http://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/the-ultimate-killing-machine-gmos.html

Avatar
Join the discussion…

  • Avatar

    My lord you are one coo-coo clock. The majority of the populace is uninformed and unintelligent. They are mentally superior to you.

  • Avatar

    The photo of the rats are Sprague-Dawley rats. They naturally develop tumors at high rates.

    Good luck with your crusade though. It’s a shame you’ll never have peer-reviewed science on your side.

    Maybe next time you can tackle chemtrails.

  • Avatar

    So she’s anti vax AND a Scientologist?

  • Avatar

    That is one hell of a lot of misinformation and outright bullshit in one post. Um…nice job, I guess? So when are the aliens coming to pick you up?

  • Avatar

    The transfer of DNA from GM food to gut microorganisms is a relevant (and evidence-based http://www.nature.com/nbt/jour… issue that should be considered when designing GM crops. However, if you transfer a piece of DNA from carrot into potato, the resulting potato would be a GMO. The carrot DNA could pass to your gut bacteria from the potato. Similarly, the carrot DNA could pass to your gut bacteria from a non-GM carrot. It really makes no difference. Gene transfer isn’t confined to GMOs (http://www.pnas.org/content/96…. It is natural way that bacteria evolve (and is part of the reason for antibiotic-resistant bacteria becoming so widespread http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…. So when a GMO is being designed, you need to question whether or not it matters if the gene you are introducing is going to transfer to gut bacteria.

    If you read the method of the article providing the picture of porcine stomach inflammation, you would see that the pigs were fed a mixture of different GM feeds including glyphosate-resistant maize and soybean. You would also see that the judgment of the level of inflammation was left to the researchers; it was based on the non-quantitative criteria of redness and swelling. The researchers state that there was no difference in the blood biochemistry between the pigs fed the two different (GM vs non-GM) diets, but, as far as I know, blood tests are the only way to quantitatively measure inflammation (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/B…. Even if the two groups were quantifiably different, it would perhaps be more of an indictment of glyphosate than the GMOs, as already addressed. It’s not really possible for me to comment on the photo of rat testicles, because there is no reference (as with the picture of the maize cobs), but the same arguments as for the pig stomachs may apply.

    The idea that we don’t hear about this stuff in the media is ridiculous. All the links you have given me have been from the media. (None of them have been peer-reviewed original research articles.) Do a Google search for “GM food danger Daily Mail” and you get plenty of scare stories about GMOs from the Daily Mail, the British newspaper with apparently the second highest circulation (http://www.theguardian.com/med….

    Finally, where is the link between GMOs and people getting cancer? People get cancer. (I got cancer.) People have been getting cancer for far longer than GMOs have been around (http://www.plosone.org/article….

    see more

  • Avatar

    There are several points in this article in which I think you are mistaken (but it’s going to take me a couple of comments to address them):

    Saying that glyphosate is found in cattle that have eaten GM feed is relevant, but you should realise that glyphosate is the active compound in the herbicide Roundup. It is not produced by GM crops, and Roundup was being used before GM started (it was patented in 1974: http://worldwide.espacenet.com…. One specific genetic modification that has been performed quite widely is to make crops resistant to glyphosate so that the herbicide can be used to kill weeds that grow where the crops are grown. I fully acknowledge that this may be dangerous – Roundup isn’t very nice stuff – but the problem here is that using glyphosate-resistant crops has encouraged the use of Roundup. It is not the glyphosate-resistant crops, on their own, that are dangerous, and this is only one type of genetic modification. What about all the genetic modifications to increase tolerance to droughts, extreme temperatures or floods, or those that are able to use nitrogen more efficiently and so require less spraying with chemicals, or those that have increased nutritional content? The human population is almost certainly going to reach 9 billion by 2050 (http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ind…, and those extra people deserve to be fed.

    The “first long-term study of GMOs” that your article refers to has been retracted from the journal it was published in (http://www.elsevier.com/about/…because the number of rats in each treatment group was too small to lead to definitive conclusions. The type of rat used is one that has an extremely high incidence of tumour formation, and so it couldn’t be concluded that any differences in tumour incidence were not due to chance. Also, that study involved glyphosate-resistant maize, so even if the differences between the groups were significantly robust, it would be an indication that glyphosate may be dangerous and not necessarily that the GMO itself is dangerous. Essentially, the arguments that I made in the previous paragraph apply.

    The section “Animals fed GMOs have sterile grandchildren” refers to a report (from 2010) of a study that still has not been published, which makes it difficult to authoritatively comment on the veracity of the claims, but the fact that the study hasn’t been published suggests either that the methodology was seriously flawed or biased or that the differences were most likely due to chance. From the description of the study, it sounds like hamsters were kept in families and forced to inbreed for several generations. In animals, each individual generally has two copies of each gene. If one copy of a particular gene has a mutation that makes that gene create a protein that doesn’t do the function it usually does, then that’s usually okay because the other copy of the gene compensates. But, if both copies of the gene have the same mutation, it can mean that no functional protein is made and the individual is compromised (for instance, by being infertile). Nearly every individual has several mutations in one copy of a gene that would be lethal if they were present in both copies of the gene. That’s normally fine, but if animals are being inbred, that becomes very important (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…. Sons and daughters have very similar genetic make-up to each other. When they are forced to breed, the offspring can end up with both copies of genes being of the mutant form. In this unpublished study with hamsters, it may be the case that, by chance, the sons and daughters of the hamsters fed GM soybean inherited mutant gene copies to the extent that their children were infertile, while, by chance, the hamsters fed non-GM soybean inherited normal gene copies. (The same argument applies to the mouth hair.)

    see more

  • Avatar

    Curcurmin would have helped reliever her from the brest cancer ….classic chemio only spreads it …laser tech is better .;..careful when you buy ” BIO foods” because BIO is latin for life …whereas it doesn’t indicate if it is artificial or not ….
    another thing …GMO wheat made in the 70’s through natural strains only increased the production of gluten… Transgenetics hit the market in the 1980’s with the rice and was abandonded , then it was the turn of corn that was and is still used for
    making ethanol and fructose/glucose cornsurup which is used to sweeten everything unatural … and promote type two diabetes… By the way , did you check to see what was in the “suppliments” ? last I read about them , theses were containing alot of carcenogenic additives ….some made from transgenetics….So to me ,it’s not surprising …if what she ate was truly BIO healthy , why take suppliments ?

  • Avatar

    I am so sorry for your loss! This is such an important fight. Thank you for your bravery and for exposing this atrocity.

  • Avatar

    “What kills insects, kills us.” Not necessarily so. Boric acid is a deadly neurotoxin for some insects (like ants), yet is non-toxic to humans and animals, and has been used for many years as an eye wash and antiseptic as an aqueous solution.

    I would agree that Monsanto has carried out many insidious business and patenting practices and deserve greater regulatory oversight. As a rule of thumb, when someone resists full disclosure / labelling, they usually have something to hide.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: