Gyroscopic Investing

smurff wrote: http://geneticroulettemovie.com/

stone wrote: I'm sorry but if someone guzzles cola and cheescake and takes no exersize then to my mind its daft to blame their inevitable dire health problems on the fact that the corn syrup in the cola is from a GMO In the UK we are fast catching up with the USA in terms of eating ourselves to an early grave with vast amounts of over-refined junk- irrespective of the block on GMO food over here.

MachineGhost wrote:

stone wrote: I'm sorry but if someone guzzles cola and cheescake and takes no exersize then to my mind its daft to blame their inevitable dire health problems on the fact that the corn syrup in the cola is from a GMO In the UK we are fast catching up with the USA in terms of eating ourselves to an early grave with vast amounts of over-refined junk- irrespective of the block on GMO food over here.

Did you even watch the entire movie?  You are conflating negative GMO health effects with obesity which is hardly what we're concerned about here.

If genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not yet on your radar screen, go to http://www.GeneticRoulette.com for a full presentation. Here is a teaser of what you’ll find:

-- The only human feeding study on GMOs ever conducted showed that genes “jumped”? from GM soy into the DNA of human intestinal bacteria and continued to function. That means that long after you stop eating GM soy, you may still have GM proteins produced continuously inside of you. (What if the pesticide-producing “Bt”? gene found in GM corn chips were also to jump? It might transform our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—possibly for the long term.)

-- Most offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks (compared to a 10 percent death rate in the non-GM soy group). Similarly, when a lab switched to rat feed with GM soy, most of the offspring at the facility died within two weeks.

-- Studies with mice also show reproductive problems. Mice fed GM soy had altered sperm cells and the DNA of their embryos acted differently.

-- Hundreds of farm workers complain of allergic reactions when touching GM cotton.

-- After sheep grazed on GM cotton plants after harvest, about one in four died; about 10,000 deaths in one region in India.

-- Farmers on three continents say their livestock became sterile, sick or died, after eating GM corn varieties.

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-food ... avoid-gmos

“All disease begins in the gut.”?
~Hippocrates (c. 460-377 B.C.)

stone wrote:All of that has no substantive connection to this anti-GMO stuff though.

Wikipedia.org wrote:In November 2005 a pest-resistant field pea developed by the Australian CSIRO for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice.[96] Work on this variety was immediately halted. The protein added to the pea did not cause the reaction in humans or mice in isolation, but when it was expressed in the pea, it exhibited a subtly different structure which may have caused the allergic reaction. The immunologist who tested the pea noted that crops need to be evaluated case-by-case.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticall ... troversies

Gumby wrote: Interestingly, raw milk from cows and humans have components that actually seal up the lining of the stomach. Calfs are born with leaky stomachs and their mother's milk seals up the lining of their guts to prevent the issues I mentioned above.

Gumby wrote: So... if the parents of Autistic children are noticing that their kids' symptoms improve when they stop eating GMO food — as was explained in the movie — one who understands the gut-brain connection might conclude that there is something in the GMO food that is causing an allergic or inflammatory reaction in the stomachs of already compromised children.

stone wrote: Lets imagine that when the first European explorers returned from the Americas with peppers, potatoes, maize, tomatoes, chocolate, Brazil nuts etc everyone quite understandably had wanted safety tests done. Had they been feeding lots of those things to various animals and checking them all, I'm sure they would have seen some allergic reactions just as they would have done with enough tests with domestic crops. I really don't think that their is any more to this GMO scare than that.

BearBones wrote: MG, your posts often sound so angry, cynical and miserable that, even when I agree, I still cringe. I feel bad for you. It must be incredibly difficult thinking that most in the world (except perhaps manufacturers of supplements) are conspiratorial and ignorant dumbasses. We live in an imperfect world, surrounded by imperfect people and imperfect institutions. When we acknowledge this fact, we can see the beauty and blessing of it all. We can live intelligently, prudently, and cautiously and still live wholesomely. We can work to affect positive change in the world without becoming disillusioned and miserable.

stone wrote: Gumby, that GMO caused an allergic reaction for those mice. That doesn't mean that in general GMOs are more likely to cause  allergic reactions than non-genetically modified foods.

WiseOne wrote: To whoever posted the "Genetic Roulette" video:  THANK YOU!!!  I've only watched the first few minutes, but this is one I'm definitely passing along to friends & family.  A shame I didn't delve into this thread sooner.

The allergy link completely makes sense (Bt toxin disrupts gut walls -> undigested food particles getting into circulation --> antibodies created --> allergy).  We've all seen the huge increase in celiac disease, to take just one example.  Although, the charts in the movie showed increases that started before 1992.  Obviously there are other factors than just GMO foods.

I wonder if they'll get to something that might explain the early puberty that's also becoming something of an epidemic.  It's now common for 8-10 year old girls to start menstruating.  20 years ago that was unheard of.  I thought it might have to do with growth hormones fed to cattle (same idea with diabetes), but now I'm curious if it could be related to gmo somehow.

stone wrote:
Lets imagine that when the first European explorers returned from the Americas with peppers, potatoes, maize, tomatoes, chocolate, Brazil nuts etc everyone quite understandably had wanted safety tests done.

WiseOne wrote: To whoever posted the "Genetic Roulette" video:  THANK YOU!!! 

Although, the charts in the movie showed increases that started before 1992.  Obviously there are other factors than just GMO foods.

I wonder if they'll get to something that might explain the early puberty that's also becoming something of an epidemic.  It's now common for 8-10 year old girls to start menstruating.  20 years ago that was unheard of.  I thought it might have to do with growth hormones fed to cattle (same idea with diabetes), but now I'm curious if it could be related to gmo somehow.

WiseOne wrote: I wonder if they'll get to something that might explain the early puberty that's also becoming something of an epidemic.  It's now common for 8-10 year old girls to start menstruating.  20 years ago that was unheard of.  I thought it might have to do with growth hormones fed to cattle (same idea with diabetes), but now I'm curious if it could be related to gmo somehow.

Genetic Roulette claims that because Bt in crops doesn’t wash off, because it is modified to be active upon ingestion, and because there is much more of it, we should believe that the Bt in crops is more toxic.  Yes, it is more toxic to insects—that’s why Bt crops work so well.  There is no data presented by Smith in this section that shows that Bt in crops is more toxic to humans or animals.  Studies have repeatedly shown that animals can consume large amounts of Bt without ill effect–in fact, Bt protein is digested just like any other. This is called nutrition.  Once again Smith makes a scary claim for which he can advance no factual evidence or logical argument.

1.  Bt-toxins that are sprayed on plants don’t persist, while Bt proteins that are produced in plants do persist, which is one of the reasons Bt crops are more effective than Bt sprays. Scientists incorporate Bt into plants so that the plants produce biopesticide continually.  Not surprisingly, they often target Bt production to the leaves, stems or roots depending on the insect pest that is being defended against (Ely and others 2000, Russell and Fromm 1997, Song and others 2000). This lowers costs since less insecticide is used, along with less labor and fuel (Brookes and Barfoot 2007).  Research shows that Bt crops also have far less environmental impact than spraying chemical pesticides (and probably less than spraying Bt biopesticides)

2.  The Bt-toxins incorporated into plants are modified so that they will act quickly and they are present at high levels in order to delay development of resistance. Scientists are able to produce plants that more effectively control pests than Bt sprays. Bt sprays are not always effective and it is difficult to achieve high concentrations of Bt on crops plants (Nester and others 2002).  Because of this, resistance to Bt has emerged in the Diamond Back moth (Shelton and others 1993).  Developers of Bt crops found a way to make Bt more potent as well as to increase the levels of Bt in the plant tissues in order to retard the development of resistant insects. They also modified the molecule so that it didn’t need to be partially digested by the insect to be active.

3. The Bt used in Bt crops is safe for humans and animals so increases in exposure to humans and animals are of no consequence. Smith’s claims that the modified Bt molecules used in groups could cause more antibodies to be formed are meaningless since IgE antibodies associated with Bt allergy have never been reported (Siegel 2001, Betz and others 2000).  Despite years of planting hundreds of millions of acres of Bt crops, allergies or other adverse effects in humans have not occurred.  Similarly, increases in Bt potency and concentration are not important because not only have adverse effects not been observed during widespread use, there are scientific studies that tell Bt proteins are not allergens or toxins in animals (Siegel 2001, Betz and others 2000).  Bt proteins are very specifically toxic to a few closely related insects (Nester and others 2002; Whalon and Wingerd 2003).  Developers of Bt crops, and other researchers, have published studies which show that animals can be fed Bt at doses that are thousands to millions of times higher than a human or animal would encounter in a Bt crop without any toxic effect.  Put another way, these studies show that we can safely eat grams of Bt proteins while Bt crops contain only micrograms.  That’s why regulators are able to approve Bt crops.  Bt proteins don’t hurt mammals.  We have to add here that the life-cycle of the bacteria that produce these Bt proteins is one of natures’ wonders.  They are insect pathogens that produce proteins that kill only their host insects but which do not affect other insects.  This phenomenon is called biological specificity.

4.  Smith’s arguments in section 3.4 offer no evidence of harm. Smith argues that exposure is higher and that the molecules are different but he provides no evidence that this causes harm.  He is essentially arguing more is worse and different is worse.  Many of the claims in Genetic Roulette follow this pattern.  The only actual claim of adverse effect is to Green Lacewings that have consumed lepidoptera that has consumed Bt corn containing at Bt called Cry1Ab— a study that was shown to be in error in 2004 (Romeis and others 2004)—long before Smith wrote Genetic Roulette.  There are two important points to note here: 1) for scientific findings to be accepted they must be independently validated—in this case the claim was shown by other scientists to be incorrect, and 2) Smith either doesn’t know the scientific literature or is intentionally hiding information from the reader that doesn’t support his views.

References

Betz FS, Hammond BG, and Fuchs, RL (2000). Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-protected plants to control insect pests. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 32:156-177.

Brookes G and Barfoot P (2007). Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996-2006. AgBioForum, 11: 21-38. Available on the World Wide Web: www.agbioforum.org.

Ely S, Evans IJ and Schuch WW (2000). Root specific promoter. World Patent WO/2000/029594 International Application No.PCT/IB1998/002000

Nester EW and others (2002).100 Years of Bacillus thuringiensis: A Critical Scientific Assessment.  A report from the American Academy of Microbiology.  2002.http://academy.asm.org/images/stories/d ... tcolor.pdf

Romeis J, Dutton A, and Bigler F (2004). Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Journal of Insect Physiology 50:175–183.

Russell DA and Fromm ME (1997). Tissue-specific expression in transgenic maize of four endosperm promoters from maize and rice. Transgenic Research 6, 157–168 (1997)

Shelton AM, Robertson JL, Tang JD, Perez C, Eigenbrode SD, Preisler HK, Wilsey WT, and Cooley RJ (1993). Resistance of diamondback moth to Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies in the field. J. Econ. Entomol. 86: 697-705.

Siegel JP (2001). The mammalian safety of Bacillus thuringiensis- based insecticides. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology.  77:13-21

Song P, Heinen JL, Burns TH, and Allen RD (2000). Expression of two tissue-specific promoters in transgenic cotton plants. The Journal of Cotton Science 4:217-223

Whalon ME and Wingerd BA (2003). Bt: Mode of action and use Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology, 54: 200-211.
Genetic Roulette Falsely Claims:
The Bt in crops is more toxic than the Bt spray
1. The Bt-toxin in GM crops is more harmful than Bt spray due to differences in the concentration and form of protein.

2. Bt sprays are used intermittently and degrade in the environment.

3. The Bt-toxin in crops is thousands of times more concentrated and is continuously produced in every plant cell.

4. The form of the Bt-toxin protein in GM crops is also more toxic.

Smith claims that the Bt-toxin in GM crops is more toxic than the Bt-toxin in bacterial sprays.

stone wrote: If none of the transgene encoded protein were expressed in the part of the plant that is eaten, would you still object to GMO crops? For instance if the transgene encoded protein were expressed in maize leaves, stems and roots but not the grains then would that be OK by you?
That link Gumby posted showing uptake of a plant transgene by gut microbes did not show any expression of the gene in those microbes (it was actually not even all of the transgene, just a fragment of it).

A field of hybrid Bermuda grass that’s been happily feeding a Texas cattle rancher’s small herd for the past 15 years spontaneously started producing cyanide gas, killing 15 of his 18 cattle.

K-EYE TV in Austin, TX broke the story yesterday, sharing how the mysterious mass death of the herd has prompted a federal investigation. Just a few short weeks ago, Jerry Abel opened the gate to a field containing lush Tifton 85 grass and let his herd in for the first time this year. It was a hot Texas day, and the cattle were eager to chow down on some tall, green grass. According to the news story, the grass is a genetically-modified version of Bermuda grass. It’s higher protein and specifically designed to be better for feeding livestock, making hay, and withstanding fluctuations in weather.

Not long thereafter, the bellowing began. Thinking one of the pregnant heifers was possibly trying to have a calf, they raced to the field — only to find all the steers and heifers on the ground in agonizing pain.

Choking up, Abel says, “That was very traumatic to see, because there was nothing you could do, obviously, they were dying.”?

[align=center]
[VIDEO LINK][/align]

The preliminary autopsy report revealed that the grass, which had been successfully feeding Abel’s herd for 15 years, had spontaneously started emitting poisonous cyanide gas. Right now, they’re guessing the mutation was prompted by the extreme drought Texas ranchers faced last year, although it’s all just speculation.

Local farmers, prompted by the news, have begun testing their own Tifton 85 grasses, only to find that they, too, have fields that are now toxic with cyanide.

Scientists at the United States Department of Agriculture are testing the various grass samples, trying to determine exactly what caused the mutation.

Source: http://www.foodrenegade.com/mutated-gmo ... -cattle-2/

stone wrote: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-con ... -bacteria/

stone wrote: Gumby, you're very astute at working out the ins and outs of websites. I couldn't see where it says that that website I posted is Monsanto propaganda. I didn't realize that it is. Please quote the info suggesting that it is.

GMO Watch wrote:With support from the highest levels of government, biotech defenders quickly mobilized a coordinated attack campaign trying to distort and cover up the evidence. Their attempts continue with the biotech industry propaganda website, Academics Review (www.academicsreview.org), run by GM advocates Bruce Chassy and David Tribe, which recycles old lies about Pusztai's research. Jeffrey Smith expertly takes apart the deception in two articles:
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option= ... e&id=12410
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option= ... e&id=12411
Source: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option ... number-296

stone wrote:What do you mean about the undocumented mutations? We are all chock full of undocumented mutations. That is why inbreeding causes problems. If brothers and sisters have children together then those mutations become apparent. Anyway, not all methods of transgenesis are mutagenic and even in those cases where they are, the transgene can be bred out into a different genetic background.

stone wrote:To my mind the genuinely sinister, greed and hubris driven conspiracy is that biology research gets directed so much towards biomedicine rather than towards agriculture. Rich people have plenty of food and so don't need technology to improve food security with lower inputs of land, water and minerals etc. So instead research is all directed towards a vain attempt to postpone aging.