monsanto (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rationale is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

I agree with the bolded. Fortunately, companies that want to cater to such people have every right to avoid using GMO ingredients and to label their products as non-GMO. So why is there an issue?

Why not just do the inverse like with organic foods? We don't make every single manufacturer of food items list their food as "non-organic." Why can't manufactuers that choose not to use GM food to list themselves as "GM free"?

Instead of an ingredient list we should have all the things that aren't in the product....makes sense.

Yeah, it's not like we ever see stuff advertised as "sugar free" or "hormone free"

There's a difference between advertising and ingredient lists. Did you not know that?

 

[grateful zed]

there is an infinite difference between cross breeding plants and splicing dna.

 

[msommer]

there is an infinite difference between cross breeding plants and splicing dna.

Yep

That doesn't make dna splicing inherently bad. It just means we have to be very, very careful, because we really do not understand ecology, evolution and the whole ripple effect well enough yet

 

[grateful zed]

Monsanto blamed for disappearance of monarch butterflies

 

[Rayderr]

Monsanto blamed for disappearance of monarch butterflies

Yeah. the anti-GMO people keep harping on that. First it was the since disproven study about the Monarch larvae eating the BT gene which was killing them. But whoops, turned out in the study, they were giving the larvae way more bt gene than it could ever get from eating the crops.

So, now it's the "They're killing milkweed!" Well duh. That's the purpose of the herbicides. to kill off unwanted plants so the farmer can grow what they want and not have weeds. Now a reasonable person would just say "Hey, why don't we plant some milkweed in a non-farmed area?" but, that simple logic escapes the anti-gmo people. To them, the only possible solution is no more gmo's.

You want more monarch butterflies? plant some milkweed in your backyard.

 

[grateful zed]

http://rt.com/tags/monsanto/

 

[sporthenry]

So Round up does what it's supposed to do? Sounds more like a case of unintended consequences than anything else.

 

[grateful zed]

So Round up does what it's supposed to do? Sounds more like a case of unintended consequences than anything else.

correct, roundup does what its supposed to do amazingly well. it's the collateral damage that is being overlooked that is criminal.

 

[B-Deep]

does milkweed take over your backyard?

this is like a practical question, cause if i could plant some and attract butterflies that sounds cool. Call me a little fancy, but who doesn't like butterflies? But i don't want to find out it will take over my neighborhood, grow a mind of it's own and someday turn on me.

 

[Rayderr]

does milkweed take over your backyard?

this is like a practical question, cause if i could plant some and attract butterflies that sounds cool. Call me a little fancy, but who doesn't like butterflies? But i don't want to find out it will take over my neighborhood, grow a mind of it's own and someday turn on me.

Like any plant, there a chance of spillage as seeds blow around, but for the most part no. You can buy milkweed seeds at just about any garden center.

 

[Statcruncher]

does milkweed take over your backyard?

this is like a practical question, cause if i could plant some and attract butterflies that sounds cool. Call me a little fancy, but who doesn't like butterflies? But i don't want to find out it will take over my neighborhood, grow a mind of it's own and someday turn on me.

Prepare to have a little GM prancing around with a butterfly net.

 

[grateful zed]

I'm torn on the RoundUp Ready crop issue.

Brazil looks to ban Monsanto’s Roundup, other toxicity risks

 

[McGarnicle]

Call me a little fancy, but who doesn't like butterflies?

Would you be offended if I made this my sig?

Let me rephrase. This is my new sig.

 

[The Commish]

Monsanto on the Island of Molokai

 

[The Commish]

2015 has not been kind to our beloved company. First WHO comes down on them, now this

 

[The Commish]

2015 has not been kind to our beloved company. First WHO comes down on them, now this

And it baffles my mind how anyone would defend GMOs created so Roundup can be used on them. Completely mind numbing really.

 

[Chaka]

2015 has not been kind to our beloved company. First WHO comes down on them, now this

Wait? You're saying that poison is bad for humans? I'm calling

 

[Rayderr]

Gary Michael Null (born 1945) is an American talk radio host and author who advocates for alternative medicine and naturopathy[1]and who produces a line of dietary supplements.[2] He is an AIDS denialist and an anti-vaccinationist.[3]

His views on health and nutrition are at odds with scientific consensus; psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud and webmaster of Quackwatch, described Null as "one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease".[1]

On his radio show, and in books and self-produced movies, Null attacks the medical community, promotes a range of alternative cancer treatments, denies that HIV causes AIDS,[4] opposes genetically modified foods, and promotes dietary supplements which he produces.

 

[The Commish]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

 

[The Commish]

I think it'd probably be more fruitful to go after the documentation found in the FOIA request rather than the people reporting it if that's your issue.

 

[Rayderr]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

 

[Chaka]

Cup'o'RoundUp anyone?

 

[The Commish]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

 

[sartre]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

 

[Rayderr]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

First, you didn't answer the question.

Second, Don't get upset with me. You're the one that brought him into this conversation. You could've just linked the FOIA info, but you chose to link to an article by, and let's be honest here, a quack (and I think I'm being kind in the use of that term)

The fact that you use someone like Null to back up your opinion speaks volumes about you. Instead of relying on quacks, I will stand by the vast majority of the scientific community who say GMOs are as safe if not more so then non gmo-crops. A majority that is even higher than that of those who believe Climate Change is caused by man and that vaccine's do not cause autism..

 

[Rayderr]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

Love the ending line.

We have to find ways to reform our food system, but shoddy research only helps Monsanto. If we base our objections on papers like this one, we won't -- and we shouldn't -- be taken seriously.

 

[The Commish]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

First, you didn't answer the question.

Second, Don't get upset with me. You're the one that brought him into this conversation. You could've just linked the FOIA info, but you chose to link to an article by, and let's be honest here, a quack (and I think I'm being kind in the use of that term)

The fact that you use someone like Null to back up your opinion speaks volumes about you. Instead of relying on quacks, I will stand by the vast majority of the scientific community who say GMOs are as safe if not more so then non gmo-crops. A majority that is even higher than that of those who believe Climate Change is caused by man and that vaccine's do not cause autism..

You can call me whatever names you want. I linked the link that I did because it was readily available. You can choose to do with it what you want. If you want to focus on the messenger that's on you. Have at it I didn't respond to your question because it's irrelevant to the FOIA request. Again, he was the messenger. One of many reporting on it. He just happened to be the top of the list and I have no idea who the guy is because it really doesn't matter in this instance.

 

[The Commish]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

The best part of this article is, it made Samsel go digging. When it was written in 2013, it was absolutely correct (based on what we knew at the time). I'd have agreed with it 100% at the time. Now that this new information has surfaced context and history are beginning to swing to Samsel's side. I don't know about this Seneff person...no idea if she's a quack or not.

 

[Rayderr]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

First, you didn't answer the question.

Second, Don't get upset with me. You're the one that brought him into this conversation. You could've just linked the FOIA info, but you chose to link to an article by, and let's be honest here, a quack (and I think I'm being kind in the use of that term)

The fact that you use someone like Null to back up your opinion speaks volumes about you. Instead of relying on quacks, I will stand by the vast majority of the scientific community who say GMOs are as safe if not more so then non gmo-crops. A majority that is even higher than that of those who believe Climate Change is caused by man and that vaccine's do not cause autism..

You can call me whatever names you want. I linked the link that I did because it was readily available. You can choose to do with it what you want. If you want to focus on the messenger that's on you. Have at it I didn't respond to your question because it's irrelevant to the FOIA request. Again, he was the messenger. One of many reporting on it. He just happened to be the top of the list and I have no idea who the guy is because it really doesn't matter in this instance.

Here's your chance dude. Link to a reputable source. Bonus points if you can actually link to the 15,000 documents (or even the so called smoking guns) they got through the FOIA. Oddly enough I can't seem to find the documents anywhere. But I see tons of conclusions of said documents by the anti-gmo crowd. Funny how that works.

 

[jhib]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

The best part of this article is, it made Samsel go digging. When it was written in 2013, it was absolutely correct (based on what we knew at the time). I'd have agreed with it 100% at the time. Now that this new information has surfaced context and history are beginning to swing to Samsel's side. I don't know about this Seneff person...no idea if she's a quack or not.

I'm pretty sure she's the lady who has blamed GMOs for just about everything, including school shootings and the Boston Marathon bombing.

 

[The Commish]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

First, you didn't answer the question.

Second, Don't get upset with me. You're the one that brought him into this conversation. You could've just linked the FOIA info, but you chose to link to an article by, and let's be honest here, a quack (and I think I'm being kind in the use of that term)

The fact that you use someone like Null to back up your opinion speaks volumes about you. Instead of relying on quacks, I will stand by the vast majority of the scientific community who say GMOs are as safe if not more so then non gmo-crops. A majority that is even higher than that of those who believe Climate Change is caused by man and that vaccine's do not cause autism..

You can call me whatever names you want. I linked the link that I did because it was readily available. You can choose to do with it what you want. If you want to focus on the messenger that's on you. Have at it I didn't respond to your question because it's irrelevant to the FOIA request. Again, he was the messenger. One of many reporting on it. He just happened to be the top of the list and I have no idea who the guy is because it really doesn't matter in this instance.

Here's your chance dude. Link to a reputable source. Bonus points if you can actually link to the 15,000 documents (or even the so called smoking guns) they got through the FOIA. Oddly enough I can't seem to find the documents anywhere. But I see tons of conclusions of said documents by the anti-gmo crowd. Funny how that works.

My chance for what?

You've already carved out a nice little niche for yourself. The FOIA request was issued by a source you clearly don't agree with. Even if he posted the entire 15,000 pages it would still be posted by a "source" you don't approve of. It's a vicious circle of absurdity that focuses on winning an argument rather than looking at the content. I don't get why people do it, but have at it. However, I'll make sure to post them so you can at the "source" they came from though

 

[Rayderr]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

First, you didn't answer the question.

Second, Don't get upset with me. You're the one that brought him into this conversation. You could've just linked the FOIA info, but you chose to link to an article by, and let's be honest here, a quack (and I think I'm being kind in the use of that term)

The fact that you use someone like Null to back up your opinion speaks volumes about you. Instead of relying on quacks, I will stand by the vast majority of the scientific community who say GMOs are as safe if not more so then non gmo-crops. A majority that is even higher than that of those who believe Climate Change is caused by man and that vaccine's do not cause autism..

You can call me whatever names you want. I linked the link that I did because it was readily available. You can choose to do with it what you want. If you want to focus on the messenger that's on you. Have at it I didn't respond to your question because it's irrelevant to the FOIA request. Again, he was the messenger. One of many reporting on it. He just happened to be the top of the list and I have no idea who the guy is because it really doesn't matter in this instance.

Here's your chance dude. Link to a reputable source. Bonus points if you can actually link to the 15,000 documents (or even the so called smoking guns) they got through the FOIA. Oddly enough I can't seem to find the documents anywhere. But I see tons of conclusions of said documents by the anti-gmo crowd. Funny how that works.

My chance for what?

You've already carved out a nice little niche for yourself. The FOIA request was issued by a source you clearly don't agree with. Even if he posted the entire 15,000 pages it would still be posted by a "source" you don't approve of. It's a vicious circle of absurdity that focuses on winning an argument rather than looking at the content. I don't get why people do it, but have at it. However, I'll make sure to post them so you can at the "source" they came from though

You've said to look at what was found in the FOIA request. I'm asking to see what was found in the FOIA request (and not someone's interpretation of it).

So which is it, you want me to discuss the actual documents they uncovered or discuss the interpretations of the scientists? If it's the former, show me the documents. If it's the latter, expect me and others to go after their credibility.

 

[The Commish]

Rock on man...rock on!!!!! Like I said, I'll make sure to post them once released and let you all over the source that releases them

 

[Rayderr]

Rock on man...rock on!!!!! Like I said, I'll make sure to post them once released and let you all over the source that releases them

As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

WHAT WAS FOUND?! And actually found, not some quack's interpretation of it.

 

[grateful zed]

im curious raderr, why do you defend gmos, big ag and monsanto?

do you actually believe their propaganda?

do you own stock in the company?

is it god's will?

are they really a good wholesome american business?

what is it?

 

[grateful zed]

It's a vicious circle of absurdity that focuses on winning an argument rather than looking at the content. I don't get why people do it, but have at it. However, I'll make sure to post them so you can at the "source" they came from though

yeah, i spent a few days arguing with him over what was behind chemtrails. i piled on link after link of relevent information attempting to have a reasonable discussion of facts but to no avail.

all i got in return was blind denial of anything opposing his viewpoint, and demands for real ...

PROOF !!!

after a while i just figured i was just being fished and gave up trying.

 

[Rayderr]

im curious raderr, why do you defend gmos, big ag and monsanto?

do you actually believe their propaganda?

do you own stock in the company?

is it god's will?

are they really a good wholesome american business?

what is it?

Because I'm a believer of science. over 2,000 peer reviewed studies have shown that GMOs are safe (as opposed to 0 peer reviewed studies that show GMOs to be harmful to us) A higher percentage of scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree on vaccines don't cause autism and climate change is man made.

 

[Rayderr]

It's a vicious circle of absurdity that focuses on winning an argument rather than looking at the content. I don't get why people do it, but have at it. However, I'll make sure to post them so you can at the "source" they came from though

yeah, i spent a few days arguing with him over what was behind chemtrails. i piled on link after link of relevent information attempting to have a reasonable discussion of facts but to no avail.

all i got in return was blind denial of anything opposing his viewpoint, and demands for real ...

PROOF !!!

after a while i just figured i was just being fished and gave up trying.

You posted conspiracy drivel. I responded with links (with actual scientific content) that countered what you posted.

 

[grateful zed]

im curious raderr, why do you defend gmos, big ag and monsanto?

do you actually believe their propaganda?

do you own stock in the company?

is it god's will?

are they really a good wholesome american business?

what is it?

Because I'm a believer of science. over 2,000 peer reviewed studies have shown that GMOs are safe (as opposed to 0 peer reviewed studies that show GMOs to be harmful to us) A higher percentage of scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree on vaccines don't cause autism and climate change is man made.

link?

 

[Rayderr]

im curious raderr, why do you defend gmos, big ag and monsanto?

do you actually believe their propaganda?

do you own stock in the company?

is it god's will?

are they really a good wholesome american business?

what is it?

Because I'm a believer of science. over 2,000 peer reviewed studies have shown that GMOs are safe (as opposed to 0 peer reviewed studies that show GMOs to be harmful to us) A higher percentage of scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree on vaccines don't cause autism and climate change is man made.

link?

Link

And if you're interested in reading them, here's over 400 of them.

 

[Rayderr]

im curious raderr, why do you defend gmos, big ag and monsanto?

do you actually believe their propaganda?

do you own stock in the company?

is it god's will?

are they really a good wholesome american business?

what is it?

Because I'm a believer of science. over 2,000 peer reviewed studies have shown that GMOs are safe (as opposed to 0 peer reviewed studies that show GMOs to be harmful to us) A higher percentage of scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree on vaccines don't cause autism and climate change is man made.

That's great and all as far as the GMO seed itself is concerned. What about the actual herbicide, in this case RoundUp? Safe for the environment? Carcinogenic? Residues on the food we eat? I'm asking because I don't know. Isn't RoundUp what The Commish was posting about?

And it baffles my mind how anyone would defend GMOs created so Roundup can be used on them. Completely mind numbing really.

to him, they go hand in hand.

 

[The Commish]

im curious raderr, why do you defend gmos, big ag and monsanto?

do you actually believe their propaganda?

do you own stock in the company?

is it god's will?

are they really a good wholesome american business?

what is it?

Because I'm a believer of science. over 2,000 peer reviewed studies have shown that GMOs are safe (as opposed to 0 peer reviewed studies that show GMOs to be harmful to us) A higher percentage of scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree on vaccines don't cause autism and climate change is man made.

aren't you the one who suggested that we should "just wash off" the systemic chemicals that are used (and the reason for a number of food modifications in the first place)?

 

[The Commish]

to him, they go hand in hand.

Wait...a modification that allows the use of roundup has completely nothing to do with the modification? I've gone out of my way to make the distinction between the various GMOs even saying that they aren't all equal. I have even been specific about the GMOs I am talking about. You haven't Keep flailing away GB.

 

[sartre]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

The best part of this article is, it made Samsel go digging. When it was written in 2013, it was absolutely correct (based on what we knew at the time). I'd have agreed with it 100% at the time. Now that this new information has surfaced context and history are beginning to swing to Samsel's side. I don't know about this Seneff person...no idea if she's a quack or not.

Regarding the bolded -- how are you coming to this conclusion?

We haven't seen any new information. I did read your article. What you linked yesterday, was a report claiming that two discredited scientists (Samsel and Seneff) purport to have new information.

Now imagine for a minute, the possibility that these two are simply frauds.

 

[The Commish]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

The best part of this article is, it made Samsel go digging. When it was written in 2013, it was absolutely correct (based on what we knew at the time). I'd have agreed with it 100% at the time. Now that this new information has surfaced context and history are beginning to swing to Samsel's side. I don't know about this Seneff person...no idea if she's a quack or not.

Regarding the bolded -- how are you coming to this conclusion?

We haven't seen any new information. I did read your article. What you linked yesterday, was a report claiming that two discredited scientists (Samsel and Seneff) purport to have new information.

Now imagine for a minute, the possibility that these two are simply frauds.

There's plenty of science out there independent of any of these yahoos that suggest these chemicals are potential contributors to cancer especially over the long term.

ETA: Unless we are to believe organizations like World Health Organization are just a bunch of kooks who have no real credibility. I always forget to ask for the list of approved sources in "discussions" like this, so I probably should have started there.

 

[sartre]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

The best part of this article is, it made Samsel go digging. When it was written in 2013, it was absolutely correct (based on what we knew at the time). I'd have agreed with it 100% at the time. Now that this new information has surfaced context and history are beginning to swing to Samsel's side. I don't know about this Seneff person...no idea if she's a quack or not.

Regarding the bolded -- how are you coming to this conclusion?

We haven't seen any new information. I did read your article. What you linked yesterday, was a report claiming that two discredited scientists (Samsel and Seneff) purport to have new information.

Now imagine for a minute, the possibility that these two are simply frauds.

There's plenty of science out there independent of any of these yahoos that suggest these chemicals are significant contributors to cancer

Would you agree that it is possible that both the following are true:

1. Samsel and Seneff are frauds
2. there is independent research that suggests roundup contains carcinogens

 

[The Commish]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

The best part of this article is, it made Samsel go digging. When it was written in 2013, it was absolutely correct (based on what we knew at the time). I'd have agreed with it 100% at the time. Now that this new information has surfaced context and history are beginning to swing to Samsel's side. I don't know about this Seneff person...no idea if she's a quack or not.

Regarding the bolded -- how are you coming to this conclusion?

We haven't seen any new information. I did read your article. What you linked yesterday, was a report claiming that two discredited scientists (Samsel and Seneff) purport to have new information.

Now imagine for a minute, the possibility that these two are simply frauds.

There's plenty of science out there independent of any of these yahoos that suggest these chemicals are significant contributors to cancer

Would you agree that it is possible that both the following are true:

1. Samsel and Seneff are frauds
2. there is independent research that suggests roundup contains carcinogens

of course....thus my comment above. The best thing this Samsel cat can do is dump all the information from the FOIA request on the internet for all to read. If he doesn't it's more smoke and causes more questions. You'll notice I don't defend or admonish these two as I don't really know much about them. All I have said is that there is information out there now that is making his claims (that these chemicals are linked to cancer) more credible than they appeared to be several years ago.

 

[sartre]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

The best part of this article is, it made Samsel go digging. When it was written in 2013, it was absolutely correct (based on what we knew at the time). I'd have agreed with it 100% at the time. Now that this new information has surfaced context and history are beginning to swing to Samsel's side. I don't know about this Seneff person...no idea if she's a quack or not.

Regarding the bolded -- how are you coming to this conclusion?

We haven't seen any new information. I did read your article. What you linked yesterday, was a report claiming that two discredited scientists (Samsel and Seneff) purport to have new information.

Now imagine for a minute, the possibility that these two are simply frauds.

There's plenty of science out there independent of any of these yahoos that suggest these chemicals are significant contributors to cancer

Would you agree that it is possible that both the following are true:

1. Samsel and Seneff are frauds
2. there is independent research that suggests roundup contains carcinogens

of course....thus my comment above. The best thing this Samsel cat can do is dump all the information from the FOIA request on the internet for all to read. If he doesn't it's more smoke and causes more questions. You'll notice I don't defend or admonish these two as I don't really know much about them. All I have said is that there is information out there now that is making his claims (that these chemicals are linked to cancer) more credible than they appeared to be several years ago.

If Samsel and Seneff are frauds, though, then the rest falls apart. The whole story you linked was based entirely on claims from these two.

They seem to be the only ones saying there is any new info.

 

[The Commish]

So is this a sort of "shoot the messenger" sort of thing??

Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?

The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request

The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff

The best part of this article is, it made Samsel go digging. When it was written in 2013, it was absolutely correct (based on what we knew at the time). I'd have agreed with it 100% at the time. Now that this new information has surfaced context and history are beginning to swing to Samsel's side. I don't know about this Seneff person...no idea if she's a quack or not.

Regarding the bolded -- how are you coming to this conclusion?

We haven't seen any new information. I did read your article. What you linked yesterday, was a report claiming that two discredited scientists (Samsel and Seneff) purport to have new information.

Now imagine for a minute, the possibility that these two are simply frauds.

There's plenty of science out there independent of any of these yahoos that suggest these chemicals are significant contributors to cancer

Would you agree that it is possible that both the following are true:

1. Samsel and Seneff are frauds
2. there is independent research that suggests roundup contains carcinogens

of course....thus my comment above. The best thing this Samsel cat can do is dump all the information from the FOIA request on the internet for all to read. If he doesn't it's more smoke and causes more questions. You'll notice I don't defend or admonish these two as I don't really know much about them. All I have said is that there is information out there now that is making his claims (that these chemicals are linked to cancer) more credible than they appeared to be several years ago.

If Samsel and Seneff are frauds, though, then the rest falls apart. The whole story you linked was based entirely on claims from these two.

They seem to be the only ones saying there is any new info.

Did you read my post two up from this? I feel like you aren't reading them. For example, if they post the content from the FOIA, then what? Can it be trusted because they posted it? Why or why not? I'm interested in the progress science has made since these two began hacking around that supports their hacking around. I'm reflecting back on what was said through the lens of what we know now. I'm not validating their positions in any way. Right now I see them as goofballs who are beginning to be validated (with respect to their claims about these chemicals) via valid study done elsewhere. Doesn't change the fact they are goofballs.

 

[grateful zed]

this is a job for snowden.