patrick.net

See science in the hands of politics, is a dangerous thing.

It's funny to see Homefool pointing a finger accusing others of pseudoscience gullibility, when he is the one who believes nonsense about his SSRIs based on the paid salesmen's summaries without even reading the actual numbers on which their conclusions are supposedly based.

This might help explain many American's understanding of science. Its a clip from the Daily Show where Walter L. Wagner, an American science teacher explains how CERN could destroy the world by creating a black hole:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider

donjumpsuit says

I don't hold anything against the Anti-GMO people in these forums. I have read and enjoyed their other opinions and posts on other topics. I know they are reasonable, and informed.

That's very diplomatic of you, but I can't say I agree. I find them to be decidedly UNreasonable, and informed only by the sources THEY choose (i.e. the sources that agree with them). Science and reason take a back seat to paranoia and hysteria.

Homeboy says

informed only by the sources THEY choose (i.e. the sources that agree with them)

How often have we seen science used for this ? The pharmaceutical industries undue influence on the medical profession is the perdfect example.

The anti climate change people try to use science to argue that it isn't caused by man.

How many advances has science brought, that only much later were proven to be unhealthy ?

IT was only a few decades ago that the common wisdon was that partially hydrogenated margerine was WAY better for you than butter. Now most people would say butter is healthier.

The list goes on and on....

The fact that an industry backed by HUGE HUGE money succeeds in genetically modifying our food supply for profit, and some people worry about this ?

What, do those people still think the world is flat ?

What fools they are. What reason could they possibly have for waiting for better information ? What's the problem with those Europeans neanderthals who don't allow GMOs ?

donjumpsuit says

All they have to do is plant the idea that an employer, insurance company, or even your daughters preschool, will get their hands on your genetic profile and perform a determination if you are unfit for employment, or if you are a risk to expensive health care, or if your daughter has enough focus to be a good learner.

I don't think this is some nutjob idea, I think it's a real concern. If I were an insurance company and I had a way to predict risk of future health problems, I would want to use it to price my premiums. That's good business. The core competency of an insurance company (other than marketing, I guess) is to accurately model the likelihood of negative future occurrences. Of course they want the data in your genome, and of course they want to charge more if you are predisposed to cancer or heart disease. Just like they charge more if you are a smoker, habitual DUI offender or whatever.

So, I don't think the fear is irrational or overblown. When I apply for life insurance, I am compelled to release my "private as I want it to be" medical records to the underwriters, or they won't "play ball". Why would this be any different with my genome sequence? Now I have to decide if I want to forego the genome sequence until I secure life insurance, not disclose it when I apply for insurance (fraud), or hope for a law that prohibits insurance companies from requesting it.

It's sticky.

donjumpsuit says

Whole Human Genome Sequencing has the potential to change health care forever, and alert the entire population to diagnosis without any further additional tests.

There is a good chance for that and hopefully it will turn out to be as great as expected - even today it can be very helpful for people to know that they have mutations such as mtfhr that interfere with proper mehtylation and can treat/supplement accordingly. However this (genetic sequencing) has nothing to do with GMOs (dna altering and releasing it into the wild) and the price of non-organic cheap calories in the US is next to nothing. We have enough food for everyone, and the main reason organic food is so expensive is simply that it is produced in much smaller quantities, then there is the certification process etc. The health and contamination risks GMOs introduce far outweigh any benefits. Even the "nutcases" you refer to hardly object anymore to CONTAINED genetic sequencing and manipulation in the name of medicine. In fact, 99% of the objections these days are against stem cell research and rooted in religious beliefs. GMOs are introduced for one reason only and that is profit. Having a medical background myself, I'm all for the genome and all against GMOs (I don't care about research in contained labs though), There is no contradiction here.

marcus says

How often have we seen science used for this ? The pharmaceutical industries undue influence on the medical profession is the perdfect example.

Good point.

Who thought 40 years ago you would have to pee in a cup by default, without any prior suspicion, to get a job stocking shelves, or just to join a HS Sports Team?

Who would have thought that police would be empowered to administer blood tests on the side of the road to suspected DWIs without any warrant?

Oh, and that life and medical info is stored in a place (formerly) called the MIB. Check it out.

donjumpsuit says

I am NOT going to go into it, but the phrase itself is remarkably uninformed, generic, over reaching, can be misinterpereted, and is often misused. I have been working in Science, specifically with GMO's for my entire life. DNA is altered in your own body on a daily basis. DNA in the wild is altered on a daily basis. Viruses are prolific in nature, and cover every object you come in contact, include fruits and vegatables. The sole purpose of Viruses is to alter DNA to suit their own needs, with unknown consequences.

Of course it's generic (but not wrong), we don't have time and space to go into every detail and just because a factually correct statement can get the uneducated masses alarmed is no reason to beat around the bush or claim you know it's safe (because you don't) and they have nothing to worry about. None of the facts you mentioned change the fact that it is very risky to genetically engineer an organism in the lab and release it into the wild. You surely wouldn't want somebody releasing a genetically engineered new avian flu strain into the wild, just because DNA is altered every day by nature anyways. And there is a huge difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering of plants/animals which was discussed before. If you want to argue that GMOs are safe, then we agree to disagree here, no need to get into a contest about scientific credentials ;)

donjumpsuit says

The Bt protein in corn is produced only in the region of the stem that the corn-borer attacks, not in the kernals.

That's surely awesome for any other non-targeted insects/animals getting in contact with Bt, plus cross-pollination issues for the farmers who don't want Bt or other substances in their corn.

donjumpsuit says

I did put it here because I am 50/50 on it. I acknowledge that it is possible, but like all things possible, it is improbable. Right now, storing your genome variations (all regions that differ from the control genome) takes 1GB

The diff is only 1 gig? Shit, gmail gives me 10 gigs for free. Completely and totally within reach today for them to archive the genomes, and considering the growth of storage I think it will be laughably trivial in a decade. In less than 30 years I have seen hard drives go from 10 megabyte being standard (if you had one at all) to 1 terabyte being fairly normal. 5 orders of magnitude. The data storage isn't going to get in the way.

Even if the data storage problem was a real issue, they don't have to archive it in order to make it valuable. When you apply for life insurance, they get your genome, review it for known problems, assess risk based on what they know today and price accordingly. No need to archive it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do this or be allowed to do this (I don't have a well formed opinion, really), and with my business hat on I would say they absolutely should take it into account. The point is, this is what people are afraid of, and I think the fear is totally founded.

"If someone is still unsure about GMO's they should have access to correct information to make an educated decision, not bullshit propaganda."

I think there are a wide variety or reasons people don't like GMO foods, some more valid than others. One of the big issues I have is the IP protection they are granted coupled with the aggressive lawsuits (often successful) associated with them. Monsanto is easy to hate. If I plant soy beans that I intentionally pollinate with GMO plants, I might accept that I'm violating laws or property rights (might)....but if it's incidental and out of my control, I should have no liability for it...and in fact I think Monsanto should have liability if their GMO pollen ends up rendering my seeds sterile.

GMO to add beta carotene to rice, arguably good. GMO to make plants pest or herbicide resistant, maybe a good thing. GMO that infects the natural food supply so the company can use legal channels to compel me to buy their shit...starting to sound evil to me. It's fucked up that I even have to say this.

Would we be better off without GMO? Maybe, but probably not...are there negative aspects - most definitely.

I just glad that smoking & radiation are still safe. I've heard they will kill any negative effects of GMO.

KarlRoveIsScum says

mell says

DNA is altered every day by nature anyways.

Because Monsanto is just like NATURE!

Mell why don't you go drink some Lead Paint and put on some Asbestos underwear on it's all theoretically safe!

Hey, read the full post again, I was advocating a similar point you are making and just citing a previous argument ("DNA is altered every day by nature") NOT made by me. Not so fast ;)

I think the allot of the resistance to gmo's is a case of what have you done for me lately. Soybeans that you can drench roundup, yeah not so much. Mangoes with no pits, miniature purple hippos as pets, daisies that don't smell feet, sign me up.

marcus says

How often have we seen science used for this ? The pharmaceutical industries undue influence on the medical profession is the perdfect example.

The anti climate change people try to use science to argue that it isn't caused by man.

How many advances has science brought, that only much later were proven to be unhealthy ?

See, this is my point. I point out that there is no evidence that GMOs are harmful, have ever killed anyone, or have ever made anyone sick, and your response is: "Climate change...drugs...trans fats..." None of these things has anything to do with GMOs. This is a purely emotional reaction, and the fact that the anti-GMO people can't bring any relevant science or logic to the table proves it.

marcus says

IT was only a few decades ago that the common wisdon was that partially hydrogenated margerine was WAY better for you than butter. Now most people would say butter is healthier

Exactly. When I was growing up, they said you're supposed to eat margarine instead of butter, even though it tastes like crap. Now it's the other way around. Perfect example of how fickle the public is. And now they're trying to tell you "don't ever eat corn or soybeans". Fuck that. I like corn, and I like tofu. I eat them all the time, and guess what? I'm still here. My stomach rarely explodes after I eat an ear of corn.

marcus says

The fact that an industry backed by HUGE HUGE money succeeds in genetically modifying our food supply for profit, and some people worry about this ?

Huh? What do you mean "backed" by money? They aren't "backed" by money; they MAKE money. And last time I checked, the organics industry wasn't doing too badly either, overcharging people for a bunch of hype. Whole Foods Market is huge huge money too.

marcus says

What's the problem with those Europeans neanderthals who don't allow GMOs ?

Same problem as American neanderthals. The only difference is, our government hasn't bought into the nonsense....yet.

They used to burn witches. Does that prove there were witches?

Homeboy says

Fuck that. I like corn, and I like tofu. I eat them all the time, and guess what? I'm still here.

You can enjoy your GMOs. I'd like a choice of not having them in my food.

Tofu has high estrogen levels that are not necessary good for men.

treatmentreport says

You can enjoy your GMOs. I'd like a choice of not having them in my food.

Then buy organic food. If you want to pay more for something that isn't any better for you, go right ahead.

It seems we are missing a larger point here. Corn and soy aren't meant for humans to eat in the first place, so making them readily available isn't really a good thing in my opinion.

Id wager people are better off eating dirt and non potable water, then they are eating a diet heavily infused with big agriculture foodstuff substitutes, such as soy and corn

KarlRoveIsScum says

At least cigarettes have labels.

Because they have been proven to be harmful. It's called science. We don't just slap warning labels on stuff because of unfounded hysteria.

Homeboy says

Then buy organic food.

I travel for work a lot and can't eat at home all the time.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Homeboy why did you delete my link to evidence?

I didn't delete any evidence. I deleted your substanceless rants.

Sucks when someone deletes your posts, doesn't it? Payback's a bitch.

treatmentreport says

Homeboy says

Then buy organic food.

I travel for work a lot and can't eat at home all the time.

If you're eating out, how are warning labels going to help you? You don't have any control over what the restaurant is putting in its food. I would be far more concerned with the salt, fat, sugar, and preservatives that are in the food than whether its GMO or not.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Supermarkets?

Like I said, you can buy organic food at the supermarket if you are concerned.

KarlRoveIsScum says

and guess what the things you just mentioned are all GMO

"Salt, SUGAR, Processed Foods"

I don't think you even know what GMO means.

donjumpsuit says

mell says

donjumpsuit says

The Bt protein in corn is produced only in the region of the stem that the corn-borer attacks, not in the kernals.

That's surely awesome for any other non-targeted insects/animals getting in contact with Bt, plus cross-pollination issues for the farmers who don't want Bt or other substances in their corn.

Mell, I am going to point this out (calmly) again. The BT isn't IN the pollen anymore. I just told you that we have a method of only producing it in the stem.

The whole BT in pollen landing on milkweed and killing monarch butterflies is SOOOOOO 1994.

Take my hand and come into 2013.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/326208

donjumpsuit says

Labeling foods as GMO will only support bigger corporations (like Monsanto and Dupont) and ruin the little guys, like local produce distributors and small time food providers.

Right, that's why Monsanto and most of the big food conglomerates actively campaigned for labeling GMOs - no wait, it was the other way round! Man they must have pulled some great reverse psychology voodoo on us by pretending to be against labeling while actually labeling would benefit them! ;)

KarlRoveIsScum says

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/Genetically-Modified-Peas-Caused-Dangerous-Immune-Response-in-Mice-NovemberDecember-2005

Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice

Other GM Foods are Not Tested for This and May Be Harmful

They injected this stuff into mice and it caused an allergic reaction, so they decided to stop development of it. Great, science works.

The rest is a bunch of nonsense. Do you have any evidence that GMOs THAT ARE CONSUMED BY HUMANS are harmful in any way?

donjumpsuit says

mell says

http://digitaljournal.com/article/326208

You do realize that the Bt protein, or dead BT organism, is sprayed on organic produce, right?

http://spokane-county.wsu.edu/spokane/eastside/Fact%20Sheets/C178%20Bt%20Products%2005.pdf

No, I know that and I am not a fan of it, this has been done for along time now in many countries and I would not allow it. However there is a big difference between spraying it onto produce vs having produce internally create the Bt, that should be obvious. Sprayed on produce cannot cross-pollinate and naturally multiply, it is a static, controlled process.

donjumpsuit says

mell says

Right, that's why Monsanto and most of the big food conglomerates actively campaigned for labeling GMOs - no wait, it was the other way round! Man they must have pulled some great reverse psychology voodoo on us by pretending to be against labeling while actually labeling would benefit them! ;)

They actually don't realize that in the end they will benefit. In the beginning they would have to spend, but in the end, they will reap the benefits.

Well if they don't realize, that which you have the vision, to trace the implications chain, such that it would benefit them,,,then please keep your mouth shut! We wouldn't want you to give any of the mega corps any ideas of how to be more profitable at the consumers expense,,,,,sweet jeebus

mell says

No, I know that and I am not a fan of it, this has been done for along time now in many countries and I would not allow it.

That's silly. Would you rather they use nasty chemicals that ARE toxic to humans? Or would you like all the crops to be eaten by insects and not have any left for us? I've noticed many people seem to be AGAINST a lot of things, but are never clear on what things they are FOR.