Dr Doug Graham 67 yo RAW VEGAN- jesus christ pushup

Then please post them or at least links to the studies.

So far very step of the way you have failed to actually back anything up beyond the odd YouTube vid, yet you have been asked on numerous occasions to provide the peer reviewed work.

Stop yer gibber jabberin and start debating like a rational human being.

At the moment you are just coming across as a bit of a nut job.

 

But some lame vegan website is totally legit?

Less of the passive aggression pleas, it makes you look a helmet.

Also did I need to present evidence or just keep saying I will and then intermittently throw a YouTube clip in there?

 

Not a study

Really? Who? Where? And what did they find?

Evidence> recommendations

 

You do know the difference between "anecodte" and "evidence" don't you?

Changes in wheat yield since Norm Borlaug introduced genetically modified strains



Oh, more specific you say?



source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

It is easy to be outraged when your family isn't starving isn't it?

 

This is an example in bacteria but works very much the same for germ line modifications
I have done this in a lab at uni as a Sport Science Undergrad creating glowing e.coli. It's basic cellular biology these days.

Surprisingly this mechanism already exists in nature in retroviruses - in fact we have taken advantage of it and have modded reteroviruses to genetically modify organisms for us. I understand how that worked when reading about it when i was 8 so i know its a simple concept.

I have recently read up on what i thought was unethical practice by Monsanto in recent years and I can admit i was wrong when i looked into the court investigations. The law department was doing their job well.
The farmer involved purposely used a monsanto herbicide to isolate monsanto registered crop to breed for the next years harvest without having to pay patent (monsanto had no problem with previous years crop as the contamination came from their field).

Yes monsanto has a bad history and I have rejected a job offer for them because I don't like the monopoly they hold on agriculture but many biotech companies are doing great work.

I hope they genetically modify people so children like my young cousin doesnt have to suffer from an autoimmune disease that has shortened her life expectancy and taken away any opportunity of motherhood.

In response to your hatred against GM foods:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
That is a study that reviews 10 years worth of studies by an Italian university team. It is very high quality in terms of scientific literature.

http://genera.biofortified.org/
this is a non for profit that looks at genetic engineering risk and has compiled a databse (because NOBODY WANTS TO GET ILL)

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
This is a plain language summary by a skeptic site that has compiled 1783 independent studies.

Additionally here is a guy who retired from the FDA doing a review (although you probably wont trust him cos he's part of the FDA) along with a guy who admits for working for a GM crop firm
But science is about reproducibility and any numpty can go through a review and look at the quality of the sources
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jf400135r

Has for GMO being dangerous for consumption:

And before anyone brings up the rat study - the researchers on that agree that they used an inappropriate method of modification that wouldnt be approved on potatoes for human consumption and the reterovirus in that (combined with sole consumption of potatoes which is bad for rats and saw ill effects in the control group) caused the adverse effects seen.

I believe this post is a slamdunk on this thread as Mdgee has yet to provide a single source.

 

http://w3.ualg.pt/~jvarela/biotecnol/pdf/humaninsulin.pdf

Monsanto = / = biotech.

 

I think this is a website you should all take a look at. Oh, and do not give me that rubbish line that Monsanto or GMO are from nature. In what alternate universe would rabbit dna ever get grafted to broccoli?

http://agriculturesociety.com/politics-and-food/busting-myths-about-gmos-genetically-modified-foods/

mdgee, don't use abbreviated or masked profanity.

 

And here's Mother Jones magazine telling the same thing. That jpeg that you posted means absolutely nothing to me because Monsanto has been lying from the beginning about how great and healthy their food is. If that's the case then tell me why they're paying out so much money on lawsuits and settlements about the products making people sick as well as causing cancer?

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/do-gmo-crops-have-lower-yields

 

One more thing. If you ever expect me to even look at any of your information then try providing a link that is not associated with Wikipedia or Monsanto. As a professor said to me a few years ago "You will get an automatic failing grade on my test if you cite wikipedia as a source". Wikipedia is only as good as the people who update it and everyone knows it's not the medical community providing that information. Wikipedia depends on thousands of volunteers to provide updates and they don't have the resources to verify what is or is not true. That's why you will never see me use Wikipedia as a source.

 

Sorry, wait, are you arguing that GMOs haven't increased yields or that they won't? When we ask what's the use of GMOs, well, their utility is only limited by our imagination. Again, I direct you to this link:

http://w3.ualg.pt/~jvarela/biotecnol/pdf/humaninsulin.pdf

 

I have not used Wikipedia in any of sources.
I really would like to hear your response in regards to my post. Many thanks

 

The get out clause of every person who has had their argument smashed. It is the source equivalent of "ad hominem".

No one uses wiki as a source -they use it as a starting point and cite the references used IN wiki - The sources are from the FAO and were duplicated on wiki

Your argument is invalid, especially as you seem to feel opinion pieces count as compelling evidence

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. All of this b.s. about Monsanto food producing more food is complete bull and Monsanto knows it. Mother Jones Magazine knows it and most farmers know it. Did you bother to read either of the links I shared or have you simply ignored them like you have ignored most of my other posts?

Oh and Hannibal, good try. Monsanto is crap and they've got nothing on organic agriculture. They are poisoning our planet and they know it and I know it. There's a huge growing movement called March Against Monsanto. Last year I went to the first march in Washington DC. There were a thousand people. This year there were more then five thousand people. It's easy to make a lot of claims if you pay people off. Monsanto does just this. Look at who Monsanto has in government that the President of the U.S. appointed. I'm not going to list them all. I want you to find them. Maybe if you actually let your fingers walk beyond Wikipedia you may actually learn that Monsanto is not the guardian angel that they want you to think they are.

 

lol "Mother Jones Magazine".

If you want to convince people you need to post articles, facts and figures that are presented in an objective an unbiased manner. So far you had yet to do so despite a number of requests.

I for one am not going to take you seriously until you do.

 

Righty, none of the information provide has been unbiased. It's all written by Monsanto or for Monsanto. They haven't conducted any independent testing. Look through some of the links. All I see you folks doing is attempting to support a company that wants to control the world's food supply. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but Monsanto has acquired several of the world's largest seed companies. I do not want my children and grandchildren to be force to consume genetically modified products.

Oh, and since we're on this, let's just drop this conversation since it has veered away from the original post. I'll be happy to discuss this further on a unique post that focuses specifically on Monsanto. Till then, I'm going to unsubscribe because none of this discussion has anything to do with DG doing pushups.

 

Those pesky facts just keep on tripping you up over and over again on MAP don't they? Have you considered joining David Icke's site? His burden of proof is pretty much non existent so you should fight in just fine

 

I think you really need to work on your understanding that:

1) Monsanto is not all of biotech.

2) Biotechnology is a tool. A hammer can be used to kill people or to build houses, but it in and of itself is neither good nor evil.

3) Biotechnology offers us a very clear way of modifying phenotypes to our own end. The advantage it has over other more traditional methods of genetic modification (for example hybridization), is that it is much more specific.

http://w3.ualg.pt/~jvarela/biotecnol/pdf/humaninsulin.pdf

Again, I'm reposting this paper, because it speaks to a lot of what we can do with biotech. By grafting DNA that codes for human insulin into yeast, we've been able to manufacture human insulin on an incredible scale. If you or anyone you know has diabetes, they've been receiving insulin from genetically modified organisms created using recombinant DNA technology.

 

Saw this about giving livestock GMO products, thought I'd share it here just 'cos of the mention of GMO stuff. Thought some of you folks might find it interesting.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...100-billion-animals-finds-gmos-safe-livestock