25 Comments

  1. Daniel,

    the author has provided you a direct link to a full-text, peer-reviewed research article, and a direct reference to the full-text article done by the IAASTD…which comes up under the first hit when you Google it. If you can't be bothered to click the links or do even a basic web search for all the verifiable proof you need, why take the time to post? Unless of course, you're trolling.

  2. I shall try this again, apologies if you have already seen this:

    Hi Michelle,

    I did spend a while writing a reply to you, with proper sentences and everything, but I think I took too long and the website timed out. Here is that message, but in shorter form:

    cont.

  3. 4. However, your suggestion that the onus is on the reader to find references for scientific claims in an article is wrong. It is the responsibility of the author to back-up their claims with FULL references to the literature. Simply mentioning an article/report is not referencing, no matter how easy it is to find on google.

    5. I have clicked all of the links, and with the exception of the research article that you pointed out, they are all to other articles on this website.

    cont. next post

  4. 6. I followed some of them through several articles to their source, and found that they were from the website of the 'Institute of Science in Society' (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php). As far as I can tell, they are not a reputable institution, and have not published papers in any respectable journals. Also, they publish exceedingly dubious articles on homeopathy. Finally, the CV of their director, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has been called into question (http://home.exetel.com.au/ttguy/Mae_Wan_Ho_bibliography.htm)

    cont. next post

  5. 6. I followed some of them through several articles to their source, and found that they were from the website of the 'Institute of Science in Society' (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php). As far as I can tell, they are not a reputable institution, and have not published papers in any respectable journals.

    cont. next post

  6. 6. continued:

    Also, they publish exceedingly dubious articles on homeopathy. Finally, the CV of their director, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has been called into question.

  7. Final part:

    If I am to believe the serious scientific claims against GMO and Monsanto in this article, written on an anti-GMO website (i.e. inherently biased), I need more, and better quality, references than those in evidence.

    P.S. I tried to give a reference for Dr. Ho's CV, but it wouldn't go through.

  8. I'm very sorry for all the posts that have appeared. They were not appearing initially so I reposted them, and now all the original posts and reposts have appeared. I realise that this means that I may be labelled a 'spammer' but that wasn't my intention. Also, there doesn't seem to be a way to delete them.

    1. Monsanto is a bio-weapon company also.

      Get the connection?

      1. And the evidence that they have produced bio-weapons is where?

        1. I have found mention of them being involved in the US bio-weapons programme, but not much else. Also, their involvement in bio-weapons does not mean that their current products are dangerous. However, I am not defending Monsanto, but trying to ensure that when people make serious, scientific allegations, they back them up properly, not with emotive language and dubious 'references'.

          1. Monsanto is the company that produced Agent Orange, the defoliant used in Vietnam that proved to be highly carcinogenic. Now they call it Round Up. Maybe not the same formula, but the herbicide has been proven harmful in the long term.

          2. You're right; Monsanto did produce Agent Orange, which is an incredibly nasty chemical. However, 'Round Up' does not contain ANY of the same ingredients as Agent Orange. This means no implications of the toxicity of 'Round Up' can be made from the known properties of Agent Orange. 'Round Up' and Agent Orange are entirely different chemicals.

            To reiterate; I am not defending Monsanto, they seem like a deeply unpleasant company. However, I object to people claiming things based on 'scientific research' that they don't properly back up.

          3. HEY DANIEL does your mother know your loose out in the neighborhood again,you know how embarrasing it is for them to have to chase you around the neighborhood with that butterfly net,go home…………..

    2. Yvonne Tayhlor says:

      Monsanto is already fighting so you cannot protest this. They blacklisted the site to sign a petition from link found on CareTo sight already. Or some BigBother backer? Share this on any sight you can fast before it is gone here too.

    3. Hey daniel,how much are you getting paid?

  9. I found the article to have little scientific merit. In abstract of the article in "Environmental Sciences Europe" referenced in comments directed to Daniel, the authors themselves noted that, " Some of these tests used controversial protocols which are discussed and statistically significant results that were considered as not being biologically meaningful by regulatory authorities, thus raising the question of their interpretations." in addition, a group of 900 scientists, probably of all fields of science do not know more than the thousands of scientists in biochemistry and agriculture who are using biotechnology to help increase agricultural efficiency and alleviate hunger in the world. I direct you to http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/borlaug.h… an interview with Norman Borlaug, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to alleviate world hunger. There are also links to other articles about biotechnology, both pro and con.

    1. NOBEL PEACE PRIZE,you have to be kidding,BH OBAMA,who is a known mass murder,has one,either you work for monsanto or your way to stupid to be out doors,and your science is flawed too,go home before your neighbors figure out they have a child predator living next door,and THANK GOD you don't live next door to me………

  10. Vibe.Matters says:

    It's pathetic how many people feel Daniel is trolling and/or a paid shill. You people need to understand the difference between scientific evidence and emotional beliefs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *