GMOs good for health

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: GMOs good for health




by Moindreffor » 02/02/20, 20:22

GuyGadebois wrote:
Moindreffor wrote:I think you really believe that all researchers are devoid of ethics and that they are ready to camouflage the dangers of this or that product that they invent just to make money, stop immediately, run for a rope and hang you

I wrote the exact opposite above. I even specified that it is the people who employ the researchers who are most of the time there only to make money. After, yes, even among researchers there are bastards, like everywhere. I spoke of corruption made possible by the laws that promote these practices. The most recent are those which allow private groups to attack democracies which take decisions which do not suit them. : Mrgreen:

Do you think that researchers are too absorbed in their research not to realize what is done with their work?
do you think that a researcher who would invent bastards would say nothing if the company he works for would sell it?
and so do you think that researchers are doing research to find toxic products which could harm the human species?
Do you think that researchers are so unconscious as to continue on a research path knowing that it will be harmful?

science has made mistakes, but it has learned from these mistakes, and is doing everything not to reproduce them

So when we say that there is a consensus of researchers on the non-dangerousness of GMOs, do you think that they say it to please their employers and that they are all corrupt or because they really mean it?
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: GMOs good for health




by Janic » 02/02/20, 20:33

there are no MY associations in this area. Mine demonstrated it on vaccinations and yet the authorities under pressure from lobbies, and the fear of populations, oppose the truth.


still your rantings
these rantings are those of OFFICIAL statistical archive documents, not obscure dissenting associations. Would you challenge them? : Evil:
if not why France would be one of the countries most resistant to vaccination,

France, the great defender of its national glory Pasteur would be resistant to vaccination?
it proves that far from providing evidence,

Evidence of what? That it doesn't work? Obviously!
manipulation does its work, because in a free country like France,
Ah, ah, ah! France, after Italy only on the 28 European countries, which makes 11 vaccines compulsory despite the opposing opinions of the commissions. Free did you write? We must not have the same understanding of the term,
You mean that in France, manipulation of governments doesn't exist! Find out !
with real journalists,

These real journalists who reproduce the AFP papers as they are? Hmm !!! and who teaches AFP?
I don't think a government can hide a truth

No luck, all governments hide what could cause social fears and its consequences. For example, the Chernobyl cloud, asbestos! and all health scandals, modestly, mitigated to avoid panic. Come down from your cloud! 8)
so because some do not provide proof of the absence of danger, others do not have to look for proof of danger, if we follow your reasoning, precisely we would never have known the dangerousness of asbestos , it's because freelancers showed the dangers that the scandal was discovered
Are you sure you learned French well at school?
if you knew the history of asbestos, it was denounced for its dangerousness by workers, one century ago, but it had to be impossible to deny that the scandal had raised awareness among the population, but until then the rulers had turned a deaf ear.
For GMOs, the scandal is precisely that the opponents failing to provide proof of the dangerousness of GMOs that they are going into the field of disinformation and demonization, easier to scare, than to seek.
GMOs are like DDT and other products of the same kind as asbestos, nuclear, pollution. It is always when it is already too late that the officials shake the chips to react. The sick who tinker with the living will, one day or the other, to account for it to their descendants.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: GMOs good for health




by Moindreffor » 02/02/20, 20:49

Janic wrote:GMOs are like DDT and other products of the same kind as asbestos, nuclear, pollution. It is always when it is already too late that the officials shake the chips to react. The sick who tinker with the living will, one day or the other, to account for it to their descendants.


The first suspicions about the danger of asbestos were raised at the very beginning of the 1906th century (Report of the labor inspector Auribault - XNUMX)
In France, asbestosis was treated as an occupational disease from 1945,
or about 40 years, we are far from your century and from a desire to hide things, since since 1945 it has been recognized as an occupational disease
after as always, there are security measures and the respect of their measures
a roofer falls from a roof, whose fault is it that the roof is too steep or too high or the worker who is not attached?

this is basic amalgam, we mix everything and nothing to make it a truth

nuclear accidents have caused fewer deaths than the exploitation of coal, and yet the Germans have stopped nuclear power and are chasing coal? nuclear emits no greenhouse gases, coal is the worst polluter ...

and we want to stop nuclear power not because it is dangerous but because it is scary

and therefore you are against GMOs because they do not fit into your thought pattern and they scare you, not because they are dangerous
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: GMOs good for health




by Janic » 02/02/20, 20:58

Do you think that researchers are too absorbed in their research not to realize what is done with their work?
You are confusingly naive. Researchers as in all industries have only a partial view, limited by the task assigned to them.
do you think that a researcher who would invent bastards would say nothing if the company he works for would sell it?
You have already heard of research on mines, cluster bombs and other rubbish and the "holy" researchers would not know what it is for!
and so do you think that researchers are doing research to find toxic products which could harm the human species?
Incredible such naivety! and all the defoliants spilled on the Asian populations, and mustard gas with mustard and all those of the same kind, even less toxic like the so-called bacterial wars for which the smallpox virus was kept ... you never know ! And Mengele and all his troop of the best scientists of the time
Do you think that researchers are so unconscious as to continue on a research path knowing that it will be harmful?
Yes of course ! if only out of the necessity of earning a salary to feed and protect their families.
science has made mistakes, but it has learned from these mistakes, and is doing everything not to reproduce them
Worse and worse ! Since when has humanity learned from its mistakes? At most they do not exactly the same but nothing prevents them from making others. willingly, mindfully doing them.
so when we say that there is a consensus of researchers on the non-dangerousness of GMOs, you think that they say it to please their employers
Inevitably, otherwise they are fired and will no longer find work elsewhere, in the same profession. But above all their employers impose on them what they should think about it, if not outside!
and they are all corrupt or because they really mean it?
Corruption at the bottom of the ladder is unlikely, but above it, these probabilities increase for the same reasons of maintaining a professional or social situation. But we don't call it corruption!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: GMOs good for health




by GuyGadebois » 02/02/20, 21:03

Moindreffor wrote:Do you think that researchers are too absorbed in their research not to realize what is done with their work?
do you think that a researcher who would invent bastards would say nothing if the company he works for would sell it?
and so do you think that researchers are doing research to find toxic products which could harm the human species?
Do you think that researchers are so unconscious as to continue on a research path knowing that it will be harmful?

science has made mistakes, but it has learned from these mistakes, and is doing everything not to reproduce them

So when we say that there is a consensus of researchers on the non-dangerousness of GMOs, do you think that they say it to please their employers and that they are all corrupt or because they really mean it?

Excuse me but there, you are raving at full speed! The voice of a researcher who works for a company like Monsanto or Novartis, you NEVER hear it. Why? Because they have a reason for confidentiality in their contract. And this is where unemployment and if you are blacklisted, you're fucked up! Without some researchers (whistleblowers) who broke the omerta we would never have known (for example) how bad tobacco was.
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: GMOs good for health




by pedrodelavega » 02/02/20, 21:22

GuyGadebois wrote:Excuse me but there, you are raving at full speed! The voice of a researcher who works for a company like Monsanto or Novartis, you NEVER hear it. Why? Because they have a reason for confidentiality in their contract. And this is where unemployment and if you are blacklisted, you're fucked up! Without some researchers (whistleblowers) who broke the omerta we would never have known (for example) how bad tobacco was.
The researchers who highlighted the dangers of tobacco did not work for the tobacco industry. They were doctors, epidemiologists.
It's the same for GMOs, not all researchers work for Monsanto.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: GMOs good for health




by GuyGadebois » 02/02/20, 21:27

pedrodelavega wrote:
GuyGadebois wrote:Excuse me but there, you are raving at full speed! The voice of a researcher who works for a company like Monsanto or Novartis, you NEVER hear it. Why? Because they have a reason for confidentiality in their contract. And this is where unemployment and if you are blacklisted, you're fucked up! Without some researchers (whistleblowers) who broke the omerta we would never have known (for example) how bad tobacco was.
The researchers who highlighted the dangers of tobacco did not work for the tobacco industry. They were doctors, epidemiologists.
It's the same for GMOs, not all researchers work for Monsanto.

For tobacco, it was the former vice-president responsible for research and development * (excuse the little ...) of the American cigarette manufacturer Brown & Williamson who sold the wick. For GMO researchers, they are all bound by confidentiality clauses. Come back in the second week. : Cheesy:

* https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wigand
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: GMOs good for health




by Moindreffor » 02/02/20, 21:29

Janic wrote:
Do you think that researchers are too absorbed in their research not to realize what is done with their work?
You are confusingly naive. Researchers as in all industries have only a partial view, limited by the task assigned to them.
do you think that a researcher who would invent bastards would say nothing if the company he works for would sell it?
You have already heard of research on mines, cluster bombs and other rubbish and the "holy" researchers would not know what it is for!
and so do you think that researchers are doing research to find toxic products which could harm the human species?
Incredible such naivety! and all the defoliants spilled on the Asian populations, and mustard gas with mustard and all those of the same kind, even less toxic like the so-called bacterial wars for which the smallpox virus was kept ... you never know ! And Mengele and all his troop of the best scientists of the time
Do you think that researchers are so unconscious as to continue on a research path knowing that it will be harmful?
Yes of course ! if only out of the necessity of earning a salary to feed and protect their families.
science has made mistakes, but it has learned from these mistakes, and is doing everything not to reproduce them
Worse and worse ! Since when has humanity learned from its mistakes? At most they do not exactly the same but nothing prevents them from making others. willingly, mindfully doing them.
so when we say that there is a consensus of researchers on the non-dangerousness of GMOs, you think that they say it to please their employers
Inevitably, otherwise they are fired and will no longer find work elsewhere, in the same profession. But above all their employers impose on them what they should think about it, if not outside!
and they are all corrupt or because they really mean it?
Corruption at the bottom of the ladder is unlikely, but above it, these probabilities increase for the same reasons of maintaining a professional or social situation. But we don't call it corruption!

it seems that you did research : Mrgreen: your box was ANPE : Mrgreen:
it's more amalgam it's soup not to speak of stew
Marie Curie discovered radioactivity so that this big Einstein bastard could invent the nuclear bomb to destroy the planet, so that Mosento could later clean up everything in roundup to sow GMOs
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: GMOs good for health




by pedrodelavega » 02/02/20, 21:41

GuyGadebois wrote:For tobacco, it was the former vice-president responsible for research and development * (excuse the little ...) of the American cigarette manufacturer Brown & Williamson who sold the wick.

It's a special anecdote about "coumarin"

Long before him already:

The dangers of tobacco were observed from the beginning of the XNUMXth century, and its carcinogenicity was suspected in the XNUMXth century, before being largely admitted in the middle of the XNUMXth century.
The responsibility for smoking in the genesis of cancers (especially lung cancer) has been long established. The first studies which link tobacco to cancer were carried out during the period of the Third Reich, by Franz H. Müller (1939), Eberhard Schairer and Erich Schöniger from the University of Jena (1943). The Nazis, attached to the purity of the body and their will to dominate the world under a racial mode, carried out a great amount of research on cancer (creation of a research institute at the university of Jena) and were the first to introduce restrictive tobacco use policies8. The carcinogenic role of tobacco was also suspected the day after the Second World War, in particular by Richard Doll, British epidemiologist, then confirmed by large-scale studies in the 1950s and 1960s. Lobbying by tobacco companies has significantly slowed acceptance of these data, lthe conviction of most of the medical profession being made from the mid-1960s

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effets_du ... Historique

Nothing to do with the tobacco industry, it is the medical profession which carried out its investigation and denounced the misdeeds.
0 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: GMOs good for health




by Moindreffor » 02/02/20, 21:43

GuyGadebois wrote:
pedrodelavega wrote:
GuyGadebois wrote:Excuse me but there, you are raving at full speed! The voice of a researcher who works for a company like Monsanto or Novartis, you NEVER hear it. Why? Because they have a reason for confidentiality in their contract. And this is where unemployment and if you are blacklisted, you're fucked up! Without some researchers (whistleblowers) who broke the omerta we would never have known (for example) how bad tobacco was.
The researchers who highlighted the dangers of tobacco did not work for the tobacco industry. They were doctors, epidemiologists.
It's the same for GMOs, not all researchers work for Monsanto.

For tobacco, it was the former vice-president responsible for research and development * (excuse the little ...) of the American cigarette manufacturer Brown & Williamson who sold the wick. For GMO researchers, they are all bound by confidentiality clauses. Come back in the second week. : Cheesy:

* https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wigand

and therefore they respect all this close and in the lot not one to denounce, pushpin must all pass them to the secret services these researchers ...
you realize how enormously you can say

1982 - First commercial application of this technology: the manufacture of insulin for the treatment of diabetes. who is against this genetic manipulation today? whereas it is the first that genetic engineering has allowed

it's not called GMO, as the drugs I am given are not called chemotherapy for me because I don't have cancer, but is called chemotherapy for a cancer patient, so you are talking in a vacuum, you are against GMOs while they treated us before ending up in our fields, except that we're not talking about GMOs

as we pass an MRI when in fact we pass an N NMR for nuclear (nucleus here) but the nuclear term being too scary (think of the nuclear bomb) we deleted it, in short, just writing games and you go into global conspiracy theories
1 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 328 guests