squiggly said:

Checked out the study.

The feed used was commercially grown and was glyphosate resistant. I can nearly guarantee it was totally inundated with pesticides. It's not possible to delineate which of the effects on the animal were a result of genes versus those which might be a result of pesticide use.

In order to do this, feed would need to be laboratory grown.

That said, it's still alarming. As I said it's bad either way, obviously SOMETHING is going wrong right? From my perspective it's very unlikely to be a result of genetic differences, and is more likely to be a result of pesticide toxicity (which are known to cause these types of disorders).

As I said before I think the battle cry should be to get these fuckin' pesticides the hell away from our food. The studies should be focusing on the effects of exposure to pesticides, because then we could see some comparative data:

IE

1. One set of pigs gets the GMO diet, not treated with pesticides.

2. One set of pigs get the GMO diet, treated with pesticides.

My money, and the smart money, says that #2 will be where you see lots of problems with the animals. End of the day there's no money to be made by doing this study though--and it's for three very simple reasons.

#1. We already know that pesticides are responsible for a myriad of ill health effects. IE the discovery wouldn't be novel.

#2. No commercial farmer on the planet has any intention of undertaking a plan for the cessation of pesticide usage. Its not economically viable in any sense of the word.

#3. Pesticides aren't controversial enough right now--everyone is focused on the "GMO" moniker.

Click to expand...

Be careful how defensive you become of GM. The producers and inventors of GM have hired many purveyors of GMO to prove it's usefulness and safety. Yet these purveyors lack real intention while getting their pockets lined. In fact studies are not broad enough, have not gone long enough to realize the potential harm to animals and humans. Recent studies are emerging on GM alone with mice and rats, which every real scientist can agree, are very close to human biology.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

squiggly said:

#3. Pesticides aren't controversial enough right now--everyone is focused on the "GMO" moniker.

Click to expand...

Weed killers Are/should be controversial right now

Glyphosate Weed Killer Found in Human Urine across Europe - See more at:

Natural said:

Be careful how defensive you become of GM. The producers and inventors of GM have hired many purveyors of GMO to prove it's usefulness and safety. Yet these purveyors lack real intention while getting their pockets lined. In fact studies are not broad enough, have not gone long enough to realize the potential harm to animals and humans. Recent studies are emerging on GM alone with mice and rats, which every real scientist can agree, are very close to human biology.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

Click to expand...

Actually, no. Mice and rats are not very close to human biology.

Mice and rats are what are known as model species/organisms. These are species which we study extensively so that we understand their biology very well--not because their biology is very similar to our own. They also meet requirements for labs studies in that they are easily grown and cared for, and that they respond to selective breeding well such that traits may be bred in/out of them.

Other model species include:

E. Coli
Arabidopsis
Drosophila
Chicken
Guinea Pig

You get the picture.

As far as species which most match our own biology--we tend to look at chimps (and sometimes pigs). Even these fall well short of being on the mark.

This DOESN'T MEAN, that seeing adverse reactions in organisms like mice isn't cause for concern. It totally is--that's why we use mice and rats as a starting point. However, it's not correct to say that they have biology very similar to ours.

To address your other concern--understand that I'm not being defensive of GMOs. I'm being defensive of good science which says, very clearly, that we don't prove things. It also says, in the study quoted above itself, that there are still a ton of variables at play (ie commercially grown feed versus lab grown feed) such that it's really difficult to claim a "control group" versus an "experimental" group inasmuch as it removes all confounding variables.

Like I said I think if you do the study properly from start to finish you'll still end up with alarming results--and that it makes good sense as humans to avoid these plants which have been sprayed liberally with pesticides.

I'm just a guy who thinks we should call things what they are instead of going around chasing boogeymen like a bunch of uninformed children.

What the hell is the point of being a scientist if you can never prove anything squiggly?? sometimes you just have to say "the world is not flat and i'm going to sail my ship over the edge to prove it to you!" lol You talk about good science but you make it impossible to achieve. Who the hell can grow corn in a lab?? seriously??

Only proof you need that we are being poisoned is the Cancer Rates for the last 100 years. And surviving Cancer for 5 years doesn't equate to being cured regardless the number of "scientists" that say they are Cured!

squiggly said:

Actually, no. Mice and rats are not very close to human biology.

Mice and rats are what are known as model species/organisms. These are species which we study extensively so that we understand their biology very well--not because their biology is very similar to our own. They also meet requirements for labs studies in that they are easily grown and cared for, and that they respond to selective breeding well such that traits may be bred in/out of them.

Other model species include:

E. Coli
Arabidopsis
Drosophila
Chicken
Guinea Pig

You get the picture.

As far as species which most match our own biology--we tend to look at chimps (and sometimes pigs). Even these fall well short of being on the mark.

This DOESN'T MEAN, that seeing adverse reactions in organisms like mice isn't cause for concern. It totally is--that's why we use mice and rats as a starting point. However, it's not correct to say that they have biology very similar to ours.

To address your other concern--understand that I'm not being defensive of GMOs. I'm being defensive of good science which says, very clearly, that we don't prove things. It also says, in the study quoted above itself, that there are still a ton of variables at play (ie commercially grown feed versus lab grown feed) such that it's really difficult to claim a "control group" versus an "experimental" group inasmuch as it removes all confounding variables.

Like I said I think if you do the study properly from start to finish you'll still end up with alarming results--and that it makes good sense as humans to avoid these plants which have been sprayed liberally with pesticides.

I'm just a guy who thinks we should call things what they are instead of going around chasing boogeymen like a bunch of uninformed children.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Close enough for studies.

Yes..it is hard to distinguish the dangers of GMO vs pesticide/herbicide as they tend to go hand in hand. The latter being the most obvious of dangers. Yet, the dangers of passing altered and added genes is persistent inside our bodies..and even into the microbes in water and soil. As it combines with the DNA of the organism that ingests it. It's artificial..under-studied..un-regulated madness that has only served to line the pockets of the "geniuses" that perpetuate it. We were fine 30 years ago without them...and will be fine once they get banned from use involving edibles for humans and animals.

Natural said:

Agreed. Close enough for studies.

Yes..it is hard to distinguish the dangers of GMO vs pesticide/herbicide as they tend to go hand in hand. The latter being the most obvious of dangers. Yet, the dangers of passing altered and added genes is persistent inside our bodies..and even into the microbes in water and soil. As it combines with the DNA of the organism that ingests it. It's artificial..under-studied..un-regulated madness that has only served to line the pockets of the "geniuses" that perpetuate it. We were fine 30 years ago without them...and will be fine once they get banned from use involving edibles for humans and animals.

Click to expand...

And where are you pulling those conclusions from? Your hat?

Unfortunately no, this is not what happens even slightly.

When a human eats something which contains DNA what happens is that their stomach acid totally rapefucks the DNA and breaks it down into nucleotides almost entirely. That's simple chemistry.

Any DNA which survives the acid conditions of the stomach is thoroughly broken down in the intestine's super basic conditions.

The statistical chances of even one modified gene in a billion staying intact through this process are so astronomically low that it makes no sense to blame any kind of statistically significant result (like inflamed tissue, cancer, or the like) on this phenomenon. Literally this is as far from sense as you can get scientifically speaking.

That is precisely why it doesn't make any damn sense to study things in this way. I think, to be perfectly honest, that THIS is the ultimate weapon these companies have. They've got everyone convinced that they should be chasing a boogeyman on this side--when they know full and well its never going to lead to anything definitive.

Do a study which compares tissue after eating pesticide treated GMOs vs lab grown GMOs and the answers will come rolling in.


If you want some kind of reasoning which underlines that our body breaks down DNA, here goes.

DNA/RNA are broken down into nucleotides, which are in turn broken down into Uric acid.

Uric acid retention is responsible for the condition gout.

Sufferers of gout are not supposed to eat a lot of red meat. Why?

Because red meat consists of muscle tissue which is composed of cells which are multinucleated--which is to say that each cell has more than one nucleus, which means there is a lot more DNA there to be broken down.

More DNA---->More nucleotides--->More uric acid---->Worse gout.

It's not magic, guys. The body thoroughly destroys DNA upon ingestion--and even if some did survive, as I said, the chances of the one gene which was modified being left untouched are so retardedly low that it barely makes sense to even point that out.

We're talking about a genome (for corn as an example) that is 2500Mbp long. Thats 2500x10^6 base pairs 2.5 billion base pairs whereas a modified gene is typically about 5-6Kbp long or 6x10^3. Thats 6000 base pairs.

Crunch some numbers and you end up with

6000/2500000000 = 0.0000024% of the total material ingested.

Now expose all of it to hydrolysis conditions and you're saying that, in the true randomness that is nature, you'll end up with that 0.0000024% of the molecul being the part that lives through--in its entirety--the most damaging conditions possible for that type of molecule (indeed conditions whose sole purpose is to break down such molecules). Meanwhile, even if the stuff DID survive the chances of it being incorporated into a human cell are almost ZERO. This requires a broken membrane which is later repaired (a rare event). DNA is MUCH MUCH too polar to permeate a membrane, and our digestive tract doesnt operate by phagocytosis. Stuff must permeate a membrane to get into the blood stream and to, thus, be distributed into the body.

What you're suggesting is a perfect storm of incredibly small chances of stuff happening. It just doesn't make sense that this would be damaging on a large scale.

DNA is an EXTREMELY unstable molecule. What you're suggesting is voodoo chemistry--it doesn't happen, and if it does it certainly doesn't happen on the scale that can present results such as those which we see in some of these studies (where >75% of animals tested are developing inflammation or tumors).

Those numbers correlate about one kadrillion percent better with what is expected from prolonged pesticide exposure.

The kicker is that we already KNOW this. We KNOW that pesticides do this shit. Meanwhile everyone is looking at the scary DNA because they've watched too much Sci Fi.

Monsanto is all too happy to continue producing pesticides and having farmers spray them all the fuck over the place while we chase the boogeyman.

"A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans. Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement."
~Thierry Vrain (Canadian Scientist for Agriculture)

That's not to say pesticides/herbicides are the more dangerous to the nth degree..but still GM is not studied enough to know the full impacts..it's not natural and not warranted.

Yes bacteria can absorb genes--not humans.

squiggly said:

Yes bacteria can absorb genes--not humans.

Click to expand...

There is honor in your words about the public worry being directed towards pesticide/herbicide being the better fight. Let me be clear, that is great! Without Bt and the like..we really may not have to worry about GM's, which may prove are no more harmful than antibiotics. Although, not enough studies beyond practical theory have been sought out; that in itself does not determine the absence of any danger.
I don't know how old(young) ya'll are..but if you can remember the early 80's, you will remember a different FDA. It used to take decades for drugs to go through trial and study. Lobbyist and corrupt lawmakers have changed that dramatically....i.e. a side effect of death is acceptable. The state of responsibility has gone way past comedic. We are subjecting ourselves to experimental products with little to no morality or clarity.

dirk d said:

What the hell is the point of being a scientist if you can never prove anything squiggly?? sometimes you just have to say "the world is not flat and i'm going to sail my ship over the edge to prove it to you!" lol You talk about good science but you make it impossible to achieve. Who the hell can grow corn in a lab?? seriously??

Only proof you need that we are being poisoned is the Cancer Rates for the last 100 years. And surviving Cancer for 5 years doesn't equate to being cured regardless the number of "scientists" that say they are Cured!

Click to expand...

Follow the cancer and the money and it'll all make sense.....take it easy

squiggly said:

Yes bacteria can absorb genes--not humans.

Click to expand...

Just so nyone reading this can stay informed; bacteria in no way "absorbs" genes...........thats not possible, that has to be ona the most ignorant things i've heard for quite some time. inorder for bacteria to absorb genes it would have to produces a dna inhibitor enzyme(which would never happen because by doing so it would self-destruct, which nature doesn't allot) then it would have to use that enzyme to cut it's own dna then it would have to find 2 more enzymes that it can't produce inorder to splice it's dna to except the incoming gene........in other words that is extremely ignorant....rather the bacteria grows for generations in a given enviroment then adapts to that enviroment....it doesn't "absorb" genes out of the enviroment........take it easy

Natural said:

There is honor in your words about the public worry being directed towards pesticide/herbicide being the better fight. Let me be clear, that is great! Without Bt and the like..we really may not have to worry about GM's, which may prove are no more harmful than antibiotics. Although, not enough studies beyond practical theory have been sought out; that in itself does not determine the absence of any danger.
I don't know how old(young) ya'll are..but if you can remember the early 80's, you will remember a different FDA. It used to take decades for drugs to go through trial and study. Lobbyist and corrupt lawmakers have changed that dramatically....i.e. a side effect of death is acceptable. The state of responsibility has gone way past comedic. We are subjecting ourselves to experimental products with little to no morality or clarity.

Click to expand...

Well said. I agree with almost all of your posts, Natural. And you are much more diplomatic (and kinder) than my approaches. I am still learning. :)

on another note: who do you think does almost all (if not all) of the "research and studies" on GMO's, vaccines, etc? .

Any TRUE independent studies are swept under the rug and/or attacked as quackery by the mainstream media (aka Presstitutes)

Ohiofarmer said:

Just so nyone reading this can stay informed; bacteria in no way "absorbs" genes...........thats not possible, that has to be ona the most ignorant things i've heard for quite some time. inorder for bacteria to absorb genes it would have to produces a dna inhibitor enzyme(which would never happen because by doing so it would self-destruct, which nature doesn't allot) then it would have to use that enzyme to cut it's own dna then it would have to find 2 more enzymes that it can't produce inorder to splice it's dna to except the incoming gene........in other words that is extremely ignorant....rather the bacteria grows for generations in a given enviroment then adapts to that enviroment....it doesn't "absorb" genes out of the enviroment........take it easy

Click to expand...

No..what he's saying is that they absorb dna from other bacterium not just the enviro...which might be better than what I said of them ingesting..it's definitely more of an absorption called horizontal gene transfer.

Ohiofarmer said:

Just so nyone reading this can stay informed; bacteria in no way "absorbs" genes...........thats not possible, that has to be ona the most ignorant things i've heard for quite some time. inorder for bacteria to absorb genes it would have to produces a dna inhibitor enzyme(which would never happen because by doing so it would self-destruct, which nature doesn't allot) then it would have to use that enzyme to cut it's own dna then it would have to find 2 more enzymes that it can't produce inorder to splice it's dna to except the incoming gene........in other words that is extremely ignorant....rather the bacteria grows for generations in a given enviroment then adapts to that enviroment....it doesn't "absorb" genes out of the enviroment........take it easy

Click to expand...

Wrong. Just flat out wrong.

You see, I sort of went to school to learn about this shit--whereas you're just pulling things out of your ass.

So, to make it really simple for you.

1. YOU sir are the one who is ignorant (in the true meaning of that word, which means that you lack the knowledge to properly discuss this topic).

2. Read em and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(genetics)

This is a Biology 101 lab (bacterial transformation). It's literally the very first lab I did in college like 6 years ago. Not only did it not take generations to get E. Coli (which is quite prominent in the human gut) to develop ampicilin resistance from exogenous DNA--it took less than 5 minutes (it took about 45 seconds to be precise).


Congratulations on knowing what you're talking about, though. (Sarcasm)


PS: In case you're having trouble extracting the requisite knowledge from that wiki document here is the important part:

In molecular biology, transformation is genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the DIRECT UPTAKE, incorporation, and expression of EXOGENOUS GENETIC MATERIAL (exogenous DNA) from it's surroundings and taken up through the cell membrane(s).

Having a degree in biochemistry and molecular biology (which I am assuming you do not have) helps a lot when discussing such things, it's worth noting.

I'll take that conditionless apology any time you wanna get around to it, buddy. Thanks.


An aside for everyone:

If you want to "stay informed" about things involving chemistry, biochemistry, or molecular biology--it's a safe bet that you can totally ignore Ohiofarmer and err on the side of the professional. I'm no Einstein, but at least I have command over most the basic concepts from these disciplines.

Natural said:

No..what he's saying is that they absorb dna from other bacterium not just the enviro...which might be better than what I said of them ingesting..it's definitely more of an absorption called horizontal gene transfer.

Click to expand...

Nope they can plain old take it up from solution--doesn't even need to come from other bacteria (although they can do this as well and it's called horizontal gene transfer [HGT]--a different process).

kolah said:

Well said. I agree with almost all of your posts, Natural. And you are much more diplomatic (and kinder) than my approaches. I am still learning. :)

on another note: who do you think does almost all (if not all) of the "research and studies" on GMO's, vaccines, etc? .

Any TRUE independent studies are swept under the rug and/or attacked as quackery by the mainstream media (aka Presstitutes)

Click to expand...

See for once I actually agree with the kolah conspiracy. I think the "independent studies" would certainly focus on pesticides rather than GMOs. It seems to me like Monsanto and the like are actually behind most of these studies--because they just keep the scientific community (and people trying to extract information from it) chasing their tails.

the genes transform.....not get absorbed; and see i kinda splice genes so you can stfu and quit playin scientist; hoq bout you just use google or become informed before making posts that you then have to protect b/c you just blurt out whatever whack opinionion you have then try to convince others your right b/c your a "scientist" when in reality your a kid online pretending to be a scientist or you are an undergrad with very bad googling skills......i've spliced over 3 seperate organisms; you need to pull your face outta your ass kid........take it easy from now on i'll respond to your post simply by correcting what you say when you play online scientist.

and you've stated several times before that you went to school for organic chemistry so make up your mind

how bout you go play with some nano-tubes; that don't exist right? ha