This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Genetically Engineered Food aka Franken-Fish

13»

Comments

  • Burden of proof.
    One of those, are you. Well I linked as far into it as I'm going to. I'm not getting a bio PHD and conducting years of research to make better blanket statements as an excuse for a movie reference in flamewar forums.
    Are you fucking serious? Rule #1 of logical arguments is that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. That scientist hasn't even made the paper public. I didn't even know that was a movie reference either-- to me, it's just common fucking sense.

    I question your claim that you're getting a bio PhD if you're willing to buy that without a paper and then claim that the burden of proof is NOT on you. What year of school are you? Where are you studying?

    If you are a troll, fucking 10/10, mate. I raged so hard I need a nap.
  • If you are a troll, fucking 10/10, mate.
    Pretty sure it's trolling. I mean, "flamewar forums?" Trolling.

    I actually spent time digging around at this. No paper anywhere. This whole thing sounds like a Russian scientist was trolling everyone.
  • excuse for a movie reference in flamewar forums.
    That was the best way to reference Children of Men in the forums? (reminds me I have to watch that movie again).
  • edited April 2011
    Critical thinking leads me to believe you didn't read the whole article.
    Okay, let's play my favorite game, Fuck you Bad Journalism. Sorry if I repeat anyone who posted while I was running this one down.

    - The article is written by Jeffery Smith, whose byline ON THAT VERY ARTICLE reads "The world's leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices", and is noted as having written two books about GMO foods which are utter bollocks, pure Randi woowoo bullshit. Suffice it to say, I think he might have just a wee little bit of an agenda. Unlike Medical, Scientific, or agricultural experience, of which he as absolutely none.

    - If you don't belive the article is going to push an agenda, the OPENING FUCKING LINE is ""This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century."

    - Speaking of Surov, the Institute of Ecology and Evolution not only doesn't list Surov as having published any such paper, Nor anyone at the institute as having published or been involved in any such paper, Nor have they put out any information about this story in the way of press or news. In fact, the only linking of them back to the study that I found was either this article, or things which refer to this article or it's origin, Smith's website. In fact - though I may be mistaken, even if I'm taking the information directly from their website - they don't have ANY published research on Genetically modified anything.

    - The National Association for Gene Security is a ghost. No matter how broad or refined I make my search, I find no information about them, other than that they released a study about GM food causing sterility.

    - The study was going to be published last year, in July. Again, no matter how broad or narrow I make my search, It is never published or mentioned outside of smith speaking of it, but then again, it might be published somewhere I don't have access too - though not even being able to dig up an abstract or details on where it's published is highly unusual.

    - The other paper the claimed Surov published Does exist, and the scientists involved theorized, indeed, that diet may have been involved, but not that it had anything to do with GM food. Also, if that study was related, you'd think that Smith would have mentioned that the hamsters were growing hair in their cheek pouches which would both confirm the previous assertion about Surov's other paper, and lend credence to his invisible made up study.

    - If the Study is as routine as Surov claims, then it should be reproducible. Nobody has tried, as far as I can tell, but we'll see.

    - About halfway down, smith falls into his usual Monsanto agenda.

    - 3/4 of the links he puts out are to his own website, which is the same woowoo bullshit as his books, and two studies, one of which he links to is only an abstract and doesn't quite say what he says it does, and the smaller babies study doesn't say what he says it does - but he's relying on the fact that the vast majority of people will be impressed by the fact he linked studies, without reading the actual studies - which is a pretty standard trick.

    - He follows that up with a story about a farmer which has zero ability to confirm it. Pure anecdote presented as data.

    - The Study with the rats and the bedding is partially true, and did happen, showing that the corncob bedding impeded mating in some of the animals - which is a bit different to "Do not breed or exhibit reproductive behavior" - and in fact, that exact phrase does not appear anywhere in the paper. However, both articles he links in relation to that have absolutely nothing to do with GM food - even the one he says is research about how the amount of these chemicals varies in GM food.

    - About the buffalo in Haryana, India, the only evidence of this all links back to Jeffery Smith saying it, meaning it's likely he's the originator of the claim.

    Nearly there! Final two sections.

    The second to last section is not worth talking about - But I will anyway.

    I know the story of Ermakova. The reason her studies were tossed out and ignored is because they were utter bullshit, because she's an utter fucking kook. Reading that section, it just sounds like classic conspiracy theory paranoia - Of COURSE we don't have our evidence any more, they STOLE it all and DESTROYED it! Also - My Russian is extremely shaky, but I'm not even entirely sure she worked as a scientist at the Russian academy of sciences. However, from the english results, I can tell you that the only People who describe her as a scientist at the RAS - Let alone the "Leading Scientist" at the "Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology" - are Herself, and Anti-GM nutbars. None of her papers are in any way reputable or useful.

    Yeah, basically - He's delusional. The only reason that these supposed Anti-GM findings and scientists are attacked is because usually they're woo-slinging bullshit artists, or their studies are so unscientific as to be utterly useless, and thus, the scientific community discards them as being the kooks they are.

    Final paragraph, he's just trying to do the "WOOO GM IS SCARY DON'T ACCEPT IT BECAUSE IT'S BAD BECAUSE I SAY SO WOOOOO" bollocks. The quote from Surov is utterly unverifiable - as is a theme here, the only person it links back to....is Jeffery Smith.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Heh. Nice ownage.
  • Are you fucking serious? Rule #1 of logical arguments is that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. That scientist hasn't even made the paper public. I didn't even know that was a movie reference either-- to me, it's just common fucking sense.

    I question your claim that you're getting a bio PhD if you're willing to buy that without a paper and then claim that the burden of proof is NOT on you. What year of school are you? Where are you studying?

    If you are a troll, fucking 10/10, mate. I raged so hard I need a nap.
    Do you know what they say about people who reference the rules of logical arguments on the internet? That your straw man hasn't seen a slippery slope. ;-)

    Anyway, joking aside, I literally meant that I have no intention of doing the necessary education and research to back up my broad claim, which I derived in total from that tangentially related article. I thought those discussing would find it interesting; I'm not trying to proselytize an anti-GMO movement solely on it's merit. There are plenty of more compelling reasons to not support GMO crops, the widespread use of atrazine being a major one, as you said.

    As an aside, all I know is that the Institute of Ecology and Evolution didn't publish it in English or online, as the only publications listed with A. Surov's name attached were from 1984. I can't even find a site for the National Association for Gene Security. The original Voice of Russia article sourced was from a year ago and the findings were announced to kick off something called "Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards." Publication was supposed to take 3 months.

    I found this which may be the publication of the oral hair portion of the study. It has the right date and author, but not the right scientific institute. Maybe this all belongs in the fluoride conspiracy thread under the heading of suppressed news about the dangers of GMO crops. ;-)
  • edited April 2011
    Watching Fox News causes infertility after 3 generations. It's true; I did a study. I can't give it to you though, because it's top secret. The government doesn't want you to see it and know the truth. You all need to stop watching Fox News because it is bad and scary and will kill your children!
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • edited April 2011
    excuse for a movie reference in flamewar forums.
    That was the best way to reference Children of Men in the forums? (reminds me I have to watch that movie again).
    One of many ways. Suicide bombs, converted fishing vessels, slums, quaint farms, long film shots, and boring office work are others. Children of Men in all things. Amen.
    Post edited by Special A on
  • Fuck Monsanto.

    Just thought I'd throw that out there.
  • Watching Fox News causes infertility after 3 generations. It's true; I did a study. I can't give it to you though, because it's top secret. The government doesn't want you to see it and know the truth. You all need to stop watching Fox News because it is bad and scary and will kill your children!
    This statement brought to you by the world's leading advocate for non-Fox News journalism.
  • As an aside, all I know is that the Institute of Ecology and Evolution didn't publish it in English or online, as the only publications listed with A. Surov's name attached were from 1984. I can't even find a site for the National Association for Gene Security. The original Voice of Russia article sourced was from a year ago and the findings were announced to kick off something called "Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards." Publication was supposed to take 3 months.
    If it did the study, it didn't publish it or mention it anywhere in any fashion I can find links to anywhere, in English or Russian - Needless to say, that is pretty unusual for them.
    I found this which may be the publication of the oral hair portion of the study. It has the right date and author, but not the right scientific institute. Maybe this all belongs in the fluoride conspiracy thread under the heading of suppressed news about the dangers of GMO crops. ;-)
    Correct -coauthor, and it was published where it was claimed, vIn Doklady Biological sciences, but as to the reputability of that journal I'm unsure, simply for lack of research. However, that is not part of the study Smith claims - which frankly, I have extreme doubts about the very existence of - it is an entirely separate study, and had nothing to do with GM food.

    I'm pretty sure this one can be filed under conspiracy theory, though.
  • edited April 2011
    I'm pretty sure this one can be filed under conspiracy theory, though.
    Tell that to the poly-amorous collective I live with on my earthship! Have you ever thought about the consequences of GMO crops....on weed!? I'm spiritual, not religious.
    Post edited by Special A on
  • Have you ever thought about the consequences of GMO crops....on weed!?
    Perfect, we always wanted to make it so hippies couldn't breed :-p
  • Correct -coauthor, and it was published where it was claimed, vIn Doklady Biological sciences, but as to the reputability of that journal I'm unsure, simply for lack of research. However, that is not part of the study Smith claims - which frankly, I have extreme doubts about the very existence of - it is an entirely separate study, and had nothing to do with GM food.
    You said everything I was going to so far, which means I can get back to my research. You're right about the journal reputation, a quick search didn't give me anything on its impact factor (red flag go!). But, I did fine the abstract for the hamster hair paper here.
Sign In or Register to comment.