Hey guys

[IJesusChrist]

what about instead of promoting a process whose products you yourself wouldn't eat, instead promote traditional breeding with the aid of technology for ease of viewing genes, and use the tried and true traditional breeding which has been proven to increase yield as well as nutrient content, as well as shelf life, without ANY of the risks associated with GMO's? i don't get it...

I'm all for it. I never did not promote this, did I? Why do we have to always have this science vrs complex systems argument.

do you seriously think that by promoting the use of GMO's for medicine, that you won't be promoting the use of GMO's across the board?

For me, yes. I don't think GMO's should be in food. I'm not talking to corporations either I'm talking to you and the people on this board.

corporations don't care about an individuals reservations. you said it yourself. their bottom line is profit. they will not abandon one area of this technology, they will spread to as many aspects of life as possible. if every living organism becomes Genetically Modified, then they will have the patent and ownership of every living organism. they would be nothing short of delighted.

Like I said, I'm talking to you, and explaining my opinions on GMOs and gave you a background on how they came to be (it wasn't clear to me whether you knew how they were made).

[quote:gis1dt26]Plant makes anti-cancer compound A, but makes about 1/10,000 of the required amount for a treatment. GMO -> plant makes 1/2 treatment. . . We don't eat the plant. We purify the product.

why pursue something so tedious, unnatural, and removed from nature when you have a marijuana plant which is essentially proven to prevent cancer, already being produced to treat it, and produces the anti-cancer compound at about 20-25% it's flowering body mass :?:

c'mon now.[/quote:gis1dt26]

Does marijuana cure all cancers? Does it cure fast-spreading brain cancers? What about children with cancer? Do you think parents want their 3 year olds getting high? This isn't even an argument. I see your point, but this is a complicated issue and cancer was only an example. Weed isn't a cure all and has been proven to cause cancer if smoked.

This is the bottom line:
The way you first were addressing GMO's it seemed to me that you thought the GENES themselves were causing some sort of problem. I disagree. There is no scientific evidence of DNA from GMOrganisms causing any type of changes in the body. It may be possible. But if it is true, so too does the DNA of cauliflower, broccoli, fish, etc. DNA Is DNA. I do not put much weight in there being any type of harmonic balance on a "natural" segment of DNA versus disrupted harmonics from modified organism. Maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt this as a scientifically plausible idea.

Secondly I do believe that GMO's have a place in medicine. Where do you think we get insulin from? We get it from GMO ecoli, the only way to produce enough for everyone. Granted this is a problem of preventive medicine, but you STILL see what I'm getting at here. GMO's still abide by nature's laws. If they didn't, they wouldn't be fertile, they wouldn't live, they would die, but since both segments of DNA (host plant and segment dna) have grown from biology, have undergone natural selection, their "harmonics"are balanced, as far as the proteins go that they encode for. The letter in the word in the book? Well, when the science catches up to that, I'll be waiting.

 

[ararat]

the question is, can we heal diseases with the use of technology that came into being because of technology in the first place? it seems a vicious circle to me.
like taking a medicine, and then a medicine against the side-effects of the first medicine ad absurdum.
creating a technology, and then a technology against the side-effects of the first technology, and then a technology against the side effects of the second technology etc.

surely it is a bit simplistic reasoning, but applicable imho.


gonna write more on these topics in the near future.. partly because I feel I haven't thought about it enough for now, also because some friends just came over.

 

[IJesusChrist]

the question is, can we heal diseases with the use of technology that came into being because of technology in the first place? it seems a vicious circle to me.
like taking a medicine, and then a medicine against the side-effects of the first medicine ad absurdum.
creating a technology, and then a technology against the side-effects of the first technology, and then a technology against the side effects of the second technology etc.

surely it is a bit simplistic reasoning, but applicable imho.


gonna write more on these topics in the near future.. partly because I feel I haven't thought about it enough for now, also because some friends just came over.

aka:

 

[ararat]

meh, I just smoked some weed and realized the utter vanity in my post, too late to remove. fair enough. :toimonster:

 

[ophiuchus]

what about instead of promoting a process whose products you yourself wouldn't eat, instead promote traditional breeding with the aid of technology for ease of viewing genes, and use the tried and true traditional breeding which has been proven to increase yield as well as nutrient content, as well as shelf life, without ANY of the risks associated with GMO's? i don't get it...

I'm all for it. I never did not promote this, did I? Why do we have to always have this science vrs complex systems argument.

by promoting those kinds of GMO's, one implies that traditional breeding is not worth that kind of promotion. those two systems are in direct economic competition at the moment.

do you seriously think that by promoting the use of GMO's for medicine, that you won't be promoting the use of GMO's across the board?

For me, yes. I don't think GMO's should be in food. I'm not talking to corporations either I'm talking to you and the people on this board.

corporations don't care about an individuals reservations. you said it yourself. their bottom line is profit. they will not abandon one area of this technology, they will spread to as many aspects of life as possible. if every living organism becomes Genetically Modified, then they will have the patent and ownership of every living organism. they would be nothing short of delighted.

Like I said, I'm talking to you, and explaining my opinions on GMOs and gave you a background on how they came to be (it wasn't clear to me whether you knew how they were made).

yes, i was aware of how they were made, and i thanked you for the information on that, but how they are made is irrelevant to this point. im not sure why you quoted it here..

while you may only be talking to people on this forum, your career path speaks to corporations. i wasn't asking you if you thought GMO's should be in food or not, i was asking you "do you seriously think that by promoting the use of GMO's for medicine, that you won't unknowingly be promoting the use of GMO's period?" if your career path promotes the use of GMO's for medicine, then you are promoting GMO's. corporations would see you promoting GMO's. it's simple and imo rhetoric, because that is how a corporation like monsanto will view it. have you heard about the things that they have done? i posted a video in a new thread that covers some of this stuff. post-44353-321794.html

Secondly I do believe that GMO's have a place in medicine. Where do you think we get insulin from? We get it from GMO ecoli, the only way to produce enough for everyone. Granted this is a problem of preventive medicine, but you STILL see what I'm getting at here. GMO's still abide by nature's laws. If they didn't, they wouldn't be fertile, they wouldn't live, they would die, but since both segments of DNA (host plant and segment dna) have grown from biology, have undergone natural selection, their "harmonics"are balanced, as far as the proteins go that they encode for. The letter in the word in the book? Well, when the science catches up to that, I'll be waiting.

diabetes only started to crop up around the same time that we started gorging our faces with fast food. we have to source our problems. we cannot keep treating symptoms.

a GMO has not undergone natural selection and has not "grown from biology". by your logic you are saying that things like methamphetamine and chemical compounds "grow from biology" because everything used to make it came from nature at some point... = reductionist approach.

Plant makes anti-cancer compound A, but makes about 1/10,000 of the required amount for a treatment. GMO -> plant makes 1/2 treatment. . . We don't eat the plant. We purify the product.

why pursue something so tedious, unnatural, and removed from nature when you have a marijuana plant which is essentially proven to prevent cancer, already being produced to treat it, and produces the anti-cancer compound at about 20-25% it's flowering body mass :?:

c'mon now.

Does marijuana cure all cancers? Does it cure fast-spreading brain cancers? What about children with cancer? Do you think parents want their 3 year olds getting high? This isn't even an argument. I see your point, but this is a complicated issue and cancer was only an example. Weed isn't a cure all and has been proven to cause cancer if smoked.

i am no longer a smoker, and so do not promote the smoking of cannabis. cannabis has been illustrated to reduce the number of tumors/tumor cells in every cancer study it's been used in, so in my opinion, it's very plausible. we cannot say "yes" at the moment because once again, we don't have enough data yet. why ask me such an objective question like that when we all just had a debate about "scientific facts"? :| further, NO, it has not been "proven" to cause cancer when smoked. that is misinformation, because *gasp* we do not have enough information on the topic. the most that we have been able to conclude from combustion in this regard is that the cannabinoids and the carginogens cancel each other out for the most part.

there sure are a lot of 3 year olds with cancer... :?

cannabis is not the only thing that has been shown to prevent cancer in medical trials, there have been many others, but they are natural products so they cannot be patented. apricot seeds, as well as shark cartilage have been shown to demonstrate anti-cancerous effects in medical trials.

This is the bottom line:
The way you first were addressing GMO's it seemed to me that you thought the GENES themselves were causing some sort of problem. I disagree. There is no scientific evidence of DNA from GMOrganisms causing any type of changes in the body. It may be possible. But if it is true, so too does the DNA of cauliflower, broccoli, fish, etc. DNA Is DNA. I do not put much weight in there being any type of harmonic balance on a "natural" segment of DNA versus disrupted harmonics from modified organism. Maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt this as a scientifically plausible idea.

the bottom line to you're bottom line: if there weren't fish genes in a tomato, then nobody would have an allergic reaction to fish from eating a tomato.

"There is no scientific evidence of DNA from GMOrganisms causing any type of changes in the body"

im trying to help you see this as much as i physically can, but, um, can you not see the color red or something? is "infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system" as well as "over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn" not enough "change in the body" for you?

there is no theoretical "field of harmonics" or anything like that. this is observable data of wavelengths. what this means is, when an organism (or cell) is happy (homeostasis) then the electromagnetic field signal it put's out looks like this:
Voir la pièce jointe 5454
when the organism or cell is not happy (not in homeostasis), then it's electromagnetic field signal looks like this:
Voir la pièce jointe 5455

so, in a scientific setting, variables are eliminated to produce the baseline of happy and unhappy to be hinged on the organisms food intake. do you see? it's not farce, it's observable with a simple EKG monitor. the second one is a slight exaggeration fyi. :wink: when an organism or cell undergoes things like dis-regulating it's genes that code for protein formation, cell signaling, as well as insulin regulation, it's not going to be happy. = irregular EKG output.

hey, "dis-regulated genes coding for insulin regulation", doesn't that sound familiar?
Voir la pièce jointe 5456

 

[IJesusChrist]

I could copy and paste my above post to this.

You're just swimming in circles trying to make me look wrong in some way, any way, and you're good at it.

Genes, the DNA, from a GMO has not been proven to have noticeable or relevant physiological effects. This is the third time I've said this, and maybe this time you'll understand what this means.

DNA is not equal to metabolites. I only brought this up because the way you worded your response the first time is that you thought DNA did have some kind of effect. The metabolites SURELY will, DNA - as far as I know, no.

Stop saying endorsing GMOs for medicine is the same as endorsing GMOs for food. If that is the only way you can think about it, that is your opinion, and it is very limited. That's irritating to me that you say that.

I don't give two shits what monsanto thinks about what I endorse or what I don't endorse, why did you even bring that up?

I'll have to read more on the EKG stuff to comment further... Sorry if this is overly negative, not sure why I feel irritated, or at least this irritated, so don't read too far into that.

 

[ophiuchus]

Genes, the DNA, from a GMO has not been proven to have noticeable or relevant physiological effects. This is the third time I've said this, and maybe this time you'll understand what this means.

because until now, i didn't understand how you possibly weren't getting this. if there was no foreign gene inserted into [a tomato] then there would be no illness from the tomato. so the foreign gene is causing the consumer problems. is causing the consumer's genes to express differently, and in a caucophonous way. you understand that right? this is the foreign genes interacting with our genes. whether it is a metabolite from the gene or not, i doubt you'd give a shit if you got cancer from it. am i wrong? this is semantics. i understand how digestion works. let's not talk about it anymore because it's become rather pointless.

Stop saying endorsing GMOs for medicine is the same as endorsing GMOs for food. If that is the only way you can think about it, that is your opinion, and it is very limited. That's irritating to me that you say that.

I don't give two shits what monsanto thinks about what I endorse or what I don't endorse, why did you even bring that up?

if anyone is going to walk that path in any way, then everyone is going to walk that path in every way. that's how technology works. it's not how i view it, it's a fact. you saw how the stem cell research thing went. america said, "oops, i guess we won't use this" then the rest of the world said, "suit yourself". i bring up monsanto because if one is dealing with GMO's then one is inevitably dealing with monsanto, because they hold the majority of patents of GMO's. not to mention that monsanto and the FDA are quite literally the same people

 

[IJesusChrist]

Genes, the DNA, from a GMO has not been proven to have noticeable or relevant physiological effects. This is the third time I've said this, and maybe this time you'll understand what this means.

because until now, i didn't understand how you possibly weren't getting this. if there was no foreign gene inserted into [a tomato] then there would be no illness from the tomato. so the foreign gene is causing the consumer problems. is causing the consumer's genes to express differently, and in a caucophonous way. you understand that right? this is the foreign genes interacting with our genes. whether it is a metabolite from the gene or not, i doubt you'd give a shit if you got cancer from it. am i wrong? this is semantics. i understand how digestion works. let's not talk about it anymore because it's become rather pointless.

no, and no. I wanted to clear up the science, tha ctual factual basis behind the interaction. This isn't something you can go around spreading that the genes are interacting with our genes. The metabolites do. That isn't something you can just toss out the door and say its semantics cause it ain't.

Stop saying endorsing GMOs for medicine is the same as endorsing GMOs for food. If that is the only way you can think about it, that is your opinion, and it is very limited. That's irritating to me that you say that.

I don't give two shits what monsanto thinks about what I endorse or what I don't endorse, why did you even bring that up?

if anyone is going to walk that path in any way, then everyone is going to walk that path in every way. that's how technology works. it's not how i view it, it's a fact. you saw how the stem cell research thing went. america said, "oops, i guess we won't use this" then the rest of the world said, "suit yourself". i bring up monsanto because if one is dealing with GMO's then one is inevitably dealing with monsanto, because they hold the majority of patents of GMO's. not to mention that monsanto and the FDA are quite literally the same people

Here you argue that because big companies think differently than I do, I should stop thinking like I do. The hell kind of argument is this Allusion?

 

[ophiuchus]

if there was no fish gene inserted into [a tomato] then there would be no illness from the tomato.

stem cells: "oops, i guess we won't use this" then the rest of the world said, "suit yourself".

im not telling you what to think, merely showing you things i think you should consider. it's your choice to view it that way. it's not my fault if you don't like the information i've presented you.

The hell kind of argument is this Allusion?

one sided. im not arguing with you, this is a debate, it's your choice to take this personally.

 

[IJesusChrist]

I'm not interested in debating. I'm interested in learning and teaching. Debates can be kept in politics.

 

[ophiuchus]

cool story bro.

 

[ophiuchus]

infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system

Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth 9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system

In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn."12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.

Yet there has been a string of incidents indicating GM food and feed are far from safe. These include studies carried out by biotech companies producing the GM crops, which they have kept secret under confidential business information.

* Kidney and blood abnormalities in rats fed one of Monsanto's GM maize in Monsanto's secret dossier.

* Villagers in the south of the Philippines who suffered mysterious illnesses when another GM maize came into flower in a nearby field two years in a row. Antibodies to the Bt protein inserted into the GM maize were found in the villagers.

* A dozen cows that died after eating a third GM maize made by Syngenta, and others in the herd had to be slaughtered because of mysterious illnesses. Autopsies failed to be carried out, which is why Greenpeace and farmers are demonstrating in front of the Robert Koch Institute

* Senior scientist Arpad Pusztai and colleagues in Scotland found young rats fed GM potatoes ended up with damage in every organ system; the most dramatic being an increase in thickness of the stomach lining to twice that in controls. Scientists in Egypt found similar effects in mice fed GM potatoes with another gene.

* The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s that rats fed GM tomatoes had developed small holes in their stomach.

The dangers arise because the genetic material persists long after the cells or organism is dead, and can be taken up by bacteria and viruses that are in all environments

This process - called horizontal gene transfer and recombination - is the main route to creating dangerous pathogens.

Researchers in Australia ‘accidentally' transformed a harmless mousepox virus into a lethal pathogen that killed all the mice, even those that were supposed to be resistant to the virus. Headlines in the New Scientist editorial: “The Genie is out, Biotech has just sprung a nasty surprise. Next time, it could be catastrophic.”

The synthetic genes created for genetic modification are designed to cross species barriers and to jump into the natural genetic material of cells. Such constructs jumping into the natural genetic material of human cells can trigger cancer .

This is not just a theoretical possibility. It has happened in gene therapy, which is genetic modification of human cells.

In 2000, researchers in the Neckar Hospital in Paris, France treated infants with X-linked Severe Combined Immune Deficiency apparently successfully by isolating bone marrow cells from the patients, applying gene therapy, and then injecting the genetically modified cells back into the patients. But since 2002, 3 infants have developed leukaemia. One child has died. The foreign synthetic gene has inserted near a human gene that controls cell division, making it overactive, resulting in uncontrollable multiplication of the white blood cells

 

[IJesusChrist]

lol

yeah I agree with all that. thanks for posting.

 

[parismilton]

hiiii, this is paris from CA, i am here to learn new things and give what i know, i like to debate and i am basically a teacher by profession.