06-19-2014, 08:26 AM
"You didn't reply to my 2nd post about a Peer reviewed journal named Public Library of Science or PLOS,..."
Sure I did, saying things like "The academic PLOS study doesn't mention GMO..." and "The connection to GMO's is entirely made up. There was no claim in the PLOS article that the the bloodstream DNA fragments they found affected health...There was no claim that GM DNA fragments were discoverered." http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18747
Copying and pasting a big chunk of the "collective-evolution" article didn't add anything to that discussion. Much of it is generic stuff that's obviously intended to scare someone who doesn't know much about GMO's or genetics. Nowhere is any actual connection made to the actual effects of any GMO plant. Just a lot of "maybe this" and "speculate about that."
Then you change the subject to Monsanto. There's a lot of confusion going around about the difference between GMO, a scientific technique with wide applicability, and a corporation. They are different, you know. The criticism that I've seen about the Gates Foundation's work in Africa has centered around their efforts to encourage small farmers to make a living from very small farms rather than encouraging a more complex economy in Africa that pays better than a step above subsistence farming.
Agree or not with that criticism, what this has to do with GMO safety or why farmers on the Big Island have to be subject to laws based on an antipathy to science is obscure, at least. And, defaming science as a whole with statements like "[w]hose "science" can be taken seriously when everything has been monetized and politicized?" is also pretty useless. Really, not "everything" has been "monetized and politicized" in academic science. Really.
Sure I did, saying things like "The academic PLOS study doesn't mention GMO..." and "The connection to GMO's is entirely made up. There was no claim in the PLOS article that the the bloodstream DNA fragments they found affected health...There was no claim that GM DNA fragments were discoverered." http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18747
Copying and pasting a big chunk of the "collective-evolution" article didn't add anything to that discussion. Much of it is generic stuff that's obviously intended to scare someone who doesn't know much about GMO's or genetics. Nowhere is any actual connection made to the actual effects of any GMO plant. Just a lot of "maybe this" and "speculate about that."
Then you change the subject to Monsanto. There's a lot of confusion going around about the difference between GMO, a scientific technique with wide applicability, and a corporation. They are different, you know. The criticism that I've seen about the Gates Foundation's work in Africa has centered around their efforts to encourage small farmers to make a living from very small farms rather than encouraging a more complex economy in Africa that pays better than a step above subsistence farming.
Agree or not with that criticism, what this has to do with GMO safety or why farmers on the Big Island have to be subject to laws based on an antipathy to science is obscure, at least. And, defaming science as a whole with statements like "[w]hose "science" can be taken seriously when everything has been monetized and politicized?" is also pretty useless. Really, not "everything" has been "monetized and politicized" in academic science. Really.