new study on vaccination belief - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-04-2013, 06:14 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

Who called you a conspiracy theorist? 

C'mon, now. That's the whole point of the thread. Non-vaccinators = conspiracy theorists. That's the whole "argument". I might have a foil hat on my head but I can still read.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-04-2013, 06:24 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The thread certainly has an anthropological perspective on the Savages. How aproprox that National Geographic is one of the 'sources'.
dinahx is offline  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:26 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post


C'mon, now. That's the whole point of the thread. Non-vaccinators = conspiracy theorists. That's the whole "argument". I might have a foil hat on my head but I can still read.

 

No, the argument is that there are more conspiracy theorists among people who distrust vaccines than among people who believe in them.  It's not saying that if you don't believe in vaccines, then obviously you personally must believe these crazy things too.

 

Again, it's kind of common sense.  How many people who believe the government is behind 9/11 or climate change is a hoax are going to be willing to follow government advice on vaccines?

 

The original study was looking at the role of conspiracy ideation and political conservatism and liberalism in the rejection of science.   

pers is offline  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:39 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Perhaps I should ask, what is the intention of the argument? And what is the intention of posting here in this forum?

Clearly the intention is to discredit the non-vaccinating community by painting us with the same brush.

This whole thread is very insulting.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:41 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Orangeorchid, have you missed my last posts or are you ignoring my questions?


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:46 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

This thread is making me feel barfy.

Seriously, is this what we've evolved into? Name calling? "You're a nutjob!!"

How does any of this have anything to do with vaccine debate? CALLING ME A CONSPIRACY THEORIST IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.

Losing faith in humanity by the second. Good thing I believe in Aliens. Next time they abduct me (which of course the government will try and cover up) I'm going to ask them to keep me on their planet.

 

Ah dalia, I think you are cool and very much not a nut job.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:48 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post
 

I'm afraid you have already made up your mind (see link in post #1 which help explains why people against vaccines oppose science). There's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. Moreover, you have already made a predictable statement in post 41, implying I'm some kind of conspirator.

 

Lol.  You are funny.

 

You seem to have come to some awfully quick conclusions for a newbie.

 

Not surprisingly, you did not answer my question asking how many (what percentage) of non-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists. Saying  non-vaxxers are often conspiracy theorist is a meaningless statement without some numbers.  

 

________

ETA:  I reread post 41.  Post 41 clarifies my intent in posting the link I posted.  It has nothing do with seeing you as a conspirator….it is kind of odd you leapt to that conclusion. 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:52 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Orangeorchid, have you missed my last posts or are you ignoring my questions?

 

He/she is ignoring your questions.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:58 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Ah dalia, I think you are cool and very much not a nut job.  

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!! Kathy thinks I'm cool. :-D

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:10 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post

In the National geographic documentary, it is stated how conspiracy theorists feel the need to find an explanation to everything, even if the explanation is over simplistic.
This is a similarity with those who are against vaccines. Without realizing it, their explanations are oversimplistic. Why? Because it is not based on any real (scientific) evidence. And when the scientific evidence is not available, conspiracy theories arise.

As a defense, they refer to themselves as 'not being mainstream'. Well I'm not mainstream, I'm an atheist and I bet several members cringed when they read this last sentence (and will probably judge me for it)
You're presenting this "information" on conspiracy theorists as fact--and then stating a similarity with "those who are against vaccines."

Substitute any religious belief for either "conspiracy theorists" or "those who are against vaccines," and you'll see exactly how ridiculous--and insulting--your statements are.
Taximom5 is online now  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:12 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

You know, I haven't seen a poster reference specific posts by number since . . .

I must say, I really respect your insolence here!
Taximom5 is online now  
Old 10-05-2013, 08:07 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post
 

One of the issues with vaccines is that in can get pretty tricky to debate. I find that debating GMO's is harder. There's a lot of propaganda out there that is plain false. However, it is of concern that Monsanto management has had seats on top of the FDA. More can be said about the topic (good and bad things about GMOs say) but again, this thread is not the place.

Thank you for answering me. On one hand, I am glad to see you are concerned about Monsanto and the FDA. We all should be concerned. However, most of the posts on this thread were focused on conspiracy theories like 9/11 and the moon. While I do enjoy talking about them, I felt the best "conspiracy theory" to debate here would have been GMOs. After all, the author did lump GMOs together with the other conspiracies, so it would have been right on topic!

 

It seems like the attention was deliberately directed to 9/11 and the moon for some reason. GMOs and vaccines go hand in hand, so it would have been nice to talk about that instead. Sigh, you know what this means.......I'm probably going to start a thread about this.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 10-05-2013, 09:01 AM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Beckybird, it's pretty clear to me that the reason the focus has been on 9/11 and the moon (but mostly 9/11) is that it has, in some people's eyes, the most potential for mockery and also brings up a lot of emotion. I find it very interesting that debating GMOs has no place here yet 9/11 does. It goes back with what I believe the intention of this thread is: to discredit non-vaccinating folks by association with conspiracy theories.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 02:29 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post

This is a misinterpretation. GMO's is an important topic, but a difficult one to debate. When I wrote that there's a lot of propaganda out there, I meant there's a lot of conspiracy theories based on GMO's and I'm pretty sure that conspiracy arguments would be brought up here if the topic is discussed. However, some real concerns do exist, one needs to understand the difference

Please. I'm not stupid.

If the point of the thread is not to discredit by association, then what is the point of the thread?

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 02:54 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
It had nothing to do with discrediting by association...it's about discerning a person's ability to use logic and critical thinking. I don't know enough about GMOs to decide whether I think there is a legitimate concern. However, I DO know enough about 9/11 theories to have formed an opinion about the logic and critical thinking skills of anyone who thinks WTC7 was blown up with explosives, for example. I think that's why most people here are focusing on 9/11 instead of addressing he point about GMOs.
moderatemom is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 03:16 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Let me guess: you believe that YOU have a somewhat rare ability to use Logic & Critical Thinking & *your* interpretation of reality is more reliable than average.
dinahx is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 03:24 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The whole argument on this thread is illogical. It is NOT a legitimate argument.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 03:28 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Let me guess: you believe that YOU have a somewhat rare ability to use Logic & Critical Thinking & *your* interpretation of reality is more reliable than average.
No, certainly not rare nor more reliable than average.
moderatemom is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 06:15 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Important highlights from the film Genetic Roulette:

 

*43:34 to find out what happened to Arpad Pusztai. He was given a 3million dollar grant to research GMOs, and his findings were shocking. What happened to him was even worse.

*43:20 For you Canadians (Kathy :thumb) see  Shiv Chopra, former Health Canada Microbiologist.

*13:02 Leaky Gut and GMOs--Michelle Perro, MD, named one of "America's Top Pediatricians".

 

.......................Below is my favorite conspiracy fact................................

*6:00 Lawsuit Challenges FDA policy on GMOs...lawyer discovered the FDA had been lying about GMOs since 1992. FDA claimed there was an "overwhelming consensus" on the safety of GMOs, and were considered safe. However, the overwhelming consensus within their OWN staff was that the GMO foods could NOT be presumed safe. These scientists urged their superiors to acquire long term studies but were ignored..........Why???

Well, at the time, Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, was the person in charge of policy at the FDA. Later, he became Monsanto's Vice President, and currently, he is back at the FDA in charge of food safety!!!!!

Here is an example of good, honest researchers, who have to listen to a corrupt person in a higher up position.

 

 

 

*I will be editing this post to include highlights from the film*

*This is how I've chosen to spend my Saturday night....duh.gif I hope it wasn't it vain lol!*


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 10-05-2013, 09:18 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post
 But Smith's claims of health issues are unfounded.

Not true.

 

Health claims related to GMOs are tricky to discuss in part because the technology has only been around since the early 90s but currently, they are considered safe.

Considered safe by whom? Do you know anything about this?

 

The label of a conspiracy is not given based on the topic or its importance, but based on the arguments used. This is the same type of faulty logic that many people use when attacking vaccines!!

I don't think there is anything faulty about it, but you seem to.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 10-06-2013, 09:06 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post

One of the issues with vaccines is that in can get pretty tricky to debate. I find that debating GMO's is harder. There's a lot of propaganda out there that is plain false. However, it is of concern that Monsanto management has had seats on top of the FDA. More can be said about the topic (good and bad things about GMOs say) but again, this thread is not the place.

I've been called a "conspiracy theorist" (not in this thread) for pointing out rampant conflicts of interests in vaccine-related research and policy-making. That would be no different from calling you one for pointing out Monsanto's influence over the FDA. Not that you've said otherwise, but conflicts of interest are not conspiracy theories. They're facts.

By the way, (and I'm addressing everybody who ever discusses or debates vaccines), a conspiracy is little more than two or more people agreeing to do something bad. From toilet papering a neighbor's house to embezzling money from a bank, it happens every day and doesn't have to involve Moulder, Scully, Twin Towers, or UFOs.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 10-06-2013, 09:10 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

It had nothing to do with discrediting by association...it's about discerning a person's ability to use logic and critical thinking. I don't know enough about GMOs to decide whether I think there is a legitimate concern. However, I DO know enough about 9/11 theories to have formed an opinion about the logic and critical thinking skills of anyone who thinks WTC7 was blown up with explosives, for example. I think that's why most people here are focusing on 9/11 instead of addressing he point about GMOs.

To assume that being wrong about 9-11 or the moon landing means that someone will be wrong in their criticisms of vaccines demonstrates an inability to use logic and critical thinking. So I hope that's not what you're doing.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 10-06-2013, 09:25 AM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

To assume that being wrong about 9-11 or the moon landing means that someone will be wrong in their criticisms of vaccines demonstrates a patent inability to use logic and critical thinking. So I hope that's not what you're doing.


No,that is not what I'm doing. Criticisms of vaccinations are either valid or they are invalid...the messenger can't affect that. What I'm saying is that I'm less likely to seek information on a science-related topic from someone who I think has already demonstrated a lack of being able to draw a logical conclusion from the information available. I'm sure you would do the same.
moderatemom is offline  
Old 10-06-2013, 10:05 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

 

I am really not interested in debating GMOs, the topic doesn't really interest me and I haven't done a huge amount of research on it. 

 

Having said that, there are recent studies that show that so far they are safe.  

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/review-10-years-gmo-research-no-significant-dangers/

 

"Review of 10 years of GMO research- no significant dangers" 

 

"In the world of scientific research, the absolute highest quality evidence are meta reviews, which are methods to contrast and combine results from a wide swath of peer-reviewed studies which may be useful in identifying patterns, sources of disagreement and other relationships. Since meta reviews combine the results from a larger number of studies, they can be more statistically significant.

 

 

In a meta-review recently published in a peer-reviewed, high impact factor journal, Critical Review of Biotechnology, where the authors collected and evaluated 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports published between 2002 and 2012, a comprehensive process that took over 12 months to complete. The review covered all aspects of GM crop safety, from how the crops interact with the environment to how they could potentially affect the humans and animals who consume them.

And their conclusion?

The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops. " 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 10-06-2013, 10:22 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

I read your SkepticalRaptor link, and I'm not convinced nor impressed. I've also read other literature about the supposed safety of GMOs.  I've given thought to both sides of this, because it IS in fact an important issue.  Did you read my links or watch my video, even just a minute or two? I doubt it. I read your links, so it would be common courtesy for you to look at the info I've presented, if you want to be fair. Would you rather leave your decision up to SkepticalRaptor, or instead review both sides of the argument and then make a decision?


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 10-06-2013, 10:25 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Right, that is what a BioTech journal would conclude.

However, please quote from primary sources. I have no issue with primary sources being quoted on here, they add to the discussion. However I do have an issue with links to 'Skeptic' sites, just as some others would have an issue with links to, for example 'Mercola'. I think we are clear that the 'skeptical movement' is incredibly non-objective, strongly partisan, with a position even on the existence of a higher power & may have totally hijacked the original meaning of the term 'skeptic'.

I am just unable to click on any link from a site like 'skepticalraptor' but I could probably click on a primary study.
dinahx is offline  
Old 10-06-2013, 10:43 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

This is the link from SkepticalRaptor:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041244

Quote:

We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus

The University of Perugia  research team selected the evidence from sources they felt were relevant.

Is there a list of every source they chose, and  who funded the research?  What am I to believe if these research papers were funded by the GM companies? After all, the companies are responsible for assuring the safety of their products (in the USA), not the FDA. Until I know more about the research and its sources, I can only assume the safety studies were conducted by the GM companies. Did this paper include any evidence from independent researchers? Is the study conducted by Arpad Pusztai included in the findings?

Quote:
 Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture.

If you can help me find more information about the research included in the University of Perugia study, it would help out a lot. Otherwise, the study cited by SkepticalRaptor is questionable.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 10-06-2013, 11:03 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Sigh.....opening up to ridicule here......

I just found more GMO info, but sadly, it is on Mercola's site. hide.gif However, as much as I dislike SkepticalRaptor, I did read that link. Would it be too much to ask for you to look at the info on Mercola? Before you answer, you should know that he interviewed Dr. Huber.

Quote:
 

Dr. Don Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, and professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years.

His agriculture research is focused on the epidemiology and control of soil-borne plant pathogens, with specific emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and the physiology of host-parasite relationships.

His research over the past few decades has led him to become very outspoken against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) foods and the use of Roundup in agriculture in general.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/06/dr-huber-gmo-foods.aspx

 

I'll try to find more info from Dr. Huber that is not on Mercola, but this is all I have for now.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 10-06-2013, 11:11 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

No,that is not what I'm doing. Criticisms of vaccinations are either valid or they are invalid...the messenger can't affect that. What I'm saying is that I'm less likely to seek information on a science-related topic from someone who I think has already demonstrated a lack of being able to draw a logical conclusion from the information available. I'm sure you would do the same.


Honestly, I don't turn to any one individual to make my vaccine decisions. I turn to the sources that they cite, if any, and then analyze those sources and try to find competing ones. If BeckyBird cites solid supporting evidence on something vaccine-related, I could care less what her views on 9-11 are. I've heard poor arguments from both vaccine critics and the pro-compliance camp. (Long story, but I no longer say "pro-vaccine") But I look at the arguments, not on the tangential beliefs of the people making them.

Voices for Vaccines put together a schmancy little meme about this junk study for their Facebook page. They must think they've got a real winner with this one. But I expect more from people who consider themselves "skeptics" and "logical." Genuinely logical people evaluate arguments and not the people making them.

By the way, the moon landing happened. Al Quaeda carried out the 9-11 attacks. Global warming is happening, and human activity is exacerbating it. And for anyone wondering, the 1978 Jonestown massacre involved Flavorade, not Kool-Aid. Fortunately, I don't drink either. winky.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 10-06-2013, 05:39 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

@Beckybird  I linked from the skeptical raptor because those are the forum rules when you quote something from a blog. He has many other posts on GMO foods that are much better, that one was just the most recent.  I wasn't pressuring anyone to read it.   I skimmed the Mercola article and also wasn't impressed. 

 

"I'll try to find more info from Dr. Huber that is not on Mercola, but this is all I have for now."  There is information about him, just not flattering information. He hasn't published a single peer reviewed paper substantiating his claims (getting some dejavu here...) and his finding have been criticized by many many experts in the field.  

 

"Extraordinary Claims...require extraordinary evidence" http://www.biofortified.org/2011/02/extraordinary-claims…-require-extraordinary-evidence/  This is a good breakdown of some of his claims for those that are interested. 

 

@Turquesa "Voices for Vaccines put together a schmancy little meme about this junk study for their Facebook page. They must think they've got a real winner with this one." 

 

You mean this? 

 

 

Yeah it's been making the rounds :) 

 

"I've heard poor arguments from both vaccine critics and the pro-compliance camp. (Long story, but I no longer say "pro-vaccine") "

 

I'd love to hear that story. 

 

Anyway, I am not going to debate this further, it's futile just as I expected it would be.  Any source is "biased" and won't be accepted by those who have already come to the conclusion that GMOs are unsafe.   This topic really just does not interest me at all, to be honest.  I have things I would rather be doing with my time than researching information about GMOs. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off