You are the criminal thug thief who stole Ted Miner's pictures off his facebook page to make up these troll sockpuppet account you use to harass and troll people.
You are a first class idiot Samsel. Anyone who disagrees with you must be in the pay of Monsanto. This is the sort of conspiratorial thinking that shows you have no grasp of reality. No attempt to rebut any points. You are a pretender with nothing to contribute.
Alas, another Monsanto supporter. Ted a clueless flying monkey, a buffoon here to insult, bully and harass anyone who would dare question the omniscient (all knowing) Monsanto god. Planet of the apes revisited.. LOL
This has got to be one of the biggest speculative pieces of junk science I have ever read. Latham has always been ignorant, Hilbeck is effectively a professional campaigner (she is a member of Seralini's GRIIGEN and of Testbiotech) and Love is an "independent researcher". This last means that they don't have any expertise or a job, but want to pretend. Just like Anthony Samsel.
They are all more qualified than you or kanawai as they are honest.2
So, you found an educated fool that played the race card. Will you be citing al Sharpton next?
You are delusional.
They are all more qualified than you or kanawai as they are honest, as opposed to you 2.
Not only am I smart enough. I am smart enough to understand that both of you went with the ignorance revealing shill gambit.
Not only am I smart enough. I am smart enough to understand that both of you went with the garbage shill gambit.
The very few that do, do not have the receptors available to them to cause any harm.
I was referring to your ignorant statement...."The truth is that the BT protein has no effect on critters,us, with acid stomachs. Thus it is digested just like steak or beans",real world results are GMO Bt toxic proteins survive digestion,keep up.
oh,too bad,my original comment got deleted.
ted lies again. Name one confirmed case of illness resulting from eating GE derived crop
ted lies again. Name one confirmed case of illness resulting from eating GE derived crops.
quit flagging ted.
You are getting upvotes from sex bots, cute!
So you can't provide any citations supporting high school dropout Patzagame's claim either!
Thanks for stating the obvious, Ted.
p.s. I wouldn't bother asking not-a-scientist Samsel. He's a phony.
And there is the 35 year old lie. Yet again. If that crap was true. It would have been replicated in the past many years and we would have cancer clusters among applicators, if not consumers. Neither has happened. Copying and pasting this over and over only proves your low IQ.
Confirmed by who?
Monsanto's own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago. Instead of disclosing that fact, they colluded with the EPA who approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff scientists and called the science "inconvenient" and hid the science away from other scientists, the courts, and the people as a trade secret while at the same time telling us it was safe.
Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization have declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.
A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than the contamination allowed in the food supply.
Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA ... Glyphosate-induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas.
Monsanto study with 240 rats in their 2-year feeding trial concluded in 1990, which is called "Stout and Ruecker" in the literature. The data from this are revealed in the 1991 EPA memo and in Greim (2015) and clearly show cause for concern which was swept under the rug in the 1991 memo. Three EPA toxicologists also did not concur with the conclusions and did not sign the memo.
The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far rarer. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, bladder, stomach, and esophagus are all up since the introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.
Table 3. Pearson's coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications (N=21encompassing 1990-2010), except autism (N=16; autism data only available for 1995-2010).Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, pThyroid cancer (incidence) 0.988 97.6 =7.6E-9Liver cancer (incidence) 0.960 92.1 =4.6E-8Bladder cancer (deaths) 0.981 96.2 =4.7E-9Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.918 84.2 =4.6E-7Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.973 94.8 =2.0E-8Table 4. Pearson's coefficients between disease and the percentage of US corn and soy cropsthat are GE (N=15 encompassing 1996-2010; GE crops were first planted in 1995).Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, pThyroid cancer (incidence) 0.938 87.9 =2.2E-5Liver cancer (incidence) 0.911 82.9 =5.4E-5Bladder cancer (incidence) 0.945 89.3 =7.1E-6Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.841 70.7 =4.0E-4Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.940 88.4 =2.0E-5Myeloid leukaemia (deaths) 0.889 79.0 =5.4E-5Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America
Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.
More nonsense. The safety record alone means you and the dunce that wrote this article are wrong.
"Monsanto pays pretty poorly, I've heard, so they're recruiting sad, antiscience, PR hacks"
When did you start working for Monsanto?
Nope, Rob, I don't troll. I happen to read some articles and comment on them when I feel like doing so. Unfortunately, I keep running into the same band of mis-informed misfits, who, like yourself, do exactly what you just described.
Asking for evidence to back up a preposterous statement is not "regurgitating propaganda and antiscience gibberish." So, do you have evidence to back up Mr. jack's statement? If not, kindly keep out of this conversation.
Said the liar with no evidence.
You heard noting. You just make up the same lie in argument after argument. Only those with brain defects use the shill gambit.
You just made that up like you always do, lonesome joe. It's all your projections.
Speaking of fraudsters... how's that 5 cents a post working out for you, Eric? Monsanto pays pretty poorly, I've heard, so they're recruiting sad, antiscience, PR hacks like you now.
You are most definitely an industry PR asset. That's why you've been regurgitating industry propaganda and antiscience gibberish for years now. (Trolling social media articles 24/7 and spreading industry propaganda as if it was a full time job will give you away every time, Damo!)
How many industry trolls and antiscience propagandists must we hear repeat antiscience lies and gibberish before we consider this irresponsible, deceitful misinformation a criminal offence? Your antiscience, industry propaganda has been duly noted. You've either been brainwashed, or you're just another industry troll and corporate meat puppet.
Hardly ignorant, and hardly a gambit. Calling a spade a spade is no gambit. You've been a biotech/ agrochemical industry spokesperson and propagandist for years, Eric. You're not fooling anyone with your regurgitated PR lines and antiscience gibberish. You have no credibility, and even less personal integrity.
More industry propaganda from a well known pro-GMO, pro-agrochemical/ biotech industry apologist and spokesperson. It's pretty clear that the Bt produced by genetic engineering is nothing like naturally occurring Bt. But you agrochemical industry meat puppets refuse to acknowledge actual science and instead regurgitate industry propaganda every chance you get. Remarkable just how corrupt, unethical and antiscience your industry propaganda is...
Of course not. Ted told me he invented the whole thing and there is no evidence. Pretty hard to fight me, when the architect of your entire operation is now telling me all the secrets.
So you say. I'm not going to lay out anything for you, headcase.
Well, I am not a "PR asset" so, how about laying out this proof?
There are the verifiable facts, but there is no proof that industry PR assets will accept.
so, no proof?
I know because I am educated about these issues.
Not a Trump supporter. Not racist. Science educated. Work in conservation.
My opinion is that you are an old idiot that can't work a real job, so instead you try and hoodwink the gullible.
Trying to tie GMOs to race, coal, or anything else is disingenuous and really , just pretty crappy.
Yeah, I do. He used emotion and not science. Tell him to post some science or keeps his beliefs to himself.
"Citation that I am really ted?"
As I have explained many time, the real Ted Miner has had a change of heart and now eats only GMO. He credits his GMO exclusive diet with giving him enough calories to return his brain functions to normal. Now that the real Ted Miner is pro-GMO he is asking for you to stop pretending you are him.
Really? And you know this how?
Why am I not surprised you provide no citations?
Because you make stuff up all the time! Like your imaginary, "degree in biotech".
Incorrect, but after many years of safe use pass. Real world Results becomes the important item.
You haven't been keeping up the the research....sigh.
Yep, he is stupid enough to think that indigenous agroecological farming is relevant to BT protein use and also stupid enough to criticize the laureates because many are white. That lowers him into the race baiter class of lowlifes with al sharpton.
there is your citation. The gates foundation says distributed for free. Whether the censor will let it stay or not is another question.
That fraudster is so bad that when dishonest folks cite him it actually makes my correct points look even better. But he still is not worthy of any respect.
Aren't you a clever ahole.
Citation for the free distribution? Citation for no negative health effects in the Americas?Citation for the profits would go to the people? Citation that I am really ted?
Or Professor "Rat Torturer", Latin for Seralinieeee
The African crops are to be distributed to small holder farmers for free. There are no negative health effects in the Americas. Even if there were profits. they would go to people. Thus your slogan is stupid and I don't get paid to oppose liars, like you. I do it just because I want to see progress. You got nothing ted.
You DA...It's Professor Seralini,not serralini....
You're delusional. There is plenty to suspect GE derived crops. Releasing these crops on Africa is just compounding the health effects unleashed on the North American/South American populace. Profits before people,and you are a paid gmololer, and Ketchum troll.
I have no dreaded arch enemy. people like kanawai are not worth the effort of bothering to learn to spell the name.
""Devon G. Peña, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Washington Seattle and an expert in indigenous agriculture, posted a comment to the new campaign’s website in which he called the laureates’ letter “shameful”. He noted that the signatories were “mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels.”....You got a problem with this?
Could you at least spell your most dreaded archenemy's name correct?
Nope, try reading correctly. I was responding the to shill gambit user that played the race card.
Why would that be my responsibility? There is no reason to suspect GE derived drops. No known causative mechanism. None showed up in the studies. You are just desperate as the truth regarding the safety will become so well known after the African GE crops are released. That you will be even more of a laughing stock than you already are.
You have nothing...so you pulled the racist play card...pathetic.
How do you confirm the increase in digestive disorders? post market analysis is being done,right,EB? I'm sure you can post where we can find this info.
I don't either like or dislike any one based on ethnicity. Keep on lying. your comments make for great comedy in the Ag. Groups. Also, your trump assumption is just more ignorance. Remember to post those ""secret"" papers you lie about so often. Also, try finding evidence for your shill gambit arguments.
Are you racist too ? Al Sharpton ? Don't you like black people ? Not only are you a corporatist shill but you are probably a TRUMPF supporter for the coal industry and other dirty energy companies ...
So you say. LOL!!
So you say. LOL!
They are all more qualified than you or kanawai as they are honest.
You haven't got the smarts to understand any papers Samsel might cite, industry guy.
You might want to check out this study.
The distinct properties of natural and GM cry insecticidal proteinshttp://www*tandfonline*com/doi/full/10*1080/02648725*2017*1357295
They examined no data. They made a political statement about a technology that was outside their field. Many scientists have spoken out against this sleazy PR stunt, as I have written elsewhere on this thread.
The luxuriate letter was a sleazy PR stunt. These scientists, none of which is expert in the field of GMO agriculture and yellow rice, signed on to this stunt with out examining one scrap of data to support their political statement.
Other scientists say:
“The laureates’ letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposedauthority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear tohave relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out.Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physicalsciences and professor of statistics at the University of California,Berkeley, revealed on Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of thesignatories: ‘1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists,41 doctors’. He added that science is ‘about evidence not authority.What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science issupposed to be “show me”, not “trust me”… Nobel prize or not.'”http://gmwatch*org/news/latest-news/17077
"Devon G. Peña, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Washington Seattle and an expert in indigenous agriculture, posted a comment to the new campaign’s website in which he called the laureates’ letter “shameful”. He noted that the signatories were “mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels.”
There is no twenty years of safe use. That is disingenuous industry spin.
Yet all of those Nobel laureates are better qualified than thou and they are backed by the scientific consensus. You are backed by an incorrect prediction from 1976 and serralini. Gee, guess who most decent folks will believe.
yet we have over 20 years of safe use and the great preponderance of scientists think you and suzuki are wrong. Perhaps it is you and suzuki who are stupid or lying.
"Any politician or scientist who tells you these genetically engineered products are safe is either very stupid or lying." - Dr. David Suzuki (professor of genetics UBC)
Again, That letter was written by a PR firm and sent to all living Nobel prize winners only 1/3 of them agreed to sign most in completely unrelated fields from Molecular Biology.The late George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology in 1967 and Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University, was one of the first scientists to speak out about the potential dangers of genetic engineering:Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering]faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth….Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors….For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics. George Wald, “The Case Against Genetic Engineering,” The Sciences, Sept./Oct. 1976.
“How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this [opposition to GMO food] as a ‘crime against humanity’?”
This is from a letter written by 110 Nobel Laureates, mostly in the fields of Chemistry, Medicine and Physics, to Greenpeace.
To those who are claiming unspecified health problems from GMO's: please explain how your qualifications surpass those of the 110 Nobel laureates.
Another article with no links to any scientific articles "researchers in the US" , why not to name authors and where their papers were published ?
Also, it will be important to add the results and endpoints of the toxicological studies needed for registration. fish, birds, mice, chickens, cattle etc, etc. at what point these proteins become toxic? and how that translates to plant tissue amounts, all this information is public
Really??? Opening with an ignorant shill gambit??? Pathetic. Remember, correlation isn't causation. Got any of those mystery papers to cite?
I see Eric Bjerregaard, the first Monsanto troll has arrived on scene... Where are the rest of Monsanto's flying monkeys ? Cue the flying monkey music from the Wizard of Oz ...lol
Absolute nonsense. If any of this were true. We would have seen many problems show up and farmers would no longer buy BT crops. The truth is that the BT protein has no effect on critters,us, with acid stomachs. Thus it is digested just like steak or beans. latham is just another wacktivist.
By the Numbers: A Look at Consolidation in U.S. Agriculture