If generations of selectively bred humans ate a totally pure and unvaried corn + soy whole grain diet that's unnatural as hell in order to bulk them up to severely unhealthy amounts of body mass it might be comparable. Heck, if only the "ate a pure and unvaried corn + soy" part was true it might be at least a bit comparable.

A lot of the irritation in the first place is coming from eating dried corn and soy grains exclusively and having their digestive system break down something they wouldn't normally choose to eat unless it was the only source around...it's not a preferred food, it's a cheap and available food. It is absolute hell on their digestive system.

The "normal" commercial feeding of animals for meat consumption isn't anything close to how a normal animal out of the genetically bottle-necked bred and fed world would conduct itself in a search for food.

You are already working with a class of animals who are genetically non-diverse and bred for weight/muscle gain before you get into the horrible diet they are fed to maximize that gain.

Animal production for food is generally not pretty...especially if you only need them to stay alive for a few months (chickens) or 2/3rd of a year (pigs).

Their feeding suggestions are not given for long-term health and well-being...they're given for best bulk gain without them dieing or becoming sick before their slaughter date.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sat, Dec 7, 13 at 16:49

Actually, NC, I don't see in any of the snippets in your given link (taken from Engdahl's book) any claim about conspiracies.

Many of the statements, or claims, could be fact-checked. Many are plausible, to me. There is no doubt whatever that modern societies have "ruling elites". There is no doubt that US government policy was expressly designed to centralize agriculture - Wendell Berry has documented that in great detail. That eugenics existed is not in doubt, that many important people favored it is not in doubt, and that various government policies at varies times have been influenced by eugenics is not in doubt.

Whether it was carried out at massive scale as claimed would be interesting to know. It may not be possible to know. It would not have required a "conspiracy" to have happened, merely dedicated agents. Was the Nazi regime a conspiracy? No, it was a large group of dedicated agents.

A conspiracy is a very small group operating in total secrecy (or attempting to) outside that group.

For example, the NY council of foreign relations is real, not a secret group (they have a website). Perhaps it does not do, or did, what he claims.

Eugenic policy and attempts to implement it are real, it was not a secret. Phrenology was real, it was considered solid science. It is entirely plausible that in the failure of eugenics to control populations, the use of the major mechanized breadbaskets of the world to destroy broadly sustainable and diverse local agricultures was at least to some extent intentional, via government policies both in the first and third worlds.

Pat, Agriculture in this country has been getting more centralized for much of my life. When I was a boy, all around me were farms with a family, a barn/s, and a range of livestock. Now the true farms are widely scattered with few farmers. I don't consider that it is an international conspirancy though aspects of it might be controlled by big interests.
I have linked an internet book of the struggle of England's evolvement from a manorial system of farming with small scattered plots of great inefficiency to its larger farms today. It was a very long struggle but born of necessity....if you read the book, you will understand.

Here is a link that might be useful: Manor to individua farms

Anytime there is a discussion about farm policy every effort is made to equate that with many peoples idea of a "farm" a house, barn, animals, or the integrated farm that some of us grew up with. Almost never do you hear or see anything about agri-business that "farms" today have evolved in and where our meat now comes from many states have laws that prohibit filming these operations so people will not be aware of how terrible they really are.

Wayne, that is my point: big things (and very undesirable things, in the long run) can happen without conspiracy. In the case of centralizing agriculture it happens largely because of government policy.

The accusation of "conspiracy theorizing" is used to discredit assertions, even when those assertions are about real events. In fact, there are no conspiracies to theorize about, because successful conspiracies are unknown by definition, and failed ones accomplish nothing.

Centralizing agriculture isn't a huge deal for what's grown in the centralized areas in the US. It's almost totally grain production.

It's also mostly grown there because it's good soil in stretches of the country where people don't want to live...fertile non-desired land. We're talking about growing many millions of acres here, not a few hundred thousand acres of cropping.

It hugs the Mississippi River until it hits the Midwest (above OK) and plumes up into some good growing conditions. Winter wheat is grown a bit further South and West as well as into that area.

There's also the issue of the supply chain. Grain elevators, grain millers, distributors...a huge chunk of this was set in motion and tradition in the 1800s during US expansion feeding the population in the East while it boomed and cheap/free land was being made available in the Mid-West. In the modern era, ethanol plants went where the corn is, not where they wanted to create corn farmers. etc etc...

It's one of our nation's most important strengths. A lot of this food goes into our own surplus storage as well as all over the world.

A lot of centralization is based up ease of growth as well as cost to crop. There's a huge (and obvious) reason stuff that needs to be hand-picked is concentrated in, on the border of, or close to Mexico...and it all comes down to labor cost as well as a pool of people actually willing to do that labor.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Dec 8, 13 at 11:57

NC, c'mon, we all know that stuff.

You brought up the statement that anything this Engeldahl has to say is nonsense, and posted a link of snippets from his book. Upon review, it's clear that many of his claims are not nonsense and may have some truth to them. He may be wrong in some of his assertions and correct in others. If you are going to broadly dismiss a specific person's claims, then why not respond to my points? You brought it up.

In a "free" market system like ours, whoever profits most from the markets gains disproportionate control over government policy, which then can affect markets. Therfore one cannot say that only the market drives such things as the massive centralization of agriculture around the developed world.

Does the geography you speak of lead inexorably to NAFTA, for example? Not really, NAFTA was a result of a confluence of policies between three governments. Those government policies are strongly influenced by consolidated agricultural interests. It is therefore fair to say that ag corporations quite intentionally and relentlessly destroyed family farms in north america, including most of mexico now.

Beyond that, Engldahl is not coming up out of the blue nor on his own with the claim that the huge outpouring of cheap grain from north america is eliminating food sustainability in vulnerable regions in the rest of the world. Just as I can't make a living here growing a staple crop, neither can somebody in north africa or the middle east or almost anyplace nowadays, all for the same reason, fantastically cheap staples from north america, brazil, and russia.

This is only a good thing for people who can make a living outside of agriculture (if we ignore the problem of demineralized foodstuffs) and those who control the factors of production. For the displaced peasants around the world it is an immense calamity.

Well, I'm in the camp that that stuff is conspiracy woo with the links/comparisons being made...especially with the eugenics/population control parts.

Beyond that, there's World Bank organizations helping Africa grow and market grain on it's own continent...and there's their "Africa Can Feed Africa" initiative. ...and that's just one global institution that's supposed to be an enemy in this situation. It's also before getting into how many African (and South American, and Northern Mexican) farmers ignore their own needs in order to make more money growing specialty crops for foreign markets because of the availability of cheap labor at their disposal and a nice export price. If it wasn't for US-imposed limits on imports and minimum pricing from Mexico there would rarely be a commercial tomato grown in the US. Mexico could afford to get us tomatoes even cheaper than they already are...prices are "fixed" to keep US production alive.

It was only 40-50 years ago that India and China were starving while Africa was a net-exporter of food. During that time many African nations devoted a huge chunk of their budgets to agriculture subsidy/research/investment, too....far less than since the 1970s.

As far as what's destroying family farms...that's up for debate. A lot of what I believe is destroying family farms is the lack of new/young farmers and the consolidation of farm land by engaged owners who can properly manage mega-acreage and the cost of farming it.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Dec 8, 13 at 14:55

I found an analysis of Carman's pig stomach study by a swine management specialist: Dr. Robert Friendship, a professor in the Department of Population Medicine at the Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph and a swine health management specialist.
it was incorrect for the researchers to conclude that one group had more stomach inflammation than the other group because the researchers did not examine stomach inflammation. They did a visual scoring of the colour of the lining of the stomach of pigs at the abattoir and misinterpreted redness to indicate evidence of inflammation. It does not.

They would have had to take a tissue sample and prepare histological slides and examine these samples for evidence of inflammatory response such as white blood cell infiltration and other changes to determine if there was inflammation. T

here is no relationship between the colour of the stomach in the dead, bled-out pig at a slaughter plant and inflammation. The researchers should have included a veterinary pathologist on their team and this mistake would not have happened. They found no difference between the two experimental groups in pathology that can be determined by gross inspection.’

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf (Carman's study)

Carman's study shows (see table 3) that 15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so. Similarly, twice as many non-GM pigs as GM ones had liver problems. .... OMG!

Pigs fed non-GMO feed are 100% more likely to develop heart and liver problems using the same data from the same study that purportedly proves GMOs are horrible.

Here is a link that might be useful: Statement on Carman's study

H.Kuska comment concerning the analysis of the pig posted by lazygardens on Sun, Dec 8, 13 at 16:11 in which he/she? claims that the heart data and the liver data in Table 3 result in a conclusion of "Pigs fed non-GMO feed are 100% more likely to develop heart and liver problems"

If you look at the heart data and the liver data in Table 3, you will find p values of 0.119 and 0.494 for the heart and for the liver. The following definition of the p value may be the easiest for the non scientist to understand:

"Simply put, p-value is the chance that the relationship you are observing is observed by pure chance. So if you obtain a p-value of 0.01, it means that there is a 1% chance that the relationship between the independent variable(s) and the dependent variable that your model established doesn't actually exist."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for p-value explanation above

You're not going to get very far trying to win an argument over p-values....there's many different ways to obtain a p-value and cook your variables.

Before I go on I should say that you're not only scientist here, Henry...I've co-authored papers in 2 journals, more than a few trade magazines (no peer reviews), and advised plus acknowledged in other papers.

The very fact the stomach issues were broken out in sub-categories rather than being respected as a functional group is, in itself, sketchy as hell...and some would charge number "fishing" for statistical gain.

This is before getting into their lack of wanting/willing to share raw data and that you can run many different p-value tests which will lead no statistical significance anywhere with the data they chose to share.

This is also before getting into the fact this paper was headed up by a known anti-GMO activist and published in a minor journal out of Australia published by the Organic Federation of Australia which has been around for 7 years.

This is also before getting into the fact that they seem to be using a lot of very sick pigs for this study...way more pneumonia than you'd find in any animal production setup by many times over. These were sick pigs, both GMO and non-GMO. Almost 60% of these pigs had pneumonia...what the hell?

...beyond this...

...look at the raw findings...which would be easier if they actually shared their entire data pool.

We're not talking about the probability of flipping a coin or random people picking the color blue or red.

Yes, the raw findings cannot be dismissed...and if you insist on using p-value to dismiss them, then others can use their own evaluation of their data to form their own p-value which dismiss all of it. Statistics evaluation is fun.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Dec 8, 13 at 21:15

I understand the journal that is retracting the Seralini study has recently hired a Monsanto employee as editor.

"Not long after the study came out, FCT created a new editorial position��"Associate Editor for Biotechnology��"and appointed none other than a former Monsanto employee, Richard E. Goodman, to the post"

Here is a link that might be useful: Independent science news

Yes, Monsanto is so powerful they're getting people jobs to enact their will from someone who left their employment almost a decade ago because it's a cult much akin to Scientology that infects all worker's brains with never-ending devotion.

It's a very dangerous organization with mind control methods stronger than the CIA's use of chemtrails. Wake up sheeple!

This guilt-by-association thing is getting a bit old. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto on a few cases in the 1970s before they were even players in the GMO game, but 25-35+ years after the fact he's somehow a loyal solider in the paramilitary Monsanto regime to some people out there.

Seriously...c'mon people.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Dec 8, 13 at 22:17

In Table 3 the authors presented the data in 3 forms. the p-values, the relative risk, and as the 95% confidence interval of the relative risk. These were the authors' choice and they were permitted by the reviewers and the editor. If someone feels that these are not satisfactory, I would expect that he/she would prepare a manuscript and submit it as a follow up paper. This, according to my understanding, is the accepted scientific procedure.

The article linked below may interest some and may add to those that see "conspiracies" at every turn.

Here is a link that might be useful: does anyone smell a rat

Personally I tend to favor NC's assertion that it is extreme and unnatural diets that cause the problems in animals (and humans) more so than any specific effect of transgenes.

However, NC's blanket dismissal of all claims as "conspiracy theories" is unscientific and not useful. Claims can be entirely wrong or, more often, partially correct. One party can make wrong claims and correct (or partially correct) claims. The world is very complex (as scientists very well know) and to try to confound with a non-reality such as a conspiracy theory is disingenuous.

Pnbrown basically hit the nail on the head.. But why aren't the scientist making these "plants" eating these plants? They avoid them like the plague..

"But why aren't the scientist making these "plants" eating these plants? They avoid them like the plague.."

Could you be more specific? I guess this is news to me.

"But why aren't the scientist making these "plants" eating these plants? They avoid them like the plague."

This is not true. It's a misconception.

Having worked in this industry for a variety of corporations and researchers, I can assure you that very few people in the industry avoid GMO plants or plant products. The only ones (2, off the top of my head) that I know didn't eat them weren't exclusively strict about it, but tried to eat organically whenever possible out of lifestyle choice not driven by a fear of GMOs.

I haven't met a single researcher or worker that refuses to eat GMO out of fear of what they are. Statistically, there probably are a few out there in the industry, but I've never met one and I can't imagine there are many.

Quite honestly, most of us in the industry are afraid of conventionally produced tree fruits over anything GMO...by a huge longshot. I know a whole lot more people that refuse to eat an apple or peach unless it's peeled or scrubbed than are concerned about some GMO-containing corn chips.

I sometimes go to "pick your own" apple and berry farms and the amount of kids out there eating fresh-off-the-plant/tree berries and apples without washing them makes me seriously want to cringe.

Concerning eating apples... I wonder how much residues would generally be washed off by a rinse: by a scrub: and by a good wiping on your shirt sleeve?

A big problem with a lot of commercial apples is they also get a rather thin layer of horticulture wax after a wash on the way to storage/grocery stores.

Granted, most places do a good job washing them before waxing...and not all apples get waxed...

"Washing" technology straight out of the field has gotten a lot better the past 10-20 years...both in quality of the wash and doing it with less water wasted. Tree fruits where eating the rind is generally part of the process still contains a lot of pesticide/herbicide/fungicide residue compared to many crops, though.

Well, that's sure why if I don't know the tree an apple came from I only eat organic ones.

"Quite honestly, most of us in the industry are afraid of conventionally produced tree fruits over anything GMO...by a huge longshot. I know a whole lot more people that refuse to eat an apple or peach unless it's peeled or scrubbed than are concerned about some GMO-containing corn chips.
"

I will not eat a conventional apple without it being peeled, i also peel most of my organic fruits that have waxes on them.. Its a shame, a lot of benefits to the skins of fruit.. But instead of these corporations finding ways to spray more poisons on these crops, why don't they stray away from the poisons?

"Quite honestly, most of us in the industry are afraid of conventionally produced tree fruits over anything GMO..."

If most people in the industry are scared of the sprays and chemicals dealing with conventional produce, why do you guys in the industry continue to use it?

"If most people in the industry are scared of the sprays and chemicals dealing with conventional produce, why do you guys in the industry continue to use it?"

Farmers use it, "we" just produce it until the market for it dries up because there's no longer a demand.

Farmers like to harvest their fruit so people will buy it. Consumers demand blemish-free fruits...therefore distributors demand it...therefore farmers strive for it.

There's also the notion of control vs management...which can get kinda "messy" in orchard setups. Depending on the disease or pest you're going to see sprays of antibiotics, bactericides, fungicides, and various pesticides to protect the tree, the blooms, and the fruit itself. A diseased or stressed tree generally isn't automatically replaced...it's put on a control plan in order to keep it productive as long as possible before replacement because a replacement can take years before it's productive at all, much less as productive as the tree it's replacing.

Where I live, if you set out an apple tree and just let it produce apples without controllng insects and fungals, the apples tend to be knobby and quite uh bad. This is reality.

I understand basic economics, but this is beyond that.. It's kind of like GDP reflecting the countries well being.. It doesn't make sense.. Put the misery index in the equation and realize spraying these poisons on the nations food supply is worth no amount of money what so ever.. Something is wrong when a farmer won't even eat his apples because he knows what kind of poisons he sprayed on them, meanwhile he's selling them to the rest of the town.. Everyone knows how harmful this crap is.. It should be a no brainer.

"Where I live, if you set out an apple tree and just let it produce apples without controllng insects and fungals, the apples tend to be knobby and quite uh bad. This is reality."

There are healthy alternatives.. You don't have to spray with poisons after all..

The farmer will eat them...they'll probably wash them before hand, though.

Being stuck in traffic on a highway for a while breathing in the exhaust of all the cars surrounding you is probably more unhealthy than a few apples that have been sprayed...especially considering the dioxin load of exhaust.

Hell, living in an apartment in the city near a moderately busy street is probably more dangerous.

I still don't understand why they don't put money towards a greener approach. It's our food supply, they should not allow these poisons in general, let alone our food! Come on man, washing fruit is a joke with all the waxes...

No surprise, some studies have shown that cancer rates and respiratory problems are higher among those who live within 100 yards of a major highway. It is recommended not to live within 300 yards (though prevailing wind is of course a big factor, as well as tree cover). I was checking this out a while back while looking at land because large vacant parcels are often near limited-access highways.

Regarding poisons in the forms of 'cides, non-synthetic ones are not necessarily something we should eat either. Apple trees like many fruit trees need high fertility to avoid major pest problems. The local trees I know of that thrive without help are in ideal soil for apple: heavy, but high enough to not be saturated. Sadly, I don't have that at home. However, I dosed my trees with a broad-spectrum rock dust last spring and for the first time ever a tree that has never made an edible apple before (gall, worms, etc) made loads of good apples.

If the truth is that GMOs are mutagenic/carcinogenic, then research WILL eventually become incontrovertible, and no amount of corporate suppression will squelch it. It will be a painful time if/when we discover that it is true, because our gene pool will have already been contaminated.

Lorraine, your statement is also my major concern.

http://benthamscience.com/open/tonutraj/articles/V004/3TONUTRAJ.pdf

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

"Regarding poisons in the forms of 'cides, non-synthetic ones are not necessarily something we should eat either."

Exactly.. A lot of these "organic" sprays are not that green after all.. Some are really no better than synthetics..

"If the truth is that GMOs are mutagenic/carcinogenic, then research WILL eventually become incontrovertible, and no amount of corporate suppression will squelch it. It will be a painful time if/when we discover that it is true, because our gene pool will have already been contaminated."

The truth will always prevail.. It doesn't take to much thought that inserting a animal gene in a plant, is completely unnatural. Some of these plants are designed to be resistant to these poisons, what does that mean? A miracle plant that could feed the world? No, they could just saturate it with even more poisons! Feed the whole country.. Interesting.. From what I see we are getting fed high fructose corn syrup.. Let me guess, that's the same as natural fruit sugar.. It dont take much to realize this is insanity!

Pat, I too put some powered 'rock' dust under my fruit trees. Perhaps I did't use enough . Perhaps things are some better, but not nivarna yet.

This has been yet another interesting/weird thread.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Dec 10, 13 at 13:49

Another review (2012).

"Genetically Modified Crops and Human Health"

http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/javaa/2012/3613-3617.pdf

Also, you may be interested in looking at the hits generated in the search below:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:v3SlgxtLfdYJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Here is a link that might be useful: link for

Henry, you just posted ANOTHER junk-science journal.

Please, give Google a rest. Please...just please. Being able to do a Google search is not a proper substitution for knowing about the subject you wish to comment on.

You'd get laughed out of a serious conference trying to present a Medwell Journals published paper to a serious audience of researchers. Even scientists in Pakistan (where it's based) don't take them seriously.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Dec 10, 13 at 16:26

Here's another awesome Medwells Journal paper...also from the linked "Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances"

http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=javaa.2011.1756.1759

"Effect of Different Cure Conditions on Compressive Strength of Concrete Having Different Properties"

Yes, it's a paper about concrete...in a journal about animals and veterinary medicine. Concrete...

Sounds legit!

Here is a link that might be useful: The Ability To Use Google Is Not A Proper Replacement For Knowledge Of A Subject

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Dec 10, 13 at 16:45

The following is another paper that Associate Professor Iraz Haspolat Kaya has published concerning GMOs.

"Although different concerns and risks are in question, in all geographical regions there is a negative attitude against GM organism, technology and foods.
However, these negative attitudes and viewpoints are based on different sources on the basis of geographical regions. The differences in the regions' socio-economic structures were determined as significant factors in this differentiation."

http://www.isaet.org/images/extraimages/IJCEBS%200101113.pdf

---------------------------------
Her credentials are given at:

http://biotek.ankara.edu.tr/en/author/iraz-haspolat/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
nc-crn, do you have any comments about any (or of course all) of the points that Associate Professor Kaya made in her review "Genetically Modified Crops and Human Health"? Also do you know of any Monsanto official replies to any of the studies that she discussed?

Here is a link that might be useful: link to Alteration of Attitude toward GM-Foods of Urban Consumer Depending Geographical Regions in Turkey

Google search for whatever answers you want to hear.

If I replied to anything you would just reply to me negatively and with a Google search result anyway.

It's the never-ending cycle of discourse...and it's a subject you're not even trained in, yet want to remind others you're a scientist (including me, a scientist who's actually trained and worked in this field).

I cannot believe you're trying to defend a paper about human health...that was published in a journal called "Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances"...that also published A PAPER ABOUT CONCRETE in that same journal about "animal and veterinary advances." This is not a big deal to you for some reason...then again you've pushed 2 junk science journals in this thread and many more in the past without once acknowledging you might be grasping at straws and full of it. You rely on Google to tell you what you want to know rather than having a fundamental basis to understand what you're trying to explain...much less what you're copying/pasting.

You are not interested in proof, facts, or anything but your point of view and how many Google searches you can do to build it up...even you can't properly understand or vet the information you're being fed from search results.

This is amateur hour. Stick to chemistry...leave biological sciences to those that understand it.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Dec 10, 13 at 17:37

Earlier in this thread, I stated the following:

"nc-crn, do you have any comments about any (or of course all) of the points that Associate Professor Kaya made in her review "Genetically Modified Crops and Human Health"? Also do you know of any Monsanto official replies to any of the studies that she discussed?

----------------------------------------------------
nc-crn, I am disappointed that you are unwilling to discuss the science topics presented by Associate Professor Iraz Haspolat Kaya in the review: "Genetically Modified Crops and Human Health."

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Tue, Dec 10, 13 at 18:08

"ISIS Report 04/12/13
Open Letter on Retraction and Pledge to Boycott Elsevier
The background to this open letter is described in Retracting Seralini Study Violates Science & Ethics (ISIS report)."

"This letter has been signed by 400 scientists and 715 non-scientists from 54 different countries"

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php

Here is a link that might be useful: link to protest petition details

You just linked an ISIS site? Really?

Wow, it's like you never learn a lesson.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WaterRemembers.php
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water2.php
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/vaccinesPreventionOrCurse.php
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unravelingAIDS.php

ISIS is basically a homeopathic medicine, anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, AIDS-denying, climate doomsday, and recently anti-capitalism/banks shooting range to keep Mae-Wan Ho on the speaking circuit for "woo" practitioners and conspiracy theorists.

Btw, the magazine they produce "Science in Society" is also considered pseudoscience.

I'm pretty sure Elsevier won't lose much sleep over the 400 world-wide scientists (some of whom on that list don't have the credentials to publish) who are boycotting them while being associated with ISIS related activities. I hope they have enough guts to do research without referencing or using any Elsevier published papers for those on the list that still do (or even can) publish, though.

A lot of people, myself included, are a lot more concerned about Elsevier's recent massive DMCA takedown notices keeping people from spreading their works for free to students and other researchers outside of Elsevier's journal channels once they've published rather than this "rat paper controversy" that many people don't see an issue with. Elsevier is cracking down hard on Academia.edu and personal blog sharing of papers and it's pissing a lot of us off since it's rather new territory for them (or any major publisher) to crack down.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Wed, Dec 11, 13 at 2:04

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho's name has been brought up in the following statement:
"ISIS is basically a homeopathic medicine, anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, AIDS-denying, climate doomsday, and recently anti-capitalism/banks shooting range to keep Mae-Wan Ho on the speaking circuit for "woo" practitioners and conspiracy theorists.

H.Kuska comment: The following is Dr. Ho's vita:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MWHcv.php

Here is a link that might be useful: Dr. Ho's vita

Yes, and I linked some of Dr Ho's "vaccines cause disease, not prevent them" woo, homeopathic water pseudoscience, and a link to Dr Ho's "AIDS is a myth disease and modern medicine treating it is a scam, but I know how to treat it" book.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The Unibomber had a degree from Harvard and a phD from Michigan. Big deal. He's crazy too.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Wed, Dec 11, 13 at 16:53

Seralini comments about Hayes' defence of his decision to retract are given at the link below.

"The Editor-in-Chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, has come under severe criticism after retracting from his journal the paper by Seralini at al on the long term toxicity of Roundup and a Roundup-tolerant GM maize. He has now published a defence of the retraction, which we reproduce below.
Here are some of the major problems with Hayes’ defence of his retraction decision:"

See;

http://gmoseralini.org/did-journal-editor-read-the-seralini-paper-before-retracting-it/

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

"BUT there is no claim or conclusion in the paper “that Roundup Ready maize NK603 and/or the Roundup herbicide have a link to cancer”; nor does the “entire paper” “claim that there is a definitive link between GMO and cancer”. IN FACT, THE ENTIRE SERALINI PAPER DOES NOT MENTION THE WORD “CANCER” ANYWHERE!"

...except the dozens of places where they mention tumors in the paper...which is all over the damn place...even (and especially) in the "Results" breakdown in the paper.

"His toxicity study has now been retracted on the grounds of claiming “a definitive link between GMO and cancer”, which it nowhere makes."

Ummm no. It's being retracted on the grounds of "FCT has retracted this article because our thorough investigations revealed that its methods were scientifically flawed. The low number of animals, and the strain selected, rendered the conclusions unreliable. No definitive conclusions could be drawn from the inconclusive data." according to the official explanation...not because “a definitive link between GMO and cancer."

I quit reading there because my mind exploded as a result of the overwhelming stupidity.

I have no idea who their target audience is when they pull that as the first punch. That is an extremely weak defense.

Here's the response they're flailing against in case anyone is interested...

http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology-editor-in-chief,-a.-wallace-hayes,-publishes-response-to-letters-to-the-editors

Here is a link that might be useful: Elsevier - Response to Letters to the Editors

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Dec 12, 13 at 1:15

Another discussion of Hayes' defence of his decision to retract is given at the link below.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Has anyone heard any comments about the following:

http://www.pitt.edu/~rmh56/Writing Assignment 3.docx

For background reading, here is a Google search for"Ruben Hartogs" plus GMO

https://www.google.com/#q=%22Ruben+Hartogs%22+gmo

Here is a link that might be useful: Writing Assignment 3

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Sat, Dec 14, 13 at 16:15