again my mother is ok now she was just confused and a little scared

If we're all that bad then is it even really corruption anymore?
Glad to hear it. But seriously, keep her away from Fox News or she might suffer a relapse.

she does not watch fox news, she only news channel she watches is CNN lesser of 2 evils I suppose, but she does watch those fucking christian channels like TBN
and just recently she does not like those preachers like Joel Olsteen anymore because they are hypocrites and unaltruistic just now she read that most of those preachers live in 10,000,000 dollar mansions instead of using that money to help poor/hungry people

Umm ... according to this article, the organ anomalies are even smaller than claimed by the other article you linked, and by your previous claim.

The wikipedia article also mentions severe problems during peer-review.

Look ... I'm actually not at all a fan of genetically mutated food. I do think that the controls on GMF-related products are way too lenient, that the lack of long-term studies may severely bite us in out behinds some generations into the future, and that it's generally a bad idea to have profit as the guiding principle for genetic research. So, if you actually _would_ present conclusive evidence, I'd be all ears.

However, what you've presented so far, is - I'm sorry - rubbish. You have presented largely illogical claims based on unpublished research data that you _assume_ to back your hypotheses, while so far being unable to show that it actually does. You've also made several claims that are even in contradiction with the data you linked to (amount of observed changes in organs, tested generations of subjects, you even talked about "mice" when the test apparently was conducted on rats, etc.)

So far, this is exactly the way how conspiracy theories work. Vague, sensational, improvable, and partly just incorrect information, and when you try to actual look at the scientific basis behind it, it falls apart.

If only more people realised that. Not that televangelists are the first to exploit people. Corruption and the Church have gone hand in hand for almost as long as there's been a Church.

No. DRM is weapon for weak, uncivilized and simple minded. What I'm talking here, now I reveal this on my own peril, is moneygrabbery. The scheme goes something like this:

First they lure you in with good deals and sweet promises of no copyprotectonitis. Then as you spent your hard earned money in nostalgic fever, you start to browse the forums. There you see couple of cases of gamegiftinarius. That scientific term for "I shall have your money no matter what". Before you realize, you have gifted some poor soul a game. Feeling good about it, who wouldn't as you just helped fellow gamer who is not as well compensated from his work as you are. But in reality the "other" gamer is just a a pawn of gog who just hustled you out of your money. He will never redeem his gift, or if he does it's just a smoke screen to alleviate your suspects. This master plans next step is made you also. You go to other internet sites and forums and tell the innocent people there how awesome site and community gog has. Thus luring next victims here. And the circle repeats itself again.

Yes, I'm afraid that this line of reasoning _does_ seem quite paranoid to me.

According to the Wikipedia article you linked to earlier, this study was never peer-reviewed at all. However, feel free to answer the nine basic questions I raised for the Pusztai study, now for the Greenpeace study.

Again, let me stress that: I would actually _prefer_ to have solid evidence for risks in genetically mutated food because I _do_ think that this section of research is controlled way too little considering the dangers it could bring. However, so far you're simply not delivering. What you're presenting so far is not evidence, but conspiracy theories.

This article now even claims that even the control group of rats in the Pusztai experiment had organ defects, just not as large as the experimental group. That's a blow to any serious experiment, it gets weirder and weirder.

Seriously, when you find all those contradictions in the literature that is supposed to back your claims, what do you do with them? Don't you see them? Do you ignore them? How can you link articles as "proof" that keep contradicting each other, can't you see that there might be a problem with the underlying theory in the first place? Please don't be offended, that's an honest question. I simply can't understand how someone can be convinced of something that falls apart so terribly once you look behind the curtain.

(please don't judge me I have my own philosiphy)
It's shit like that is one of the reasons why I am atheist

I seem to keep saying this to people lately, but don't base your beliefs, or lack thereof, on a negative - because you oppose something. It's not really healthy or beneficial in the long run. Televangelists, the Vatican and the like simply aren't worth your time. Don't define yourself through opposing them.

To be clear about this I'm atheist also. So it's not like I'm telling you you're taking the wrong path. It's just that you make it sound like you're taking it for the wrong reasons.

I said it's one of the reasons, I have others aswell, but I don't want to talk about it.

and also I'm not an asshole atheist, I don't mind people believing in gods, they have their beliefs and I have mine

Good. Because too many people seem to be using atheism as a stance against religion rather than something they're really comfortable with.

I should've explained what i wanted to show with the wikipedia article: the guy lost his job because of his claims. Think about it, all researchers make wrong claims, waste public and private money, have tests that fail, or are inconclussive(sorry , i don't know how to spell), or are just made without respecting basic research ethics... But they don't lose their jobs because of it. Why did this guy lose his job, when other scientists with unclaimed or wrong theories don't? My point is that it's a major cover-up, done by corporations and governments. That's why it's not peer-reviewed, because nobody wants it to be known. Of course, i'm just paranoid, because we all know governments never lie, or manipulate the facts...

oh I'm comfortable alright I feel like I'm worthy enough to accept that there are no gods and I will just have to accept whatever happens after you die

Note: In case you missed it, I added another section to my previous post.

Erm ... no? Have you ever heard of "publish or perish"? A scientist who doesn't deliver is in severe danger of losing his job. Most scientists have very short contracts (even Pusztai had one-year contracts according to the Wikipedia article), and if you don't deliver within this time, you are in grave danger of being replaced. It differs a bit between areas of research, but especially in the current "big" research areas, the pressure can be murderous. This is actually a threat to scientific integrity, as some scientists _do_ succumb to the pressure and fake results. I'm sorry, but if you believe that a scientist who doesn't get his contract renewed is evidence for a conspiracy and a cover-up by the government, then I would question your actual experience with research.

Believing that governments never lie would be gullible.
Believing that there is governmental conspiracy without conclusive evidence would be paranoid.
So far, the evidence you have presented is _very_ inconclusive, and the way of reasoning you present is _exactly_ that of conspiracy theorists. With that way of reasoning, you could prove any belief you want, be it a governmental conspiracy about genetically mutated food, or be it the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

If a study with obvious methodical problems (some of which even Pusztai doesn't deny) is not published, then that is most likely a sign of a bad study (which several peer-reviewers acknowledged), and not of a gigantic secret governmental cover-up to appease some evil industry giants. Do you have any idea how many studies do not get published each year? There are tens of thousands of studies which never got published because they simply weren't good enough, because it's _difficult_ to do research correctly and it's difficult to do it well enough to get it published. Do you think that all these studies have fallen victims to conspiracies and governmental cover-ups?