Killer GMOs!

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-02/aaft-hbt020617.php


Killing cancer, that is.

 

[thebeave]

What a shame the anti-GMO nutters will refuse to use this potentially life saving treatment.

Well, at least they have their wheat grass and organic vegetable smoothie "cures".

 

[Keith&Co.]

What a shame the anti-GMO nutters will refuse to use this potentially life saving treatment. .

Nonsense. People will do what they have to to survive, then rationalize it.

I have a relative who is diabetic and rabidly anti-GMO.
I pointed out that the vast majority of insulin produced in this country comes from modified organisms. "It's not humans producing it, though they did use human DNA..."
"AHA!" she replied triumphantly. "But it's not like I'm EATING the insulin!"

 

[fromderinside]

"But it's not like I'm EATING the insulin!"

Keep up on your line and soon she'll be EATING her words.

 

[thebeave]

What a shame the anti-GMO nutters will refuse to use this potentially life saving treatment. .

Nonsense. People will do what they have to to survive, then rationalize it.

I have a relative who is diabetic and rabidly anti-GMO.
I pointed out that the vast majority of insulin produced in this country comes from modified organisms. "It's not humans producing it, though they did use human DNA..."
"AHA!" she replied triumphantly. "But it's not like I'm EATING the insulin!"

I know, I was being a bit sarcastic. Though, I suspect there are some who are really on the fringe who may refuse to take the GMO treatment, but its probably rare. Just like those who claim to strongly believe in the power of prayer. When push comes to shove, most will go the doctor route (but not all).

In my mind, I was actually taking a bit of a pot shot at my older hippie vegetarian brother who came down with Hodgkin's Lymphoma a few years back. He's always been into natural medicine, herbs and believes in "healing through chanting" (long story), etc. The rest of the family was a little worried he would avoid so-called Western medicine and go the natural route for his HL cure. Fortunately, he came to his senses and was 100% cured by some world reknowned specialists and new state of the art treatment at Stanford. He later confessed that he secretly ate wheat grass at the advice of some of his quack friends, while undergoing his treatment. Now, he is able to claim that its possible the wheat grass is what really cured him, not the medical treatment. Can't lose.

 

[J842P]

What a shame the anti-GMO nutters will refuse to use this potentially life saving treatment. .

Nonsense. People will do what they have to to survive, then rationalize it.

I have a relative who is diabetic and rabidly anti-GMO.
I pointed out that the vast majority of insulin produced in this country comes from modified organisms. "It's not humans producing it, though they did use human DNA..."
"AHA!" she replied triumphantly. "But it's not like I'm EATING the insulin!"

Considering there are people who refuse treatment for cancer, HIV, and other diseases because o cockamanie conspiracy theories I don't think it's a stretch that there will be at least some proportion of anti-GMO people who will refuse treatment.

 

[DBT]

I don't have a problem with the principle of GMO's, but I do mistrust corporations with their profit motives and economically driven haste to get products onto the market to cover research and testing costs and turn a profit.

Perhaps a bit too cynical about the nature of business practice, but there it is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What a shame the anti-GMO nutters will refuse to use this potentially life saving treatment.

Well, at least they have their wheat grass and organic vegetable smoothie "cures".

In their defence cancer is natural while GMO's are an evil perversion. How they are evil or why they are evil I'm not sure. The Frankenfood crowd are a bit hazy on the details

 

[Will Wiley]

What a shame the anti-GMO nutters will refuse to use this potentially life saving treatment.

Well, at least they have their wheat grass and organic vegetable smoothie "cures".

But it is the anti GMO crowd that insist every GMO must be tested on it's merits as each change has the potential to bring about different unintended consequences.

It is the pro GMO crowd that seem to think if you've tested one GMO you have tested them all

 

[bilby]

What a shame the anti-GMO nutters will refuse to use this potentially life saving treatment.

Well, at least they have their wheat grass and organic vegetable smoothie "cures".

But it is the anti GMO crowd that insist every GMO must be tested on it's merits as each change has the potential to bring about different unintended consequences.

And yet they don't apply this same standard to novel strains of life generated by any other technique.

It is the pro GMO crowd that seem to think if you've tested one GMO you have tested them all

Then how do you explain the fact that GMOs are more extensively tested than strains created by other techniques? It's almost as though this belief of yours was total bullshit.

The anti-GMO crowd seem to think that if it's not GMO, it needn't be tested at all.

 

[Will Wiley]

But it is the anti GMO crowd that insist every GMO must be tested on it's merits as each change has the potential to bring about different unintended consequences.And yet they don't apply this same standard to novel strains of life generated by any other technique.

And yet they don't apply this same standard to novel strains of life generated by any other technique.

A new product appeared by a very different technique. Only a fool would not want that tested (independently). Particularly when there is so much money involved and companies are allowed to do their own testing.

But you've been caught on this before. You claim things have been tested for safety but you actually looked at nutrition tests.

If this is wrong then can you provide long term test (the life of the animal), that look at potential organ damage rather than nutrition?

 

[bilby]

And yet they don't apply this same standard to novel strains of life generated by any other technique.

A new product appeared by a very different technique. Only a fool would not want that tested (independently). Particularly when there is so much money involved and companies are allowed to do their own testing.

But you've been caught on this before. You claim things have been tested for safety but you actually looked at nutrition tests.

If this is wrong then can you provide long term test (the life of the animal), that look at potential organ damage rather than nutrition?

I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that I share your paranoia; or that I care to help you with it.

I am unconcerned about GMO safety, because there is no reason whatsoever to imagine that they are any less safe than any other variety of organism.

I haven't been 'caught' on this before; I haven't mistaken nutritional tests for safety tests; I simply don't give a shit about your paranoid fantasies. Testing food for safety has always been pretty patchy, and this has rarely been problematic. However there is one food production method that has caused major public health issues; and so I do support better safety testing for 'organic' produce, which is often fertilised with shit, and has as a result caused deaths and severe illnesses.

Beyond that, the absence of evidence of any systemic problem, and the absence of a mechanism by which a systemic problem could arise, leaves me comfortable with current levels of testing.

Show evidence (from reputable sources) for your claims the the contrary, and I will consider it.

I'm not holding my breath. I expect you still imagine Giles Seralini to be an authority on this topic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A new product appeared by a very different technique. Only a fool would not want that tested (independently). Particularly when there is so much money involved and companies are allowed to do their own testing.

But you've been caught on this before. You claim things have been tested for safety but you actually looked at nutrition tests.

If this is wrong then can you provide long term test (the life of the animal), that look at potential organ damage rather than nutrition?

I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that I share your paranoia; or that I care to help you with it.

I am unconcerned about GMO safety, because there is no reason whatsoever to imagine that they are any less safe than any other variety of organism.

I haven't been 'caught' on this before; I haven't mistaken nutritional tests for safety tests; I simply don't give a shit about your paranoid fantasies. Testing food for safety has always been pretty patchy, and this has rarely been problematic. However there is one food production method that has caused major public health issues; and so I do support better safety testing for 'organic' produce, which is often fertilised with shit, and has as a result caused deaths and severe illnesses.

Beyond that, the absence of evidence of any systemic problem, and the absence of a mechanism by which a systemic problem could arise, leaves me comfortable with current levels of testing.

Show evidence (from reputable sources) for your claims the the contrary, and I will consider it.

I'm not holding my breath. I expect you still imagine Giles Seralini to be an authority on this topic.

What makes the GMO debate so amusing is that the good ol' fashioned way of combining strains at random "to see what happens" is extremely unsafe and there are no regulations on how to do it or demands on testing. It's just assumed that the farmers will do this themselves since it's in their own best interest not to kill people.

The difference is that farmers have been doing this for 12 000 years now and we're still somehow not extinct.

If randomly combing genes won't kill us then GMO's sure as hell won't. Which is orders of magnitudes safer, since we can pinpoint exactly which genes are changed. In regular selective breeding we have no control. Anything can happen.

 

[Will Wiley]

If randomly combing genes won't kill us then GMO's sure as hell won't. Which is orders of magnitudes safer, since we can pinpoint exactly which genes are changed. .

Do you have any evidence it is safer? Or is this going to be another ones of these threads where people make these claims but don't have any science to back it up.

Do you have any long term blood tests of GMOs?

 

[Will Wiley]

Show evidence (from reputable sources) for your claims the the contrary, and I will consider it.

You are the one who has repeatedly claimed GMOs are safe. Yet you have never been able to produce even one long term blood test. Not even one

 

[bilby]

Show evidence (from reputable sources) for your claims the the contrary, and I will consider it.

You are the one who has repeatedly claimed GMOs are safe. Yet you have never been able to produce even one long term blood test. Not even one

No, I have repeatedly asked for evidence for your claim that GMOs are unsafe.

Can you produce a long term blood test confirming the safety of conventionally bred potatoes, or maize, or carrots? Of course not - only a fanatical loony would expect such a thing before he was prepared to eat potatoes, maize or carrots.

But here you are, demanding that standard for GMOs. That's a double standard, and requires justification. So justify it, or desist from it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If randomly combing genes won't kill us then GMO's sure as hell won't. Which is orders of magnitudes safer, since we can pinpoint exactly which genes are changed. .

Do you have any evidence it is safer? Or is this going to be another ones of these threads where people make these claims but don't have any science to back it up.

Do you have any long term blood tests of GMOs?

It doesn't have to be safe. It just has to be safer than traditional methods of selective breeding. Which they obviously are by orders of magnitude. Not to mention what goes on in nature itself, outside our control. Evolution is combing, re-combining and mutating like crazy. Where are the quality controls!!! How can this be legal?!?

Evolution ain't pretty and sometimes everything turns to absolute shite. And has done throughout history. The Irish potato famine is a famous example of selective breeding backfiring causing absolute mayhem.

Demanding that GMO's are perfectly safe is ignoring how nature works. It's stupid and we should stop.

Who gives a shit about long term blood tests!

 

[Will Wiley]

Do you have any evidence it is safer? Or is this going to be another ones of these threads where people make these claims but don't have any science to back it up.

Do you have any long term blood tests of GMOs?

It doesn't have to be safe. It just has to be safer than traditional methods of selective breeding. Which they obviously are by orders of magnitude.

'That seems are very anti science approach. You just say...things obviously are this way.

Who gives a shit about long term blood tests!

People who wish to know whether long term exposure causes organ damage, thats who.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It doesn't have to be safe. It just has to be safer than traditional methods of selective breeding. Which they obviously are by orders of magnitude.

'That seems are very anti science approach. You just say...things obviously are this way.

Because am well read on science in general and genetic engineering is something that interests me. Also, my sister was a scientist working in molecular biology, so that probably helped since she explained it to me when I asked stupid questions. I know this stuff well enough to think it obvious.

When various traits are randomly combined almost anything can happen. Surprises and odd side effects are common. That's the traditional method. The methods we've been using for 15 000 - 10 000 years to improve crops. We're still using this method today. Sometimes we've had disastrous results and mass famine. We still have no regulations on this. Any clueless moron is free to splice plants to their hearts content.

When geneticists create GMO they are very selective in what traits are combined. Surprises are rare. The main thing that keeps us safe is the fact that producing GMOs are expensive and working on stuff that isn't likely to be safe and useful is a waste of company money. In this case market forces are keeping us safe. On top of that we have loads of checks and balances. Miles or red tape and regulation.

But both of these methods are infinitely safe if we compare how nature does it. All on it's own. Nature came up with Bubonic plague without any help from humans. Ebola? All of nature really is like a mad scientist just randomly changing the genetics "to see what happens". There's no safety checks. No committee to run it by. Nobody to hold accountable. Nothing. Just constantly releases the most vile destructive stuff into the wild all the time. We would have to try really hard if we wanted to beat nature in being genetically irresponsible.

Worrying about GMO's is being ignorant about the context. Every day we're playing Russian Roulette with nature. Every day another AIDS might pop up. Click, click, click, BANG. Chill the fuck out about GMO's

Who gives a shit about long term blood tests!

People who wish to know whether long term exposure causes organ damage, thats who.

But why would that, even hypothetically, be problem? What is your thinking here?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The big problem with GMOs is creating strains of plants resistant to weedkillers and then dowsing everything in said weedkillers. Which may not be healthy for us and may cause slow creation of weedkiller resistant weeds. Which is not what the nutters complain about. And which the GMO nutters ignore.