GMOs

[KMGC]

You really don't seem to understand what my objection to what you did was, do you? It's really quite simple:

What you did:
Type in a key phrase designed to produce specific results that fit with your preconceptions and supported your view, despite showing no evidence whatsoever of having reviewed those links or checked them for any kind of validity, as evidenced by the fact that the first result was from a website that quoted itself as a source.

What I did:
Typed an individual's name into a search engine to find any links about their work, finding two articles which were particularly critical and showed that individual to be potentially dishonest, then present those articles to you. And, may I add, you have yet to refute a single thing presented in those articles.

You are wrong there. And you too have not done any adequate refuting on those articles, but posted simply that I was wrong and then posted two pages that supported that theory... You are a doubt-mongerer, where I appear to be a fearmongerer but am truly an advocate for the better of mankind.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Amidst those links I find the rat one I talked about where its health risks in rice tested on rats, next one I find wanting of containing reference to HEALTH RISKS - it says SOCIAL CONCERNS, as stated by myself in the quote you happily quote in an incomplete matter.

Well, it's good to see that you're at least reading as far as the title of these articles. The very paper has a section helpfully entitled "Health Risks Associated with GM Food Consumption":

Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns

Evidently, you didn't even bother with a cursory glance through the paper itself.

There is another on allergens, which is not specifically related to health risks like infertility cancer etc. from eating GMO food.

So, a study on allergens isn't related to health?

There's one which interviews some people about their opinion having had gastrointestinal issues and eating GMOs... overall those are just not the health risks I have been discussing.

So, you've gone from "There are no peer reviewed papers on GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the health effects of GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the specific health effects of GMOs that I am particularly interested in".

The next one discusses the possibilities from GMOs, not health risks, just how it might advance society. It appears you did not even read them, just posted links to debase my responses. Lets continue. The next examines the regulations around studies of health risks of GMOs, The last one is just called "Genetically Modified Foods" and contains nothing on health risks, it just talks about them and how we already eat DNA... my argument to that, not that it's related, is that we have yet to, for three generations of births, eat GMO'd DNA strains and allow them to combine into ourselves by the assimilation processes of digestion.

Since I've already demonstrated that you didn't even go one step further than reading the titles of these papers, I really am amazed by the fact that you have the gall to accuse me of not reading them.

You are so busted, young man.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are wrong there. And you too have not done any adequate refuting on those articles,

You didn't post any. You posted a search results page and didn't present even a single argument made by any one of the links. Do you expect me to go through every link and refute every point just because you typed a phrase into bing?

but posted simply that I was wrong and then posted two pages that supported that theory... You are a doubt-mongerer, where I appear to be a fearmongerer but am truly an advocate for the better of mankind.

If you're an advocate for the betterment of mankind, you can start by actually being honest and admitting when you're wrong/uninformed/didn't even bother reading the papers I provided you with. Since you clearly did absolutely no research whatsoever, you are not an advocate for the better of mankind. You are an advocate for you, and what you think is right regardless of how little you actually know or are willing to research about the subject.

 

[KMGC]

Well, it's good to see that you're at least reading as far as the title of these articles. The very paper has a section helpfully entitled "Health Risks Associated with GM Food Consumption":

Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns

Evidently, you didn't even bother with a cursory glance through the paper itself.



So, a study on allergens isn't related to health?


So, you've gone from "There are no peer reviewed papers on GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the health effects of GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the specific health effects of GMOs that I am particularly interested in".


Since I've already demonstrated that you didn't even go one step further than reading the titles of these papers, I really am amazed by the fact that you have the gall to accuse me of not reading them.

You are so busted, young man.

AND WHAT does the paper continue on to SAY about health risks on animals other than that MANY DIE, AND ARE affected with INFERTILITY, as I argued originally (THANKS FOR PROVING ME RIGHT ) other than some mice. As well as this evidence from DIRECTLY WITHIN THIs PAGE-
"Although Agri-biotech companies do not accept the direct link between the GMFs consumption and human health problems, there are some examples given by the opponents. For example: The foodborne diseases such as soya allergies have increased over the past 10 years in USA and UK (32) and an epidemic of Morgellons disease in the US (33). There are also reports on hundreds of villagers and cotton handlers who developed skin allergy in India (34, 35). Recent studies have revealed that Bacillus thuringiensis corn expresses an allergenic protein which alters overall immunological reactions in the body (36, 37)."

 

[KMGC]

You didn't post any. You posted a search results page and didn't present even a single argument made by any one of the links. Do you expect me to go through every link and refute every point just because you typed a phrase into bing?


If you're an advocate for the betterment of mankind, you can start by actually being honest and admitting when you're wrong/uninformed/didn't even bother reading the papers I provided you with. Since you clearly did absolutely no research whatsoever, you are not an advocate for the better of mankind. You are an advocate for you, and what you think is right regardless of how little you actually know or are willing to research about the subject.

Once again with the egotistical attacks. You've just described yourself. You fully looked at the next title of the phrases in the document but failed to read it. While I admit I read only the first paragraph and found plenty of evidence within that of threats to health. I do not believe they debase what I have provided from within it which states that GMOs DO cause health risks and that it is vastly ignored. Now who's busted?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

AND WHAT does the paper continue on to SAY about health risks on animals other than that MANY DIE, AND ARE affected with INFERTILITY, as I argued originally (THANKS FOR PROVING ME RIGHT ) other than some mice. As well as this evidence from DIRECTLY WITHIN THIs PAGE-
"Although Agri-biotech companies do not accept the direct link between the GMFs consumption and human health problems, there are some examples given by the opponents. For example: The foodborne diseases such as soya allergies have increased over the past 10 years in USA and UK (32) and an epidemic of Morgellons disease in the US (33). There are also reports on hundreds of villagers and cotton handlers who developed skin allergy in India (34, 35). Recent studies have revealed that Bacillus thuringiensis corn expresses an allergenic protein which alters overall immunological reactions in the body (36, 37)."

And thank you very much for proving me right about the fact that you didn't even bother to read the papers in the first place. Considering you earlier accused me of taking your quotes out of context, you would do well by reading the rest of the article.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Once again with the egotistical attacks.

Once again with the knee-jerk defensiveness.

You've just described yourself.

No, I read the links I provided.

You fully looked at the next title of the phrases in the document but failed to read it.

I literally pointed out to you the section of the paper about health.

While I admit I read only the first paragraph and found plenty of evidence within that of threats to health.

So, in other words, you dismissed an article without reading it.

I do not believe they debase what I have provided from within it which states that GMOs DO cause health risks and that it is vastly ignored. Now who's busted?

Your selective understanding of this debate is fascinating. I really wish all research was this easy.

 

[KMGC]

Well, it's good to see that you're at least reading as far as the title of these articles. The very paper has a section helpfully entitled "Health Risks Associated with GM Food Consumption":

Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns

Evidently, you didn't even bother with a cursory glance through the paper itself.



So, a study on allergens isn't related to health?


So, you've gone from "There are no peer reviewed papers on GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the health effects of GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the specific health effects of GMOs that I am particularly interested in".


Since I've already demonstrated that you didn't even go one step further than reading the titles of these papers, I really am amazed by the fact that you have the gall to accuse me of not reading them.

You are so busted, young man.

You are a baseless liar who fully described himself. You read only the title and presumed that the paper was revealing that there were no health risks. upon your accusation i read that part of that article and found much wanting as far as my awareness vs. yours goes. I had been skipping to the conclusion part of the papers to discover what the peer reviewed answer was, and did not see one in that article that did not confirm my statement that GMOs are unsafe... as revealed here... Despite that it sort of presumes that because they barely pass government health/safety analysis it's all alright despite that GMOs are in general a massive threat

Taking everything into consideration, GM crops are alive; they can migrate and spread worldwide. In this regard, clear signals should be sent to biotech companies to proceed with caution and avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment. It is widely believed that it is the right of consumers to demand mandatory labeling of GM food products, independent testing for safety and environmental impacts, and liability for any damage associated with GM crops. We are aware that many regulatory laws already exist for risk assessments which are performed on three levels of impacts on Agriculture (gene flow, reducing biodiversity), Food and Food safety (allergenicity, toxicity), and Environment (including non target organism); And at the same time, in recent years Cartagena protocol has created laws and guidelines and has obliged countries and companies to obey them for production, handling and consumption of GM materials. In this article, we have not reviewed the regulatory issues involved in GMFs production. However, we are certain that the interested readers will follow the debates on GMFs and the related regulatory issues in the years to come.

 

[KMGC]

Once again with the knee-jerk defensiveness.


No, I read the links I provided.


I literally pointed out to you the section of the paper about health.



So, in other words, you dismissed an article without reading it.


Your selective understanding of this debate is fascinating. I really wish all research was this easy.

Decided to read more to prove myself to you... Oh ye heroic atheist.

For instance, only chemical analysis of some nutrients are reported and generally consider the GM crops equal to its conventional crops when no major differences are detected between the compound compositions in both products.

This backs up my argument that YES -THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE THAT GMOS ARE SAFE, as in this study only SOME parts of the plant are reviewed. Try proving your point next time.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are a baseless liar who fully described himself. You read only the title and presumed that the paper was revealing that there were no health risks.

Where did I say that?

upon your accusation i read that part of that article and found much wanting as far as my awareness vs. yours goes. I had been skipping to the conclusion part of the papers to discover what the peer reviewed answer was, and did not see one in that article that did not confirm my statement that GMOs are unsafe... as revealed here... Despite that it sort of presumes that because they barely pass government health/safety analysis it's all alright despite that GMOs are in general a massive threat

Taking everything into consideration, GM crops are alive; they can migrate and spread worldwide. In this regard, clear signals should be sent to biotech companies to proceed with caution and avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment. It is widely believed that it is the right of consumers to demand mandatory labeling of GM food products, independent testing for safety and environmental impacts, and liability for any damage associated with GM crops. We are aware that many regulatory laws already exist for risk assessments which are performed on three levels of impacts on Agriculture (gene flow, reducing biodiversity), Food and Food safety (allergenicity, toxicity), and Environment (including non target organism); And at the same time, in recent years Cartagena protocol has created laws and guidelines and has obliged countries and companies to obey them for production, handling and consumption of GM materials. In this article, we have not reviewed the regulatory issues involved in GMFs production. However, we are certain that the interested readers will follow the debates on GMFs and the related regulatory issues in the years to come.

And how does this conclusion support your claim?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Decided to read more to prove myself to you... Oh ye heroic atheist.

Once again, what makes you think I am an atheist?

For instance, only chemical analysis of some nutrients are reported and generally consider the GM crops equal to its conventional crops when no major differences are detected between the compound compositions in both products.

This backs up my argument that YES -THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE THAT GMOS ARE SAFE, as in this study only SOME parts of the plant are reviewed. Try proving your point next time.

Selective reading is fun, isn't it? Hey, remember when you dismissed this article originally as being merely about "the social concerns" of GMO? Now it seems you and this article are best friends. I take it you'll be perusing all of the other articles I linked and finding similar evidence.

You seem to have forgotten the simple fact that I have demonstrated that you did no research whatsoever, and when presented with research, you didn't bother to read it.

 

[KMGC]

Once again with the knee-jerk defensiveness.


No, I read the links I provided.


I literally pointed out to you the section of the paper about health.



So, in other words, you dismissed an article without reading it.


Your selective understanding of this debate is fascinating. I really wish all research was this easy.

It would have helped if that section actually debased my statement that GMOs were unsafe. Which it did not. It backed it up. You might say that we both come from our own perspective.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It would have helped if that section actually debased my statement that GMOs were unsafe. Which it did not. It backed it up. You might say that we both come from our own perspective.

So, you're just going to ignore the fact that you lied, didn't do any research, and made no effort to read the information provided to you?

 

[KMGC]

Once again, what makes you think I am an atheist?




Selective reading is fun, isn't it? Hey, remember when you dismissed this article originally as being merely about "the social concerns" of GMO? Now it seems you and this article are best friends. I take it you'll be perusing all of the other articles I linked and finding similar evidence.

You seem to have forgotten the simple fact that I have demonstrated that you did no research whatsoever, and when presented with research, you didn't bother to read it.

Dude you fully need to relax a little and recognize that when I studied that one page among your other EMPTY of useful information pages, which yes, was the one I skipped over and didn't read the conclusion of, probably because I closed it by accident. I read your research and it backed up my argument. Define where you are getting that you are winning this by that you misdirect away from the original argument which is that GMO's are a health concern and that most people who follow or indicate no religion whatsoever (like yourself) are pro-GMO.... Essentially you did any research I missed out on yourself. And like I said I did research and read up on those pages which I provided links to. NINE in fact. As well as that other link about Don Huber by which I present that there are very few peer-reviewed cases in which GMOs are presented as wholly safe for consumption. Think carefully before you respond this time.

 

[KMGC]

So, you're just going to ignore the fact that you lied, didn't do any research, and made no effort to read the information provided to you?

Did you research Don Huber or simply select the pages that debunked my theory? And if you carefully read my last post you'll see that I closed that page by accident. The others, based on my brief examining of them for evidence of pro-GMO results as far as health concerns go, contains nothing. The research I provided clearly introduces that doctor who has taught at a University for 35 years won many awards and is stated by them to potentially be the leading voice against or on GMOs - "Dr. Don Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, and professor of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years."

Your page just says that he offered to review his virus for him and the doctor specifically said he could find it himself or culture it himself or something but that it would be difficult. The guy just tried to force the doctor to reveal data about his work to him when he, by all accounts is just a snooping civilian!!!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dude you fully need to relax a little and recognize that when I studied that one page among your other EMPTY of useful information pages, which yes, was the one I skipped over and didn't read the conclusion of, probably because I closed it by accident. I read your research and it backed up my argument.

No, it didn't. You've suggested that GM crops would lead to infertility in humans in a few short generations. Please indicate where the article supports this conclusion, rather than merely points to studies that exist on animals and makes no claim of their validity rather than the effect on people's concerns about GMOs.

Define where you are getting that you are winning this by that you misdirect away from the original argument which is that GMO's are a health concern and that most people who follow or indicate no religion whatsoever (like yourself) are pro-GMO....

Well, for starters, you could try reading more than one paper.

Essentially you did any research I missed out on yourself. And like I said I did research and read up on those pages which I provided links to. NINE in fact.

None of which were remotely scientific or compelling. Meanwhile, I provided peer-reviewed papers, which you said didn't exist.

As well as that other link about Don Huber by which I present that there are very few peer-reviewed cases in which GMOs are presented as wholly safe for consumption.

So, you have gone from "there are no peer reviewed papers on GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the health risks of GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the health issues of GMOs that I am interested in" to "there are very few peer reviewed papers in which GMOs are presented as wholly safe for consumption.

My friend, you're no just moving the goalposts. You're moving the stadium.

Think carefully before you respond this time.

Just like how you thought carefully when you said that there were no peer reviewed papers on GMOs? Or how you thought carefully about reading the links I provided, but then didn't?

 

[KMGC]

This is in the "About" part of that site

Who is Frank N. Foode™?

Frank N. Foode™ is the official mascot of the Biofortified Blog, a project of Biology Fortified, Inc. (BFI). As he travels the world in search of adventures in plant genetics, he gives us a personal connection to the origins of the foods we eat. Few are able to resist getting their photo taken with him!

They have a mascot designed to mock the fact that ALL anti GMO activists know that we are making a monster of food by combining it with harmful chemicals. Does this seem like unimportant information to you? How would you like to one day lose your family line to infertility?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did you research Don Huber or simply select the pages that debunked my theory?

Yep.

And if you carefully read my last post you'll see that I closed that page by accident.

I totally believe you. Because it's impossible to click and link more than once.

The others, based on my brief examining of them for evidence of pro-GMO results as far as health concerns go, contains nothing.

Says you, and - as I have repeatedly demonstrated - you clearly have no interest in making any effort whatsoever into reading these papers yourself.

The research I provided clearly introduces that doctor who has taught at a University for 35 years won many awards and is stated by them to potentially be the leading voice against or on GMOs - "Dr. Don Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, and professor of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years."

I have yet to see evidence of this.

Your page just says that he offered to review his virus for him and the doctor specifically said he could find it himself or culture it himself or something but that it would be difficult. The guy just tried to force the doctor to reveal data about his work to him when he, by all accounts is just a snooping civilian!!!

Actually, there were two pages. And that "civilian" was actually a plant biologist named Kevin Folta: Kevin Folta « Biology Fortified, Inc.

You may seriously want to go back and re-read that article.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is in the "About" part of that site

Who is Frank N. Foode™?

Frank N. Foode™ is the official mascot of the Biofortified Blog, a project of Biology Fortified, Inc. (BFI). As he travels the world in search of adventures in plant genetics, he gives us a personal connection to the origins of the foods we eat. Few are able to resist getting their photo taken with him!

They have a mascot designed to mock the fact that ALL anti GMO activists know that we are making a monster of food by combining it with harmful chemicals. Does this seem like unimportant information to you?

Yep, pretty much.

 

[KMGC]

No, it didn't. You've suggested that GM crops would lead to infertility in humans in a few short generations. Please indicate where the article supports this conclusion, rather than merely points to studies that exist on animals and makes no claim of their validity rather than the effect on people's concerns about GMOs.


Well, for starters, you could try reading more than one paper.


None of which were remotely scientific or compelling. Meanwhile, I provided peer-reviewed papers, which you said didn't exist.


So, you have gone from "there are no peer reviewed papers on GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the health risks of GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the health issues of GMOs that I am interested in" to "there are very few peer reviewed papers in which GMOs are presented as wholly safe for consumption.

My friend, you're no just moving the goalposts. You're moving the stadium.


Just like how you thought carefully when you said that there were no peer reviewed papers on GMOs? Or how you thought carefully about reading the links I provided, but then didn't?

As we all know pigs are very similar in genetic response to humans. By that from the following evidence from within the article you claim supports your arguments we can all conclude that if all those animals have infertility issues from it we might as well.
Rats exposed to transgenic potatoes or soya had abnormal young sperm; cows, goats, buffalo, pigs and other livestock grazing on Bt-maize, GM cottonseed and certain biotech corn showed complications including early deliveries, abortions, infertility and also many died.

I feel like you're taking me specifically and only word for word instead of getting the general gist of what I am saying which is that NO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS THAT ARE PRO GMO EXIST. ALL PRO GMO PAPERS ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED, MAYBE YOU'LL FIND A COUPLE EXCEPTIONS BUT OVERALL THERE'S no clear evidence provided by you here that GMO'S are safe for consumption. However, you did find one peer-reviewed paper which indicated the opposite, so you back where I am coming from completely and entirely as far as ingesting GMOs goes...