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.

 

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

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
A very poorly designed experiment. Let's feed pigs diets from different sources and see what happens. Maybe we can find something.

Animals fed different diets showed different characteristics. Not too surprising really. Were the differences due to the GMO component? No way to tell from the way the experiment was conducted. Apparently there was no actual analysis of the diets. Just an assumption on the part of the experimenters:

there should be no phenotypical variation between the GM and non-GM varieties used in this study that could influence the outcomes measured in this study.
gmojudycarman.org...
An odd statement since there are a number of factors other than genetics involved in phenotypical characteristics in crops. For example, it is known that hormone levels in soybean crops can vary (unrelated to the GMO factor).

Soy research is complicated because there’s considerable variation in isoflavone exposure among people classified as soy consumers. Agronomic factors (such as the soybean cultivar and the environmental conditions under which the crop grew) affect a food’s isoflavone profile, as does the way a soy food is processed.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


An interesting "Conflict of Interest Statement" in the report too.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

That's a pretty odd thing to see in a scientific article. Pre-emptive denial?
But right after that it says funding came from Verity Farms. Verity Farms is quite openly anti-GMO,


I see no indication that normal variation was accounted for in the statistical analysis but I do see that the non-GMO fed animals had more stomach inflammation overall than the GMO fed animals.

edit on 6/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


LOL. No amount of evidence is ever going to be good enough for you. "No correlation" ad infinitude - "there could be other reasons" up the wazoo. Yeah sure, different diets will have different affects. And in THIS case, inflamed stomach was the difference - and I see that as a bad thing. And again, Monsanto conducting their own studies and the FDA rubber stamping them doesn't exactly avoid conflict of interest.




posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

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?


You're kidding, right? A food that contains its own pesticide is not the slightest reason to be concerned? One of Monsanto's own scientists in the early days was fired because he kept complaining they needed to do more tests mainly because his contention was that altering proteins genetically could easily have unknown consequences and could possibly act in a mad cow way and incubate for 20 years. Those two right there = good enough for me.

Others: complete loss of biodiversity. A couple of varieties of GMO corn compared to hundreds of traditional ones.

Another: whether you think all your deconstructions of every study with bad results for GMOs are true and 100% valid or not, these studies exist, many of them, and um, they point to the idea that they might be a bad thing.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


Hi there..

Just wanted to say that there was a thread put up about this on the 11th.. And you even posted a few times in it. Just wondering why it was posted again...



www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by fluff007
 


You're right, this thread should be closed and redirected =)

I'll still pursue this subject matter anyways =D



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


Oh yes it has to be pursued.. Whether in this thread or the other I do not think it matters that much...

I think you can have two of the same threads but in different forums. I am not 100% sure about that though...



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thebtheb
 

and none of the gm science has anything to do with ultimately making us healthier. it's all about their bottom line so why should we trust them?

I wonder about these morons who argue for gmos as if, since there might be issues with the protocols, there couldn't possibly be anything to worry about. Like we're all chicken littles whining about nothing. Yeah right, tampering with the food chain is nothing to worry about. God these people are annoying



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

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?


It's funny when smart people say really dumb things.

Here's your answer Phage



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


S&F But of course, I'm one of those people who is convinced TPTB are poisoning us on purpose.

Soft kill towards "The Culling."



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1

I get such a Fox News vibe.




Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, Obuma supporter.

Fox News exists to give the illusion dissent is allowed in the US.

The Elite own all of the MSM.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AuranVector
reply to post by Philippines
 


S&F But of course, I'm one of those people who is convinced TPTB are poisoning us on purpose.

Soft kill towards "The Culling."


Perhaps this is true. How do you prepare for long term effects of this possibility?

Where does your water come from?

I'm a very skeptical person =D



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by AuranVector
reply to post by Philippines
 


S&F But of course, I'm one of those people who is convinced TPTB are poisoning us on purpose.

Soft kill towards "The Culling."


Perhaps this is true. How do you prepare for long term effects of this possibility?

Where does your water come from?

I'm a very skeptical person =D


If you’re new to the world of conspiracies, I would recommend you read “How The World Really Works” by Alan B. Jones for a quick overview of the basic conspiracies:

www.amazon.com...

There’s also the classic Jim Marrs book, “Rule by Secrecy.”

www.amazon.com...


I also consider “Rise of the Fourth Reich” to especially important in showing the links between TPTB, the Bilderberger Nazis, IG Farben, and Big Pharma:

www.amazon.com...

Listen to Dr. Rima Laibow on the Codex Alimentarius:

search.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AqmcIykGCKkGT_n9YqjDXqmbvZx4?fr=fp-yie8-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=codex%20alimentarius

Read the conspiracy theories around Codex Alimentarius:

educate-yourself.org...

There are some excellent videos (Netflix) on our food industry & alternative cures:

“Food, Inc.”

movies.yahoo.com...

“The Gerson Miracle”

www.amazon.com...

Read up on natural health cures:

drrimatruthreports.com...

There are so many books & websites on alternative cures, I would not have time to list them all.
Check out the ATS archives on Medical conspiracies, etc.

I buy my water at Whole Foods (I bring my own containers).



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
There are many things that need scientific backing... then there is good old-fashioned, tried-and-true gut, instinct and senses. I don't need a scientific study to tell me that natural, independently grown farm food is leaps and bounds better than the franken-foods... I'm lucky enough to be in the heart of the Appalachians.

Grandpa didn't use science to share his wisdom with his descendents, nor did most wise elders offering guidance... yet time always told the truth. Natives can tell when something is wrong through smell and taste... they don't need beakers and microscopes. I can easily smell the chemicals in city water, and my nose finds them offensive.

In short, I don't think it will be science that brings down these food tyrants, but it will take us getting back in touch with our primal senses...



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   


markosity1973ginally 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.


I agree that the probability is fairly low, but then even say a 1 in 10 million chance is going to see a significant chance of people being affected given that our global population is in the billions.

The thing that worries me most is that what if RNA did manage to diffuse through the body and switch some receptors on and off and created a new disease? What if that disease became passable from human to human?
edit on 16-6-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Mortality rates were the same for both the GM fed pigs and non-Gm fed pigs.

and there's no similar study done in humans. Lots of extraneous variables there. You have to consider the dose and size of the animal especially.


The study is inconclusive.
edit on 16-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
Then I unequivocally assure you that you are part of a mass of lemmings.

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


So whether for or against, either side you're "wrong". That's nice...




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


Having a degree of education at the very least vs. people that are oblivious and eating whatever....but again, must be that everyone is stupid


On ATS I've heard a few say, "I don't know if gmo is bad for me, but it isn't, prove to me that it is".

Well, hate to bring it up, but its your health
hopefully that would be enough for you to actually make some sort of effort to figure it out on your own.

Besides that, there has been so much posted on ATS that even the most casual readers should have an understanding.

An important question would probably be: "If there was without a doubt, a health risk imposed by gmo foods, would you stop eating them and buy organic?"

A majority of pro-gmo would still probably say "No" and at that point there is no point in any sort of discussion.

edit on 6/16/2013 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thebtheb
 


You're kidding, right? A food that contains its own pesticide is not the slightest reason to be concerned?

You know that virtually all plants contain their own pesticides, right?


One of Monsanto's own scientists in the early days was fired
Which one?


A couple of varieties of GMO corn compared to hundreds of traditional ones.
I'm not sure large scale agriculture in any form results in what anyone would call biodiversity but are you sure that there were hundreds of "traditional" hybrids used in large scale agriculture?


they point to the idea that they might be a bad thing.
If the studies are flawed and don't demonstrate what people claim they do why is that the case? If a whole lot of people come to the wrong conclusion about something does that make them correct?


edit on 6/16/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 

it only lasted five months for the pigs so extrapolate the effects of a lifetime of exposure. regardless of the severity of symptoms people should at least be given clear notice if any part of the food they're eating contains gmos. Why not at least that?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Metallicus
Monsanto and our corrupt government simply ignore studies like this because they are inconvenient.

The truth is the only way to stop the mass poisoning of the population is to vote with your dollars and avoid all of the products containing this filthy GMO crap.

The good news is that even main stream retailers like Kroger and Wal-mart are now offering a variety of non-gmo products.


I agree with what you said. I don't particularly care for the thought of GMO foods, but to call for even more government intervention is not the answer. As more people demand non-GMO foods more companies will offer them. That is the free market at work.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I asked simple questions and, employing that typical shill tactic


if you wouldnt mind quoting back the simple questions you asked me, and also clarify the "typical shill tactic", i would be obliged. i honestly have no idea what you're talking about. it is clear that i have made significantly more contribution to this thread than you have.


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


what i expected was exactly what you gave me. you are so easy.

if any of that felt like an attack to you, it is only because you have identified with it. might as well own it, bud. you appear to be purely reactive and totally unable to control your emotions. "oh, but you did it first...waah waah waah" are you typically this easy to manipulate, or is it just while youre on the internet?


Yeah right, tampering with the food chain is nothing to worry about. God these people are annoying


your reactivity has gotten better of you again. i am the first person to acknowledge that these products were rushed to market, that more investigation is totally in order, and that monsanto is evil incarnate. but...

...WHAT (the hell) DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE SCIENCE???


monsonto is evil? --> sure, go get 'em.
food products should be labeled? --> the more information, the better!
GMO and biotech is BAAAADD? --> unsubstantiated, but possible.
GMO and biotech is GOOD? --> totally, totally possible.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


the truth is that i simply dont know the answer to your concerns. no one does.

but i cannot imagine that inventing new hypothetical diseases is a very good idea. if you study the known mechanisms of genomics, i think that you will find that most of the terrifying scenarios that people have dreamed up go directly against firmly established theory.

but that does not mean that there are not risks, or that there might be unanticipated consequences of this technology, particularly in regards to the food supply.

from the bottom of my heart, as a scientist educated in this field, i can tell you that i am not worried. i do not know why getting appropriate labeling of foods and a farm-friendly attitude from monsanto appear to be such a difficult task to accomplish. i wish it werent. but i do not believe the foods, themselves, to be a significant biological threat.


the smartest thing anyone can say in this discussion is, "we simply do not know."



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join