Look who's squealing now: GMO lovers freak over new study of sick pigs

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by markosity1973

 

The biggest problem with GMO foods is that we simply don't know either way whether they cause harm or not.

Can you explain why there is any reason to think that GMO foods might cause harm?

Should be ATS 101 at this point...

"I know how all these animals getting fed gmo diets get sick!....the research scientists are putting poison in the food, yes yes...poison!"

I get such a Fox News vibe.

Lol I suggest you go to Monsantos facebook page, go through the comments until you find a Ben or Nancy. These people are disinfo agents who regular the comments spreading lies and discrediting any studies showing danger of gmos.

reply to post by otie1


I dunno.

maybe Ben and Nancy are, like me, sick to death of the rampant stupidity of the anti-gmo crowd?

I have yet to see even one single watertight and repeatable experiment showing the horrors. believe me, I look. but not only are the arguments neither watertight nor repeatable, they typically have logic gaps so wide you could drive a truck through.

but, what makes it even sadder, is that there are real genuine arguments to be made against this technology. why is this argument so heavily steeped in propaganda? if you are one of those whom are foaming at the mouth on this issue, then I unequivocally assure you that you are part of a mass of lemmings.

tell me again: who are the sheeple? the shills?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by otie1

 

I dunno.

maybe Ben and Nancy are, like me, sick to death of the rampant stupidity of the anti-gmo crowd?

I have yet to see even one single watertight and repeatable experiment showing the horrors. believe me, I look. but not only are the arguments neither watertight nor repeatable, they typically have logic gaps so wide you could drive a truck through.

but, what makes it even sadder, is that there are real genuine arguments to be made against this technology. why is this argument so heavily steeped in propaganda? if you are one of those whom are foaming at the mouth on this issue, then I unequivocally assure you that you are part of a mass of lemmings.

tell me again: who are the sheeple? the shills?

Before you get stroppy with me and start treating me as a lemming too, let me tell you that i have been in the research industry for many years and know exactly what i am talking about and have seen what GMO products can do to the animal organism in comparison to non GMO products... Don't ask for facts or figures but maybe i can invite you to read the two articles below :

Maybe you did not follow the story back in September 2012 about the team of French scientists from the University of Caen who disclosed their study and who were immediately fired shortly afterwards? (Don't forget that most GMO research is funded by the industry and also that a lot of this research is carried out in privately owned contract research laboratories throughout the world!)

Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King’s College, London, and an expert on GM foods, said: ‘It shows an extraordinary number of tumours developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.’

The research was carried out by Caen University in France, and has been peer reviewed by independent scientists to guarantee the experiments were properly conducted and the results are valid :

www.dailymail.co.uk... ml

And this :

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.

www.naturalnews.com...

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Metallicus


I don't get why the government thinks it is ok to take away our right to know what is in our food. He DID talk about it when he was running for president. and it's not even like the intention is to make us healthier it is to make more money, so by default their argument is based on a profit motive. When profit is a higher priority than lives something is wrong with that. I don't get why anyone would argue to keep us uninformed, whether the stuff is perfectly fine or not. Let's look at the opposite situation: the gmo food actually cured cancer. Dontcha think they'd write it all over the label?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by otie1

 

I dunno.

that's obvious because you really haven't presented an argument.

Why shouldn't people be told whether or not there was gm used in making their food? You want such iron clad proof whether or not there are negative biological responses involved yet you are missing an important point. It doesn't have to friggin matter WHAT it does to you or the environment, you should still be able to choose what kind of food you put in your body. Why would you support ignorance of what you are eating? it's about at least being informed and able to freely choose what you eat. I guess then you actually did make an argument for not knowing. "I support not knowing" that's your argument?

reply to post by Phage
they weren't talking about different diets they were saying the feed they were given for their 5 month life cycle had combinations of gmos. They're saying the different cocktails haven't been studied until now. Why would you want to downplay any possible infractions to our food supply? Do you support gmo labeling?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


labeling food products seems perfectly reasonable to me. what does that have to do with science?

in fact, i recall saying something about "real, genuine arguments".

I guess your so "outraged" about this issue you can't see me for the reasonable guy I am.

but, if you think that "I dunno", you're dead wrong.


lemming.

reply to post by Phage


The evidence keeps coming but all you do is question it every time as if you are some kind of genius, a blind one at that. When it is eventually undeniable you will fade away. Or maybe you are ignorant enough to just keep arguing.

people really should read ALL the results :



nil / mild / moderate / severe - are subjective " analysis "

and t sure strikes me as pecular that the results show higer levels of mild / moderate inflamation in NON GM fed pigs

and esp that double the number of GM fed pigs had zero stomach inflaimations

colour , lividity and turgidity of tissue samples is greatly influenced by handling condition and storage

given that the "study"s track record on ` chain of evidence ` is already suspect - they lost a tissue sample

one has to wonder how they got thier results

reply to post by Rodinus


that was a very level headed response.

im glad you mentioned that first study. it is actually the very one i was thinking of when i used the word "repeatable" in my post. you are correct that the initial results of those nasty rat tumors were published in a peer-reviewed journal. but the results were withdrawn because the researcher made the worst possible mistake in all of science: he refused to make his experimental setup and his results and data public.

so, no one can make an independent analysis of his result, and no one can ever hope to refute it because no one will ever be able to reproduce the experiment. "reproducing the experiment" is not some dirty trick that TPTB use to quash the opposition ....it is fundamental to the scientific process.

he knew what he was doing by refusing to release the material. as good as an outright admission to fraud.

The authors of Séralini et al. provided a limited amount of relevant additional information in their answer to critics published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

european food safety authority


but, going back to my initial point: people have become so blinded by their "outrage" that this rat tumor research is still regularly cited as a primary source. it is a combination of confirmation bias coupled with a lack of understanding of the scientific method and biotechnology.

I'll take a look at the second article tomorrow...


thanks.

reply to post by tgidkp


all you did was criticize people you didn't say anything regarding anything.

Originally posted by Bilky
reply to post by Phage

 

The evidence keeps coming but all you do is question it every time as if you are some kind of genius, a blind one at that. When it is eventually undeniable you will fade away. Or maybe you are ignorant enough to just keep arguing.

although you will definitely get flagged for being off topic you make a great point. And it doesn't have to be specifically to this one person, it is the MO of the pro gmo side.

they would like to nit pick any detail they can try to get a foothold on and then just wind up twisting nuances of non-issues. it's annoying and very apparent.

This is my biggest problem with GMO foods;

Another health concern related to GMOs rests on the possibility that genes might be transferred elsewhere. The nightmare scenario would be an antibiotic-resistance gene getting inadvertently passed to pathogenic bacteria in a person’s stomach. Much of the work that's been done indicates that the rate of horizontal gene transfer from plants to animals and bacteria is probably very low. But, admittedly, there's a real gap in our understanding of how genes may or may not be transferred from GM crops -- or other crops, for that matter -- into the cells of the gut and the bacteria that live in the digestive tract.

Source

The article goes on to contradict itself by then saying that there have been studies done that show genes cannot pass through our digestive tract.

But then thisarticle claims that research that has absolutely nothing to do with GMO foods shows that we might absorb RNA from our foods.

Chinese researchers have found small pieces of rice ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice. The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will bind to receptors in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood. The type of RNA in question is called microRNA (abbreviated to miRNA) due to its small size. MiRNAs have been studied extensively since their discovery ten years ago, and have been implicated as players in several human diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. They usually function by turning down or shutting down certain genes. The Chinese research provides the first in vivo example of ingested plant miRNA surviving digestion and influencing human cell function in this way.

I think the govt should just make growers and food sellers be open and honest and label GMO foods so we can decide for ourselves if we want to eat it. If one wants to eat it, that's fine by me, but personally I would prefer to avoid it.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


ironically, I just responded quite at length to someone who had the ability to be thoughtful and courteous. you'll note that this person was not you.

and, sadly, yours represents the majority mindset in the GMO discussion. as a result, I have learned that it is rarely worth my time to share actual useful information. as is typical of the "lowest common denominator" in our society, arguing from emotion and propaganda are far more favored than actual useful information.


I am actually quite serious about this subject. its not some trashy article in a tabloid.

reply to post by markosity1973


horizontal gene transfer is fairly common. the human genome is chock-full of LINE elements and others which did not originate in primates. the problem is that, considering the mechanisms of genomic housekeeping and transcription, the probability of a viable (let alone toxic) transcriptional product is practically unthinkable.

but what you've said here hints at, IMO, one of the few legitimate biological concerns that shoud really be looked at. the focus of molecular biology for decades has been transcription products (proteins). but the fringes of the science have been discovering the profound effect of nucleotide oligomers as transcription factors (epigenetics).

it seems plausible to me that foreign nonsense non-coding sequences of DNA or RNA diffusing through the body (after miraculously remaining intact through the gut) could cause disruptions in genetic regulation as transcription factors. its a long shot, but its worth considering.

reply to post by tgidkp

emotion? I asked simple questions and, employing that typical shill tactic, you chose to avoid the point. You criticized anti-gmo people without presenting any kind of point or argument other than "i dunno".

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by markosity1973

 

horizontal gene transfer is fairly common. the human genome is chock-full of LINE elements and others which did not originate in primates. the problem is that, considering the mechanisms of genomic housekeeping and transcription, the probability of a viable (let alone toxic) transcriptional product is practically unthinkable.

but what you've said here hints at, IMO, one of the few legitimate biological concerns that shoud really be looked at. the focus of molecular biology for decades has been transcription products (proteins). but the fringes of the science have been discovering the profound effect of nucleotide oligomers as transcription factors (epigenetics).

it seems plausible to me that foreign nonsense non-coding sequences of DNA or RNA diffusing through the body (after miraculously remaining intact through the gut) could cause disruptions in genetic regulation as transcription factors. its a long shot, but its worth considering.

Thanks for those insights. Can you please break that down for the average person to understand?

Also, do you believe long term full spectrum ecological studies have been done to prove that transgenic organisms are safe for human consumption and are safe in real world habitats?

I noticed you used the term "gut" in terms of these transgenic plants. This is where they're absorbed and the cause of concern is?

What is your thoughts on this?

IJSAF - The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise

I'm starting to research this more, albeit layman-like and am trying to form my own consensus on this subject.. however biased I am =) You seem educated on this topic, what are your thoughts?

Originally posted by tgidkp


ironically, I just responded quite at length to someone who had the ability to be thoughtful and courteous. you'll note that this person was not you.

you expect "thoughtful" and "courteous" after you write stuff like this:

"sick to death of the rampant stupidity of the anti-gmo crowd?"

"they typically have logic gaps so wide you could drive a truck through"

" why is this argument so heavily steeped in propaganda?"

"if you are one of those whom are foaming at the mouth on this issue, then I unequivocally assure you that you are part of a mass of lemmings.

tell me again: who are the sheeple? the shills?"

and then you try to pull some moral high ground on me? what a joke, you're as transparent as they come.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Philippines

 

Stomach inflammation? No more detail than that? I take it we are actually talking about the organ, the stomach? Surely there must be some reason for the inflammation which can be tested for by running a metric ton of blood examinations, and testing chunks of the stomach, lining, and all exits and entries in and out of the stomach too? There must be more to whats happening to these pigs which would explain the inflammation.

It is unacceptable that more has not been done to find out what precise medical cause the inflammation has.

Roundup explodes the stomachs of bugs. Eating food made with roundup or that contains some of it in its genetic makeup might not explode a pig's stomach but irritate it.