Dubstepforum.com

jeez man can't have conversation without acting like an aggressive chav? try turning up the posivibes m8. no reason to get the blood pressure up.

first ukraine, now this...... christ m8s.

looool dubunked just because something is a straw man doesn't automatically make it wrong, you can't just go around saying 'STRAWMAN' whenever someone says something you disagree with. It would be much better if you explained why you think someone is wrong.

test recordings wrote:

kay wrote:But neither of those retractions have anything to do with the safety of GMO. They are to do with either the use of wrong strains or misidentification of the correct active genes. I understand that this paints a picture of incompetence or blatant falsification of data, but isn't the debate about GMO centred around its safety and whether added genes could hop into humans and cause doom? Have the new proteins expressed by GMOs ever been shown to harm anyone or has any research that confirms that they are safe for consumption been retracted?

Not arguing that there aren't other non-GM solutions that could be applied to solve food crises etc. Goodness knows more than enough viable food is destroyed by silly EU regulations.

It comes under their safety though, things need to be done accurately for that to be ascertained. Those studies aren't directly to do with safety but most likely have had a knock-on effect for those that are, things don't happen in isolation in scientific research. Every paper quoting either of those retractions will have to be reanalysed, and, if subsequently revised, will require every paper quoting the unrevised version to be reanalysed, and so on...

I'm not anti-GM in principle, just a keen fan of doing the science right in the first place. I cannot see that happening right now, more independent verification and replication would be a good start. Also, more stringent toxicology and lifetime studies (there has only been one lifetime study so far which is a fucking joke on people claiming all the evidence is settled on it)...

I'm in agreement with this - everything that has stemmed from that particular group should now be re-checked for correctness and reproducibility. Did the results of those papers actually get as far as crop production, tox studies and verification of intended function? It would be odd if it got that far because those tests should have showed up the fact that the inserted genes were not in fact producing the wanted substances.

I'd say that the perhaps questionable scientific rigour that may be affecting some aspects of GMO development are just a subset of the bigger problem affecting the whole field of nutrition and food research. Years of funding neglect from non-corporate sponsors (ie governments, research institutions and charities) have promoted so much bad science that we're probably just better off starting from scratch with more transparency. Population variation effects are difficult enough to account for (possibly even impossible to separate out) that shoddy science really isn't helping. For starters, most researchers in the field could probably be retrained in statistical analysis.

read what youve written innit.
i cant be asked to derail this thread but what youve been writing is just not correct. i explained why then you start chatting shit about the strawman and dont bother trying to back up what your saying
then you acted like your above the discussion said you couldnt be bothered to reply and yet you carry on replying.

dubunked wrote:misrepresenting other ppls arguments. ill explain when im out of class.

I know what a straw man is, I just don't see the point in calling it out. You're saying "well GMOs might lead in some way or other to cancer," well no shit, but so might a lot of non-GMO food. The point I'm trying to get across to you is that you have to look at GMOs in the same light as all other food, there's nothing inherently good or bad about GMOs. Now, SOME types of GMOs might very well be very dangerous, but simply lumping them all together and claiming they could all be dangerous would be equivalent to going "all organic food is bad because reasons."

And we're back to the point about examining things on a case-by-case basis (ie. let's do that, please).

kay wrote:

test recordings wrote:

kay wrote:But neither of those retractions have anything to do with the safety of GMO. They are to do with either the use of wrong strains or misidentification of the correct active genes. I understand that this paints a picture of incompetence or blatant falsification of data, but isn't the debate about GMO centred around its safety and whether added genes could hop into humans and cause doom? Have the new proteins expressed by GMOs ever been shown to harm anyone or has any research that confirms that they are safe for consumption been retracted?

Not arguing that there aren't other non-GM solutions that could be applied to solve food crises etc. Goodness knows more than enough viable food is destroyed by silly EU regulations.

It comes under their safety though, things need to be done accurately for that to be ascertained. Those studies aren't directly to do with safety but most likely have had a knock-on effect for those that are, things don't happen in isolation in scientific research. Every paper quoting either of those retractions will have to be reanalysed, and, if subsequently revised, will require every paper quoting the unrevised version to be reanalysed, and so on...

I'm not anti-GM in principle, just a keen fan of doing the science right in the first place. I cannot see that happening right now, more independent verification and replication would be a good start. Also, more stringent toxicology and lifetime studies (there has only been one lifetime study so far which is a fucking joke on people claiming all the evidence is settled on it)...

I'm in agreement with this - everything that has stemmed from that particular group should now be re-checked for correctness and reproducibility. Did the results of those papers actually get as far as crop production, tox studies and verification of intended function? It would be odd if it got that far because those tests should have showed up the fact that the inserted genes were not in fact producing the wanted substances.

I'd say that the perhaps questionable scientific rigour that may be affecting some aspects of GMO development are just a subset of the bigger problem affecting the whole field of nutrition and food research. Years of funding neglect from non-corporate sponsors (ie governments, research institutions and charities) have promoted so much bad science that we're probably just better off starting from scratch with more transparency. Population variation effects are difficult enough to account for (possibly even impossible to separate out) that shoddy science really isn't helping. For starters, most researchers in the field could probably be retrained in statistical analysis.

Definitely agree with this and in my opinion the hesitance/neglect from governments etc. are in large part due to the success of ngo's such as Greenpeace in their efforts to promote this "all GMOs are bad" blanket statement that unfortunately has made it through to a majority of consumers/voters (in the EU at least).

I will when I am not in class. I'm on my phone right now lol not the time for long post. And yeah if man would Take a chill pill he would realize I'm not saying every word he wrote was wrong. Much of what he said was correct, most of it in fact. but some of it wasn't, probably due to misunderstanding what's said. It's the same logic as Ukraine thread - "man watches cable news :: therefore man has blind allegiance to US propaganda."

^^^^^ in response to m808

Why do you pro GMO's all need proof tho - why are you so obsessed with having a defined 100% answer from science. Someone first needs to consider their opinion on something, in this case GMO, and then for science to rebut or approve of the said statement.

Chill out on the proof needed, that may come in time, for or against.


P.S the only real advance of GMO I can see that that could got hit ' 2 birds with one stone'. A plum that has the benefit of a plum and a blueberry for example.

Whether people are pro GMO or anti GMO, the proof is in the pudding. Should not make blanket statements or judgements based solely on what you thinkis the right answer, and most certainly should not expect other people to then follow your judgement without any proof.

Otherwise you might as well just be a religious zealot.

HAHAHAH, PROF IN THE PUDDING MATE NICE ONE

I was eating a genetically modified apple earlier, and everything was fine, I didn't even mind the tentacles tbf.

okay, able to respond now. i think this is the best post to respond to since this was kind of the tipping point of this conversation.

[+] Spoiler

djredi2step wrote:

dubunked wrote:

djredi2step wrote:

dubunked wrote:no ones arguing that the genetically modified fish-tomatoes that you eat are going to invade your cells and give you cancer. but that doesn't mean they're good for you. i mean, cancer does happen. and while i don't know the specific processes for why GMOs could harm humans, i would think that ingesting genetically modified shit could lead to cancer. maybe it doesn't happen every single time you eat a GMO (well, obviously it doesn't happen every time, because then everyone would get cancer everyday), but maybe it happens in certain situations under certain circumstances? I don't really know.

Not to mention it could probably cause other diseases as well. My intuition tells me that, considering how fragile and how important DNA and genes are to your life, ingesting food that has been genetically fucked is probably not a good idea. From what I've heard/read, there haven't been enough studies to prove that GMOs are safe (or unsafe). Until then, I'm agnostic.

genetic material is broken down into mononucleotides by digestion when you eat.there is no possible way ingesting genetically modified food can affect your DNA. all DNA that you eat what your saying here is impossible and I don't think there is a shred of scientific evidence backing what you are saying. you are just guessing because 'DNA and genes are important and fragile'.

Even if the DNA was somehow absorbed into your cells (impossible because the molecule is too big and their are no cell membrane transporters known to transport DNA molecules) it wouldn't affect your DNA without the help of a retrovirus

see my first 2 sentences: no ones arguing that the genetically modified fish-tomatoes that you eat are going to invade your cells and give you cancer. but that doesn't mean they're good for you.

i don't doubt that GMO's could, in certain scenarios, in full or in part, lead to the development diseases, possibly including cancer. i specifically said that GMOs cannot invade your cells and start taking over your dna, but I think it is plausible to suspect that there might be some situations in which GMOs can lead to diseases, possibly including cancer.

again, this could all be changed if there was ample evidence to prove that GMOs are completely safe and do not lead, in full or in part, in certain scenarios or in all scenarios, to any diseases, including cancer. cancer DOES happen. it's extremely prevalent in our society. i don't think it's a stretch to suspect that GMOs might lead to it in some way. of course they don't just hop into your cells and start re-writing your dna, but i don't doubt there aren't other processes that exist that might allow GMOs to lead to cancer. maybe it could only happen in the presence of certain viruses? maybe they cause changes to your body that make you more susceptible to developing cancer through other means? i honestly don't know. i'm just saying that until there's ample evidence that they don't, and until monsanto stops acting like shady douchebags, i'm cautious of GMOs.

FFS i think you need to look up what GMOs are, look up how cancer works and look up how digestion works .
cancer is caused by carcinogens which work by altering your DNA (explaining this very simply) in such a way that certain genes are promoted and others are not which leads to uncontrollable cell growth and replication.

Unless they have been genetically modified to contain a carcinogen they will not be be anymore likely to cause cancer than the 'natural' strain.

How would they cause changes in your body. you only need a basic knowledge of biology to see how GMOs are safe to eat.

djredi2step wrote:FFS i think you need to look up what GMOs are, look up how cancer works and look up how digestion works .

djredi2step wrote:i cant be asked to derail this thread but what youve been writing is just not correct.

djredi2step wrote:your argument has no logical or scientific backing. its based on assumptions youve made which are wrong. ur just chatting breeze lol

really? is this shit necessary? you know i know what GMOs are & how cancer works. this is what i found obnoxious, aggressive, & the straw man.

from the beginning of this thread, i argued that the main reason to be concerned about GMOs is because companies like Monsanto have spent so much money trying to block research into them, buying elections, stopping nutrition labels from saying "contains GMOs" on them, etc. that's what I tried to stick to but somehow it turned into a convo about bio & cancer. I've said numerous times that I do not have a biology degree (do you, btw?). i can't make authoritative statements about the topic. that said, i've taken a few bio & chem courses in college, so I do have some knowledge of the topic.

I've repeatedly said that I'm agnostic on GMOs (i'll still eat em lol idgaf). I've said it so many times you guys are probably sick of hearing it, and yet I keep having to repeat myself because some ppl still don't get it. There's an important distinction to make here. I don't care about "GMOs in general." All that matters is the GMOs and the chemicals used with them that are put in our food. From what I have personally read/heard, science has not yet figured out whether or not they're safe. I've read/heard that studies suggest that SOME GMOs and/or related chemicals are unsafe, and that's enough for me to be cautious of them. I'm not saying GMOs cause, lead to, or increase your risk of developing cancer or other diseases, directly or indirectly, I'm only saying we shouldn't discount the possibility that they do.

I speculated that maybe they could indirectly lead to cancer or just as importantly lead to/cause/increase risk of other diseases. Maybe some GMOs are straight up carcinogens themselves? Maybe they contain carcinogenic chemicals? Maybe when a food product contains a GMO, it also needs to contain other chemicals that are carcinogens? I'm not saying any of these are true, I'm just trying to illustrate the point that science has not figured everything out yet.

Also, this discussion tends towards cancer and not "blue willys" for a good reason. If we were talking about, I dunno, a new kind of artificial sweetener, then maybe we would worry about diabetes or obesity. But since GMOs are related to dna, it makes sense to study whether or not it might cause/lead to/increase the risk of cancer, not blue willys.

So, I thought djredi2step's post contained a straw man because suggested that I claimed that GMOs definitively cause cancer, which I didn't. All the other things you wrote about biology and such were totally fine by me. We actually agree here, it's just that you thought that I was claiming that GMOs cause cancer, which is the exact opposite of what I've been saying this whole time.

dubunked wrote:fucking with dna and then eating it certainly doesn't sound like a good idea, but I'm not sure if it's a bad one.

dubunked wrote:no ones arguing that the genetically modified fish-tomatoes that you eat are going to invade your cells and give you cancer.

dubunked wrote:From what I've heard/read, there haven't been enough studies to prove that GMOs are safe (or unsafe). Until then, I'm agnostic.

dubunked wrote:there haven't been enough studies to prove that GMOs are safe (or unsafe). Until then, I'm agnostic.

dubunked wrote:Until then, I'm agnostic.

dubunked wrote:I'm agnostic.

dubunked wrote:agnostic.

ffs i feel like i'm writing a philosophy paper this is fucking dsf who gives a shit lets just listen to dubstep and be happy m8s.

debunked u sound like a bitch

ooo theres a 0.0001% chance it may be bad for me... BETTER NOT EAT IT

grow a pair ffs lol

Agent 47 wrote:debunked u sound like a bitch

ooo theres a 0.0001% chance it may be bad for me... BETTER NOT EAT IT

grow a pair ffs lol

debenked wrote:I'm agnostic on GMOs (i'll still eat em lol idgaf).

ahh shit fair my bad

that goes for all scared ppl tbf tho imo, especially new age of hippies - they're so scared of chemicals yet they were probably doing lines of mkat the size of their mum not too long ago


it doesnt make sense to me and it makes my head hurt thinking about it - i got into an argument at a free arty about flouride (i think) and the guy moaning about it had ingested his local legal highs shop

yeah the world's full of dangerous shit. you're gonna ingest it one way or another. a roadman grime mc like u cba worrying about what food is safe and what food isn't.

dubunked wrote:
from the beginning of this thread, i argued that the main reason to be concerned about GMOs is because companies like Monsanto have spent so much money trying to block research into them, buying elections, stopping nutrition labels from saying "contains GMOs" on them, etc. that's what I tried to stick to but somehow it turned into a convo about bio & cancer. I've said numerous times that I do not have a biology degree (do you, btw?). i can't make authoritative statements about the topic. that said, i've taken a few bio & chem courses in college, so I do have some knowledge of the topic.

yeah im arguing that GMO's are completely safe to eat unless they have been modified to have a harmful trait, so i pointed out why what you were saying, with regards to GMOs being unsafe to eat, is wrong. 3 years into a bio degree.

dubunked wrote: I'm not saying GMOs cause, lead to, or increase your risk of developing cancer or other diseases, directly or indirectly, I'm only saying we shouldn't discount the possibility that they do.

Yeah and im disagreeing with you saying that there is no reason why they would lead to this and that we dont need to be as worried as you are suggesting.

dubunked wrote: I speculated that maybe they could indirectly lead to cancer or just as importantly lead to/cause/increase risk of other diseases. Maybe some GMOs are straight up carcinogens themselves? Maybe they contain carcinogenic chemicals? Maybe when a food product contains a GMO, it also needs to contain other chemicals that are carcinogens? I'm not saying any of these are true, I'm just trying to illustrate the point that science has not figured everything out yet.

GMOs cannot be carcinogens because GMOs are genetically modified organisms. unless they have been modified to have a carcinogenic affect they wont be carcinogenic. the only difference between GMOS and normal organisms is that a specific gene which codes for a specific phenotype (character trait) has been inserted into the chromosome. 'food that contains GMOs' the food is the GMO

This is why I'm suggesting you don't quite understand the biology, or what GMOs are

djredi2step wrote:

dubunked wrote: I speculated that maybe they could indirectly lead to cancer or just as importantly lead to/cause/increase risk of other diseases. Maybe some GMOs are straight up carcinogens themselves? Maybe they contain carcinogenic chemicals? Maybe when a food product contains a GMO, it also needs to contain other chemicals that are carcinogens? I'm not saying any of these are true, I'm just trying to illustrate the point that science has not figured everything out yet.

GMOs cannot be carcinogens because GMOs are genetically modified organisms. unless they have been modified to have a carcinogenic affect they wont be carcinogenic. the only difference between GMOS and normal organisms is that a specific gene which codes for a specific phenotype (character trait) has been inserted into the chromosome. 'food that contains GMOs' the food is the GMO

This is why I'm suggesting you don't quite understand the biology, or what GMOs are

Again, I do understand what GMO means, I'm just not using the terms in the same way you're used to. If you go to another university and they teach vectors with a different notation, does that mean they "don't quite understand" vectors?

Perfect example:

djredi2step wrote:'food that contains GMOs' the food is the GMO

Most food products that you buy at a restaurant or a grocery store have more than one ingredient in them. Take pizza for example. The tomatoes might be genetically modified to have fish genes in them, but the bread may not have been. I even said "food products" in that post, but you removed the "products" and quoted me as saying "food that contains GMOs".

djredi2step wrote:GMOs cannot be carcinogens because GMOs are genetically modified organisms. unless they have been modified to have a carcinogenic affect they wont be carcinogenic.

And my point is that, while I cannot be sure that this does or does not happen, it doesn't sound implausible that companies like Monsanto fuck up on massive scales and accidentally sell shit tons of carcinogenic food to the public.

Not to mention the chemicals that are used in the processes of creating & storing GMOs.

djredi2step wrote:This is why I'm suggesting you don't quite understand the biology, or what GMOs are

Ironic.


(GMO)

nowaysj wrote:

djredi2step wrote:This is why I'm suggesting you don't quite understand the biology, or what GMOs are

Ironic.

ironic