patrick.net

Homeboy says

mell says

I was simply pointing out that avoiding Mercola is as simple as not becoming obsessed with him

Um, no. You said he's "just trying to sell tanning beds", which is bullshit. He's doing much more than that. He is peddling false and possibly dangerous ideas for the purpose of bilking gullible people out of their money. I'm not "obsessed" with him; it is you who seems to be obsessed with defending him. I'm simply pointing out the truth, which is that he is a quack.

There are a lot of issues where I would agree with him, some I may not, so what's your point? Just because the FDA slapped some warning/fine on him for a part of what he does invalidates the rest of his arguments? He has been on Dr. Oz and has reached the acceptance of the mainstream with some of his ideas. Do you take all your information from a single source without validation?

donjumpsuit says

mell says

Just because the FDA slapped some warning/fine on him for a part of what he does invalidates the rest of his arguments?

Actually, that is exactly what invalidates his arguments.

Again, case by case, I am free to discuss specific threats as laid out in a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal. As it stands now, those are pretty exclusive to discrediting any concerns about GMO's through meaningful research.

The GMO altering the gut flora theory is not uniquely proposed by Mercola, but by quite a few MDs and scientists. I don't consider the FDA as a reputable authority, it is deeply entangled with big food and big pharma, but to each their own. No reason to run around like the world will end tomorrow because of GMOs, but I persist in my statement that they should be labeled their use restrained under the condition of successful containment. It's ok to disagree on this.

donjumpsuit says

Again, case by case, I am free to discuss specific threats as laid out in a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal.

Btw. I would love to do that if I had the time, need to find a way to retire first - but keep posting as the resident food chemistry expert, even if you are taking the other side ;)

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

mell says

Just because the FDA slapped some warning/fine on him for a part of what he does invalidates the rest of his arguments?

The quotation I posted cited 3 sources: BusinessWeek; Phyllis Entis, a microbiologist and food safety expert; AND the FDA. And if you'd bother to do a simple google search on the man, you will find many, many articles discrediting him. Yet all you bring away from this is "the FDA slapped some warning/fine on him for part of what he does".

Are you fucking serious?

I'm finding it extremely hard to take you seriously, mell. You are one of the most credulous people I have ever encountered. You seem to want to dismiss anything having to do with the FDA out-of-hand, for no particular reason, yet you seem to believe that websites of known quacks and shows like "Dr. Phil" [EDIT: Dr. Oz - oops] are perfectly valid sources of scientific data.

This is the problem with the whole anti-GMO camp. None of you seems able to apply critical thinking skills when analyzing the evidence. You seem to consider all sources of information as equally valid. In fact, the less valid they are, the MORE weight you seem to give to them.

eastcoast guy says

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

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/

Homeboy says

shows like "Dr. Phil" are perfectly valid sources of scientific data.

Relax, I loathe Dr. Phil, but that's now who we were talking about ;) Dr. Oz on the other hand is a well respected surgeon with broad based medical education and knowledge and I think he is right to push the envelope on most of the issues where he does. By your logic the FDA was right labeling Vioxx as safe while plenty of MDs were voicing their concerns, because by your definition they were quacks?

donjumpsuit says

Again, OK. But bring some serious studies to the table. People can't do it, YET.

It's hard to come up with long term studies if they haven't been around ling enough, so often they increase the dosage and use animals such as mice. Doesn't necessarily mean a human will react similarly with lower dosages, but it is somewhat likely. Maybe not enough for statistical significance and so they need to reproduce the study in humans, but it's enough for those who are concerned to be able to have a choice.

donjumpsuit says

Again, High Fructose Corn Syrup, refined sugars, and meat are DEFINED items.

The term GMO is insanely ambiguous.

Why? = contains any ingredients derived from genetically modified organism and/or those GMOs themselves.

donjumpsuit says

You can't run around and say everything GMO's is bad for one's health, and that we should be informed if an item contain's GMO's or not, that it must be labeled.

Why not? Plenty of ingredients (ideally all) are labeled that are not necessarily proven harmful, or only harmful depending on the dosage.

donjumpsuit says

This is the kind of stuff modern scientists have to deal with. The seepage of poor information is taken as the holy grail.

That definitely happens with lots of issues affecting mankind and I am not disputing that there is likely misinformation out there, but if it wouldn't you wouldn't have a job or it would be far more boring ;) Only time will tell, I say the jury is still out and I want the right to know.

Homeboy says

Mercola has also received three warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for violations of U.S. marketing laws. The first two letters, dated 2005 and 2006,[12][13] charged Mercola with making false and misleading claims regarding the marketing of several natural supplemental products, which violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.[4] In the most recent letter, sent in March 2011,[14] Mercola was accused of violating federal law, by making claims about the efficacy of certain uses of a telethermographic camera exceeding those approved by the FDA concerning the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the device (regulation of such claims being within the purview of the FDA)

You do realize that these laws make it virtually impossible to make any claims whatsoever without running foul of these laws. These are having the effects they are intended to have, that is to suppress information about natural, homeopathic and alternative means of preserving ones health without drugs and surgery of the very high cost, low effective pharmaceutical and surgery industries. Please do yourselves a favor and investigate home remedies before resorting to drugs that can kill or surgeries that can maim.

www.earthclinic.com has a wealth of information. They do not sell anything but simply give you ideas of what remedies may help you.

donjumpsuit says

fear that a select few lawyers and troublemakers who would test every item without a GMO label to see if there was a speck of GMO in it. When it was found, they would sue the food distributor, farmer, or food manufacturer for unspecified damages.

That is a problem with the US justice system and can be used to defeat any informative or warning labeling. And it underlines the problem of contamination that comes from releasing GMOs into the wild.

donjumpsuit says

You see, just because something is 'genetically modified' doesn't mean it's dangerous, harmful, healthy, allergenic, or political.

Nobody said that, artificial flavors are not necessarily harmful (depends on the flavor) but they have to be declared.
donjumpsuit says

Some items of contention aren't even GMO's, but the pesticides used in conjunction.

Those would not have to be labeled as GMO, "may contain the following pesticides: ..." would suffice.

mell says

Relax, I loathe Dr. Phil, but that's now who we were talking about ;) Dr. Oz on the other hand is a well respected surgeon with broad based medical education and knowledge and I think he is right to push the envelope on most of the issues where he does. By your logic the FDA was right labeling Vioxx as safe while plenty of MDs were voicing their concerns, because by your definition they were quacks?

Uh, YOU relax. It was a typo, obviously. I meant to write Dr. Oz. Anyway, the fact that you get your info from TV talk shows and whacko fringe websites makes it pretty tough to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you.

*Sigh* - The dumbing-down of America.

MsAnnaNOLA says

You do realize that these laws make it virtually impossible to make any claims whatsoever without running foul of these laws. These are having the effects they are intended to have, that is to suppress information about natural, homeopathic and alternative means of preserving ones health without drugs and surgery of the very high cost, low effective pharmaceutical and surgery industries.

Actually, no. There are thousands of "alternative", "homeopathic", and "supplement" remedies out there with absolutely no scientific evidence of their effectiveness, and the FDA in many cases has no power to stop them. By using certain keywords in naming their products, they take advantage of loopholes in the law that allow them to sell their snake oil without any regulations. If anything, the regulations should be TOUGHER.

These "alternative" shysters are bilking a gullible public to the tune of $33.9 billion a year:

http://news.consumerreports.org/health/2009/08/information-on-natural-medicine-money-spent-on-alternative-medicine-alternative-treatments-vitamins.html

There's a sentence in that article that I think you should read and really, truly try to think about:

"Once a treatment is shown to work, it stops being alternative, and becomes part of mainstream medicine."

If there were scientific evidence that something works, it would not be "alternative".

mell says

It's hard to come up with long term studies if they haven't been around ling enough, so often they increase the dosage and use animals such as mice. Doesn't necessarily mean a human will react similarly with lower dosages, but it is somewhat likely. Maybe not enough for statistical significance and so they need to reproduce the study in humans, but it's enough for those who are concerned to be able to have a choice.

Would you listen to yourself? That's absolute junk science. You obviously don't even understand what "statistically significant" means. If I flip a coin once and it come up heads, I cannot conclude that coins always come up heads when flipped. This is an extremely basic tenet of science, and understanding it is absolutely VITAL to interpreting scientific data.

You can "prove" whatever you want if you toss the scientific method out the window. If we had done that, we'd still be treating illness with blood letting and exorcism.

Homeboy says

I meant to write Dr. Oz. Anyway, the fact that you get your info from TV talk shows and whacko fringe websites makes it pretty tough to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you.

"Oz has been a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University since 2001.[10] He directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital.[11] His research interests include heart replacement surgery, minimally invasive cardiac surgery, and health care policy. With his collaborators, he has authored over 400 research papers, book chapters and medical books and has received several patents."

What are your credentials? Did you ever study medicine?

IN USDA WE TRUST

Homeboy says

Would you listen to yourself? That's absolute junk science. You obviously don't even understand what "statistically significant" means.

FWIW I don't give much about it, but I studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and statistics in medicine for roughly 4 years. You cannot start with "statistically significant" long term studies in humans right away, there are ethical issues and if you just randomly follow patients then there are a lot of other factors that could interfere with what you want to observe. They have to start somewhere and that is usually the animal model. It's reasonable to be worried, but not panicking, if you observe issues in short-term animal studies, even if the dosage is much higher.

donjumpsuit says

rdiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital.[11] His research interests include heart replacement surgery, mini

That gmo pundit site is funny. So, there have been 200 articles published by people not working at gmo seed companies claiming gmo food is safe. In the grand scheme of things that's an absolutely miniscule amount of research. Also, 70 million Euros - not a lot of money to be spent on the issue.

The main reason for labeling GMOs is that people have a right to know when a major shift like this happens in their food supply. The horse is already out of the barn for sure, but people still have a right to decide for themselves what to eat.

There are legitimate reasons that people might want to avoid gmo food like: (1) concern over crop monocultures and their effect on insects, food stability, etc. (2) concern about the social impact on farmers (3) concern about eating active synthetic chemicals (inside the plant as opposed to on the surface where they can be washed off). There may be more reasons - I'm not an expert.

Crying about labels driving up the cost of food is silly. No one is asking for labels with pictures of disfigured children and warnings about consuming gmos. They simply want a label, much like one saying that a garment is made in China. People can decide how to spend their own money. Pink slime was considered safe as well, but people resent not having the option to make that choice on their own.

mell says

FWIW I don't give much about it, but I studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and statistics in medicine for roughly 4 years. You cannot start with "statistically significant" long term studies in humans right away, there are ethical issues and if you just randomly follow patients then there are a lot of other factors that could interfere with what you want to observe. They have to start somewhere and that is usually the animal model. It's reasonable to be worried, but not panicking, if you observe issues in short-term animal studies, even if the dosage is much higher.

I find it hard to believe you studied all those things, because your definition of "statistically significant" is completely wrong. You are conflating 3 or 4 different concepts. Statistical significance refers to whether a given result differs from what might occur from random chance. Dosage, human vs. animal test, and ethics have absolutely nothing to do with that.

If you conduct an experiment, and your results are not statistically significant, then you have proven nothing. Period.

mell says

What are your credentials? Did you ever study medicine?

My credentials are I appear to know more about science than you, since you completely failed at understanding what "statistically significant" means. That's pretty basic stuff.

Let me make this very simple. Let's say that in nature, 5 of every 100 mice get cancer (I don't know the real numbers; this is just hypothetical). If I feed GMO to 100 mice, and 5 of them get cancer, what did I prove?

Answer: Bupkis

So anyone who says, "It's not statistically significant, but...." is full of it. There is no "but".

Homeboy says

If you conduct an experiment, and your results are not statistically significant, then you have proven nothing. Period.

You are mistaken once again, statistical significance depends on the size of the cohort for example and often on the duration of the study as well, usually a combo of both. If you observe an effect in 10 out of 10 study subjects it may not be statistically significant, but it can give you a pretty damn fucking clue. Of course you need to validate that. When Fleming looked at his discarded petri dish and noted something very interesting, he gave a fuck about statistical significance. It took a long time to turn his discovery into one of the most important life saving drugs of human history, enough time that it could have been discarded by others labeling it as quackery.

Homeboy says

Let me make this very simple. Let's say that in nature, 5 of every 100 mice get cancer (I don't know the real numbers; this is just hypothetical). If I feed GMO to 100 mice, and 5 of them get cancer, what did I prove?

Answer: Bupkis

On this specific example we agree.

donjumpsuit says

There are no benefits to labeling something as GMO. The public has been trained to treat the word GMO as evil. This is a misnomer, so labeling something with a misnomer would do nothing but propagate fear, discrimination and drive up prices for food producers who would fear that a select few lawyers and troublemakers who would test every item without a GMO label to see if there was a speck of GMO in it. When it was found, they would sue the food distributor, farmer, or food manufacturer for unspecified damages.

Think of it this way. How do you think the average American would react to a food product that bore a label disclosing "This Product Contains Chemicals"?

http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=31443

Homeboy says

eastcoast guy says

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

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/

eastcoast guy says

http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=31443

http://academicsreview.org/2012/09/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-study/

mell says

You are mistaken once again, statistical significance depends on the size of the cohort for example and often on the duration of the study as well, usually a combo of both.

Irrelevant. That does not change the definition of statistical significance.

mell says

If you observe an effect in 10 out of 10 study subjects it may not be statistically significant, but it can give you a pretty damn fucking clue.

This is gibberish. It is either statistically significant or it isn't. A "clue" is not proof. If you claim something is a scientific fact based on a study that showed no statistical significance, that's just junk science. That's why these so-called GMO "studies" get blasted when they actually come up for peer review. There isn't a single valid study showing that ANY GMO products currently on the market are harmful to humans in any way. You can try to spin it any way you like, but if there are no valid scientific conclusions to be drawn from a study, then you CAN'T FUCKING SAY IT MEANS ANYTHING.

mell says

Of course you need to validate that. When Fleming looked at his discarded petri dish and noted something very interesting, he gave a fuck about statistical significance. It took a long time to turn his discovery into one of the most important life saving drugs of human history, enough time that it could have been discarded by others labeling it as quackery.

More gibberish. Of course that is how discoveries are made. But for every discovery that turned out to be a miracle drug, there were probably a million that turned out to be complete bullshit. Laetrile, anyone?

Like you said, you need to validate it. And that's what science does. So again, when a substance is PROVEN to have usefulness, it becomes mainstream. Garbage that isn't proven to be useful remains in the "alternative" camp, for Art Bell listening suckers who believe everything they're told, to be separated from their money. A mainstream remedy is nothing more than a formerly "alternative" remedy that was shown to have merit.

donjumpsuit says

People gave up this right when they decided to move from the farm to the city.

That's bullshit.
donjumpsuit says

The public has a right to make informed choices about the products they purcahse, but it is the responsiblity of the CONSUMER to find trusted sources of these products.

Again, bullshit. We live in a democracy and vote on rules for disclosure of information on consumer producs. Caveat emptor applies to buying a used car on Craigslist. The same cannot be said for food. We are having this debate, because many states have put this disclosure up for a vote. The majority of people think GMOs should be labled. Companies have spent millions scaring people into thinking that it would drive food prices too high. Again, this is bullshit. Most of food prices to into marketing, packaging, distribution, and waste. Forcing GMO labels would have a minor impact. Earlier you linked a web site claiming that 70 milliion euros or something have been spent testing GMOs. Nearly as much as been spent scaring the public about the price of labels. That's pretty shameful.

You are correct in my misuse of the word synthetic. However, genetic engineering of plants has blurred the distinction that was more clear over the preceding 100 years of chemistry.

It was sloppy writing, as was this...

donjumpsuit says

is that GMO's main goal is to reduce the environmental impact of growing

GMOs do not have goals. Many people who worked on developing GMOs have goals.

and this...
donjumpsuit says

which is toxically relevant (harmful) in a toxicology study (MSDS)

An MSDS is a material safety data sheet. It is not a toxicology study.

donjumpsuit says

For most of those items, there is a toxicology report (it's called and MSDS in Science)

A material safety data sheet is called an MSDS period. In Science has nothing to do with it.

donjumpsuit says

It's only silly because you don't own a food company, or a seed distribution business.

Exactly. To everybody else, it is silly. The people who stand to take a slight haircut are the ones selling gmo seeds.

I'm not even against gmo foods. I do think that people have the right to make their own decisions and be informed. Labeling would let people know what is and is not gmo. It would also bring the debate forward in the media, and people would become educated. Insisting that people are not smart enough to understand and should be kept in the dark is ridiculous and it is a short-sighted strategy for food companies.

donjumpsuit says

There are no benefits to labeling something as GMO. The public has been trained to treat the word GMO as evil. This is a misnomer, so labeling something with a misnomer would do nothing but propagate fear, discrimination and drive up prices for food producers who would fear that a select few lawyers and troublemakers who would test every item without a GMO label to see if there was a speck of GMO in it.

Labeling GMO food as GMO is not a misnomer. Labeling it evil would be a misnomer, but no-one is asking for that. If the public is misinformed, then companies should strive to educate. Attempting to pull one over on people, because you think that they are stupid or incapable of understanding what is good for them is evil. This strategy may already be backfiring. We will see how people react when Whole Foods starts to require labels.

donjumpsuit says

Labeling something 'GMO' has no signifigance since it is such a broad term, nobody knows what anybody is talking about.

You can repeat this a million times, it won't change the fact that a genetically modified organism is an organism that has had it's RNA/DNA altered in the LAB (as opposed to crossbred). How fucking hard is that to understand? It is so simple that even the - in this thread - so called "dumbed down" American public broadly understands the concept and that's why you get so many calls for labeling as they have a right to know. It has been narrowly defeated here in CA, no reason to go apeshit and panic as you pointed out one can buy organic, but I predict it will pass in Vermont and more states will follow, rightfully so. But who knows, will be interesting to see..

mell says

a genetically modified organism is an organism that has had it's RNA/DNA altered in the LAB (as opposed to crossbred). How fucking hard is that to understand?

You seem to be making an implication that DNA altered in a lab is inherently bad, whereas DNA altered by selective breeding is inherently good. What is your scientific basis for this belief??

Homeboy says

mell says

a genetically modified organism is an organism that has had it's RNA/DNA altered in the LAB (as opposed to crossbred). How fucking hard is that to understand?

You seem to be making an implication that DNA altered in a lab is inherently bad, whereas DNA altered by selective breeding is inherently good. What is your scientific basis for this belief??

It carries greater risks and unknowns. The principle of familiarity which means that selective breeding can only work in organisms close enough to each other, so for example you won't have any luck selectively breeding/crossing species, e.g. animals or insects with plants, but it has been done in the labs.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.0960-7412.2002.001607.x/full

"The transfer of antibiotic resistance gene to unrelated microorganisms such as Aspergillus niger has also been demonstrated [34]. Biotechnology scientists, however, are of the opinion that the Npt II gene used to develop GM plants currently in the market is safe for use because there is no evidence of allergenicity or toxicity related to it."

It's nice that they are of the "opinion" that aspergillus niger cannot cause any problems. Well, quite a few don't share this opinion. But I guess as long as the resistance doesn't reach Stachybotrys it's only a problem for immunocompromised and otherwise weak/allergic people. Also, I'd contend that "not reputable" is also an opinion ;) But thanks, interesting article, I will completely read through it when I have more time.

mell says

It carries greater risks and unknowns. The principle of familiarity which means that selective breeding can only work in organisms close enough to each other, so for example you won't have any luck selectively breeding/crossing species, e.g. animals or insects with plants, but it has been done in the labs.

I haven't heard of this "principle of familiarity". There is a "familiarity principle" in psychology, but that doesn't pertain to genetics. Perhaps you could explain to us what makes this "principle of familiarity" valid.

I'm not sure what this "close enough to each other" concept is supposed to mean. Quite obviously, humans have succeeded in cross-breeding species that do not breed together in nature. We have done this for thousands of years. Most of the food we eat is a result of this process. We have already interfered with whatever evolution would have occurred were humans not present on the earth. Your objection seems merely to be that this is a "different" method of changing genetics. I'm still not seeing any scientific basis for your fear. How is a random gene mutation inherently less "risky" than a carefully selected gene insertion?

Check out this (expert) debate between Vrain and Horgen if you are really interested, it will give you more insight and you can then form (or keep) your own opinion:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=252908071394905&story_fbid=567786546573721#_=_

mell says

Check out this (expert) debate between Vrain and Horgen if you are really interested, it will give you more insight and you can then form (or keep) your own opinion:

I am interested, but I feel that I wasted my time reading that. Vrain cites the same flawed and totally discredited "studies" that you and the other anti-GMO zealots have already talked about ad nauseam on this forum. Then he admits that nobody has ever gotten sick from eating GMO food, but makes the ridiculous argument: "it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer." I'm sorry, but he is not being scientific in the least. Is he trying to say that GMO food has caused a cancer epidemic starting in the 1960s? Where's the evidence?

It honestly seems to me that you have a pre-ordained conclusion and you are just cherry-picking whatever bits and pieces you can find on the internet that seem to fit what you have already decided in your mind.

I am generally a consumer of organic food, but it is not always possible to get organic depending on where you are and even non-GMO label is only partially applied so far. I personally know microbiologists and researchers from Europe (Germany, Ukraine etc.) who would neither consume GMOs themselves nor feed it to their family or friends, and we have had many talks about it, so it's not an "internet-only" affair ;) Let's close this as nobody will be convinced on patnet and wait and see how this continues to play out.

mell says

Let's close this as nobody will be convinced on patnet and wait and see how this continues to play out.

I agree. Nobody will be convinced, because you have failed to provide any convincing evidence.