Groundbreaking Investigation Reveals Monsanto Teamed Up With US Military; Targets Scientists,

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Studies show RNA from our food remains in our digestive system
therefore it affects our entire system, organs included.

Acutually you're wrong.

No Phage, your wrong. I never said that study was on GMO.
Please, if your going to make accusations, get your facts straight first, then distort them.

So, surprise! RNA is food. Who would have thunk it? We eat it every day don't we?

Yes, I think that was my point. What is your point?

reply to post by Merinda

 

So, we are seeing the fallout already, since GMO were widely allowed into the food
chain around 1990, that is about 23 years, and one can make comparisons to the
health of those nations who will not allow GMO crops, to say...the U.S. where nearly
all of the major food stuffs have GMO ingredients.

And....you posted nothing to disprove that either.

Statistics on the Decline and Fall of American Health since Genetically Engineered Foods and High Fructose Corn Syrup Were Put into Commerce by Monsanto and Big Food in the Late 1990s
howtoeliminatepain.com... ctose-corn-syrup-were-put-into-commerce-by-monsanto-and-big-food-in-the-late-1990s/

I wonder how many Monsanto people have taken posts in the US Government also?????

reply to post by burntheships

No Phage, your wrong.

You said the study found that the RNA remains in our digestive system. That is not what the study found.

Statistics on the Decline and Fall of American Health since Genetically Engineered Foods and High Fructose Corn Syrup Were Put into Commerce by Monsanto and Big Food in the Late 1990s

You can't be serious.

It is safe to say that McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants were basically organic from the 1950s through 1980s

howtoeliminatepain.com... e-corn-syrup-were-put-into-commerce-by-monsanto-and-big-food-in-the-late-1990s/

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Good question

At least 16 in one year. Some in high office, of course in and of itself that
would not be bad, its just that we also have an FDA and USDA that have
decided to let Monsanto and other large bio-tech firms have free reign
over food freedom. Also known as the revolving door between the USDA
and Monsatno.

And they use international pressure on the other Nations
to try and cause them pain if they reject GMO crops from Monsanto.

And, they refuse to label GMO food here, where in other countries it must be labeled.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Statistics on the Decline and Fall of American Health since Genetically Engineered Foods and High Fructose Corn Syrup Were Put into Commerce by Monsanto and Big Food in the Late 1990s

You can't be serious.

Sorry, nice try but before that time there was NO GMO in the food supply.

Organic is not the issue, its the poison in the GMO that is toxic. The toxic pesitcides
that are GE engineered into the food, sometimes triple stacked pesticides.

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.i-sis.org.uk...

reply to post by burntheships

Organic is not the issue,

Tell that to the people who wrote that stupid article.

The toxic pesitcides that are GE engineered into the food, sometimes triple stacked pesticides.

You mean Bt toxins? The ones that organic farmers use? Those toxins?

Can you explain "triple stacked"?

Stacked three high o wise one..........
er sorry couldn't help that one.....it just slipped out.
The thread is getting all but unintelligible with the cross currents....
Can we not agree that whoever uses "bad science" should be horsewhipped ?
Meanwhile down on the farm, its been an obvious bulldoze job to shove these GMOs into the gullets of unwitting consumers....whether they will, or no......
Monsanto, proud purchaser of one of the largest private armies Blackwater......
The scene hardly looks friendly for the little producers......so far its all bee lawyers, wait till they cut the black bag boys loose on the opposition.......
I have to agree with Phage on the propaganda......its flying thick and fast both ways.....
like the gun issue too, filled with frantic people exaggerating and bare faced lying to make their points stick on the uninformed.
If you wish to oppose something, you must be able to support your rhetoric with solid facts.
Otherwise some literal minded person will slay you with them........

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Can you explain "triple stacked"?

Sure, I know that is one of your favorite Monsanto directed talking points.
I will be back to explain it.

And while your waiting.....we are still waiting for you to prove your accusations
that you made about Dr. Judy Carmen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage

Her "studies" are not science.

You made an accusation that Carmen, who is a scientist, her research is not "science".

Prove it. Otherwise, your accusation is a lie.

Further, if you cant prove her research is not "science",
explain why it is logical or intelligent to attack her research.

Waiting.

reply to post by burntheships

Waiting.

Short memory? A experiment with no clear hypothesis to start. A lack of controls. Natural variation ignored. It actually showed that the animals fed non-GMO had more stomach "inflamation" than those that were fed GMO.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

explain why it is logical or intelligent to attack her research.

Because it is bad science. Pointing out bad science is a good thing. Supporting bad science is a bad thing. Supporting ignorance is a bad thing.

reply to post by burntheships


Monsanto is just one more Usa government black ops project with free reign for a undercover chemical and biological war against the world.

reply to post by burntheships


Monsanto is just one more Usa government black ops project with free reign for a undercover chemical and biological war against the world.

Originally posted by Pressurecoocker
reply to post by burntheships

 

Monsanto is just one more Usa government black ops project with free reign for a undercover chemical and biological war against the world.

Indeed, I think this needs serious thought.

I suppose the proof will be around in the general health of the American public
as it declines from a steady diet of GMO toxins.

reply to post by Phage


Phage,

I did not post in that thread, but however did look at your posts.

I want others to go look too, pay close attention as you provided
no substance or reason as to why Dr. Carmens science is not "science".

Your circlular logic is very hard to follow....but I tried to see what you
had in mind. What you posted is just your opinion of Dr. Carmen.

You posted an old paper from 2005, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
and then a link to her study.
gmojudycarman.org...

Thats all, with your opinion. Which, is in line with Mosanto's philosophy...
and anti GMO sentiment is bad, all independent research is suspect.
You proved nothing. Only....that your opinion does not constitute science.

Naturally, this is the typical rhetoric one would expect from a Monsanto advocate.

reply to post by burntheships

I did not post in that thread, but however did look at your posts.

You are mistaken.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You posted an old paper from 2005, and then a link to her study.

Yes. A link to a paper which demonstrates how shoddy the work of Carmen is. She completed ignored factors which would be critical in such a study.

Triple stacked pesticide corn

www.forum.biobees.com...

GM Crops Destroyed by US Drought but non-GM Varieties Flourish


Non-GM varieties are more drought resistant, yet
Agritech Giants ensure farmers are unable to access them.

The United States is suffering the worst drought in 50 years. But crop damage may well have been avoided if high quality non-GM varieties were available to farmers. Further evidence is emerging that glyphosate-tolerant crops are ill-equipped to deal with drought, while high quality non-GM varieties are flourishing. Monopoly of the seed industry has left farmers unable to get non-GM varieties, despite the drought having global repercussions including steep rises of cereal prices and reduced meat production in many countries.

In a commentary circulated by GM Watch (UK), Howard Vlieger, a co-founder and agroecological farming advisor of Verity Farms in drought-stricken South Dakota the US, provides evidence from a farmer who has grown both GM and Verity Farms’ non-GM varieties of soybean and corn side by side [1]. Non-GM corn, grown in agroecological conditions to promote soil biodiversity and nutritional content is shown next to Monsanto’s GM triple-stack GM corn, which is glyphosate-tolerant and additionally expresses two Bt insecticidal toxins, grown using conventional chemical industrial methods that include the use of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup (Figure 1). As captured in the photograph, non-GM varieties appear greener, fuller, and healthier. These impressions are backed up by the far superior yield reported of non-GM corn, which averaged 100-120 bushels per acre (BPA) compared to the 8-12 BPA to 30-50 BPA of GM corn.

The large yield differential was confirmed in a new set of harvest data provided by Vlieger (with accompanying photographic identification)

for three fields surrounding Verity Farm, all growing Smart Stack RR corn [2].
All were harvested for corn silage as the yields were too poor to harvest the grain. The federal crop insurance adjuster appraised yields were respectively 12 bushels per acre (BPA), 27 BPA, and 28 BPA. The Non-GMO corn on Verity Farm across the road yielded 108 BPA.


Previous studies found glyphosate tolerant crops require more water
Triple Stack RR corn may be especially drought intolerant, but the new evidence from the farm is consistent with previous laboratory findings that glyphosate-treated crops are less water efficient than untreated crops. One such study was performed in Brazil when farmers reported “injured-looking” glyphosate-tolerant soybean crops. The team, led by Luis Zobiole from State University of Maringá found that GM glyphosate-tolerant (GT) soybeans absorbed less water, which resulted in reduced water efficiency [3]. The volume of water that non-treated GT soybean plants required to produce 1 g of dry biomass was 204 % and 152 % less than required when the plant is exposed to 2 400 grams acid equivalent (a.e) of glyphosate per hectare, in single or sequential applications respectively. GT soybean plants receiving a single application of the currently recommended rates of glyphosate (600–1200 grams a.e per hectare) needed 13–20% more water to produce the same amount of dry biomass than non-glyphosate treated plants.

A previous publication by the same lab showed GT soybeans to have reduced lignin content and photosynthesis rates, both possible mechanisms for the reduced water efficiency [4]. Lignin is an essential component of plant cell walls, and contributes to the compression strength of stems and to the efficient transport of water and solutes over long distances within the vascular system. Water deficiency is not the only physiological effect that glyphosate imposes on crops. It has been shown to reduce nutrient availability and immune responses and thus defence against plant diseases (see [5] Glyphosate Tolerant Crops Bring Death and Disease, SiS 47). At least 40 diseases are known to be increased in weed control programmes with glyphosate and the list is growing, affecting a wide range of species: apples, bananas, barley, bean, canola, citrus, cotton, grape, melon, soybean, sugar beet, sugarcane, tomato and wheat [6].
www.i-sis.org.uk...

SmartStax corn seed combines Monsanto's triple-stack technology
with Dow's Herculex insect control and Bayer's Liberty Link herbicide
resistance

Triple Stack Insect Killing Corn

news.yahoo.com...

Notes:
Implications for bees: potential transgenic source of neonics.

www.forum.biobees.com...

Bayer's own link to Poncho/clothianidin: Clothianidin (Poncho®, Poncho®Beta, Prosper®)

A copy and paste from Bayer's link:

Main Formulations
FS: Poncho (clothianidin 600 g a.i./l)
FS: Poncho Beta (clothianidin 400 + betacyfluthrin 53,34 g a.i./l)
FS: Prosper (clothianidin 120 + thiram 120 + carboxin 56 + metalaxyl 4 g a.i./l)

reply to post by burntheships

That's nice. I especially like your use of large fonts. It visually pleasant. But you didn't answer my question.

But please, explain to me what "triple stacked" means and why it is so dreadful.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
you are mistaken.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Irregardless, I dont post here for a living. That was not my thread, I made one post.
Wow, so what?

Yes. A link to a paper which demonstrates how shoddy the work of Carmen is.

Phage, all you are spouting off is a bunch of heated upset rhetoric. Monsanto
talking points. You use words like shoddy, but you dont prove anything by saying that.

You call articles stupid.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Tell that to the people who wrote that stupid article.

You accuse others of lies, without any basis in fact.

Sorry Phage, your pledged to Monsanto talking points,
using name calling and false accusations.

I call that bad science.

Papers
Lectures

Water's Quantum Jazz????
That is some crazy, CRAZY science.

See, people will buy anything we sell em Phage!!

We can be rich man!

I even got a name for the company.

GenX - Enhance your life.

Catchy right?

reply to post by burntheships

Phage, all you are spouting off is a bunch of heated upset rhetoric. Monsanto
talking points. You use words like shoddy, but you dont prove anything by saying that.

No. I'm providing facts. It is you who is spouting off rhetoric, anti-GMO nonsense.
Maybe if you take a moment to actually read the study and understand the point you might understand just why that "study" was so bad. But you won't because you just want to believe that is it right. You just accept the claims about it at face value. You are demonstration exactly my point.

You call articles stupid.

Yes. I call stupid articles stupid because they are stupid. "Mcdonald's was essentially organic". Right.

I call that bad science.

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand what science is.

if this has already been posted i apologize. i thought Dr. Judy's web site should be linked here after all there is a lot of talk about her.

GMO Judy Carman

and a question for those that say she is practicing bad science, would you please give examples of the bad science. what exactly has she done that's bad.

i'm serious, i want to see what they say she is doing wrong and why it's wrong.

or is it because she doesn't follow the main stream approach, and that why all who oppose her yell. but when she finally does find something that can not be denied, all those that she she was wrong, will jump up and say well we knew it was possible all a long.

that's just the way scientists always do things. once something is proven and they can't shout it down.