Sen Ruderman, where is the proof

[Adam-I-Am]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

http://voiceofrussia.com/

---

Americans worried about their government's policies and listening to THE VOICE OF RUSSIA for the real news. This is getting very twilight zone ish.

[Wao nahele kane]

Looking at issues through the perspective of other nations widens ones perspective of the planet overall.
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-shareholders-...rests-371/
Remember Larry King? Still working, now at Russia Today/RT.com.

- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.

[peteadams]

Wao nahele kane wrote: "How can you separate the two (business model and science) when the business model controls the scientific regulatory process through political and bureaucratic positioning/leveraging?"

Easy, because the current corporate capitalist business model and science are really, really different. This should not be difficult to distinguish! Personally, I dislike immensely the significant corporate influence on our political processes. However, in the area of genetic engineering, like climate change and evolution, there is more than enough independent scientific investigation to establish that there is no basis for the hysteria surrounding GMOs. Many links have been offered in many threads here and elsewhere to confirm that. Conflating science with corporate capitalism is not going to bring clarity to this issue.

[Adam-I-Am]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Looking at issues through the perspective of other nations widens ones perspective of the planet overall. Remember Larry King? Still working, now at Russia Today/RT.com.

- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.

---

I agree 100%.

[Wao nahele kane]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peteadams

Wao nahele kane wrote: "How can you separate the two (business model and science) when the business model controls the scientific regulatory process through political and bureaucratic positioning/leveraging?"

Easy, because the current corporate capitalist business model and science are really, really different. This should not be difficult to distinguish! Personally, I dislike immensely the significant corporate influence on our political processes. However, in the area of genetic engineering, like climate change and evolution, there is more than enough independent scientific investigation to establish that there is no basis for the hysteria surrounding GMOs. Many links have been offered in many threads here and elsewhere to confirm that. Conflating science with corporate capitalism is not going to bring clarity to this issue.

---

I was pro GMO as currently introduced. The hysteria I see is the hysteria produced by the claimed "climate change" and the hysteria that natural breed plants cannot sustain the global population. That is the generation of fear to bolster support for corporate interests. Some people have a tendency to hate humanity and blame it for cataclysmic destructions. Corporate interest know this and capitalize on these fears whenever profitable... they are the real issue, the puppet masters behind the hysterics and they have deep enough pockets to generate what ever propaganda of BS they want you to believe in order to bolster their profits. This has been done throughout history and time and time again the lies and deception eventually become unearthed. If you want to know where the problems are... follow the money trail, who has the most to profit, how have they leveraged themselves, who are they affiliated with, who have they supported and what is the goal. Most people do not have the knowledge to understand how business works on the subterranean level/behind the scenes. Whence an individual takes the trip down that proverbial rabbit hole they then begin to understand the whole picture from a global perspective. I can tell you right now that never before in the history of humanity has business had more influence and power over the people as they have today. The GMO issue is a complex series of interests, from science (those engaged in the business of for profit), medicine, pharmaceuticals, etc... its a big circle and all these corporations are part of one another to some degree or out right subsidiaries. This is where the information is generated from, this is where the money trail is and if anyone thinks for one moment that fudging/skewing scientific conclusions is beyond them is only fooling themselves. Who's flipping the bill for these studies and awarding private grants etc? Don't bull**** yourself otherwise that there is no favoritisms and skewed conclusions.
Don't even try to convince me for a damn moment that these sciences have not been tainted and directed by corporate interests. I have heard these complaints from several research doctors and professors... some within my family. Horse**** abounds in the sciences and especially around the grant process.


- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.

[Wao nahele kane]

How one words conclusions can make or break a future grant or contract. What the proposed study is for is also subject to corporate interests. The corporations have pet interests and if you're not going to provide them with studies that help promote their products, your going to be left in the dust, ostracized and ridiculed and especially so if you should elect to preform studies that don't cast a favorable light on those corporate interest. It's like tossing a person into a pride of lions. Pretending that the sciences are pure and don't produce lies and deceit is pure horse****.

- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.

[TomK]

Wao nahele kane,

Your comment:

"This is where the information is generated from, this is where the money trail is and if anyone thinks for one moment that fudging/skewing scientific conclusions is beyond them is only fooling themselves."

The so-called scientific study you cited, i.e., http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf, is a good example of fudging and/or skewing conclusions. Your own arguments now suggest that the money trail should be followed, so why not do that? Who funds that junk science?

[Wao nahele kane]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14552382
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697


- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.

[peteadams]

Wao nahele kane contributed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14552382
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697

Pubmed is an NIH service that provides abstracts of professional journals. These are not studies produced or endorsed by the U.S. government.

The study in the first link showed a Bt gene present in analysis of pig gut contents fed Bt corn. I'm sure you also noted with enthusiasm and great excitement that "Fragments of corn zein (242 bp), invertase (226 bp) and of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/ oxygenase genes (1,028 bp) were detected in the gastrointestinal contents of both Bt11 and nongenetically modified corn-fed pigs." (?) Your point? Bt exists in the environment? Since the organic food industry enthusiastically splashes Bt toxins on food for pest control there have been many studies that show Bt has no particular human toxicity. The authors also note their study "precluded conclusions about any potential absorption of the protein." They also did not note any tumors in the pigs.

The second link was not a study, but Seralini's defense of what many scientists considered an indefensible study, a study which was finally retracted by its journal publisher. Your point? Interesting here is that Seralini states that he needs Monsanto's own experimental results to fully explore the topic.

Finally, this pointing to this study or that experiment is often highly misleading. Much like citing anecdotes from your family (as Rand Paul did recently, stating that there was no Republican war on women because female members of his family were doing just fine!), science does not make conclusions based on a few isolated studies or personal anecdotes. As we have pointed out repeatedly, there is a large body of evidence from many disciplines, including independent, non-corporate funded academic studies if you are suspicious of corporations, that point entirely to the concept that because a food is a GMO does not mean it is in any way toxic. That Brenda Ford and Jeffery Smith have different opinions and beliefs does not change this outcome.

[Beachboy]

Okay all you Velveeta eating fools who think GMO anything is safe, and that the organic community is fear mongering. Watch this video. This guy work in the GM industry for many years, but then realized it was mostly all lies!

Of course you're gonna be hard pressed to find negative data. Monsanto and the likes pays big bucks to have bad press squashed, and when they do have their product tested, it's not done by an independent research company/lab.

I understand why Farmers like Richard Ha back this technology. You only have to listen to this guys and you fully understand.

http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2013/07/19/wat...riculture/

-----------

Support the 'Jack Herer Initiative'NOW!!