Neil deGrasse Tyson Annihilates Anti-GMO Argument

a reply to: rickymouse

We adapt slowly to the foods we eat, over generations.

No. Populations adapt slowly, over generations. Individuals either have adverse reactions bad enough to kill them or stop them breeding, or else they happily carry on munching as before.

Please don't make up answers and present them as if they were fact.

*

a reply to: nugget1

There are a LOT of countries that have scientifically studied GMO's, and banned them as a result of their findings.

Not true. They have banned them, generally, for two reasons:

1. public opposition to GMOs
   
   
2. protection for local farmers and agricultural methods.

I would be interested to see legitimate research that show genetically modified organizations to be unfit for human consumption. I don't believe there is any.

*

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated that, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

Do you have links to the actual studies? Your source is not trustworthy.

The AAEM is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties. It is listed as a questionable organization on Quackwatch. And the American Board of Environmental Medicine is listed as a dubious certifying board. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

He completely ignores the fact that yes genetic modification is a tool and said tool can be used for ill. What about the fact that many genetically modified fruits and vegetables now produce their own pesticides internally. What about the studies showing certain genetically modified vegetables contain fewer nutrients. Seems to be a bit world play falling back on the old adage of "if ain't broke don't fix it". Well guess what the tool ain't broke, it works quite well to slowly and systematically club us over the head. reply to: onequestion

a reply to: Astyanax

the source was not the AAEM but in the same token i have no links... there are no studies i am aware of to prove that the modified organisms are benign in the body ...so time will tell

i was trying to clear up the difference between GM and selective breeding which is mainly that bacteria/insect/non plant DNA is inserted into plant DNA which is GM and basically cross breeding is the way it has always been done

but i will have a search and see what i can come up with

this site has a pretty good explanation as far as credible you decide

www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

the source was not the AAEM but in the same token i have no links.

Okay. But the statement you cited earlier was theirs, wasn't it?

there are no studies i am aware of to prove that the modified organisms are benign in the body

Nor will there ever be any, because it is not something that can ever be established. That is a matter of scientific method, nothing to do with GMOs.

i was trying to clear up the difference between GM and selective breeding which is mainly that bacteria/insect/non plant DNA is inserted into plant DNA which is GM and basically cross breeding is the way it has always been done

I understand. But gene transfer between species occurs constantly in nature. Why should it be somehow different when humans do it? DNA is DNA, wherever it comes from; it's always the same stuff. And we even use some of the same methods as nature does to perform gene transfers — for example, by exploiting the potential of plasmids.

Some links you may find interesting:

Natural GMOs

Bacterial DNA in human genomes

Evidence of Massive Horizontal Gene Transfer Between Humans and Plasmodium vivax

a reply to: Astyanax

thx for the links when i get time later after i put my boy to bed i will have a look and get back to you....

If this has been discussed already in this thread I apologiz. Selective breeding of animals needs extreme care also. These bred for fashion dogs end up having many genetic disorders. The following quote is by the first man to breed a labrodoodle.

Conron has since repeatedly stated he regrets initiating the fashion for this type of cross breed and maintains it caused "a lot of damage" together with "a lot of problems". He also felt he was to blame for "creating a Frankenstein" adding that problems were being bred into the dogs rather than breeding away from problems. He is further quoted as claiming: "For every perfect one, you're going to find a lot of crazy ones."

Edit to add source.

Www.deathandtaxesmag.com/214553/labradoodle-inventor-full-of-regret-is-now-like-the-oppenheimer-of-dog-inventors/

a reply to: onequestion

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, and aside from his academic career in that field, he is well qualified in wrestling, various styles of modern dance, including jazz.

He has no history in the field of genetics what so ever. He IS a scientist. He is NOT a geneticist.

I am a locksmith, which involves precision engineering, and aside from my career in that field, I like to play a little bass (badly), a game of pool now and again, and I can HEADBANG like a s.o.b.

I have no history as a car mechanic what so ever. I am an engineer therefore, not a mechanic.

Mr deGrasse Tyson likes to comment with authority, on matters which he has no qualification in, and as it happens, so do I. The difference being, when I make a statement of my opinion regarding a subject, I do so as a layman with a slightly better than average understanding of the subject matter, which means everything I say needs to be fact checked, and taken with a pinch of the old sodium chloride.

What Mr deGrasse Tyson does, is comments with authority, on matters which fall WELL outside his area of expertise, and does so as if he had just as much data and understanding of them as he does about matters pertaining to space, how planets orbit their parent stars, how nebulae come into existence, and the strange things that happen within these stellar nurseries.

He has no reason to comment on these matters in that fashion, because it is disingenuous to do so!

Patenting nature is evil, do you want one company holding the patents for making all fruits and vegetables or non edible plants? Eventually, since these GMO plants can pollinate and spread, their patented DNA sequence will be found in almost all of nature and then what, they own it? Look in to farmers versus Monsanto for examples.

If it is so safe then why did we lock up huge amounts of seeds into a vault, just in case? I understand that this vault is for many other scenarios, this is one of them. Where, GMO has spread out of control and we need to get back to the roots of nature.

Why don't they just label it if their is no difference?

Comparing GMO with cross breading is not the same thing. We know cross breading is tried tested and true, thousands of years versus a few decades. Cross breading didn't require a microscope to make, it uses techniques that are natural to cross bread plants.

Gene guns are not natural and not the same as cross breading. This argument is just so off it's like shooting your foot thinking your shooting the moon.


GMO makes for more pesticides and herbicides which kill all sorts of life, including humans. More nature replacements. Nature does all those for free, plus bees make honey for free!

Why are so many countrieskicking them out or rejecting them?

This kind of discussion shows why the populace is so stupid and guys like this clown are so diabolical.

The issue back in the day was this: "How can we, Monsanto, COPYRIGHT/PATENT FOOD? People will never go for the idea that one company is seeking to be able to both patent food AND sue those who breach that patent."

That is the ONLY POINT and there is and never has been another other point. What Monsanto has down with utter brilliance is BACK ENGINEER the reasons for the effort. What is great about guys like this jerk is they refused to address the moral context of that issue because science is amoral.

The effort is not about cross pollination, or about keeping poor kids from going blind, is about OWNING FOOD. The rest is utter PR bull*$%$.

The wonderful byproduct of the effort is the way in which the human DNA is so distorted it makes expressing their consciousness through the body nearly impossible.

a reply to: onequestion

I always knew this guy is a shill for the corporate mindset. He is a brilliant physicist but his soul is owned, bought and paid for.

a reply to: onequestion

This man is all part of the plan. Bill Nye has worn out his usefulness so they need a new propaganda artist. These men of "science" are turning out the PTB daily talking points. Think about it Neil is not an expert on this.




Ask yourself why would a astrophysicist be pushing this agenda? The truth is right in front you you dear readers. It is all a lie and Neil gets paid a bunch of money to push the PTB lies. This is why we have to stop putting faith in the messenger and pay more attention to the actual message itself.

You saved me time EVER listening to him.
you cannot glop all gmo's together.
Tomatos and chickens and... have been worked on for centuries. But recently the gene splicing is creating some very dangerous scenarios as they went high tech in this devious attempts for patent control over complete mkts.
gmo corn is not normal or good in any form. Entire hog farms have gone completely sterile in 3 generations. So we get to see their results before ours. You can see the pigs results in 3 generations in about 3 years.

About 4 months to gestation, 6 months more to breed.

humans will take a few generations.
Maybe they will invent a gmo viagra soona reply to: onequestion

I try to source my veggies from friends and neighbors who keep gardens, and frankly don't care if other people buy, use and enjoy GMO foods.

That said, I am most interested in research that investigates any possible connection between neonicotioinds and colony collapse disorder.

I enjoy NDT's pop-science programs on cosmology and theoretical physics. I don't know if he is the right expert to answer the later question, but it is far more important for human survival in the near short to mid term than any recent discovery in cosmology, IMO.

a reply to: onequestion

While Tyson is an intelligent man, no doubt. Yet Tyson has been bought and paid for, and is now the spokesman for science. When did all of a sudden he speak for the human race? I know Carl Sagan (his mentor) spoke deeply of this, and now Tyson is the go to science guy and speaks for us all? No thanks. I can now take anything the man says with a grain of salt.
While very entertaining and I am a BIG fan of Cosmos. But clearly he has been bought and paid for by those who wish to use his fame, and intelligence to their own corporate agendas.
Tyson is smart enough to know what he is doing. And while technically he is right about what he is saying, he is leaving out a HUGE amount of information, and that is lying by omission!

Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception. In the case of the former, an example of this would be a car salesmen claiming a car to have amazing fuel economy while neglecting to mention that it has no engine and is completely immobile.

If people want GMO foods for cheap, that should be their right to decide. We should not all be forced to eat food with pesticides grown into the crop. Boil it down and it is what it is. And it is about CONTROL over the food source, not so much the pesticides grown into the crop.
I have just lost a big bit of respect for Tyson. But that is my own personal feeling. He knows better. And is acting like a shill. Must be getting paid like one too.

But they leave out the whole immoral acts done by Monsanto. Down right dirty deeds. Which where completely left out due to the nature of how they spin this. Stay on topic, lying by omission IMO.

To me is is not that they want to poison us so much as CONTROL over the food source.
Those who control the food sources.. Control the world.
Annihilates Anti-GMO Argument, I think not. He only showed his shill side.

Monsanto, people should clearly research and understand what they have done in the past.
As again, this is not so much about killing people off with unsafe food, it IS about controlling the world's food source.

So yeah, Tyson is right about what he is saying, he normally is, a brilliant man. Yet sadly is being used. I see that now.
NDT swayed me on the whole global warming issue, when I was on the fence. Now I must go back to the fence in light of his actions to the status quo.

you guys just want conspiracies with everything. this world is not as bad as you once thought. stop thinking they are trying to kill you with food.

originally posted by: ShaeTheShaman
you guys just want conspiracies with everything. this world is not as bad as you once thought. stop thinking they are trying to kill you with food.

Not so much trying to kill us with food. But controlling the food. As those with control over the worlds food sources controls the world. You think we crazy for being slightly concerned about who wants to control our food sources.
You should look into Monsanto, and do some homework. You might be shocked to what you find.

a reply to: Astyanax

There are lots of articles addressing humans adapting to foods over generations. Many articles, not just a few. What are you saying I am making up, haven't you Google'ed this subject? There are even scientific research articles addressing this issue on precise adaptations with the possible sources of the adaptations.. Sure, some get sick, but the only reason we can eat the variety of foods we eat is because our ancestors paid the price.

We will adapt to the GMO food in three to four generations. Soy can possibly reduce fertility in males, you may be right about that, but that would be speculation because I have not seen any research that verifies that particular issue. Food does not have to immediately make you ill to cause a deficiency which can hurt you later. Lots of foods when consumed regularly can cause problems. Even eating too many eggs for a long term can cause problems.

a reply to: ShaeTheShaman

Interesting, I have a few questions for you there sir.

1. What system do you not find corruption in, within this current world paradigm?

2. Given that answering #1 results with admission of mass corruption, how is corruption possible without conspirators?

3. As a self proclaimed shaman, how do you make peace with the oppression altered states of consciousness?

originally posted by: zysin5
a reply to: onequestion





So yeah, Tyson is right about what he is saying, he normally is, a brilliant man. Yet sadly is being used. I see that now.

NDT swayed me on the whole global warming issue, when I was on the fence. Now I must go back to the fence in light of his actions to the status quo.

Excellent point there my friend! I put stock in his view on that as well and now as you said I am back to the fence!

a reply to: rickymouse

There are lots of articles addressing humans adapting to foods over generations. Many articles, not just a few.

Post links to them, then, or cite the details of publication, and prove me wrong.

What are you saying I am making up, haven't you Google'ed this subject?

That's your job. It's up to you, not me, to substantiate what you say.

There are even scientific research articles addressing this issue on precise adaptations with the possible sources of the adaptations.

Post them!