10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

The glycophosphate can be reactivated by the addition of phosphorous so fertilizing the land will actually rejuvinate the glycophosphate.

False. Glyphosate (not "glycophosphate") breaks down. It cannot be "rejuvinated" by fertilizer. That's not the way chemistry works.
www.cdpr.ca.gov...

So if they keep spraying the fields often, sooner or later it will be hard to grow anything else there other than GMO and fertilize it.

Glyphosate has been used on fields since before there were any GM crops and continues to be. It is sprayed before planting of non-GM crops, it's called "pre-emergent" treatment, and after harvesting.
www.glyphosate.eu...

I might have had that a little backwards, it was two years ago that I read that. Here is an article that explains some of what phosphate does in the soil. www.non-gmoreport.com... It appears if phosphate is used the glyphosate doesn't break down properly.

And yes, glyphosphate was used for a long time. I remember farmers using it initially to clear weeds in the field and they could plant about a month later. That was one application in many years....not consistent application like they are using now in fields. You cannot use that evidence to show safety because it is not relevant.....there is way too much of a difference in the applicationto be able to use that to show safety. That would be like saying since we drink water, we can drink two gallons safely in an hour and it would be completely safe.

I challenge the fact that we should not be consuming soy in the consistant amounts in the diet here more than anything on this subject. Most soy products are goiterogens.

Just because I can not properly spel glyphosphate does not mean I have not extensively researched this chemical and have used it before on my own garden to clear the weeds. When I did that twenty years ago, it was considered safe to use it once every four or five years as long as you waited for a period of time before planting. Those safety procedures are not being observed so all evidence of it's safety should not be allowed to be considered. They apply it to roundup ready fields midseason now.

I know a lot about how all chemical companies are misapplying evidence, especially the pharma companies. If something is not tested than you do not have to consider it as harmful. If the regulations do not require tests the company does not have to test and usually does not want to do so because it would make them liable. I read a heck of a lot of the regulations the FDA has on required testing procedures one week. It sure was interesting. I suppose this same ignorance lets us still eat half the veggies out there that would be banned if they were to test for goiterogenic effects or psychotropic effects they have. You do notice that all food containing soy needs to have soy listed as an ingredient. That wouldn't be required if there was not a problem with soy and most issues with soy are metabolic issues, not allergies. Metabolic issues can be worse overall than an allergy. Wheat has more than an allergy to worry about too.

Keep eating your soy products with a smile on your face, the only soy I eat is kikkomens soy sauce occasionally

a reply to: Astyanax

I read recently that strontium 148 reacted with nitrates above 380 degrees Celsius. Strontium 148 which I refer to as Ronium 90 exists in the soil predominantly semicolon with the nitrates it becomes an isotope. The issue is that at a microscopic value the nitrates are thriving in our climates full stop this is a huge problem. When we drink water, at the usual temperature it then thrive within our bodies.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Cosmic911

The risk is too great when we are the test subjects..

star and flag.

I don't know about you but i get all warm and fuzzy knowing that myself and my kids are test subjects for the global profit machine.....

That was one application in many years

False. It was applied every season, after harvest. In the same fields which would planted next season.

I did not say anything about safety. You said this:

So if they keep spraying the fields often, sooner or later it will be hard to grow anything else there other than GMO and fertilize it.

It's false. Glyphosate has been used, in the same fields, for years and years and years. It does not affect production.

I challenge the fact that we should not be consuming soy in the consistant amounts in the diet here more than anything on this subject. Most soy products are goiterogens.

Ok. Where did I say anything about soy? But if one has sufficient quantities of iodine in their diet, it's not really a problem.

When I did that twenty years ago, it was considered safe to use it once every four or five years as long as you waited for a period of time before planting.

False. Did you even look at the link I posted? Were they only harvesting every four or five years?

When glyphosate was introduced in 1974 it was initially used after the harvest in the autumn on stubble fields. This “post-harvest pre-planting” management is still an important tool for controlling weeds prior to planting the next crop.

www.glyphosate.eu...

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: rickymouse
My belief is that we do not need this genetically modified food, it is destroying our countries soils ability to be used for anything else than glycophosphate resistant GMOs, which means that these chemical/gmo companies will soon be in control of most of our food supply. The glycophosphate can be reactivated by the addition of phosphorous so fertilizing the land will actually rejuvinate the glycophosphate. This is what I read in a scientific article that addressed rejuvinating the glycophosphate without adding more in an agricultural site. So if they keep spraying the fields often, sooner or later it will be hard to grow anything else there other than GMO and fertilize it.

This could be the whole plan GMO companies are pushing.
Total food control = Total power

My nephew just bought a new home built on an old corn field used for corn gas in Minnisota. He got a good deal on the home because land on those fields is so cheap. They had to haul in a foot of topsoil so the grass could grow. Nothing grows on the areas of the old fields that are depleted of nutrients around him. Now, I question how long his lawn will keep producing grass, it is only a few year old home. A developer is having a hard time selling the homes so he got a great deal on it, seems like most local people do not want to take a chance investing in a house there. My nephew works in a corn gas plant, he was working in an acid factory previously before last fall. I wouldn't want either job but he says the corn gas job is a lot easier on the lungs.

a reply to: rickymouse

if all they grew on that field year after year for years was corn, it doesn't surprise me that the nutrients have been sucked up.
that's what crop rotation is all about.

now if they rotated crops and and nothing grows there now i'd be questioning what was planted.

a reply to: rickymouse

Nothing grows on the areas of the old fields that are depleted of nutrients around him.

Yup. Hard to grow stuff in nutrient depleted soil.
That's big problem with monoculture. Always has been.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Cosmic911

The risk is too great when we are the test subjects..

star and flag.

I don't know about you but i get all warm and fuzzy knowing that myself and my kids are test subjects for the global profit machine.....

Speaking of test subjects, the very worst offenders have been the U.S. Government, the U.S. Military, and CIA. Additionally, many non-gov't affiliated physicians conducted the same awful experiments without patient consent.

Throughout the 1840s, J. Marion Sims, who is often referred to as "the father of gynecology", performed surgical experiments on enslaved African women, without anaesthesia. In 1896, Dr. Arthur Wentworth performed spinal taps on 29 young children, without the knowledge or consent of their parents, at the Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts to discover whether doing so would be harmfu.

From 1913 to 1951, Dr. Leo Stanley, chief surgeon at the San Quentin Prison, performed a wide variety of experiments on hundreds of prisoners at San Quentin. Many of the experiments involved testicular implants, where Stanley would take the testicles out of executed prisoners and surgically implant them into living prisoners. In the 1880s, in Hawaii, a California physician working at a hospital for lepers injected six girls under the age of 12 with syphilis. In 1895, New York City pediatrician Henry Heiman intentionally infected two mentally disabled boys—one four-year-old and one sixteen-year-old—with gonorrhea as part of a medical experiment.

U.S Army doctors in the Philippines infected five prisoners with bubonic plague and induced beriberi in 29 prisoners; four of the test subjects died as a result. In 1906, Professor Richard Strong of Harvard University intentionally infected 24 Filipino prisoners with cholera, which had somehow become contaminated with plague. He did this without the consent of the patients, and without informing them of what he was doing. All of the subjects became sick and 13 died.

In 1908, three Philadelphia researchers infected dozens of children with tuberculin at the St. Vincent's House orphanage in Philadelphia, causing permanent blindness in some of the children and painful lesions and inflammation of the eyes in many of the others. In the study they refer to the children as "material used."

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment[17] was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, by the U.S. Public Health Service. In the experiment, 400 impoverished black males who had syphilis were offered "treatment" by the researchers, who did not tell the test subjects that they had syphilis and did not give them treatment for the disease, but rather just studied them to chart the progress of the disease. By 1947, penicillin became available as treatment, but those running the study prevented study participants from receiving treatment elsewhere, lying to them about their true condition, so that they could observe the effects of syphilis on the human body. By the end of the study in 1972, only 74 of the test subjects were alive. 28 of the original 399 men had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis. The study was not shut down until 1972, when its existence was leaked to the press, forcing the researchers to stop in the face of a public outcry.

1972!!!

In 1950, in order to conduct a simulation of a biological warfare attack, the U.S. Navy sprayed large quantities of the bacteria Serratia marcescens – considered harmless at this time – over the city of San Francisco. Numerous citizens contracted pneumonia-like illnesses, and at least one person died as a result. The family of the man who died sued the government for gross negligence, but a federal judge ruled in favor of the government in 1981. Serratia tests were continued until at least 1969. Also in 1950, Dr. Joseph Stokes of the University of Pennsylvania deliberately infected 200 female prisoners with viral hepatitis

In 1955, the CIA allegedly conducted a biological warfare experiment where they released whooping cough bacteria from boats outside of Tampa Bay, Florida, causing a whooping cough epidemic in the city, and killing at least 12 people. However, some have expressed improbability and lack of evidence for this claim. During the 1950s the United States conducted a series of field tests using entomological weapons. Operation Big Itch, in 1954, was designed to test munitions loaded with uninfected fleas (Xenopsylla cheopis). In May 1955 over 300,000 uninfected mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti) were dropped over parts of the U.S. state of Georgia to determine if the air-dropped mosquitoes could survive to take meals from humans. The mosquito tests were known as Operation Big Buzz. The U.S. engaged in at least two other EW testing programs, Operation Drop Kick and Operation May Day.

From 1963 to 1969 as part of Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD), the U.S. Army performed tests which involved spraying several U.S. ships with various biological and chemical warfare agents, while thousands of U.S. military personnel were aboard the ships. The personnel were not notified of the tests, and were not given any protective clothing. Chemicals tested on the U.S. military personnel included the nerve gases VX and Sarin, toxic chemicals such as zinc cadmium sulfide and sulfur dioxide, and a variety of biological agents.

Researchers in the United States have performed thousands of human radiation experiments to determine the effects of atomic radiation and radioactive contamination on the human body, generally on people who were poor, sick, or powerless. Most of these tests were performed, funded, or supervised by the United States military, Atomic Energy Commission, or various other US federal government agencies.

Between 1946 and 1947, researchers at the University of Rochester injected uranium-234 and uranium-235 in dosages ranging from 6.4 to 70.7 micrograms per kilogram of body weight into six people to study how much uranium their kidneys could tolerate before becoming damaged.

This was too close to home, only an hour away.

Early in the Cold War, in studies known as Project GABRIEL and Project SUNSHINE, researchers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia tried to determine how much nuclear fallout would be required to make the Earth uninhabitable. They realized that atmospheric nuclear testing had provided them an opportunity to investigate this. Such tests had dispersed radioactive contamination worldwide, and examination of human bodies could reveal how readily it was taken up and hence how much damage it caused.

Awesome!!

And to think I left out all the activities of the CIA! But I digress...Now we have this wonderful thing called Informed Consent

As of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation. The preponderance of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation or, in many cases, acknowledgment of what was done to them

Unethical Human Experimentation

a reply to: Cosmic911

Thread starts to fade so....

a reply to: NJE777

I read recently

Have you studied chemistry?

a reply to: Phage

It's better to burn out than to fade away...Kurgan

a reply to: Cosmic911

I thought it was Neil Young.
My, My. Hey, hey.

a reply to: Astyanax

Only at high school and in my spare time I like to doodle compounds full stop

a reply to: Cosmic911

Laugh my ass off, that is from the movie Highlander. That is one of my favourite movies.

a reply to: NJE777
No.
It's from Neil Young.

originally posted by: NJE777
a reply to: Cosmic911

Laugh my ass off, that is from the movie Highlander. That is one of my favourite movies.

One of mine as well! Those poor nuns!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

The glycophosphate can be reactivated by the addition of phosphorous so fertilizing the land will actually rejuvinate the glycophosphate.

False. Glyphosate (not "glycophosphate") breaks down. It cannot be "rejuvinated" by fertilizer. That's not the way chemistry works.
www.cdpr.ca.gov...

So if they keep spraying the fields often, sooner or later it will be hard to grow anything else there other than GMO and fertilize it.

Glyphosate has been used on fields since before there were any GM crops and continues to be. It is sprayed before planting of non-GM crops, it's called "pre-emergent" treatment, and after harvesting.
www.glyphosate.eu...

Back in the seventies and eighties around here, people did not put roundup every year in their fields, they would not have been able to sell their products to local people. I am sure that the same was happening all over the country by the smaller farmers. Just because it was allowed, it was not done that way. I learned to use roundup from the local farmers who used it just as I said. Even the people selling it here were leary about that. So this kind of practice distorts evidence to show that it was safer because the average amount in the products was less than anticipated. Old farmers wouldn't do things to hurt their friends. My dad and a lot of his friends were farmers and we sprayed DDT because it was supposed to be perfectly safe. Then they banned it and in seventy three he got the type of brain cancer that was actually predominant in people who sprayed DDT on their crops which was considered in the banning of the product. You can't have all the farmers dying of brain cancer.

So pardon me if I question the safety of these chemicals. I have seen so many banned over the year and with a little molecular change reintroduced again only to be banned around seven or eight years later again. Now Monsanto is good at greasing people's palms and using lawyers using ad hominum techniques to crush anyone who questions their products. I will let them do what they are doing because I have no wish to go against them. It does not mean I cannot voice my opinion against the application of their products. If you go to the Monsanto site, it states in their literature that they are not responsible for the application of their products with respect for safety because they cannot control the application and the conditions in the environment vary. So the farmer is liable. I don't blame the company, they test on certain soils, not on soils all over the country, the soils they test on can vary from what is out and about. They have no knowledge about what was previously sprayed on the fields and liability is limited because the FDA also knows the same thing. If the chemical does not break down properly, then it is not their fault. It is the farmers liability. I understand this, I have seen land go vacant....including our old farm. I bet it is safe now to plant on it again.

I know a farmer who got talked into spraying liquid cow manure fertilizer on his fields and his potatoes were turning black and his sails went down. He thought he was going to save a few bucks and he wound up retiring instead because he believed a lie. You don't use organics like that on potatoes, potatoes need rock to break down. They secrete enzymes to break down rock. He isn't worrying about it anymore, he got discouraged and quit farming. I warned him about it a year before. It is in the department of agriculture information. Salesmen....let the buyer beware.

a reply to: Cosmic911

I'm not sure if these cases were discussed yet...

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate. The first incident involved Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). The United States Justice Department closed the laboratory in 1978, and its leadership was found guilty in 1983 of charges of falsifying statements, falsifying scientific data submitted to the government, and mail fraud.

In 1991, Don Craven, the owner of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. Craven, along with fourteen employees were found guilty of similar crimes.

Monsanto has stated the Craven Labs investigation was started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered irregularities, that the studies have been repeated, and that Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven Labs or IBT.

Additionally, I was not aware, but

Genetically modified crops have become the norm in the United States. In 2015, 89% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 89% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified to be herbicide-tolerant

Wiki GMO

a reply to: Cosmic911

I'm not sure if these cases were discussed yet...

They have been, but not in your thread.
You'll note, in your quote, that it was not Monsanto or its employees who were implicated, and that, in fact it was members of the pesticide industry, who brought the "irregularities" to the attention of the EPA.

Additionally, I was not aware, but

As any "concerned consumer" should be.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Cosmic911

I'm not sure if these cases were discussed yet...

They have been, but not in your thread. Gotcha.
You'll note, in your quote, that it was not Monsanto or its employees who were implicated, and that, in fact it was members of the pesticide industry, who brought the "irregularities" to the attention of the EPA. Right. As quoted, it was an independent lab hired by Monsanto.

Additionally, I was not aware, but

As any "concerned consumer" should be.

And now I am. Knowledge is power, as they say, and liberating.