39
39

[–] Kadivs 39 points 39 points (+78|-39) ago  (edited ago)

Really, you anti-GMOs are as bad, science wise, as antivaxers and that website clearly biased. I also can't find anything about "only been able to respond with personal attacks". Seriously, why is this in a science subverse of all places? The Anti-GMO-crowd is one of the most mainstream anti-science groups out there atm.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/07/29/ayyadurais-formaldehyde-in-gmos-claim-challenged-engineer-refuses-verification-offer/

His research now celebrated by anti-GMO activists, with propaganda point work by the Fenton Communications, known for its work with anti-science activist groups, didn’t measure actual formaldehyde levels in soy. [...] Basically, the research didn’t involve testing levels in actual plants, but used data plugged into a computer algorithm to predict the presence of two chemicals found naturally in crops and food: Formaldehyde and glutathione. In other words, it was a computer modeling study, so it “measured” what the researchers inputted. [...] In this case, it is unclear what data were used, and where Ayyadurai sourced them. “Online databases including PuMed and Google Scholar were searched,” the paper indicated. Though Ayyadurai asserts that he aggregated data from over six thousand studies, it’s unclear what data, in particular, were plugged in to Ayyadurai’s algorithms.
As Folta wrote, “If you developed a computer program that integrated internet data to predict the location of Munich, and the program told you it was squarely in the Gulf of Mexico, right off Florida, it does not mean that Munich is in the Gulf of Mexico, right off of Florida. It means that your program, your assumptions, or your input data are wrong. These things are quite testable.” [...] Genetic modification has “fundamentally modified the metabolic system of the soy,” he told reporters at the conference, a claim unsupported by either his research or any independent research. He presented no data. He went on to declare that “natural,” “normal” soy has a “beautiful way of detoxifying [formaldehyde]” while the “GMO of soy” as he called it, accumulates the chemical, presumably until it reaches to harmful levels. [...] There is no evidence that GMO soy or any other genetically engineered plant accumulates formaldehyde at a higher level than non-GE counterparts
[...]Shiva Ayyadurai helped launch and serves on the board of an organization that promotes organic, non-GMO food while Fran Drescher [his wife] is a rabid anti-GMO activist, who is a constant presence on social media tweeting about the dangers of modern science. And neither one of them has attempted to hide his or her bias.

Numerous scientists, led by Folta, have attempted to reach out to Ayyadurai to discuss his methodology and propose rigorous testing of his thesis, but all they’ve gotten so far is crickets and censorship. Ayyadurai and anti-GMO social media admins have been deleting challenging Facebook comments

Kevin Folta answered the call to #ShowUporShutUp by issuing The GMO Formaldehyde Challenge, in which he invited Ayyadurai to participate in university based testing of transgenic corn and soy samples, with analysis by an independent lab. [...] Ayyadurai has side stepped the invitation. On Tuesday, he said he would only agree to testing if there were new across-the-board standards — that he personally set up.
Ayyadurai’s refusal to participate in designing and performing such experiments is baffling. Why call for verification of his research predictions and then balk at following through?

5
54

[–] Frenchgeek 5 points 54 points (+59|-5) ago  (edited ago)

I'm not exactly anti-GMO, just against what most of them are : A stupid attempt to make plants pest-proof. ( And as Monsanto discovered : it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the problem, evolution still is faster. It seem to poison soil too, last time I checked. )

Now, if the focus was for the targeted plants to produce more and better food with less water and soil, no problem. As long as we fully understand ( or at least have enough of it ) what releasing a new organism will do to the ecosystem.

I'm also dead set against Monsanto too. They are trying to own all of the means of food production, after all.

4
2

[–] Muonium 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

GMO actually decreases the amount of pesticides needed, thus inflicting less damage to the environment. I am by no way pro-Monsanto, but GMO itself, in itself is not an evil thing, I think.

25
2

[–] Kadivs 25 points 2 points (+27|-25) ago 

just so you know, most of the stuff about monsanto itself are also just myths propagated by anti-gmo. But I don't care about those too much
Though the general "gmo is the devil" sentiment is breaking my balls.What Norman Borlaug did was in a way GMO too and he saved a Billion humans with it.

15
22

[–] flyawayhigh 15 points 22 points (+37|-15) ago  (edited ago)

Really, you anti-GMOs are as bad, science wise, as antivaxers and that website clearly biased.

Example of the kinds of ad hominem attacks the article complains about. How can we analyze the article when we are models of its concerns?

I also can't find anything about "only been able to respond with personal attacks".

The internet is full of them. Look harder. Look closely at the very article cited to debunk this. We need to look rather than just exclaim that we don't see what we don't want to see. And when we do so, it should not be industry propaganda doing nothing but debunking the inadequacy of the study. A real scientist would point out inadequacies, show concern, and design a better study. Not just mostly attack the study as the long quote does.

Seriously, why is this in a science subverse of all places?

This is Voat. Science will not be dictated by the sometimes unscientific officialdom.

The Anti-GMO-crowd is one of the most mainstream anti-science groups out there atm.

Turning a specific claim of harm by a specific GMO into the "Anti-GMO-crowd." {sigh}

The paragraph ends as it begins -- an example of those ad hominem attacks.

20
7

[–] Kadivs 20 points 7 points (+27|-20) ago 

The internet is full of them. Look harder.

In every single instance I find, like here, it turns out the anti-GMO-crowd were just dishonest. Why should I look any further.

This is Voat. Science will not be dictated by the sometimes unscientific officialdom.

In other words, science not allowed, only tinfoilhattery is. Well fuck, I think that finally kills voat for me. The contant racism was bad enough, but anti-science, no thanks. congrats on that.

10
3

[–] Loumedia 10 points 3 points (+13|-10) ago 

And your instant down voats are extremely telling.

Come on, voat, let's show Monsanto they aren't welcome here, either. Spend your astro-turf money on plebbit.

2
4

[–] SkepticalMartian 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

All you have to do is look at the scientists. Every single Scientist who steps forward with one of these anti-GMO "studies" has been at the center of one of more controversies where they've been shown to be frauds. They are people who can't get work anymore due to their own fraudulent activities and now seek their golden ticket to fortune.

This particular guy tried to claim that he invented email, nearly fooled the people at the Smithsonian Institute, but wound up having all his shit retracted. He even tried to lie to people by telling them Noam Chomskey endorsed his claim, which was flat out false. This got him disassociated with MIT as well.

He was fired from his last real job in 2009, the company cited unprofessional behavior and unreasonable demands as the reason for termination.

Seems like if you can't make it as a real scientist these days, the thing to do is to join a quack group and make shit up.

0
2

[–] foltaisaprovenshill 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You're quoting disgraced scientist Kevin Folta to prove your point?

Might want to rethink that strategy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/

TL;DR: Kevin Folta was caught taking payments ($25,000) in return for undisclosed advertising for Monsanto (illegal, can result in fines from the FTC of up to $16k per instance, for all parties).

He even said "I'll make sure to give you a good return on investment"

Kevin Folta isn't a scientist, he's a propagandist.

0
0

[–] Kadivs 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

point taken, didn't know. Though I must say I didn't really care about what exactly this specific guy had to say

9
32

[–] superq7 9 points 32 points (+41|-9) ago 

Monsanto needs to burn. The company has been caught several times violating ethics and morals at the expense of human health and trust. Because of these assholes anti-GMO sentiment is on the rise. They event pulled golden rice that will or has resulted too the health detriment of untold numbers of impoverished humans.

14
9

[–] Kadivs 14 points 9 points (+23|-14) ago 

golden rice is one of the best things in recent history that has happened. You think something is bad that could rescue 670000 kids a year from death just because of your ideologies? dam son

2
22

[–] superq7 2 points 22 points (+24|-2) ago 

No you miss read. I am pro GMO. I find it a travesty that Monsanto has poisioned the well that is Genetic engineering.

2
5

[–] middle_path 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Maybe the problem is a population that can only afford to eat rice. Maybe another problem is people stripping the hulls of brown rice, removing most of the nutrients in the first place.

0
0

[–] Le_Squish 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Monsato didn't create golden rice nor did they contribute to any of the research that led to its creation. They bought the rights to distribute you the seed and nothing more. Monsato remains a shitty company.

2
-1

[–] ZappyKins 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Golden Rice isn't needed if people didn't bleach the rice in the first place. Brown rice would solve the problem.

0
2

[–] foltaisaprovenshill 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The shill with the top comment in this thread is quoting Kevin Folta - who was paid $25k to shill for Monsanto, emails show:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/

Undisclosed advertising of this kind is illegal.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

2
4

[–] SuperShak 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

The research is really critical here because of the nature of GMO.

You're bypassing genomic DNA by adding engineered plasmids. Genomic DNA has all kinds of controls and filters that control how a gene is activated, how much is made, what other things are made with it, etc. This is the product of Billions of years of evolution. To make an analogy - it's a world renown symphony.

GMO is a one note bullhorn.

Plasmids create huge amounts of a single gene all the time in every cell of the organism and there is nothing at all the plant can do to stop or even mitigate it's production.

We've only known about DNA for less than a hundred years. We simply don't know enough about the complexity of cells to be able to have a reasonable estimation that what we're doing is safe. The research needed to ensure the safety of not only people, but the planet itself, would be an enormous undertaking. The idea of tweaking genetics in plants isn't a horrible idea on the surface, but we're so far off from being proficient with it that they're simply not worth the risk. It's like giving a 3 year old a scalpel and telling them to do open heart surgery.

16
22

[–] causuistry 16 points 22 points (+38|-16) ago 

When all they have is ad hominem, you know you've got the high ground.

13
7

[–] Kadivs 13 points 7 points (+20|-13) ago 

when all he has is censoring factual answers to make it look like all they had were ad hominems, you know he is a scumbag

0
2

[–] foltaisaprovenshill 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Funny that you quote Kevin Folta to back yourself up and defend Monsanto. The same Kevin Folta who is a proven Monsanto shill: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/

5
2

[–] Loumedia 5 points 2 points (+7|-5) ago 

Watch this guys voats, it's insane. He makes a comment and is instantly plus 6+ every time.

[–] [deleted] 12 points 6 points (+18|-12) ago 

[Deleted]

3
8

[–] entropyosaurus 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

there are lots of people on voat who only use ad hominem and s/he indirectly called them out. so could be anyone.

2
5

[–] Kaizervonmaanen 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Logical fallacies are the bread and butter of arguments here, could be anyone.

3
9

[–] jackofdiamonds 3 points 9 points (+12|-3) ago 

This type of publicity stunt is never leveled in good faith. No doubt Dr. Ayyadurai himself is to be the judge as to whether or not Monsanto has effectively "proven" him wrong, and will set the bar unattainably high and move the goalposts as necessary.

For reference, there's no one monolithic "Soy GMO." It's possible that one particular strain of soy GMO accumulates formaldehyde, but this just means that we should reassess that strain and possibly rework it to get around that problem, not abandon all GMO use, which would lead to catastrophic famine and war.

3
4

[–] k_digi 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

Hmm Facebook comments in the article hmm good choice host site ! Fair and balanced, certainly hmm.

1
3

[–] PeeNutButtHair 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Did not read article. Science aside, does Monsanto own the patents to their strains? And if so, what happens when other strain cease to exist?

[–] [deleted] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] PeeNutButtHair 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Seems like a far more appropriate reason to dislike Monsanto...

5
3

[–] aeoo 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Science and capitalism are like oil and water. Once the company latches onto a profitable scheme, scientists can just take a hike. The only way to stop this crap is by hitting the company in its wallet, or better yet, if possible, upend the very system that the corps rely on to exist: private property.

Why do you think global warming is so roundly rejected by the "business community?"

4
1

[–] Kadivs 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

Science and capitalism are like oil and water

I know you meant monsanto with it, but I find it funny, as the "scientist" in this post and his wife have financial ties to anti-gmo. He promotes "organic" stuff, she is an anti-GMO activist.

1
5

[–] aeoo 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The point is, as soon as profit enters the picture, the scientific integrity is compromised. I don't just mean Monsanto with my comment. I'm making a more general statement. Think about how profit motive affects the otherwise open-source nature of science and how much science becomes closed-source because of profit potential. Or think how the profit motive has affected the scientific journal "industry" for another example. Or how the profit motive affects the cost of college books or just tuition in general, and then think how that in turn affects the process of science.

Profit and greed distort science.

2
3

[–] dabork 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Someone wanna tell me again about how this is just another liberal scam?

8
3

[–] Kadivs 8 points 3 points (+11|-8) ago 

1
7

[–] VillaLopez 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

What you linked is as devoid of actual facts as what you are claiming the other way. The other side of an extreme view is just as questionable. So far no actual factual science.

He said, she said... personal attacks and character assault. Nothing but pure propaganda. Waste of time reading.

10
2

[–] shirtlords 10 points 2 points (+12|-10) ago 

How much is Monsanto shill paying these days anyway?

0
1

[–] foltaisaprovenshill 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

LOL linking to Genetic Literacy Project? Really? Might as well link to Monsanto.com's blog!

If the guy you're so fond of quoting is a proven shill (he is, check the link), one has to wonder about the rest of your sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/

1
1

[–] WhoFramedReaderRabit 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

The Genetic Literacy Project is the modern day equivalent to the Tobacco Institute

load more comments ▼ (8 remaining)