Montasanto GM Maize and roundup causes massive tumours and early death.

[vilas 477]

Not Just Americans but gobaly Cancer is increasing, who knows whats causing it ?

not only cancer, but allergy too , more and more people have allergy, doctors say that soon more children will be born with allergy than children without it ,

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Darkhorse 1-6:

I reiterate my stance that Opinion is not Science or experiment no matter who holds the opinion.

The original study http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf that was published in the peer reviewed and respected Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal is the only Full Life Study on the matter of the long term effects of of Roundup and the GM Maize modified to tolerate it in the ever increasing doses it now requires in order to work.

The fact that Monsanto could not even be bothered to carry out such a Full Life Study is totaly and utterly down to Monsanto's own failings. The false argument that a study based on a wild rats average life span is the same as a Full Life study is a falacious one. One might as well then take the average life expectancy of a third world person as enough for any human study in the first world, even the concept applied to wild rats automaticaly cuts out HALF the population studied as it chops the population at the top of the bell curve on life expectancy so all the more long lived rats get ignored.

The fact that two of the leading persons you quote have such dubious credentials as indepedent reduces the validity of their opinions any way. That is why opion is just opinion and is not science.

Until more detailed science can be done, the precautionary principle must apply and this GM Maize, its products and Roundup should be banned.

Kind Regards walker

[STALKERGB 6]

If Gilles-Eric Seralini is so confident in his results, why won't he let the European Food Safety Authority verify them? I know he claims they will be biased but if his results are so compelling and accurate then surely they won't be able to "massage" them or whatever he thinks?

EDIT: Speaking of bias, surely Seralini and de Vendomois are a bit suspect given their history of anti-GM work, not that it makes them wrong but it can't help in an experiment that needs to be completely fair.

have such dubious credentials

Isn't the co-author of the study, de Vendomois' degree in homoeopathy?

Edited September 24, 2012 by STALKERGB

[hellfire257 3]

I reiterate my stance that Opinion is not Science or experiment no matter who holds the opinion.

That's correct. It is a scientific opinion. The opinion of someone well rehearsed in the field naturally holds more weight than that or say mine our yourself. It is a credible opinion.

[walker 0]

Hi all

An Opinion is not and never can be a scientific experiment, it remains what it always is opinion, no matter what other words or voodoo you attach to it; it remains opinion.

The only valid science on the subject of a Full Life Study of the long term effects of Roundup and the GM Maize modified to tolerate Roundup in the ever increasing doses it now requires in order for Roundup to work is the one published in the peer reviewed and respected Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal which you can get here: http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf and then read.

If any of you know of any other, Full Life Study of the long term effects of Roundup and the GM Maize modified to tolerate Roundup, in the ever increasing doses it now requires in order for Roundup to work; that has been published in the peer reviewed and respected publication, then pray enlighten us.

Everything else is just opinion, no matter what shrunken heads on sticks you shake at it.

Kind Regards walker

[hellfire257 3]

Well if it bothers you that much, I can go and ask my professors what they make of it all (I'm not serious, they're busy people as it is). But then again, what would be the point since their opinion doesn't hold any weight, right? Nobody stated those opinions were fact, however they are still useful because they are informed opinions of people educated and experienced in the subject area, not just the opinion some random guy on the internet. They present informed perspective and critique.

[rangerpl 13]

Well if it bothers you that much, I can go and ask my professors what they make of it all (I'm not serious, they're busy people as it is). But then again, what would be the point since their opinion doesn't hold any weight, right? Nobody stated those opinions were fact, however they are still useful because they are informed opinions of people educated and experienced in the subject area, not just the opinion some random guy on the internet. They present informed perspective and critique.

This.

It's not about performing a scientific experiment as that experiment is worthless unless you have someone to draw a conclusion based on it. That someone needs to have an opinion on what the data is supposed to mean.

Edited September 26, 2012 by RangerPL

[PsychoPigeon 10]

Read: 100,000,000 guinea pigs by Arthur Kallett

We are the guinea pigs. That is all.

[Beagle 684]

Almost every nations once had it's national industrial scandal that destroyed the lifes of tenthousands...the diffence to this one simpy is: it's worldwide and will affect millions.

Reminds me of the Contergan scandal in germany in the 60's. Even now, 50 years later it's not really a rare occasion to see contergan disfigured people in the streets.

Contergan was simply never really tested since it was designed as a over the counter drug and it lead to ca.. 10.000 children born with extreme disfigurements of the limbs and innr organs...only ca. 2400 are still alive as of today

Edited September 28, 2012 by Beagle

[onlyrazor 11]

Almost every nations once had it's national industrial scandal that destroyed the lifes of tenthousands...the diffence to this one simpy is: it's worldwide and will affect millions.

Reminds me of the Contergan scandal in germany in the 60's. Even now, 50 years later it's not really a rare occasion to see contergan disfigured people in the streets.

Contergan was simply never really tested since it was designed as a over the counter drug and it lead to ca.. 10.000 children born with extreme disfigurements of the limbs and innr organs...only ca. 2400 are still alive as of today

You mean another pregnancy drug or something? I think I might've even seen some of those poor sods around.

Also, I heard Montasanto produced Agent Orange during the 60s and 70s.

[STALKERGB 6]

@Beagle, without reading your link I assume that's thalidomide? Indeed an awful thing to have happened.

As for this particular study on GM foodstuff, I'm not really saying one way or the other if it's good or bad, I can't honestly say because I don't know. That said I do find it hard to believe that Seralini and de Vendomois did this experiment as objectively and "properly" as they could. Not saying that they are wrong or right, just that they look "dodgy" scientifically the way they have done it.

Also, I heard Montasanto produced Agent Orange during the 60s and 70s.

Primarily Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical according to the internets. I say that Agent Orange is slightly different seeing as it was used in war, horrific results but I'd assume that the pressures of war lead to rushed development and testing.

Edited September 28, 2012 by STALKERGB

[slatts 1978]

GM food is bad for you..news? Hardly, I learned that when I was a youngster in school.

[Baff1 0]

I'm surprised to hear that Round Up can kill anything, it certainly doesn't kill my weeds.

The days wyhen we could buy weed killer that actually killed anything are gone.

This moronic politcal obsession with organic and GM has destroyed my ability to maintain my gardens. If I ever meet someone from the EU I will beat the living crap out of them.

There are few things sadder to see in life than city idiot enviromentalists. Stick to what you know.

[mrcash2009 0]

I can go and ask my professors what they make of it all (I'm not serious, they're busy people as it is). But then again, what would be the point since their opinion doesn't hold any weight, right?

Interesting one becuase that sometime comes down to who they are being funded by and how absolutely independent their research actually will be. Alot of comprimised official folk about these days.

This moronic politcal obsession with organic and GM has destroyed my ability to maintain my gardens. If I ever meet someone from the EU I will beat the living crap out of them.

Thats the end result, brilliant isnt it, its working ... now either close down mr independent and buy from corporate owned stores, or better still if you have the money and your struggling, purchase the magic beans at a price ... :bounce3:

Green + Environmental = just another infiltrated corporate cult/religion for the new age, it might be worth people seeking out "The Iron Mountain Report" also for some fun findings or the peaceful future (Al gore pops up too even back then).

The Georgia Guidstones have some nice green views too : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones see point 1.

I realise thats not GM focused, just the overal picture of this arena.

Edited October 1, 2012 by mrcash2009

[walker 0]

Hi all

If you want an effective none chemical method of killing weeds just use steam.

http://www.ehow.com/how_6622095_kill-weeds-steam.html

A Steamer you can buy from B&Q or hire from a tool hire company will do the job.

Here is a Commercial version being used by councils in the UK:

8UDpC-9-HK0

Also a very effective way of killing of microbial Disease and nematode pests. You can sterilize a whole field using this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_steam_sterilization

My father worked on this so that is where I know about it from. You can then add in beneficial bacteria and worms to get the soil chemistry and biology you want for particular plants.

Deep Dry steam is the ONLY EFFECTIVE METHOD OF KILLING JAPANESE KNOTWEED

The process is explained here:

http://www.soil-steaming-steam-boiler-blog.com/category/soil-sterilization/

Far Far Cheaper than Chemicals and NO polution.

Stop being Fools People!

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 1, 2012 by walker

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Don't believe the fear mongers, but don't believe the media or the government either. I believe the results of this study are legitimate about as much as I believe we went into Iraq to get rid of WMDs.

Do I believe Montasanto are good guys? Nope. Bad guys? Nope. Good and bad cannot be defined because both sides have their own views. In the end, the winners/survivors are the ones who write the history books, so whoever they decided was evil becomes evil.

More on-topic though, I'll just leave this here...

[mrcash2009 0]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/09/ge-food-supporters-insist-organic-foods.aspx?e_cid=20121009_DNL_art_1

Why Do Supporters of Genetically Engineered Foods Insist on Organics for Their Own Families?

Nice article and overall point to bear in mind when you next listen or read pro GM officials when they get home for dinner.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037465_Monsanto_chemical_poisoning_court_case.html

[h=1]Monsanto found guilty of chemical poisoning in landmark case [/h]

[kavoven 4]

Before you go around screaming about the sky falling, take a look at this article and the links/sources provided.

http://doccamiryan.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/i-smell-a-rat/

-edit

Also, this. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/09/21/under-controlled-why-the-new-gmo-panic-is-more-sensational-than-sense/

I have to quote this post because I'm feeling like its being ignored or maybe people dont want to read the links...

I don't know anything about biology or genetics, but you don't need to. You just need a basic understanding of statistics to see that this study is a typical case of the so called "publication bias". Only those studies that report a significant result (and this one is ridiculus! Just look at the group sizes and the the analytical method they used) are being published in magazines.

Lets say we take the standard significance level of .05 (5%) and asume on the other hand that out of 100 studies no study looks at a "real" difference between the experimental groups (though this is only pseudo experimental because there is neither randomisation nor represantation nor a real control group) YOU STILL GET 5 studies that actually WILL report a significant difference.

Edit

Ah and for those people saying "but cancer and allergies are increasing"

There is a real simple explanation for this effect. People have bad genes. People always had bad genes. But 100 years people either didn't become old enough to develope cancer OR people died early enough so that they couldn't pass their bad genes. (+ the OH MY GOD THERE COULD BE BACTERIA ON THAT DOORHANDLE, I'M NOT GONNA TOUCH IT AND USE MY WHOLE BATTERY OF ANTI-BACTERIA CHEMICAL BULLSHIT ON IT BEFORE MY BABY TOUCHES IT)

Edited October 9, 2012 by kavoven

[hellfire257 3]

Ah and for those people saying "but cancer and allergies are increasing"

There's population increase too to factor in.

[kavoven 4]

There's population increase too to factor in.

Yes and information technology. In earlier times nobody noticed when Uncle Juergen in a tiny villiage in upper Bavaria died of cancer. Today we do. And even if someone noticed it has become a lot easier to do the right diagnose.

[Baff1 0]

Also age.

Your first cancer doesn't kill you anymore.

Oldies are riddled with cancers.

My dad is onto his third.

20 years ago he wouldn't have survived the first.

[walker 0]

Also age.

Your first cancer doesn't kill you anymore.

Oldies are riddled with cancers.

My dad is onto his third.

20 years ago he wouldn't have survived the first.

Hi all

Hence why a full life study, as was conducted by these scientists, is necassary.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

They conducted a 90 year study!

Wow.

I didn't realise Monsanto had been around for that long.

So what were the results please.

What happened to the people who had eaten GM for their whole lives vs those who had eaten none?

[walker 0]

They conducted a 90 year study!

Wow.

I didn't realise Monsanto had been around for that long.

So what were the results please.

What happened to the people who had eaten GM for their whole lives vs those who had eaten none?

Hi all

In Reply to Baff1's somewhat uninformed argument.

1) Are you aware that all scientific biological testing of chemicals and bio-engineered plants takes place in animal analogues first?

2) Are you aware that all scientific biological testing takes place in animal analogues first, because their shorter life span, means they highlight probable risks quicker, particularly those of cancer, than they would appear in more long lived species?

3) Are you aware that all scientific biological testing takes place in animal analogues because it would be un-ethical to test it on humans, before testing it on animals?

4) Are you aware that the scientific biological testing carried out by Monsanto was average rat life expectancy?

5) Are you aware of what the bell curve is?

6) Are you aware that "Average Natural Life Expectancy" experiments are based on flawed principles; since they automaticly ignore the causes of death and illness of half the population; all those who have longer than "Average Natural Life Expectancy" as they sit on the wrong side of the bell curve cut off?

7) Are you aware that the average rat life expectancy used by Monsanto is that of wild rats?

8) Are you aware that by using the average rat life expectancy of wild rats this also skews the experimental data particularly with cancers by ignoring the effects of increased life expectancy?

An Explanation of why the use of a Full Life experimental model is the correct model rather than the "Average Natural Life Expectancy".

The false argument that a study based on a wild rats average life span is the same as a Full Life study is a falacious one. Even the concept applied to wild rats only, automaticaly cuts out HALF the population studied as it chops the population you follow at the top of the bell curve on life expectancy so all the more long lived rats get ignored. As to the use of wild rats "Average Natural Life Expectancy" it to is mendacious. For, one might as well then take the average life expectancy of a third world person as enough for any human study of cancer in the first world; with the almost 50 year gap between the two you can see the obvious problems. And one of course has to recognise that cancer is primarily a first world problem, people in the third world do not get to live long enough to die of it very often.

So what actual science has been done?

The ONLY Full Life Study in Rats, as human analogues, is this one:http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf it was published in the peer reviewed and respected Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and is the only Full Life Study on the matter of the long term effects of of Roundup and the GM Maize modified to tolerate Roundup in the ever increasing doses it now requires in order to work.

The fact that Monsanto could not even be bothered to carry out such a Full Life Study is totaly and utterly down to Monsanto's own failings.

Until more detailed science can be done, the precautionary principle must apply and this GM Maize, its products and Roundup should be banned.

Use Steam it is cheaper

And of course as I pointed out the whole concept of using ever increasing amounts of expensive chemicals for weed control is a con trick on the stupid, for those who are foolish enough to believe the marketing.

FACT: steam kills off weeds and all other pests at lower cost and far more effectively, and of course the only chemical residue it leaves behind is good old H2O.

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 13, 2012 by walker
clarity, grammar

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

I have to quote this post because I'm feeling like its being ignored or maybe people dont want to read the links...

But 100 years people either didn't become old enough to develope cancer OR people died early enough so that they couldn't pass their bad genes. (+ the OH MY GOD THERE COULD BE BACTERIA ON THAT DOORHANDLE, I'M NOT GONNA TOUCH IT AND USE MY WHOLE BATTERY OF ANTI-BACTERIA CHEMICAL BULLSHIT ON IT BEFORE MY BABY TOUCHES IT)

Exactly. Roundup isn't helping matters, but it's not the source of all evil, or all cancer. Ya know, I'm starting to finally realize that it is impossible for Walker to have a logic based conversation without him completely disregarding the other sides, or even the neutral sides, point of view. Every time these threads get started that seem designed to attempt to induce panic, I or somebody else attempts to show the other side of the issue, or the neutral side of the issue, and he simply falls back on completely disregarding the points made against his side. Basically, my argument is wrong because he says it's wrong, and he says it's wrong because it's wrong. Tis an endless loop you see.

So instead of instead of losing my patience trying to debate the issue with an obvious fearmonger/troll, I'm going to leave the thread, chuckling over the fact that my mind, while half asleep, saw the following sentence he had highlighted in bold and thought that he had randomly gone far off-topic.

Use Steam it is cheaper