
www.i-sis.org.uk...

edit on 8-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
52
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join