81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
0

if, IF these results translate over to humans perfectly, would you eat the GMO? if not, why? if so, how do you reconcile with your paleo worldview?

by (538)
Updated November 24, 2014 at 3:48 AM
Created November 06, 2012 at 3:34 PM

GMO tomatoe link Please read. Looking forward to the responses.

Don't worry about it being a nightshade, for the purposes of my question just imaginge its spinach, or broccolli or something you'd eat without worry.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 21, 2012 at 2:30 AM

A true believer my friend.

0d2b1ff450021cca6683e4cecf2d6aec
589 · November 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM

TY cbucker-- but I am still avoiding like the plaque. THis is just a n=1 --since I started avoiding I can not tell you how much better I feel. And no it is not just from giving up grains -- i eat grains but non-gmo. Joints feel better stomach feels better etc. Sorry but I am a beliver that frankenGMOs are bad.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM

http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?alternate=N&ARCHID_1=1&ARCHID_2=2&ARCHID_3=3&ARCHID_4=4&ARCHID_5=5&ARCHID_6=6&ARCHID_7=7&ARCHID_8=8&ARCHID_9=9&ARCHID_10=10&ARCHID_11=11&ARCHID_12=12&ARCHID_13=13&ARCHID_14=14&ARCHID_15=15&ARCHID_16=16&ARCHID_17=17&ARCHID_18=18&ARCHID_19=19&ARCHID_20=20&ARCHID_21=21&ARCHID_22=22&ARCHID_23=23&ARCHID_24=24&ARCHID_25=25&query=mehmet&rankby=DEFAULT&errors=0&age=&maxfiles=50&maxlines=30&maxchars=10000&limit=on&cache=yes http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

http://academicsreview.org/2012/10/letter-to-dr-oz-show-producers-by-bruce-chassy-phd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AcademicsReview+%28Academics+Review%29 (just another one, to boot)

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 19, 2012 at 3:35 PM

The following links should be all that is necessary to change your mind. http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-individuals/jeffrey-smith/ http://doccamiryan.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/the-wizardry-of-oz-a-peek-behind-the-curtain-of-the-anti-gm-movement/ (just for leisure reading) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcerative_colitis (no mention of GMO) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritable_bowel_syndrome#Causes (no mention of GMO) http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 12, 2012 at 11:23 PM

You have created a circular definition while attacking me.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 12, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Please present your observation of the facts or articulate specific problems within my reasoning.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 12, 2012 at 11:19 PM

@ jay: The stage of the study is irrelevant, If the benefits of a regular tomato plus the benefit of the novel protein translate perfectly to humans would you it it? Explain why you would/wouldn't. That is the question at hand, you replied that you wouldn't but failed to present any reasoning besides woeful fear mongering, off topic ranting, appeals to emotion, negative image words, straw men arguments, slippery slope arguments, ad hominem, etc.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM

All right well we all agree to disagree, on to more important things.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM

YOU made this about transmitting this study to humans and then deciding based on THIS study if we would consume the GM product in question. It is not our fault you picked a piss poor study. All we can do now is explain to you (ad nauseaum) why it's a piss poor study and steps that would need be taken to improve on it. The end.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Mainly your irrationality is subject to your misunderstanding of the science involved and how studies progress. Not necessarily due to your attempt at "logic".

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:18 PM

WOW. You are lost aren't you? Every one of those you list is debatable since we have not performed the proper double blind studies making said comparisons.....which has been pointed out to you several times. In fact the pathway may not be novel at all... we don't currently know.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM

GMO tomato will have all the well cited benefits of regular tomatoes....I'll just do the first one, since there is no double blind study with said groups you cannot make this assertion.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Not in my observation of the facts. Who opined on logic? I questioned your rationale and working knowledge of the subject matter.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:48 PM

playing semantics, equivocation, petty nit picking, negative image words, irrelevance, diversion. The stage if the trial is irrelevant in the context of this question.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I will take your advice and re-read.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I agree with your saying Michael, but, a question is not an assertion. You want me to answer why I have such 'zeal to be proven right'? It is a loaded question, you assume I already have zeal to be proven right. I have a zeal for accurate argumentation and discussion, zeal for incorporating information and intellectual honesty, zeal for the betterment of our collective knowledge.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

You are not entitled to an opinion on logic, neither am I. The beauty of logic is it has ubiquitous application and immutable criterion. If there is no issue with my logic, my argument is valid and sound. Therefore, I am correct.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Deny any of the following: The GMO tomato will have all the well cited benefits of regular tomatoes, the GMO has an additional novel beneficial molecular pathway, the novel pathway reduces actual plaque along with inflammation and other markers to boot, the GMO has no known unfavorable affects, the GMO has no known pathways to possibly trigger unfavorable affects.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I understand that emotional choice is a beautiful and necessary part of the human condition. I would never advocate a world without it, however, decisions affecting our health, longevity, and genetics should be as purely objective and rational as possible.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 5:45 AM

Is it food? It has been described as drug by the author? I would describe it as drug with a food delivery device....that is if I was forced to describe this VERY preliminary trial.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 5:43 AM

As is anything you disagree with apparently.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 5:24 AM

LOL...please show me where you admit that this particular GMO is not the panacea you pruposed it would be when you presented this question. You can wish in one hand and shit in another my friend....and I could give TWO shits about what you think about certain sayings :)....Through our conversations I've come to the conclusion that you have ZERO clinical and scientific knowledge mixed with a significant amount of philosophy. I find that dangerous. Its like power without knowledge. Work on your knowledge. Good day.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 5:09 AM

Deny what exactly?

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:25 AM

I should say 'basic comprehension skills are all that are needed to recognise some meaning in what I wrote...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:24 AM

Are you not following the flow of discussion here? Seriously... Basic comprehension skills are need to recosnige some meaning in what i wrote. Why not try again, if it's not too 'off topic' for you.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:22 AM

You of all people should know that repetition does not an accurate assertion make.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:20 AM

You are repeating youself. Why not try answering my question before ceaselessly repeating yours, which I have aldread addressed?

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Oh for a world where everything relates to rational choice.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Ok cbucker, you win and are completely logical in your views in your own mind. In my analysis however you are highly irrational, and don't comprehend enough in terms of physiology or the workings of clinical scientific exploration and application to even be involved in this sort of discussion. Good luck with the philosophy bit.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Fine cbucker, you win (in your own mind). In the view of most people in this reality you are being highly illogical.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Show me where the inaccuracies are (anywhere, show me the holes in my logic, show me false info, show me anything). Stick to the topic.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Deny any of the things in my previous entry.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Beside your belligerent ranting, I do not care if you eat or don't eat GMO. I wish to show that there is no logical reason for not eating the GMO in the context of my question. I wish to make people accept that their choice is based in fear and misinformation rather than reality. You shouldn't have to defend yourself and I do not ask you to, I merely ask that you honestly admit that your choice is not within the realm of logic.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 09, 2012 at 4:21 PM

@cbucker, IMO you're either working for GMO makers, or you're trolling - I don't care which. I've already answered the original question as to whether or not I'd eat them and why not and do not require further evidence to be convinced. All you're doing now is phishing for an unnecessary debate or trying to change our minds with idiotic reasons. I don't need to prove anything to anyone, I'm very comfortable NOT eating any GMO ever, and should I ever need to raise my HDL to get the same effect, I'll happily do it by increasing coconut/grassfed butter, NOT by ingesting GMOs. Thank you, bye.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 09, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Like speaking to a brick wall isn't it Stabby? He seems to have a grasp of philosophy, but not much else.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:31 PM

This avenue of discussion is off topic.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Link to what? May have read what?.... This avenue of discussion is off topic.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:17 PM

There was no response to my question. Please find me a response that touches on all the areas of my question.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:14 PM

The GMO tomato has all the properties of a regular tomato with the addition of a novel pathway that actually reduces atherosclerosis, and inflammation, not just risk markers. Your analogy is irrelevant.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I must have missed them Jay, Please point out one.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 09, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Actually there's plenty of issues in the context of THIS particular GM product....as I believe has been convincingly pointed out by at least a few people.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 09, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Actually there's plenty in the context of THIS particular GM product....as I believe has been convincingly argued by at least a few people.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 09, 2012 at 1:46 AM

IMO it's answered. You asked and got response....the end.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 09, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Why write that at all if there wasn't inference regrading my whereabouts preceding it? I could write anything about conventions etc, but if relevancy is your concern I daresay that wouldn't be welcomed.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 09, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Why do you have such seeming zeal to be proven right or wrong? You can narrow or broaden the confines of dicsussion by appealing to relevance concerns etc all you like, it doesn't take away from the snowballing nature of our engagement and that I have never engaged you about alleged inaccuracies pervading the original question. It can't be rules out of course ;)

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 09, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I would love a link. I'm aware of the disctintion and that was a faux pas on my part. I may actually read it rather than dismiss it as being irrelevant to the original question. I note that you haven't said that this avenue of discussion is off-topic...

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 12:44 AM

You can't prove the null. You don't know my motives. Please answer the original question. You will see that there is currently no evidence to back up an unwillingness to eat the GMO in the context of my question.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:44 AM

They had the chance to test it and they didn't for some reason. You could test the new peptide on its own, or you can go control, regular tomato control, new tomato and compare the new and the regular, but you can't just test the new tomato and say that its new feature is better than a regular tomato. Testing the new tomato is testing the whey-horse-piss shake, which we can probably assume would improve lean mass because of the whey.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:31 AM

horse piss improved their lean mass.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:30 AM

"Worst case scenario" not being able to clear LDL from your blood is not a human scenario at all. And the rest of what you say is just assertion, there is no way to demonstrate that the GMO tomato actually improves health more than a regular one unless you compare them. Asserting that the differences will extend lifespan and reduce disease more than the regular tomato is begging the question, as this is the first attempt to test the new "drug" and there was no regular control. I just put horse piss in a whey shake and fed it to mice, which increased their lean mass, that must mean that...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:27 AM

must mean that horse pee improves muscle function!

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:27 AM

"Worst case scenario" not being able to clear LDL from your blood is not a human scenario at all. And the rest of what you say is just assertion, there is no way to demonstrate that the GMO tomato actually improves health more than a regular one unless you compare them. Asserting that the differences will extend lifespan and reduce disease more than the regular tomato is begging the question, as this is the first attempt to test the new "drug" and there was no regular control. I just put horse pee in yogurt and fed yogurt to some GMO mice and now their muscles function is better, that...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:25 AM

"Worst case scenario" not being able to clear LDL from your blood is not a scenario at all. And the rest of what you say is just assertion, there is no way to demonstrate that the GMO tomato actually improves health more than a regular one unless you compare them. Asserting that the differences will extend lifespan and reduce disease is begging the question.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 12:21 AM

It is irrelevant that the author calls it a drug. Mscott was committing equivocation while using negative image wording to push his position that the tomato needs to be tested ad nauseum. Drug: a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body. This is just one of the definitions of a drug which is a fairly unclear word in medical terminology. Please stay on topic and answer the original question.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 12:10 AM

You are correct, I neglected to read your linked studies. After reviewing them, nothing in this discussion has changed. The benefits of the GMO tomato (which also has all the beneficial effects of regular tomatoes) are via novel pathways and are significant in a worst case scenario. The rest of your post is nonsense.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Look, just answer me one question: have they actually demonstrated that this new tomato is better than a regular tomato? Is comparing the new tomato to no tomato when regular tomatoes do what the new tomato does an argument that the new tomato is better than the regular tomato? Hmmm?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Use when trying to differentiate their product from the others. Introduce a change and say that the change makes it superior, but they have not demonstrated that and are blustering about their new product. Also it should be obvious that if mice can't clear LDL from their blood via the LDL receptor this could allow for a benefit of the new compound in that one irrelevant genetic model which doesn't exist in a normal model. I am being expected to belief that it is on faith without the proper scientific demonstration.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:21 PM

I posted links in my answer, like this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22224814 Maybe if you actually cared about anything other than arguing with people you would have actually read the links in my answer. The fact of the matter is that regular tomatoes reduce inflammation, prevent atherosclerosis, and prevent endothelial dysfunction in mice and if you want to be able to say that this new tomato has an advantage you actually have to compare them. For all we know the benefit seen in the study you linked to could have just been regular old tomato. This is a snake-oil tactic that people..

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:14 PM

"After the mice ate the tomatoes as 2.2 percent of their Western-style high-fat, calorie-packed diet, those given the peptide-enhanced tomatoes had significantly: lower blood levels of inflammation; higher paraoxonase activity, an anti-oxidant enzyme associated with good cholesterol and related to a lower risk of heart disease; higher levels of good cholesterol; decreased lysophosphatidic acid, a tumor promoter that accelerates plaque build-up in arteries in animal models; and less atherosclerotic plaque." read the article, they said that the mice had less atherosclerosis

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I'm afraid I'll just have to stick to clinical science for now.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Can I hire you two as my philosophy instructors? I just read a book called "Socrates Cafe" and he doesn't cover any of this :o

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Its exactly as Mscott characterized it....at least according to the lead author who you are more than welcome to dispute if you like....drug study with a tomatoe as a deliver vehicle.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 6:34 PM

And in the process of studying this as a drug the trials will include things such as Stabby, Mscott, and myself have pointed out like..... "that it is a tomato. I provided links demonstrating that regular tomatoes improve the exact same clinical endpoint: atherosclerosis." in Stabby's comment. So in the end double blind studies....and so on and so forth.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 6:30 PM

If it is a drug...as the lead author declares it....then it must be processed and studied as such. Then classified and prescribed/or utilized on the basis of treatment in accordance with evidence based medicine for a particular condition.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 6:25 PM

"This is not a drug however" says cbucker. However... "To our knowledge this is the first example of a drug with these properties that has been produced in an edible plant and is biologically active when fed without any isolation or purification of the drug," says Fogelman....doesn't seem that we invented the negative rhetoric when the lead author himself declares it a drug.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I'm not sure how I've let you drive me so far off topic or what relevance this has to eating a GMO tomato but, yes, I did not assume anything about the whereabouts of the author. I would have left the "(in America)" part out if I assumed you were from there.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 5:21 PM

This linked article is about arguments, your assertion was about 'statements' (I could provide a link to their respective definitions if you would like). Even if you spoke of arguments its only a half truth at best. Where are biases underpinning almost every argument? Yes, you have to have a goal.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Thats an appeal to the stone Michael. Show me where the inaccuracies are. Stick to the topic.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 08, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I don't believe you've read the article, it clearly states that the peptide does provide some of the same benefits as HDL. I don't know that it isn't dangerous, I don't need to have proof that it is dangerous. The manufacturer has a duty to prove its safety, and I don't mean the rubberstamping style that GMO makers use now. I mean multi year studies, not just with mice. The benefit is dubious because I can get the same kinds of effects by eating more grassfed butter. I don't know why you're pushing this stuff when it's unnecessary. Hence, I distrust your motives.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 08, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Yes, I'm saying I would avoid any GMOs, including that tomato. I didn't say the peptide did exactly what cholesterol is, I said, if I wanted to raise my HDL, I'd eat more healthy fats. I don't know if the peptide has harmful side effects or not, and since GMO plants aren't an exact science, but rather a shotgun gene insertion, I absolutely would not eat that tomato. If the peptide itself did something beneficial and was well studied for many years, IF, and only IF I needed it and couldn't get its effects elsewhere, I'd take a purified form of whatever it was, not the whole plant.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So you're saying you made that statement without having assumed the person it was directed to (ie me) was in America...?

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 3:50 PM

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/hidden.php Do I have to have a clear cut goal?

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 3:49 PM

You clearly didn't read the links I put up there. oh well

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Admittedly, it was a petty nit-pick on my part. I also didn't assume a thing, It is merely a statement that in America were use quotes a certain way.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:24 PM

"There are biases and assumptions underpinning almost any statement." This is a baseless assertion and an irrelevant glittering generality. Once more, please identify any biases, inaccuracies, or questionable assumptions I have made. Also please state your goal for my sake, I'm interested.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Please attempt to show where I have been inaccurate on the topic of the original question.(you may try finding where I've been inaccurate in general, but what a fruitless ordeal that may be)

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Where is the ad hominem? Your pompous language has betrayed you and taken you off topic (as it tends to do). "Signification is always (at least) a two way street, and inference can be a big part of that." I replied, "Signification or Significance (synonym) is rarely a 'two way street'. Please stop the attempts at Pompous language. Valid inference with true premises are the only ones I'm interested in. People are not privileged to their own facts." now you say you meant 'Semiotics' and 'Inductive reasoning' instead of 'Signification' and 'inference'? Moving the goalpost much?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Correct. It says nothing of the potential side effects. This is not a drug however and using negative inaccurate rhetoric does not strengthen your position. Again, the null is "This does not cause harmful effects/side effects." Until there is evidence to reject the null you default to the null. It is also helpful to provide a working pathway based in biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular physics, etc. through wich a potential side effect may occur. You can say you wouldn't eat it, but there is no logical reason why.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Who says anything about magic? The study cited doesn't even look at atherosclerosis, it merely postulates that lowering inflammation via lycopene intake (also present in the GMO tomato) it may be able to reduce the risk of it ('atherosclerosis' doesn't even appear in the article). Why can't you see that the pathway in the GMO tomato is a novel one? Stop bantering about the LDL HDL and genetic mods on mice, its very irritating, they used these mice as a worst case scenario. Please, take one second to use your brain, apply what I've said to your analysis and see if it makes sense

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:22 AM

that it is a tomato. I provided links demonstrating that regular tomatoes improve the exact same clinical endpoint: atherosclerosis. It is obvious that tomatoes reduce inflammation: another endpoint http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23069270 The other markers are not endpoints. show me that GMO tomatoes improve clinical endpoints better than regular tomatoes in mice that can remove LDL from their blood like humans can. That is all, good day sir.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:19 AM

All I want is for them to try to prove that their magic tomato is better than a regular tomato by comparing them, how is that an issue? That they don't demonstrates obvious bias. "They fed the tomatoes to mice that lack the ability to remove low density lipoprotein (LDL or "bad" cholesterol) from their blood and readily develop inflammation and atherosclerosis when consuming a high-fat diet." ALL HUMANS CAN REMOVE LDL FROM THEIR BLOOD, THIS IS THE GENETIC CHANGE. I never said that no GMO tomato could be beneficial, just that I want them to prove that it's the modification and not the fact...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 4:42 AM

I haven't said you're 'innacurate', have merely expressed some views. That's a faulty 'accusation' your making of me I'm afraid. There are biases and assumptoins underpinning almost any statement. If someone points out percetible biases or assumptoins that underpin your writings, what's the problem? (please excuse my use of 'what's as opposed to 'what is', but tbh on a message board I don't see a problem with it...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 4:30 AM

This is an online message board, you think that standards of referncing is relevant here? lol You missed a few full stops there by the way, if those sort of standars are your thing. By the way, I am not in America. You've made a faulty assumption in advising me how to quote. (Thanks for the tip though).

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 4:26 AM

measured by tandards of validity etc.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 4:25 AM

That's not an 'ad hominem' is it? How 'unnecessary', if not ironic ;) Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29 Aside from thinking I said 'signiifcance', you say I am pompous when I use cliches like 'two way street'. More irony. Note: when I write irony, I do not mean one of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothes_iron This too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning. You might see that inductive arguments by definion are not

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12702 · November 08, 2012 at 3:37 AM

If we assume the beneficial effects translate to humans with familial hypercholesterolemia (and I actually suspect they would) this still says little of the possible side effects these drugs often have. That's why I look at the stage of the study; whether they use mice or humans they haven't reached the stage where they examine whether it increases mortality from all causes when you don't use models with a huge statistical likelihood of dying from CVD.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:21 AM

Completely out of context Michael. I was crystal clear with what I wanted in a response, I withheld the explicit goal of getting said response to properly gather information. When you quote someone you use "these." (in America) The period also goes inside the quotes.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:13 AM

Please, attempt to show me where I have been inaccurate.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:07 AM

Signification or Significance (synonym) is rarely a 'two way street'. Please stop the attempts at Pompous language. Valid inference with true premises are the only ones I'm interested in. People are not privileged to their own facts.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 1:22 AM

'Be clear, concise, and consistent so nobody will have to infer meaning or be able to misconstrue your words'.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I'm glad to see you recognise ad hominems, if you can't recognise that statements often have assumptions and hidden premise embedded in them then though, for all the use and application of a few terms of logic you seem to be espousing some interesting points in this thread yourself.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Signification is always (at least) a two way street, and inference can be a big part of that.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 11:28 PM

This is food ray, and why do you keep saying 'get HDL' and talking about cholesterol and the like? I never said there was a 'need' to get anything from a GMO.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Really? Standard tomatoes produce all of the effects listed? I love for you to find something to back that up. Why can't a genetic modification trigger a beneficial change? "And there is no rationale for using GMO mice because you can produce all of those changes with a bad diet in mice. But you aren't introducing profound genetic changes in mice that no human has." <- This needs clarification, what in the world does it mean? You've got some explaining to do if you plan on making up any ground stabby.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 11:19 PM

There are so many things wrong with your response I'm not entirely sure where to start. First: the peptide isn't in any way shape or form acting like cholesterol. Second: Why is it dangerous? Third: what makes the benefit 'dubious'? fourth: because I disagree with you does not mean I'm trolling and/or working for big anyone, it's called a question-begging definition.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 9:42 PM

3 groups needed. 1 no-tomato, 1 regular tomato, 1 gmo tomato, that's your take-away. That the scientists didn't do this screams snake oil.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I said it plainly, there needs to be a regular tomato control group, as well as a no-tomato control group, so that we can say that the GMO tomatoes are better than regular tomatoes, which do all of those things in their own right. There is no way to say that the new modification helped the already beneficial properties of tomatoes. And there is no rationale for using GMO mice because you can produce all of those changes with a bad diet in mice. But you aren't introducing profound genetic changes in mice that no human has.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I should have been more clear, or maybe you should have read better, there needs to be a normal tomato consuming control as well as a no-tomato control so be able to say that this new tomato reduces atherosclerosis better than regular tomatoes. There is no rationale to use GMO mice because you can easily produce atherosclerosis in mice with a bad diet. What are you some GMO shill?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I should have been more clear, or maybe you should have read better, there needs to be a normal tomato consuming control as well as a no-tomato control so be able to say that this new tomato reduces atherosclerosis better than regular tomatoes. There is no rational to use GMO mice because you can easily produce atherosclerosis in mice with a bad diet. What are you some GMO shill? Read the post.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 07, 2012 at 9:25 PM

@cbucker, why not get antioxidants from food? Why not get HDL from good quality fats such as grassfed butter. Why does anyone need to get it from GMOs?

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 07, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Why would you eat it? As far as I understand this peptide does what cholesterol does. Why not just raise your HDL levels by eating a good grassfed butter? Why do you (or I) need to eat dangerous GMOs in order to gain this dubious benefit? Unless you're just trolling or working for big pharma/agra.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 4:55 PM

So, you're saying you wouldn't eat the tomato if the benefits translated perfectly to humans? You wrote a bunch, but none of it really had any relevant substance so excuse me if I'm being dense.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Be clear, concise, and consistent so nobody will have to infer meaning or be able to misconstrue your words. Irrespective of the exchange between you and I, I stand firmly behind my original response Michael.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 4:07 PM

@ Michael: I feared I would betray my goal if I was to forward with said goal. I got exactly what I wanted; a small working lesson of the mindsets/worldviews/dogmas/logic espoused by members in this community.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 4:04 PM

@ Michael: I merely identified his statement as loaded, described to him why, and asked for and explanation of what he perceives as bias. I never preached assumptions per-se were wrong as you have (well, wrongly) accused me of. Your ad hominem at the end is unnecessary.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Your opinion is valid, however I said to assume these effect translate perfectly to humans. Why are you debating the stage of study?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 3:27 PM

The rationale for using mice who cannot clear cholesterol goes like this. Since the mice cannot clear cholesterol and it is demonstrated that these mice have much higher levels of inflammation and develop atherosclerosis readily because of that inability, it follows that eating this tomato which lowers inflammation and plaque buildup (even though as said before the mice simply cannot clear cholesterol) will certainly be beneficial to mice who already can clear cholesterol. In other words, it is highly effective even in the worst case scenario.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Even if you are skeptical of 'reverse cholesterol transport theory' they have two inflammatory measures that are improved, and heres the big one "•less atherosclerotic plaque" (!!!!!!). Beyond this your criticism of the study is irrelevent as I said to assume these effects translate perfectly to humans i.e. all 5 of the bulleted effects appear in humans.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Why do you think there wasn't a control? " those given the peptide-enhanced tomatoes" (opposed to those who weren't), "•lower blood levels of inflammation; •higher paraoxonase activity, an anti-oxidant enzyme associated with good cholesterol and related to a lower risk of heart disease; •higher levels of good cholesterol; •decreased lysophosphatidic acid, a tumor promoter that accelerates plaque build-up in arteries in animal models; and •less atherosclerotic plaque."(all the adj and adv are compared to the mice who ate none)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41544 · November 07, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Apparently, the Roundup-corn/mouse/cancer study is being critisized for being lousy. I didn't read it, but did watch someone present a synopsis of it a few weeks ago. Not surprised it's suspect, given his politics.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12702 · November 07, 2012 at 3:53 AM

Excellent points, JayJay. The way I see it this as essentially a very preliminary drug study using tomatoes as a delivery vehicle.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 07, 2012 at 3:26 AM

Assumptions aren't inherently bad, as you seem to (wrongly) assume. Inductive arguments depends on assumptions. For someone who's seemingly keen on science and logic and 'shooting down' others, I'd expected you to recognise that.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 07, 2012 at 3:24 AM

So there is knowledge underpinning this question then? That knowledge might relate to any 'points' you had in mind when framing the question, beyond your stated aim of guaging responses...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 07, 2012 at 3:17 AM

A rhetoical question in which an implied answer is embedded seems a good enough answer for me. Answers come in many shapes and sizes surely?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 3:04 AM

So to answer your question simply "If these results transferred to humans perfectly would you eat this GM food?" No, not without further study. This single trial is inadequate and performed on unhealthy rats/humans to start with. We don't have enough information regarding long term effects of these alterations and how mimicking HDL without associated actual raised levels of such will effect the organism.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 3:00 AM

No problem cbucker :). If I understand your position you are here to assess this community in terms of how they think and present their thoughts primarily. I'm not even going to pretend I'm interested in this myself. People will express their opinions and its up to you to either accept them or not. If you reject them due to that persons lack of logic or science so be it. But, realize this is not academia and many here are not attempting to answer in such a manner.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:40 AM

We don't have to leave it, If you so wish I will dignify you with addressing your 'qualms' one by one. Kudos on using my own stuff back on me though, gave me the chuckles! :)

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:37 AM

That's a loaded statement, you assume I'm already biased. What exactly am I 'biased' against again? When you finally read the roundup study, which I already have (just completed it btw), you are free to show me where Dr. Salzberg is mistaken in his interpretation of the original data. I'll be looking forward to your response.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:33 AM

"Your qualms are unfounded and unrelated to the question in which you attempt to relate." I.e. "I have no idea how to respond because you are right....my bias has blinded me". Its cool... we can feel happy leaving this discourse with mutual disrespect.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Ah, never mind. We can just leave our relationship at that of mutual disrespect. Good luck fleshing these things out for yourself.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Your qualms are unfounded and unrelated to the question in which you attempt to relate. Your 'responses' are more or less rants rather than anything else. My post has accomplished the feat of showing me just how ignorant and dogmatic some people are in this supposedly science centered community. I read, and try to respond to every post /answer.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:27 AM

NM I can find it....however, that you continuing to link articles rather than the actual studies says something to me about your biases.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:21 AM

^so bring me back then C....i gave my qualms with your framing of this question and why I've responded as such. Does your question and your article accomplish what you wished? I think you made a mess of things from the get go. But, please respond to the rest rather than latching on to my not paying much attention as your own out.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:20 AM

^so bring me back then C....i gave my qualms with your framing of this question and why I've responded the in such. Does your question and your article accomplish what you wished? I think you made a mess of things from the get go.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:18 AM

@cbucker could you bother to link the actual studies? I don't like to get my science second hand through hand picked articles. That goes for the original question too. I was looking for the roundup study. They did have a group with only the GM and no round up, so the info is there somewhere.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:11 AM

"I'm sure my way of looking at this does not adhere to strict debate format and whatnot, but I'm watching Family Guy and throwing out some thoughts....thats about it." Read: I have no clue how to formulate a consistent argument and I have no knowledge of logic but I'm confused and tired of getting rebuked so I'm going to act like I never cared about this discussion in the first place. seriously Jay, your so very and completely off topic.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:02 AM

I'm just shooting down flawed reasoning and logic where it appears. If a lucid, valid, and consistent answer was posted I would enjoy learning from it, even if It was totally against everything I thought I knew.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:55 AM

I'm sure my way of looking at this does not adhere to strict debate format and whatnot, but I'm watching Family Guy and throwing out some thoughts....thats about it.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:54 AM

...saying this is NOT dangerous is not the same as saying it will produce BETTER health presumably to not including it in your diet. So in the end, no I don't see enough evidence to indicate this is something that will improve your health....nor do I see, well any information in this article to indicate that it is harmful....again though, that wasn't even the focus.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:53 AM

I was wrong about the Pesticide causing cancer as well, I will remove my comment.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:52 AM

@ luckie. educate yourself. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/ And the authors info on wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Salzberg

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:51 AM

The NIH will do...I gave a short list. I think part of my problem is in your question you state "if this held true in humans would you eat it". Well, the article you link seems to make the assertion that this is somehow an improvement on the original in terms of producing BETTER health markers. I see flaws in that assumption. So your later stating that the null hypothesis for this thread is that this GM product is NOT dangerous is at odds with the article....

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:43 AM

What, exactly would you like 'them' to test in these studies? and who is the 'them' that will do the studies?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:41 AM

What exactly would you like 'them' to test in this study?

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d
10490 · November 07, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Then what is the point your are getting at with your comments on this thread, if not your original question?

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d
10490 · November 07, 2012 at 1:39 AM

@cbucker - Roundup ready corn, or roundup corn, is the GMO corn itself. It has been genetically modified not to be killed by the pesticide Roundup. The mice were fed the GMO corn, not the pesticide it is resistant to.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:38 AM

I never asserted that the study I linked to proves anything, I do not know where you got that from. It's a question, I do not have a 'point' to make.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:16 AM

That would be from the pesticides Matt, not anything to do with the GMO.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:15 AM

As I stated above...and so I can track it here...we need more studies. How hard is that to understand?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Matt said "The absence of studies does not mean that they are unsafe, but rather unstudied".....well I have a problem with that. I want more studies.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Its fine that you can't prove a null hypothesis, but that doesn't mean you don't even perform the studies necessary to disprove it. And those take time and much more information than is in this single experiment.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:08 AM

And the study you cite "proves" nothing. It simply adds to the current data set about this particular GM food under these very specific circumstances. Whats your point?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:02 AM

From you I shall take that as a compliment.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41544 · November 07, 2012 at 12:23 AM

I agree that GMO-critics need to show more evidence that supports their position. The absence of studies on GMOs does not mean they are unsafe, but rather unstudied. The recent study however showing significant cancer rate enhancement in mice fed Roundup corn over their lifetimes is something to consider.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 12:22 AM

The lack of comprehension and understanding you have demonstrated is utterly astounding.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 12:20 AM

You cannot prove a null hypothesis. I truly advise you educate yourself before asserting claims and giving snarky remarks. It tends to be rather embarrassing.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 12:15 AM

I do not care what 'they' say about assumptions. Once again argument from cliche' isn't an argument at all. You are free to read about burden of proof, informal logic, null hypothesis and the like. I take issue with your position that America is 'far behind' other nations in many ways but since it is irrelevant to this topic i'll leave it for another day.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 11:35 PM

I think the question you meant to pose was...."If we could make GM tomatoes that allowed you to live to 120 without disease or infirmary would you eat it? If so how do you reconcile that with your word views?"

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 11:33 PM

TBH your question is flawed because this study, even if done in humans is only a preliminary one. There is nothing near conclusive results here. For instance they still haven't done a double blind trial with one set of rats eating 2.2% heirloom tomatoes vs these modified ones....perhaps any displacement of that 2.2% of a western diet will do. Or how about diets other than the "western diet" (which actually was not sufficiently explained in the article)? What of effects on ALL CAUSE mortality, rather than just cardio markers? The list goes on and on....

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 11:20 PM

I don't find anything dogmatic in demanding long term testing for efficacy before unleashing a previously unknown on the entire population. And in the evidence department heirloom tomatoes have a lengthy track record. Since you do have a choice, what is wrong with choosing the one with more evidence of safe consumption?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 10:35 PM

^ I always thought the burden of proof would lie with the newly purposed food source. And you know what they say about assumptions. The US is just far behind other countries in many ways. Labeling is one of them.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 8:17 PM

When faced with the comparison between a GMO vs natural product the differences need to be proven, not the similarities. the similarities are to be assumed exept for the specific Genotype and phenotype changes induced. If by chaging the genotype the phenotype changes in a regular, specific, and reproducable manner then the rest of the properties of the organism are to be assumed to be unchanged until proven otherwise. The null hypothesis in this discussion is that GMO are NOT bad for you. If you avow that they are not safe, bad for you, or better for you then the burden of proof lies with you.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 8:04 PM

You have answered a question with a question, which isn't in fact an answer.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 8:02 PM

I pretty much completely agree. This is a "dredge" of sorts to feel out the community and the thought process that goes on. I see a large amount of so-called informative posts out here that are irreverent of fact and science. This is a problem when the metaphorical torch the paleo community holds above others is the proper application of logic to the available evidence.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23
11048 · November 06, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Labeling should exist so I know what I'm purchasing. I'm not interested in consuming GMO products as there is no data showing they are safe long-term. Monsanto won't allow it, as they hold the patents.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Why should there be labeling? What is the goal of such action?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 7:24 PM

I'm interested in all views, especially consistent and lucid ones, I'm open to literally anything that is based in reality. If an inconsistent and/or dogmatic view is put forward it should be refuted thusly.

Bdc4873264ec9dbec27505e678dabce0
432 · November 06, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Why risk it? (there is no benefit) You'll sleep better at night knowing you took one fewer risk.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23
11048 · November 06, 2012 at 7:18 PM

And your comment is asinine, cbucker. Don't ask for input and the opinions of others if you aren't open to other views.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Did you completely ignore the inflamatory markers and anti-oxidant enzymes, or did you just not bother to read the article before sharing?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 6:38 PM

"if it's not broke don't fix it". Cliche' is hardly a rationale for health decisions. Why wouldn't you eat it? Your response is inconsistent and dogmatic.

  • Total Views
    1.7K
  • Recent Activity
    0d2b1ff450021cca6683e4cecf2d6aec
  • Last Activity
    99D AGO
  • Followers
    1

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

10 Answers

best answer

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73
4
20908 · November 06, 2012 at 7:17 PM

GMO isn't scary by itself. Lots of people are trying to make GMO be a scary thing: from the envrionuts who go around dressed in HASMAT suits protesting all the way to reasonable bloggers. This is yet another area where context matters: why is something GMO, what makes it better/worse in this case!

For example GM wheat. why: it grows faster, stands up better, more yield per harvest. how: the extra genes in the wheat encode for more gluten which is a structural protein (and other proteins). So GM wheat has more gluten than wheat of yore, plus it has other proteins in it that may or may not be bad for us, we don't know. The problem is that because it's still called "wheat", it's still treated as "wheat" by the USDA and food labeling laws, but it actually is a different organism.

Another example GM corn. why: it's resistant to Round-up (and other glycophospate herbicides). what makes this bad: well now you can just dump herbicides on your crops and kill the weeds. Just because the corn now doesn't die, doesn't mean that herbicides aren't in the food. Or that you're poisoning the water supply by such overuse of herbicides, etc.

In both of those cases the GM component does something bad and often unintended. But that doesn't mean in general anything GM is bad. Nature does it's on GM with cross pollination and the like. You need to look at the output in each case and see if the GM did something bad.

The main point, is don't be like the environuts out there and make tons of noise about a something because it sounds scary. Make sure you understand it. If it truly is scary, then make noise.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 8:02 PM

I pretty much completely agree. This is a "dredge" of sorts to feel out the community and the thought process that goes on. I see a large amount of so-called informative posts out here that are irreverent of fact and science. This is a problem when the metaphorical torch the paleo community holds above others is the proper application of logic to the available evidence.

Bdc4873264ec9dbec27505e678dabce0
432 · November 06, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Why risk it? (there is no benefit) You'll sleep better at night knowing you took one fewer risk.

06ca9c524c28bc3fba95d4d90f8f43c6
6
5006 · November 06, 2012 at 6:53 PM

I worry about GMOs because the motives behind their production are based on profits rather than productive health. As others have said, I'm not against trying a new food source if it has been extensively researched. What does concern me is that $45 million has been spent in opposition of the labeling.

Matt
PhysiqueRescue.com

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:13 AM

Please, attempt to show me where I have been inaccurate.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 8:17 PM

When faced with the comparison between a GMO vs natural product the differences need to be proven, not the similarities. the similarities are to be assumed exept for the specific Genotype and phenotype changes induced. If by chaging the genotype the phenotype changes in a regular, specific, and reproducable manner then the rest of the properties of the organism are to be assumed to be unchanged until proven otherwise. The null hypothesis in this discussion is that GMO are NOT bad for you. If you avow that they are not safe, bad for you, or better for you then the burden of proof lies with you.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:16 AM

That would be from the pesticides Matt, not anything to do with the GMO.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 07, 2012 at 3:26 AM

Assumptions aren't inherently bad, as you seem to (wrongly) assume. Inductive arguments depends on assumptions. For someone who's seemingly keen on science and logic and 'shooting down' others, I'd expected you to recognise that.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:37 AM

That's a loaded statement, you assume I'm already biased. What exactly am I 'biased' against again? When you finally read the roundup study, which I already have (just completed it btw), you are free to show me where Dr. Salzberg is mistaken in his interpretation of the original data. I'll be looking forward to your response.

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d
10490 · November 07, 2012 at 1:39 AM

@cbucker - Roundup ready corn, or roundup corn, is the GMO corn itself. It has been genetically modified not to be killed by the pesticide Roundup. The mice were fed the GMO corn, not the pesticide it is resistant to.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:27 AM

NM I can find it....however, that you continuing to link articles rather than the actual studies says something to me about your biases.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23
11048 · November 06, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Labeling should exist so I know what I'm purchasing. I'm not interested in consuming GMO products as there is no data showing they are safe long-term. Monsanto won't allow it, as they hold the patents.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:53 AM

I was wrong about the Pesticide causing cancer as well, I will remove my comment.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Why should there be labeling? What is the goal of such action?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41544 · November 07, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Apparently, the Roundup-corn/mouse/cancer study is being critisized for being lousy. I didn't read it, but did watch someone present a synopsis of it a few weeks ago. Not surprised it's suspect, given his politics.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Can I hire you two as my philosophy instructors? I just read a book called "Socrates Cafe" and he doesn't cover any of this :o

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 4:04 PM

@ Michael: I merely identified his statement as loaded, described to him why, and asked for and explanation of what he perceives as bias. I never preached assumptions per-se were wrong as you have (well, wrongly) accused me of. Your ad hominem at the end is unnecessary.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:52 AM

@ luckie. educate yourself. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/ And the authors info on wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Salzberg

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I'm glad to see you recognise ad hominems, if you can't recognise that statements often have assumptions and hidden premise embedded in them then though, for all the use and application of a few terms of logic you seem to be espousing some interesting points in this thread yourself.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 10:35 PM

^ I always thought the burden of proof would lie with the newly purposed food source. And you know what they say about assumptions. The US is just far behind other countries in many ways. Labeling is one of them.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41544 · November 07, 2012 at 12:23 AM

I agree that GMO-critics need to show more evidence that supports their position. The absence of studies on GMOs does not mean they are unsafe, but rather unstudied. The recent study however showing significant cancer rate enhancement in mice fed Roundup corn over their lifetimes is something to consider.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 5:21 PM

This linked article is about arguments, your assertion was about 'statements' (I could provide a link to their respective definitions if you would like). Even if you spoke of arguments its only a half truth at best. Where are biases underpinning almost every argument? Yes, you have to have a goal.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 09, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I would love a link. I'm aware of the disctintion and that was a faux pas on my part. I may actually read it rather than dismiss it as being irrelevant to the original question. I note that you haven't said that this avenue of discussion is off-topic...

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 12:15 AM

I do not care what 'they' say about assumptions. Once again argument from cliche' isn't an argument at all. You are free to read about burden of proof, informal logic, null hypothesis and the like. I take issue with your position that America is 'far behind' other nations in many ways but since it is irrelevant to this topic i'll leave it for another day.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 3:50 PM

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/hidden.php Do I have to have a clear cut goal?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:18 AM

@cbucker could you bother to link the actual studies? I don't like to get my science second hand through hand picked articles. That goes for the original question too. I was looking for the roundup study. They did have a group with only the GM and no round up, so the info is there somewhere.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I will take your advice and re-read.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I'm afraid I'll just have to stick to clinical science for now.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:24 PM

"There are biases and assumptions underpinning almost any statement." This is a baseless assertion and an irrelevant glittering generality. Once more, please identify any biases, inaccuracies, or questionable assumptions I have made. Also please state your goal for my sake, I'm interested.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 4:42 AM

I haven't said you're 'innacurate', have merely expressed some views. That's a faulty 'accusation' your making of me I'm afraid. There are biases and assumptoins underpinning almost any statement. If someone points out percetible biases or assumptoins that underpin your writings, what's the problem? (please excuse my use of 'what's as opposed to 'what is', but tbh on a message board I don't see a problem with it...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:25 AM

I should say 'basic comprehension skills are all that are needed to recognise some meaning in what I wrote...

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Link to what? May have read what?.... This avenue of discussion is off topic.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:24 AM

Are you not following the flow of discussion here? Seriously... Basic comprehension skills are need to recosnige some meaning in what i wrote. Why not try again, if it's not too 'off topic' for you.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
3
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 4:20 AM

The paper doesn't appear to be available, but the way they are talking it doesn't sound like they used a control group. Tomatoes inherently have some beneficial properties and have improved cardiovascular health in mice before:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22224814 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17872457 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10052125

Including ApoE-deficient mice who are susceptible to atherosclerosis.

If you want to say that new spiffy GMO tomatoes are da best tomatoes you have to compare them to regular tomatoes under the same conditions, because regular tomatoes improve cardiovascular health. The new changes could change nothing.

Chris Masterjohn has written an article about the reverse cholesterol transport theory (HDL tha good cholesterol saves our arteries from cholesterol) and how it is a little more dubious than people think. He mentions an HDL-boosting drug that failed miserably to prevent heart disease...and killed a lot of people http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2009/03/wherefore-art-thy-protection-o-hdl.html It may not be the same thing, but I am scared of these tomatoes. Luckily they would probably be labeled as super-tomatoes.

And those mice are an even worse extrapolation to humans than regular mice, why not just use normal mice if your tomatoes are beneficial under normal conditions? The mind boggles. Even if this product is safe, it wreaks of snake oil.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1N3oqbmSiMk/TgtAd0-HLoI/AAAAAAAAIH8/ZpktSCnzFck/s1600/Tom.jpg ???????????????

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 9:42 PM

3 groups needed. 1 no-tomato, 1 regular tomato, 1 gmo tomato, that's your take-away. That the scientists didn't do this screams snake oil.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:14 PM

The GMO tomato has all the properties of a regular tomato with the addition of a novel pathway that actually reduces atherosclerosis, and inflammation, not just risk markers. Your analogy is irrelevant.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Even if you are skeptical of 'reverse cholesterol transport theory' they have two inflammatory measures that are improved, and heres the big one "•less atherosclerotic plaque" (!!!!!!). Beyond this your criticism of the study is irrelevent as I said to assume these effects translate perfectly to humans i.e. all 5 of the bulleted effects appear in humans.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 3:27 PM

The rationale for using mice who cannot clear cholesterol goes like this. Since the mice cannot clear cholesterol and it is demonstrated that these mice have much higher levels of inflammation and develop atherosclerosis readily because of that inability, it follows that eating this tomato which lowers inflammation and plaque buildup (even though as said before the mice simply cannot clear cholesterol) will certainly be beneficial to mice who already can clear cholesterol. In other words, it is highly effective even in the worst case scenario.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:25 AM

"Worst case scenario" not being able to clear LDL from your blood is not a scenario at all. And the rest of what you say is just assertion, there is no way to demonstrate that the GMO tomato actually improves health more than a regular one unless you compare them. Asserting that the differences will extend lifespan and reduce disease is begging the question.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Deny any of the things in my previous entry.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Why do you think there wasn't a control? " those given the peptide-enhanced tomatoes" (opposed to those who weren't), "•lower blood levels of inflammation; •higher paraoxonase activity, an anti-oxidant enzyme associated with good cholesterol and related to a lower risk of heart disease; •higher levels of good cholesterol; •decreased lysophosphatidic acid, a tumor promoter that accelerates plaque build-up in arteries in animal models; and •less atherosclerotic plaque."(all the adj and adv are compared to the mice who ate none)

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I should have been more clear, or maybe you should have read better, there needs to be a normal tomato consuming control as well as a no-tomato control so be able to say that this new tomato reduces atherosclerosis better than regular tomatoes. There is no rational to use GMO mice because you can easily produce atherosclerosis in mice with a bad diet. What are you some GMO shill? Read the post.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Really? Standard tomatoes produce all of the effects listed? I love for you to find something to back that up. Why can't a genetic modification trigger a beneficial change? "And there is no rationale for using GMO mice because you can produce all of those changes with a bad diet in mice. But you aren't introducing profound genetic changes in mice that no human has." <- This needs clarification, what in the world does it mean? You've got some explaining to do if you plan on making up any ground stabby.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Who says anything about magic? The study cited doesn't even look at atherosclerosis, it merely postulates that lowering inflammation via lycopene intake (also present in the GMO tomato) it may be able to reduce the risk of it ('atherosclerosis' doesn't even appear in the article). Why can't you see that the pathway in the GMO tomato is a novel one? Stop bantering about the LDL HDL and genetic mods on mice, its very irritating, they used these mice as a worst case scenario. Please, take one second to use your brain, apply what I've said to your analysis and see if it makes sense

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Use when trying to differentiate their product from the others. Introduce a change and say that the change makes it superior, but they have not demonstrated that and are blustering about their new product. Also it should be obvious that if mice can't clear LDL from their blood via the LDL receptor this could allow for a benefit of the new compound in that one irrelevant genetic model which doesn't exist in a normal model. I am being expected to belief that it is on faith without the proper scientific demonstration.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I said it plainly, there needs to be a regular tomato control group, as well as a no-tomato control group, so that we can say that the GMO tomatoes are better than regular tomatoes, which do all of those things in their own right. There is no way to say that the new modification helped the already beneficial properties of tomatoes. And there is no rationale for using GMO mice because you can produce all of those changes with a bad diet in mice. But you aren't introducing profound genetic changes in mice that no human has.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Look, just answer me one question: have they actually demonstrated that this new tomato is better than a regular tomato? Is comparing the new tomato to no tomato when regular tomatoes do what the new tomato does an argument that the new tomato is better than the regular tomato? Hmmm?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:31 AM

horse piss improved their lean mass.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:22 AM

that it is a tomato. I provided links demonstrating that regular tomatoes improve the exact same clinical endpoint: atherosclerosis. It is obvious that tomatoes reduce inflammation: another endpoint http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23069270 The other markers are not endpoints. show me that GMO tomatoes improve clinical endpoints better than regular tomatoes in mice that can remove LDL from their blood like humans can. That is all, good day sir.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 07, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I should have been more clear, or maybe you should have read better, there needs to be a normal tomato consuming control as well as a no-tomato control so be able to say that this new tomato reduces atherosclerosis better than regular tomatoes. There is no rationale to use GMO mice because you can easily produce atherosclerosis in mice with a bad diet. What are you some GMO shill?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:27 AM

"Worst case scenario" not being able to clear LDL from your blood is not a human scenario at all. And the rest of what you say is just assertion, there is no way to demonstrate that the GMO tomato actually improves health more than a regular one unless you compare them. Asserting that the differences will extend lifespan and reduce disease more than the regular tomato is begging the question, as this is the first attempt to test the new "drug" and there was no regular control. I just put horse pee in yogurt and fed yogurt to some GMO mice and now their muscles function is better, that...

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 09, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Like speaking to a brick wall isn't it Stabby? He seems to have a grasp of philosophy, but not much else.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:14 PM

"After the mice ate the tomatoes as 2.2 percent of their Western-style high-fat, calorie-packed diet, those given the peptide-enhanced tomatoes had significantly: lower blood levels of inflammation; higher paraoxonase activity, an anti-oxidant enzyme associated with good cholesterol and related to a lower risk of heart disease; higher levels of good cholesterol; decreased lysophosphatidic acid, a tumor promoter that accelerates plaque build-up in arteries in animal models; and less atherosclerotic plaque." read the article, they said that the mice had less atherosclerosis

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:27 AM

must mean that horse pee improves muscle function!

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM

YOU made this about transmitting this study to humans and then deciding based on THIS study if we would consume the GM product in question. It is not our fault you picked a piss poor study. All we can do now is explain to you (ad nauseaum) why it's a piss poor study and steps that would need be taken to improve on it. The end.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 5:09 AM

Deny what exactly?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 12:10 AM

You are correct, I neglected to read your linked studies. After reviewing them, nothing in this discussion has changed. The benefits of the GMO tomato (which also has all the beneficial effects of regular tomatoes) are via novel pathways and are significant in a worst case scenario. The rest of your post is nonsense.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:19 AM

All I want is for them to try to prove that their magic tomato is better than a regular tomato by comparing them, how is that an issue? That they don't demonstrates obvious bias. "They fed the tomatoes to mice that lack the ability to remove low density lipoprotein (LDL or "bad" cholesterol) from their blood and readily develop inflammation and atherosclerosis when consuming a high-fat diet." ALL HUMANS CAN REMOVE LDL FROM THEIR BLOOD, THIS IS THE GENETIC CHANGE. I never said that no GMO tomato could be beneficial, just that I want them to prove that it's the modification and not the fact...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:44 AM

They had the chance to test it and they didn't for some reason. You could test the new peptide on its own, or you can go control, regular tomato control, new tomato and compare the new and the regular, but you can't just test the new tomato and say that its new feature is better than a regular tomato. Testing the new tomato is testing the whey-horse-piss shake, which we can probably assume would improve lean mass because of the whey.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 08, 2012 at 10:21 PM

I posted links in my answer, like this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22224814 Maybe if you actually cared about anything other than arguing with people you would have actually read the links in my answer. The fact of the matter is that regular tomatoes reduce inflammation, prevent atherosclerosis, and prevent endothelial dysfunction in mice and if you want to be able to say that this new tomato has an advantage you actually have to compare them. For all we know the benefit seen in the study you linked to could have just been regular old tomato. This is a snake-oil tactic that people..

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM

All right well we all agree to disagree, on to more important things.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:18 PM

WOW. You are lost aren't you? Every one of those you list is debatable since we have not performed the proper double blind studies making said comparisons.....which has been pointed out to you several times. In fact the pathway may not be novel at all... we don't currently know.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d
17949 · November 09, 2012 at 12:30 AM

"Worst case scenario" not being able to clear LDL from your blood is not a human scenario at all. And the rest of what you say is just assertion, there is no way to demonstrate that the GMO tomato actually improves health more than a regular one unless you compare them. Asserting that the differences will extend lifespan and reduce disease more than the regular tomato is begging the question, as this is the first attempt to test the new "drug" and there was no regular control. I just put horse piss in a whey shake and fed it to mice, which increased their lean mass, that must mean that...

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 12, 2012 at 11:19 PM

@ jay: The stage of the study is irrelevant, If the benefits of a regular tomato plus the benefit of the novel protein translate perfectly to humans would you it it? Explain why you would/wouldn't. That is the question at hand, you replied that you wouldn't but failed to present any reasoning besides woeful fear mongering, off topic ranting, appeals to emotion, negative image words, straw men arguments, slippery slope arguments, ad hominem, etc.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Deny any of the following: The GMO tomato will have all the well cited benefits of regular tomatoes, the GMO has an additional novel beneficial molecular pathway, the novel pathway reduces actual plaque along with inflammation and other markers to boot, the GMO has no known unfavorable affects, the GMO has no known pathways to possibly trigger unfavorable affects.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM

GMO tomato will have all the well cited benefits of regular tomatoes....I'll just do the first one, since there is no double blind study with said groups you cannot make this assertion.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
3
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Yikes! No, I wouldn't touch that tomato with a ten foot pole.

"Researchers genetically engineered the tomatoes to produce 6F, a small peptide that mimics the action of ApoA-1, the chief protein in high density lipoprotein (HDL or "good" cholesterol). They fed the tomatoes to mice that lack the ability to remove low density lipoprotein (LDL or "bad" cholesterol) from their blood and readily develop inflammation and atherosclerosis when consuming a high-fat diet."

Are we also to assume that this study was done on humans that were genetically modified to lack the ability to remove LDL and readily develop inflammation and atherosclerosis? If so I don't see the relevance for a population at large anyhow.....moving on though.....

This is a scary proposition. To artificially/genetically alter peptides to affect cholesterol (or to act as for a response). So now, not only are we afraid of fat and cholesterol, but we are making GM foods to alter our bodies levels and responses to such. So statins in the water supply may actually come to fruition I suppose.

We also have to point out that your link does not actually show an improvement in health or longevity for the rats in question. Kinda like all the cholesterol hype. Bunch of markers that we assumed were associated with better health turn out to only be loosely correlated with one type of death while actually increasing the likelihood of overall mortality.

Fact is you can ASSume this is safe if you like, but our track record with ASSumptions kinda sucks.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:55 AM

I'm sure my way of looking at this does not adhere to strict debate format and whatnot, but I'm watching Family Guy and throwing out some thoughts....thats about it.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 3:04 AM

So to answer your question simply "If these results transferred to humans perfectly would you eat this GM food?" No, not without further study. This single trial is inadequate and performed on unhealthy rats/humans to start with. We don't have enough information regarding long term effects of these alterations and how mimicking HDL without associated actual raised levels of such will effect the organism.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Your opinion is valid, however I said to assume these effect translate perfectly to humans. Why are you debating the stage of study?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:51 AM

The NIH will do...I gave a short list. I think part of my problem is in your question you state "if this held true in humans would you eat it". Well, the article you link seems to make the assertion that this is somehow an improvement on the original in terms of producing BETTER health markers. I see flaws in that assumption. So your later stating that the null hypothesis for this thread is that this GM product is NOT dangerous is at odds with the article....

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 11:35 PM

I think the question you meant to pose was...."If we could make GM tomatoes that allowed you to live to 120 without disease or infirmary would you eat it? If so how do you reconcile that with your word views?"

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:40 AM

We don't have to leave it, If you so wish I will dignify you with addressing your 'qualms' one by one. Kudos on using my own stuff back on me though, gave me the chuckles! :)

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:11 AM

"I'm sure my way of looking at this does not adhere to strict debate format and whatnot, but I'm watching Family Guy and throwing out some thoughts....thats about it." Read: I have no clue how to formulate a consistent argument and I have no knowledge of logic but I'm confused and tired of getting rebuked so I'm going to act like I never cared about this discussion in the first place. seriously Jay, your so very and completely off topic.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 12:22 AM

The lack of comprehension and understanding you have demonstrated is utterly astounding.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Your qualms are unfounded and unrelated to the question in which you attempt to relate. Your 'responses' are more or less rants rather than anything else. My post has accomplished the feat of showing me just how ignorant and dogmatic some people are in this supposedly science centered community. I read, and try to respond to every post /answer.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:41 AM

What exactly would you like 'them' to test in this study?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:33 AM

"Your qualms are unfounded and unrelated to the question in which you attempt to relate." I.e. "I have no idea how to respond because you are right....my bias has blinded me". Its cool... we can feel happy leaving this discourse with mutual disrespect.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:20 AM

^so bring me back then C....i gave my qualms with your framing of this question and why I've responded the in such. Does your question and your article accomplish what you wished? I think you made a mess of things from the get go.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 11:33 PM

TBH your question is flawed because this study, even if done in humans is only a preliminary one. There is nothing near conclusive results here. For instance they still haven't done a double blind trial with one set of rats eating 2.2% heirloom tomatoes vs these modified ones....perhaps any displacement of that 2.2% of a western diet will do. Or how about diets other than the "western diet" (which actually was not sufficiently explained in the article)? What of effects on ALL CAUSE mortality, rather than just cardio markers? The list goes on and on....

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:54 AM

...saying this is NOT dangerous is not the same as saying it will produce BETTER health presumably to not including it in your diet. So in the end, no I don't see enough evidence to indicate this is something that will improve your health....nor do I see, well any information in this article to indicate that it is harmful....again though, that wasn't even the focus.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:02 AM

From you I shall take that as a compliment.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:43 AM

What, exactly would you like 'them' to test in these studies? and who is the 'them' that will do the studies?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 6:30 PM

If it is a drug...as the lead author declares it....then it must be processed and studied as such. Then classified and prescribed/or utilized on the basis of treatment in accordance with evidence based medicine for a particular condition.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Ah, never mind. We can just leave our relationship at that of mutual disrespect. Good luck fleshing these things out for yourself.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:15 AM

As I stated above...and so I can track it here...we need more studies. How hard is that to understand?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 2:21 AM

^so bring me back then C....i gave my qualms with your framing of this question and why I've responded as such. Does your question and your article accomplish what you wished? I think you made a mess of things from the get go. But, please respond to the rest rather than latching on to my not paying much attention as your own out.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12702 · November 07, 2012 at 3:53 AM

Excellent points, JayJay. The way I see it this as essentially a very preliminary drug study using tomatoes as a delivery vehicle.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 3:00 AM

No problem cbucker :). If I understand your position you are here to assess this community in terms of how they think and present their thoughts primarily. I'm not even going to pretend I'm interested in this myself. People will express their opinions and its up to you to either accept them or not. If you reject them due to that persons lack of logic or science so be it. But, realize this is not academia and many here are not attempting to answer in such a manner.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Its exactly as Mscott characterized it....at least according to the lead author who you are more than welcome to dispute if you like....drug study with a tomatoe as a deliver vehicle.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3
12702 · November 08, 2012 at 3:37 AM

If we assume the beneficial effects translate to humans with familial hypercholesterolemia (and I actually suspect they would) this still says little of the possible side effects these drugs often have. That's why I look at the stage of the study; whether they use mice or humans they haven't reached the stage where they examine whether it increases mortality from all causes when you don't use models with a huge statistical likelihood of dying from CVD.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Mainly your irrationality is subject to your misunderstanding of the science involved and how studies progress. Not necessarily due to your attempt at "logic".

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 6:25 PM

"This is not a drug however" says cbucker. However... "To our knowledge this is the first example of a drug with these properties that has been produced in an edible plant and is biologically active when fed without any isolation or purification of the drug," says Fogelman....doesn't seem that we invented the negative rhetoric when the lead author himself declares it a drug.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Fine cbucker, you win (in your own mind). In the view of most people in this reality you are being highly illogical.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

You are not entitled to an opinion on logic, neither am I. The beauty of logic is it has ubiquitous application and immutable criterion. If there is no issue with my logic, my argument is valid and sound. Therefore, I am correct.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 08, 2012 at 6:34 PM

And in the process of studying this as a drug the trials will include things such as Stabby, Mscott, and myself have pointed out like..... "that it is a tomato. I provided links demonstrating that regular tomatoes improve the exact same clinical endpoint: atherosclerosis." in Stabby's comment. So in the end double blind studies....and so on and so forth.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:17 PM

There was no response to my question. Please find me a response that touches on all the areas of my question.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Correct. It says nothing of the potential side effects. This is not a drug however and using negative inaccurate rhetoric does not strengthen your position. Again, the null is "This does not cause harmful effects/side effects." Until there is evidence to reject the null you default to the null. It is also helpful to provide a working pathway based in biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular physics, etc. through wich a potential side effect may occur. You can say you wouldn't eat it, but there is no logical reason why.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Ok cbucker, you win and are completely logical in your views in your own mind. In my analysis however you are highly irrational, and don't comprehend enough in terms of physiology or the workings of clinical scientific exploration and application to even be involved in this sort of discussion. Good luck with the philosophy bit.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 12, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Please present your observation of the facts or articulate specific problems within my reasoning.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Not in my observation of the facts. Who opined on logic? I questioned your rationale and working knowledge of the subject matter.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 09, 2012 at 1:46 AM

IMO it's answered. You asked and got response....the end.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 12:21 AM

It is irrelevant that the author calls it a drug. Mscott was committing equivocation while using negative image wording to push his position that the tomato needs to be tested ad nauseum. Drug: a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body. This is just one of the definitions of a drug which is a fairly unclear word in medical terminology. Please stay on topic and answer the original question.

Ef9f83cb4e1826261a44c173f733789e
3
13635 · November 06, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I'm not blanketly against GMO. Each new product needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I am, however, skeptical of a new GMO product, so it needs to be scrutinized properly.

So to answer the question, yes I would eat a GMO product if it's thoroughly proven to be an improvement over it's natural counterpart.

Bdc4873264ec9dbec27505e678dabce0
2
432 · November 06, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Medical researchers have a backwards view of cholesterol's role in the diet, ergo why would we want them to manipulate our blood chemistry? The mechanism by which their biochemical goal is achieved might disrupt one's blood chemistry. Why risk it? You'll sleep better at night knowing you took one fewer risk.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 8:04 PM

You have answered a question with a question, which isn't in fact an answer.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Thats an appeal to the stone Michael. Show me where the inaccuracies are. Stick to the topic.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Be clear, concise, and consistent so nobody will have to infer meaning or be able to misconstrue your words. Irrespective of the exchange between you and I, I stand firmly behind my original response Michael.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 07, 2012 at 3:17 AM

A rhetoical question in which an implied answer is embedded seems a good enough answer for me. Answers come in many shapes and sizes surely?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Where is the ad hominem? Your pompous language has betrayed you and taken you off topic (as it tends to do). "Signification is always (at least) a two way street, and inference can be a big part of that." I replied, "Signification or Significance (synonym) is rarely a 'two way street'. Please stop the attempts at Pompous language. Valid inference with true premises are the only ones I'm interested in. People are not privileged to their own facts." now you say you meant 'Semiotics' and 'Inductive reasoning' instead of 'Signification' and 'inference'? Moving the goalpost much?

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 4:25 AM

That's not an 'ad hominem' is it? How 'unnecessary', if not ironic ;) Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29 Aside from thinking I said 'signiifcance', you say I am pompous when I use cliches like 'two way street'. More irony. Note: when I write irony, I do not mean one of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothes_iron This too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning. You might see that inductive arguments by definion are not

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 4:26 AM

measured by tandards of validity etc.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:20 AM

You are repeating youself. Why not try answering my question before ceaselessly repeating yours, which I have aldread addressed?

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 09, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Why do you have such seeming zeal to be proven right or wrong? You can narrow or broaden the confines of dicsussion by appealing to relevance concerns etc all you like, it doesn't take away from the snowballing nature of our engagement and that I have never engaged you about alleged inaccuracies pervading the original question. It can't be rules out of course ;)

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Signification is always (at least) a two way street, and inference can be a big part of that.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 3:49 PM

You clearly didn't read the links I put up there. oh well

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:22 AM

You of all people should know that repetition does not an accurate assertion make.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Please attempt to show where I have been inaccurate on the topic of the original question.(you may try finding where I've been inaccurate in general, but what a fruitless ordeal that may be)

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I agree with your saying Michael, but, a question is not an assertion. You want me to answer why I have such 'zeal to be proven right'? It is a loaded question, you assume I already have zeal to be proven right. I have a zeal for accurate argumentation and discussion, zeal for incorporating information and intellectual honesty, zeal for the betterment of our collective knowledge.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:07 AM

Signification or Significance (synonym) is rarely a 'two way street'. Please stop the attempts at Pompous language. Valid inference with true premises are the only ones I'm interested in. People are not privileged to their own facts.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Show me where the inaccuracies are (anywhere, show me the holes in my logic, show me false info, show me anything). Stick to the topic.

00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3
1
2401 · November 06, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Since there's scant evidence from methodologically-sound, clinical studies that elevating HDL is a cause of reduced heart disease, I wouldn't seek these tomatoes out.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Did you completely ignore the inflamatory markers and anti-oxidant enzymes, or did you just not bother to read the article before sharing?

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 07, 2012 at 9:25 PM

@cbucker, why not get antioxidants from food? Why not get HDL from good quality fats such as grassfed butter. Why does anyone need to get it from GMOs?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 5:45 AM

Is it food? It has been described as drug by the author? I would describe it as drug with a food delivery device....that is if I was forced to describe this VERY preliminary trial.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 11:28 PM

This is food ray, and why do you keep saying 'get HDL' and talking about cholesterol and the like? I never said there was a 'need' to get anything from a GMO.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 5:48 PM

playing semantics, equivocation, petty nit picking, negative image words, irrelevance, diversion. The stage if the trial is irrelevant in the context of this question.

D7854f42e1c1d92f22b3903cd5d4a438
1
218 · November 06, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I don't think I would eat it. At the very least I would not eat it till more time had passed and more testing was done but even then I don't know. I don't need to eat that kind of food. My cholesterol is great as is so why would I mess with what my body is already doing? If it's not broke don't fix it.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 4:07 PM

@ Michael: I feared I would betray my goal if I was to forward with said goal. I got exactly what I wanted; a small working lesson of the mindsets/worldviews/dogmas/logic espoused by members in this community.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23
11048 · November 06, 2012 at 7:18 PM

And your comment is asinine, cbucker. Don't ask for input and the opinions of others if you aren't open to other views.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 12:20 AM

You cannot prove a null hypothesis. I truly advise you educate yourself before asserting claims and giving snarky remarks. It tends to be rather embarrassing.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 1:38 AM

I never asserted that the study I linked to proves anything, I do not know where you got that from. It's a question, I do not have a 'point' to make.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 7:24 PM

I'm interested in all views, especially consistent and lucid ones, I'm open to literally anything that is based in reality. If an inconsistent and/or dogmatic view is put forward it should be refuted thusly.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 06, 2012 at 6:38 PM

"if it's not broke don't fix it". Cliche' is hardly a rationale for health decisions. Why wouldn't you eat it? Your response is inconsistent and dogmatic.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:08 AM

And the study you cite "proves" nothing. It simply adds to the current data set about this particular GM food under these very specific circumstances. Whats your point?

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d
10490 · November 07, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Then what is the point your are getting at with your comments on this thread, if not your original question?

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Matt said "The absence of studies does not mean that they are unsafe, but rather unstudied".....well I have a problem with that. I want more studies.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 07, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Its fine that you can't prove a null hypothesis, but that doesn't mean you don't even perform the studies necessary to disprove it. And those take time and much more information than is in this single experiment.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 07, 2012 at 3:24 AM

So there is knowledge underpinning this question then? That knowledge might relate to any 'points' you had in mind when framing the question, beyond your stated aim of guaging responses...

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 2:02 AM

I'm just shooting down flawed reasoning and logic where it appears. If a lucid, valid, and consistent answer was posted I would enjoy learning from it, even if It was totally against everything I thought I knew.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 06, 2012 at 11:20 PM

I don't find anything dogmatic in demanding long term testing for efficacy before unleashing a previously unknown on the entire population. And in the evidence department heirloom tomatoes have a lengthy track record. Since you do have a choice, what is wrong with choosing the one with more evidence of safe consumption?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:21 AM

Completely out of context Michael. I was crystal clear with what I wanted in a response, I withheld the explicit goal of getting said response to properly gather information. When you quote someone you use "these." (in America) The period also goes inside the quotes.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Admittedly, it was a petty nit-pick on my part. I also didn't assume a thing, It is merely a statement that in America were use quotes a certain way.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 08, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I'm not sure how I've let you drive me so far off topic or what relevance this has to eating a GMO tomato but, yes, I did not assume anything about the whereabouts of the author. I would have left the "(in America)" part out if I assumed you were from there.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 09, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Why write that at all if there wasn't inference regrading my whereabouts preceding it? I could write anything about conventions etc, but if relevancy is your concern I daresay that wouldn't be welcomed.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 1:22 AM

'Be clear, concise, and consistent so nobody will have to infer meaning or be able to misconstrue your words'.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 4:30 AM

This is an online message board, you think that standards of referncing is relevant here? lol You missed a few full stops there by the way, if those sort of standars are your thing. By the way, I am not in America. You've made a faulty assumption in advising me how to quote. (Thanks for the tip though).

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:31 PM

This avenue of discussion is off topic.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 5:43 AM

As is anything you disagree with apparently.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 08, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So you're saying you made that statement without having assumed the person it was directed to (ie me) was in America...?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 12, 2012 at 11:23 PM

You have created a circular definition while attacking me.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
0
17402 · November 07, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I absolutely don't trust GMO products and want them labeled, and will avoid them like the plague. The industry has consistently claimed to be improving our lives, yet their goals has been to own patent rights and to produce a system of farmer slavery.

Further, while they've claimed to create or that they plan to create more beneficial products, in the end, it's about making more profits. GMO salmon has an increased level of growth hormone which we don't know the effects of on humans.

BT Corn produces its own toxins to kill of insects. We don't know the effects on humans long term.

Roundup Ready plants are drenched in far more glycophosphates than conventionally grown plants. This stuff is known as an endocrine disruptor. Who knows what other effects the plants have on humans even without the extra pesticides.

These products are an unnecessary health risk whose only benefit is to enrich the companies that produce them. Thanks, but no. I've probably eaten the stuff without knowing it, and I don't know what harm it did. I seek out organic produce whenever possible, not just because organic is lots better than conventional, but because it avoids GMOs.

The FDA is useless and owned by these interests - they don't require much testing of these items and only the say so of the manufacturer. The studies that they do are very short and are on mice, a lot of the results are hidden from the public and the studies repeated until they get the results they want. There's no oversight, there's no open review.

It's one sided and the side that wins isn't the consumer of these products, it's the manufacturer. I would not risk my health, nor that of my kids and their future kids on any of this garbage any more than I'd go out and consume wheat, corn, or soy.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 4:55 PM

So, you're saying you wouldn't eat the tomato if the benefits translated perfectly to humans? You wrote a bunch, but none of it really had any relevant substance so excuse me if I'm being dense.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 10, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I understand that emotional choice is a beautiful and necessary part of the human condition. I would never advocate a world without it, however, decisions affecting our health, longevity, and genetics should be as purely objective and rational as possible.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 07, 2012 at 11:19 PM

There are so many things wrong with your response I'm not entirely sure where to start. First: the peptide isn't in any way shape or form acting like cholesterol. Second: Why is it dangerous? Third: what makes the benefit 'dubious'? fourth: because I disagree with you does not mean I'm trolling and/or working for big anyone, it's called a question-begging definition.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 09, 2012 at 4:21 PM

@cbucker, IMO you're either working for GMO makers, or you're trolling - I don't care which. I've already answered the original question as to whether or not I'd eat them and why not and do not require further evidence to be convinced. All you're doing now is phishing for an unnecessary debate or trying to change our minds with idiotic reasons. I don't need to prove anything to anyone, I'm very comfortable NOT eating any GMO ever, and should I ever need to raise my HDL to get the same effect, I'll happily do it by increasing coconut/grassfed butter, NOT by ingesting GMOs. Thank you, bye.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 10, 2012 at 5:24 AM

LOL...please show me where you admit that this particular GMO is not the panacea you pruposed it would be when you presented this question. You can wish in one hand and shit in another my friend....and I could give TWO shits about what you think about certain sayings :)....Through our conversations I've come to the conclusion that you have ZERO clinical and scientific knowledge mixed with a significant amount of philosophy. I find that dangerous. Its like power without knowledge. Work on your knowledge. Good day.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 12:44 AM

You can't prove the null. You don't know my motives. Please answer the original question. You will see that there is currently no evidence to back up an unwillingness to eat the GMO in the context of my question.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I must have missed them Jay, Please point out one.

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f
2944 · November 10, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Oh for a world where everything relates to rational choice.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 07, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Why would you eat it? As far as I understand this peptide does what cholesterol does. Why not just raise your HDL levels by eating a good grassfed butter? Why do you (or I) need to eat dangerous GMOs in order to gain this dubious benefit? Unless you're just trolling or working for big pharma/agra.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 09, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Actually there's plenty in the context of THIS particular GM product....as I believe has been convincingly argued by at least a few people.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 09, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Beside your belligerent ranting, I do not care if you eat or don't eat GMO. I wish to show that there is no logical reason for not eating the GMO in the context of my question. I wish to make people accept that their choice is based in fear and misinformation rather than reality. You shouldn't have to defend yourself and I do not ask you to, I merely ask that you honestly admit that your choice is not within the realm of logic.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 08, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Yes, I'm saying I would avoid any GMOs, including that tomato. I didn't say the peptide did exactly what cholesterol is, I said, if I wanted to raise my HDL, I'd eat more healthy fats. I don't know if the peptide has harmful side effects or not, and since GMO plants aren't an exact science, but rather a shotgun gene insertion, I absolutely would not eat that tomato. If the peptide itself did something beneficial and was well studied for many years, IF, and only IF I needed it and couldn't get its effects elsewhere, I'd take a purified form of whatever it was, not the whole plant.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52
18635 · November 09, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Actually there's plenty of issues in the context of THIS particular GM product....as I believe has been convincingly pointed out by at least a few people.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17402 · November 08, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I don't believe you've read the article, it clearly states that the peptide does provide some of the same benefits as HDL. I don't know that it isn't dangerous, I don't need to have proof that it is dangerous. The manufacturer has a duty to prove its safety, and I don't mean the rubberstamping style that GMO makers use now. I mean multi year studies, not just with mice. The benefit is dubious because I can get the same kinds of effects by eating more grassfed butter. I don't know why you're pushing this stuff when it's unnecessary. Hence, I distrust your motives.

0d2b1ff450021cca6683e4cecf2d6aec
-1
589 · November 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I avoid GMO like the plaque. And for anyone out there that has any IBS or gut issues: http://www.askdrgonzalez.com/gmo-foods-cause-bowel-inflammation/

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

http://academicsreview.org/2012/10/letter-to-dr-oz-show-producers-by-bruce-chassy-phd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AcademicsReview+%28Academics+Review%29 (just another one, to boot)

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM

http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?alternate=N&ARCHID_1=1&ARCHID_2=2&ARCHID_3=3&ARCHID_4=4&ARCHID_5=5&ARCHID_6=6&ARCHID_7=7&ARCHID_8=8&ARCHID_9=9&ARCHID_10=10&ARCHID_11=11&ARCHID_12=12&ARCHID_13=13&ARCHID_14=14&ARCHID_15=15&ARCHID_16=16&ARCHID_17=17&ARCHID_18=18&ARCHID_19=19&ARCHID_20=20&ARCHID_21=21&ARCHID_22=22&ARCHID_23=23&ARCHID_24=24&ARCHID_25=25&query=mehmet&rankby=DEFAULT&errors=0&age=&maxfiles=50&maxlines=30&maxchars=10000&limit=on&cache=yes http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 19, 2012 at 3:35 PM

The following links should be all that is necessary to change your mind. http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-individuals/jeffrey-smith/ http://doccamiryan.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/the-wizardry-of-oz-a-peek-behind-the-curtain-of-the-anti-gm-movement/ (just for leisure reading) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcerative_colitis (no mention of GMO) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritable_bowel_syndrome#Causes (no mention of GMO) http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/

0d2b1ff450021cca6683e4cecf2d6aec
589 · November 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM

TY cbucker-- but I am still avoiding like the plaque. THis is just a n=1 --since I started avoiding I can not tell you how much better I feel. And no it is not just from giving up grains -- i eat grains but non-gmo. Joints feel better stomach feels better etc. Sorry but I am a beliver that frankenGMOs are bad.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843
538 · November 21, 2012 at 2:30 AM

A true believer my friend.

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account

Get Free Paleo Recipes