Does anyone besides me take this?

J

jtprin

Well-Known Member
minnesmoker said:
Ok, here's a short list of citations and proofs:
The impossibility of overdosing on "good multivitamins"
Evidence that consuming any GMO food that has been approved for planting by the FDA, and is grown as a food source, is in fact worse than it's non-modified predecessor.
Evidence that THC/Marijuana causes a reduction in immune function
Evidence that smoking cannabis has been linked to a single case of COPD or lung cancer.
Evidence that horticultural genetic modification (generational, cross-breeding/back-breeding, or plant splicing) is any safer than gene splicing.

And, I do realize that that synopsis I posted references primarily individual vitamin regimens. It also references studies that show multis aren't axiomatically good for you, cuz they are loaded with the good nutrients. The wiki I linked to cites both studies and federal research, to get the numbers associated with vitamin death and injury.

I'm not trying to argue, and I do think supplements have their place. But, not in everyone's system! It's a good thing to take quality, if you take them, I agree with you on that. Preaching blindly that everyone should take a multivitamin is dangerous, people can get very ill because of it.
Click to expand...
1.) I didn't say it was impossible to overdose on multivitamin's. I said tell me one person who has died or gotten a serious illness from taking multivitamins because their diet was already good enough. Key part of the sentence. That has to be the reason they died because I never said that people can't have certain health problems that make them unable to take them.

2.) GMO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEZYQF9WlE (tons of evidence in this video alone)
http://www.liveinthenow.com/article/gmo-dangers-how-much-more-proof-do-we-need

3.) Marijuana and immune system - http://norml.org/library/health-reports/item/norml-s-marijuana-health-mythology#16
"One exception is the lungs, where chronic pots smokers have been shown to suffer damage to the immune cells known as alveolar macrophages and other defense mechanisms.3 It is unclear how much of this damage is due to THC, as opposed to all of the other toxins that occur in smoke , many of which can be filtered out by waterpipes and other devices"

4.) I didn't say marijuana caused lung cancer.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
jtprin said:
Studies on animals given GMO foods compared to organic, drastic increase in many diseases over the past decades. There are a lot of reasons to be honest, but I'd suggest doing your own research.
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a throwaway. i don't have access to the literature any more. All I have is :cuss: Google. I was hoping you'd make with something peer-reviewed and about humans. cn
 
J

jtprin

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
That's a bit of a throwaway. i don't have access to the literature any more. All I have is :cuss: Google. I was hoping you'd make with something peer-reviewed and about humans. cn
Click to expand...
kinetic already posted something on this thread to that I believe, but no long-term studies have been done on humans. Studies have also shown that when animals are given a choice between organic and GMO's, the vast majority choose the organic foods.

I also listed three links in my response to minne.

http://www.liveinthenow.com/article/are-gmo-foods-bad-for-you-why-you-should-be-concerned

Read that too.
 
olylifter420

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
Sorry jtripe, but what sources are those man. I thought you were smart.

these indicate there is no difference between the two

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929333

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleID=1355685

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12002790

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16403682

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946


however, (thats what you need to saycjtripe so people will assume you said something as set in stone)

there are plenty as well that indicate orgsnic is better then conventional. Its a mixed a feel cause there are just as many saying it is the same and plenty that say they are not


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755


and start using pubmed if you want to be taken seriously
 
J

jtprin

Well-Known Member
olylifter420 said:
Sorry jtripe, but what sources are those man. I thought you were smart.

these indicate there is no difference between the two

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929333

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleID=1355685

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12002790

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16403682

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946


however, (thats what you need to saycjtripe so people will assume you said something as set in stone)

there are plenty as well that indicate orgsnic is better then conventional. Its a mixed a feel cause there are just as many saying it is the same and plenty that say they are not


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755


and start using pubmed if you want to be taken seriously
Click to expand...
Damn, they already control your thinking. OF COURSE the government is going to back it up, they are the one's behind everything. So let me just say it one more time... dumbass.
 
Omgwtfbbq Indicaman

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
That's a bit of a throwaway. i don't have access to the literature any more. All I have is :cuss: Google. I was hoping you'd make with something peer-reviewed and about humans. cn
Click to expand...
i don't think we should test them on humans when they give mice tomurs... jmo

edit: lol Tumors... don't know what tomurs are.
 
J

jtprin

Well-Known Member
Dude, one of your own links (annals) says "Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria". DUMBASS!

I'd say when there's a reduced chance of consuming pesticide and bacteria, that means it's healthier.
 
olylifter420

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
Lol. Hahahaha.

Control? Read the literature and use pubmed

you see how i dont need to call you names.

you using names shows your age




jtprin said:
Damn, they already control your thinking. OF COURSE the government is going to back it up, they are the one's behind everything. So let me just say it one more time... dumbass.
Click to expand...
 
J

jtprin

Well-Known Member
olylifter420 said:
Lol. Hahahaha.

Control? Read the literature and use pubmed

you see how i dont need to call you names.

you using names shows your age
Click to expand...
People like you deserve to be called names, I don't feel bad in any way whatsoever. Why would I use government sources about GMO's when the government is the one benefiting from them?
 
olylifter420

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
When did i say they didnt or did?

also, the top studies, you know m just going to stop. You do not understand literature, but you do know how to name call.



jtprin said:
Dude, one of your own links (annals) says "Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria". DUMBASS!

I'd say when there's a reduced chance of consuming pesticide and bacteria, that means it's healthier.
Click to expand...
 
olylifter420

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
Man you are stupid. Pubmed is a place where all literature that wants to be saved and considered credible is sent to.

Im sure you are retarded



jtprin said:
People like you deserve to be called names, I don't feel bad in any way whatsoever. Why would I use government sources about GMO's when the government is the one benefiting from them?
Click to expand...
 
J

jtprin

Well-Known Member
olylifter420 said:
When did i say they didnt or did?

also, the top studies, you know m just going to stop. You do not understand literature, but you do know how to name call.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Your question doesn't even make sense. Obviously the government is going to say GMO's are just as healthy because they are making huge profits from genetically modified food. If more people went organic and more farmers refused to use GMO seeds, they'd lose money. Why would they want you to know something that can negatively effect them? The more people like you they convince, the better for them.
 
J

jtprin

Well-Known Member
Hilarious how no more than a few minutes after claiming he doesn't name call, he proceeds to call me retarded. Ironic, isn't it?
 
olylifter420

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
If you ever go to school and use the sources you have used today, your professors will laugh at you.

Im just giving you a heads up cause you seem to know everything



jtprin said:
What are you talking about? Your question doesn't even make sense. Obviously the government is going to say GMO's are just as healthy because they are making huge profits from genetically modified food. If more people went organic and more farmers refused to use GMO seeds, they'd lose money. Why would they want you to know something that can negatively effect them? The more people like you they convince, the better for them.
Click to expand...
 
J

jtprin

Well-Known Member
From your first link.

"In studies that satisfied the screening criteria, the absolute levels of micronutrients were higher in organic foods more often than in conventional foods (462 vs 364 comparisons, P=0.002), and the total micronutrient content, expressed as a percent difference, was higher in organic (+5.7%, P<0.001) as compared to conventionally grown produce."

Keep posting links that completely contradict your own statements.

And yes, this is one of your pubmed websites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top