Independent Research? [modified]
-
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Did I say "reviewed"?
It has to be reviewed to be disproved.
Red Stateler wrote:
Companies perform that research in conjunction with the FDA (which serves to help remove that inherent bias).
They kept it secret.
Red Stateler wrote:
Not just corporate whore
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
Unless it's Exxon. :rolleyes:
-
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
oilFactotum wrote:
Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent
Why? One exists to push an extreme anti capitalist / envronmentalist agenda (up to and including the banning of chlorine chemistry), the other to sell petroleum products. Surely it is obvious what answers either organisation wants?
-
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
Rob Graham wrote:
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
It's amazing isn't it? And people wonder why I can't hold back calling him an idiot. He's like Ilion on tranquilisers.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Person A: "I think that Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased"
That's not at all what you said. You said, "You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true." Mine was an accurate quote and yours is a restatement. I'll just assume that you admit your folly, given the extent you're going through to restate what you originally said. You'll never admit it, though.
I have made myself perfectly clear. Your refusal to understand will remain your problem, not mine.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent
Why? One exists to push an extreme anti capitalist / envronmentalist agenda (up to and including the banning of chlorine chemistry), the other to sell petroleum products. Surely it is obvious what answers either organisation wants?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
One exists to push an extreme anti capitalist / envronmentalist agenda
Exactly the theory I reject.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
And where's the basis for "believing Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased[^]"? :rolleyes:
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
Unless it's Exxon. :rolleyes:
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
-
I have made myself perfectly clear. Your refusal to understand will remain your problem, not mine.
oilFactotum wrote:
I have made myself perfectly clear. Your refusal to understand will remain your problem, not mine.
I agree you made yourself "clear". All you had to do was completel change what you originally said...And then say I was wrong! :laugh:
-
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
Yeah, I know...Unless it's Exxon. :laugh:
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I have made myself perfectly clear. Your refusal to understand will remain your problem, not mine.
I agree you made yourself "clear". All you had to do was completel change what you originally said...And then say I was wrong! :laugh:
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
-
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
oilFactotum wrote:
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
Which you then followed up with "which is true"...Then you spent another half dozen posts trying to convince yourself you meant to say that it was "true" that they "thought" there research was unbiased. So are you now going to say you didn't say that? :omg: Astonishing....
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
Which you then followed up with "which is true"...Then you spent another half dozen posts trying to convince yourself you meant to say that it was "true" that they "thought" there research was unbiased. So are you now going to say you didn't say that? :omg: Astonishing....
I'm tempted to say that your continued trolling is astonishing, but it isn't.
-
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
oilFactotum wrote:
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
You know...I'm almost convinced that you actually believe yourself. :laugh:
-
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
oilFactotum wrote:
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
It took a minute to find that. I suspect it would not be hard to find others.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
One exists to push an extreme anti capitalist / envronmentalist agenda
Exactly the theory I reject.
You think wanting to ban a element[^] is not extreme?
-
Greenpeace said a study it had commissioned that was published in the
journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology showed rats fed for
90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize showed "signs of toxicity" in the liver and
kidneys.And...
"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-
reviewed journal, has proved that a GMO authorized for human consumption presents
signs of toxicity," Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France said in
statement.I also find it interesting that a group which includes such organizations as PETA among its "comprehensive list of all [their] favourite sites[^]" would commission a study designed to induce cancer toxicity in rats. Of course, I guess that comes as no surprise. After all, they are leading global warming advocates[^].
Red Stateler wrote:
showed rats fed for90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize
Christ. If I had to eat corn for 90 days straight, I'd be showing signs of toxicity too. I don't care if it's biodynamic soil, organic seed, and homeopathic water!!! Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Rob Graham wrote:
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
It's amazing isn't it? And people wonder why I can't hold back calling him an idiot. He's like Ilion on tranquilisers.
Red Stateler wrote:
He's like Ilion on tranquilisers too much pot.
:)
-
You think wanting to ban a element[^] is not extreme?
No, not on the basis of your link. It wouldn't be the first chemical to be banned[^] So what is it about Chlorine that makes this an extreme position? -- modified at 18:42 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
-
Greenpeace said a study it had commissioned that was published in the
journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology showed rats fed for
90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize showed "signs of toxicity" in the liver and
kidneys.And...
"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-
reviewed journal, has proved that a GMO authorized for human consumption presents
signs of toxicity," Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France said in
statement.I also find it interesting that a group which includes such organizations as PETA among its "comprehensive list of all [their] favourite sites[^]" would commission a study designed to induce cancer toxicity in rats. Of course, I guess that comes as no surprise. After all, they are leading global warming advocates[^].
I have access to the journal (of course, the newspaper article could have screwed up which journal it's in, which they FREQUENTLY do) but unless it's not actually published yet, searching for "maize," for "MON863", "Monsanto," or even "Greenpeace" didn't turn up anything. So if anyone else figures out where it is, let me know - I'd like to see what they think "signs of toxicity" meant. Not that I don't trust Greenpeace, of course. :rolleyes: However, let's say they did find "signs of toxicity." Well, here's Monsanto's contribution.
Hammond B; Lemen J; Dudek R; Ward D; Jiang C; Nemeth M; Burns J. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food And Chemical Toxicology. 2006 Feb; Vol. 44 (2), pp. 147-60.
The results of a 90-day rat feeding study with YieldGard (YieldGard Rootworm Corn is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology, LLC.) Rootworm corn (MON 863) grain that is protected against feeding damage caused by corn rootworm larvae are presented. Corn rootworm-protection was accomplished through the introduction of a cry3Bb1 coding sequence into the corn genome for in planta production of a modified Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis. Grain from MON 863 and its near isogenic control were separately formulated into rodent diets at levels of 11% and 33% (w/w) by Purina Mills, Inc. Additionally, six groups of rats were fed diets containing grain from different conventional (non-biotechnology-derived) reference varieties. The responses of rats fed diets containing MON 863 were compared to those of rats fed grain from conventional corn varieties. All diets were nutritionally balanced and conformed to Purina Mills, Inc. specifications for Certified LabDiet 5002. There were a total of 400 rats in the study divided into 10 groups of 20 rats/sex/group. Overall health, body weight gain, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues were comparable between groups fed diets containing MON 863 and conventional corn varieties. This study complements extensive agronomic, compositional and farm animal feeding studies with MON 863 grain, confirming that it is as safe and nutritious as existing conventional corn varieties.
So at face value they're even. One study shows something, one study shows nothing. Though, I can't compare the study quality if I can't find one of th