Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Horrifying Tumors, new study.

SuperInfinity

I think that what's important to take from this isn't that all people who eat GM foods will quickly get massive tumours and die, but rather that GM is not "just the same" as normal food. They have tampered with the fundamental building blocks of life.

Now that last sentence may sound corny to you, but that's just your own ignorance shining through. This isn't some bizarre story being made up, they are actually doing this to the planet and thereby to your own body. You can't just go messing with food on this fundamental level, because 1) this might happen 2) something a little less sinister might happen 3) all might apparently go fine. Obviously it's only the third one they're going to take, but they can't test for every possible deviation from natural food under the sun. Noone who believes in or has any grasp of evolution at all could think we would do just as good with genes that are partly randomly selected. Things only a tiny percentage of people get, like terrible headaches, early-onset alzheimers, unusual libido or metabolic problems... things that people won't be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt Monsanto and the GM foods caused. Those are the things which Monsanto do not and will not care about.

The worst thing of all is that these changes are irreversible and permanent, there is no going back. Our descendants will curse us forever for letting these things into the wild and denying them natural food forever. They are even genetically modifying trees now and all kinds of other plants and organisms. I don't know where it's all going to end, but I do know that we're all ****ed. There's practically zero chance that anything like us will exist in the future, it'll be the end of humanity.

Run_to_da_hills

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The worst thing of all is that these changes are irreversible and permanent, there is no going back. Our descendants will curse us for letting these things into the wild and denying them natural food forever. They are even genetically modifying trees now and all kinds of other plants and organisms. I don't know where it's all going to end, but I do know that we're all ****ed. There's practically zero chance that anything like us will exist in the future, it'll be the end of humanity.

There is going back when the damage is done but only for the chosen after the dust settles.

The Doomsday natural seed vault solution and guess who is behind it.

Bill Gates, Rockerfalla and Monsanto.

Why do you suppose they just locked up supplies of all the world’s natural seeds in an underground vault in Norway, but are busy altering the genetic make up of the seeds WE’RE supposed to eat?

They are obviously expecting major a fcuk up in nature down the line.

No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’

The Gates Of Hell Foundation

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46602078/ns/today-today_news/t/doomsday-vault-holds-seeds-could-save-world/#.UJN012-Znp8

TheChizler

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I think that what's important to take from this isn't that all people who eat GM foods will quickly get massive tumours and die, but rather that GM is not "just the same" as normal food. They have tampered with the fundamental building blocks of life.

Now that last sentence may sound corny to you, but that's just your own ignorance shining through. This isn't some bizarre story being made up, they are actually doing this to the planet and thereby to your own body. You can't just go messing with food on this fundamental level, because 1) this might happen 2) something a little less sinister might happen 3) all might apparently go fine. Obviously it's only the third one they're going to take, but they can't test for every possible deviation from natural food under the sun. Noone who believes in or has any grasp of evolution at all could think we would do just as good with genes that are partly randomly selected. Things only a tiny percentage of people get, like terrible headaches, early-onset alzheimers, unusual libido or metabolic problems... things that people won't be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt Monsanto and the GM foods caused. Those are the things which Monsanto do not and will not care about.

The worst thing of all is that these changes are irreversible and permanent, there is no going back. Our descendants will curse us forever for letting these things into the wild and denying them natural food forever. They are even genetically modifying trees now and all kinds of other plants and organisms. I don't know where it's all going to end, but I do know that we're all ****ed. There's practically zero chance that anything like us will exist in the future, it'll be the end of humanity.

You seem pretty confident! And also like a script writer.

Run_to_da_hills

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, brown envelopes. Of course. Because a shoddy study full of dodgy methodology and cherry-picked results not being up to scratch for the scientific community is just too unlikely to be possible. You backed the wrong reality, again, and instead of admitting it you're retreating even further into your fantasy world where every organisation is super-powerful but somehow unable to stop you from finding out the great and terrible pattern. Because you're so special and you can see things the rest of humanity can't. An true hero.

Would you see Monsanto carry out these same tests on live rats?

No not a hope because it would expose themselves.

EU rejects French report linking GM maize to cancer

Just goes to show that the EU is also more concerned about profit and backhanders than it is about health issues. Would you see the EU carry out similar tests? I doubt it.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121128-eu-rejects-french-report-linking-gm-maize-cancer

IvyTheTerrible

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is going back when the damage is done but only for the chosen after the dust settles.

The Doomsday natural seed vault solution and guess who is behind it.

Bill Gates, Rockerfalla and Monsanto.

Why do you suppose they just locked up supplies of all the world’s natural seeds in an underground vault in Norway, but are busy altering the genetic make up of the seeds WE’RE supposed to eat?

They are obviously expecting major a fcuk up in nature down the line.

No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’

The Gates Of Hell Foundation

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46602078/ns/today-today_news/t/doomsday-vault-holds-seeds-could-save-world/#.UJN012-Znp8

"They", as you put it, have locked up seeds in a vault in Norway, to protect the current biodiversity of cultivated plants, in case global warming or other disasters wipe it out. You make it sound like they have locked up ALL the seeds, which is simply not true, they have preserved enough to be able to grow them later.

Run_to_da_hills

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

"They", as you put it, have locked up seeds in a vault in Norway, to protect the current biodiversity of cultivated plants, in case global warming or other disasters wipe it out. You make it sound like they have locked up ALL the seeds, which is simply not true, they have preserved enough to be able to grow them later.

The have locked up the seeds as a precaution in case when if GM exhausts itself out and back fires and cannot be reversed. Unfortunately they would only be able to store limited quantities,.

IvyTheTerrible

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The have locked up the seeds as a precaution in case if GM back fires and cannot be reversed. Unfortunately they would only be able to store limited quantities,.

So what if they can only store limited quantities? They are SEEDS. And it's not because of GM. There are LOADS of plants being stored that have never used for GM varieties.

Ziphius

Oh, this thread is back. How serendipitous.

A European Food Safety Authority press release from November 28 has dismissed the original Séralini et al. study.

"Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603. These are the conclusions of separate and independent assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and six EU Member States following publication of the paper in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 19 September 201"

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

New Scientist reports that many researchers are calling for the paper to be retracted from the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology . Which is hardly surprising.

The director of Rothamsted Research, Maurice Moloney, is quoted as saying

"The consistency of the critique from several national risk-evaluation agencies should prompt Elsevier to re-evaluate the standards of peer review at its journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology,"

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/11/retraction-gm-crop-cancer-study.html

Run_to_da_hills

Greenpeace slams EFSA’s selective approach to Seralini’s study

Environmental activists have accused the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of employing a selective approach to a controversial study by French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini that linked genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and Roundup herbicide to increased risk of cancer. In a statement issued on 29 November, Greenpeace slammed the EU food safety watchdog for failing to take into consideration “all the positive statements that various national agencies expressed on Seralini’s study,” especially those emphasising the need for study on the long-term effects of genetically modified plants (GMP) on health.

The comment came after the EFSA definitively rejected, on 28 November, Seralini’s foundlings, saying they had serious defects and failed to meet scientific standards (see Europolitics4538). The EFSA’s final assessment was based on “separate and independent assessments” by the EU watchdog itself and six EU member states (Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Italy). The EFSA said there was no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of GM maize NK603. It stopped short of taking a position on the need for a new long-term study to be conducted on the potential health effects of GMPs. Meanwhile, in its statement, Greenpeace pointed to the recommendations by the French National Agency for Food Safety (ANSES), the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council (WIV-ISP) and the German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which see the need for more research on the potential health effects associated with the long-term consumption of GMOs or long-term exposure to plant protection products.

Seralini published his study in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 19 September. On 4 October, the EFSA published its preliminary ruling.

http://www.europolitics.info/sectorial-policies/greenpeace-slams-efsa-s-selective-approach-to-seralini-s-study-art345739-11.html

Ziphius

Ha! Bless. That's what Green Peace consider a slamming? Now this is a slamming.

"Greenpeace has lost its way. Its former glory rested on the righteousness of its actions in support of real evidence of how humanity was failing to care for the environment. Now it is a sad, dogmatic, reactionary phalanx of anti-science zealots who care not for evidence, but for publicity."

Wilson da Silva

What exactly is Green Peace's problem with the EFSA report other than it didn't align with their own prejudices?