OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
The study did not show what you are claiming.
Just read the abstract. And it was a short term study, so no, the pigs didn't die immediately after ingesting GMO's - they only led very short lives.
Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
Just read the abstract. And it was a short term study, so no, the pigs didn't die immediately after ingesting GMO's - they only led very short lives.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Look I posted the link to the study. I even told you where to lookin the study (right at beginning of results)
So while your sitting there feeling smart for reading the abstract your wrong
- There were no statistically significant differences in food intake, feed, conversion ratios, number or nature of illnesses, number or nature of veterinary interventions, veterinary costs or mortality between the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups of pigs
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Oh, the mortality was no different on pigs that were scheduled to grow up and be slaughtered over the course of half a year. Oh the vet costs were hardly any different too! Really? Is that a surprise? They only lived 150 days. If they had actually lived their full lives, do you suppose they might have suffered from the actual effects noticed? I'm gonna venture a guess and say yes. The study doesn't say what you think it does because you didn't read it. Although you do claim to have, it would appear you have not and do not understand the implications.
The fact their sexual organs were enlarged also indicates possible sexual function problems, which weren't studied.
Let me tell you, IBS and such have increased in incidence dramatically over the past 20 years. Do you suppose those who suffer all enjoy the same long healthy lives normal people do? Cause, I'll tell you, they do not.
But don't worry, there's no link here. Just read that one sentence and trust ginjawarrior's interpretation.
The fact their sexual organs were enlarged also indicates possible sexual function problems, which weren't studied.
Let me tell you, IBS and such have increased in incidence dramatically over the past 20 years. Do you suppose those who suffer all enjoy the same long healthy lives normal people do? Cause, I'll tell you, they do not.
But don't worry, there's no link here. Just read that one sentence and trust ginjawarrior's interpretation.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You're right, severe inflammation doesn't lead to anything.
Pigs actually live closer to 13 years on average. Not a half a year. If you can't see why his interpretation is ridiculous and stupid, I can't help you.
I'm going to guarantee, not guess. I have a friend whose mother has been in and out of the ICU with major colitis and has been near death many times over because of the serious drugs she requires to keep down the levels of irritation (see: the effects of cortisone on your body). But don't worry, her mortality would be the same if she were scheduled for slaughter in half a year regardless. GMO's are safe.
The study actually claims that GMO's seem to cause statistically significant increases in colitis and enteritis as well as appearing to have an effect on sexual organ health (did you know that fertility rates are dropping like a stone too?). Don 't stress it though, over a very short period vet costs didn't increase and the mortality was the same for pigs scheduled to die after 158 or 159 days.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Don't worry, those rising cancer rates have nothing to do with the food supply being dramatically altered. And Monsanto was granted lawsuit immunity for no reason at all. They have perfectly safe products and don't really need it but the government and Monsanto thought it would be fun to gauge public overreaction because they know the product they sell is so safe. They don't really need it, it's just for fun.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
Edit: never mind. You don't know what you are talking about.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
he GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed
pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of
32% of GM-fed pigs
compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (
p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was
worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and
GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).
This is the conclusion of the study. The authors weren't dumb enough to suggest that the mortality rates meant much beyond GMO's don't kill you immediately, which I don't think was ever really in question. They also weren't stupid enough to suggest that the veterinary rates mattered much, although they did mention them because it isn't completely irrelevant as it demonstrates the short term impacts are manageable for a while. Those pigs live full lives on the same diets, you're going to start seeing statistically significant differences in those numbers. Not where they were only allowed to live less than half a year which doesn't give us much of a picture of the long term impacts and especially mortality rates which really aren't super relevant in a short term study like this one where all the pigs are scheduled to die at the same time regardless of health.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Please, elaborate how and don't quote the same bullshit without context.
Or are you going to suggest the context is irrelevant?
Because it sure seems the authors of the study realized the relevancy having not mentioned the points you seem to want to hang on in the abstract. I think the authors were intelligent enough to realize that pigs scheduled to die after 159 days are likely going to have similar (read: Identical) mortality rates, but that it's certainly worth investigation if there is any large difference in the short term. Most folks are not suspecting immediate short term death from these things. Although I suspect if you drank a bottle of roundup you wouldn't feel so hot (why don't you put it to the test? I mean Monsanto claims it's safe and only effects plant life).
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i gotta disagree, most gmo cultivars give smaller yeilds per acre and a lower quality crop than modern hybrids. GMO's are intended to solve specific pest/disease problems, and only a few have been really successfulCan we? No. We can't. We don't. If we could we would.
What is stopping us? That is simply beyond your economic understanding, of course. So, no 1% even.
We are taking mega tons of corn yield. What are you talking indoor hydro for?
Buildings provide rents and taxes and last for 100s of years. So, we totally disagree here.
We need YIELD. GM research is only about YIELD per acre.
BTW, there is this S.American mosquito now that is over 1 inch long, here in the US.
That might be a good insect to fuck. But, you realize, it is the insects that are fucking us?
Golden Rice that provides added nutrients to the eater, GMO papaya that resist ring spot virus, BT cotton that kills boll weevils, and a few others are all that have delivered on their promise of better yields (by killing the shit that kills the plants) but in the absence of boll weevils, hybrid cotton produces more per acre, and in the absence of ring spot virus, traditional cultivars of papaya give a better quality fruit and higher yields. it's a balancing act, and gmo's have been mostly lackluster or total failures
refrigeration resistant tomatoes tasted like ass
BT corn has produced BT resistant root worms, because BT resistant worms reproduce by self-fertilization, greatly increasing the rate BT resistance spreads in the population, there are some concerns that BT producing food crops may have detrimental effects in test animals fed large amounts of the stuff, since even regular BT spray is not a health potion, but it has greatly reduced budworm/earworm caterpillar damage. science remains unsure about BT crops
glyphosate resistant crops are only useful to those who actually use glyphosate as a general weed killer by indiscriminate spraying, but since thats a dumb ass thing to do anyhow, "roundup ready' crops are a fools investment.
i could go on, but the "success" of GMO crops is mostly for the producers of the seeds, and the giant agribusinesses that think aerial spraying is a good way to control, and the corrupt farm subsidies system that rewards giant corporate farms and fucks the little guy.
if the farm subsidies were reformed, most GMO crops would vanish like a fart in the wind, because they are only successful in massive economies of scale with government subsidies.
echelon1k1
New Member
It's also worth noting the EPA has raised the allowable residue level of Glyphosphate found on the fruit and vegetables we purchase...
GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed
GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yes, experiments on experimental products requires a bunnysuit. are you shocked by this idea? you have to wear a bunnysuit in silicon chip factories, when cleaning the tanks in a brewery, when mixing papaya mango and guava for bottling, and many other places.
the last pic is from a meth lab on breaking bad.
thats why it's so hard top take you guys seriously.
also, the middle pic shows a guy mixing LASSO, and yes, if i had to mix Lasso i would be wearing a full NBC suit, over a rainslicker and a full body condom. lasso is banned in the us, and has been for years. Lasso also has NEVER been approved for food crops. it's for carpetbombing invasive weeds and triffids and shit.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Cornhole?? cn
echelon1k1
New Member
Immediate Investigation Ordered in GMO Seed Case
Wonder how Monsantos seeds ended up in Hungary when they're banned from being imported or even used....
Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Maize Fields
That's the way to go, simply burn the fields...
Wonder how Monsantos seeds ended up in Hungary when they're banned from being imported or even used....
Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Maize Fields
That's the way to go, simply burn the fields...
Doer
Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
go spend some time looking at the results given and see how the "severe" numbers were cherry picked
pay close attention to "moderate(less than severe) and errosion (more than severe) both worse on non gmo food
Mild inflammation
Non-GM-fed 42.5 %
GM-fed 31.9 %
Moderate inflammation
Non-GM-fed 39.7 %
GM-fed 25.0 %
Erosion(s)
Non-GM-fed 86.3 %
GM-fed 80.6 %
now if they were only testing for stomach imflamation then the number would be more important but as they were testing many thing you would expect anomalies to come up which is fine as it could suggest paths for more focused research.
what they shouldnt be doing is pulling these conclusions out of their arse for what could be an outlier
scientists doing this study stopped on top row and are now playing minecraft.....
if you look deeper into the study you'll find out that all the pigs were raised badly with a mortality rate well over 10% for both non gmo + gmo fed and that at time of slaughter both groups had numbers close to 60% infected by pneumonia
15 % of non gmo pigs had heart defects compared to only 6 % of gmo
twice as many non gmo pigs had liver problems compared to gmo pigs
so you more worried about having a dodgy shit or having a heart attack?
or will you join me in saying "more focused research is needed before we can start linkin say IBS to gmo"?
cannawizard
Well-Known Member
I wasn't trying to be serious
Just googled Monsanto and grabbed whatever pics looked "funny"~Unlike so many "experts" in this thread posting data (claiming its 100% fact) that they themselves had no involvement in, and since nobody can or cannot prove otherwise-- don't pretend that you do know "everything about GMOs or the inner workings of these corporations who control GMOs"~ This goes for both sides
So unless you ran YOUR OWN studies, and posted YOUR FINDINGS here.. Just STFU, and stop regurgitating info, either side is not listening anyways-- you guys are just debating for the sake of arguing~
unsubbed-- I'm done fapping over this thread
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I bet this either gets ignored or the Anti-GM fags will flap their arms and try bullshit the numbers.go spend some time looking at the results given and see how the "severe" numbers were cherry picked
pay close attention to "moderate(less than severe) and errosion (more than severe) both worse on non gmo food
Mild inflammation
Non-GM-fed 42.5 %
GM-fed 31.9 %
Moderate inflammation
Non-GM-fed 39.7 %
GM-fed 25.0 %
Erosion(s)
Non-GM-fed 86.3 %
GM-fed 80.6 %
now if they were only testing for stomach imflamation then the number would be more important but as they were testing many thing you would expect anomalies to come up which is fine as it could suggest paths for more focused research.
what they shouldnt be doing is pulling these conclusions out of their arse for what could be an outlierThe[/FONT][/CENTER]
View attachment 2699790
scientists doing this study stopped on top row and are now playing minecraft.....
if you look deeper into the study you'll find out that all the pigs were raised badly with a mortality rate well over 10% for both non gmo + gmo fed and that at time of slaughter both groups had numbers close to 60% infected by pneumonia
15 % of non gmo pigs had heart defects compared to only 6 % of gmo
twice as many non gmo pigs had liver problems compared to gmo pigs
so you more worried about having a dodgy shit or having a heart attack?
or will you join me in saying "more focused research is needed before we can start linkin say IBS to gmo"?
EDIT: Whats wrong with Minecraft?
Ninjabowler
Well-Known Member
Why bullshit the numbers, i think we should GM people....to be more like sheep. So they believe anything someone with more money than them tells them. Actually just the other day i bought some mustard because it had 30% MORE MUSTARD!!
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
http://www.naturalnews.com/040760_Supreme_Court_gene_patents_Myriad_Genetics.html
[h=1]Sanity prevails: US Supreme Court rules that human genes are not eligible for patent protection[/h]
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040760_Supreme_Court_gene_patents_Myriad_Genetics.html#ixzz2WI4IT54Z
(NaturalNews) In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that human genes cannot be patented. The ruling invalidates the thousands of patents that have already been granted on human genes, including the patent by Myriad Genetics on the BRCA breast cancer genes which the company says no one else can research or even detect without paying it a royalty. Click here to read the complete ruling.
"Myriad did not create anything," said Justice Clarence Thomas. "To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."
Well, exactly. This point should have been obvious to the lower courts, too, but in today's world of corporate domination over seemingly everything, gene industry lawyers were able to argue that patent protection would somehow inspire more innovation and research. "The biotechnology industry had warned that an expansive ruling against Myriad could threaten billions of dollars of investment," wrote Reuters.
But exactly the opposite is true. Gene patents restricted research and created medical monopolies that raised prices for consumers. Even USA Today seemingly gets this point, saying, "The decision represents a victory for cancer patients, researchers and geneticists who claimed that a single company's patent raised costs, restricted research and sometimes forced women to have breasts or ovaries removed without sufficient facts or second opinions."
The ACLU, which argued the case before the Court, said, "By invalidating these patents, the Court lifted a major barrier to progress in further understanding how we can better treat and prevent diseases."
[h=1]Corporate efforts to influence the Supreme Court ultimately failed[/h]Had the Supreme Court upheld the patentability of human genes, it would have unleashed a horrifying new era of corporations and universities rushing to claim monopoly patent protection on every gene in the human genome. Virtually no one in the media covered this angle other than Natural News. We warned readers that everything found in nature could then be patented: blades of grass, insects, human ears, eye colors, hair colors... anything encoded with DNA.
We also pointed out that Angelina Jolie's carefully orchestrated announcement of a double mastectomy following BRCA gene testing seemed timed to be part of a public relations campaign engineered by the biotech industry to influence the Supreme Court decision. We also challenged Jolie to publicly denounce patents on human genes, which she never did.
It's clear that powerful forces were at work behind the scenes to try to influence this Supreme Court decision, but they failed. Ultimately, the court discovered a moment of unanimous sanity... something we see so rarely that perhaps it deserves patent protection, too.
[h=1]Huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries[/h]It's important to note that this decision is a huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, both of which relentlessly seek total domination over all forms of life on the planet through monopoly patent protection. The biotech industry, of course, would love to patent all seeds and food crops -- even ones it hasn't genetically engineered. And the pharmaceutical industry would love to patent every human gene, thereby claiming literal ownership over every human being born into the world.
Myriad Genetics tried every desperate argument to convince the court that human genes should be patentable by corporations. They even rolled out a whacky "baseball bat theory" which claims it's an "invention" to decide where to start and end a gene sequence:
"A baseball bat doesn't exist until it's isolated from a tree. But that's still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat." - Myriad lawyer Gregory Castanias.
That absurd argument claims that the mere deciding of which genes to snip out of DNA strands somehow makes all genes corporate property. Thankfully, the court did not agree with the baseball bat theory. As Chief Justice John Roberts explained:
"The baseball bat is quite different. You don't look at a tree and say, well, I've cut the branch here and cut it here and all of a sudden I've got a baseball bat. You have to invent it."
[h=1]Huge victory for humanity[/h]Ultimately, this decision is a tremendous victory for all humankind because it prevents the power-hungry, evil-bent medical and biotech corporations from claiming ownership over genetic sequences that already occur in nature.
This ruling means the biotech industry cannot patent common plants and animals, either. They can't patent human body parts or human gene sequences. Yes, the industry can still patent synthetically-created genes, said the Supreme Court, but that's something they would actually have to create rather than merely discover in an already-existing organism.
Today's ruling also means that men and women will have access to far less expensive testing for gene sequences in their own bodies. Currently, women who want to test themselves for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes must pay as much as $4,000 for the test due to the monopoly "ownership" of those genes by Myriad Genetics. But now that the Supreme Court has ruled such patents are invalid, prices for the test should drastically fall over time as competition enters the picture. Ultimately, the test could eventually be offered for as little as $100.
The ruling also means that other companies can conduct research on those genes without first seeking permission from Myriad. This will actually spur more innovation, potentially leading to more advanced genetic analysis tests that might help people better understand their health risks (and hopefully encourage them to change their diets and lifestyle choices to avoid expressing those genes).
In a world that seems increasingly dominated by corporate monopolies and biotechnology insanity, this ruling is a breath of fresh air. It confirms that corporations cannot patent naturally-occurring things which have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years, and it confirms that when you have a child through an act of genetic replication, corporations cannot force you to pay royalties for your own child.
This is a decision of fundamental freedom, which is why I'm shocked the court actually ruled this way. This must be one of those rare moments of sanity in a Supreme Court that otherwise seems intent on destroying human liberty, dignity and justice.
[h=1]Sanity prevails: US Supreme Court rules that human genes are not eligible for patent protection[/h]
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040760_Supreme_Court_gene_patents_Myriad_Genetics.html#ixzz2WI4IT54Z
(NaturalNews) In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that human genes cannot be patented. The ruling invalidates the thousands of patents that have already been granted on human genes, including the patent by Myriad Genetics on the BRCA breast cancer genes which the company says no one else can research or even detect without paying it a royalty. Click here to read the complete ruling.
"Myriad did not create anything," said Justice Clarence Thomas. "To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."
Well, exactly. This point should have been obvious to the lower courts, too, but in today's world of corporate domination over seemingly everything, gene industry lawyers were able to argue that patent protection would somehow inspire more innovation and research. "The biotechnology industry had warned that an expansive ruling against Myriad could threaten billions of dollars of investment," wrote Reuters.
But exactly the opposite is true. Gene patents restricted research and created medical monopolies that raised prices for consumers. Even USA Today seemingly gets this point, saying, "The decision represents a victory for cancer patients, researchers and geneticists who claimed that a single company's patent raised costs, restricted research and sometimes forced women to have breasts or ovaries removed without sufficient facts or second opinions."
The ACLU, which argued the case before the Court, said, "By invalidating these patents, the Court lifted a major barrier to progress in further understanding how we can better treat and prevent diseases."
[h=1]Corporate efforts to influence the Supreme Court ultimately failed[/h]Had the Supreme Court upheld the patentability of human genes, it would have unleashed a horrifying new era of corporations and universities rushing to claim monopoly patent protection on every gene in the human genome. Virtually no one in the media covered this angle other than Natural News. We warned readers that everything found in nature could then be patented: blades of grass, insects, human ears, eye colors, hair colors... anything encoded with DNA.
We also pointed out that Angelina Jolie's carefully orchestrated announcement of a double mastectomy following BRCA gene testing seemed timed to be part of a public relations campaign engineered by the biotech industry to influence the Supreme Court decision. We also challenged Jolie to publicly denounce patents on human genes, which she never did.
It's clear that powerful forces were at work behind the scenes to try to influence this Supreme Court decision, but they failed. Ultimately, the court discovered a moment of unanimous sanity... something we see so rarely that perhaps it deserves patent protection, too.
[h=1]Huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries[/h]It's important to note that this decision is a huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, both of which relentlessly seek total domination over all forms of life on the planet through monopoly patent protection. The biotech industry, of course, would love to patent all seeds and food crops -- even ones it hasn't genetically engineered. And the pharmaceutical industry would love to patent every human gene, thereby claiming literal ownership over every human being born into the world.
Myriad Genetics tried every desperate argument to convince the court that human genes should be patentable by corporations. They even rolled out a whacky "baseball bat theory" which claims it's an "invention" to decide where to start and end a gene sequence:
"A baseball bat doesn't exist until it's isolated from a tree. But that's still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat." - Myriad lawyer Gregory Castanias.
That absurd argument claims that the mere deciding of which genes to snip out of DNA strands somehow makes all genes corporate property. Thankfully, the court did not agree with the baseball bat theory. As Chief Justice John Roberts explained:
"The baseball bat is quite different. You don't look at a tree and say, well, I've cut the branch here and cut it here and all of a sudden I've got a baseball bat. You have to invent it."
[h=1]Huge victory for humanity[/h]Ultimately, this decision is a tremendous victory for all humankind because it prevents the power-hungry, evil-bent medical and biotech corporations from claiming ownership over genetic sequences that already occur in nature.
This ruling means the biotech industry cannot patent common plants and animals, either. They can't patent human body parts or human gene sequences. Yes, the industry can still patent synthetically-created genes, said the Supreme Court, but that's something they would actually have to create rather than merely discover in an already-existing organism.
Today's ruling also means that men and women will have access to far less expensive testing for gene sequences in their own bodies. Currently, women who want to test themselves for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes must pay as much as $4,000 for the test due to the monopoly "ownership" of those genes by Myriad Genetics. But now that the Supreme Court has ruled such patents are invalid, prices for the test should drastically fall over time as competition enters the picture. Ultimately, the test could eventually be offered for as little as $100.
The ruling also means that other companies can conduct research on those genes without first seeking permission from Myriad. This will actually spur more innovation, potentially leading to more advanced genetic analysis tests that might help people better understand their health risks (and hopefully encourage them to change their diets and lifestyle choices to avoid expressing those genes).
In a world that seems increasingly dominated by corporate monopolies and biotechnology insanity, this ruling is a breath of fresh air. It confirms that corporations cannot patent naturally-occurring things which have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years, and it confirms that when you have a child through an act of genetic replication, corporations cannot force you to pay royalties for your own child.
This is a decision of fundamental freedom, which is why I'm shocked the court actually ruled this way. This must be one of those rare moments of sanity in a Supreme Court that otherwise seems intent on destroying human liberty, dignity and justice.