Is the US government good for our health?

[Truthseeker]

No meaning that GMO foods have not proven to be harmful yet.

You can't mean the same way people said smoking has not been proven to be harmful. Indeed, I would agree it has not been proven.

When we keep messing around with the genetics who knows what problems may arise.

That's out of phase with the last sentence. Maybe you are confused.


The precautionary principle says that we should assume that the drawbacks probably outweigh the benefits until we have more scientific data. Since we have no long-term data from studies or trials, we should start by assuming that the drawbacks probably . . . But we do have data already that suggest harm. I don't understand why you evince no awareness of such data. The mice with the huge tumors?

[Truthseeker]

Of course we have been messing around with genetics of our food through selective breeding for thousands of years. Look at, for instance how much we have altered what we call corn from what it was originally like to what we have today

I simply don't see why you think that is a strong suggestion GMOs are fit to be eaten.

Or bananas

Oh, I'm tempted to say that you ate too much GMOs, it impaired your ability to id fruits correctly. I'm not sure, are they plantains?

[Truthseeker]

Name one disease you think that I think I don't have. Cancer? Nah, I don't think I have it. Diabetes? Nah. Excessive inflammation? Nah. I do have a sore back, perhaps from reading too many TWeb posts by Sparko.

Name a serious disease you think that I have. 99% likely you'd be wrong.

[Jedidiah]

You can't mean the same way people said smoking has not been proven to be harmful. Indeed, I would agree it has not been proven.

No, I simply mean that there is no evidence as to the dangers of current GMO foods. Nothing more.

That's out of phase with the last sentence. Maybe you are confused.

I think you have a reading problem. I specifically said if "we keep messing around with the genetics" we may come up with some clearly harmful stuff. Completely in synch.


The precautionary principle says that we should assume that the drawbacks probably outweigh the benefits until we have more scientific data. Since we have no long-term data from studies or trials, we should start by assuming that the drawbacks probably . . . But we do have data already that suggest harm. I don't understand why you evince no awareness of such data. The mice with the huge tumors?[/QUOTE]

[Jedidiah]

Cross-breeding then?

Yup. Cross breeding is a far cry from inserting genes into the chromosomes of our foods and hoping it works out alright.

[rogue06]

But GMO is not the same as selective breeding. Though I have to agree with your post on "social hypochondria."

Plants and animals that are the result of generations of selective breeding or artificial selection are a form of a genetically modified organism. Humans have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years, although without knowledge that the favorable traits they were selecting for were determined by genes. And such tampering can indeed result in gross undirected and unpredictable genetic changes and in that sense has considerable uncertainty. In fact, you could argue that artificial selection or selective breeding is just as much if not more of a crapshoot as seen by the experiments that resulted in Africanized Honey Bees.

[Sparko]

Name one disease you think that I think I don't have. Cancer? Nah, I don't think I have it. Diabetes? Nah. Excessive inflammation? Nah. I do have a sore back, perhaps from reading too many TWeb posts by Sparko.

Name a serious disease you think that I have. 99% likely you'd be wrong.

I never said you were a hypochondriac. I said you were a conspiracy nut, and I was using hypochondria as an analogy.

Just as hypochondriacs seem to get some perverse satisfaction about worrying about what they might have, you seem to enjoy believing in conspiracies and coverups. I guess it somehow makes the world more melodramatic and exciting than the actual world you live in.

[Jedidiah]

Plants and animals that are the result of generations of selective breeding or artificial selection are a form of a genetically modified organism. Humans have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years, although without knowledge that the favorable traits they were selecting for were determined by genes. And such tampering can indeed result in gross undirected and unpredictable genetic changes and in that sense has considerable uncertainty. In fact, you could argue that artificial selection or selective breeding is just as much if not more of a crapshoot as seen by the experiments that resulted in Africanized Honey Bees.

I have to admit that I do not cringe from eating anything just because it might be GMO.

[Truthseeker]

I never said you were a hypochondriac. I said you were a conspiracy nut, and I was using hypochondria as an analogy.

Just as hypochondriacs seem to get some perverse satisfaction about worrying about what they might have, you seem to enjoy believing in conspiracies and coverups. I guess it somehow makes the world more melodramatic and exciting than the actual world you live in.

You and Jedidiah must have only very recently returned from Mars. Will you please read this report http://www.eyriegardens.info/NonGMOGuide_web.pdf
Please note the Sources section. Do you recognize the name Dr. Anthony Weil? If you do, are you really going to think he's a conspiracy nut? And there are names of many doctors in the report.

At least one thing for sure. If you reject the report, you will have to concede that you think a conspiracy produced and distributed the report! You'd be a conspiracy nut.

I wish I know why your knee-jerk reaction is to automatically disbelieve anything presented as a conspiracy theory or evidence for that. Remember Pearl Harbor? Were the Japanese who participated in the attack not members of a gigantic conspiracy? And, Sparko, what do you think of those who are pushing the War on Climate Change? Are they conspirators or not? If not, what is your reasoning?

[Truthseeker]

One thing Obamacare is not taking good care of is the health of our pocketbooks. According to Nova-X pundit Michael Robinson, "Obamacare has ignited the biggest surge in health care inflation in more than three decades." And medical costs are "on pace to double again in just 12 years." Robinson cited the Bureau of Economic Analysis and PricewaterhouseCooper.




The partnerships our "federal" government has formed with Big Pharma and Big Medicine are rather usual. Consider the partnerships Southern-state governments have with electrical utilities. Generally speaking, large corporations would obtain government protection against competition. For instance, Florida is a natural place for solar power, yet there are few solar power installments there as compared to many other places that are less sunny such as Germany. People have commented on the relative pacucity and others have complained they couldn't install home solar power generators because of prohibitive laws and regulations. See http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

Many months ago several posters claimed Dr Joseph Mercola (http://mercola.com) was a quack. Tell me, would any real quack dare to write this article http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-blockers.aspx
which is about rampant scientific incompetence and fraud. At the very least, it puts potential patients on guard.

A good rule of thumb to follow is that if a drug company is a sponsor of a particular scientific study or trial, it's fraudulent/incompetent. In general, " . . . make full use of all the resources available to you, including your own common sense and reason."

[Sparko]

"WARNING!!! YOU MUST READ THIS!!! Klaxon, the internet Chicken Little, raises the alarm for each and every paranoid conspiracy theory, Federal Big-Brother scheme, internet hoax, and latest computer virus. No black helicopter alert is so ludicrous, no urban legend so implausible, that he will not pass it along as accepted fact (in ALL CAPS with multiple exclamation marks). Congratulations, you are recipient 16,747 of today's Urban Myth."

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/wa...htm/klaxon.htm

[Truthseeker]

Sparko, that's funny in that I warn people to beware and you're warning people to beware of my posts. Is it really your intention to get people to lower their guards? Maybe you're working for the government or some drug company so that . . . well, I do begin to sound like a conspiracy nut. Oh, what to do?

[Sparko]

Sparko, that's funny in that I warn people to beware and you're warning people to beware of my posts. Is it really your intention to get people to lower their guards? Maybe you're working for the government or some drug company so that . . . well, I do begin to sound like a conspiracy nut. Oh, what to do?

Me? work for the government? Pshaw!

Just look here at this..

[Truthseeker]

Me? work for the government? Pshaw!

Just look here at this.

Oh, I forgot, you said you work for a big law firm. Maybe some of its clients are 1) some government or governments, 2) some drug firm or firms, 3)some PR/lobby firm or firms. You do admit that there are such things as sleazy lobby firms? Now, I'm not saying that your firm is sleazy, but lawyers tend to have clients who are morally inferior to them, right?