Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled

Originally posted by Ghost375


And how do you say it's a standoff/standstill? More GM food is being added to the market everyday.

edit on 8-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

It is a standoff if one looks at this controversy considering the points I provided above, that both the GMO proponents have their research which could be said to be always in favor (this is speculation) of genetically modified foods, and the opponents of said foods who will provide reasons that challenge the legitimacy of those that have findings of those foods as safe, sometimes they will provide their own data; and vice versa (GM opponents will say the foods are not safe, and GM proponents will refute their claims)

It is a standstill because of the above reason, as one looking at the controversy that way will not see which side to entrust their consumer decision with. Considering what I wrote, if both scientists are providing information and both are refuting their contender's findings, there is not much of an "established say" on GMO foods - at least to me.

reply to post by Ghost375

The number of scientists who say GM food is safe vastly outnumber the scientists who say they are not safe. The studies that have shown problems in animals are usually flawed somehow

Many of those that say they are safe are in the hands of companies that sell GMOs. There are a lot of scientists that think they are not safe too. That is why some products that are on sale in the US are still banned in Europe.

My point being we do not know and if we do not know we should not be using humans as testers..

Originally posted by purplemer

Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.

www.naturalnews.com...

Arpad Puszta was one of the leading scientists in his field. Instead of getting praised he and his colleagues were chastised by the industry and government officals. This is not the way scientific research should be carried out. Research that came out of Egypt backed up there claims that GMOs cause long term health damage.

It is evident that there are problems with GMOs. Heck they do not even serve them in Monsantos own food eateries.

Do you have a source that says Monsanto doesn't serve it in their eateries? Not saying it isn't true but sources are important.

Originally posted by fluff007
reply to post by purplemer

 

How am i not surprised at this..!

They also do not serve GMO in the Whitehouse... So what does that tell us.. do not consume GMOs...!
Thanks for the info OP

Do you have a source that says the White House doesn't serve it in their eateries? Not saying it isn't true but sources are important.

reply to post by jlafleur02


Yes you are right it is important.

Monsanto had its pants pulled down by Friends of the Earth in 1999, who revealed that the company was refusing to serve to its own staff the very same GE food that it incessantly foists upon impoverished nations on the premise that it will save populations from starvation. Although it has never been proved, Monsanto constantly claims that GE food is harmless – so why wasn't it serving it in its own office

www.ffhas.org...

Well, it is pretty evident that the companies that treat us for our illnesses have a big stake in the GMO companies and design many of the chemicals that are put into our foods. Should this situation exist? I don't think so. The FDA is run by the same kind of people that are in the Pharma companies. People who believe what they do is safe. There is no way of knowing the consequences of these changes to the foodchain till a few generations go by. In the mean time, it will make Pharma stocks very valuable as the need for their services increases. Cancer rates are way up even though cigarette smoking has decreased. I see more cancer presently in people who don't smoke. Blame it on second hand smoke, hide the truth by all means possible. Smoke is a carcinogen because it stops histamine reactions. So do antioxidents, another name for immune system suppressants. Although that moderate use of antioxident foods is good, it does suppress the immune system. Antioxidents builds the chemicals of the immune system though, allowing it to have ammo. Trouble is that too much too often does not allow the killing of cancer when it is just starting. All that ammo and it's locked in an area where it cannot be used to control the cells when they are few. Wait till there are multitudes and all the ammo in the world does not good. Our body cannot easily distinguish cancer cells from normal cells easily.

So who spreads all these rumors? A strawberry is good because it can shrink tumors because it restricts blood vessel growth into tumors. It also restricts blood vessel growth into damaged areas of the body and into the fat to form brown fat. Good and bad in everything, if you crave strawberries, by all means eat strawberries. Our subconscious knows what to do.

Originally posted by Ghost375

The number of scientists who say GM food is safe vastly outnumber the scientists who say they are not safe. The studies that have shown problems in animals are usually flawed somehow.

Argumentum ad populum: appeal to numbers. Logical fail.

I challenge you to prove that these studies are "usually flawed somehow".

reply to post by unityemissions

The parameters of these studies are often given by science itself, an organization that knows nothing of the real qualities of food. If you have to prove something is toxic, which means that it will get you sick in a predetermined time, you cannot. It is longterm use that causes problems, something that is not recognized or provable at the present time. Food i more than minerals and vitamins. Food is chemistry.

Most GM food is bad because we are not accustomed to the food. If you have never eaten a food than it can be toxic to overeat it. The fact that we are boosting soy and corn chemistry greatly in our diets is not safe either. Same with grains that are processed. Changing the ratio of the chemistry is bad. Looking at the whole picture is crucial.

I agree that GM foods are bad, no amount of misapplied or parameter hindered evidence can persuade me otherwise. A small change we can adapt to, this stuff is in everything.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Ghost375
The number of scientists who say GM food is safe vastly outnumber the scientists who say they are not safe. The studies that have shown problems in animals are usually flawed somehow.

Argumentum ad populum: appeal to numbers. Logical fail.

I'm afraid not, for he was invoking an overwhelming number of authorities. It's not a fallacious position.

I challenge you to prove that these studies are "usually flawed somehow".

On the very same frontpage we have this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This touts a discredited study which serves as an excellent example.

reply to post by jlafleur02

Places with diets high in GMO have higher rates of all sorts of sicknesses, diseases, and cancers.
Places with diets lower in GMO have lower instances of those same conditions...or so I am led to believe.

Apparently a similar effect is seen when you substitute GMO with 'modern western medicines'.

If true this would seem to indicate that there is not only a correlation but a causal relationship between these factors. Thus a natural conclusion can be made that big agra and big pharma are poisoning the food supply.

reply to post by rickymouse

Here's a link from livestrong that addresses your comments about anti-oxidants:
www.livestrong.com - The Effects of Too Much Antioxidants...

...........
Few studies have been done with humans investigating the potential effects of excess doses of antioxidants other than beta-carotene and vitamin E, so the effects of most of these substances remains unknown. The best solution to keep from taking in too many of a given antioxidant is to choose whole foods instead of supplements. Because antioxidants work in synergy with other components in the diet, the problem of too many antioxidants could be a result of isolating these compounds, not any fault of the compounds themselves.

Most americans don't get enough vegetables and fruits. So I wouldn't tell them to stop eating them. In fact, studies show that a diet of fruits and vegetable and exercise is exactly what we need.

Too many amercans eat refined foods. Obesity is increasingly common. There're so many other problems too, like Vitamin-D deficiencies and exposure to chemicals and pollutants.

Between 1995 and 2005, about 220,000 people died from coal power pollution in the US alone. This does NOT include deaths outside the US. Deaths globally are in the millions. Far more people have died from fossil fuel burning per/kWH than from the use of nuclear power plants.

(on-topic)

They should label GMO foods. I think consumers would popularly want that. They label ingredients and weight and servings, so why would they not label whether it's GMO or not?

reply to post by jlafleur02


soz wrong pic... anyways.

Do you have a source that says the White House doesn't serve it in their eateries? Not saying it isn't true but sources are important.

Yes. It has been in the MSM multiple times, why it even had its own thread on ATS....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.elephantjournal.com...

www2.qsrmagazine.com...

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Ghost375
The number of scientists who say GM food is safe vastly outnumber the scientists who say they are not safe. The studies that have shown problems in animals are usually flawed somehow.

Argumentum ad populum: appeal to numbers. Logical fail.

I'm afraid not, for he was invoking an overwhelming number of authorities. It's not a fallacious position.

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam: appeal to authority. Double logical fail!

reply to post by jonnywhite


Very true. I see you have done your research also.

The increase in the corn yield from GMO engeneering is not that good either because it causes a change in our food. In the case of feeding more grains to cow, including corn and soy products, it changes the chemistry of the beef. The lowering of the Omega threes plus the way lowering of conjugated linoleic acid in the beef by this practice just to get a more tender steak causes problems with the chemistry of the beef. Leaving the cattle eat out in the field is the best way, grass fed beef is superior to grain fed beef. It is not that grass fed is better, it is that the highly grainfed beef is chemically not suitable for our diet. A little grain for a treat is alright, a handful to get the cows in the barn. Feeding too much corn along with other grains changes the meat chemistry.

Here is an article from Mayo clinic about the benefits of grass fed beef. this chemical, conjugated Linoleic acid is in all grassfed animals with a ruminant. Feeding corn to deer also ruins the meat of the deer, something deer hunters should take into consideration when baiting deer. Why should people wait till after they get cancer to start eating grassfed beef. The practice they are using on the beef is making it cause cancer. We didn't know this before, we know it now. Cows should eat grass and some of the weeds they need in the fields. They know which weeds to eat, if they are there. There are a couple that they will eat that are no good for them though and those should be taken out of the fields by the farmer. Enough complaining about the messed up food we have, here is the Mayo link. www.mayoclinic.com... Just one of many that prove that real beef is better than that crap you buy in the store. It doesn't have to be certified grassfed to be good, it just has to not have corn and some other grains except in real small treats.

Originally posted by unityemissions
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam: appeal to authority. Double logical fail!

Please learn your logical fallacies better. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is not valid and the overall consensus is not in favour. In this case both are true, therefore this is a non fallacious authoritative argument.

genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions

It seems like the perfect crime; you create food that, overtime, damages the body in a manner similar to old age; people eat it, have bad health, and assume they are "just getting older".

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Ghost375

The number of scientists who say GM food is safe vastly outnumber the scientists who say they are not safe. The studies that have shown problems in animals are usually flawed somehow.

Argumentum ad populum: appeal to numbers. Logical fail.

I challenge you to prove that these studies are "usually flawed somehow".

Dude, I used it because he said they were equal. It wasn't being used as an argument, just a fact.

And I freakin linked to a page that describes why they are flawed!!!!

Originally posted by 1Learner

Originally posted by Ghost375


And how do you say it's a standoff/standstill? More GM food is being added to the market everyday.

edit on 8-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

It is a standoff if one looks at this controversy considering the points I provided above, that both the GMO proponents have their research which could be said to be always in favor (this is speculation) of genetically modified foods, and the opponents of said foods who will provide reasons that challenge the legitimacy of those that have findings of those foods as safe, sometimes they will provide their own data; and vice versa (GM opponents will say the foods are not safe, and GM proponents will refute their claims)

It is a standstill because of the above reason, as one looking at the controversy that way will not see which side to entrust their consumer decision with. Considering what I wrote, if both scientists are providing information and both are refuting their contender's findings, there is not much of an "established say" on GMO foods - at least to me.

edit on 8-12-2012 by 1Learner because: editing a part (adding info)

edit on 8-12-2012 by 1Learner because: again, adding info, removing info

edit on 8-12-2012 by 1Learner because: added quotation marks, editied spelling error

It's only a standoff in the sense that a few people keep shouting out the same thing that GM food is so bad! Yet they either provide only flawed studies, but most provide no studies at all. Anti-GM people just ignore the facts because they usually don't have a background in science. In the scientific community, it's not a standoff. GM food is moving forward.

The vast majority of studies show that GM food is safe. In this case, a numbers argument is very valid. There are many studies done by independent scientists. It's not all research done by Monsanto.

Again, it's only a standoff in the sense that anti-GM people ignore all evidence and pretend like they are refuting the fact that GM food is fine.