# Genetically Modified Food



## Croghanite (Nov 18, 2008)

Watch this documentary about genetically modified organisms (GMO).Most food in Europe has to be labeled GMO if 0.9% of ingredients are GMO. They are attempting to get animal products labeled i.e. eggs, milk etc. 

[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3764995188693165078&hl=en"]The Future of Food- Lilly Films[/ame]


----------



## Answerman (Nov 18, 2008)

Being 1.5hrs I will have to watch it later but I watched another documentary that claims in the case of GMO corn, they basically shoot bug genes into the corn so that the corn produces a peciticide and when you eat it, it stays in your stomach and keeps producing pesticides which would basically turns our food into a slow kill drug. If this is in fact the case, I think that it is time for Christians to start asserting some Christian ethics into this whole GMO food issue. Does this documentary go into this aspect of GMO foods?


----------



## Croghanite (Nov 18, 2008)

Answerman said:


> Being 1.5hrs I will have to watch it later but I watched another documentary that claims in the case of GMO corn, they basically shoot bug genes into the corn so that the corn produces a peciticide and when you eat it, it stays in your stomach and keeps producing pesticides which would basically turns our food into a slow kill drug. If this is in fact the case, I think that it is time for Christians to start asserting some Christian ethics into this whole GMO food issue. Does this documentary go into this aspect of GMO foods?



The documentary in the OP is the best introductory information on GMOs that I have seen. The documentary is put together very well and it is entertaining. It's a good watch

_The world according to Monsanto_ is a very informative documentary on GMOs that goes more in-depth about Monsanto and the supposed adverse health affects. This documentary is extremely boring, not entertaining, but has a great deal of good info in it.


----------



## Croghanite (Nov 18, 2008)

I am confident that if any of you folks watch the OP documentary, you will be pleased and glad that you watched it. I also believe that folks need to know about what is in our food and I think you will be surprised to find out how much of our food is Genetically Modified. 

Anyone heard of GMO's before this thread? Genetically modified food in particular.


----------



## Augusta (Nov 19, 2008)

Whoa! I don't even know where to start. Very informative. I truly hope that it isn't as bad as that.


----------



## TimV (Nov 19, 2008)

All of us in agriculture have. They've been used for years now.

I'll expand a bit on what Answerman said. There is a sort of bacteria,_Bacillus thurengiensis,_ or BT which has been for years a life saver. The older people here remember when we often got worms in our ears of corn. Caterpillars are expensive!! Take fruits and nuts. You can't hardly sell apples if the customer gets a half of a worm after a bite. But you could spray this bacteria on your crops, and it would only target caterpillars. Not the good bugs, which is good for stewardship, and you don't have to wait much time after spraying before you harvest, because it doesn't hurt humans or farm animals to eat it. Not like dangerous chemicals, which can require over a month before you can legally harvest, due to it's danger to us.

So, someone gets a bright idea. Take the genes that do the actual killing of the caterpillars from BT and splice them into crops. Take corn. If you could cause caterpillars to die just by eating corn just think about how much gas, pesticides, labor etc.. you can save. Good for everyone, right? I remember my roommate in Uni, who's from a big walnut growing family. Think about how big walnuts are. Think about the expenses of spraying every inch of an orchard of trees thirty feet tall! He used to dream about splicing those genes into walnut trees.

And the same for tomatoes. I did a trial for my company for long shell life tomatoes. Imagine a tomato that will keep for weeks!!! You just take a gene from a sheep, splice it in, and there you have it.

So, now to ethics. For a theonomist, it's a no brainer. You're mixing things you're not supposed to mix. If you can't mix something so close as a horse and donkey, how much less a tomato and a sheep.

We can develop another couple ethical points as well, and I'll start with something that came up in a conversation with one of my landscape suppliers, a guy who has several nurseries.

So, we have corn. Really valuable, right? Where do you go if you want to breed something like disease resistance into corn? Or other useful traits? Like high levels of lysine or other nutritional benefits, getting corn to grow in difficult climates, etc..

Where you go its to where corn came from. To the huge genetic pool in Central America where corn came from. You go around and collect all sorts of samples of corn from villages, corn like grasses and so forth and start looking for genes. But what happens to that gene pool when some farmers get this genetically modified corn to grow? Corn is open pollinated. Before you know it (and my friend said it's in the process) that wonderful gene pool is polluted by the pollen of this Frankenstein. I don't think I have to draw this out further.

Now another (since I'm on a roll). So, this pollen causes this gene to get into other grass family species. Say it's a weed that naturally is kept under control by (drum roll) caterpillars. What type of advantage are we giving to something that will become an enemy to us in the future? Super weeds!

There's quite a bit more we can draw out. I frankly doubt that that gene will do anything to us, Answerman (although if you've seen research, I'll defer to you). We've been eating this stuff as a minute pesticide residue for years. It surely can't get into our cells. I can't see how it would build up in us (although again, I'm teachable). But there are SOOOO many other ways that this technology can do some major league messing around with things I'm in favor of stopping it right away.

You know, I've noticed that whenever someone comes up with an idea of removing the Sweat from our Brows in agriculture, it comes back to bite us. I'm all for saving effort, efficiency and the rest, but creating new life forms isn't the way to go, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Croghanite (Nov 19, 2008)

*Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Threaten Human Fer*

_Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops
Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety _

Your milk on drugs. Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone rBGH is banned in many countries but not in the US.

For further study on GMO's, see:
here
here


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

I had never thought about it ethically before. Thanks for the points.

As for health reasons, I do not doubt one bit that it is bad for us. Tim mentioned that he does not think it can get into our cells. Well I do not know if it gets into our cells, but our bodies have to fight it off somehow. I see the problem in that our body can only fight off so many things before something slips through. This is one reason why I believe cancer is so rampant. Our bodies are so busy fighting (inefficiently I might add due to poor nutrittion) off the junk we eat, that it cannot fight off the big things like cancer or diabetes. 

To combat this, I personally believe all Christians should eat an all-natural/organic diet. It makes our bodies run better and last longer. I have seen with my own eyes one person who was diagnosed with cancer. This scared the pants off her and her family. She had read something about eating organic and beating cancer once so she immediately switched to an all organic diet and within a matter of months the cancer was gone (without any real treatment from doctors). Another man who went to my church was diagnosed with diabetes. After reading The Maker's Diet, he went to an OT style natural diet. Within a month his diabetes was gone. The doctors were amazed and the man to this day says his change of diet was the reason.

God designed our bodies to fight off disease and infection. We as good stewards of what God has given us should enable our bodies to run at its peak, which means giving our bodies the best possible diet and nutrition possible.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

TimV said:


> So, now to ethics. For a theonomist, it's a no brainer. You're mixing things you're not supposed to mix.



???? 

THis is a no brainer? Who knows what is not supposed to be mixed? Cotton and polyester still a bad combo?


Gentically altered food sounds great to me. What better way to lessen hunger and exercise dominion.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

I daily see folks who eat nothing but "organic" and most of them die before 3. 

I think we romanticize "all natural" stuff but I see "all-natural" all the time and people are sick and dying all around. 

We are to exercise dominion over the earth, that can mean changing it and tweaking it to fill our needs.



Medicines and vaccinations are not all-natural and they fight off sickness a lot better than the unaided human body much of the time.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 19, 2008)

I just want my food to taste good.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I daily see folks who eat nothing but "organic" and most of them die before 3.
> 
> I think we romanticize "all natural" stuff but I see "all-natural" all the time and people are sick and dying all around.
> 
> ...



I not sure who you are seeing dying so I cannot comment on them. I can only say that the group of guys I hang out with that are all natural or organic are some of the most in shape people I have ever met. They have more energy and get sick less than most people.

What I do see is people dying all time due to bad diet. Alot of heart disease could have been prevented through simple dietary lifestyle changes, but they continue to eat bad food in large quantities.


Could you elaborate on the all natural people dying all around you?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

what could be more natural than roots and wild animals?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

Nothing could be more natural, but cornpillar is not natural.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I daily see folks who eat nothing but "organic" and most of them die before 3.
> 
> I think we romanticize "all natural" stuff but I see "all-natural" all the time and people are sick and dying all around.
> 
> ...



Medicines and vaccinations are good, but how many times have we heard cases where antibiotics are no longer working because we take them too much? We are too pampered to just accept the fact that I got a cold and deal with it for a few days. Instead we rush to a doctor who gives us the latest and greatest antibiotic. In return the bacteria mutates and becomes resistant (mostly because again we are too lazy to finish the medication once we start to feel better). 

Vaccines are being proved more and more to cause autism in children. The high mercury is not good for developing babies.

Overkill is bad. For example, the army requires me to get a flu vaccine each and every year. Why? the flu will not kill me. I may get sick for a week, but in the end I still live and turn back to normal.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> what could be more natural than roots and wild animals?



What on earth are you talking about? This isn't a proper diet. Are you equating eating roots to those who will not eat GMO foods? 

Respectfully, do you know anything about GMO's?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

mangum said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > what could be more natural than roots and wild animals?
> ...




I had mentioned that we should eat natural which was my anti-GMO food stance.

Perg gave his quote in reference to the genetically mutated corn from earlier. I doubt he was saying that was all we needed to eat.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

A few links for those who would like to read up on GMO's before opining:

Home - Institute for Responsible Technology

Home - Seeds of Deception

Really, watch the documentary in the OP - especially if you are unaware of GMO's.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

Who is talking about overkill? 

I am merely defending the good practice of altering our environment.


Altering our food makes it more plentiful;pesticides have helped; DDT has saved lives from malaria, vaccinations benefit 99.99% of the population.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Who is talking about overkill?
> 
> I am merely defending the good practice of altering our environment.
> 
> ...



Altering our food makes it less plentiful; pesticides have killed and called diseases; you shouldn't eat DDT as part of your daily diet; some vaccinatians have benefited some people.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I am talking about jungle tribes who live "naturally"; and more than half never live to 18. Dominating our environment has consistently made us - on average - more and more and more healthy.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I daily see folks who eat nothing but "organic" and most of them die before 3.
> ...




1 out of 150 kids today are diagnosed with a form of autism.

Avoid Flu Shots, Take Vitamin D Instead by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

mangum said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Who is talking about overkill?
> ...



Altering our food makes it MORE plentiful as does pesticides, or else why would anyone have ever begin using them in the first place?

Who said you should eat DDT everyday? 


And the majority of all vaccinations have benefitted a large majority of the people that took them. 


I dare you to come live with me and not keep up with your immuniations!


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



As soon as you do some (a lot!) of study and research on the many topics you've brought up (and made sweeping conclusions based on your assumptions) I will do so. 

And when you say "immunizations" that could be referring to thousands of different sorts. It's not a catch-all phrase.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

As it happens, two people that I know of at work have become severely ill from a flu shot they just took. One has been _hospitalized_. A few others had just a "small flu" for a week. I am the only one who has not taken the shot... I'm also the only one who has not had the flu. (The only time I ever got the flu was in 2003...the same day I had a flu shot).

All of them were upset with me when I showed them the CDC report that NONE of the flu shots in this region prevented ANY of the strains of flu last year! They, and most of the faithful, have no idea that it is a las vegas gamble at best for the shot to prevent flu that changes every year. 

After this, the co-workers would not receive any documentation from me concerning the ingredients in the shot.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that approved immunizations are unsafe; the research has been done already.

Immunizations include MMR and polio which have done a LOT of good.

Don't feed me junk science here and then demand that I disprove it.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

p.s. I am a nurse and my wife was a community health nurse over our whole county in the US. Yet you tell me to do my studying and get my facts straight before I get back to you?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

If you want to take about the flu shots, lets start another thread. Don't lump flu shots in with MMR and polio and then discredit the whole batch.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> The burden of proof lies on you to prove that approved immunizations are unsafe; the research has been done already.
> 
> Immunizations include MMR and polio which have done a LOT of good.
> 
> Don't feed me junk science here and then demand that I disprove it.



What junk science have I fed you? None. Relax. And, I know most people equate "government approved" with "thus sayeth the Lord" so I only cite _government_ research. The documentation I give to these types will never be from independent sources. 

We are having some over lap with topics here.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> p.s. I am a nurse and my wife was a community health nurse over our whole county in the US. Yet you tell me to do my studying and get my facts straight before I get back to you?



Wasn't aware you being a nurse qualifies you to opine on all things scientific. Would it suit you if I cited my trusted medical professional against your wife's credentials? Is this how science is done?


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If you want to take about the flu shots, lets start another thread. Don't lump flu shots in with MMR and polio and then discredit the whole batch.



I didn't lump flu shots in with MMR and polio. Relax.

My flu shot post was in response to the flu shot posts earlier by Chaplainintraining.

Gotta go.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

mangum said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Who is talking about overkill?
> ...




Agreed.

We do not know how how many vaccines have helped people.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

Here is a great article detailing the health hazards of GMO. I cringe at the part that mentions experiments showing that consuming GMO caused deterioration of organs.

Health Hazards of Genetically-Manipulated (GMO) Foods

PS. I personally believe the FDA can be bought, so I do not trust everything they say.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

MMR and Polio immunizations have been studied and the reports published in non-governmental peer reviewed medical journals. Flu shots less so. 


You yourself typed that you read a CDC report and showed it to someone else to refute them. Do you believe that this is a "thus sayeth the Lord" report? You are arguing using overstatements, and rhetoric.

We follow CDC recommendations almost all the time.

We are not opining on all things scientific but we are opining on a narrower topic of immunizations and public health, which is my wife's expertise. I wasn't aware that being a theological student made you an expert on organic foods either.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



We DO and CAN know how many vaccines have helped people by a sampling of general statistics, though this is not exact and this is done after the fact (i.e. of no use to us as a preventative measure).


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

Here is a site outlining some facts of autism and vaccines.

K.N.O.W. Vaccines - The Autism – Vaccine Connection

Jenny McCarthy recently put out a book detailing her struggles with her autistic child. She says the boy was perfectly prior to vaccines. After vaccination autism set in. Since she has been a spokeswoman against vaccinations or at least the high mercury content in the vaccinations. I have not read it and obviously do not condone Mrs. McCarthy's lifestyle, but I hear the book is very informative.


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 19, 2008)

I'll stick with Heirloom seeds. 

In addition, when I go to the Farmer's Market I don't mind finding a few bugs in my vegetables. This tells me the farmer hasn't saturated their vegetables with pesticides. A few bugs aren't necessarily bad.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> MMR and Polio immunizations have been studied and the reports published in non-governmental peer reviewed medical journals. Flu shots less so.
> 
> 
> You yourself typed that you read a CDC report and showed it to someone else to refute them. Do you believe that this is a "thus sayeth the Lord" report? You are arguing using overstatements, and rhetoric.
> ...



It appears you can't or won't relax. You seem to be having trouble following some of my statements. No worries, friend. Take every shot they give you. Don't read the label. Don't read or accept any report contrary to those you have accepted already. Go your way in peace. 

Note, I work full time - electrical engineering by vocation; I am a student of theology as well. So, I do not know what you're getting at by your last comment. No where was it implied I am an expert on organic foods. Rather, it was you who pulled the 'I'm a nurse and my wife is ....etc' comment to somehow bolster your assertions.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Blue Tick said:


> I'll stick with Heirloom seeds.
> 
> In addition, when I go to the Farmer's Market I don't mind finding a few bugs in my vegetables. This tells me the farmer hasn't saturated their vegetables with pesticides. A few bugs aren't necessarily bad.



Excellent resource.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > mangum said:
> ...



Could I see some research on this?

What research I have seen on tribes that are secluded and live off the land is that cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and nearly all major illnesses are non-existent. I do not know about their life expectancy though.

Also several reports have been done in years past about people in Okinawa who would basically live off the land and fish. The reason for the research was an attempt to find out why these people lived longer than any other group in the world.


----------



## CDM (Nov 19, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



Good point. Anyone can do a simple google news search for autism rates in the Amish community. Guess how many of the Amish have autism and how fast is the rate growing?

Zero and zero.


----------



## TimV (Nov 19, 2008)

> Gentically altered food sounds great to me. What better way to lessen hunger and exercise dominion.



How long have you been on that Island? They've got GM seeds right now. If you switched all their traditional seeds and tubers with GM seeds and tubers they'd still be hungry.

I can of the top of my head think of about 25 practical ways which would lessen hunger on your island more significantly then GM foods. But it takes very slow, patient work. Ideas of thrift, hard work, and foresight.

I could go to your village with a not unreasonable amount of capital and within one year stop hunger in the area. I've done it several times. It involves using my authority as an employer (and hopeful some moral authority as well, which also takes about a year to build up in tribal areas) to force the people to do things they don't naturally want to do.

Showing up on time. Being detailed. Starting from one end and consistently working to the other. No petty bickering, building storage area, no stealing, doing what's asked instead of whining about doing more than the other guy, teaching hygiene, inventory control, record keeping.

Those are the things that make modern, productive agriculture.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

Good post Tim,

One thing that bothers me about GMO is that one of the previous posts even mentioned that it saved money. This leads me to see that GMOs arise not for the betterment of society, but they arise out of capitalism and monetary gain.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

TimV said:


> > I've done it several times. It involves using my authority as an employer (and hopeful some moral authority as well, which also takes about a year to build up in tribal areas) to force the people to do things they don't naturally want to do.
> >
> > Showing up on time. Being detailed. Starting from one end and consistently working to the other. No petty bickering, building storage area, no stealing, doing what's asked instead of whining about doing more than the other guy, teaching hygiene, inventory control, record keeping.
> >
> ...


----------



## Croghanite (Nov 19, 2008)

perg,

Did you get the opportunity to watch any of the documentaries I posted?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

Organic Food Myths

Only hype makes organic food healthier





Paul Johnson on United States on National Review Online


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2008)

mangum said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Autism and the Amish

Do The Amish Vaccinate? Indeed They Do, AND Their Autism Rates May be Lower


A narrow gene pool (yoder, yoder, gingerich, yoder, yoder and yoder).... and reluctance to give info might contribute...


----------



## Croghanite (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Organic Food Myths
> 
> Only hype makes organic food healthier
> 
> ...



Just wanted to know if you have seen any of the documentaries I posted and what you thought about it. Does this mean you have not?


----------



## bconway52 (Nov 19, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> I just want my food to taste good.



 I would agree!


----------



## Nate (Nov 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I never said GM was the only answer. But a phobia to it I believe is unfounded.



Very wise statement. It seems that the anti-GM crowd here is doing most of their research on only one side of the issue. 
If the documentary actually did say the pesticide genes keep producing pesticide once we eat GM foods and/or the genes actually get into our cells, then we should all think very seriously about the validity of the rest of the info portrayed in the documentary (I haven't watched it yet). These ideas are absolutely ludicrous, and anyone with a BS in biology in the last 10 years would know this.

It's good and necessary to discuss/debate the real issues of GMO/vaccines etc, but make sure your sources are reputable. 

There also seem to be quite a few stories regarding associations of diseases and organic diets along with organic diets actually curing diseases like cancer. Although following an organic diet is probably a very healthy thing to do, these stories cannot in any way be used to bolster any arguments, as there is no way to know exactly what was happening. For every story you give about someone being cured of cancer from eating a healthy diet, I can provide you with 5 stories of people dying slow, horrible deaths from cancer because some charlatan convinced them that all they had to do was change their diet (usually a diet that the swindler would only provide if they bought his book). Eating healthy when in a diseased state IS important, but please don't insinuate that eating healthy is more important than listening to the advice of medical professionals.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

If you say that seeing someone being cured from any disease (take your pick which one) and the only thing they did was change their diet is not a way to bolster one's argument, then one cannot say medications cured disease either because we do not know what was really going on inside either (for example if someone has a viral infection and begins to take antibiotics, eventually that person will get better but it is not from the antibiotics).

So to take your line of thinking to its logical conclusion. We really do not know what caused disease or what cured it (if in fact cure occured) because we do not get to see what is going on the inside.

Thus would it not be fair to say that we can only determine from experiments what improves one's likelihood of A) catching a disease and B) curing the disease upon contraction?

This line of thought would fall in line with my feelings of organic diet. It is not a cure all. It is not a guarantee of anything. I simply state that it improves one's chances for the body to naturally fight off disease.


----------



## Nate (Nov 19, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> If you say that seeing someone being cured from any disease (take your pick which one) and the only thing they did was change their diet is not a way to bolster one's argument, then one cannot say medications cured disease either because we do not know what was really going on inside either (for example if someone has a viral infection and begins to take antibiotics, eventually that person will get better but it is not from the antibiotics).
> 
> So to take your line of thinking to its logical conclusion. We really do not know what caused disease or what cured it (if in fact cure occured) because we do not get to see what is going on the inside.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree that a healthy (not necessarily organic) diet improves one's chances for the body to naturally fight off diseases. Presumably all legit medical doctors agree too, which makes me a little skeptical of the medical doctors you referenced earlier who "were amazed" at the improvement of a diabetes patient who changed his diet. I study diabetes in an academic setting. Changing ones diet is the FIRST thing most doctors will tell patients to do when they are diagnosed with diabetes late in life (you said this was an adult). Type 2 diabetes runs in my family. All of my relatives that have been diagnosed with Type 2 have changed their diets. None of them have changed to an organic diet. All of them are now free of all Type 2 diabetes symptoms. See... we can go back an forth with stories (mine is true as well, by the way). It's possible (probable) that in your story, the switch to a healthier diet was more responsible for the mans health improvement rather than the organic nature of the diet.

I'm not sure I understand your other statements as many medications directly target distinct molecules and molecular mechanisms that have been shown to directly cause specific diseases. Examples for different cancers include Tamoxifen, herceptin, radiation and chemotherapy. Tamoxifen and herceptin target specific molecules that give rise to cancder; radiation and chemotherapy target specific molecular mechanisms that give rise to cancer.

I guess my main point is to be careful when you give testimonials about cancer patients who have been cured by an organic diet. If you really understand the nature of cancer, you would have to agree that advising people to go on an organic diet as opposed to seeking medical help after being diagnosed with cancer is extremely unwise and probably unethical.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

I did not mean to say that one should not go to the doctors or seek medical attention. If I came off that way, I apologize.


----------



## Answerman (Nov 19, 2008)

Here is the method that I typically use in studying an issue such as this. On the one side, it is good to be skeptical of government and corporations that stand to profit from convincing the public that something is good for us. On the other hand there are a lot of charlatans that are motivated by the same sin of greed and try to sell you something that doesn't work even though they may claim that it is based on "science". The point that I am making is that I think that skepticism of both sides of an issue is healthy. 

As a husband and a father, I take seriously the call to be the protector of my family so I do my best not to make a bad and uninformed decision in regard to matters such as this. I would hope that no matter where you come down on this issue that you are not basing your opinion on blind trust in any authority or smooth talker. It is a good idea to be familiar with logical fallacies before doing your research. It takes time to research an issue and my suggestion is to find those facts that both sides of the issue agree on and make an informed decision based on these facts. If need be, dig a little deeper on a few key facts surrounding the subject and see if you can find respected publications that corroborate said claims. Many times you will find the scientific community contradicting themselves when you compare the dumb-downed story that is given to the public for mass consumption and the detailed scientific literature.

A classic illustration of this is on the issue of evolution. Although there are many aspects of evolution that can illustrate this point, I will only deal with one. Both creationists and evolutionists agree that there are billions of dead things buried in layers of rock. Evolutionists claim that these layers were laid out over millions, if not billions of years. Creationists claim that the global flood is the best explanation for the geologic column. One key fact that creationists insist should be hard for an evolutionist to explain is the fact that the vast majority of the geologic column consist of flat knife edged layers throughout the entire column. The question that needs to be asked is, where is all the signs of water and wind erosion between the layers? Take one look at the Grand Canyon, as far as the eye can see are straight, knife edged layers. The only way that the evolutionist could be right with his assertion, is that if after each layer was laid out that there was no wind or rain for millions of years. Another related fact is that trees and other large artifacts have been found fossilized passing through multiple layers, these are called polystrate fossils. Are we to assume that thousands if not millions of years passed without these trees rotting while the layers piled up around them?

As a presuppositionalist, I typically deal with the philosophical question of what would have to be true in order for argumentation itself to be intelligible before proceeding to examples that ought to embarrass unbelieving thought but Christians need to stop being so intellectually lazy with this as with any other issue.

Now full circle back to the issue of GMO foods. First off, after many years of researching the radical corruption that governments and corporations, including our own, have been found guilty of, it has left a very bad taste in my mouth and I have become radically skeptical of any of their inventions that they try to sell us as being “good” for us. So in case you are wondering, this is why I might come off as being conspiratorial but after reading the primary documents themselves of grotesque experimentation on humans (MK-ULTRA, Operation Paperclip, Operation Teapot, Project Bluebird/Artichoke, Tuskegee), the overthrowing democratically elected officials to set up puppet governments (Operation AJAX/Iran, which was the rationale the “radical” Muslims gave for the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979-81), false flag operations to get us into wars for the benefit of the Military/Industrial Complex (Gulf of Tonkin Incident/Vietnam) to name only a few, you should understand why I have very little trust that those government officials and those corporations that have willingly participated in these operations have our best interest at heart when it comes to our health and well-being. Now in regard to GMO foods, I must admit that I have not fully researched this subject enough but there are only so many hours in the day and with the inception of the internet age, we are being bombarded with so much information and disinformation that it is hard to wade through every single issue with meticulous scrutiny, so I typically choose to err on the side of caution and not participate in the latest scientific fads until I have had a chance to make an informed decision on a matter. I have heard that most European countries have banned GMO for many of the same reasons mentioned in these documentaries so there does seem to be some scientific evidence exposing the dangers of GMO foods and that some countries have found it prudent to ban their use.

The speculation around the conspiracy circles is that the GMO foods may alter our genetic make-up (which I admit seems to be far-fetched) to make us more vulnerable to certain biological attacks and that certain viruses may be given to us in a dormant form through hidden elements in our vaccines (a little more believable). I am not saying I believe any of this but after witnessing what happened last century and after reading through the national security archives of what some people in power are capable of, I believe that an open and public debate on this subject needs to be started. As for me and my house, we are avoiding GMO’s and encourage others to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

For those of you that have already determined to try and avoid GMO's, the food items that I have heard have a high likelihood of being GMO are: corn, soy, canola/rapeseed and cottonseed products. The bad thing is, almost all processed foods have one or more of these ingredients.

So the lesson for today is, questioning the existence of God is unintelligible but questioning all other authorities is intelligent and encouraged.


----------



## Croghanite (Nov 19, 2008)

well said.


----------



## Nate (Nov 19, 2008)

mangum said:


> What junk science have I fed you? None. Relax. And, I know most people equate "government approved" with "thus sayeth the Lord" so I only cite _government_ research. The documentation I give to these types will never be from independent sources.
> 
> We are having some over lap with topics here.



You gave us junk science when you included the link from Donald W. Miller Jr., M.D. Here is a link to some of the ideas that he promotes: Questioning HIV/AIDS, Human-Caused Global Warming, and Other Orthodoxies in the Biomedical Sciences by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD Saying that the majority of the info he includes is garbage would be much too kind.


----------



## Answerman (Nov 20, 2008)

Nate, just curious, how do you define junk science? Questioning the majority held views of a particular scientific position?

If you notice, Dr. Miller prefaces his challenges to the current othodox scientific opinions with "Nevertheless, skeptics have raised valid questions about them. With the real cause, truth, or more probable hypothesis for the disease or phenomenon in question added, along with selected references, they are:" and it sounds like he is simply giving some references for you to do your own research.

I can't say I know much about most of the subjects in that article so I would prefer to reserve judgment until I have researched them more. I have looked into the global warming issue and I lean toward the hypothesis that global warming trends are mostly the result of solar activity. Even scientists that are in the other camp admit that some of the other planets in our solar system have been having a warming trend as well and their are not humans on these other planets to produce excessive CO2. Also his challenge to the cause of coronary artery disease seems to line up with much of the main stream literature on this subject. 

Now if he started talking about aliens, I would have to agree that your criticism would be valid but maybe I am just to ignorant about the subjects that he is dealing with in that article, so can you enlighten me to which ones that you are familiar that demonstrate that he is promoting "garbage". I am not saying that I am buying everything this guy promotes but unless I know why what someone promotes is garbage, I prefer to reserve judgment until I have studied the subject.

Thank you,


----------



## Nate (Nov 21, 2008)

Answerman said:


> Nate, just curious, how do you define junk science? Questioning the majority held views of a particular scientific position?
> 
> If you notice, Dr. Miller prefaces his challenges to the current othodox scientific opinions with "Nevertheless, skeptics have raised valid questions about them. With the real cause, truth, or more probable hypothesis for the disease or phenomenon in question added, along with selected references, they are:" and it sounds like he is simply giving some references for you to do your own research.
> 
> ...



David, you bring up a very important question: How does one define "junk science". I would never define junk science as "Questioning the majority held views of a particular scientific position". This is, in fact, how some of the most important scientific discoveries have been made. In the case of the link that I posted above, I argue that Dr. Miller's views that genetic mutations do not cause cancer, HIV does not cause AIDS, and cell function does not depend on the integrity of the cell membrane, and membrane "pumps" and "channels" are not what they seem are all "junk science". Dr. Miller is stating that his views and resources that he provides are the "real cause", "truth" and "more probable" than the accepted "dogma". 

I say that his views in these cases are junk because of the HUGE amount of research that has gone into each of these questions. In my training, I have spent countless hours studying each of these topics, I have talked with some of the foremost experts in the world about HIV/AIDS research, and I myself have spent 3 years performing experiments on genetic mutations that cause cancer and anther 4 years performing experiments on the cell membrane and pumps and channels. Add to this the large number of chemical and small molecule therapies that have been developed to target genetic mutations in cancer and pumps and channels in other diseases. To put your mind at ease, I can assure you that although I receive my research money from the US gov't, I have never, never, never been pressured to perform experiments or interpret results according to the status quo. To think I, or the HIV or cancer scientists have been pressured by the gov't to dupe the public is just silly. Really, it is. 

Dr. Miller is obviously a very talented surgeon and an highly intellectual individual, but I just can't figure out how he promotes these views.

Regarding the saturated fats/heart disease, global warming and linear no-threshold items, I will have to take your good advice and study these issues more closely before I make a judgment as I am by no means an expert in any of these areas.


----------



## Croghanite (Nov 21, 2008)

Has anyone seen the OP documentary yet?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 21, 2008)

*DDT and MALARIA RATES*

spiked-science | Article | Without DDT, malaria bites back


DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


gladwell dot com - the mosquito killer

South Africa Says DDT Helping To Slash Malaria Rate | World Association of Young Scientists

MALARIA FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL

Access : Health agency backs use of DDT against malaria : Nature



Interesting articles about DDT and malaria.


----------



## Nate (Nov 21, 2008)

LAYMAN JOE said:


> Has anyone seen the OP documentary yet?



I made it to the 42 min mark... it's quite long. My assessment of the 1st half of this film would be that it uses childish dramatic techniques to create fear throughout, particularly when discussing the actual techniques used to create GM foods. They really aren't trying to be fair and balanced at all in their overall delivery - thus I think calling the film a documentary might be a little generous. Also, some of the info that the friendly fellow from the CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY  tries to convey is false (I caught him saying that there are bacteria and viruses in GM crops). 

I think the film did bring up a couple of good points, though. If the facts that they gave regarding Monsanto are accurate, I think there is a clear need for more governmental regulations on companies that create and patent GM foods (although I have no problem with companies actually taking out patents on any organisms they engineer). The courts of the land also seem to have little sympathy for the little farmers who seemed to be innocent bystanders. That was kind of heartbreaking... but I think that is more of a issue that the FDA etc need to address and take a stand on, not really a reason to run from GM foods in general. The film makers seemed to lay a lot of the political blame at GHW Bush's feet. Maybe the Obama admin will take a tougher stance on this...


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 21, 2008)

watched first half. Bad idea to post hour and a half films on the PB and then claim that people are unable to interact with the arguments unless one watches the whole film.


----------



## Croghanite (Nov 22, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> watched first half. Bad idea to post hour and a half films on the PB *and then claim that people are unable to interact with the arguments unless one watches the whole film.*



Never made such a claim. Watch what you say.


----------

