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.

 

Groundbreaking Investigation Reveals Monsanto Teamed Up With US Military; Targets Scientists,

page: 6
82
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   




posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

www.abovetopsecret.com...


show me the paper please or the proof.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

Please refer to the link.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

Please refer to the link.


all those papers show is that she fed them the feed that is available, gm and non gm.
how is that bad science.

you can only feed what is available, if she grew her own soy and corn, you be yelling about that.

show me where she did anything that is not with in the scientific community standards that make her study void.

from her paper, pages 40, and 41.

A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet

the GMO'S Feed


Materials and Methods
Animal feed
In accordance with usual commercial USA piggery practice, soy and corn were obtained direct from farmers who had grown it commercially. Different GM corn varieties are usually co-mingled in farm storage. The corn used in this study contained 90% DK 42-88 RR YG PL (a triple stack of NK603, MON863 and MON810 genes) with the remainder being equal quantities of Pannar 5E-900RR (containing NK603), Pannar 4E-705RR/Bt (a double stack of NK603 and MON810) and Producers 5152 RR (containing NK603). Therefore, the GM corn that was used was genetically modified to produce three new proteins. Two were Bt proteins that protected the plant against insect attack, while the third protein provided the plant with tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (Testbiotech, 2012; Monsanto, 2012).

Because Roundup Ready TM (RR) soy is predominant in the GM soy market, this was used. This crop contains a gene that provides tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. GM DNA analysis (Genetic ID, Fairfield, Iowa, US) confirmed that the GM corn contained a combination of NK603, MON863 and MON810 genes (expressing the CP4 EPSPS, Cry 3Bb1 and Cry 1Ab proteins respectively), that the RR soy was 100% RR soy (expressing the CP4 EPSPS protein), that the non-GM feed contained a median of 0.4% GM corn and that the non-GM soy contained a median of 1.6% GM soy. Such GM contamination of apparent non-GM material is common in the US.


the Non GMO Feed


In a similar way to the GM crops used, non-GM soy and non-GM corn were also obtained direct from farmers who had grown it commercially for human food and animal feed. Isogenic parental varieties of the GM crops, from which the GM crops were developed, were not used because they are generally not commercially available to buy. Furthermore, triple-stacked corn containing all three genes used here was developedfrom conventionally cross-breeding several GM crops, each of which has a non-GM
parent, leading to a multiplicity of isogenic parental varieties that would need to be used
in combination for a control diet. As the aim of this study was to compare the effects of
GM and non-GM varieties present in animal feed and human food in the real world, the
soy and corn for the control diet was instead chosen as a mixture of non-GM soy and
corn that was destined for animal feed and human food and that came from the same
geographical area. The GM soy and corn used in this study have been determined to be
compositionally and substantially equivalent to non-GM varieties of soy and corn by
government regulators (ANZFA, 2002, NDa, NDb; FSANZ, 2003, 2006) which indicates
that 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


i want to see where she violated any standards of testing that can be verified.





edit on 3-8-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

Since you apparently didn't bother reading what I posted I will repeat it.

Right of the bat. From the get go of the "study"

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.

An odd assumption 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...

The experiment was so poorly conducted that there is no way of determining what the cause of any differences between groups may (or may not) have occurred.

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

Since you apparently didn't bother reading what I posted I will repeat it.

Right of the bat. From the get go of the "study"

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.

An odd assumption 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...

The experiment was so poorly conducted that there is no way of determining what the cause of any differences between groups may (or may not) have occurred.

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


says who you? give me proof from some one other than your self.
sorry unless you are in the field and care to provide us with your name, i'm not gonna take your word for.it.
proof please and not just some study on feed done 5 years ago.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

Since you don't seem to even want to try to understand it yourself, since you want to be told what it means, there isn't much point.


edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

Since you don't seem to even want to try to understand it, there isn't much point.



i understand perfectly, you can't provide the evidence i ask for.

just because your paper you throw up, says one thing and her's say another, doesn't mean it's bad science or that the experiment was poorly conducted.

surly if it there was any question about the, phenotypical variation,or the hormone levels.there would be all kinds of scientist calling her on it and you could show me where some others, than your own opinion about it.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The bottom line, fundamental point is human beings should have a choice in what they eat. Period. End of story. No debate. We are not friggin babies. Some of us don't care how the tomato is developed and what chemicals it has been genetically built to produce, while some of us want a tomato that has been planted in some soil, then grown, regularly. Since when was there an absolute need to genetically modify every damn edible crop imaginable? For what reason? Growing and eating crops has produced no deaths, no poisonings, nothing. What is the need for this? So THEY can produce a bigger yield, larger sizes, and make more profit? They tell us that growing food regularly is dangerous, since when?

Some of us, especially, me, do not want to ingest chemicals developing inside these crops, no matter how non-harmful it's proven to be. I don't care.
edit on 3-8-2013 by bigman88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bigman88
 

You won't get an argument from me on that point.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My complaint is the lies, distortions, and bad science. Why does the anti-GMO contingent have to resort to it? All it does is cloud the issue.

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
And i am always going to be a proponent of Mad Scientists.
Maybe we will get flying monkeys!



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bigman88
 

You won't get an argument from me on that point.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My complaint is the lies, distortions, and bad science. Why does the anti-GMO contingent have to resort to it? All it does is cloud the issue.

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Bad science, huh? According to who? The minute the same scientists who were paid and safe working for these giant corporations, using the same means and processes, are now producing bad science the minute they are going against what their bosses wan them to publish? Do a search on the bias in design and results of industry funded trials, see what you get. You don't think monsanto would make sure that this is deemed bad science?

And pertaining to your other post, what would be the difficulty in labeling gmo products? For whom?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bigman88
 


Bad science, huh? According to who?
According to other scientists. According to laymen who have a basic understanding of the scientific method. If I can spot obvious holes in the research, how good can it be? Case in point: assuming that the only difference between GMO and non-GMO feed is the fact that one is genetically modified is not science.


And pertaining to your other post, what would be the difficulty in labeling gmo products? For whom?
The single greatest problem is the tracking of GMO vs. non-GMO products. Our food, including processed food (bread and stuff) comes from a wide variety sources. The corn used for those tortillas you bought at the market didn't come from just one farm. In order to be able to "certify" that those tortillas are non-GMO, every kernal of corn has to be accounted for. Every link in the supply chain which occurs has to be tracked.

Yes, it's doable. I didn't say it can't be done. I think doing it is a good idea. But it is problematic.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Hey Phage, could they put some kind of biofuel source into this stuff to feed swarms of cybernetic controlled insects?

Alternatively:
Perhaps its time to invest in Cybernetic insects that eat GMO specific crops.

edit on 3-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
If GMOs are so safe, then why is Monsanto and its followers so quick to attack researchers who find issues.. Like the rats with giant tumors or the pigs with inflamed stomachs (or whatever it was)... They put the genetics of a herbicide inside a corn kernel! What do you expect.. its insane.. you would never see a person eat herbicide, why would u want it inside your food? I grow a lot of fruits, veggies...so i realize the importance of chemicals... i just don't like tinkering with mother nature without a lot of research that shows its safe.. To each their own..if you want to eat it go ahead...i do from time to time! I just try to limit my exposure.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dingleberrydan
 


If GMOs are so safe, then why is Monsanto and its followers so quick to attack researchers who find issues.. Like the rats with giant tumors or the pigs with inflamed stomachs (or whatever it was).
Because the experiments are poorly designed. And it wasn't Monsanto who condemned those particular pieces of work.


They put the genetics of a herbicide inside a corn kernel!
No they don't

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Originally posted by iamhobo
I don't post much concerning Monsanto, GMOs, etc---but I am becoming terribly worried for our children and their children's futures. This company has the signs and symptoms of a stereotypical, world-dominating 'bad guy' you would see only in movies.
edit on 2-8-2013 by iamhobo because:



If you look at all of the threats to the world and a country's sovereignty the corporation is one of the largest. Today, corporations are state-less power brokers who are attacking every country's government to build a corporate hegemony .......





posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
And it wasn't Monsanto who condemned those particular pieces of work.


Right. Glad you made that point Phage. So just who did "condemn" that study?
You? Nobody? It sure looks like no one "condemned" it but you.


Also to note, interesting choice of a word on your part. "Condemn"
So you "condemn" the study. So? Its only your opinion?

Dr. Carman is a scientific Expert in the field.



Can you point to any scientist who criticized the study?



.
edit on 3-8-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Andrew Kniss (Ph.D) of the University of Wyoming

If I were to have analyzed these data, using the statistical techniques that I was taught were appropriate for the type of data, I would have concluded there was no statistical difference in stomach inflammation between the pigs fed the two different diets. To analyze these data the way the authors did makes it seem like they’re trying to find a difference, where none really exist.


Austailian geneticist David Tribe (Ph.D.)

The paper by Carman and colleagues avoids rigourous analysis of whether the differences are attributable to chance. In the study there is no clear-cut hypothesis about what component(s) of the diet is different and what affect the component might have specifically on the animal.


Dr. Mark Hoofnagle (MD/PhD)

“Looking at the data there were no differences in any of the major variables evaluated by the study, such as weights, veterinary costs, illnesses, or mortality. No significant differences in blood biochemistry were found. At autopsy most organ weights were similar between groups. There was a statistically significant (but likely clinically-meaningless) increase (0.1kg vs 0.12kg) in uterus weights in the GM group. At pathology there were nonsignificant decreases in cardiac and liver abnormalities in the GM group (half as many), in stomach pathology there was one significant finding of more ‘severe inflammation’ (on a 4-point scale from no inflammation to severe) in the GM group. This is the finding that has been amplified as variably ‘damning’ or ‘concerning’ depending on which source is reporting.”

www.biotech-now.org...#

 

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge

“The study’s conclusions don’t really stand up to statistical scrutiny. The authors focus on ‘severe’ stomach inflammation but all the other inflammation categories actually favour the GM-diet. So this selective focus is scientifically inappropriate.
“When analysed using appropriate methods, the stomach inflammation data does not show a statistically statistical association with diet. There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.”

www.marklynas.org...

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ah, thats a bit decieving dont you think?

Mark Lynas, yea I knew it.
Mark Lynas, the Global Warming environmentalist.

Mark Lynas the hired gun....this is nothing more than
Monsanto talking points.


edit on 3-8-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join