Dream Theater unorthodox albums art also has been linked to illuminati, freemason. Though i don't know if it's related or not.

This thread is so going towards Hitler if have not already.

Source1. Huffington Post article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html


Source2. Mercola article:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/27/19-studies-link-gmo-foods-to-organ-disruption.aspx

Source3. Star Tribune article:

http://www.startribune.com/local/143017765.html

Source4. foodintegritynow.org article:

http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/05/19/gmo-study-omg-you%E2%80%99re-eating-insecticide/


Source5. biolsci.org article:

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm



Does this satisfy your standards?

Many thanks for that link. That was really hilarious... and a bit depressing.

Gosh, I have to stop now before I level too much and become crazed with power. I'm still a level 1 halfling druid in my current game.

You missed it, he was mentioned in the OP.

Total of 4 peer reviewed papers, 2 claiming that GMOs need more study before being cleared or condemned, one being that removing a specific plant/weed leads to decline of butterfly population, and the last one I couldn't read yet, hopefully will on Monday.
So these sources do not condemn GMOs outright, though they do not exonerate them either.
My standards are satisfied, but there is no proper conclusion from these. So the debate is still ongoing.

Nibiru was in way of my view of OP. So I could not have seen it even if wanted to.

guys enough about hitler besides my moms ok now I convinced her a long time ago she was not a true believer in these conspiracies she was just confused

If i may suggest one more:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affair

Thanks for the link. The article is way more specific than the wall of text you linked earlier, though many of my questions are still unanswered, and some answers that I found are actually in contradiction to what you said earlier. Here are the answers that I cpuld derive from the article you linked:


1. Who exactly are the "they" that made the tests?

A group of researchers from the Rowett Institute in Scotland, led by Arpad Pusztai. This is scientific institute, so the research was not done by some weirdos in a garage who later claim to be scientists and get latched on by the press (it does happen, unfortunately).


2. Who funded the tests?

UK government, through a research grant. The objective was apparently not to test whether genetically mutated food was healthy, but to develop a genetically mutated potato which produced its own insecticide.

However, the potato was developed by the institute itself. Monsanto had nothing to do with this potato.


3. In which peer-reviewed science journals were the results published?

None. This is a pretty bad sign. According to the article, "parts" of the results were published in The Lancet. The Lancet is a peer-reviewed and pretty reliable scientific journal, but I don't see any data about which results had been published and which had not.

So, an undeterminedly large part of the whole claim is based on data that apparently never got published, and never went through any peer review.

The fact that this _still_ gets published as a "scientific study" without even a caveat is sad, but doesn't really surprise me. The press has rarely been particularly selective in such cases.


4. What happened to the mice who got fed "natural" potatos?

There is no information about that in the article. It's probable that they didn't show the symptoms observed in the experimental group, but in a scientific article, such data needs to be stated clearly. It's missing here.


5. Were the mouse populations in the experimental group and in the experimental group comparable, and which precautions were taken to assure that?

There is no information about that in the article. Again, we can "assume" that experimental group and control group were selected properly, since this is a very basic procedure in scientific research, and the research was performed by trained scientists. But again, a scientific article needs to state such data clearly, and this one doesn't.


6. Which precautions where taken to prevent the organ failures to be just artifacts from the in-breeding? Which kinds post-hoc analysis were performed to assure that the cause of the malfunctions matched the hypothesis of the researchers?

There is no information about that in the article. The post-hoc analysis that _was_ performed found some anomalies, but no "organ failure", no sterility, and no multiple-generation tests at all (all of which were things you claimed). The anomalies are described, but what exactly caused them, or even which effect they had, is a matter of speculation.


7. Where are the objective results of the test, there ought to be at least some probability tests and a statistically valid comparison against the control group. Against which level of probability has the test been performed?

The results are not shown in the article. The article only mentions that "parts of the results were published in The Lancet", but fails to even mention in which volume. In science, lacking or incorrect quotation is never a good sign.


8. Did the test procedure adhere to a double-blind setup (this is an absolute necessity for tests like this)?

Sorry for repeating myself, but there's no information about that in the article.


9. Have the results been replicated by other scientists (and if yes, by whom, and where have they published their results)?

Sorry for repeating myself, but there's no information about that in the article.


So, let's sum it up:

Out of 9 questions, which are all derived from the very basics of scientific practice, only two were answered satisfactorily, one was answered in a way that raises doubt rather than proving anything, and 6 have not been addressed at all. That's not a good quota. So far, you have done little to prove your claims.

The article actually does raise some more doubt, especially with regard to the interpretation of the results. The article's reasoning is this: We have three groups of rats: one ate the mutated potato, one ate the insecticide that was introduced into the potato's DNA (but not the potato), and one ate natural potatos. Only the first group developed symptoms. This is odd, because if this data is correct, then the insecticide itself cannot be the culprit. The article then concludes that it must be _the process of changing the potato's genes_ that must be responsible for the symptoms observed in the rats. And this is where it gets weird. Because the logical conclusion, at this point, would be that _this specific potato_ was badly designed. This logical conclusion is not addressed at all, though I can see why it would be problematic for the institute to go that route (because it would mean that they wasted a 1.6 million research grant on developing a faulty product). Still, the fact that such an obvious explanation isn't addressed at all, and that instead the whole process of genetic mutation is questioned without even having an idea why and how this could have happened, raises considerable doubt.

So, in conclusion, I'm still not convinced. Most of my questions have not been answered, and the "proof" that you presented so far actually raises even more doubt. Feel free to try again though, it's an interesting topic. :)

You see, this is where it gets complicated. That researcher was never allowed to publish the study, not because of Monsanto, but because the british government covered it up. But of course, now i'm just paranoid. However, Greenpeace did a similar study to that of dr. Pusztai, this time with Monsanto soybeans, and the results were even worse:


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suppressed-report-shows-cancer-link-to-gm-potatoes-436673.html

We've got corrupt governments, corrupt banks, corrupt companies and corrupt religions. What room is there left for conspiracy theories?

corrupt species? i don't know i'm making stuff up

This site of ours. Great overlording Geckos. They are being so nice now but wait until "they" realize the true potential of their work and then "they" will turn it against us. How you might ask. Can't tell you, they tickle to death if I reveal that I know.