Originally posted by manicminxx
I can't say it enough to anyone who reads these threads, along with corn and soy, canola is always GMO. This doesn't get enough attention ANYWHERE.
Canola is the cheapest and most widely used oil in the post-trans-fat revolution.
ANY restaurant you visit will serve canola. Any deli. Any business that serves food.
If you ever see the words "healthy oils" or "no trans fats" on a restaurant menu, run like hell or ask for olive oil. It means a big box of canola is lurking somewhere in the kitchen...
Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
reply to post by burntheships
im sure there are plenty of complex "secret" things mixed in, then 15-25 years from now we find out you cant survive without eating one of their products
This means the viral genes are working, they have disabled the host.
Its tragic, I guess this means soft kill. They dont kill us outright, just slowly.
Originally posted by Dustytoad
I'm thinking Bio Diesel/ethanol is making a lot more sense right about now.. Let's burn the corn..
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I'd have to learn more about this -- but this virus might not be "hidden" so much as PART OF the genetic transcoding process. Instead of injecting a command to "reproduce more of the virus" the virus injects the new DNA sequence.
The process that appears to be going on here is that the OP article has falsely claimed that there is a new viral gene "discovered", whereas in fact that gene has been known about for years.
In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012)
But a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last month threatens to cripple this site. The Research Works Act would forbid the N.I.H. to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece. In other words, taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results.
Science Is Little More Than A Business
The most distressing aspect of this study is that it's not unusual. The same sort of thing happens in any arena where there's money to be made. This particular instance is exceptionally sloppy—but far from unique. Big Tobacco became infamous for it. They bought the research they liked, covered up what they didn't like, and purchased doctors who praised their products.
Big Pharma has been paying for drug research with obvious and disastrous results. Thousands, perhaps millions, have died and are dying because of flawed paid-for research. Rather than directly paying for a study, they give money to a school's department or foundation, as in this article's example. They provide the majority of so-called post-graduate education. The entire business of science has become little more than that—a business in which money speaks and coerces.
Following the money trail is becoming more and more difficult as the industry grows more and more clever. They've been caught ghost writing the reports officially written by the so-called researchers. Studies that purportedly claim to prove no connection between autism and mercury systematically eliminate results that would prove the case.
Close examination of many of pseudo-science studies shows that either information is missing or the results do not support the conclusions. Yet, the lick spittle media simply takes the Big Pharma-written press releases and publishes them as news.
Funding for science has changed with the times. Historically, science has been largely supported through private patronage (the backing of a prominent person or family), church sponsorship, or simply paying for the research yourself. Galileo's work in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, was supported mainly by wealthy individuals, including the Pope. Darwin's Beagle voyage in the 19th century was, on the other hand, funded by the British government — the vessel was testing clocks and drawing maps for the navy — and his family's private assets financed the rest of his scientific work. Today, researchers are likely to be funded by a mix of grants from various government agencies, institutions, and foundations. For example, a 2007 study of the movement of carbon in the ocean was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Australian Cooperative Research Centre, and the Australian Antarctic Division.1 Other research is funded by private companies — such as the pharmaceutical company that financed a recent study comparing different drugs administered after heart failure.2 Such corporate sponsorship is widespread in some fields. Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies.3 And, of course, some researchers today still fund small-scale studies out of their own pockets. Most of us can't afford to do cyclotron research as a private hobby, but birdwatchers, scuba divers, rockhounds, and others can do real research on a limited budget.
As far as gmo's, I still think it is a crime for the US to at not provide labeling and we can thank the lobbyists for this. Is a label really asking too much? Hell it's our money that keeps these industries thriving
"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994