http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/22/superbugs-destruct-food-supply.aspx
Who's up for some pop corn and soda?
Who's up for some pop corn and soda?
Study Finds Genetically Engineered Corn Causes Massive Tumors, Organ Damage, Death
- Thread starter pupu
- Start date
Chemicals and GMO's are innocent until proven guilty in the US. Elsewhere, I'm thinking of France, they are guilty until proven innocent. Monsanto is free to poison the shit out of us and they do just that. Corporations are astoundingly greedy and unconscientious. I worked for an implantable manufacturer. They had a product that caused strokes and heart attacks in the European trials [everything is released first in Europe because the victims have less rights and much smaller awards in lawsuits]. Sixty percent of people who got said heart valve had strokes or heart attacks. So what did my employer do? They found ways to sell off the remaining stock of said heart valve via experimental programs wherein the recipients had already signed waivers, the VA in other words. I questioned one member of upper management with whom I was on friendly terms and she replied "we like to think that we do more good than harm". So they can do astoundingly horrific acts and rationalize it all. Shortly after that the implantable industry got the laws changed, not via congress but via a court, so that a lawsuit had to prove that a defective product does more harm than good, not just prove that it did some harm.
I'd really like to get to the heart of many matters in the US of A. Identify and track all psychopaths for openers. Don't even wait for the first crime. We have brain imaging equipment that can id a psychopath with very high accuracy. Tag them and track them and question them first every time a crime occurs anywhere near them. They do fifty percent of all serious crimes and I'm convinced that psychological ripples from psychopaths cause a lot of the other fifty percent. After that we could change the definition of what a corporation is as a person and include responsibility to people and the environment.
I'd really like to get to the heart of many matters in the US of A. Identify and track all psychopaths for openers. Don't even wait for the first crime. We have brain imaging equipment that can id a psychopath with very high accuracy. Tag them and track them and question them first every time a crime occurs anywhere near them. They do fifty percent of all serious crimes and I'm convinced that psychological ripples from psychopaths cause a lot of the other fifty percent. After that we could change the definition of what a corporation is as a person and include responsibility to people and the environment.
who's up?
million of sheeple.
you see, its not monsanto whos evil.
its the consumers who buy their shit and harm ***themselves***
nobody forces you to buy toxic crap.
it is that simple.
the corporation has no emotions, it works as well calculated, cold machine.
so if people tend to buy it... DEMAND such products- there can be no other strategy for the company.... produce what the public demands.
same with cancer industry.
people seem to love being poisoned by radiation.
once they will switch their preferences, the corporations will change too.
million of sheeple.
you see, its not monsanto whos evil.
its the consumers who buy their shit and harm ***themselves***
nobody forces you to buy toxic crap.
it is that simple.
the corporation has no emotions, it works as well calculated, cold machine.
so if people tend to buy it... DEMAND such products- there can be no other strategy for the company.... produce what the public demands.
same with cancer industry.
people seem to love being poisoned by radiation.
once they will switch their preferences, the corporations will change too.
mercola? mercola is the alex jones of the health industry. anything he says is suspect.
Seriously, a sentence like that should raise the "biased propaganda" antennae of anyone who completed a basic junior high science class.
The study presents a few questions: "There were some reported findings some considered strange, however. Rats that ate the higher percentages of genetically modified corn did not get as sick as those who were eating the lower percentages."
And: "Critics also have taken issue with the study's methodology. Specifically the researchers' choice of rats are known for their propensity to develop mammary tumors if their diet is not controlled. Also, the control group of just 20 mice is rather small and makes it hard to draw conclusions from comparisons. Some experts pointed out to the BBC that the pictures of the rats with the tumors were misleading. "The most evocative part of the paper is those pictures of tumorigenesis," said Maurice Moloney, a research biologist at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, England, said to the BBC. He said the authors mislead readers to believe that these tumors never happen in control groups."
* * *
Mercola may have a few good intentions (the risks of GMOs are currently unknown and the potential risks are diverse and significant), but he's a salesman and a demagogue first, not an objective scientist.
I suggest everyone learn to do proper research to locate the actual science behind hot-button headlines.
For example, if you click on the link "30 other animal studies" from the OP's Mercola article link, you'll see Mercola state:
"Feeding studies on laboratory and farm animals show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic: Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (sores or ulcers). 2 3"
When you read this, do you draw a particular conclusion? Is it even possible to draw any sort of conclusion? Some people might draw the conclusion that GM tomatoes can cause stomach lesions in rats. But there's nothing in this statement supporting such a conclusion.
Was there a group of rats that was fed non-GM tomatoes who didn't develop stomach lesions? We don't know. For that matter, maybe there was a control group of rats that was fed, say, nothing but distilled water. If so, did they develop lesions or not? We simply have no idea from reading Mercola's statement.
Well, let's scroll down to his cited references and see what we can find:
2. Hines FA. Memorandum to Linda Kahl on the Flavr Savr tomato (Pathology Review PRâ152; FDA Number FMFâ000526): Pathology Branch's evaluation of rats with stomach lesions from three four-week oral (gavage) toxicity studies (IRDC Study Nos. 677â002, 677â004, and 677â005) and an Expert Panel's report. US Department of Health & Human Services. 16 June 1993. http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html
Let's click on the link he provides there. Hey check it out, it's a partial copy of the DHHS Memorandum he references! If you read this portion of the memorandum, you can see right away that there is a disconnect between Mercola's statement above and the facts visible in this partial copy of the memorandum:
Mercola: "Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (sores or ulcers)."
Department of Health and Human Services: "In the first study, no gross or microscopic lesions were reported in the stomach of any rat."
Wow, no lesions of any kind in any rat! Did they duplicate this study on the effects of ingesting GM tomatoes?
Well...not really. They completed two other studies, but as you can see from the partial copy of the memorandum Mercola provides each subsequent study was a bit different, so we have no duplication of the initial study.
But in the second study, we do finally get some evidence supporting Mercola's core claim that "Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions..." but only one of the two lines of transgenic tomato utilized (both of which were "distinct from the transgenic line that was the subject of the first study") gave the appearance of possible trouble.
So we have Mercola offering a blanket statement to support his personal opinion, and providing references, knowing that these citation numbers alone will appease the majority of lazy readers who allow their beliefs to be molded by unqualified bloggers and demagogues. Yet the data contained within the reference material itself is far more complex.
Worse, Mercola only offers his readers a partial copy of the DHHS memorandum. Notice how he exercises his mastery of demagoguery by leaving us hanging at the phrase "Gross and microscopic..."
The less lazy reader (who went so far as to click on the link in the citation way down at the end of all Mercola's writing and read this DHHS partial memorandum) feels fairly certain by now that GM tomatoes cause stomach sores or ulcers in rats, and may even have applied specious logic to conclude that GM tomatoes cause stomach sores or ulcers in humans.
Those who prefer factual data to opinion and bias, and who desire to think for themselves rather than allow corporate-owned media outlets, professional bloggers, and SuperPACs to brainwash them, dig just a little deeper and ask, "Why does Mercola leave out the rest of this memorandum?"
And we find that if Mercola were to include merely the rest of that sentence alone, there is no scientific evidence or statistical significance coming out of these studies linking GM tomatoes to the stomach lesions found in some of the rats in the 2nd and 3rd studies:
"Gross and microscopic gastric erosions were seen in male and female control rats dosed with dionized water, in male and female rats fed the non-transgenic tomato, and in female rats fed the transgenic tomato."
Whoa! The rats fed non-GM tomatoes got lesions, and the control group fed distilled water got stomach lesions, too!
Learn to do your own research and draw conclusions based on evidence.
Again, the risks of GMOs are currently unknown and the potential risks are diverse and significant, but as soon as we allow bias to override evidence, we are at risk of losing every freedom we fought for as new nation.
I am not so concerned about artificial genetic modification per se,
but the purpose behind it. In the case of Monsanto's crop seed, resistance to their herbicide was designed into the GMO seed genome, which allows the farmers to spray Round Up not just between the rows of crops, but indiscriminately, and not worry about killing their crop . It is the herbicides in greater amounts in
the food that I worry about.
BTW, if a rat can die 2-3x more frequently than another rat, can rat live 2-3x more frequently as well?
There are many studies coming out that seem a bit flawed in the way they come to their conclusion (like the recent one claiming that eggs are as bad for you as smoking). On top that, scientific research if often manipulated by special interests to produce an outcome favorable to those interests so that makes it even more difficult to know what to believe
Very few people will go to the length of analyzing the article and it's references as you have. most of us have been train to have a one sentence attention span and defer to doctors to explain things to us(unfortunately many doctors also reduce attention span; time is money).
Mercola may have his shortcomings but he does have many valid and good points about health care issues.
In the case of GMO foods, it's better to take the approach 'better safe than sorry', especially when one takes into account the corporate culture driving these products.
Did any of you retards bother to read the study?
This was a 2-year study. The death rate comparison was between control and experimental groups after 2 years had elapsed. Taken within that context, the quote makes perfect sense:
"The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats.[Editors note: this level of Roundup is permitted in drinking water and GE crops in the US]
In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs.
In english - the GM-fed rats died at a rate of 2-3 times that of the control group after two years. And died at a younger average age than controls. You boneheads must be long Monsanto.
This was a 2-year study. The death rate comparison was between control and experimental groups after 2 years had elapsed. Taken within that context, the quote makes perfect sense:
"The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats.[Editors note: this level of Roundup is permitted in drinking water and GE crops in the US]
In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs.
In english - the GM-fed rats died at a rate of 2-3 times that of the control group after two years. And died at a younger average age than controls. You boneheads must be long Monsanto.