What is GMO?

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: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 14/02/19, 14:17

Janic wrote: But if unconventional medicine picks up those left behind by official medicine and heals and heals them, even at the same statistical percentage, it is this unconventional medicine that becomes the most effective and the safest.
But even at 90%,

So you say that unconventional medicine is treating 90% patients left out of official medicine, and you also say that there are no statistics possible on the effectiveness of non-conventional medicine, so you get this 90 % where, from your hat, from your deep conviction where you invite it?

if no stats not%; logical no?
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: what is GMO?




by izentrop » 14/02/19, 14:23

Some here are well-meaning, well-fed. In Bangladesh this is not the case, but it does not interest
Un documentary, not a documentator as regularly exhal the French television channels. It is not surprising to learn that it has never been broadcast in France ... not in the editorial line ... and no hidden cameras, harassed and harpooned interlocutors, aptly selected, "scandal" revealed ... http://seppi.over-blog.com/2018/12/well ... s-ogm.html
In 1996, the United States is starting to grow genetically modified Bt maize in several states on the Atlantic coast. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacterium that secretes a toxin that attacks the larvae of some particularly voracious moth species. She kills them before they have time to develop. Bt corn secrete this toxin themselves. "There is not one corn Bt, but several," says Jean-Christophe Pagès, chairman of the scientific committee of the High Council of Biotechnology (HCB). "This is a set of transgenic maize that secrete proteins that may be different." In Europe only one kind of Bt maize is allowed - this is MON 810 corn. It is grown in Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic. In France, after having been authorized, it is now forbidden.

A problem for biodiversity?
If corn secretes these toxins itself, then it's not surprising that these plants are more resistant to insects. But the plantations around beans or peppers also seem to benefit from the situation. Over the period from 1996 to 2016 (after the introduction of transgenic maize), the use of pesticides has steadily declined for all plantations. In 2016, the quantities of pesticides spread on pepper crops are almost 3 times lower than 1976! http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2018/03 ... nement.php
Stay in France is the opposite ... Normal, eco-terrorists have all the rights at home.
In France, the politically correct sheep and blasphemy have endorsed a definitive rejection of GMOs evacuating without any qualms any rational and scientific approach. : roll:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 14/02/19, 16:40

Janic wrote:
But if unconventional medicine picks up those left behind by official medicine and heals and heals them, even at the same statistical percentage, it is this unconventional medicine that becomes the most effective and the safest.
you claim, therefore, that unconventional medicine is treating 90% the patients left behind by official medicine,
You have to read everything, my boy, not just little bits.
Si conventional medicine heals and "cures" 90% of its clients (no one really knows the proportion),
I could as well have written 5% for the official medicine, but that would not have liked you (for example this percentage is only 50% for cancers) So 5% or 90% that does not change anything to the analysis of the substance. The result is that most of the time unconventional medicine sees the arrival of the neglected ones of the other with results, equally supposed equivalent, that is to say 5% or 90% or 43.27125%!
et you also say that there are no statistics possible [*] on the effectiveness of unconventional medicines, so you get that 90% where, from your hat, from your deep conviction where you invite it?
So you have so much trouble knowing how to read properly since I wrote that nobody keeps statistics on unconventional medicines, that is to say, the state by its organisms since he refuses to recognize them and therefore even less to count them. These figures are only comparative figures, not official figures or not.
if no stats not%; logical no?
Ah, he is strong the guy, he must even know how to calculate 1 plus 1 that makes 2! : Cheesy:
Exactly! Which also means challenging unconventional medicines without knowing if they are inferior, equal or superior to the other, it is sealed with a priori showing a total ignorance of the subject.

[*] Except that only the examples in favor of conventional medicine are the subject of statistics, not those of unconventional medicine which remains confidential.
I did not say that it was not possible (it can be done within this unconventional medicine) but not by the official services, since they deny any effectiveness outside of themselves !. Have you understood and grasped the nuance? : Wink:
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: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 14/02/19, 20:08

Janic wrote:
Janic wrote:
But if unconventional medicine picks up those left behind by official medicine and heals and heals them, even at the same statistical percentage, it is this unconventional medicine that becomes the most effective and the safest.
you claim, therefore, that unconventional medicine is treating 90% the patients left behind by official medicine,
You have to read everything, my boy, not just little bits.
Si conventional medicine heals and "cures" 90% of its clients (no one really knows the proportion),
I could as well have written 5% for the official medicine, but that would not have liked you (for example this percentage is only 50% for cancers) So 5% or 90% that does not change anything to the analysis of the substance. The result is that most of the time unconventional medicine sees the arrival of the neglected ones of the other with results, equally supposed equivalent, that is to say 5% or 90% or 43.27125%!
et you also say that there are no statistics possible [*] on the effectiveness of unconventional medicines, so you get that 90% where, from your hat, from your deep conviction where you invite it?
So you have so much trouble knowing how to read properly since I wrote that nobody keeps statistics on unconventional medicines, that is to say, the state by its organisms since he refuses to recognize them and therefore even less to count them. These figures are only comparative figures, not official figures or not.
if no stats not%; logical no?
Ah, he is strong the guy, he must even know how to calculate 1 plus 1 that makes 2! : Cheesy:
Exactly! Which also means challenging unconventional medicines without knowing if they are inferior, equal or superior to the other, it is sealed with a priori showing a total ignorance of the subject.

[*] Except that only the examples in favor of conventional medicine are the subject of statistics, not those of unconventional medicine which remains confidential.
I did not say that it was not possible (it can be done within this unconventional medicine) but not by the official services, since they deny any effectiveness outside of themselves !. Have you understood and grasped the nuance? : Wink:

So you balance% on the pitch to support your words and it is he who tells us about fake new, : Mrgreen: he is so exhausted that he invents them from scratch, we touch the bottom :( pathetic
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: what is GMO?




by Janic » 14/02/19, 20:50

So you balance% on the pitch to support your words and it is he who tells us about fake new, : Mrgreen: he is so exhausted that he invents them from scratch, we touch the bottom :( pathetic
always so vain in reasoning! Review what was written: SI conditional using a possible situation, not a particular affirmation. go back to school!
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: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 14/02/19, 22:37

Janic wrote:
So you balance% on the pitch to support your words and it is he who tells us about fake new, : Mrgreen: he is so exhausted that he invents them from scratch, we touch the bottom :( pathetic
always so vain in reasoning! Review what was written: SI conditional using a possible situation, not a particular affirmation. go back to school!

you cut our words into so many pieces to dismantle each end of a sentence that it's been a long time since I read you more than diagonally, we write a sentence for you 3 pages, with 10 cuts, you think we What do you care about reading you, no I'll pass, pick up something and basta I'll move on, but you apparently you devote a lot to it, so if it suffices to slip an "if" to argue, then we are ridiculous, we can afford anything
in my house we say if my aunt had it we would call him my uncle, so yes "if" we had proof of the dangerousness of glyphosate, we could ban 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: what is GMO?




by Janic » 15/02/19, 08:08

you cut our words into so many pieces to dismantle each end of a sentence that it's been a long time since I read you more than diagonally, we write a sentence for you 3 pages, with 10 cuts, you think we What do you care about reading you, no I'll pass, pick up something and basta I'll move on, but you apparently you devote a lot to it, so if it suffices to slip an "if" to argue, then we are ridiculous, we can afford anything

You put your finger precisely on what is the tragedy of our society where information arrives en masse and where people do not have the time or the desire to decrypt it and so you do, then, part. Now, according to your assumption, if you went to university after high school, you are supposed to learn and have learned the analysis of text and philosophy and more with a linguistic chouia or each thought, each phrase, in a particular context, can, can give meaning to various interpretations as in theology ... that you completely ignore like the rest.
So you forgot all that, it seems!
Now if this decryption, these analyzes, do not interest you, nothing forces you to give your opinion ... diagonally.
by my home they say if my aunt had any, she would be called my uncle, so yes "if" we had proof of the dangerousness of glyphosate, we could ban it
Endocrine disruptors will be there for something.
So Si we had the proof of the harmlessness of the chemicals, we could use them, but this is not the case and regularly synthetic products, supposed for years to have been nice products very innocent, prove to be dangerous in the long term and that we finally remove after many handicapped and dead sacrificed on the altar of profitability and cash to any end. (like HPV) https://aimsib.org/2018/09/30/gardasil- ... -approche/
Glyphosate is just a small part of the huge iceberg of chemistry which will eventually sink the Titanic, unsinkable so to speak, that is humanity and the rest of the living on this earth.
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: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 15/02/19, 12:53

Janic wrote:Finally, after many handicapped and dead sacrificed on the altar of profitability and money for any purpose.
in the meantime they also saved many more lives, it is not the altar of the dough (you really have a problem with the money) but of the lesser harm, do to so-called "incurable" diseases there are years, chemistry has made it possible to cure some patients but not all, after with the experience of years later we take stock, and we remove the molecules that do not have sufficient benefit compared to the new ones

40-50 years ago we did not dialy people, they simply died, now the technique and chemistry allow to keep them alive, and more recently chemistry allows to graft these patients, so everything is not so black as you claim

So how much of a life do you expect, from how much to stop treatment, from how much to sacrifice a life to not enrich the pharma lobby? since for you it's all about cash and nothing else
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: what is GMO?




by Janic » 15/02/19, 14:40

Janic wrote :oFinally, after many handicapped and dead sacrificed on the altar of profitability and money for any purpose.

meanwhile they have saved even more lives,
this passage specifically concerned HPV, which has never been able to prove its effectiveness on cancers that will only appear in 20 for about a year (read the article in full)
So we can not say, say, something without providing evidence by precise figures, statistically provable and comparable to other health systems.
SI, again, chemical medicine "saves" lives, how many others, that chemical medicine could not save, would have been by other means less violent and destructive like cancers? Regardless of any financial aspect
it's not the altar of the dough (you really have a problem with the money)
On the contrary, the nascent drug industry of 19 ° century exploded at the beginning of the 20 ° century, without any long-term decline, only the immediate result being taken into consideration, therefore effective in the short term, but harmful in the long term ( therefore very expensive for the human community) and disastrous for the environment.
However, it is not mon problem money since I do not use any of these means in questions. If I had to deal with a current health problem, I would do it by taking money out of my pocket, not the SS one, as I have done so far (like those who are not not for chemicals) By cons it is doctors like the doctors of the world, or Delépine, cited, who are scandalized by the price of certain treatments (especially for cancer in his case) who denounce it.
https://www.medecinsdumonde.org/fr/actu ... edicaments
BREAK THE MONOPOLY
In territories where it is in force, the patent creates a monopoly situation of 20 years that prevents any competition with generic forms. This is how the price of 12 weeks of sofosbuvir in France is at 41 680 euros while the same molecule is sold $220 in India.

If that's not a question of money. : Evil:
but of the lesser harm, done to so-called "incurable" diseases years ago, chemistry has made it possible to cure some patients but not all, after with the experience of years later we take stock, and we remove the molecules who do not have sufficient profit from the news
The notion of lesser harm is measured not in relation to oneself (for example vaccines compared to other vaccines and not compared to real placebos) but compared to all available means around the world. For example Lyme disease! But obviously this is not done since big pharma has a monopoly of fact.
Now, an incurable disease is only considered as such within the restricted framework of official medicine, always, of which it presents itself as both judge and exclusive party, once more.

40-50 years ago we did not dialy people, they simply died, NOW THE TECHNIQUE and the chemistry allow to keep them alive,
The first dialyses appear in France in 1954.
There you are right on the technique because it is more about technology in the service of medicine, which no one disputes anywhere. It's like using an artificial leg in case of amputated leg. Now the chemistry to keep them alive, your formulation is good: keep alive, not be healthy. The ehpad are full of people kept alive too, but in what state and drugged by multiple drugs of all kinds, that's the good life! : Cheesy:
and more recently chemistry allows grafting these patients, so everything is not so black as you claim

It's not about seeing everything in black, but about being realistic. Transplants, which are extraordinary techniques, only concern cases where grafts are available and chemistry does not allow grafts, it only prevents rejections by bypassing the immune system and thus makes the grafted individual susceptible to narcotics. Any virus or bacterium (hence their rustling folly of being contaminated and wanting all humanity to sterilize to save them alone at any cost). It is understandable that the individual is afraid and wants to survive, but this can and must be done only when ethics is not violated.
So how much of a life do you expect, from how much to stop treatment, from how much to sacrifice a life to not enrich the pharma lobby? since for you it's all about cash and nothing else
The example of doctors in the world shows that the relationship care and prices are questionable.
You misunderstood the approach. You dispute any possibility of action of other medicines than the one you use and especially without knowing or want to take into consideration other non-toxic solutions, they, for the organization. But the price of a life is the same on the ethical level, but it is not related exclusively to a single technique especially monopolistic? It reminds us too much of the religious domination of Catholicism over Protestantism (which was protesting against this monopoly) and which solved the question by eliminating the protesters.
So if a treatment is proposed, to a patient, and that it agrees, there is nothing to repeat, it is called the freedom of choice
but of the lesser harm, done to so-called "incurable" diseases years ago, chemistry has made it possible to cure some patients but not all, after with the experience of years later we take stock, and we remove the molecules who do not have sufficient profit from the news

The concept of lesser harm is measured not in relation to oneself (for example vaccines compared to other vaccines and not compared to real placebos) but in relation to all available means around the world. For example Lyme disease! But obviously this is not done since big pharma has a monopoly of fact.
However, an incurable disease is considered as such only within the restricted framework of the official medicine, always, so it appears as both judge and exclusive party, once again.
40-50 years ago we did not dialy people, they simply died, NOW THE TECHNIQUE and the chemistry allow to keep them alive,

There you are right on the technique because it is more about the technology in the service of the medicine, which nobody does not dispute anywhere. It's like using an artificial leg in case of amputated leg. Now the chemistry to keep them alive, your formulation is good: keep alive, not be healthy. The ehpads are full of people kept alive too, but in what state and drugged by multiple drugs of all kinds, that's the good life!
and more recently chemistry allows grafting these patients, so everything is not so black as you claim

It's not about seeing everything in black, but about being realistic. Transplants, which are extraordinary techniques, only concern cases where grafts are available and chemistry does not allow grafts, it only prevents rejections by bypassing the immune system and thus makes the grafted individual susceptible to narcotics. Any virus or bacterium (hence their rustling folly of being contaminated and wanting all humanity to sterilize to save them, them alone and at any price). It is understandable that the individual is afraid and wants to survive, but this can and must be done only when ethics is not violated.
So if a treatment is proposed to a patient, and that it agrees, there is nothing to repeat, it is called the freedom of choice conscious and informed. But when any system claims that he and he alone holds " the truth out of which there is no salvation "Catholicism is still in question, it is no longer the freedom of therapeutic choice but the totalitarianism against which the societies that claim to be democratic are struggling, but who practice it commonly (do what I say, but not what I do) as mandatory vaccinations that are extremely disparate from one country to another.
So there is no question of stopping anything, in progress, would be only because the system recognizes only what he himself instituted and he is unable to propose anything else (except some open minds, not totally conditioned by this one). So it's not just a question of money, but a lot all the same since pro allopathy dispute the reimbursement of homeopathy, despite the lives it has saved, for almost nothing on the cash side.
Plus other alternative medicines that also save lives for 0 Euros for society.
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
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: what is GMO?




by Exnihiloest » 10/03/19, 16:29

What is GMO? Among other things, a way to reduce pesticides.

After five years of introduction, the Bangladeshi Ministry of Agriculture has carried out an evaluation of genetically modified eggplants (BT Brinjal). This GMO is protected from the European corn borer thanks to the genes of Bacillus thuringiensis that have been added to it.

Farmers who grow the insect-resistant variety have higher incomes than their counterparts (+ 55%) and need to use fewer pesticides. 27.000 farmers on 150.000 who grow eggplant planted one of five GMO varieties.

http://seppi.over-blog.com/2018/08/la-c ... adesh.html
0 x

 


  • 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 284 guests