10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

Well if you wanna be an arsehole as usual I did actuall state "gmo's or certainly the companies that produce them" but let's not let a little thing like that get in the way of your trolling in true Monsanto style
a reply to: Phage

How much you all gettin paid?
corporatewatch.org...

naturalsociety.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

a reply to: AlphaPred

Ah, the ol' "I'm such a special snowflake that the only people who disagree with me are paid to" gambit. I hate to break this to you...

Also: naturalnews. LOL!

Well the evidence is there for all to see.....it happens ....it happens a lot hate to freak it to you, and for people to simply dismis the evidence because you don't like the source despite that source linking to proof and evidence .....but nope let's keep believing the paid for scientists
I'm in no way anti GMO
I'm anti the current GMO bull***t that only the blinkered refuse to acknowledge
Even after all the evidence provided by posters and following THROUGH on some of the links there in,you still staunchly defend an industry that has been proven ....yes PROVEN to be full of it and uses the most underhand techniques available to attack and discredit any whom disagree

But no, all the lies corruption sabotage subversion and fraud, though well documented, doesn't raise an eyebrow.....

People dying, livestock dying, crops failing, poisoned watertables, super weeds and bugs, ruining farmers by legal means after GMO pollen infects their non GMO crops
Decairing war on Europe ( particularly France, not forgetting that Monsanto own acedemi (black water)
and suing anyone that wants to label or restrict its use , isn't that totally against capitalism and the free market that we keep getting told is the ONLY way
You produce something, the better it is the more you sell, if your product isn't wanted or liked people have the right not to have it
But with Monsanto you get sued or other direct action for exercising those very principles that is held up as the beacon of prosperity

Hell as has been said countless times before ....if gmo's are so great and so proud to be of, why not label.....why the secrecy and coverup? What ? To introduce labels would be too expensive I hear some say
Companies alter their package design monthly with little things and promotions....to put on "contains GMO" would be too expensive
What's that ....screening for gmo's would be too expensive well we do it for lactose, flour, and a multitude of other bits of information to keep the consumer updated
That didn't seem to cripple or break those companies that needed to label their foodstuffs

Just what makes gmo's so special reply to: GetHyped

a reply to: AlphaPred

Do you get paid by the word to post such nonsense? Who are you shilling for? Come on, 'fess up.

And I hate to break it to you
But even as posters concede to facts that come from the pro GMO side
The pro GMO side refuses to acknowledge any facts provided by the anti side
Take for instance phage......here for years always discredits anti GMO posters and never ever even once gone .....actually you might be right or I hadn't thought of it that way or you actually provide compelling evidence
No just point and shout abit backing and using science that has been proven to be fake or manipulated, then discrediting any science that runs counter to his pre defined beliefs

To me anyone that can keep reeling out the same (now known) bs
Whilst completely ignoring the fresh evidence provided by independents ( not affiliated with Monsanto) and the admission and discovery that their own research has been falsified and covered up
reply to: GetHyped

Yep you caught me........shilling for the benefit of my fellow man and this bluey green spot of ours
But o do it for freea reply to: GetHyped

And finally
The only input you've had in this discussion was 2 posts today, neither of which contained anything of substance or adding to the debate. Just silly 2 liners and even then were more of an attack on myself rather than considering the points and addressing them

So settle down tinker bell and stop snorting the fairy dust a reply to: GetHyped

originally posted by: AlphaPred
Well if you use common knowlege, critical thought and the evidence provided world wide you simply get ridiculed and shouted at where's the science!
As some will only believe a man in a white coat - which thereby means that he is above reproach and criticism, saintly if you will
So I had to use something for the over educated but devoid of learning, something to read

Why you wanna take him up on his $10 million bet?
Didn't think so


Oh and hang on ....the former CEO of pfitser and now editor in chief of the New England science journal not well recognised .......thanks for proving a point tho
a reply to: Pardon?

You fail, in spectacular fashion no less, to see my point.
You slate peer-review by citing testimony which claims that up to half of scientific studies are false and then attempt to back that up with a "peer-reviewed scientific" article.
You do realise that it applies to all so-called scientific studies don't you? And that includes the stuff you believe.
So how do you decide if the stuff you believe is real or fake as it's not coming over very clearly that you're in the least familiar with the scientific method?

Do you understand irony?
Do you know what cherry-picking is?

originally posted by: AlphaPred
And I hate to break it to you
But even as posters concede to facts that come from the pro GMO side
The pro GMO side refuses to acknowledge any facts provided by the anti side
Take for instance phage......here for years always discredits anti GMO posters and never ever even once gone .....actually you might be right or I hadn't thought of it that way or you actually provide compelling evidence
No just point and shout abit backing and using science that has been proven to be fake or manipulated, then discrediting any science that runs counter to his pre defined beliefs

To me anyone that can keep reeling out the same (now known) bs
Whilst completely ignoring the fresh evidence provided by independents ( not affiliated with Monsanto) and the admission and discovery that their own research has been falsified and covered up
reply to: GetHyped

Provide real, testable, robust and reproducible evidence of harm and you'll be taken seriously.
Until then...

Firstly I was myself pointing out the irony that some science is widely accepted while other science that runs against the discussion is simply dismissed and ridiculed

Can you provide real testable proof gmo's are not good? As the only people saying how great they are, are in thebuisness

It's like......how many died from smoking?
According to med records none!
But smoking related disease , yes

But we all know it was the smoking right? And the tobacco industry always played fair and told the truth
Hmmmmm

And also now you seem to get the irony of using peer reviewed science as that's the only language some understand, that well if it's peer reviewed it must be true

You then show those same people peer reviewed work .....and.......nag nag nag, bi**h, that crap,
That's rubbish

So in closing obviously you didn't get my irony in stating peer reviewed science sort of a double irony I was aiming for so that either went straight over your head, or it wasnt as obvious as I intends

a reply to: Pardon?

Okey jokey
scholar.google.co.uk...
Plenty there to look at

ww.w.rapaluruguay.org...

A bit more


a reply to: AlphaPred

originally posted by: AlphaPred
Okey jokey
scholar.google.co.uk...
Plenty there to look at

You're not very good at this game. That paper was retracted because of crappy science.

www.scientificamerican.com...

ww.w.rapaluruguay.org...

A bit more


a reply to: AlphaPred

Oh look, the author of the discredited paper has written another flawed paper saying that he was right all along.

en.wikipedia.org...

So again, which organic food company are you shilling for? Why else would you spread such scientifically illiterate nonsense unless you were being paid?

If you opened your eyes a little wider you'll discover that his science and the methods he used were vindicated after months of biocorp lobbying against him, and even then he took some heat for even conducting the experiment due to you not being allowed to test it due to patents
So should we keep on trusting a company that's head of the GMO movement regardless of the mounting evidence and proof
Did you suck up all that ciggy science ?
On what side were you then ?

Well there's no real proof smoking causes cancer, and even then the lobbyists for tobacco was giving back handers to scientists and politicians to maintain the illusion, and when we look at it they had been destroying and hiding any and all evidence that shows they knew in the early '70's if a remember correctly
But nooooooo a company driven by profits working with countries that are the epitome of greed
Let your fingers do the walking bruv, it's all out there to be found ......just buried and overlooked reply to: GetHyped

And just why doesn Monsanto own backwater ! Academi now if they haven't changed again (but for some reason I think they haven.....anywho

Well I'm not shilling for any organic food company ....what's up ? Struggling to counter my points in an constructive way ? The best you can come up with pro GMO evidence is .......erm just where is your Intel, care to post some.......any? Because all you seem to have done in this topic is simply try to disprove peer reviewed science, some of which has been provided by myself and other posters but with all that information the best you can muster is to take quotes from MY work and target them obviously not having done the research first, as I said that study was vindicated

So rather than sitting there nit picking show me some "real,testable, robust and reproducible results" on many gmo's, And I'll pick you apart ever so easily
It's easy to attack someone you disagree with in science all you have to do is argue with no substance picking out select items to attempt a ridicule without understanding the overarching meaning

Have you seen the tests done by Monsanto? Have you read about the whitewashing of results or even the forged information used to get it through safety
That so called discredited study was virtually identical to Monsantos tests .....it just went on longer , and even then you had the ignorant screaming "oh but he's using rats that are prone to tumours" yep ......the exact same species used in Monsantos tests if you really really believe in the safety of GMO good for you, stand your ground like your set in concrete unswerving loyalty till the end, regardless
You'd make a great soldier the queen would love you
a reply to: GetHyped

Oh and let's not forget about all the positives about the key player in the GMO industry Monsanto
Poisoned the entire world with pcbs dumping them left right and centre (can even be found in the dna of polar bears) knowing for decades again how much harm they do THEN concealing the substances effect and that another leak had even happened poisoning an entire town
I think I heard earlier San Francisco is going to sue due to the toxicity of the river and other nasties hat have been released up strem by those benevolent companies

originally posted by: AlphaPred
Well I'm not shilling for any organic food company ....what's up ? Struggling to counter my points in an constructive way ?

All you're doing is posting paragraph after paragraph of unsubstantiated nonsense (if you're being paid by the word you're certainly making the most of it). The one time you do post something other than your own opinion, you post junk science. Color me surprised.

Your bar for credible evidence may be so low as to be around your ankles but personally, it takes more than paranoid conspiratorial ramblings to convince me or entice me into a discussion.

originally posted by: NewzNose
(I do not support GMOs or peer reviews, neither has proven to be healthy for me.)

After having my health slammed by both prescription and "natural" remedies, I try to treat my health as an ongoing one-sample experiment, trying to keep in mind that even the most benign substance could become problematic.

AND JUST WHERE IS YOURS TO REBUKE IT?
Coz I said it once I'll damn well say it again .......you've provided the square root of f**k all evidence
ALL you have done is vilify and finger out those that question the ever so chivalric bio corps
I've provided evidence....you've provided nil
I've tried to engage in conversation.....you've used 2 lines 3 times to have a stab, with out anything to support your argument
Your aim is to degrade or ridicule until the other poster just gives up trying to talk to a brick wall, and in some simple way think that's victory
Your arguments are very Jeremy Kyle/Riki lake guest like
All mouth , no trousers , the uneducated eaters that kill over a pair of trainers......and happily shoveling Maccy d's down yer throat (yes you know Maccy d's the foodstuff advertised everywhere, encouraged and used as a symbol of US expansion and capitalism .......but shhhhhh.......it's not really food.......more a chemical construct designed to look like food

Oh what it would be like to meet someone with a vocabulary greater than 30 words and able to produce a sentence, has a critical mind and doesn't just take the first bit of evidence he sees as gospel but instead looks at multiple view points, collects the information from multiple sources then makes up his own mind.....not just repeating what they saw on the telly

Matt Damon


reply to: GetHyped

Um.......thought I posted a few links ?
Didn't see em?
Were they hiding behind the salt?
So now ......after posts providing links and talking points - which you yourself attacked (not joined in the discussion)
Most of your posts containing 2/3 lines with NO substance to it ....just an attempt at a smear campaign
So I'll invite you yet again PROVE ME WRONG!
You can't because I can answer you back with counter proof and arguments
Or I could just do what you do .....very little except take a stab at a post

Perhaps that's why YOU HAVENT PROVIDED S*** despite my numerous requests

Me thinks You are the one that can't back it up with credible and repeatable science .....because at this moment in time you simply canta reply to: GetHyped

originally posted by: AlphaPred
Firstly I was myself pointing out the irony that some science is widely accepted while other science that runs against the discussion is simply dismissed and ridiculed

Can you provide real testable proof gmo's are not good? As the only people saying how great they are, are in thebuisness

It's like......how many died from smoking?
According to med records none!
But smoking related disease , yes

But we all know it was the smoking right? And the tobacco industry always played fair and told the truth
Hmmmmm

And also now you seem to get the irony of using peer reviewed science as that's the only language some understand, that well if it's peer reviewed it must be true

You then show those same people peer reviewed work .....and.......nag nag nag, bi**h, that crap,
That's rubbish

So in closing obviously you didn't get my irony in stating peer reviewed science sort of a double irony I was aiming for so that either went straight over your head, or it wasnt as obvious as I intends

a reply to: Pardon?

Back-tracking is apparent.
It was pretty obvious that you were oblivious to what you posted.

Smoking was first suspected of causing lung tumours early last century.
It was confirmed between the 1940's and 50's using science.
Yes, the tobacco companies fought against this with various forms of propaganda but the medical community knew they were wrong.
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...

So to use this as an analogy for GM is, like the "evidence of harm" studies you post, completely worthless.

I asked you how you decide which study is robust and which is not.
You haven't answered.
Instead you post a Google scholar search where on the first page the only two claiming harm are by Seralini. His famous study was retracted by the first journal who published it due to inconsistencies in the data and how the data was collected and manipulated. The study had a very small sample size and wasn't dose-controlled so even if the data had been correct, it would be only considered a preliminary study, nothing to form any basis of consensus on as it was too open to form a solid conclusion from.
The study has not been vindicated at all.
It's been re-published in an open-access journal to allow people access to the data and rather than being vindicated it has been further criticized.
Just so you're aware, this study and his others are funded by a company called CRIIGEN.
Criigen's CEO is an homeopath who is fiercely against GM (or rather fiercely pro-organic) and has serious financial interests in a couple of major French supermarket chains (Carrefour & Auchan).
Coincidentally, a few days after Seralini's study was published, Carrefour started a huge promotion of their GM-free products...hmmm.
Seralini is co-funded by The Foundation for Human Progress which has direct ties to anti-GM activist groups.

So I'm wrong. The smoking analogy can be used.
But the other way around.
The consensus is that GM is safe but big-organic (see tobacco manufacturers) are trying to prove it isn't.


You want evidence of GM safety?
Read through this, there's a link at the end to a spreadsheet detailing the studies.
I suggest you read them all.
www.geneticliteracyproject.org...

In case you don't want to read them all here's a detailed analysis of 10 years of study from an independent group.
www.geneticliteracyproject.org...