GMOs good for health

[Moindreffor]

slightest effort of understanding and knowledge, should stop his bowls of GMOs every morning, it screws up his brain given the number of bullshit he says.

it's easy to say my words are bullshit, but it's a bit fair in terms of contradictory speech...

you really wouldn't make a great orator, in an eloquence contest you wouldn't go far, but that we know because in terms of eloquence you are immediately at the last resort the insult, therefore very binary, like about,

me Janic, me know, you not Janic so you stupid... and so shut your mouth...

[Moindreffor]

Look what I wrote about the electric car, you'll save text...

so if you agree on this point, why disagree on similar points, you can't agree entirely with yourself?
do you have more than one logic?

what applies to the electric car can apply to the rest, just make the same open-minded efforts

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Look what I wrote about the electric car, you'll save text...

so if you agree on this point, why disagree on similar points, you can't agree entirely with yourself?
do you have more than one logic?

what applies to the electric car can apply to the rest, just make the same open-minded efforts

What applies to potatoes does not necessarily apply to chicken or hormones... I love your way of not thinking!

Ps: We don't apply the same logic whether it's an EPR plant or a lithium scooter...

[Janic]

simpleton

me Janic, me know, you not Janic so you stupid... and so shut your mouth...

That's it, he understood at least one thing, it's not much, but it leaves a very small glimmer of hope in the distance, very very far! and I would add one thing: GMOs are bad for your health!

[Moindreffor]

Look what I wrote about the electric car, you'll save text...

so if you agree on this point, why disagree on similar points, you can't agree entirely with yourself?
do you have more than one logic?

what applies to the electric car can apply to the rest, just make the same open-minded efforts

What applies to potatoes doesn't apply to chicken or hormones... I love the way you don't think!

That's exactly your mistake, the issues are similar.
we accuse diesel of polluting, manufacturers are working, diesel pollutes less, even less than gasoline, but in order not to have to admit that now the argument no longer holds, we confuse, we mix up the figures between fine heating particles and diesel, then have demonized, we surcharge, and rather than admit we persist and sign

with your chicken it's different, the consumer wanted cheap chicken, science allowed farmers to produce it, then the consumer complains that his cheap chicken is crap, you get what you wanted... for me there is no deception, it's just that the consumer is in bad faith, like the guy who buys a smartphone at a quarter of the price, without an invoice and who says he doesn't know that it was stolen...

before we produced our chickens at home, now I buy a label or from a short-circuit breeder, hormones are not my problem, but trying to make people believe that buying an electric car is green, there is will to deceive

[Moindreffor]

simpleton

me Janic, me know, you not Janic so you stupid... and so shut your mouth...

That's it, he understood at least one thing, it's not much, but it leaves a very small glimmer of hope in the distance, very very far! and I would add one thing: GMOs are bad for your health!

I'm fine I still have a glimmer where all hope for you has been in vain and for a long time
GMOs are not stupid for health, the only stupid people in history are those who have prevented research on GMOs, because we could have demonstrated their dangerousness, and therefore we could have banned them worldwide instead stupid people have done everything to prevent this and suddenly they have maintained the doubt, which has let these GMOs into our lives, so yes there are really idiots up to you to see which ones

[sicetaitsimple]

simple.....

Hello? They call me? Did I say something?
Our pov Janic becomes so doting that he even confuses his interlocutors.....

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

You stay in the foam of things (in the slightest intellectual effort), too bad. No depth in your "analyzes" ... In short, finished for me, I leave you alone.

[Obamot]

I will only take this example which is striking in your ignorance:

for example the excess of salt, since this one is recommended as "organic" weedkiller and a genetic modification it is not quite the same thing

You are mixing apples and oranges! Here we are not talking about ORGANIC (a label that means nothing in absolute terms) in principle better than what agro-business offers us. Here we are talking about this absolute rubbish “of GMOs carcinogenic claimed to be good for health” which is only a slogan, an unrealistic pretension of (pseudo) mad scientists who would claim to do "better" than nature in the medium term, she who has billions of years in advance and experiences (er this pushed by juicy peofits which consist in ruining the peasants in order to buy back their land or indebt them to the point of suicide with a "one way ticket" without return...

when wheat has "naturally" grown to more than 2n chromosomes, no one sees it as a GMO, although in the literal sense it is one, it has been naturally genetically modified,

Has been, and the other for daring to talk to us about wheat... (a food with a rather acidic and inflammatory tendency by nature) Alpet also essentially loves toxic, partly responsible for diabetes and whose consumption it would be better to reduce to strictly necessary (while people make orgies of it: pasta, pizzas, biacuits, baguettes, pastries, and other wholemeal breads or not (the nice joke) which are nothing for the human body other than the ingestion of glue ( s) if we take the reasoning to the extreme! We human beings do NOT need this gigantic supplementation of carbohydrates which are NOT slow sugars. There are plenty of carbohydrates in fruits and vegetables... And if there is a need for calories, we will prefer other cereals such as millet, buckwheat or rice, or even better but not all the time: potatoes. I remind you here that the last time you leaked my questions about the right dosage in the food bowl, so I won't repeat the experience a second time...

your software, blocks on the "synthetic" the fact by the Man,

the guy wants to induce computer notions in the mind to suggest that we would be permeable to let ourselves be intoxicated by his narrative which would like to present the living as coming under programmed obsolescence... Well with the covid we have seen that it is It was man and the fragility of his co-morbidities, which became obsolete in the face of pathetic variants that brought the services of hospitals on the planet to Earth. Suddenly your promise of domination of technology over the "natural", has a lot of lead in the wing...

In your next “essay” I have completely turned your narrative upside down, starting from the opposite idea of ​​the thread — from the verified thesis of the harmfulness of GMOs — by replacing GMO with TOXIC (and having rectified your counter -final meaning) and maybe you will understand why it is “a side of the plate”

natural TOXIC is good..., synthetic TOXIC is bad, and where the absurdity goes even further is that human TOXIC gene therapy is bad, but plant TOXIC gene therapy is good.

We immediately understand the imposture which consists in minimizing human poisons by saying: ”Look, there are also poisons in nature...... But sorry, nature has not yet made Chernobyl, nor Fukushima, Bhopal Minamata, Seveso, or even recently Beirut where half a city is devastated by an explosion...

Everyone knows that human pollution is much more concentrated than what nature produces. Everyone knows that chemical molecules are very pure, whereas their natural equivalences are drowned in subtle complexes that no longer have anything to do with each other, we had already spoken of the simple example of vitamin "C" whose formula had to be retorted several times, to try to get closer to the natural “C” vit. And you were royally planted (that's why I'm going to stop there, this debate is lost in the face of insurmountable people who camp on their positions by trying the smokescreen to stay in their "comfort zone", whose goal is to avoid going too deep... The simple fact that GMOs cause mutations in fields adjacent to polluting crops, should already inspire caution and make people understand the danger. who support this industry are ready to compromise for the sole purpose of saving their jobs!

I will add that the essential mission of the chemical industry is to manufacture stable products which can be kept for as long as possible and produced at low cost... Quite the opposite of nature which seeks to perform in the explosion of life AT ALL PRICE, which by definition is bathed in a universe with a lot of oxygen and therefore constantly in instability with an unavoidable expiration agenda being specified by the minute (see the freezing chains which seek to target the right moment to start the harvest at the peak of growth and maturity...)

either it is a fear of progress, which can be understood because the path to progress is not only paved with successes, but one learns from one's mistakes, or it is a rejection of the business done around it and therefore a rejection of the capitalism, which can also be understood, but therefore no direct link

Oh that's well done... Nein I don't need to put profit at the heart of the thing since you just said it (that's done, and in addition the guy serves it to you on a platter)
For me, current progress is minimalism, permaculture, the humility of having understood that there was no other salvation in the state than through the idea of ​​starting by understanding how nature had (for example) succeeded for having been able to grow the Amazonian forest... without man... and without any synthetic product...

We may talk about biochemistry, puffing out our chests to say that man is capable of equaling nature — starting from the simplistic principle that synthetic molecules are allegedly strictly identical to natural ones — but to date, the man has never succeeded in creating the slightest living cell from what we know of the “initial bricks of life”. Never.

I stop there definitively, so the pretensions and inconsistencies are dizzying!

Thanks and again

[Janic]

obamot

We may talk about biochemistry, puffing out our chests to say that man is capable of equaling nature — starting from the simplistic principle that synthetic molecules are allegedly strictly identical to natural ones — but to date, the man has never succeeded in creating the slightest living cell from what we know of the “initial bricks of life”. Never.

it is moreover this main aspect which demonstrates that the theory of evolution is as fantastical as recreating life by synthetic chemistry and not even a simple cell whose own complexity has nothing to envy to the complexity of our organism We have never succeeded in creating by synthesis a simple (there is nothing simple) DNA and even before.

PS: Nature does not create anything, it fulfills its function like any created product.