A field trip inside Green anti-GMO campaigning

Written by Inti Orozco

A few months ago, I went to a conference that was part of a 3-day event called European Ideas Lab, organized in Brussels by the Greens/EFA, the green party in the European parliament.
What motivated me to go there was to see first-hand what I knew would be anti-GMO rhetoric, to maybe try to counter misinformation when I spotted it, but, most importantly, to try to establish a dialogue. My expression of open-mindedness, however, was not well-received by the group, but I found others in the group who also felt similarly and spoke up. Despite the negativity and the usual arguments that keep coming up, it was an illuminating experience that might point a way forward from this ideological quagmire. I believe there is common ground to be found with environmentalists about modern plant breeding. I believe it’s not only possible, it’s obvious.

Common values

As a Belgian citizen, I have traditionally always voted Ecolo, the local green party. I was even a Greenpeace donor for a while (I stopped because of their stance on Golden Rice). I share values with these people: I want human activities to have the least ecological impact possible, to curb climate change, to preserve and/or restore natural environments and to protect the species that inhabit them. I want agriculture to be sustainable, but efficient enough to ensure food security for everyone, now and in the future.
That said, I have come to understand that genetic engineering is simply a tool, and like all tools it can – it must – be used responsibly. This is where environmentalists can have a say. But they have to be open-minded about it. A blanket rejection of a set of tools arbitrarily lumped up under a vague three-letter acronym makes them reject all applications, including those that can benefit the environment, which in the end proves counterproductive. It blinds environmentalists to positive outcomes that deserve their full attention. For example, the halo effect that make Bt crops reduce pest pressure in entire regions, to the benefit of neighboring non-GM and even organic growers.

Hitting a brick wall

Maybe this workshop was not the best place for debating, but which is? In the Green political agenda, the premise that GMOs are to be opposed no matter what is written in stone, and the event was about how to effectively push for that idea, rather than discuss it. Because, I would soon see, there is no discussing it.
The presenter was from the British NGO Beyond GM. She introduced the audience to the various actions by the organization and their joint work with other anti-GMO groups. All those efforts and resources are devoted to a single message: ‘No to GMOs!’ That is their whole raison d’être. And their definition of what counts as ‘GMO’ is quite wide. Did you know, we were told, that the industry is trying to have ‘new GMOs’ (the presenter said this means mutation breeding, which is actually far from new; actually, she referred to gene editing) not considered GMOs under European law? This, I suppose, was intended to get the troops riled up.

A network devoted to blocking food innovation. Credit: Inti Orozco Editor’s note: The “Letter from America” was also coordinated to coincide with the Factor GMO announcement. Go here for an update on that story.

We did a round of presentations among the audience. There were members of the Greens/EFA and activists from different groups, including one from the Faucheurs volontaires, the French eco-warriors who destroy test fields at night – he got a suspended sentence, by the way. (Side note: since their systematic vandalism, relative impunity, and public sympathy have helped end research in genetically engineered plants in France, the Faucheurs volontaires now attack any tests of hybrid and mutant breeds, which they call ‘hidden GMOs’. This has driven the seed coop Limagrain to move out of the country. Most astonishingly, the Faucheurs, despite engaging in criminal activity, are financially backed by the organic industry leader Biocoop, which sells a Faucheurs volontaires brand of beer and potato chips).
I presented myself as having been anti-GMO by default, from ignorance, before educating myself about the science, learning about the overwhelming consensus on the safety of genetically engineered crops, discovering many applications of the technology that make farming more sustainable and help with food security; in short, realizing I had been wrong the whole time. Surprisingly, I was not alone. At least one other person shared this stance.

Reaching out

The workshop didn’t go as planned. It rested on the assumption that everyone was on the same page, but I wasn’t there to come up with ways to convey a message that I feel is fundamentally wrong, so I and the other person expressed our disagreement, and the whole thing turned into a debate. Because of this, we were accused of hijacking the event and shouted at by the audience. We were told that rejecting GMOs is ‘in the DNA’ of the Green party, so why were we even there in the first place. I objected that this was dogmatic. Such a violent reaction, while not surprising, was nonetheless unsettling.
I tried to argue that beneficial applications exist and deserve serious consideration – drought tolerant maize, cassava resistant to brown streak virus, crops fortified with vitamin A and iron, etc. They are in many cases created in developing countries for their own farmers, but European opposition influences their lawmakers and hinders solutions that are direly needed by the most vulnerable populations. This fell on deaf ears and was countered with the popular, though inaccurate, trope about multinational corporations controlling science and enslaving farmers.
But if they’re against big corporations, I asked, then why don’t the Greens support public research? “We do!”, they replied. But this is not true. The unanimous stance of green parties across Europe is one of outright rejection of any research in crop genetic engineering, and they make it quite clear in their communication that their end goal is “a GMO-free Europe”. This, of course, is not unique to the Greens; it reflects popular opinion. But the result is that public (and even private) research in genetic engineering is virtually dead in Europe, with scientists abandoning the field altogether. While saddening, this is understandable: why devote years of your life and millions in taxpayer funds only to see it uprooted overnight by activists, or sometimes even by your own government, while the taxpayer applauds them and reviles you? But the consequence is that we are deprived of the precious research that environmentalists say is so lacking for GMOs.

Whack-a-mole

No matter what I said, it was deflected by bringing up yet another argument. Sometimes political or ideological: “If we concede on GMOs, what next? Nuclear power?” One person started citing Moms Across America and Séralini’s rat study to me, but the organizer suggested not to go down that route. Maybe she was aware that it’s terrible science? We may never know; one of the propositions of the workshop was to avoid confusing the public with science. I objected that it’s a pity not to educate the public, because there is genuine interest for science communication, as attested by the countless science-themed outlets in social media. Ignorance, on the other hand, only fuels fear. And fear, it turns out, is a main driver of anti-GMO sentiment.

This is reflected in the popular opinions collected by the NGO. Credit: Inti Orozco

As the workshop clearly didn’t go where it was meant to, the organizer grew desperate. “While we argue among ourselves here, Monsanto becomes more efficient in its campaigning”, she said, in a Council of Elrond-esque way. I felt bad for her. I didn’t mean to ruin the workshop. I was even willing to play along, but my message, as an informed citizen, would have been one of open-mindedness; of educating oneself and others; to use technology responsibly and sustainably, and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
After the workshop ended, I was caught in a lengthy and frustrating discussion with a young member of the German Green party. Although the exchange went nowhere, he did show me a video. Interestingly, I considered it was an argument for crop biotech in the developing world, but from his perspective, it was one against. He considered the economic rights of the people were threatened by GMOs, while to me, for the reasons I mentioned before, the rights of the people include that of using biotechnology for their own benefit and empowerment. Who are we to deny it to them?

Time for introspection

What I took from this experience is that while environmentalists have legitimate reasons to be suspicious of industry and its applications of technology, this has gone far beyond sound skepticism and sunk into full-blown fanaticism that sacrifices science and technology on the altar of ideology. Maybe we should take the time to step back and meditate on this, and consider listening to environmentalists with differing views such as Mark Lynas, instead of dismissing them as yet more industry shills. This will not mean the death of the Green political movement. Simply that it’s capable of evolving without betraying its core values.

Written by Guest Expert

Inti Orozco is an artist and science enthusiast, regularly geeking out on space, agriculture and biotechnology.

Guest Expert

Written by Guest Expert

The strength of the discussions on Biofortified depend on the diversity of expertise, perspectives, and backgrounds of our contributors and guest experts.

1,106 comments

  1. It is unfortunate that they ‘threw the baby out with the bathwater’. Since about 85 percent of GMO production is designed for pesticide-ready practices, they have a point in general, but ‘don’t throw the baby out’, that is too simplistic. GE has gotten a bad rep for being perceived as focused on, and inextricably tied in with pushing pesticide sales supportive research, yet avoiding due diligence research for produce unsupportive investigation, which is essentially avoiding important parts of scientific method needed to guide policy and practice in a more sane food future. We have to expect, that given this dominant pesticide focus, with what many thinking people see as being under-investigated for adverse unintended effects on public health, that knee-jerk reactionary influences will develop as a result of the failings of the informational paradigm currently. Industry needs to clean up its act, if it expects a better rep. OG sales share will continue to rapidly increase in direct proportion to the perceived failure to do due diligence for public health. Bad business accounting, that allows externalized costs onto society, and takes ‘profit’ before adequately dealing with those externalized costs, will drive the anti- GMO biases even more strongly, until a better paradigm is instituted by all concerned.

    1. Aah, an accusation of being to simplistic. Nonsense. That is just a vague accusation used due to lack of ability to refute his argument. “yet avoiding due diligence?” In what way? Have they not lead to an impeccable safety record? Dominant pesticide focus.? As in needing spray far less insecticides? more nonsense ray.

        1. Considering that the studies done have led to zero cases of illness due to toxicity of humans, livestock, or pets in the over 20 years of use. Your claim is invalid. Next.

          1. Isn’t it speculation that a bunch of short term studies, truly and accurately rule out need for long term studies?? Maybe we ALL need to go back to school for more in depth biology, if we can’t see the potential toxicology implications inherent in that assumption?

          2. Straw man argument. No one said that short term studies rule out a need for long term studies. Which, BTW have been done. Next.

          3. “Maybe we ALL need to go back to school for more in depth biology…”
            No, just you.

          4. I know. cheers Many in science very much appreciate farmers being involved in on-line discussions. Thanks

          5. I’m pleased to see that many chose to spend their Saturday discussing and debating this topic! Some of this was frustrating to me for two reasons: grand speculations and gish galloping without evidence presented, followed by insults and personal attacks for having done so.
            Solution: If you have an argument to make – present evidence. If someone doesn’t present evidence, then call for evidence – don’t just call them names.

          6. Again, please state a mechanism that GE crop derived foods would cause harm. Come on ray I know you are here right now.

          7. Perhaps go back to school to complete your basic biology and genetics classes, a requisite in the US for all students before graduating high school.

          8. Exactly, if the industry does not fund looking intently FOR unintended consequence ‘side effects’, we risk having those remain hidden. The government regulatory process is not doing a convincingly good job of funding such
            investigation either, so who do you suggest is covering the bases adequately?

          9. Again, the record indicates that the gov’t is doing a fine job. Industry test IS looking for unintended consequences. That is one of the goals.

          10. If we pay people NOT to look, as in the EPA, then we probably would not FIND. Agencies responsible for environmental and public health assessment are prevented from doing the work that they see as necessary for toxic contaminant assessment because legislators that fear loss of election funding from industry lobbies if they allow agencies to do due diligence with scientific integrity, are not effective. This happens all over the nation, all of the time.

          11. So then every single health & environmental agency in every country in the modern world has been paid off? Paid off for 40 years without so much as one single whistle blower coming forward?
            Sounds a bit far fetched to me…. how about you?

          12. It is all driven by funding getting reduced, for agencies that make too many waves by bringing up evidence that could trigger lobbies cutting off election funding to the regulators of the regulators (legislators). The politicians step on the agency science, by letting the agencies know that funding for other good work they do, if they persist in investigation of toxic contamination that reflects badly on the industrial players. Agencies have a lot of good people that came out of college looking to do jobs to help with environmental protection, but find lots of censoring by the funding restrictions, and cannot do due diligence because of it. Yes, it IS a conspiracy, but NOT by those that recognize it happening, by the industry pressure to create ‘profit’ before societal wellbeing.

          13. I see… so this theory applies all over the world, even in countries who’s political systems are not set up the same way and to people who haven’t been associated with those regulating agencies for a decade or more?
            Yah… that sounds legit.

          14. Ray, before running down a rathole trying to explain WHY some imaginary state of affairs came to pass, try using your Googles to find out IF things are really as you fantasize.
            The agencies that examine food safety do not report to Congress. FDA & USDA are executive branch agencies and EPA is independent of both Congress and the White House.
            This is not secret information.

          15. Yes, but those agencies are headed by people that usually come rotating in from industry or politics for awhile, and then rotate back out into industry again. What research gets funded, or does not, still gets heavily directed by industry managers or governmental managers, same result. The scientists in those agencies are not calling the shots freely, they are controlled with the politic and cannot do pure science very often. The money talks, the money is controlled and selectively dispersed with certain outcomes in mind. How is that fantasy?

          16. Do you have any idea of the logistics required to maintain that degree of regulatory capture? It’s quite frankly impossible given the repeatability of the toxicity studies done to date by academia, industry, and government agencies.
            Do you not see the minor issue that, in order to hide negative results over and over again, yet still have the results be in keeping with the previous studies would require nearly identical manipulation of the data? Managing to do this over multiple research groups, test protocols, and in different countries, there’s no chance that it could be maintained.
            The reality is that it is the anti-GMO researchers who have the replication issue. Take Seralini et al 2012 (the infamous lumpy rat study). The three EU studies that I mentioned earlier (GRACE, G-TwYST, GMO90Plus), they were started in part to see if there was any validity to the finding from the retracted study…yet they found nothing. In fact, not even Seralini has been able to replicate his own findings, and this is the case for many of the anti-GMO researchers.
            This type of Machiavellian conspiracy ignores many of the basic controls that are present in GLP, and just looking through the mountains of data, there is no evidence that your thesis is in any way supported.

          17. Yes Robert, I’m back from vacation, thought about some of this further, and here is a comment about your questions: I posted it to others above, but this one is a good starting point.
            No, in the real world beyond the labs, the dose does NOT ‘make the poison’, the combined accumulated doses that are additive, and often synergistic, in individuals that are very young, or very old, have other disease conditions, or are pregnant, or in other ways compromised… makes the poison. We are ALL accumulating the toxic metal lead into our bones (100 to 1ooo x’s) the levels prehistoric bones accumulated. We all have this toxicologic ‘dose’ to deal with during times of physiologic stress from additional insults. as the body seeks calcium in times of need lead recirculates to add pathogenic influence. The ‘dose’ from the single lab dose DOES NOT make the adverse effects level, it all adds up out in the real world we have to actually live in. Lab work necessarily has to use fit individuals, but that IS NOT reality. If the dose in a childs’ breakfast cereal is added to his dose of prednisone, his dose of lead from going fishing yesterday, and his dose of methyl mercury from wading and swimming in a pond last week, the result from a ‘dose’ of allowable glyphosate in breakfast cereal could be enough added problem for his body to deal with to be defined as adverse effect by any real world understanding. This kind of intellectual overreach, beyond logic, by people studying toxic significance of a single dose in fit individuals, must be curbed by the full scientific methodology, not the partial science used in the lab.

          18. “The money talks, the money is controlled and selectively dispersed with certain outcomes in mind.”
            Where is your proof of that claim?

          19. So, you think that congressmen and congress women send off billions in funding to the agencies, with NO strings attached as to what can be funded AND what cannot get funded? OMG!

          20. The fantasy is your blaming corrupt members of Congress for spiking the kind of research you want to see, in complete ignorance of the structure of the United States government. When your error is pointed out, you shift to a completely different argument – administrators come from industry – and pretend that’s what you were saying all along.
            Having failed to demonstrate knowledge of the external structure of regulatory agencies, you shamelessly claim to have knowledge of their internal workings. Sorry, but your complaints are not credible. You can’t throw around a bunch of contradictory allegations and expect to be believed. You’re just another troll that likes to babble.
            I study regulatory agencies for a living and know many people who work in them both as political appointees and as permanent staff. Assessments and analyses are made by civil servants who stay with the regulator from administration to administration, and very few of their recommendations are overturned by political appointees. When this happens, it’s big news because it’s the exception rather than the rule.
            You need to spend more time studying and much, much less spouting off about things you don’t begin to understand.
            Of course regulators come from the regulated industries and from relevant academic disciplines; these are the only sources of qualified experts.

          21. ‘regulators come from the regulated industries”, yes exactly. Yes, they do a lot of good work, but you must be able to see a few potential biases when ‘the regulators come from the regulated industries’ and then leave the agencies to go back to those ‘regulated industries’. Maybe they are actual Saints, and can remain free of biases… but, what could possibly go wrong?

          22. So, Seed that doubt appears to be your stock in trade. I am done. You do not want to learn the real science. Have a nice life.

          23. Real science doubts itself, doubts that it has asked enough of the right questions, doubts if it is sufficient, is concerned about hidden data gaps, is concerned about potential to lead people astray if it has not covered enough of the bases, has soul… if the science does not have soul, it ain’t sh’t.

          24. Joe, have you not paid attention to what I commented above?
            Data gaps are hidden all around us… we live in them. Lab work is just a very limited glance at reality, but reality is NOT what the labs and papers describe about reality.
            I said this above, but perhaps you only react to one comment at a time, very lab-like of you. Here is how I would define ‘hidden data gaps’ as a starting point:
            No, in the real world beyond the labs, the dose does NOT ‘make the poison’, the combined accumulated doses that are additive, and often synergistic, in individuals that are very young, or very old, have other disease conditions, or are pregnant, or in other ways compromised… makes the poison. We are ALL accumulating the toxic metal lead into our bones (100 to 1ooo x’s) the levels prehistoric bones accumulated. We all have this toxicologic ‘dose’ to deal with during times of physiologic stress from additional insults. as the body seeks calcium in times of need lead recirculates to add pathogenic influence. The ‘dose’ from the single lab dose DOES NOT make the adverse effects level, it all adds up out in the real world we have to actually live in. Lab work necessarily has to use fit individuals, but that IS NOT reality. If the dose in a childs’ breakfast cereal is added to his dose of prednisone, his dose of lead from going fishing yesterday, and his dose of methyl mercury from wading and swimming in a pond last week, the result from a ‘dose’ of allowable glyphosate in breakfast cereal could be enough added problem for his body to deal with to be defined as adverse effect by any real world understanding. This kind of intellectual overreach, beyond logic, by people studying toxic significance of a single dose in fit individuals, must be curbed by the full scientific methodology, not the partial science used in the lab.

          25. So you can’t explain it, then. Didn’t think so. Just more pissing up a rope by Ray Kinney, Mr. Not-A-Scientist.

          26. You’ve put my comment on a diet, haven’t you Ray? Here’s what I actually said: “Of course regulators come from the regulated industries *and from relevant academic disciplines*; these are the only sources of qualified experts.”
            Apparently you feel unqualified activists would do a better job.

          27. Agencies are full of many very honorable people, who came out of college wanting to do just what the agencies are supposed to do… and for the most part they do an excellent job. The rub comes from the big money interests that do NOT want to allow that kind of good work to extend to toxic contaminant assessment with as much scientific integrity, because they know that they would likely have their ‘bottom line’ profits reduced a bit. Big money is involved at the 1% hoarding level, and that kind of money does influence the assessment process negatively.

          28. When I have often asked water quality agency people, off the record, just how I might help advocate effectively for water quality science to be best improved across the nation, they have repeatedly said (confidentially), that I should press these very understandings and issues that I have been stating, because they feel the same needs but have responsibilities to family to keep their jobs. They invariably want me to pressure the legislators to try to bring more responsibility to the assessment of environmental contaminant adverse effects on societal wellbeing. They are very well educated individual scientists, that see the current assessment paradigms similarly to how I have explained my own understandings to them. They deplore important data gaps that should get funding to fill, yet cannot get prioritized because of the political paradigm. They have often strongly encouraged me to persist in trying to advocate this way, because they cannot. These confidential encouragements from very well respected scientists across many fields related to toxicology and salmon habitat restoration disciplines, gives me the push to continue advocating in these ways. My focus is much more knowledgeable within the toxic metals pollution paradigm, than in the pesticide AG related fields, but many of the issues are very similar. Yes, I know that I could be wrong on many aspects of my understanding, but the encouragement of so many highly respected scientists strongly support my contentions and my effort to advocate accordingly. With their encouragement, I feel a responsibility to continue.

          29. 21 days after I leave my comment, you say: “the guys at the water board told me to go bug somebody else.”
            OK, that’s understandable. Learning how legislatures interact with regulators would be a good start. Best of luck to you in your studies.

          30. Not ‘the guys at the water board’, but scientists that work for NOAA, EPA, Universities, state agencies, and other researchers in the field of environmental and pubic health assessment.

          31. Dead-zones growing at river mouths, honeybees dying, Flint MI and many other cities poisoning populations with lead, lead fishing sinkers rolling around in tackle boxes and creating powder to contaminate hands, sandwiches, and cooler ice of people fishing, crematoria spewing mercury from amalgam across the land and people, all with very little quantification or effective regulation, is harming society, adding to prison populations, and you think that the government is doing a fine job?

          32. Come on Ray, that was dumb even for you. As you well know. I was referring to GE crops, not all those other issues. Please go look up conflate and refrain from doing it anymore.

          33. You have no point. You have made not a single one in this whole argument. You are simply an idiot that makes up crap. In the real world. a gov’t can do a good job on one issue and screw up most everything else.

          34. No, not the same. Those are regulated by many different agencies in many different jurisdictions.

          35. Due to the error prone and ludicrous content of your comments. Your opinion is worthless.

          36. Eric, read this again:No, in the real world beyond the labs, the dose does NOT ‘make the poison’, the combined accumulated doses that are additive, and often synergistic, in individuals that are very young, or very old, have other disease conditions, or are pregnant, or in other ways compromised… makes the poison. We are ALL accumulating the toxic metal lead into our bones (100 to 1ooo x’s) the levels prehistoric bones accumulated. We all have this toxicologic ‘dose’ to deal with during times of physiologic stress from additional insults. as the body seeks calcium in times of need lead recirculates to add pathogenic influence. The ‘dose’ from the single lab dose DOES NOT make the adverse effects level, it all adds up out in the real world we have to actually live in. Lab work necessarily has to use fit individuals, but that IS NOT reality. If the dose in a child’s breakfast cereal is added to his dose of prednisone, his dose of lead from going fishing yesterday, and his dose of methyl mercury from wading and swimming in a pond last week, the result from a ‘dose’ of allowable glyphosate in breakfast cereal could be enough added problem for his body to deal with to be defined as adverse effect by any real world understanding. This kind of intellectual overreach, beyond logic, by people studying toxic significance of a single dose in fit individuals, must be curbed by the full scientific methodology, not the partial science used in the lab. So, this is ludicrous comment??? QED.

          37. Yes, a ludicrous comment. Synergy has to be proven for each product or combination of products. You are discounting the possibility that chemicals could neutralize each other in the real world. Glyphosate doesn’t bioaccumulate. and conflating issues by bringing up lead is just goofy.

          38. Yes, yes, I do know that many Monsanto/Bayer product chemicals actually act to cancel out the toxic effects of a multitude of other poisons we are exposed to daily in the real world! The lab work is definitive, peer review is outstanding on this point, thank you all so much for making this beneficial effect better known. I’ll point this out to all of my OG gardener friends I’m sure that they will become enlightened and appreciate far more anti-synergy products than they have been aware of to this point. Perhaps if we add more of them to our breakfast cereals it will be a real boon to societal wellbeing.

          39. Perhaps if you point out the stupidity of relying on the appeal to nature fallacy. You gardening friends will become more skillful. In the meantime time look up straw man. No one said “actually” I simply pointed out that this is a possibility that you in trying to always find the worst possibility overlooked.

          40. Because of the deceptive marketing of organic as more nutritious, safer, and less damaging to the environment. It is a fad based on no substance. Sooner or later it will end.

          41. Perhaps, but just walk through a grocery store trying to find something really nutritious to eat, fresh, nutrient dense, local, and really know your farmers. Most people eat a lot of crap, not even looking at any toxicity. Organic farmers markets offer a whole lot more for the buck than just the crop processed to death.

          42. Not a problem, the stores I shop at have excellent selections. You are just whining again. Organic folks offer less for the buck. the nutrition is roughly the same.

          43. If you want to make a claim do so. I won’t be looking up vet school employees based on the comments of an internet guy who has no evidence for any of his wild speculative claims.

          44. I know what the experts think. I have read the results of the UC Davis study, many others, and clearly understand that nothing is out of order as regards GE derived animal feeds. Because the farmers continue to use it. Either make a specific claim or quit sniveling as though there is some dark conspiracy going on.

          45. They don’t put everything they think into papers. They have their thoughts and suspicions about the data gaps, and about the politics within their organizations, and they taylor what they do, in varying degrees to be sure that they do not make enough waves to rock the boat so much that somebody gets wet too long. They have very valid thoughts about what study needs to done to try to fill those troubling data gaps, and how they just might be able to get by the biases of the particular organizational restraints enough to hopefully get that work done. But, this is often a struggle. They are like everyone else, and their organizations are like other organizations. The science is not always followed as much as it could or should be in this real world.

          46. Worst comment so far. Assumes facts not in evidence. No proof for “data gaps” existence or importance. Wild speculation with no proof. “Either make a specific claim or quit sniveling as though there is some dark conspiracy going on”

          47. Yes, you have not shown there are any gaps. Much less any that are significant. You must prove all speculative claims. Especially as you have no credibility. “Either make a specific claim or quit sniveling as though there is some dark conspiracy going on”

          48. More unfounded claims. What a surprise…not. You and facts are not even casually acquainted.

          49. If what you’re saying is that there is dishonesty—and even fraud—in all walks of life, including science, then I would definitely agree. However, thousands of scientists (many smarter than you or I) have been engineering genes for over 40 years, and I have yet to come across ANY plausible rationale—let alone evidence—that there is something inherently dangerous in this process.
            You can choose to piss up a rope, Ray, or do something useful with your remaining years.

          50. Yep, That much I knew. What I failed to get across is the point that his phrasing is something I had never heard before. I needed a smiley face thing I guess. 🙂

          51. Perhaps among smart folks like you and Peter. guys like me, who are somewhat deprived tend to use the phrase Piss in the wind. But we have troubles not continuing with “don’t mess around with Jim.”

          52. Let’s see, OECD-453 compliant studies (Combined Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity) not done by Monsanto on glyphosate:
            – Cheminova, 1993: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Feinchemie Schwebda, 1996: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Arysta Life Sciences, 1997: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Syngenta, 2001: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Nufarm, 2009: Klimisch Rating 1
            Care to guess how many OECD-452 or 453 compliant trials have been carried out by anti-Biotech researchers?
            Zero
            This is only a partial list, but it shows the utterly idiocy of your thesis. The experts have spoken, and they concur with the data gathered to date.
            All you have is unsubstantiated navel gazing.

          53. Once again you make an unfounded and pathetic claim. You owe all vet school scientists an apology.

          54. No, a good number of vets would confide that there are many questions that they see as being important to pointedly investigate but that the funding biases do not sanction

          55. The problem is, that they would often require careful anonymity in giving advice and council in these dangerous subjects due to adverse politics.

          56. And once again, a claim with absolutely no evidence to support it.
            Just because you can imagine something doesn’t make it remotely true, Ray.

          57. No they owe you an apology, by assuming that you understand the following differences between lab work ‘doses’ and real world doses.
            No, in the real world beyond the labs, the dose does NOT ‘make the poison’, the combined accumulated doses that are additive, and often synergistic, in individuals that are very young, or very old, have other disease conditions, or are pregnant, or in other ways compromised… makes the poison. We are ALL accumulating the toxic metal lead into our bones (100 to 1ooo x’s) the levels prehistoric bones accumulated. We all have this toxicologic ‘dose’ to deal with during times of physiologic stress from additional insults. as the body seeks calcium in times of need lead recirculates to add pathogenic influence. The ‘dose’ from the single lab dose DOES NOT make the adverse effects level, it all adds up out in the real world we have to actually live in. Lab work necessarily has to use fit individuals, but that IS NOT reality. If the dose in a childs’ breakfast cereal is added to his dose of prednisone, his dose of lead from going fishing yesterday, and his dose of methyl mercury from wading and swimming in a pond last week, the result from a ‘dose’ of allowable glyphosate in breakfast cereal could be enough added problem for his body to deal with to be defined as adverse effect by any real world understanding. This kind of intellectual overreach, beyond logic, by people studying toxic significance of a single dose in fit individuals, must be curbed by the full scientific methodology, not the partial science used in the lab.

          58. “No, in the real world beyond the labs, the dose does NOT ‘make the
            poison’, the combined accumulated doses that are additive, and often
            synergistic, in individuals that are very young, or very old, have other
            disease conditions, or are pregnant, or in other ways compromised…
            makes the poison.”
            Besides an example of an epic run-on sentence, your statement is worthless. More pissing up a rope by Ray Kinney.

          59. Hi Ray. If its not too much to ask i posted a few questions on this forum. would you mind going back, read them and then come back and we can discuss them. I’ll wait.

          60. Nope, quite possible. That is why you can’t name one person or animal and can’t show any causative mechanism by which any being got sick.

      1. Lack of doing more in-depth animal feeding studies, of GMO crops that have the higher levels of pesticide residues, over longer timeframes. If you avoid doing testing designed well to detect adverse effects, or the chronic accumulative nature of some contaminants eaten over longer term studies, leave questions of potential adverse effects that really should have been better investigated.

        1. again, you have only speculation supported by no evidence. How long do you want and justify the time span.

        2. Be specific, Ray.
          What are the two or three most important animal feeding studies that need to be done? I have asked you this before, but you seem to be far more interested in rhetoric than actual science.

          1. Perhaps it would be best to ask twelve veterinary toxicologists: what would you like to be able to fund, as long term animal feed contaminant adverse effects research, that are accumulative in nature, say in pigs? (Especially the studies that you just would not think possible to get industry or government to fund). Just see what the would candidly and anonymously say.

          2. Your statement is based on the false premise that researchers are being censored somehow. That’s insulting to scientists, bub.

          3. Submit your proof that scientists are being censored, or apologize for lying. Your choice.

          4. Researchers often get censored by who controls the funding, very few are really free to determine just what questions and further research can happen next if the first research showed reason to need further data that was not likely going to be product-supportive for the funder. This results in a strong bias against science.

          5. Prove it. Oh that’s right, you can’t. You haven’t responded to any request for facts on this thread. You just make things up to suit your ideology, which shows an epic lack of morals and ethics on your part. Pathetic.

          6. Brand new poster I see. Why do I smell a sock puppet. But for sake of discussion I will wait to see replies to my posts.

          7. It is the scientists that I respect most in the system. The Greed, politics, and ‘profit’-taking prior to accounting for externalized costs is the insulting part.

          8. We have given you the science opinion from thousands of studies over decades of researh and still you do not believe it.

          9. You’ve had many opportunities to support your claims, but you provide exactly nothing.
            And it’s a poor attempt at deflection for you to state you respect the group you’ve insulted multiple times. How amoral can you be?

          10. I’m fighting for more influence from the scientists to inform the politics and policy, that could then make a better system. I’m NOT insulting the scientists. The system does NOT do the scientists justice. Yes, it does employ them, but very much limits their ability to do their work as completely as they would like to be doing for most effective benefit.

          11. And you’ve still provided exactly zero proof while once again insulting scientists, all in a pathetic attempt to justify your bankrupt ideology.

          12. So with all the references we have given you of scientists evaluating the safety of GE crops and derived foods, what tests not already done would you like to see added to the evaluation of GE crops and why?

          13. And yet every comment of yours here insults our scientists and farmers. Derpy derp.

          14. That vet is not doing research on GE crops and is certainly not being censored. Her crap is found quite commonly.

          15. Yes, there are sick humans, young humans, elderly humans, pregnant humans… all at increased risks from further health insults from toxicants of all kinds. Most lab experiences start with very healthy individuals that have healthy immune systems, and are more fit to resist insults. In the real world beyond the labs, all of these ‘outliers’ are more subject to unintended adverse effects.

          16. Also, fund studies of levels of essential amino acids presence in organic fed animals compared to many different kinds of GMO based animal feeds?

          17. Why? Do you think you know better than the experts that put the OECD guidelines together?

          18. If these essential amino acids are lacking the animal is dead. Your request makes no sense.

          19. you do understand we have mechanisms that regulate absorption of essential amino acids and if the body has enough the transport mechanisms stop absorbing?

          20. The animal is unhealthy, we covered that already with the link directly below this. If you want more try looking up Genera on this website.

          21. I abandoned Genera since I learned they include ‘studies’ from Benbrook that lie. I called the Genera guy in charge and he would not offer a logical explanation for why he includes organic funded studies.

          22. I was on the other end of that call, and enjoyed talking to you. Our goal is to include all relevant studies so that people can better find and compare their results. By including studies that have faulty conclusions, biased authors, and funding from sources that stand to benefit from a particular result, it allows people to compare their results to the results of the rest of the literature. Every study has issues, some much more significant than others. The greatest evidence of bias is to show that these studies are truly outliers and disagree with the rest of the literature. People will always cherry-pick, but we can show that even when you include the outliers that they pick out, the overall results are unchanged.
            There is an often-cited meta-analysis that was funded by the organic industry which has results that I think most people here would agree with:
            https://genera.biofortified.org/view/Nicolia2013
            Our goal is to provide an unbiased resource, not to choose only those studies that we think are good quality or funded only by non-industry sources. As I mentioned on the phone, we would like to include a systematic measurement of feeding study quality for each study that provides an evaluation of methods as an unbiased means of judging individual studies, but that would take time to implement.

          23. Organic farming is, by definition, biased against GMOs. I know that Genera was touted as being a site with nothing but independently funded studies immune from industry influence, that’s how I learned of it and began using it as a citation. I did not take the time to review all 400 studies. I will never knowingly cite a list of studies that intentionally includes organic industry funded studies and the likes of Benbrook which is why I removed Genera from my citation file. If you did include a credibility index that was simple, like a 1 to 5 scale, or isolating those biased studies in a separate file, I’d consider using Genera again.

        3. This study is not sufficient? ” The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

          1. It said more than 90 days and up to 2 years in the first category. Time span was not stated for multi-generation data. If you poke around you may be able to see the details without paying for the full study. I have not done so, I’m satisfied with the overview and neither you nor I are qualified to judge on the accuracy of the study, that’s what peer review is for.

          2. Short, considering that our children may be eating GMO’s and associated pesticides in foods for perhaps their lifetimes. Also, toxicity testing is almost always done without using already health impaired, pregnant, old age individuals, etc. that may be far less able to handle any additional insults.

          3. In the real world, beyond the controlled environments of the world of the labs and test plots, events are common. When an RR crops is sprayed repeatedly with roundup, and then some pest is threatening the crop, and the farmer is faced with having to deal with the threat in a cost-effective way… they sometime err on the less safe direction of NOT following cautions about untested combinations during tank mixing practices. Many tank mixing liberties happen in the real world, these do not get documented adequately in many cases. Yes, the science may be pretty good for lab-generated, controlled experiments, but Murphy’s law still applies in the real world of GMO crop production on farms. IMHO. Now, if this tank mix, that has never been tested for adverse effects, drifts off one property to encroach on the rights of others, it ain’t right.

          4. Now, if the GMO crop is exposed to this unauthorized mixture of chemicals that have not been adequately vetted, isn’t there a reasonable chance of untested chemical residues included in the foods that result? So, you don’t think that this is possible, or even frequent enough to be a concern? What if your family were exposed, would that be a concern? I’m just saying that the real world is far more complicated than the lab testing by scientists tests. Countless similar complications happen, but monitoring science is not supported enough to effectively evaluate, and is in my opinion, a credible risk to public health of pregnant women that also have respiratory problems and drive through the cropland, especially while the spraying is happening, or volatilizing into the air. This kind of scenario happens, tank mixes of off label use possibility are probably not high on the list of the industry to study or provide pointedly investigative educational material to general growers, so that they think twice about such practices in the face of pest threats to their crops.

          5. The USDA tests food for trace amounts of pesticides and the food system is the safest in the history of food. Would you like a link to their latest testing report?

          6. That’s likely very good as far as it goes, but that does not cover outliers in the real world enough, in my opinion, only an opinion… and I’m used to that not counting much with a lot of folk, so have at it. What percentage of food gets tested anyway? is that scientifically adequate?

          7. And you’re making more and more stuff up. I guess you really don’t have much choice when the facts are against you. Still, it’s pathetic.

          8. And what are some of these tank mixing liberties that you seem to think happen?

          9. Ray Kinney is incapable of participating in an honest discussion. He makes unfounded claims and when questioned about his claims, he simply moves to goalposts to another unfounded claim. He’s a textbook example of lying with impunity in order to preserve his ideology.

          10. Ray is our token stooge here. Note how this site completely bans any manifestation of the Turd Miner virus.

          11. …I cited 5 of them that examined glyphosate just yesterday for you. I even went one step further and excluded any conducted by Monsanto themselves.
            – Cheminova, 1993: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Feinchemie Schwebda, 1996: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Arysta Life Sciences, 1997: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Syngenta, 2001: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Nufarm, 2009: Klimisch Rating 1
            In addition to these, there were additional tests performed by Monsanto:
            – Monsanto, 1990: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Monsanto 1981 (Predates OECD 451 or 453): Klimisch Rating 3
            And some on Mice:
            – Monsanto 1983 (Predated OECD451 and 453): Klimisch Rating 2
            – Cheminova 1993: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Arysta Life Sciences 1997 (18 Month): Klimisch Rating 1
            – Feinchemie Schwebda 2001 (18 Month): Klimisch Rating 1
            For a more recent study on GMO’s themselves, The EU-sponsored studies:
            – GRACE Project
            – G-TwYST
            -GMO90Plus
            All wrapped up between 2016 and earlier this year. No significant treatment effects were identified.

          1. Yes, more studies of similar nature. With the vast amounts of money gained by industry, there is adequate money to do a lot more investigation. The focus is too often on proving theories and products right (‘safe and ‘profitable’), but science is really about trying to demonstrate that your own theories and lab work are inadequate, with each scientist wanting to obtain funding with which to delve deeper into gaps in our knowledge. The emphasis is reversed in too much of the funding paradigm. We should always ‘doubt, without unbelief of things to be believed’, strive to clarify how we just might be wrong, and work for more clarity and responsibility. To deny that gaps exist is dangerous to true science methodology. IMHO

        1. “industry?” This is not a monolith. Name a specific company and a specific company. Also, prove industry motivated the increase.

          1. So you’re unable to provide any specific examples, only babblespeak. Unsurprising.

        2. The industry didn’t “have to” go to the EPA to get higher allowable residues. The industry did apply for higher allowable residues in some oil seed crops because the safety thresholds seemed adequate to allow for them. Oil refining removes a large percentage of what ever residues remain so the product that the consumer would encounter would be far below safety thresholds.
          That doesn’t allow for more product to be sprayed as per acre spray limits remain unchanged. It allows for spraying a bit later in tot he season than it would have otherwise. What’s wrong with that?

          1. Well, one thing that might be wrong with that could be in the case of ‘ripening’ grain crops with glyphosate applications just before harvest, increasing residues in food content?

          2. Increasing them over what? That practice is far older than the EPA granting an increase in allowable residues. And, while it’s not real common, when it is done, it’s done more often on grain crops like wheat, not the oilseed crops that were part of the EPA limit increase you referenced.
            Regardless, If the residues are still well below established safety thresholds and the product that the customer is actually exposed to is refined to remove even more residue, what’s the issue?

      2. “As in needing spray far less insecticides?” Great, as much as that is true, but there are far more pesticide residues then only insecticide residues.

        1. Correct, and the new ones are less toxic and the residues are well below the MRLs. which appear to be set correctly as consumers are suffering no ill effects.

      3. Why is there so little support for epidemiology studies throughout the government regulatory paradigm, when it is only logical to put great precautionary values for public health monitoring due diligence into such poorly supported studies?

        1. Again, when a technology has such an excellent safety record. The “logical” conclusion is that proper “precautionary values” were used correctly. “Poorly supported studies?” Horse hockey. Where is your evidence?

      4. ‘impeccable’ safety records are only as good as the questions asked by those doing the assessments, and the depth of research to ground truth the results and conclusions.

        1. And all those regulatory bodies that have asked the questions and reviewed the well done studies are more qualified than you. Impeccable stands.

          1. Yes, but they are not complete, and they make mistakes, and they are characterizing the norm, but outliers are by definition likely not as well studied. And, they have the political/ financial biases overlain. And, the science is evolving toward correcting its mistakes slowly along the continuum, leaving plenty of room for the truth ‘reality’, at any one point in time, to be less than ‘proof’ (i.e. not fact), just a best guess at the time based on partial evidence under changing conditions… plenty of room for misguidance on the short time while still progressing toward the truth in the longer term. IMHO. I need a vacation, have a great summer.

          2. If they are hidden. How do you know they exist? Try thinking your nonsense through before posting. It is getting way too easy to refute.

          3. Unfortunately for the rest of us perhaps you do. The alleged hidden safety issues apparently do not. That is what the evidence says. Read Chris Preston’s comment 17 times.

          4. Ray’s world-view can be summarized by “yes, but…”, and confuses skepticism with cynicism. A lost cause, I fear.

        2. So when the European Academies of Science report said:
          “There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and
          the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding…There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy… It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security harnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets.”
          What do you think they meant/

          1. I think that they are talking about the GE portion of the crops, and not adequately assessing the pesticide adverse effects problems. In the real world, they are both involved.

          2. So can you cite some literature that shows the present NOEL safety system is inadequate ?

          3. When GMO crops are actually being sprayed, and spray drifts off property to wet down the hair of a two year old child, or drifts into the windows of passing cars, the NOEL ‘safety system’ does not protect diddly.

          4. Hmmm any citations for such widespread occurrences? Seems to me there are tight regulations in place and if such occurred the offender would be severely fined. I am sure it has happened but is no way close to a common thing. Can you bring some examples of such fined individuals?

          5. The regulation might possibly ‘be tight’, but the investigation and enforcement of the regulations is grossly lacking in many cases, and subsequently masks the events. They are quite common as well. How many farm workers have been exposed enough to have adverse effects, yet the investigatory system does not record the details. Exposure is so common, that we all have experienced it when driving through on highways adjacent to cropland. The regulatory agencies are always days late, too late to monitor even if they really wanted too. Are you saying that there are NO adverse health effects to any of the exposures?

          6. Why do you keep making stuff up?
            Your claims are becoming progressively more bizarre and ludicrous.

    2. Your posts always seem to be deliberately structured to say as little as possible with as many words as you can. Why is that?

    3. eNGOs are all too happy to conflate all GE research as pesticide driven and industry sponsored. This ignores the fact that much of the research in Africa is produced by their own independent research scientists and has nothing to do with driving pesticide sales. Your argument is a cop-out.

      1. Great for Africa, I wish it were wider spread independent research around the world, and especially in the US.But, I don’t see how it is a cop out to state that there IS a problem.

        1. “I don’t see how it is a cop out to state that there IS a problem.”
          Where is your proof?

    4. The EU has spent decades of time and hundreds of millions of euros funding academic and independent labs looking into the safety of GE crops. They even conducted tests on the testing methods to determine if they were adequate. They have not found any safety issues that are not comparable to conventional crops. How is that “pesticide sales supportive research?”
      Look up: A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001 – 2010) for a summary of the last decade’s worth of studies.
      From the foreword: “This new publication presents the results of 50 projects, involving more than 400 research groups and representing European research grants of some EUR 200 million.”

      1. Just in case you missed them, there were three major EU-backed studies that wrapped up between 2016 and 2018:
        GRACE
        G-TwYST
        GMO90Plus
        I’m still waiting for the peer reviewed paper from GMO90Plus, but the preliminary results are in line withthe other similar studies…and more importantly, not a single one saw anything close to what Seralini indicated in the 2012 paper.

          1. I did find it odd that it was easier to find the publications from the GMO90Plus study on the G-TwYST website.
            …and the GMO90Plus website also attempted a browser hijack.

          2. Once again, that’s a jury verdict, not an experimental result.
            You keep having issues with what constitutes empirical evidence, as opposed to conjecture. Not a single piece of evidence presented showed causation, and my guess is that, it will be used as a grounds for appeal. Which will only involve a panel of judges, not a jury.

          3. Hilarious!
            You flunkies and hacks will say anything to defend this poison.
            So in effect, what you’re saying, is that the judge completely got it wrong, had no evidence on which to base her judgement upon, and just gave out hundreds of millions of dollars for no reason.
            You’re an intellectual fraud.

          4. The judge didn’t make the decision, the jury did. Same thing with the award size, that was also the jury’s decision. The judge is there to preside over the trial, and instruct the jury on matter of law (as opposed to matters of fact, which are fully up to the jury to determine). They also decide on which facts are pertinent for the jury to consider, as well as on pieces of evidence or testimonies that will be permitted, or denied.
            They have no say in the verdict, or the financial penalty in civil cases, aside from matters of law (minimum, or maximum fines,or other awards).
            You might want to take a look at the legal system in the US before you go spouting off nonsense…although that’s pretty much all you ever do.
            Yes, this will be appealed, and to clarify, the appeals will either take place before a panel of three judges (normal procedure), or may be heard en banc (all judges for a particular circuit). Juries are not used, and this is the point where most jury awards are reduced, or the entire ruling overturned.
            In the latter case, the appellate judges may send the case back to the original court, or may act on their own.
            Hey, look at that. We can now add US courtroom procedures and decorum
            for civil trials to the list of topics that you’ve been willfully
            ignorant about, and that I actually do know quite a bit in comparison.

          5. “The judge didn’t make the decision, the jury did. Same thing with the award size, that was also the jury’s decision.”
            Clearly, you don’t understand, or haven’t bothered to find out, procedural law in the Californian Court system, and how judge’s direct juries.
            But it’s an academic argument, because whether it’s a jury or a judge, Monsanto have been found guilty, and must pay hundreds of millions in compensation, for what the jury believes was a direct case of cancer caused by exposure to Roundup.
            “…civil trials to the list of topics that you’ve been willfully
            ignorant about…”
            So says the pathetic flog, who thinks he’s a scientist, but in reality, is a sad individual that lives in a world of fantasy, which is a complete construct of his own mind.

          6. “Monsanto have been found guilty, and must pay hundreds of millions in
            compensation, for what the jury believes was a direct case of cancer
            caused by exposure to Roundup.”
            Not until the appeals are exhausted, unless this case goes against all the jurisprudence for the district to date. At most, they will need to place the funds in trust until such time as the appeals are done, but even that isn’t required, as Bayer/Monsanto has the liquid assets to cover the entire award..
            I do understand the legal proceedings; as I wrote the judge presides over the trial, and acts on aspects of law, not on the facts of the case. In fact, if the judge were to try and influence the jury to either convict or acquit, that would almost certainly result in the appeals court vacating the ruling, and have the trial start start over again with a new jury, and depending on the severity, even a new judge or district for the trial to be held.
            Depending on the severity of the infraction, the judge could be formally censured. In the past, there have even been cases of outright obstruction brought against judges, for jury tampering, witness intimidation.
            I am a scientist Petey, something that is so far beyond your grasp that it truly makes me smile every time you post your inane babbling.
            You’ll be happy to know that you got 5 minutes of fame earlier this year, when I was delivering a lecture about the rapid advancement of sequencing technology, and the increasing knowledge gap between molecular biologists, and bioinformatician.
            I used your idiocy to show not only the gaping void that represents your level of scientific literacy, but also how cognitive dissonance can cause absolutely hillarious examples of stupidity, which individuals like yourself proudly pontificate, utterly ignorant of the monumental errors you are making.
            Remember the claim that you made regarding curcumin? The one that cured cancer…that was already in remission after the patient underwent multiple rounds of conventional therapy…and somehow you didn’t notice any of this?
            It was such a powerful treatment, that it started working even before the patient started taking it.
            There were many laughs at your expense Petey, you might want to get used to that occurrence, as there are multiple places where the medical, scientific, and regulatory communities have grown weary of your snake oil peddlers causing harm. Harm that we are making note of Petey.
            Remember when I cited Johnson et al. (2017)? The follow up studies are starting to come in from the US, UK, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. Cutting off the public funds is the first step, and that was easily accomplished in the UK, as all the regulators had to do was ask for clinical data supporting the health claims…funny how there weren’t any that followed the usual potocols.
            Hard data, showing that your safer cures are anything but, and are costing lives is finally being scrutinized.
            I know you’ll deny it…I mean if you can believe that a treatment can have a medicinal effect prior to its use, you’re already on a round trip ticket on the crazy train, but this information will get out there, as as homeopathy and herbal medicine is already facing some tough questions in the UK, Germany, Canada, and at the State level in the US.
            Enjoy your remaining time on the fringe. The dustbin of history is your next stop.

          7. You went to all the time, to construct a disingenuous pile of prolix, and it doesn’t make any sense, well, other than yourself.
            But what do you expect, from a wannabe scientist operating in his basement.
            Fact, Monsanto has lost the case, and must pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation.
            No matter how much you squeal and scream, the fact will never change.

          8. They lost the jury portion of a civil case. Care to wager how many civil cases cease after the initial verdict, in California no less?
            How about another interesting detail, in the US, the plaintiffs have a much greater chance of have a ruling in their favor during the initial jury trial. However, on appeal, it is the defendant that has a significantly greater chance of having a decision in their favor.
            The data on this has been coming in for a long time, and in California, a 2007 analysis found that, for civil cases involving accusations of harm, fully 50% were successfully appealed.
            Now, I personally think that value is a bit high, but the analysis method is well established.
            Care to guess what the main cause for the decision going to the defendant on appeal?
            The use of a jury during the initial civil case. Who would have guessed that a collection of average citizens are woefully unqualified to judge case matters of a specialized nature (this includes science, finance, and civil reciprocity agreements)?
            Oh, right anyone with a functioning pair of synapses could figure that one out.
            Once again, the verdict is not finalized until the appeals are heard, and no funds will be going to the plaintiff or his legal team for quite some time. There is a 30 day deadline to file for an appeal, and I’d expect for the paperwork to be submitted right around Sept 5th. Well within the 30 day period, but after the Labor Day long weekend.
            Don’t feel so bad Petey, nothing that you say can change the fact that I am a scientist, and I have been so glad to take part in the policy discussions revolving around GE technology for the SOT policy mandate last year, and this year I’ve been asked to contribute to the CSPB Executive Committee in advance of the next joint meeting between the Canadian and American Societies of Plant Biology.
            So what policy meetings are you taking part in Petey?
            How about some publications to show the superiority of your magic cures. They pretty well have to be magic as there’s no empirical evidence that they do anything other than being remarkably effective at separating fools from their money.

          9. Yep, and as expected, ruprecht doubles down on his incoherent ranting.
            I’ll just repeat, Monsanto has been been told to pay compensation to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
            Until you accept that, I think your psychosis will continue…
            “The internal correspondence noted by Johnson could support a jury finding that Monsanto has long been aware of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicides are carcinogenic … but has continuously sought to influence the scientific literature to prevent its internal concerns from reaching the public sphere and to bolster its defenses in products liability actions,” Karnow wrote. “Thus there are triable issues of material fact.”
            “The lawsuits challenge Monsanto’s position that its herbicides are proven safe and assert that the company has known about the dangers and hidden them from regulators and the public.”
            https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/22/monsanto-trial-cancer-weedkiller-roundup-dewayne-johnson

          10. So once again the steps involved in a civil case are beyond your ken .
            Until the appeals are complete, which includes:
            1. Filing the appeal
            2. The decision of the appeals court to allow deny the appeal
            3. The decision to have the appeal heard by a three judge panel, of for it to move immediately to an en banc appeal with the full complement for the court
            4. The actual appeal and decision by the court
            5. An opportunity for both the defendant and the plaintiff to appeal the decision
            (BTW, if it gets this far, this will probably stretch into 2019-2020.
            I’m afraid that the delusion remains yours Petey. None of this changes the results from the OECD 451, 452, and 453 trials to date.
            As you have been doing for years, you can hurl accusations until you are blue in the face, the courts do not dictate science.
            Care to guess how much this will change the research projects I’m involved in?
            Not one bit.
            Your pseudoscience however, well that’s now become the target of the courts, scientists, and legislators.
            As I wrote earlier, enjoy the dustbin of history.

          11. The court heard, that Monsanto undertook deliberate acts to conceal potential problems with their product.
            Why would they do that?
            Why would they do that, if as they claim, their products are safe?

          12. The jury did Petey. A jury that didn’t contain a single member with an advanced science degree. Odd how the plaintiff’s legal council seemingly made it a point to strike anyone with a background in science or medicine don’t you think?
            If the science supported them, why do that?
            I’m sure cognitive dissonance will fill in the blanks, but please do go on.

          13. I’ll just repeat for the willfully ignorant here, such as yourself, whose answers have no relationship to the question…
            The court heard, that Monsanto undertook deliberate acts to conceal potential problems with their product.
            Why would they do that?
            Why would they do that, if as they claim, their products are safe?

          14. Did you miss the main reason why, when the jury is removed as part of the appeal, the defendant tends to come out ahead?
            You exemplify the reason Petey. The vast majority of the population have to backing in science, and are more likely to rely on emotional rather that empirical data.
            Again, the jury made the decision, and by doing so, the appeal to the appeals court can now proceed.
            Everything I have written is accurate and supported by the primary literature.

          15. Yep, as you’ve proven in the past, only the willfully stupid such as yourself, display a predilection in avoiding the truth.
            So I’m just going to repeat the question, so you can answer it directly.
            The court heard, that Monsanto undertook deliberate acts to conceal potential problems with their product.
            Why would they do that?
            Why would they do that, if as they claim, their products are safe?

          16. Actually the reason was quite well explained in the 2007 study, good to know you didn’t try to find it.
            During the initial trial, jury decisions are far more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion as opposed to fact. The jurors seldom have a background relating to the facts of the case, as the selection process tends to screen these individuals out.
            In this case, Mr. Litzenburg was the one to actively remove these individuals from the pool. Whereas Monsanto’s strikes were based on those jurors with a history of anti-biotech, the plaintiff’s were targeted at those with science or medical skills.
            During the appeal, this is quite different. Neither side has the ability to exclude a judge, unless there is a real conflict of interest.
            Judges tend to focus on legal arguments, and unlike during the trial, they can ask whatever questions they want of either side to clarify the scientific aspects of the case.
            This is a historic trend that goes back over 50 years now. How exactly did you miss it?

          17. “How exactly did you miss it?”
            Indeed…
            The court heard, that Monsanto undertook deliberate acts to conceal potential problems with their product.
            Why would they do that?
            Why would they do that, if as they claim, their products are safe?

          18. The answer was in the previous reply. I’ll just keep posting it.

            Actually the reason was quite well explained in the 2007 study, good to know you didn’t try to find it.
            During the initial trial, jury decisions are far more likely to be swayed byappeals to emotion as opposed to fact. The jurors seldom have a backgroundrelating to the facts of the case, as the selection process tends to screenthese individuals out.
            In this case, Mr. Litzenburg was the one to actively remove these individuals from the pool. Whereas strikes were based on those jurors with a history of anti-biotech, the plaintiff’s were targeted at those with science or medicalskills.
            During the appeal, this is quite different. Neither side has the ability to exclude a judge, unless there is a real conflict of interest.
            Judges tend to focus on legal arguments, and unlike during the trial, they can ask whatever questions they want of either side to clarify the scientific aspects of the case.
            This is a historic trend that goes back over 50 years now. How exactly did you miss it?

          19. “The answer was in the previous reply. I’ll just keep posting it.”
            You are deluded.
            You need to seek some help for your psychosis, however, I’ll just keep reposting until you address the question directly…
            The court heard, that Monsanto undertook deliberate acts to conceal potential problems with their product.
            Why would they do that?
            Why would they do that, if as they claim, their products are safe?

          20. The answer’s still there Petey. Just like it was with the genera.
            The answer was in the previous reply. I’ll just keep posting it.

            Actually the reason was quite well explained in the 2007 study, good to know you didn’t try to find it.
            During the initial trial, jury decisions are far more likely to be swayed byappeals to emotion as opposed to fact. The jurors seldom have a backgroundrelating to the facts of the case, as the selection process tends to screenthese individuals out.
            In this case, Mr. Litzenburg was the one to actively remove these individuals from the pool. Whereas strikes were based on those jurors with a history of anti-biotech, the plaintiff’s were targeted at those with science or medicalskills.
            During the appeal, this is quite different. Neither side has the ability to exclude a judge, unless there is a real conflict of interest.
            Judges tend to focus on legal arguments, and unlike during the trial, they can ask whatever questions they want of either side to clarify the scientific aspects of the case.
            This is a historic trend that goes back over 50 years now. How exactly did you miss it?

          21. “How exactly did you miss it?”
            Yes…
            Indeed…
            How did you miss the question?
            The court heard, that Monsanto undertook deliberate acts to conceal potential problems with their product.
            Why would they do that?
            Why would they do that, if as they claim, their products are safe?

          22. The answer’s still there Petey. Just like it was with the genera.
            The answer was in the previous reply. I’ll just keep posting it.

            Actually the reason was quite well explained in the 2007 study, good to know you didn’t try to find it.
            During the initial trial, jury decisions are far more likely to be swayed byappeals to emotion as opposed to fact. The jurors seldom have a backgroundrelating to the facts of the case, as the selection process tends to screenthese individuals out.
            In this case, Mr. Litzenburg was the one to actively remove these individuals from the pool. Whereas strikes were based on those jurors with a history of anti-biotech, the plaintiff’s were targeted at those with science or medicalskills.
            During the appeal, this is quite different. Neither side has the ability to exclude a judge, unless there is a real conflict of interest.
            Judges tend to focus on legal arguments, and unlike during the trial, they can ask whatever questions they want of either side to clarify the scientific aspects of the case.
            This is a historic trend that goes back over 50 years now. How exactly did you miss it?

          23. “The answer’s still there Petey.”
            Oh, no, I think you’re confusing me with somebody else.
            Or perhaps because you’re unhinged, so I’ll just repeat the question, and for you to clarify your answer.
            The court heard, that Monsanto undertook deliberate acts to conceal potential problems with their product.
            Why would they do that?
            Why would they do that, if as they claim, their products are safe?

          24. A)
            The answer’s still there Petey. Just like it was with the genera.
            The answer was in the previous reply. I’ll just keep posting it.

            Actually the reason was quite well explained in the 2007 study, good to know you didn’t try to find it.
            During
            the initial trial, jury decisions are far more likely to be swayed byappeals to emotion as opposed to fact. The jurors seldom have a backgroundrelating to the facts of the case, as the selection process tends to screen these individuals out.
            In this case, Mr. Litzenburg was the one to actively remove these individuals from the pool. Whereas Monsanto’s strikes were based on those jurors with a history of anti-biotech, the plaintiff’s were targeted at those with science or medical skills.
            During the appeal, this is quite different. Neither side has the ability to exclude a judge, unless there is a real conflict of interest.
            Judges tend to focus on legal arguments, and unlike during the trial, they can ask whatever questions they want of either side to clarify the scientific aspects of the case.
            This is a historic trend that goes back over 50 years now. How exactly did you miss it?

          25. Hey, it’s your reputation you’re damaging on this website with your childish and infantile tactic of just repeating irrelevant answers.

          26. B)
            The answer’s still there Petey. Just like it was with the genera.
            The answer was in the previous reply. I’ll just keep posting it.

            Actually the reason was quite well explained in the 2007 study, good to know you didn’t try to find it.
            During the initial trial, jury decisions are far more likely to be swayed
            byappeals to emotion as opposed to fact. The jurors seldom have a
            backgroundrelating to the facts of the case, as the selection process
            tends to screen these individuals out.
            In this case, Mr. Litzenburg was the one to actively remove these individuals from the pool. Whereas Monsanto’s strikes were based on those jurors with a history of anti-biotech, the plaintiff’s were targeted at those with science or medical skills.
            During the appeal, this is quite different. Neither side has the ability to exclude a judge, unless there is a real conflict of interest.
            Judges tend to focus on legal arguments, and unlike during the trial, they can ask whatever questions they want of either side to clarify the scientific aspects of the case.
            This is a historic trend that goes back over 50 years now. How exactly did you miss it?

          27. C)
            The answer’s still there Petey. Just like it was with the genera.
            The answer was in the previous reply. I’ll just keep posting it.

            Actually the reason was quite well explained in the 2007 study, good to know you didn’t try to find it.
            During the initial trial, jury decisions are far more likely to be swayed
            byappeals to emotion as opposed to fact. The jurors seldom have a
            backgroundrelating to the facts of the case, as the selection process
            tends to screen these individuals out.
            In
            this case, Mr. Litzenburg was the one to actively remove these
            individuals from the pool. Whereas Monsanto’s strikes were based on
            those jurors with a history of anti-biotech, the plaintiff’s were
            targeted at those with science or medical skills.
            During the
            appeal, this is quite different. Neither side has the ability to exclude
            a judge, unless there is a real conflict of interest.
            Judges tend
            to focus on legal arguments, and unlike during the trial, they can ask
            whatever questions they want of either side to clarify the scientific
            aspects of the case.
            This is a historic trend that goes back over 50 years now. How exactly did you miss it?

          28. Another nail in the coffin for Monsanto and Roundup…
            Weed-killing chemical linked to cancer found in some children’s breakfast foods.
            “A new report found glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical that some health authorities link to cancer, in a number of popular breakfast foods and cereals marketed to children. The study by the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered trace amounts of the most widely used herbicide in the country in oats, granolas and snack bars. Thirty-one out of 45 tested products had levels higher than what some scientists consider safe for children.”
            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glyphosate-roundup-chemical-found-in-childrens-breakfast-foods/

          29. Ah, Petey. You still have issues with recognizing peer-reviewed literature, or having a clue about experimental design. A few issues that you seemed to have missed.
            1. That’s not a peer-reviewed study, and they only cited one paper in total. That paper related to the detection method used, but made no mention of the chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity derived from earlier studies. Additionally, they make no reference to the current ADI, NOAEL or LOAEL for glyphosate.
            2. On that topic, they decided to make use of a different NOAEL limit than what was determined by the actual OECD-452 and 453 studies. There was no justification for this in the text, or in the one paper they cited. From a design standpoint, it would appear that this change was made to ensure that they would be able to identify products over this arbitrary limit.
            3. For a study that was in no way capable of determining causation for cancer, they sure implicate it, once again without citing any OECD-compliant studies.
            4. I love the use of the term “some scientists”, as opposed to accurately reporting the consensus in the field, and that the hypotheses presented by this group represent a fringe group…who again fail to follow the standard protocol.
            In other words, you have again latched onto a study that does not support anything that they claim. It is missing virtually all of the materials and methods, there’s no breakdown of the sample population, and the entirety of their findings can be summarized as, “We found samples that had glyphosate levels above the arbitrary limit that we set.”
            Care to try again Petey? Perhaps actually reading the OECD protocols and then comparing them with the next “study’ you find prior to posting might be a good idea.

          30. You missed point 5.
            And that is, you are a complete and utter crank, which renders the previous points irrelevant and nonsensical.
            Example, you claim that there are studies that point to the safety of glyphosate, however, a typical willfully ignorant fool like you, fails to recognise what everyone else knows, and that is, Monsanto has been manipulating the data/studies.
            Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews.
            “Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.”
            “Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.”
            https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews

          31. Nope, the amounts are there, but they have utterly failed to show that the levels detected are associated with any adverse health effects, and in fact the OECD-452 and 453 studies strongly support that there is no negative effects at those doses.
            This is the reason why their utterly arbitrary 160ppb limit is so moronic. They provide no evidence whatsoever to support this decision, and keep in mind that the NOAEL for glyphosate is actually in excess of 100mg/kg, or 100ppm.
            …that’s parts per MILLION, as opposed to the ppb that they are trying to pass off as being in any way relevant. That 100mg/kg is actually a very stringent value, as most testing puts the NOAEL around 550mg/kg.
            Oh, and here are a small sub-sampling of the OECD-453 compliant studies NOT done by Monsanto (I can add those on later if you want):
            – Cheminova (1993). Klimisch Rating 1
            – Feinchemie Schwebda (1996) Klimisch Rating 1
            – Arysta Life Sciences (1997) Klimisch Rating 1
            – Syngenta (2001) Klimisch Rating 1
            – Nufarm (2009) Klimisch Rating 1
            Even allowing for the normal ADI being equal to 1% of the NOAEL, that’s still far, far higher than what they set the limit at. They decided to make the cutoff 1/1000th of the dose where we START to see adverse effects.
            You got suckered again Petey.
            Brush up on your toxicology before you try again. That was one of your more moronic posts, as the information to debunk it took all of a minute to pull up (FYI, Griem et al., 2015 has these all nicely summarized…but I’ll take a wild guess that you never even once looked).
            Considering the naturally occurring toxins that are a part of the natural cellular metabolism, you really should familiarize yourself with the dose response curve a bit better in the future. I don’t mind saying that, given the level of scientific illiteracy you’ve displayed over a broad range of topics, I wouldn’t let you examine and treat my cat, let alone another human being.
            Please keep on trying. It amuses me to no end, and I can’t thank you enough for once again showing so clearly that you have no concept of even remedial toxicology.
            P.S. Guess how many OECD-452 or 453 studies the anti-GMO researchers have performed over the past 2.5 decades?
            Not a single one.
            Are you even capable of citing a relevant study, or are blogs about the best you can produce. The fact that the article you posted literally referenced a single paper should have been a huge red flag. Just the literature review for the latest manuscript I threw together had 38, and the last review article I published had over 160.

          32. I see, still repeating yourself with irrelevant prolix and disingenuous claptrap.
            So you’ve confirmed, you accept a little Roundup with your breakfast cereal.
            Any comment about this unconscionable behaviour of Monsanto ghostwriting?

          33. That you choose to ignore the data presented does nothing to alter the accuracy of said data.
            Glyphosate can be found in breakfast cereal, the key element is the dose. The OECD-compliant studies I provided all show that there is no adverse health effects when the dose is less than the NOAE. Every plant, even organic ones, contain a vast array of defense and structural compounds that can cause harm…if the dose is sufficient.
            Formaldehyde, prussic acid, lectins, saponins, phenolics; literally thousands of possible molecules that are naturally present in the food we eat. As the dose is below the established ADI, to say nothing of the NOAEL.
            The dose makes the poison, Petey, and there is no justification for the authors to set a 160lppb limit.
            On to the next vapid posts; as with all things relating to science, where the data comes from is irrelevant. What matters is that the methods to gather it, analyze it, and interpret it.
            So long as it conforms with standard GLP, there are no issues.
            Now, a very simple question Petey; where is the data, analyais, and/or interpretation wrong?
            Just pointing a finger at the author doesn’t do anything to address the data itself, and unless you can find an OECD-compliant chronic toxicity and/or carcinogenicity study, neither your comment nor your conclusions matter.

          34. “That you choose to ignore the data…”
            2 points, firstly, I choose to ignore the data, because you presented it, and you are a crank who’s living in his basement.
            And secondly, this is just a blancmange of nonsense, which goes off topic onto other irrelevant issues, which is no surprise, considering you are living out a strange fantasy where you believe you are a scientist with 3 Degrees.
            Still waiting, for you to make comment on a Monsanto’s ghostwriting.

          35. “Still waiting, for you to make comment on a Monsanto’s ghostwriting”
            I directly answered that on Petey. If the data presented in the document is accurate and in keeping with standard GLP, it could be written by Anthony Samsel and I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
            Note: If you are unaware, Samsel is a extreme fringe member of the anti-biotech movement. He and his usual partner Stephanie Seneff are great when it comes to producing hypotheses to blame glyphosate for damn near every illness that humans suffer from.
            They are even viewed as extremists and crazy by the organic industry, plus members of Seralini’s group have actively cautioned colleagues to not collaborate with them, as it will taint any work that come from it.
            As for you dismissing the data, congratulations for choosing willful ignorance, and it very nicely shows your lack of any knowledge relating to the science in general.
            You dismiss duty to the source, not the data itself.
            …and look at that! Exactly the opposite reaction that a scientist should have. When your ideology and the data conflict, your ideology is the thing that needs to change, not the data.

          36. “I directly answered that one Petey”
            Sure IQ 99.
            Just a little English lesson for you.
            The meaning of ‘directly’…
            https://www.dictionary.com/browse/directly
            “You dismiss due to the source, not the data itself.”
            Actually, I dismiss both, you, for being a crank and a nutter, and your data that is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

          37. Here’s the response to your question. As with the last reply, the data, not the source matters.
            “On to the next vapid posts; as with all things relating to science, where the data comes from is irrelevant. What matters is that the methods to gather it, analyze it, and interpret it.
            So long as it conforms with standard GLP, there are no issues.
            Now, a very simple question Petey; where is the data, analyais, and/or interpretation wrong?
            Just pointing a finger at the author doesn’t do anything to address the data itself, and unless you can find an OECD-compliant chronic toxicity and/or carcinogenicity study, neither your comment nor your conclusions matter.”
            As for your next banal ad.hominem, as with the scientific literature, you don’t get to make the call on what constitutes good data, good research, and good scientists; that’s for my peers to determine.
            You’re just a troll, but an amusing one at lesdt. Your continued mangling of GLP makes debunking your position both easy and fun.
            Out of curiosity, how does it feel to lose ground every year.
            – More acres globally planting GMO year over year since 1996, with only a single deviation in 2015.
            – More species taking advantage mod.GE texhnology.
            Better outcomes, and unlike your claims the OECD compliant studies support their findings.

          38. Just because you don’t understand it Petey, it doesn’t make it wrong. The data is all that matters, and you’ve been incapable of addressing that for months now.
            At least you’re always good for a laugh Petey. Remember the miraculous curcumin that you attributed to curing cancer in a woman who was already in remissions after:
            – cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone (CTD)
            – then bortezomib and dexamethasone
            – and then 17 rounds of cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and
            dexamethasone (CTD)
            It’s so odd that you missed that information.

          39. As I expected, more wacky & unhinged nonsense, from agribusinesses resident crank, IQ 99.

          40. Projecting again I see Petey. The data is all there for you, unfortunately it’s you who lacks the basic knowledge. Oh well, I’ll just go back to the copy and paste for the benefit of anyone who comes across this thread.
            Don’t forget to include the oh so detailed double blind clinical trials that support your beliefs, and your business for the readers, Petey…too bad you don’t have such backing.

          41. Me, projecting?
            No, not at all.
            I’m just articulating my experience with you, and your rather bizarre and unhinged methods of trying to win an argument.
            Coupled with the fact, that you tell everybody on these threads, that you have a triple Degree in Bioscience.
            And you may recall, when I pressed you for your bonafides over at that other Wacky Website, GMO literacy, you had the moderator delete my comments, and block me from further commenting.
            You think you’re providing a service to the GMO / big agribusiness industry, by spruiking propaganda.
            But in actual fact, you are doing them a great disservice, because when there are cranks like you promoting this industry with disingenuous claptrap, and off-topic nonsense, it is bound to fail.

          42. See that’s where you’re wrong. I am providing verifiable information from the primary literature for anyone who reads these threads.
            That includes debunking the woo that you rely on, which is made much easier as you have no clinical backing, and only annecdotal tales for proof…or you link to Mercola, NaturalNews for support, which hasn’t worked out so well for you.
            As for GMOs,
            1. More acres are being planted year over year, as they have been since 1996, with only 2015 not following this trend.
            2. More varieties and species being produced using transgenic and cisgenic engineering.
            3. More countries actively cultivating GMOs, with several developing internal pipelines to produce locally adapted lines.
            4. And of course no causal link between GMOs and any adverse effect.
            As for you being banned, that’s what happens when your entire post is little more than ad hominem spam.
            Oh, and I do have 3 degrees, BSc Biology, MSc Molecular Biology, and a PhD Molecular Biology, Biochem, and Genomics.
            What you think of it is utterly meaningless. Your beliefs do not change reality Petey.

          43. “See that’s where you’re wrong.”
            No, because that’s where I’m right.
            Example, you missed .5 &.6
            And that is, a court has awarded hundreds of millions of dollars, because it believes Roundup causes cancer.
            And also, it’s been proven that Monsanto undertake in unconscionable behaviour, by ghost writing safety reports.
            There are other examples of Monsanto’s nefarious corporate behaviour.
            And lastly, you still have not proven to me, or anyone else for that matter, your so-called 3 Degrees in bioscience.
            All you do, is copy and paste from other websites.

          44. So Petey, where is the data wrong in the safety reports?
            I mentioned this quite a few times to you, and you’ve never provided an answer. Where the data comes from is meaningless. All that matters is the validity of the findings. So long as they were collected and analyzed in accordance with GLP, it’s not an issue.
            I don’t need to prove anything to you Petey. That’s the fun part of this. You can rant and rave all you want, but it won’t change the facts. I am a scientist, you are not. My position is backed by the primary literature, yours is not. I get to contribute to the body of knowledge of my field with every publication and data set I share on NCBI, Phytozome, KnowPulse, ect.
            You are wrong Petey, and the fact that you’ve utterly failed to back up your position, in addition to your willful ignorance regarding GLP makes it very obvious that you are little more than a troll.

          45. I provided you with a photo of my doctoral degree, with the personal information redacted, but the crest, and style will give you the institution quite easily. Given how unhinged you appear to be, that’s enough.

          46. You are not only unhinged, but deluded.
            Maybe you’re confusing me with somebody else, who has also asked for proof of your so called 3 Degrees, but it wasn’t me.
            So again, provide some REAL evidence.

          47. Why? If anything seeing you annoyed is far more amusing. All the information I posted is accurate and supported by the primary literature. I am a scientist Petey, and that means that I get a seat at the table when it comes time to determine policy. Last year, it was SOT that was dealing with the revision of their statement on GMOs, and the society’s position was updated to take into account the overwhelming safety data derived from studies, as opposed to your focus on blog posts.

          48. Me annoyed??
            On the country, no, the more I keep you on the hook, making yourself look foolish and unhinged, the more it provides evidence that this whole industry is full of cranks, that are willfully blind.
            And further, evidenced by you, they spout all sorts of bizarre nonsense, in an attempt to persuade public opinion.
            But you are doing such a terrible job, that you’re actually dissuading people from buying into this scientific heresy.
            To put it simply, please continue your nonsense, because you are only damaging yourself and your cause…

          49. Nonsense is your domain, Petey. I can provide empirical data to support my position, you are stuck promoting unsupported woo.
            Given the ever increasing acerage devoted to GMO varieties, it’s not my position that’s being damaged, but yours.
            More GMO cultivation, means that your attempts to stoke fear have failed Petey.
            Simple data analysis.

          50. And even if true, how am I supposed to know it’s you, when you “redacted” the personal information?

          51. The same reason why I know you’re a scientifically illiterate woo peddler; through the content of your posts.
            As I mentioned earlier, what you want is quite irrelevant, nor does you opinion of me have any impact, and just provides more amusement, since you have yet to rebut the data presented. Focusing on me while ignoring the primary literature just shows how little supporting evidence you have.

          52. Again, you’re just providing loopy, off topic answers.
            It would be so simple, for you just to repost this so called document.
            But of course, it doesn’t exist, except in your little fantasy world.

          53. Sorry Petey but as I wrote, appeasing you is quite far down my priority list.
            I’ll just let the data speak for me. You’ve been unable to provide a valid counter to date from the looks of the current research, it’s not going to help your ideology one bit.

          54. You mean several months… notwithstanding your terrible spell check, I’m going to call you out as a childish and pathetic liar.

          55. I don’t bother with spell checking. You’re only worth a brief window of time, and you have yet to refute the primary literature; opting to focus on the source rather than the data.

          56. You’re not worth the effort or the time to bother with editing. At least you are a constant source of amusement.

          57. You do realize that the dearth of supporting data ifor your beliefs is independent of my degrees, right?

          58. And again with the projecting. You really might want to speak with someone about that.
            As always, the most amusing aspect is that you still refuse to rectify your remedial understanding of science, and it’s probably because you know that it will show that your entire worldview is built upon lies and ignorance.

          59. Not at all, I’m just merely stating what seems to be obviously your delusional believe that you are a scientist.
            If someone objectively was reading our exchanges, they too would be asking for your credentials, after all, you speak from a self appointed position of authority, but you have made absolutely no attempt to prove your scientific bodafides.
            All you have done, is wast your time, with dare I say, endless obfuscation…

          60. That’s what the citations are for Petey. That’s how this works. I present a point, and then back it up with the relevant literature. When you bring up a point, I also bring up the primary literature to counter it.
            …which is something you really should have caught up with by now.
            For instance Hannaford et al., (2015) examined the effect of confirmation bias in medical research, including complementary alternative medicine. The findings were not surprising, as the data showed that researchers were more likely to support a methodology that would confirm their pre-existing beliefs.
            There was a big caveat though.
            The use of standardized testing procedures resulted in a far lower risk of this happening for conventional treatments. Over in the world of CAM, it was almost a certainty that either the lack of an industry standard, or the multiple recorded incidences of critical deviations from established protocols permitted these researchers to…modify the study to better suit their wishes.
            …which is very much the reason why I cite the OECD protocols.
            This work expanded on the previous study Van der Schee et al., (2010).

          61. It’s called supporting data Petey, but the fact that you are unable to provide such data isn’t surprising.

          62. I’ve offered you my supporting data, but you don’t accept it.
            And what isn’t surprising, is your continuing to Charade.

          63. You offered OECD-compliant or RDBCS data? Ones that show either a treatment effect for your “medicine” or adverse effects at expected exposure levels for any toxicity?
            No, no you have not. There’s a reason why the standards exist across all aspects of GLP. Everyone has to meet the same bar for quality and statistical power.

          64. You offer unsubstantiated woo, and little else. Everyone plays by the same rules Petey, and until you can produce some data gathered and analyzed according to GLP, you’ll continue to be marginalized and eventually forgotten.

          65. I offer careful, rational and objective opinion.
            You are a hack, and a funky, that just regurgitates industry propaganda.

          66. Opinion is meanglesss without supporting data. Your claptrap must meet the same bar as any other, and that requires proper GLP compliant studies to determine significant effects from background noise n

          67. I can provide plenty of mainstream data, to backup holistic / alternative medicine, but that is not the issue here.
            This argument is about the possible toxic effects/cancer causing repercussions of Glyphosate.
            So far, a jury has awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars for causing cancer in at least one person.
            And as far as any data goes, it’s been proven, that Monsanto has undertaken nefarious monkey business, in ghost writing safety reports.

          68. But Petey, where is the OECD-451, 452, or 453 compliant studies that show adverse health effects when the exposure level is at or below the ADI?
            The data is all that matters, and none of it supports your hypothesis.
            Where is the data Petey? You need to rebut the data, and so long as it remains valid, your position is simply not tenable.

          69. B.Sc. Major in Biology
            M.Sc. Molecular Biology and Biochem
            Ph.D. Molecular Biology, Biochem, Genomics

          70. Those accusations are warranted and confirmed, by your very own words, and dare I say obfuscation.
            But enough of your misdirections, which university?

          71. So it is normal practice to give an individual who has displayed stalking behavior personal information where you come from?
            That’s not how things are normally done in North America, and in fact most agencies specifically recommend, not sharing that type of information.
            So again, Petey, you’re the one who has a history of stalking behavior, and I will just keep posting your own words and actions as evidence.
            …and still not a single supporting OECD-compliant study to your name.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fff6604acad4075e33f1c0502f9f7eb85998c537cc8f9a50dfbc3081260f77fe.png

          72. You’re only making yourself look stupid, with this smokescreen, which is quite obviously designed to cover up the fact that you have no scientific knowledge whatsoever.

          73. So says the stalker, who is so desperate to justify your worldview that you would, unprompted, comment on a thread where the previous post was 3 months in the past.
            Do I need to plpost the quote again ?

          74. Go ahead, be my guest.
            And while you’re at it, post some relevance on your claim that you are a scientist with 3 Degrees.

          75. I’d still don’t understand, why you choose to show an old conversation from another website all the time.
            It’s you who’s clogging up my inbox with dozens of meaningless messages, so who is stalking who?

          76. You’re the one who replied to me, and you were the one who searched for a post, from a dead thread, on a different website, and an entirely unrelated topic, Petey.
            You decided to engage in stalking behavior, and I’ll just keep reminding you about it.
            In addition to yet another post where you fail to address the OECD and GLP compliant data.

          77. No, remember, you approached me on this thread.
            I’m just keeping you on the straight and narrow, and asking you to substantiate your claim that you are at respected peer reviewed scientist.

          78. My reply to Verna Lang from 19 days ago, that was the first time you replied to me Petey. Prior to that I did not make any replies to you in this conversation.
            That was my first reply to this discussion, and didn’t involve you one bit.
            My reply to Dr. Lang was a month ago, and you decided to insert yourself into said discussion.
            Fortunately I can post this: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a9d4f8da604c605d746f3d70806d21d975a8fc5441f9fbad535e894e1957b24.png
            Do you really want to keep going Petey? You seem to be getting confused regarding where and when you’ve commented, as in this thread, you very much were the one barging in.
            Fortunately, you have yet to substantiate your position with any OECD compliant data, so your entire screed is easily dismissed on methodology alone.

          79. Photoshopping old comments again?
            What is the point??
            You are totally off your trolley.
            let me know when you want to get back to the real discussion.

          80. No Photoshop required Petey. You made the first reply to me, and that’s exactly what is depicted in the screenshot.
            You inserted yourself into the discussion, and it is very amusing to see that you are unable to even keep track of your own actions over the past three weeks.
            Note: This wasn’t the only discussion thread, and you’re apparently unable to differentiate which comments and replies came from where.

          81. Sure, like your alleged qualifications.
            Let me know, when you want to get back to the subject of your grandiose qualifications.

          82. Why? The cited data isn’t affected by this in any way, shape, or form.
            Please continue sea-lioning. We both know that you are unable to provide any complaint data, as literally none exists in the primary literature. Your continured attempt to conflate those studies with my credentials is a straw man, and nothing more.

          83. I think you have it the other way around, you are filling up my inbox with your boasting of your fake credentials.

          84. Really? From my perspective, I’ve just been asking you how I impact the validity of the compliant studies that have been cited… repeatedly.
            So again, how is the data from the cited studies modified in any way by my credentials?

          85. That’s still just your opinion, and like your assertions about GMOs or glyphosate, it lacks any support.

          86. That would be you. I provided relevant citations to support my points regarding the current data regarding GMOs. I even included the names of specific studies.

          87. You are a poor deluded soul. You claim to have diplomas, degrees.
            You claim to be a peer reviewed respected scientist.
            You claim my trolling you, and then you smashed my inbox with dozens of meaningless messages.
            Well, if it’s a silly game you want, it’s a silly game you’re going to get.
            I will respond to every weirdo post you make.
            We have to expose cranks and frauds such as yourself, because the truth will win out one day.
            Clearly, you’re abnormal.
            You haven’t felt any embarrassment or shame making yourself look stupid on this thread…
            So as such, when there are people like you spruiking GMO nonsense, and the bias and corrupted research associated with it, this industry will be destroyed, in part, by your words.
            And by way of Proof, you will come back with some silly, off topic and infantile response…

          88. And as you’ll keep failing to address the data generated from the OECD-compliant studies, you will continue to show that your position is unsupported and that you are not just unwilling, but unable to provide any backing to your assertions.
            Oh, and again, you replied to me first Petey. You, at several points, decided to make multiple replied to single comments, and have been the catalyst for the majority of the inbox issues that you bring up. As I indicated, and am backed up by the post history, you were the one who decided to reply to me. My posts on this thread were not directed at you until AFTER you replied to my comment to Verna Lang.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a9d4f8da604c605d746f3d70806d21d975a8fc5441f9fbad535e894e1957b24.png
            As was the case with your curcumin…insight, you seem to have issues understanding causality. When you are the one to make first contact, particularly when you were not mentioned in the post, it is not the fault of the recipient that you receive a reply.
            You made the decision to barge in and comment, you decided to reply multiple times to single comments, and you still have yet to address the data from the citations provided that are relevant to this discussion.
            You have tried to get me to block you, but that’s not happening as it would just prevent me from seeing when you post your unsubstantiated woo. I don’t block the various TEDs for the same reason, but at least you’re far more amusing.
            Please keep going, as your opinion of me has no bearing on the validity of the data from the OECD-compliant studies, and the fact that you keep dodging in, and desperately trying to move the focus away from the data is quite telling about the level of support you have in the primary literature.
            I’m having fun Petey, so I’ll be replying until the thread gets closed, and after that, any reply that you make to my existing or future comments will also be dealt with in the same way.
            Yes, you are a troll, but fortunately you’re not a particularly bright one, as you truly don’t seem to get that the data is literally all that matters in regards to any scientific topic.
            As for you thinking I’m abnormal, the DSM-5 doesn’t really agree with you, and your own actions are far more indicative of some kind of mental disorder. I would normally recommend seeing a mental health professional, but I don’t really care, and you’ll just spout off some alternative medicine bunk that won’t have a shred of DBRCT support.

          89. “And by way of Proof, you will come back with some silly, off topic and infantile response…”
            Yep…
            No so called respectable scientist behaves like an unhinged fool like you.

          90. Once again, that’s your opinion and nothing more…and you don’t know a lot of scientists if you think my behavior is unhinged. Hawkings, Sagan, Crick, Salk, Hoyle; they were not ones to let ignorance slide.
            Heck, Hawkings was fairly infamous for using his chair motors to “loudly” ridicule any colleague he didn’t agree with.
            Oh, and before you even go there, no I do not count myself as being on the same level as those scientists.
            Regardless, thanks again for showing your ignorance so succinctly.

          91. And once again, you’re just supporting and inforcing my previous points about your unhinged character.

          92. And still, it continues to confirm and reinforce my comments about it’s unhinged character, and lack of scientific credentials.

          93. And I’ll continue to remind you of your neurosis and your sick and twisted off-topic nonsense.
            Thank you Mr “Scientist.”

          94. And again, you fail to address the relevant data from the OECD compliant toxicity and carcinogenicity studies.
            Odd that you keep trying to redirect things away from the data, while failing to show how any of my background can affect the validity of said data.
            Quite telling really, and oh so amusing.

          95. And again, you can continue to embarrass yourself with your lack of “scientific” knowledge.
            But I know, people with pathologies such as yours, will continue…

          96. Once again, you fail to address the relevant data from the OECD compliant toxicity and carcinogenicity studies.
            Odd that you keep trying to redirect things away from the data, while failing to show how any of my background can affect the validity of said data.
            Quite telling really, and based on the criteria from the DSM-5, I’m quite sure you do know someone with such issues; namely yourself.
            So any supporting data to counter the OECD compliant studies tonight?
            We both know you are unable to do so, and I’ll just check back in after a few hours to just post another reminder that you have yet to counter the data presented in the primary literature from the compliant data.

          97. Once again, you failed to establish your “Appeal to Authority” credentials, with your so-called 3 degrees and peer reviewed journals.
            So any data you present will be dismissed.

          98. And yet you provide no modemof action for how any of that alters the data from the primary literature.
            We both know that you can’t rebut the data, and this deflection is all you have. Fortunately, all I need to do is just draw attention to your failure to address the data to eviscerate your straw man.

          99. I just did.
            I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, he thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.

          100. You’re still not showing how the data is affected.
            …and it’s because it isn’t altered even slightly. It remains in the primary literature, and you have again shown that you are unable to rebut the conclusions.

          101. I just did.
            I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, he thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.

          102. So you have no logical reason, as the OECD compliant studies come from multiple research groups, and common authors are not present. This result is unsurprising given the disparate locations for these studies.
            In the absence of common authorship, your reasoning is again shown to be nothing more than a desperate attempt to conceal your inability to counter the data from the primary literature.

          103. I just did.
            I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, who thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.

          104. So still no logical reason, as the causal relationship between my credentials, and the compliant studies from multiple labs, in different countries, with no constant authorship, is impossible.
            Then again, you believe that treaents work when the clinical trials show no difference between their efficacy and placebo/nocebo groups.

          105. I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, who thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.
            And it prefers offtopic circumlocution.

          106. No, the off topic one is you, and you still haven’t managed to explain the causal relationship between me and the compliant studies that effects the data.
            At least this time, you’ve made your idiocy quite obvious, as your reasoning is completely illogical, and purely pigheadded.

          107. U r Living in a parallel universe
            I did…
            I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, who thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.

          108. No, once again, it is you living in some kind of alternate universe. Somehow, you believe that my status impacts the validity of multiple OECD compliant studies when no common authorship, institution, or geographic location, exists.
            Care to explain that Petey? I know you have issues with causality, but this one is just hilarious.

          109. Really now ?
            It does, because…
            I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, who thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.

          110. How does the source affect the data Petey? You haven’t given a logical reason.
            How am I so influential, that I can affect the validity of multiple studies, performed by different groups, over a 20 year period, and in multiple nations?
            We both know you can’t, but it’s still hilarious seeing you fixated on a sea-lioning.

          111. I will keep repeating…
            It does, because…
            I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, who thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.

          112. And how does that affect the data presented in the OECD- compliant studies Petey?
            That’s the real question here. Rather than addressing the toxicology data from the primary literature, you have based yournposition entirely on there being some causal link between my status, and their content, but there is no logical reason for this.
            The studies stand on their own merits, and not once have you been able to rebut any of them.
            So any chance you’ll be citing one today?

          113. Still no work of your own to present here?
            I thought you would relish the opportunity, to share your specific formulas here on this forum.
            I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, who thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.

          114. So you still fail to show any causal relationships for harm from GMOs or pesticides at or below the NOAEL, and hiw my credentials influence said data with regards to its validity.

          115. You still fail to show your credentials that you like to brag about…
            I would accept the data, but it comes from a strange weirdo, who thinks he has 3 degrees and is a peer-reviewed scientist.

          116. And those credentials affect the OECD-compliant data how?
            The studies stand on their own, and your continued failure to rebut any of them with comparable studies is again noted.

          117. Completely, because if you have no understanding of the subject matter, then any data you produce will be false, just like your make-believe credentials.

          118. How is that Petey? All of the studies remain in the primary literature. and not a single one, even dating back to the 1980’s back your position.
            As you are the one unable to rebut the data, I’d say my understanding of this topic is far better than yours. Considering that you seem to have difficulty with something as simple as causality in relation to treatment effects, you’ve done a bang up job of proving your ignorance about all aspects of science that have come up over the past few months.
            All this time, and not a single OECD-compliant study to support your position.
            The data is all that matters Petey.

          119. No, the data is all that matters Petey. This has been my point from the beginning. I have backed up my points with citations to the primary literature, while you have failed to produce any comparable studies to rebut these.
            It’s really quite simple really. You lack the empirical data to counter the multiple OECD-compliant studies cited, and instead try to make some kind of a causal link between me and the data included in those studies…which is an utterly moronic argument to make.
            Right up your alley, I suppose.

          120. “…which is an utterly moronic argument to make.
            Indeed you do, when you claim you are a peer-reviewed scientist with 3 degrees, but nothing to back it up.

          121. The relevance is, that you are moronic, and you cannot produce any of your peer reviewed data here in way of a link.

          122. How does that affect the data derived from the studies Petey?
            You haven’t shown any plausible mechanism…winch is very much my point.
            You desperately avoid the aspects that you need to address, while focusing on the irrelevant details. How do I affect the data from the OECD-compliant studies Petey?

          123. Only when you confirm your rather pathetic story of being a peer-reviewed scientist with 3 degrees.

          124. Why would that be required for you to address the data from the OECD-compliant data from Griem et al., (2015), or from any of the other sources cited over the past few months?

          125. You really are gormless aren’t you.
            The data is not the issue at the moment, it’s your arrogance and ignorance and your insistence that you are a peer-reviewed scientist with 3 degrees.

          126. The data is the only thing that matters Petey.
            You want the information, but as it has no bearing on the OECD-compliant data, you’re not going to get it, and I shall just keep pointing out your moronic reasoning every time you again reply.
            The fact that you already went creepy stalker once is more than enough reason to provide you with no personal information, now, or at any point in the future. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fff6604acad4075e33f1c0502f9f7eb85998c537cc8f9a50dfbc3081260f77fe.png

          127. No surprise, you are desperately deflecting from your own lies, by creating even more lies about me and my online behaviour.
            “…I shall just keep pointing out your moronic reasoning…”
            Of course, coming from an expert.

          128. I have never lied Petey.
            I realize that having empirical support is not a familiar situation for you, but when given the OECD-compliant data gathered since the 1980’s, mine is quite well supported, and needs no embelleshment.
            This contrasts with your position, or have you forgotten about your attempting to attribute cucurmen as being the cause of a patient’s remission when they were already in remission after multiple rounds of chemotherapy?

          129. Of course you’re a liar, even this post supports my claim that you are in fact a nefarious liar.
            Point out to me, where I have discussed medicine even in general terms, let alone discussing specifically, cucurmen?

          130. Nope, what I wrote is completely accurate., And you have yet to counter the OECD-data.
            And again you lack any OECD-compiant studies.

          131. “…cucurmen as being the cause of a patient’s remission…”
            Still waiting, for you to substantiate that lie.

          132. That’s only your opinion, Petey. I have never once lied, and I have backed up my position with citations to to the relevant studies.
            How odd, that you seem to keep ducking away when asked to produce a OECD-compliant study to support your assertions, and instead ignore the data, while demanding personal information that has no bearing on the validity of the OECD-452, and/or -453 compliant studies.

          133. And again, that’s just your opinion. As mentioned multiple times in the past, what you think of me is meaningless.

          134. Not at all, you don’t have any credentials.
            If you think I’m trolling you, block my comments.

          135. I already indicated why that’s not going to happen.
            Pointing out your failure to rebut the data from the cited studies, takes little time, and isna constant source of amusement.

          136. Oh good, as the authors are clearly listed in the publications. They also include the affiliations of said researchers.
            See Petey, my credentials don’t factor into this, and if you have an issue with the studies, contact information for the corresponding author is included for the studies.

          137. My first post on this thread was made over a month ago. Your replies came later, and the first one here was the one in the image.
            Prior to this, I didn’t have any interaction with you in this thread.

          138. Here is proof, you really are twisted and deluded.
            Wasn’t it you, posting screenshots of my previous conversations?

          139. If it’s so easy to post a page from a previous conversation, it would be so easy to post some material to prove your scientific credentials.

          140. So says the creepy stalker who still can’t produce a OECD compliant study to support his position.
            Why on earth would I give you any personal information. Between the two of us, you’re the one who seems more unhinged. Stalking, believing in treatments in the absence of RCT data, or worse yet, ignoring what data is already there because it doesn’t mesh with your ideology.
            And again, to post the fact that you did track down an earlier post I made, from a thread that was long since dead.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fff6604acad4075e33f1c0502f9f7eb85998c537cc8f9a50dfbc3081260f77fe.png

          141. Again, I think you are deluded and have some strange psychosis.
            It is you who stalking me, with endless posts about references to old Hollywood movies.

          142. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
            I’m not very good with movie references, but maybe you are using this issue as a smokescreen, because you refuse to talk about your false claim that you are a peer-reviewed, and respected scientist.

          143. My credentials aren’t the issue here Petey. The data from the OECD-compliant studies are.
            Will you be rebutting them, or should I just set up a script to keep reminding you that you haven’t addressed the data at all?

          144. They are the issue, when you try insert your authority on everyone involved in these discussions, whereby, you should substantiate your claims and credentials.

          145. Once again, how is the data affected by my status Petey? It remains there, and you have done
            nothing to rebut it. If I state that one of the many mutations that are capable of conveying glyphosate resistance is the presence of an A residue (Alanine) at position 100 as opposed to G (Glycine), and cite Funke et al., (2006) as the source, how is the data altered to render it invalid?

          146. Because you’re a terrible fake, who wants to be considered as a respected scientist with 3 degrees.

          147. And that affects the data I’ve cited how exactly?
            You keep ignoring this minor fact, but at least it’s obvious that you are sea-lioning, and nothing more.

          148. I’m just defending myself, and if you think I am a sealion, or trolling you, just block my comments.

          149. Why would I do that? Then you could post your nonsense freely and not have to address the repeated errors in your comprehension of experimental design, data analysis, biology as a whole, and toxicology.
            No chance Petey. Now how is the data from the cited studies affected by my position or credentials?

          150. Again, that’s still just your opinion, and like your assertions about GMOs or glyphosate, it lacks any support.

          151. Are any of them involved with primary research in molecular biology, genomics, toxicology, or biochemistry?
            If not, their opinion doesn’t matter.

          152. Again, it’s just your opinion. Simply restating said opinion is not going to alter reality.
            It’s the same thing with the data; opinions mean nothing, only the data from compliant studies does.

          153. Nope, I enjoy watching you avoid discussing the data from the various citations. You e made it quite clear that you lack any OECD compliant support, and instead keep wanting to focus on me.
            How do I affect the data Petey? None of the values change, none of the analyses are altered, and none of the conclusions are modified in any way.

          154. Yep, you’re a constant source of amusement. Plus, I get to use some of your more amusing replies in my lefture material when we discuss scientific literacy in the general population.

          155. And I’ll just keep pointing out that you are unable to cite any compliant studies to support your position.

          156. You’re a little confused are you?
            You say I’m stalking you, but you want to keep up your fantasy.

          157. “…and I will just keep posting your own words and actions as evidence.”
            So, you keep doing that.
            It’s only demonstrating one simple fact, that you are desperately trying to talk about anything else, except the topic, and your lack of understanding of this topic.

          158. The topic, Petey, has always been in relation to failure of.you to support your points with OECD, and GLP compliant studies
            The desperation is all yours. My position is backed by my peers in research, while you grasp on to pseudoscience and fear to make a quick buck.

          159. You are highly amusing!
            You don’t have any peers, other than that fantasy in your head.

          160. So still nothing relating to the OECD-compliant data?
            You keep focusing on personal attacks, even though they aren’t related to the primary literature. It’s almost like your entire position is based upon a flimsy fantasy worldview, not mine.

          161. Why would I need to? The data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly
            indicated, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that
            you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions
            Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out.

          162. No, once again, it’s the data that you need to address. Where are the errors in the previous studies, and where have you tested thenfoe yourneeeds

          163. You need to address your psychosis, and stop clogging up my inbox with all these messages.
            Prove your credentials, or move on.

          164. So no supporting data to present Petey?
            Remember, that’s what you need to address. As always, your beliefs are utterly irrelevant , and you need to counter the OECD and GLP compliant data.
            And you replied to me initially in this discuttiin Petey. You decided to chime in with my post to Verna Lang from a month ago (your comment was 18 days ago).
            The only one to blame for your inbox is you.

          165. Actually you’re the one who is consistently off topic Petey. You need to address the toxicity and carcinogenicity data regarding the GMOs and pesticides in question. I’ve provided multiple citations for anyone who happens along.

          166. Me??
            Hahaha.
            I’m not the one posting old conversations from another website, and not making references to old Hollywood movies.

          167. Not necessary, as they don’t relate to the OECD studies that are at the root of this issue.

          168. And you don’t relate to anything… much less, your alleged status within the scientific community.

          169. How is the data affected by my status Petey? It remains there, and you have done
            nothing to rebut it. You really are just a troll, but at least you remain a source of amusement.

          170. You are deluded.
            Calling me a troll?
            Just look at your weird and wacky behaviour over the last several weeks.

          171. My behavior had been quite consistent.
            I supplied citations to OECD compliant studies to support my position.
            I showed that you engaged in stalking behavior
            I showed that you were the one to reply to me on this thread, after barging into my exchange with Verna Lang
            And I have kept asking you to address the data, which is something that you have yet to do.

          172. Indeed, your behaviour is quite consistent. Every time you appear on these websites, you are bragging about how you are a peer-reviewed respected scientist, with 3 degrees.

          173. And I also cite the primary literature to support my position. You keep forgetting this when it really is the only thing that matters.

          174. For being a fake, I do cite relevant studies from the primary literature…which you have yet to rebut with OECD compliant studies.

          175. I intend to Petey. Your failure to provide any empirical support from compliant studies is again noted.

          176. The data presented in the citations is very much on topic. You’re the one trying to go off topic.

          177. Go for it. I’ll just keep asking you to provide OECD compliant studies to counter the data in the primary literature.

          178. Like your grammar, I don’t hold much respect for your so called data, because it comes from you, a fake scientist.

          179. From the primary literature you mean. Try to keep up, those citations may or may not be from my research Petey. The important fact is that they support my position using OECD-compliant studies.
            You…well you appear to have nothing comparable.

          180. I don’t need to, because I’m not the scientist who claims to be peer reviewed and have 3 degrees.

          181. The data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly indicated, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out again and again.

          182. Why? As had been pointed out multiple times, your sea-lioning is just an attempt to deflect from the data, Petey.
            The data is all that matters. Can you present an OECD compliant study to support your position?
            We both know that the answer is no, but it’s far more amusing to see you fail at providing any relevant support for your position.

          183. Maybe in a parallel universe you pointed it out, but not here, or anywhere else, where you have bragged about your so-called scientific credentials.

          184. Why are you so fixated on an irrelevant measure? The data is all that matters. Can you present an OECD compliant study to support your position?
            It really is simple Petey. Address the data from the OECD compliant studies or acknowledge that the data does not support yournposition.

          185. Because you were fixated earlier, rubbing everyone’s nose in your superiority, and your alleged peer reviewed studies and 3 degrees.

          186. It’s the data from the primary literature Petey. That had never changed.
            What you believe doesn’t matter in the slightest.

          187. How is the data affected Petey? It remains there, and you have done nothing to rebut it. So long as it was collected and analyzed according to GLP and in compliance with the OECD protocols, it would not be affected regardless of who cites it.

          188. And that changes the data how Petey?
            You still haven’t shown any reason why it is in error, let alone provided any support for your position.

          189. Because you don’t have a position either, on this website, or the fantasy world in which you live.

          190. That’s not needed to address the data. So still no compliant studies to support your position?

          191. …are you really that stupid? Degrees are generally earned consecutively. The only real exception is that you can bypass the MSc and just go for a PhD after earning your BSc.

          192. How odd, because PubMed and Google both index them. Then again, the probability that you even looked pretty low.

          193. It seems that you are totally unconcerned, that you’re destroying your own reputation here…
            If indeed you did have a reputation in the first place.

          194. My reputation is just fine Petey, and again you haven’t addressed the data.
            Your opinion doesn’t really factor into anything relating to my reputation of credentials.

          195. Your opinion has no weight Petey. You’re not one of my peers, students, friends, or family. Those individuals I value their input. You…is not even a minor concern.

          196. No, it’s your previous behavior, combined your ignorance of cell biology…and aerospace engineering, that have earned your status as a fraud.

          197. Sure, you can say whatever you like about me, I really don’t care.
            It’s water off a ducks back.
            The only problem with status around here, is your alleged scientific credentials and your 3 Degrees.

          198. No, that’s your problem, Petey. As I have repeatedly stated, the data is all that matters, and you keep dodging the fact that you have no OECD-compliant data to support your position.
            The data is all that matters, Petey. Can you produce even one compliant study to support your position?

          199. I have backed it up Petey. That’s what all those citations are. References to the empirical data produced as a part of a OECD compliant studies whose results provide support from my position.
            Remember, it’s the data you need to address. It’s been weeks on this thread alone, and you haven’t produced a single compliant study to support your assertions.

          200. No, what you need to backup, is your claim of being a peer review scientist with 3 degrees.

          201. “…because you know that it will show that your entire worldview is built upon lies and ignorance.”
            Not at all, quite the contrary, because simply, I’m just willing to question ALL science, including the science I started with when I was at school, which is Cosmology and Astrophysics.
            There is way too much corruption, bias, overblown prestige, and other disturbing elements within all branches of science today.

          202. …and still no supporting data presented. What a surprise Petey.
            Did you not notice that, when you last presented what you called support for your treatments, I was able to take them apart based the primary literature?
            How could I manage that?
            Because I did read them. As I do look at all sides of a topic, and then base my conclusions on the data and nothing else.
            You only offer conspiracy as an excuse; you don’t rebut the data in the slightest. In order to understand all the elements, you need far more than a remedial grasp of biochemistry, molecular biology, and toxicology Petey. Your posts here have not indicated that you are familiar with ANY of the relevant fields, yet you do nothing to rectify this.
            Don’t lie to yourself. Either admit that you have no desire to actually learn about these topics, or step up and actually start!

          203. I don’t need to supply supporting data, because it’s not my argument to make, it’s yours…
            Ghost writing is a fact, it’s not conspiracy.
            I’ve learnt from experience, that I question all science, and that’s how i “actually learn.”

          204. What was wrong in the manuscript Petey?
            That’s really all there is to it.
            Can you provide an OECD-compliant study that shows that the data presented in the manuscript was incorrect?
            Also, as you’re the one claiming that your methods work, it is on you to show it.
            So when can I expect to see such a study?

          205. So you can’t actually find any fault with the data, and instead just go for ad hominem babbling to deflect.
            As I mentioned many times Petey. Your opinion doesn’t matter, only the data does.

          206. No Ad hominem here, just stating a fact, that you have no scientific credentials whatsoever.
            Your opinion doesn’t matter either, for reasons stated above…

          207. …and another example of your ramblings.
            Yes, my opinion doesn’t matter, that’s why I use the empirical data to show that it’s not just my opinion, but something supported by empirical data.

          208. You construct an argument, with cherry picked, so-called empirical data, that comes from a corrupt industry.
            That’s hardly an argument.

          209. They followed the OECD guidelines, which are the gold standard in toxicology for determining causal relationships. If you examine the protocols, they do reference the development of each and every one of them, along with all the modifications and adjustments that have been made, particularly as technology has changed over the years. In fact they have become even more stringent, recommending, or outright requiring additional animals, and tests to perform to ensure that the results are valid.
            For instance, Guidance Document 116, was developed in order to assist researchers in determining sample size for the different studies, to ensure that a sufficient power of analysis would be present…so odd that the anti-GMO researchers never seem to follow the instructions.
            The validations are behind the OECD protocols, Petey, and they do represent the most comprehensive, studied, and experimentally supported methods in the field.
            The hilarious part is it is literally only the anti-biotech researchers that keep running afoul of these protocols, as industry, government, and academic groups have repeatedly been able to complete fully compliant studies.
            Why is this so hard for you to understand, Petey? All of the data relating to these protocols are in the literature, and you can track their use, as well as examine the research backing each and every one of the protocols. This isn’t just a US issue either, and EVERY developed nation uses these protocols.
            Try learning some experimental design, and see why those protocols are so important.
            Edit: Oh, relating to another one of your replies, if you want to see the effect of a scientifically illiterate population in legal proceedings, the CSI Effect is quite interesting, as the media, and its inaccurate presentation of forensic evidence (for the sake of drama, not maleficence), caused a shift in how jurors consider trial evidence.

          210. It’s certainly an issue for you, if you want to prove and substantiate your little fantasy, that you are a scientist with 3 Degrees.

          211. You still don’t get it Petey? Even after all this time, you still haven’t figured it out?
            Any personal attacks are meaningless. That’s why I don’t care what you think about me. The data is all that matters, and that is something that you have been utterly unable to address. All these posts, all these personal attacks, but not a single OECD-compliant study to support your position, or to counter the existing toxicology data for glyphosate.
            I just find it amusing to point out your idiocy using the primary literature, and seeing you react, not by countering the data but solely using personal attacks discredits your position far better than anything else.

          212. Oh, I get it perfectly.
            I’m simply asking you, for your scientific credentials, and to justify your claim you’re a scientist with 3 Degrees.
            What we are witnessing, is your epic failure to do so, and your attempts at misdirections with off-topic nonsense.

          213. So in your world, it’s a good idea to provide personal information to a person who has already displayed antisocial and stalking behavior?
            Out of curiosity Petey, what color is the sky where you are?
            Let’s just post this again. Remember this is what you actually did Petey. I did not reach out, or taunt you after you were banned. This was you lashing out like a petulant child.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fff6604acad4075e33f1c0502f9f7eb85998c537cc8f9a50dfbc3081260f77fe.png

          214. One, I didn’t get banned, and two, again, you’re just behaving like a hypocritical weirdo.
            It is you who is stalking me.
            And I can see, you photoshopped that page, to add a few words i never mentioned.

          215. That was a screenshot of your very words Petey. If needed I have entry of screenshots, and ones that are completed untouched.
            You made those exact comments,.I changed nothing.
            Going to move into outright lies Petey?

          216. No, I stand by my comments. I’m just wondering why, you’re going to great lengths to avoid discussing the topic, which is Monsanto, GMO’S and related issues.

          217. I have directly addressed them, and provided the citations to support the data. The toxicity, carcinogenicity, and epidemiology do not support your assertions, nor those of the anti-GMO lobby. I have repeatedly asked where the current data is wrong, and you have failed to provide any backing for your position, specifically, you haven’t been able to produce a single OECD-compliant study showing adverse effects.
            Just in the past two years, the GRACE, G-TwYST, and GMO90+ projects have wrapped up, and the findings have already made their way into policy docs (EFSA 2018, DOI: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1372), in addition to the NAS reports from earlier.

          218. The data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly
            indicated, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that
            you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions
            Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out, and yes I am now just reusing the same posts with minor changes.
            When you produce some OECD compliant studies, I’ll change things up.

          219. As a consequence, you’ve just destroyed all your much desired credibility.
            You have flushed all your nonsense down the toilet…

          220. Only with you Petey, and that’s not something I’m concerned about.
            You have yet to rebut the data from the primary literature BTW. When can I expect the citation?

          221. Only to you Petey, and your opinion doesn’t mean much…check that, it means nothing. You have yet to provide any backing for your claims, and your willful ignorance is always a treat to read, You deny the data, but have no counter for it aside from your ideology.
            Quite amusing really.

          222. Good, that’s a step in the right direction Petey. Realizing that you have no insight or influence in regards to molecular research is a big step forward for you.

          223. Hahaha, you’re accusing me of having no insight?
            You would have an Olympic medal that were a sport.

          224. You’ve displayed a remedial knowledge of biology and science as a whole, yet have shown no desire to rectify this. As a result, yes you are severely lacking in insight.

          225. Even if my knowledge is only remedial as you claim, it’s still well advanced, compared to you, who is clearly some weirdo that lives in a fantasy world, and believes he has 3 Degrees.

          226. Projection again…sad, just sad.
            I do have three degrees, Petey, and I’ve earned my place in the research community. I actually get to contribute to the body of knowledge, while you continue to spin your wheels fighting back against a reality you deny.
            As before, you greatest contribution to humanity appears to be in the form of comedic relief, as you always manage to make me smile when you show your willful ignorance.

          227. And what is that place in the so-called scientific community?
            Apart of course, from your make-believe world.

          228. Once again, your opinion really doesn’t mean anything. Your ideology is unsupported, your knowledge of biology is remedial, and your willful ignorance shows how fragile your worldview is.

          229. I don’t care what you think about my knowledge, or my opinion, but I know one thing is fact, and that is, you are unhinged, and living in a fantasy world of your own making.

          230. You’re projecting again, Petey. You are the one who appears to be living in a fantasy world. Considering the dearth of RDBPC evidence to support your “alternative medicine”, your denial of the OECD-compliant studies, and of course your continued resistance to actually learning about the underlying science; you are the one here who exists in a fictional world.

          231. By the way, I don’t really care what the scientific community thinks about alternative medicine, because I know they work, and my clients know they work.

          232. I don’t have much trust in any studies… even studies linked to scientific fields I have an interest in, for the reasons I stated earlier.

          233. That still isn’t a supported statement, but it’s good that you realize that you have no supporting data.
            Again it all comes down to the data. if it was gathered and analyzed according to GLP, there’s no issue.

          234. By the way, any news about Monsanto officially filing an appeal in the Californian Supreme Court?

          235. They will be filing an appeal, and still have just over two weeks to do so.
            Note: don’t conflate this case with the prop 65 case, as they are not the same or directly connected.

          236. No, I’m not conflating.
            Monsanto are leaving it a little late, if they want to appeal.

          237. Thirty days Petey, and it should be noted that they only have to file the paperwork with the clerk by that deadline.

          238. Not really. They’ll appeal, and with the spotlight on the ruling, I’d say about even odds that the court decides to bypass the partial panel, and proceed right to an en banc hearing.

          239. So are you saying, you’re not counting the days?
            In any event, this has brought about irrepairable damage on Monsanto’s reputation, along with the historical examples, such as their ghost writing on safety reports.

          240. …and this affects the empirical data how exactly?
            None of this impacts any of the toxicology or carcinogenicity data. It won’t change the findings of any of the OECD compliant studies (407, 408, 409, 416, 420, 422, 423, 424, 451, 452, 453…yep, there are a whole lot more of these that are performed, Petey, and there’s a very good reason why these results are the gold standard.
            If anything, you seem to be the one who needs this trial to go your way. As I wrote, the science doesn’t change as a result of this, and none of my research, students, or grants will be affected in any way.
            Simple truth, Petey, until you can address the data, you won’t be changing any of the science.

          241. Your data, and yourself, are frauds.
            You have provided no substantial reasoning behind your claim you are a scientist.

          242. So look at the methods used to derive the OECD protocols. As I wrote, they’re all listed and referenced. As with everything I’ve brought up, it’s backed by the data.
            That’s a major difference between us, Petey. I have no problems with anyone digging into the methods that are used by my colleagues and I. Each and every one of them is documented, with a solid history regarding how they were developed, and how they have changed over time.
            One thing you don’t see, someone changing the protocols without stating clearly why…except for the anti-GMO researchers.
            You keep trying to move the focus away from the data Petey, so that you can target me, but that doesn’t work in science.
            The data is still there. Even if I were to die tonight, it will still be there in the morning, and it will continue to be there until other data indicates that it is incorrect.
            Focusing on the people doesn’t work in science Petey. You need to deal with the data.
            Oh and before you go on with another tale of corruption and Machiavellian conspiracy, remember that you need to show how that makes the data incorrect, and that requires experimental evidence. In this case, an OECD-compliant toxicity or carcinogenicity study.
            Unlike you, I would actually be fascinated if something like that was found. Something that would cause everyone to take a step back and consider how this could be?
            You haven’t come close to that, and neither have any of the anti-GMO groups.
            Being involved in research when that kind of a particular shift would be utterly fascinating.

          243. Why? This is more amusing.
            Your ranting doesn’t change the empirical results, and you have yet to address them anyways.

          244. Actually there is an enormous amount of support. Just this year, two major EU backed OECD-compliant studies wrapped up (G-TwYST and GMO90+). As has been the case for over two decades, no adverse health effects were found.
            See Petey, that’s how it works in science. You back up your position with appropriate, GLP compliant studies.

          245. Again, that’s all you. To date you haven’t managed to defend a single one of your assertions, additionally, your remedial knowledge of experimental design makes it very easy to debunk your claims.
            Keep it up Petey!

          246. Odd, all my points are backed up by the primary literature, while yours fall apart at a single glance. You’re projecting again Petey.

          247. It is indeed odd, that your so called Primary literature is flawed, and you are a fake scientist…
            Actually, it’s not that odd is it.

          248. Really, so for the OECD-452 and 453 compliant trials for glyphosate, where is the error?
            Here’s a list of studies using rats:
            – Cheminova, 1993: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Feinchemie Schwebda, 1996: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Arysta Life Sciences, 1997: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Syngenta, 2001: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Nufarm, 2009: Klimisch Rating 1
            In addition to these, there were additional tests performed by Monsanto:
            – Monsanto, 1990: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Monsanto 1981 (Predates OECD 451 or 453): Klimisch Rating 3
            And some on Mice:
            – Monsanto 1983 (Predated OECD451 and 453): Klimisch Rating 2
            – Cheminova 1993: Klimisch Rating 1
            – Arysta Life Sciences 1997 (18 Month): Klimisch Rating 1
            – Feinchemie Schwebda 2001 (18 Month): Klimisch Rating 1
            So let’s have it Petey. All of those studies concur with regard to the NOAEL, LOAEL, and carcinogenicity of glyphosate.
            Hop to it Petey.

          249. Using rats…
            However, I’m still going to believe the jury in the Californian civil case, than your disingenuous cherry picking.

          250. “4. And of course no causal link between GMOs and any adverse effect.”
            And of course, your willful ignorance is bordering on the insane…
            10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health.
            “There are a multitude of credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed, and more are emerging every year. There are also a number of scientists all around the world that oppose them.”
            https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

          251. Not a single one of them comply with the OECD guidelines for determining causation. You really don’t have any clue how this research is done do you?
            Let’s have some fun:
            1. All the levels detected (when they weren’t below the detection limit for the method), were all below the ADI, to say nothing of the NOAEL.
            2. Odd that they neglect to mention that they didn’t find entire genes, merely oligonucleotides, which do not encode an entire protein.
            3. Not a study, and no attempt to prove causation.
            4. Seralini et al., (2012), the retracted lumpy rat study. It wasn’t OECD 453 compliant back then, it still isn’t.
            5. Cell culture work, not in situ. Also the findings were not able to be replicated, but Williams et al., (2012) has been repeatedly verified, and show no endocrine activity.
            6. No dose response, no consistent effect between treatment and control gorups, and no direct measurements of glyphosate…kinda a big issue on that last one.
            7. Samsel and Seneff…enough said. They produced a bunch of hypotheses, but didn’t test any of them. As is the usual case, Seneff just scanned other publications for key words and then cherry picked the data she wanted to.
            8. Correlation is not causation, and the researchers would do well to remember that, as they once again neglect to examine for a dose response.
            9. For some reason, Carmen completely ignored the standard methods for quantifying inflammation in the gastric mucosa, and instead used a purely visual grading method…that was promptly debunked by the Australian Veterinary Association, as detecting inflammation requires microscopic analysis of the tissue using longitudinal and transverse sections.
            10. An opinion piece, not a study. Also, it predates quite a few other studies that have shown the methods to be more than adequate.
            Perhaps you should take a bit more time to learn about experimental design Petey. Debunking these took only a few minutes, as I have read each and every one in the past.

          252. Hahaha, no, that’s why numerous countries around the world have banned GMOs.
            The more disingenuous claptrap you spout, the more you are covering up.

          253. Did you miss the expanding presence in Africa and the Indian subcontinent? How about the data released by the FAO?
            As always, I can back up my statements. You…not so much.

          254. Nope, as the overall acreage is increasing, as are the number of GMO varieties and species, they don’t particularly matter do they?
            That’s the fun part of this, as the data clearly shows an overall increase. What you feel about it doesn’t really factor into the equation.

          255. Unlike you, I live in the real world, I interact with real people, I have rational debates and relationships with people, whereas, you are some pathetic little fool living in your basement.
            For the last time, repost your so called University Degree, or I will call you out as a pathetic liar…

          256. Tisk, tisk Petey,for someone who claims to live in the “real world”, you sure like to support fanciful transport.

          257. “fanciful transport?”
            Now what are you talking about?
            I take the train to work, I don’t know what you do.

          258. Another colloquialism that you are apparently unaware of. As for ground transport, it’s car or bike for me.

          259. I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
            But I guess it’s a tackic of yours, to avoid embarrassment of your complete failure to understand objective science.

          260. That’s your forte I’m afraid. I’ve been able to cite the primary literature, and the applicable OECD protocols to support my position.
            You just keep on denying anything that doesn’t mesh with your worldview. Fortunately what you believe, does not impact the empirical data.

          261. No, in the real world beyond the labs, the dose does NOT ‘make the poison’, the combined accumulated doses that are additive, and often synergistic, in individuals that are very young, or very old, have other disease conditions, or are pregnant, or in other ways compromised… makes the poison. We are ALL accumulating the toxic metal lead into our bones (100 to 1ooo x’s) the levels prehistoric bones accumulated. We all have this toxicologic ‘dose’ to deal with during times of physiologic stress from additional insults. as the body seeks calcium in times of need lead recirculates to add pathogenic influence. The ‘dose’ from the single lab dose DOES NOT make the adverse effects level, it all adds up out in the real world we have to actually live in. Lab work necessarily has to use fit individuals, but that IS NOT reality. If the dose in a childs’ breakfast cereal is added to his dose of prednisone, his dose of lead from going fishing yesterday, and his dose of methyl mercury from wading and swimming in a pond last week, the result from a ‘dose’ of allowable glyphosate in breakfast cereal could be enough added problem for his body to deal with to be defined as adverse effect by any real world understanding. This kind of intellectual overreach, beyond logic, by people studying toxic significance of a single dose in fit individuals, must be curbed by the full scientific methodology, not the partial science used in the lab.

          262. Well as glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in mammals, with alpha and beta elimination phases showing a half life of 2.1-7.5 hours, and 69-733 hours. In every case, about 99.5% was excreted, and this value did not change, individuals caring that glyphosate doesn’t exhibit and accumulation.
            …and it wasn’t only single dose treatments, as the chronic toxicity studies range from 21 days to 2 years. Again no bioaccumulation, and a NOAEL around 175mg/kg.
            Your post is stuffed with feaongering, but bereft of empirical evidence.
            Care to try again?

          263. Okay,on the GMO side of things, these projects, funded by the EU wrapped up between 2016 and early 2018.
            GRACE
            G-TwYST
            GMO90+
            These studies ranges from 90 days to 104 weeks. No adverse health effects were seen, and the derived metrics were consistent between comparable experiments.
            Also, unlike studies like Seralini et al., (2012), these researchers actually followed the OECD protoxols, including Guidance Document 116, and increased the sample population appropriately.
            Once again, your allegations are nothing more than baseless fearmongering.
            …and you still haven’t supported your position.

          264. “Well as glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in mammals, with alpha and beta elimination phases showing a half life of 2.1-7.5 hours, and 69-733 hours.”
            Anything to back up that theory?

          265. I’m a molecular biologist, with all three of by degrees involving biology, with an ever increasing focus on molecular biology and genomics, with my current focus in using next generation sequencing (Illumina HiSeq, PacBio Sequel, and Oxford Nanopore MinION) to measure genome rearrangement after interspecific hybridization.

          266. Eric? Not even close Petey. Only two letters appear in my name…even my full one, including middle and family names.
            I’m aware of Eric’s posts, and while he does surpass you when it comes to scientific literacy, he’s not at the same level as posters like Chris Preston, Peter Online, Verna Lang, Mem Somerville, Tomas Moravic, or myself.
            All of these individuals have doctorates, however our areas of specialization vary quite a bit.
            Regardless of focus, each and every one of us leave you in the dust Petey.
            Again, you focus on the individual, not the data, and that’s what you must do to support your assertions.
            Based on your posts, the odds of you being a “rocket scientist” are quite low, but the topics have not been relevant to test that (to say nothing of the applicability of said branch when dealing with toxicology, molecular biology, or biochemistry).
            Let’s give you a chance to shine then Petey.
            When attempting to model the in atmospheric flight of a small (1m), unmanned rocket with a short burn, medium force engine (9.8N and t=0.75s), launching at sea level, which atmospheric model should be used, and what method should be used to determine this?
            There you go Petey! A very simple problem for any rocket science, and in fact, similar calculations are use in model rocketry all the time.

          267. Sure Eric, and evidenced by your long rambling and off-topic flim-flam.
            I just love how you are justifying your claim you are a “scientist”, and the large body of scientific work backing you up your sad and deluded thoughts of grandeur.

          268. So no answer on the appropriate atmospheric model to use, Petey?
            Why is that?
            Also, no attempt to counter the data provided in relation to glyphosate toxicity previously? After all this time, you must have found an OECD-compliant study showing some kind of adverse effect causally linked to glyphosate, right?
            Are you capable of addressing the data, or will the rest of your contribution be restricted to personal attacks?

          269. And your claim of being a Nobel laureate, rocket science doesn’t seem to pan out.
            Funny how my posts actually have dealt with relevant points for toxicology, biology, experimental design, and data analysis.
            …you…not so much.

          270. Are you really that gormless and feckless?
            Nevermind, rhetorical question.
            I claimed I was a Nobel Prize winning rocket scientist, as a sarcastic response to you claiming you’re a scientist who has 3 Degrees.

          271. I know what you were doing, but it’s far more amusing to point out a tiny difference. When I’ve been asked a question pertinent to my field, I’ve answered it, and usually also provided appropriate citations to back up the statements.
            My question to you was one that anyone with a basic knowledge of aerospace engineering could answer (I wouldn’t of asked a question like that if i couldn’t answer it BTW).
            You didn’t, and in all probability can’t without undertaking some background studying.
            As always, it amuses me to no end to see you fail.

          272. “As always, it amuses me to no end to see you fail.”
            Oh, I’m not failing, the only person failing here, is you.
            I’m no not making any grandiose statements about my alleged qualifications.

          273. “…with my current focus in using next generation sequencing (Illumina HiSeq, PacBio Sequel, and Oxford Nanopore MinION) to measure genome rearrangement after interspecific hybridization.”
            And just which peer review journal you’re published in?

          274. Several, ranging from TAG, Plant Phys, a couple of Frontiers, Plant Cell, Scientific Reports, Microbiology (Resource Announcements), PLoS ONE, Plant Genome.
            I think that covers the last 3 years or so.

          275. Hello…
            Are you reading correctly?
            I mean, no links to establish your scientific credentials.

          276. You replied to me initially on this thread, barging in on my posts with Verna Lang. You started this 18 days ago Petey.
            And still no supporting studies? Such a shame.

          277. Yes, still no supporting evidence of your claim of being a peer-reviewed scientist with 3 degrees.

          278. Not required as the data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly
            indicated, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that
            you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions
            Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out again and again.

          279. No, I’m keeping things consistent, Petey. It’s the data that you need to address. The fact that you continue to focus on me is just proof that you lack any empirical backing, and have few options available to you, none of which will affect any of the toxicology data…actually any of the data really.

          280. It’s just as vapid as the rest, and does nothing to address the empirical data, so yes, your posts can fully substitute for each other.

          281. Vapid?
            Indeed, there is no empirical data, at all, to suggest you vaguely come close to a scientist.

          282. Except for the multiple OECD compliant studies, Petey
            Still no data to counteract the OECD compliant studies?
            Too bad for you.

          283. And yet I’m the one to.show an understanding of toxicology, biocbostry…actually..every branch of this field.

          284. You haven’t showen anything, apart from, your strange behaviour… and your complete disregard for actual scientific knowledge.

          285. …except for all the statements backed by the primary literature that are factually correct, and show a far greater understanding of biology than you.
            And another post where you don’t rebut any of the OECD compliant data.

          286. Except they come from you, a complete weirdo, who claims he is a respected scientist in the field of agri-science.

          287. No, those citations may or may not involve my research, but they are part of the primary literature. As a result, it doesn’t matter what you think, the data is still there, and you have failed to counter it even after weeks of babbling.

          288. The data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly
            indicated to you, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that
            you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions
            Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out.

          289. And still no data, to support your claim that you are a well-established scientist with 3 Degrees.

          290. Yes, I have no understanding of someone like you, who would pose on these threads as a well-established scientist, who has 3 Degrees.

          291. I do quite frequently, Petey. Take for instance the response from the reviewers for a manuscript that was submitted back in June. They brought up another analysis method that could improve the accuracy of our in silico predictions for introgression. Their points were clear, and we have already run the analysis and are modifying the manuscript prior to publication.
            I care about the thoughts of my peers. You…not so much.

          292. And your fantasy continues…
            And which universities did you complete your three Degrees?

          293. Public universities in North America.
            Remember Petey, I’m not going to feed a stalking troll any personal information, as it’s the data from the primary literature that you need to address.
            Just to keep this at the forefront, this is where you actively searched for another comment from me, and decided to bump a dead thread, on a different website, and on a completely unrelated topic.
            Guess what Petey? You were the one who seems to be heading down the Buffalo Bill route.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fff6604acad4075e33f1c0502f9f7eb85998c537cc8f9a50dfbc3081260f77fe.png

          294. In that case, I won’t take seriously anything that you claim, such as your scientific credentials and your status within the scientific community.
            Buffalo Bill?
            Now what are you talking about?

          295. What you think is entirely irrelevant, as it’s the data that you need to address, and is is what you have utterly failed to accomplish.
            Buffalo Bill was the main antagonist in a multi Academy Award winning film. As a character, he was a mentally deranged sociopath. Utterly unhinged and fixated on making a twisted fantasy a reality.

          296. I see…
            When you are finished making irrelevant references to old Hollywood movies, you get back to me, and provide some rational arguments as to why I should believe your claims that you are a respected scientist with 3 Degrees.

          297. And you still don’t get it. The data, Petey! The data is what maters.
            I’ve presented multiple citations from the primary literature to support my points. You can’t even find one OECD-compliant study.

          298. The data doesn’t matter, when it comes from some weirdo who claims to be a peer-reviewed scientist.

          299. You couldn’t be more wrong, or more clueless. The data present in the primary literature is all that matters Petey. You having a hissy fit, and focusing on me just shows your position is untenable, and unsupported.
            Quite simply, can you provide a citation to an OECD-452 or 453 compliant study that supports your assertions regarding GMOs, or pesticides?
            Right from the get go, I’ve mentioned this, but you still choose to avoid addressing the data.

          300. The data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly
            indicated, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that
            you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions
            Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out.

          301. It fits you like a glove. Stalking, ignoring empirical data, and of course your refusal to address your woefully remedial understanding of all aspects of science.

          302. That’s funny, it’s only you who’s talking about the past, and also, not directly discussing this topic.
            I only refuse to address science from a fake scientist

          303. How odd, I don’t see my name on all of those citations, which means that the data wasn’t all produced by me. Again your personal attacks don’t change the data, and it remains a bastion against your pseudoscience and general woo.

          304. So says the weirdo, who wants to reference old Hollywood movies, and not substantiate his own claim of being a peer-reviewed scientist.

          305. Because I don’t need to substantiate it Petey. The data from the primary literature is all that matters. As I wrote several days ago, if the data was collected and analyzed according to established GLP, I don’t care if it came from the depths of the OCA, and lists Mephistopheles as the corresponding author.
            The data is all that matters, and your pathetic attempts to evade the fact that you have no compliant backing is always a pleasure to read.

          306. If you’re going to be claiming to be a peer reviewed scientist with 3 degrees, you have to substantiate that.

          307. Why? The data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly indicated, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out.

          308. Why? The data is all that matters. Can you present an OECD compliant study to support your position.

          309. Apparently quotes from movies is more important to you.
            However, you need to provide evidence of your outlandish credentials.

          310. Why? The data is all that matters. Can you present an OECD compliant study to support your position?
            As always you try to deflect when backed into a corner. What data, derived from studies compliant with OECD protocols and overall GLP, do you have?

          311. That’s funny, because before, all that matters, was your bragging that you are a peer-reviewed scientist.

          312. It’s never been about that Petey. It’s about the data.
            That’s how it’s been since the start.

          313. You couldn’t care less about the data, it was about your bragging and trying to garner respect on these websites, through your false claims of being a peer review scientist.

          314. How is the data affected by that Petey? It remains there, and you have done
            nothing to rebut it. So long as it was collected and analyzed according
            to the OECD standard, who cites it has no effect on the data.

          315. Because you create specious arguments, out of bias research, and the mere fact, you claim to be a researcher of high esteem. Which clearly, is just bilious.

          316. And again, that changes the data how Petey?
            You still haven’t shown any reason why it is in error, let alone provided any support for your position.

          317. And your source? Which study? Which data point? Which analytical method did you use to determine this? Is that method part of the OECD design, Guidance Document 116, or the EFSA/SOT modifications?

          318. You really are making yourself look stupid aren’t you.
            If you think I’m stalking you, block my comments.

          319. All that would do is remove my ability to view your comments, which would degenerate into unchecked pseudoscience.

          320. Again, your belief does not matter in the slightest, and you still haven’t addressed the data.

          321. Good, the longer you wait, the more research is published showing your position as unsupported. The next publication out of the G-TwYST and GMO90+ studies should be out by the end of 2018.

          322. Not required as the data is independent of my qualifications Petey.
            You still haven’t shown any reason why it is in error, let alone provided any support for your position.

          323. That’s what you believe, but belief does not alter reality Petey. Fortunately your opinion of me isn’t a concern.
            So still not going to address the data?

          324. “I’m a molecular biologist, with all three of by degrees involving biology, with an ever increasing focus on molecular biology and genomics, with my current focus in using next generation sequencing (Illumina HiSeq, PacBio Sequel, and Oxford Nanopore MinION) to measure”
            Which university did you study at?
            And do you have any published papers in any peer reviewed journals?

          325. At tree public universities in Canada and the US. Given the fact that you decided to go all stalker when you were banned from the GLP, that’s all your getting, same with my phblixations, and yes, I currently have 22 journal articles, 5 proceedings papers, 5 genome announcements, and 3 textbook chapters.

          326. As usual, no meaningful reply, just some strange accusations, of which I have no idea what you’re talking about.
            Keep trying Eric…

          327. No, just pointing out your idiocy and fixation. For anyone who comes upon this.
            You’ve done more than enough to discredit your position, so I remain amused.

          328. Sure, I’m not the weirdo claiming to have a high reputation in the scientific Fields of biology / chemistry and bioscience.

          329. So still not going to address the OECD 452 and 453 data?
            Keep on going, this is endlessly amusing, as you keep focusing on the individual, not the data.

          330. Yes , keep on going, 48 posts, and nothing to substantiate your claim you’re a peer review scientist with 3 degrees.

          331. The data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly
            indicated, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that
            you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions
            Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out again.

          332. The fact that John Etine responded to a colleagie regarding this.
            As bans can range form hours to permanent, you may be able to post now, but at the time, you earned a bam and much more.

          333. I have no interest, because at that time, I saw him in an interview with that alt-right psychopath, Stefan Molyneux.
            I thought, if this John Etine, wants to associate himself with Stefan Molyneux, then surely, he’s scraping the bottom of the barrel for publicity on GMO’s

          334. The data Petey, the data is what you need to address. Is that really so hard to understand?

          335. And keep showing it.
            It’s only doing you yourself, and your reputation harm, because while you misdirect onto completely useless topics, you fail to mount a sensible argument, and provide evidence of your so called scientific credentials.

          336. So still nothing regarding some supporting studies for your position?
            Petey, when it comes to my reputation, the only people who matter are my peers…and none of them are involved in this discussion. What you believe is completely irrelevant, and has no impact on my position, my funding, my research, my students, and my life in general.
            You don’t factor into the equation, which is why this remains amusing.

          337. Still nothing to support your claim that you are a peer-reviewed scientist with 3 degrees?

          338. It’s not required Petey? The data is all in the primary literature, as I have repeatedly
            indicated, the source doesn’t matter. You keep avoiding the fact that
            you cannot produce any OECD compliant studies to back up your assertions
            Petey, so I’ll just keep on pointing that out.

          339. You need to address your fantasy, and provide some legitimate links to your claim of being a respected scientist.

          340. No, I really don’t Petey.Heck, the simple fact that all you have left are personal attacks and libel pretty much shows that your argument has already lost.
            It was the data you needed to address. The fact that you cannot do so speaks volumes about your position, and your worldview.

          341. Again, that’s hilarious!
            You’re the one who’s making strange quotes from old conversations on other websites, and posting quotes from old Hollywood movies.

          342. It’s an old slang word from Australia.
            Anytime you want to get back to proving your credentials, let me know.

          343. Not needed, Petey. The data from the OECD-compliant studies is more than sufficient to support the points I have made.
            Remember, if the data was collected, and analyzed according to the standard protocols, where it comes from is utterly irrelevant.

          344. How is the data affected Petey? So long as it was collected and analyzed according
            to GLP and in compliance with the OECD protocols, it would not be
            affected regardless of who cites it.

          345. Oh, maybe it’s because you make grandiose statements about your alleged qualifications.

          346. And that changes the data how Petey?
            Those studies, and the results from them are not affected by my status, or by your ignorance. They remain as part of the primary literature, and again you provide no evidence that they are in error.

          347. So you can’t actually point out how the data would be affected, and just go for another deflection.
            So noted.

          348. And thank you for confirming your stupidity, and not following the thread of the conversation.

          349. The compliant studies that examined the toxicology of GMOs and pesticides isn’t relevant to an article detailing the tactics and worldview of anti-Biotech groups.

          350. Let’s start with the Universities you did your three degrees at, can you provide that information?

          351. Not really, as your opinion has no validity or impact. Again how does it affect the data from the compliant studies?

          352. You mean publications?
            If your English is as bad as your research, I don’t think you would be published anywhere.

          353. Oh I’ve got plenty of publications, and you have yet to address the data, Petey.
            Is this really.auch a hard concept?