Monsanto Strike 3

[Sun City Linda]

"Side note: Has it ever been proven that Monsanto has paid people to counter post? If so, would like to see those facts as well. If not proven to be so, it is a way to discredit anyone with a differing viewpoint, and to close off a rational and calm discussion of facts."

After posting on any number of these disguised Monsanto sites and watching the specific pattern of response, which is way too quick vigorous, and unending, it is my opinion, based on my own "critical thinking" that these responders do not follow the pattern of typical facebook discussions. They do, however, follow their own pattern, which in itself is suspect. Anyone who doubts my experience is welcome to conduct their own research. Your milage may vary

[dmforcier]

Bower, you're usually pretty level-handed. But imp describes certain studies as "discredited" and you find that "extremely offensive"??

What is this, a religion, with Seralini your god and/or prophet?


Disagree all you want, but please avoid the common practice of making your disagreements personal.

[bower]

Originally Posted by dmforcier

Bower, you're usually pretty level-handed. But imp describes certain studies as "discredited" and you find that "extremely offensive"??

What is this, a religion, with Seralini your god and/or prophet?


Disagree all you want, but please avoid the common practice of making your disagreements personal.

dm, for the record, your comment is even more offensive.
You have a lot of gall, telling me off for "making your disagreements personal" after the BS about prophet or god. Really.
If you have something to add to the discussion, why don't you make it on topic.
And avoid making slurs on me, while you're at it.

[Worth1]

I'm just glad the Houston Astros won the Super Bowl.
Worth

[AlittleSalt]

Originally Posted by Worth1

I'm just glad the Houston Astros won the Super Bowl.
Worth

Yep, they won by a nose on a last second three pointer. Goooooooal!

[dmforcier]

I'm sure the Dodgers find that offensive.

[Worth1]

We can only hope they do.
I have waited all my life for the event.
Worth

[imp]

Originally Posted by bower

Sorry Imp, but I find your statement about Seralini extremely offensive. You are the one bringing it up, and at the same time dismissing all other comments and the facts in the case.

The Seralini controversy is not about the question "are GMO's safe". It is about the heinous power that a large corporation can exert, to prevent valid research findings from being published.

FACT: The retracted study has been republished by a reputable journal after passing yet another peer review, and stands as part of the scientific literature, furthermore a rare example of a study on the subject which was not paid for by the company itself.
Here is a link to the published study. Enjoy.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/a...302-014-0014-5

Scientific literacy is the most important (maybe the only) thing I got from my bachelor of science degree. I have continued to read hundreds of scientific and medical papers, always with a critical eye for methods and statistical weaknesses or sources of error that were missed. I read the original Seralini paper and in my opinion there were no legitimate scientific grounds for the retraction. Yes I also read the criticisms that were made - many of them nonsensical in attempting to hold this research to a standard not followed by anyone else, including NIH (such as the use of Sprague-Dawley rats, as in NIH standards). And yes, it seems to me that many of the criticisms were intended to mislead the general public. The SD rat issue, for example, would sound like a valid objection to anyone unfamiliar with actual standards of research, which the study followed to a T.

What I found most unpleasant of all, the personal attacks to damage the reputation of a conscientious scientist, who dared to study a commercial product without sponsorship of its owner. I still find this really upsetting, and why I had to respond to your flippant remarks.

With regards to the question of comments being paid by Monsanto, the conflict of interest of major detractors of Seralini, including the editor who retracted the study, is an established fact. This is not slander or "fake news". These detractors were in Monsanto's pay.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/out-in...-paper/5610139

Certainly I don't think you were paid to make a derogatory comment about Seralini. But I think you are not well informed at all, to be making such remarks and purporting to be the voice of reason, and the final word! By all means enlighten me if you have some special expertise or dedicated your intellect to the subject in some way that makes you feel you have the best informed opinion.

It is hard to find any published comment that doesn't come down on one side of the story or the other. But it is clear that Seralini continues to have both detractors and supporters among his peers. Over 1000 scientists have boycotted Elsevier for retraction of his work. So I am not alone in the conclusion that the work was legitimate and deserved publication. Again I have to stress the fact, this is not about drawing a final conclusion about the subject of the study. This is about duly accepting legitimate scientific results into the literature.

Seralini's work raises questions about the adequacy of 90 day studies to assess health effects of these products. That is a reasonable conclusion, which calls for further work to be done. The fact that some people will take a single study and wrongly run with its conclusions as if they are carved in stone, or exaggerate the conclusions that can be drawn, is not a valid reason to deny publication of science. We see this all the time in science/health journalism. Every new study is the be-all and end-all... final word. This is not a scientific standpoint, it is public opinion running amock. It could equally be said that the company and its supporters have done the same thing by insisting that no further research can challenge their 90 day studies, and have simply refused to consider any other possibility regardless of the evidence. This is not a scientific attitude, and where money is obviously at stake the conflict of interest is self evident.

One last comment, Monsanto is not at all the only corporation to have undue influence on the publication of science. There is increasing concern about the pharmaceutical industry practice of withholding from publication many of the studies they carried out on their products, so that negative results and serious side effects have sometimes been swept under the rug, with the consequence that the product is put out for sale and the consumers end up with consequences that could have been (or were) foreseen. The scientific standpoint (calm and rational) is that all of the studies should be reviewed before a conclusion is reached about health and safety. I agree with other scientists, this is in the public interest, and hope to see it become a law or standard in the future.

My post was not intended to offend, but to open and try to maintain a civil discourse on this subject. I suspect it may not be possible, without seeing body language and the emotional investment some ( NOT saying yourself) carry into this subject.

I certainly never wished to purport that I am the voice of reason, nor have the "final word", and especially "have some special expertise or dedicated your intellect to the subject in some way that makes you feel you have the best informed opinion."; if this was read this way, I regret any lack on my part on making it more clear that all I was trying for was civil discourse on a very polarized topic.

I may well NOT have the best informed opinion, but I do have an opinion from reading the study long enough ago, when this subject erupted on the Food Politics board on iDig, and comparing several other studies with Serelini's study choices in protocols and procedures. That is where I find a lot of fault with Serelini's rat studies ( yes, wrong rat breed, different feeds and amounts, too small of control and study groups, are but 3 off the top of my head) and therefore his conclusions from the study.

People are very polarized about Serelinni's studies. Note this is not the only study he has had retracted or trouble with his peers about his procedures and protocols in/with his studies, thereby calling his results into question.


Since I think it will be pretty impossible to have and maintain a civil and within the rules discussion re Monsanto, etc., with out it veering into politics and also becoming very divisive instead of us all learning from each, I am going to drop it.

I am not wishing normally to offend, hurt feelings nor be offended myself, which is something hard to do after all these years, <smile>, for an argument on a discussion board where I come to have fun and exchange ideas in a positive way. I don't have to be "right" nor am I many times, I just have to understand my own thoughts and seek self improvement for myself.

Edit:

Hopefully, we will all chat and things will be amicable on other subjects. After the above, wishing all a good evening and most pleasant night.

[seaeagle]

Monsanto has an impeccable reputation and a storied history. They gave us PCBs. They gave us Dioxin. They gave us Agent Orange.

I think their most stunning accomplishment was that they gave us more than 50 EPA Superfund sites.

After reading all about them I can honestly say that I totally trust them.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805

[Worth1]

To be fair they didn't give us any of that stuff it already existed and many companies produced it or it is a chemical byproduct.
They didn't discover or invent any of them.
When you read misleading stories it makes me question everything in it.
As a matter of fact you dont manufacture buy agent orange you mix 2-4-D and 2-4-5-T at 50-50 to get it.
2-4-5 T is the culprit that causes problems and is not manufactured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Galston

[loulac]

Some time ago I wrote in a post that as a guest on Tomatovile I would never interfere in threads that always become heated, which is the case with roundup. Unfortunately when I see that Bower, a highly respected lady on the site, has to bear unfair attacks I feel obliged to react but just by giving the European position.
Is roundup a noxious substance ? the point is no longer discussed, governments now try to find how long it can be used before being entirely banned. 4 years is the most severe length of time, 10 years more likely. Now roundup can only be sold to professional growers in France.
A reminder : we all have molecules of roundup or its metabolites in our bodies, it doesn’t prove they are harmful, but it’s disquieting. I won’t go further in that field, just say that I’m struck by the lack of information of US population. I won’t post again here though I intend to follow the discussions on that thread.

[mdvpc]

There is no way that consensus will happen on the Monsanto issue. However, the monitors here want you to know that some of the content in some of the posts here are offensive. If you want this thread to stay open, that has to stop. One more instance of rudeness, and the poster will be warned, or if serious enough, banned and the thread shut down.

[brownrexx]

Lots of strong opinions here and I admire that people have such opinions instead of being apathetic but you will never influence people by browbeating them or calling them names or calling their intelligence into question.

If you don't like Monsanto, don't use their products.

I am an organic gardener and do not use chemicals in my garden. There are companies other than Monsanto that manufacture garden chemicals and I do not use them either.

I am not knowledgeable about all of the studies pertaining to Monsanto's chemicals or GMO products. I just choose not to use such products in my garden and I do not wish to affect other animals or insects, especially bees, with the these chemicals either.

I have enough chemical residue in my body just by breathing or eating supermarket and restaurant food so I try to avoid adding anything additional at home.

[Worth1]

Somewhere in the vast internet I read where DOW has come up with a GMO for something I cant remember what it was oh it was soy seeds.
Instead of posting any links just Google DOW GMO and you can look for yourselves.
My point is I feel Monsanto has became the scapegoat while the other culprits are running Scott free to do as they please more or less.
The concept originally comes from Leviticus, in which a goat is designated to be cast into the desert with the sins of the community.
Other ancient societies had similar practices. In psychology and sociology, the practice of selecting someone as a scapegoat has led to the concept of scapegoating.

This practice goes on all the time in businesses the government and just about everywhere you look.
People want to find someone to take the blame to take the heat off themselves.
In this case I firmly believe it is Monsanto.
It is a trick just like the magician does with the pretty girl on stage.
Everyone is looking at her while he does what he needs to do without being caught.
In other words Monsanto has became a distraction or only one poisonous snake out of many.
As long as we keep blaming the rattlesnake for what the copperhead does we will never catch the copperhead and it will continue to run free.
Glyphosate is made by many companies now not just Monsanto.

Worth

[Sun City Linda]

"The concept originally comes from Leviticus, in which a goat is designated to be cast into the desert with the sins of the community. " Except the goat is innocent of any wrong doing. The same can hardly be said of Monsanto.