BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
al die boeren die tegen hun zin in gmos moeten gebruiken 
http://globalresearch.ca/(...)-corn-fields/5342913
http://globalresearch.ca/(...)-corn-fields/5342913
Op dinsdag 1 november 2016 00:05 schreef JanCees het volgende:
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
Dr. Oz Show on the Seralini rat study claims
http://academicsreview.or(...)ni-rat-study-claims/
Dr. Oz: “And there was a recent study that came out looking at rats who were given genetically modified food.”
Dr. Bernhoft: “Well this is a hugely important study. Seralini’s group fed two years of genetically modified corn to (Sprague-Dawley) rats which are the type of rats that every science experiment uses to study cancer in. Normally they get about 15 to 20 percent cancer eating normal food. In his study eating genetically modified food, 80 percent.”
Dr. Oz: “80 percent! Here’s a picture of some of those rats. These are tumors coming out of these animals?”
Dr. Bernhoft: “Yeh, most of the female rats got breast cancer. The male rats got inter-abdominal cancer. There were problems with the kidneys, the liver and the pituitary.
Dr. Oz: “So Jeffrey, if these claims, and they are pretty serious ones, are true, why, how can it be this information is being ignored?”
Jeffrey Smith: “Well the cover up started more than 20 years ago when the FDA’s own scientists repeatedly urged their superiors to require long-term study because they said these foods were dangerous. They said they could create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But the FDA policy came out ignoring the scientists saying no safety studies were necessary, no labeling was necessary. So they ignored the science and now they have what is called kind of tobacco science, short-term animal feeding studies, studies designed to avoid finding problems. They got bad science down to a science.
Dr. Oz: “Well, Jeffrey and Dr. Bernhoft thank you for joining us. You’re going to leave the stage now as we’ve agreed on. Thank you very much, I want to welcome as these scientists leave, Martina Newell-McCloughlin, co-director of the NIH training program for bimolecular technology at U.C. Davis. Now Martina believes genetically modified foods is safe. So how do you respond to Jeffrey’s claims that these genetically modified foods have not really been all that well tested and caused the health issues they described?”
http://academicsreview.or(...)ni-rat-study-claims/
Dr. Oz: “And there was a recent study that came out looking at rats who were given genetically modified food.”
Dr. Bernhoft: “Well this is a hugely important study. Seralini’s group fed two years of genetically modified corn to (Sprague-Dawley) rats which are the type of rats that every science experiment uses to study cancer in. Normally they get about 15 to 20 percent cancer eating normal food. In his study eating genetically modified food, 80 percent.”
Dr. Oz: “80 percent! Here’s a picture of some of those rats. These are tumors coming out of these animals?”
Dr. Bernhoft: “Yeh, most of the female rats got breast cancer. The male rats got inter-abdominal cancer. There were problems with the kidneys, the liver and the pituitary.
Dr. Oz: “So Jeffrey, if these claims, and they are pretty serious ones, are true, why, how can it be this information is being ignored?”
Jeffrey Smith: “Well the cover up started more than 20 years ago when the FDA’s own scientists repeatedly urged their superiors to require long-term study because they said these foods were dangerous. They said they could create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But the FDA policy came out ignoring the scientists saying no safety studies were necessary, no labeling was necessary. So they ignored the science and now they have what is called kind of tobacco science, short-term animal feeding studies, studies designed to avoid finding problems. They got bad science down to a science.
Dr. Oz: “Well, Jeffrey and Dr. Bernhoft thank you for joining us. You’re going to leave the stage now as we’ve agreed on. Thank you very much, I want to welcome as these scientists leave, Martina Newell-McCloughlin, co-director of the NIH training program for bimolecular technology at U.C. Davis. Now Martina believes genetically modified foods is safe. So how do you respond to Jeffrey’s claims that these genetically modified foods have not really been all that well tested and caused the health issues they described?”
niet geschoten is ook niet verkeerd.
Dr. Oz: Now Martina believes genetically modified foods is safe. So how do you respond to Jeffrey’s claims that these genetically modified foods have not really been all that well tested and caused the health issues they described?”
Dr. Martina McGloughlin: “Well actually we’ve been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years. Modern techniques are far more precise, far more predictable, far more controlled than these older studies. In addition they’re more thoroughly tested than any food or ag process ever in the history of food and ag research. So to me there have been thousands of experiments done and in fact I’ve been involved in some of those as external reviewers. There are no tests on conventional crops whatsoever, you can produce them one day and sell them the next day. Biotech goes through eight to 10 years of research before any of them are commercialized.
Dr. Oz: “Could you help me understand that one study that Dr. Bernhoft mentioned where you had rats that had been fed genetically modified foods and they had those large tumors on them?”
Dr. McGloughlin: “Well if you look at rat kibble that has been fed to test rats for the last 15-20 years a large proportion of that has actually been genetically modified and there’s been no increase whatsoever in the occurrence of spontaneous tumors above what you already expect for this particular variety of rat.”
Dr. Oz: “You’re a mom. (Yes) and you feed your kids genetically modified foods?”
Dr. McGloughlin: “My number one concern is the safety of my family. No way am I going to feed them anything that isn’t safe and nutritious. In fact I would probably choose genetically modified foods over other foods to feed to my children because in fact I know that not alone are they safer this is perhaps the most sustainable product system you can find out there.”
Dr. Oz: “So, let me give you some feedback from the FDA we reached out to and the American Medical Association. They gave us statements. They believe genetically modified food is safe as you claim. But they support labeling. Here’s what they have to say, the FDA argued that they support voluntary labeling that provides consumers with this information and has issued draft guidance to industry regarding such labeling. The AMA said they support the FDA’s science-based approach to product labeling, recognizing that there is no evidence, as you said, that there are material differences of safety concerns in available bioengineered foods. For the full statements you can go to Dr. Oz dot com. Whether or not genetically modified foods cause health concerns or not, the reality is my friends that you are probably getting it today. Should it be labeled? And that’s really the big question we have to answer this year and what will that end up costing you? That’s next.
Dr. Martina McGloughlin: “Well actually we’ve been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years. Modern techniques are far more precise, far more predictable, far more controlled than these older studies. In addition they’re more thoroughly tested than any food or ag process ever in the history of food and ag research. So to me there have been thousands of experiments done and in fact I’ve been involved in some of those as external reviewers. There are no tests on conventional crops whatsoever, you can produce them one day and sell them the next day. Biotech goes through eight to 10 years of research before any of them are commercialized.
Dr. Oz: “Could you help me understand that one study that Dr. Bernhoft mentioned where you had rats that had been fed genetically modified foods and they had those large tumors on them?”
Dr. McGloughlin: “Well if you look at rat kibble that has been fed to test rats for the last 15-20 years a large proportion of that has actually been genetically modified and there’s been no increase whatsoever in the occurrence of spontaneous tumors above what you already expect for this particular variety of rat.”
Dr. Oz: “You’re a mom. (Yes) and you feed your kids genetically modified foods?”
Dr. McGloughlin: “My number one concern is the safety of my family. No way am I going to feed them anything that isn’t safe and nutritious. In fact I would probably choose genetically modified foods over other foods to feed to my children because in fact I know that not alone are they safer this is perhaps the most sustainable product system you can find out there.”
Dr. Oz: “So, let me give you some feedback from the FDA we reached out to and the American Medical Association. They gave us statements. They believe genetically modified food is safe as you claim. But they support labeling. Here’s what they have to say, the FDA argued that they support voluntary labeling that provides consumers with this information and has issued draft guidance to industry regarding such labeling. The AMA said they support the FDA’s science-based approach to product labeling, recognizing that there is no evidence, as you said, that there are material differences of safety concerns in available bioengineered foods. For the full statements you can go to Dr. Oz dot com. Whether or not genetically modified foods cause health concerns or not, the reality is my friends that you are probably getting it today. Should it be labeled? And that’s really the big question we have to answer this year and what will that end up costing you? That’s next.
niet geschoten is ook niet verkeerd.
lol dr Oz, de man die Columbia niet ontslagen krijgt
Op dinsdag 1 november 2016 00:05 schreef JanCees het volgende:
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
quote:Gesprek met zaadteler Guus Lieberwerth in het door hem gestarte Hof van Eden aan de Zuidoostzijde van Utrecht. Over Monsanto, de vunzigheid van voortplanting, biodiversiteit en het nut van kriebels.
De waarheid in iemands hoofd is vaak onbuigzamer dan het sterkste staal.
haha leuk stukjequote:
Op dinsdag 1 november 2016 00:05 schreef JanCees het volgende:
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
Er is meer van hem te vinden online, onder andere had hij een programma bij ridderradio jaren terug.quote:
Maar er stonden ook interviews online over zijn werk in het hof, ik vond het machtig interessant om te luisteren naar wat hij te zeggen had.
De waarheid in iemands hoofd is vaak onbuigzamer dan het sterkste staal.
Ik heb al zo'n 20 jaar ratten. Ze worden zelden ouder dan 2.5 jaar en ik zou willen dat de kans dat ze kanker ontwikkelden maar 15 of 20 procent was. Mijn track-record staat nu op 95% van de ratten die ik heb gehad (geld overigens ook voor de ratten van vrienden van me).quote:Op donderdag 3 september 2015 14:45 schreef NightFlight het volgende:
Dr. Oz Show on the Seralini rat study claims
http://academicsreview.or(...)ni-rat-study-claims/
Dr. Oz: “And there was a recent study that came out looking at rats who were given genetically modified food.”
Dr. Bernhoft: “Well this is a hugely important study. Seralini’s group fed two years of genetically modified corn to (Sprague-Dawley) rats which are the type of rats that every science experiment uses to study cancer in. Normally they get about 15 to 20 percent cancer eating normal food. In his study eating genetically modified food, 80 percent.”
Dr. Oz: “80 percent! Here’s a picture of some of those rats. These are tumors coming out of these animals?”
Dr. Bernhoft: “Yeh, most of the female rats got breast cancer. The male rats got inter-abdominal cancer. There were problems with the kidneys, the liver and the pituitary.
Dr. Oz: “So Jeffrey, if these claims, and they are pretty serious ones, are true, why, how can it be this information is being ignored?”
Jeffrey Smith: “Well the cover up started more than 20 years ago when the FDA’s own scientists repeatedly urged their superiors to require long-term study because they said these foods were dangerous. They said they could create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But the FDA policy came out ignoring the scientists saying no safety studies were necessary, no labeling was necessary. So they ignored the science and now they have what is called kind of tobacco science, short-term animal feeding studies, studies designed to avoid finding problems. They got bad science down to a science.
Dr. Oz: “Well, Jeffrey and Dr. Bernhoft thank you for joining us. You’re going to leave the stage now as we’ve agreed on. Thank you very much, I want to welcome as these scientists leave, Martina Newell-McCloughlin, co-director of the NIH training program for bimolecular technology at U.C. Davis. Now Martina believes genetically modified foods is safe. So how do you respond to Jeffrey’s claims that these genetically modified foods have not really been all that well tested and caused the health issues they described?”
Ben heel benieuwd naar de sample-groepen die hij heeft gebruikt.
Daarbij. Dr Oz? De man die beweerde 'It's not a medical show because the letters 'Dr.' are smaller'?
"Een menschenhater, menschenschuwend mensch, die niet gaarne andere menschen ziet; een wonderlijk, ongezellig mensch, vijand van alle vrolijkheid.'
"My voice is nothing, my thoughts are nothing, in many respects I'm like you; nothing"
"My voice is nothing, my thoughts are nothing, in many respects I'm like you; nothing"
Same here... Sommige ook op ruim jongere leeftijd dan 2.5 jaar.quote:
[..]
Ik heb al zo'n 20 jaar ratten. Ze worden zelden ouder dan 2.5 jaar en ik zou willen dat de kans dat ze kanker ontwikkelden maar 15 of 20 procent was. Mijn track-record staat nu op 95% van de ratten die ik heb gehad (geld overigens ook voor de ratten van vrienden van me).
Ben heel benieuwd naar de sample-groepen die hij heeft gebruikt.
Daarbij. Dr Oz? De man die beweerde 'It's not a medical show because the letters 'Dr.' are smaller'?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Yup. Jongste krap een jaar. Oudste was 3.5 (grappig genoeg een compleet doorgefokt exemplaar zonder nageltjes en de spiermassa van een zak snotquote:
[..]
Same here... Sommige ook op ruim jongere leeftijd dan 2.5 jaar.
)
"Een menschenhater, menschenschuwend mensch, die niet gaarne andere menschen ziet; een wonderlijk, ongezellig mensch, vijand van alle vrolijkheid.'
"My voice is nothing, my thoughts are nothing, in many respects I'm like you; nothing"
"My voice is nothing, my thoughts are nothing, in many respects I'm like you; nothing"
in beter nieuws (although niet Monsanto)
gm muggen hebben het aantal muggen dat het dengue virus meedraagt met 95% vermindert.
http://www.popsci.com/gen(...)azilian-neighborhood
gm muggen hebben het aantal muggen dat het dengue virus meedraagt met 95% vermindert.
http://www.popsci.com/gen(...)azilian-neighborhood
Op dinsdag 1 november 2016 00:05 schreef JanCees het volgende:
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
Germany starts move to ban GMO crops - ministry letter
http://www.reuters.com/ar(...)dUSL5N10Z2IV20150824
vast niet voor niets.
http://www.reuters.com/ar(...)dUSL5N10Z2IV20150824
vast niet voor niets.
niet geschoten is ook niet verkeerd.
Niet voor wetenschappelijke redenen:quote:
Germany starts move to ban GMO crops - ministry letter
http://www.reuters.com/ar(...)dUSL5N10Z2IV20150824
vast niet voor niets.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/haog-jsb041709.php
Ze zijn erachter dat GMOs de bewustzijn van de schapen burgers verbeterd. Dat hebben de illuminatie overheden liever niet.quote:
Germany starts move to ban GMO crops - ministry letter
http://www.reuters.com/ar(...)dUSL5N10Z2IV20150824
vast niet voor niets.
I am a Chinese college students, I have a loving father, but I can not help him, he needs to do heart bypass surgery, I can not help him, because the cost of 100,000 or so needed, please help me, lifelong You pray Thank you!
EurekAlert! is a service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Welke op haar beurt weer een draaideur-relatie heeft met BigFood en BigFarma.quote:Op zondag 6 september 2015 16:15 schreef Broomer het volgende:
[..]
Niet voor wetenschappelijke redenen:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/haog-jsb041709.php
niet geschoten is ook niet verkeerd.
Het ligt iets gecompliceerder:quote:
Germany starts move to ban GMO crops - ministry letter
http://www.reuters.com/ar(...)dUSL5N10Z2IV20150824
vast niet voor niets.
http://www.gmo-compass.or(...)gmo_cultivation.html
Op dinsdag 1 november 2016 00:05 schreef JanCees het volgende:
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
Er is inderdaad nog nooit vanwege (ongezonde) publieke opinie, wetgeving in elkaar gedraaidquote:
Fine, fuck you then!
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Het artikel is geschreven door de Helmholtz Association en de Max Planck Society - niet door de American Association for the Advancement of Science.quote:
[..]
EurekAlert! is a service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Welke op haar beurt weer een draaideur-relatie heeft met BigFood en BigFarma.
De American Association for the Advancement of Science zelf is trouwens een zeer gerespecteerde organisatie. Ik durf het haast niet te vragen, want dan krijgen we weer zo'n aluhoedjes link, maar waar is je bewijs dat de AAAS is gecorrumpeerd is door BigFood en BigFarma?
We scientists welcome Scotland's GM-free status
The undersigned 30 scientists and specialists
4th September 2015
Scotland's decision to maintain its GM-free status is in the best interests of the country, its people and its farmers, 30 scientists write to Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead. It is abundantly justified by the scientific evidence and will support the sustainable, agroecological farming systems of the future.
http://www.theecologist.o(...)s_gmfree_status.html
NU wetenschappelijk bewezen!
The undersigned 30 scientists and specialists
4th September 2015
Scotland's decision to maintain its GM-free status is in the best interests of the country, its people and its farmers, 30 scientists write to Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead. It is abundantly justified by the scientific evidence and will support the sustainable, agroecological farming systems of the future.
http://www.theecologist.o(...)s_gmfree_status.html
NU wetenschappelijk bewezen!
niet geschoten is ook niet verkeerd.
Scotland's decision to maintain its GM-free status is supported by scientists, who say the decision is in the best interests of the country, its people and its farmers. 
niet geschoten is ook niet verkeerd.
Zo werkt dat natuurlijk niet. Wetenschappelijk bewijs komt in de vorm van papers, niet een opiniestuk van 30 wetenschappers. En 30 wereldwijd is nou ook niet echt veel.quote:
We scientists welcome Scotland's GM-free status
The undersigned 30 scientists and specialists
4th September 2015
Scotland's decision to maintain its GM-free status is in the best interests of the country, its people and its farmers, 30 scientists write to Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead. It is abundantly justified by the scientific evidence and will support the sustainable, agroecological farming systems of the future.
http://www.theecologist.o(...)s_gmfree_status.html
NU wetenschappelijk bewezen!
Maar goed ik zal er eens inhoudelijk naar kijken.
OK lachwekkend stuk. De wetenschappers die dit geschreven hebben zouden hun PhD moeten verliezen.quote:
We scientists welcome Scotland's GM-free status
The undersigned 30 scientists and specialists
4th September 2015
Scotland's decision to maintain its GM-free status is in the best interests of the country, its people and its farmers, 30 scientists write to Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead. It is abundantly justified by the scientific evidence and will support the sustainable, agroecological farming systems of the future.
http://www.theecologist.o(...)s_gmfree_status.html
NU wetenschappelijk bewezen!
Het start met een mooi Shill-gambit. Hier is Sense About Sciences antwoord:
"The description of Sense About Science is completely false: "A number of industry-backed 'front' organisations have been created that employ 'stealth PR techniques' to promote the interests of clients, and Sense About Science is one of these." Please can you amend this immediately.
If you are unaware of where our funding comes from this information is available here along with our funding policy. As a charity our accounts are also available on the charity commission website. This PR claim is completely fabricated. Misconceptions surrounding GM is one of hundreds of subjects we respond to and very obviously not our main activity. PR for whom? Paid for by whom? A front for whom?"
Daarna een dubieuze claim zonder citatie "Food crops now contain only a fraction of the mineral content they had a mere 50 years ago."
"The total amount of insecticide occurring in and on Bt crops is estimated to be greater than if an applied insecticide had been used."
Telt alle insecticiden bij elkaar op, ook alle Bt die in de gewassen gemaakt wordt. Zonder op enige manier op de schadelijkheid te letten. Een creatieve maar nogal oneerlijke manier om de resultaten te vinden die je wilt (zo hoort dat natuurlijk niet te gaan).
"Yields of GM crops are similar to, or lower than, yields of conventional crops [6]; there is no gene for higher yield in any GM crop. If a bigger harvest occurs, it is rather a decreased loss to weeds or insects than an intrinsically higher yield."
Klopt. Super toch? Wat is daar nou het probleem van?
"Independent scientists almost always find harm to health (immune system, kidneys, liver, reproductive fertility, etc.) when animals are given GM feed. [10]"
Waar staat dat in de link? Het is trouwens ook niet waar:
"Out of the first 400 randomly-selected studies available in the GENERA beta test, half of them are funded entirely by government agencies and independent nonprofit organizations."
http://gmopundit.blogspot(...)ety-assessments.html.
En wat betreft de periode 2003-2013, waar deze studie (uit 2013) naar gekeken heeft: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041244
"The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops;"
"Many farmers have also reported health problems from GM feed, and these disappear when a non-GM diet is re-introduced. [11]"
Volkomen in tegenspraak met de Van Eenenaam studie (http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=11038), die vee, veel geloofwaardiger is.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Broomer op 09-09-2015 21:12:57 ]
