Anti-GMO 'Santo' movie

Discussion in 'News from around the damp planet' started by Earth's Internet, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'm beginning to dislike it when people assume that any negative responses must be from corporate lackeys. "Oh, you don't like my point of view? You must be getting money from Monsanto."(paraphrased) /sigh. That just makes me want to not listen to what the person has to say, because it seems to be an irrational statement. Anything after that is suspect, at least for me. I don't like it when emotions enter in to something like this, because it makes the entire cause seem to be reactionary emotionalism. Many good and noble causes suffer from this. Sometimes I think people use emotions to get more "likes", "+1's" or whatever else counts as keeping a score of how cool you are these days. It's like we never left high school...

    Just had to get that off my chest.
     
  3. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. 9anda1f

    9anda1f Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,046
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E Washington, USA
    Climate:
    Semi-Arid Shrub Steppe (BsK)
    "This Little Piggy was Fed GMOs"

    https://permaculturenews.org/2013/08/08/this-little-piggy-was-fed-gmos/#more-10477
     
  5. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. Pakanohida

    Pakanohida Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38

    Mark's articles appear pro-GMO on more then 1 occasion, so no surprise with him.

    Weed Science, is bought and paid for by

    University of Wyoming Extension
    1000 E. University Ave., Dept 3354
    Laramie, WY 82071
    US

    I am sure a major university in the US that does Agricultural Communication degrees and more has nothing to lose here.

    T Daynard site is quoting someone else, a Dr Robert Friendship, with no link to his writings what so ever. How can I take that seriously?


    I'm not saying weather or not the study is in any way, or not in any way conclusive, I have not read it yet. However, I do realize that there are companies such as https://www.brand.com/ that go out and make fake articles, fight on forums, and more for a fee to make a company seem less... ..evil.

    It is because of that I take this entire porcine discussion with a thick layer of salt in a Kālua.
     
  7. mouseinthehouse

    mouseinthehouse Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Markos, those statistics discussions are giving me nightmare flashbacks.....just when I thought I had successfully erased all memory of t-tests and p and r values you throw that in without warning. Now, where's my medication.....?
     
  8. 9anda1f

    9anda1f Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,046
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E Washington, USA
    Climate:
    Semi-Arid Shrub Steppe (BsK)
    The critiques you posted are making the original study's conclusions seem not too credible. Thanks.
     
  9. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Never underestimate the power worldview pimping when it comes to GMOs and determination of Ideologues around the globe to see that t happens. After all, Nature is considered flawed, imperfect and a bad designer. Personally, I've never seen this in Nature, but that appears to be the ruling belief system now days. Hence, GMOs are said to be better than Nature could have done it.

    https://gmojudycarman.org/a-specific-reply-to-mark-lynas/


    https://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/14813-lynas-attack-on-gmo-feed-study-shredded


    I actually posted this link earlier in the Monsanto/Sygenta Apologetics website thread, but it's well worth repeating here.

    Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed

    Also, one thing I enjoyed about the Reuters article as opposed to the one reported on the Permiculture link is this important quote from the article. It's clear that those who pimp the Scientism of GMOs will pick apart any and all tiny perceived flaws in research that may shed negative light on their product which ultimately translates "Bad for Biz", hence less $$$$$$. Take a look at what they did here to ensure no colouring or personal bias of data found.

    So it appears that none of the autopsies were done by Vets who knew ahead of time which pigs were fed GMOs and those not. But the critics of Dr Judy Carmen and her team referenced start their articles off with the usual smartassisms and derogatory name calling, which was clearly absent in Dr Carmen's research. It seems to be the new science today to defend irresponsible technology in a Pitbull manner. If their crap was legit, this would not be necessary. BTW, here are the papers to the actual study:

    A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a
    combined genetically modified (GM) soy and
    GM maize diet


    Here's a link to the site that's been referred to here in this forum as almost a holy bible of great science and the one used by Permiculture News to publish on their site, some great links and interviews hereon this same study:

    Institute for Responsible Technology: "Carman Pig Study"


    Then there is Dr Judy Carmens on website: https://gmojudycarman.org/

    On her website, she even deals with the issues of critics with a vested personal interest in slamming her study:

    https://gmojudycarman.org/category/critics-answered/


    I believe this woman and her team have been clearly aware of the low grade caliber and dirty underhanded ethics of their future critics well ahead of time. Clearly from her responses she knew what was coming and they took every reasonable precautions. Of course even these will be arrogantly dismissed by those with a vested interest in their wealth obsessed livelihoods.


    -
     
  10. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What you posted was credible. It just needed further informational support which was always there, but the Permiculture News had not published.

    Again, there was nothing wrong with your post.
     
  11. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cheers, Pak. I'd like to think that I'm pro credible science, as opposed to pseudo science. But hey, it's all good.

    Just for the record, concerning GMOs, my position remains in alignment with that of the Australian Academy of Science.
     
  12. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, MITH. I had to partake in an extra cup of coffee (on top of my normal two) just to get through them all!
     
  13. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, good science will/can not be rushed.

    Here's what the FSANZ had to say concerning the matter:

    Given the authors claim that effects of the GM diet include gastroenteric effects and effects on the female reproductive system, it is surprising that the mycotoxin assays did not include trichothecenes, which could cause gastroenteric inflammation, and zearalenone, which has oestrogenic effects. Trichothecenes and zearalenone are common contaminants in grain-based animal feeds in the Midwest of the United States.

    There is a lack of information on the composition of the control (non-GM) and GM diets. This does not allow the impact of other dietary factors, unrelated to the GM trait, to be excluded.

    Only a single GM diet was used which precludes the possibility of determining if a dose-response relationship exists.

    No analyses were done to confirm that the particle size of the diets was equivalent. This is surprising given the authors’ themselves noted that the gastric mucosa of pigs is very sensitive to the particle size of the diet.

    The group sizes are very large (14 followed by 42) which makes any calculation of feed intake subject to large uncertainty.

    Mortalities in both groups are extremely high by industry standards. This suggests there may have been confounding stressors affecting the pigs.

    There is no apparent reason as to why the intestines were not weighed. Failure to examine the mucosa of the intestines, and the intestinal contents, is also a major deficiency. If the pigs had been suffering blood loss from gastric ulcers for some time, as the authors seem to believe, then this might be evident in rectal contents, so these should have been examined.

    The authors claim that the stomachs showed ‘inflammation’ based on the presence of hyperaemia (reddening) but have failed to establish that inflammation was present because there is no histopathology. Inflammation can only be confirmed by demonstrating the infiltration of inflammatory cells (leukocytes such as polymorph neutrophils, lymphocytes and macrophages). The rugae (internal folds) of the stomach of the GM-fed pigs do not appear to be swollen relative to those in the stomach of the non-GM pig. If there was genuine inflammation, oedema, leukocyte infiltration and fibrosis would cause obviously thickened rugae.

    The mean stomach-to-body weight ratio of the GM-fed pigs is reported to be comparable to that of the non-GM fed pigs, yet if the GM-fed pigs had been suffering gastric inflammation for weeks, oedema, infiltration of inflammatory cells (leukocytes) and fibrosis would be expected, and these changes are likely to lead to a significant increase in stomach weight, relative to body weight.

    Given that the pigs identified as B15, D22 and C34 (stomachs photographed in Figure 1) were given the same diet of GM food, the difference in gross appearance between their stomachs is considerable. Acute stress can cause hyperaemia of the gastric mucosa therefore this study may have been confounded by the stress of fasting and slaughter. Pigs become very agitated and stressed if they see or hear other pigs in the same pen being stunned for slaughter. Thus it would be important to know the order of slaughter relative to the severity of gastric hyperaemia, and whether the pigs had seen other pigs stunned before they were themselves stunned, but this information is not provided.

    It is unfortunate that regional lymph nodes were not collected since if the stomachs are really inflamed, the draining lymph nodes should also be enlarged and reactive, relative to those of control pigs.

    It is surprising that the observed ‘inflammation’ did not affect feed intake, feed conversion ratio or final body weight. Trichothecenes, for example, cause a dramatic decline in feed intake in association with gastrointestinal erosions.

    Given that the authors attribute ulceration to the GM feed, it is surprising that haematological parameters (haematocrit, red cell count, reticulocyte count, MCV, MCH, MCHC, RDW, WBC and differential count) were not determined. The authors acknowledge in the discussion that haematology could be informative, but do not explain why it was not done on this study.

    FSANZ disagrees with the authors’ statement that standard haematology and serology provide ‘poor measure of inflammation’. On the contrary, white cell count and differential are very sensitive measures of inflammation while fibrinogen, total proteins and albumin:globulin ratio are very frequently informative and sufficiently sensitive.
     
  14. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    What is interesting about your link here is that the picture of the Pig at the article's title for which they actually use photograph of a birth defect pig. I had seen this last year, but didn't immediately make the connection. It dealt with Danish Piglets which were said to have been born deformed. Here is one of the links here back in April of 2012: Sustainable Pulse: 'Danish Whistle-blowers Reveal Links between GM soy, Roundup and Health Damage in Pig Herd'

    Even the Rodale Institute wrote about this as well in July 2012: Rodale Institute: "Proof That GMOs Really Are Unhealthy"

    Actually Dr Judy Carmen did respond to the dweeb [Andrew Kniss’ blog] who wrote the Weed-Control-Freaks article slamming her evidence as flimsy.

    Here was her response: Reply to Andrew Kniss’ blog on statistics


    -
     
  15. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Upon a closer reading of your post, Pak, it appears I misunderstood your reference to 'Mark's articles', by thinking that you were somehow referring to me. Sorry for the confusion on my behalf.

    Yes, Mark Lynas is (today, he wasn't always) unabashedly pro-GMO. His is a fascinating story.

    Regards, Markos
     
  16. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some observations:

    The website gmojudycarmen appears to be owned and (mostly) operated by Henry Rowlands, as do the websites gmoseralini and gmoevidence. All appear to be subsidiaries of the website sustainablepulse. All appear to have been developed under the umbrella of Rowlands and Associates' commercial website raglobe. One suspects, each time one clicks on any of the aforementioned, one is in effect selling advertising for Rowlands' website development business (and his other assorted enterprises). GMOs are of interest to many people. Stories about GMOs sell newspapers, and now websites, it would seem. When newspapers (ergo websites) sell well, their owners are obviously very happy, because they can ask for a higher premium for advertising space. The good Dr Judy did not respond to Kniss' blog, as it clearly states on the said webpage, the 'gmojudycarmen website editors' did. As an aside, a link to the UNICEF organisation features prominently on practically every page of raglobe. UNICEF is a subsidiary of the UN, as is the WHO. The WHO is supportive of GMOs.
     
  18. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is hilarious, you got doggie doo on your sneakers for those three (...) links you posted, everyone knew it and now you've scrambled to save face in front of your following (...) . Doesn't anyone else call this guy out on this stuff anymore ? You ytry and save face with your Mark Lynas blunder by saying you didn't realize he was being referred to, and this guy has been nothing more than a plant by the GMO industry for pimping their junk to a consuming public. He was always a lousy half-hearted advocate anyway of anti-gmo and not overly prominent in his so-called anti-gmo life. Then News Leaked by the UK Guardian about of he and others possible appointment to be an ambassador for EuropaBio and he of course denies every having knowledge of that. But in that stupid speech he made where he apologizes to the GMO Industry, he proceeds to use every one of their talking points almost world for word, then he repeats the big fat lie about less chemicals having to be used if GMOs are planted. That in itself has been the biggest crock, especially since the evidence has proved other because their damned junk is engineered to be douse with their chemical crap.

    One has to wonder as time goes on with what your motivation is here, since permaculture seems the farthest thing from your true interests. Pimping GMO Scientism for no other reason than because it's science, which in reality is dubious. Oh and you can take you UN and WHO and shove that. Their sole purpose is exploiting the natural resources of the third world for the industrial countries for which they draw their financial life support.

    It's amazing how far the lies will carry, but hey, in our modern enlightened age, there are no absolutes and truth is relative right ?

    This is becoming way too funny.

    -
     
  19. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess the irony was lost on that one...

    In other NEWS:

    Emeritus Professor Jock McLean of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, says both the methodology used to extract and grade the pig's organs, as well as the statistical analysis is flawed.

    McLean, who was a veterinary toxicologist at the University of Melbourne and has worked as a consultant in the field for the past 20 years, says the differences in uteri weight could be explained by the presence of fumonisins - a mycotoxin produced by fungi that forms on corn feed held in storage. Fumonisins are known to cause increased levels of oestrogen in pigs.

    He points out that the study's analysis shows the level of fumonisins in the GM-feed were 3.0 parts per million, compared to 1.2 ppm in the non-GM-feed.

    "You cannot rule out the fact that the higher uteri weight wasn't the result of this," says McLean.

    He adds that the pigs were more than six months old, which meant some of them could have reached puberty, hence the changes in uteri weight.

    Also of concern to McLean is the sudden change in the rate of stomach inflammation observed in the study. Overall, the pigs in showed the same rates of inflammation across all levels, and that the rates of mild and moderate inflammation were higher in the non-GM-fed pigs than the GM-fed pigs.

    "It's only in the severe group that you get a difference in the GM-fed pigs and non-GM-fed pigs," says McLean. "You'd expect to get a few in the mild [group], a few more in the intermediate, and more in the serious. You'd get a graduation."

    "In fact, I could argue that the GM-food is actually protecting against ulcers and the contamination with mycotoxins or fungal toxins is the reason why the uterine rates are slightly different."


    Full story: https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/06/12/3779903.htm

    Then there's this one:

    Professor Rick Roush, from the University of Melbourne, says the fact that the study examined multiple variables without a specific hypothesis makes it open to 'procedure wise error'.

    "If you test 20-30 things you'll expect to find at least one or maybe two that do appear to be unusual, but that doesn't make them statistically significant," he said.

    A specific hypothesis isn't mentioned in the study and Dr Carman admits the researchers weren't expecting to find any difference in the weights of the uteri.

    But she says there was an objective of studying inflammation in the pigs' stomach.

    "We actually went there with a specific purpose in mind and we tested those," she said.

    When you do that approach it doesn't really matter what other sort of things you might be measured on the side."

    The research has been peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Organic Systems. But Professor Roush says that doesn't guarantee its scientific credibility.

    "If Dr Carman and her colleagues wanted to make a strong case about this, they would have managed to get this published in a journal that was actually focussed on toxicology," he said.

    Dr Carmen insists the study is scientifically rigorous. But other scientists have also raised concerns about its methodology.

    The study classified stomach inflammation into 'moderate' and 'severe'. While 31 per cent of the GM-fed pigs demonstrated severe inflammation (as opposed to 12 per cent of the non-GM fed pigs) only 25 per cent of the GM-fed pigs were classified as having 'moderate' inflammation, as opposed to 29 per cent of the non-GM fed pigs.

    Professor Frank Dunshae from Melbourne University says when both moderate and severe inflammation are considered, the GM-fed pigs don't show a statistically significant incidence of inflammation.

    "One could argue about what the significance is between moderate and severe," he said.

    "It's all qualitative [in terms of] how you separate out mild, moderate and severe."

    Professor Dunshae said the study is interesting and worth repeating. But he said the lack of difference in overall mortality and growth rates of the pigs means there is little cause for alarm from the findings.

    "The fact that the animals grew at a similar rate indicates to me that the animals were of similar health in both groups," he said.


    Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-11/nrn-dist-gm-pigs/4751210

    Gotta love that peer review...
     
  20. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    (...). You have rejected every peer-review you've you've demanded of others who have shown it[Dr Pierpont, Dr Sarah Laurie, Dr Judy Carmen] who names and reputations have been trashed by unqualified animals with a vested interest in the industries they shill for. You've been shown their peer-review and with a wave of your hand called it not credible in your biased opinion. Ultimately that has been all this has been about, your OPINION. Only peer-pressure approved by Mark Chesterfield which agrees with his motivation for industrial science gets a "Get out of jail Free Card". Everything else is dismissed as pseudoscience if it disagrees with his vision of a artificial Natural world. The other folks here are going to have to start calling him out on this crap. Many cower when they post something interesting and he then comes along and flames it down. You people either like the Natural World and replicating it, or you stand like a Lemming for his artificial version of it. And behind the scenes, I know many of you know what I'm talking about. Start growing a pair, figuratively speaking.
     

Share This Page

-->