Well, even if you see a moratorium as equal to a ban, then you still have the problem that you claimed that the BMA asked "for a ban on GMOs", when all it did was asking for a temporary stop of commercial GM planting, and then retracted that five years later. There simply is a pretty large difference between what you claimed and what actually happened.

Well. Since you cannot prove your claims, but I can actually prove mine, could we agree that in face of the evidence, my claim seems more likely?

Well, there certainly _are_ some scientists who are corrupt and untrustworthy. I know several frauds who have been found out recently, it's a shame. I also think that the scientific community could do better in protecting itself against such frauds. And I am pretty concerned over the way how profit-based corporation have taken over the funding of studies that are critical for health policies. I do see a threat for scientific integrity here.

However, all things considered, I actually don't see any _more_ trustworthy global community than the scientific community. The standards for having one's research results accepted are pretty high. A proper experiment requires a thoughtful design that needs to eliminate as many "noise" factors from the data as possible - this is a difficult process which, unfortunately, is a bit hard to explain to people who don't have much contact to scientists; sometimes I think it might help if people knew how much effort goes into (and HAS to go into) a study's design, to assure that its results are objective, valid, and reliable. If you have your results, and want them to get published, they get sent anonymously to several reviewers, who usually suggest improvements or raise concerns. Many studies never go beyond this step. Those that do usually get reworked and improved several times until they finally meet the quality standards. It's a pretty good system that is hard to corrupt (for example, if you wanted to bribe your reviewers, you wouldn't even know whom to bribe). I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm certainly not saying that it couldn't be improved, but it does a decent job. Unfortunately, most non-scientists have actually no idea about the inner workings of the scientific community, so generalized accusations like "all scientists are corrupt" find much more adherents than they should.

However, if you don't trust the scientific community, then my question is: Whom _do_ you trust, and why do you trust them more than scientists?

The press, which often bases its business on sensationalism, exaggeration, and misquotes?
Single free journalists, who make their money by publishing alarmist books about alleged conspiracies?
Politicians who lose their jobs if they don't win the next election?
Anecdotal evidence that can easily be faked, and has no reliability at all?

Seriously, of all global communities I know, the scientific community appears to be the most trustworthy. It's certainly the one that embraces discourse, criticism, and skepticism the most, and it has shown continuously that it can revert old positions if new evidence speaks against it. All these are good signs with regard to trustworthiness, and many of those are not present in other communities.

These are valid concerns. I won't call you a nut for being careful with regard to GMOs - as I said in previous posts, I don't think that the current method of testing and controlling them is sufficient. And by only eating non-GMO food (for example), you're certainly not doing anything wrong.

It's a bit different in other areas you touched - for example, refusing to vaccinate a kid out of fear of "mercury-induced autism" _would_ be wrong, it would mean that you put your kid at a very real risk to contract very damaging diseases only to protect it from an imaginary fear that has no real basis.

I also do think that the claims you have made here are disproven conspiracy theories, and that your failure to provide evidence should give you reason to question them yourself. I certainly think that it would be good if you applied more care and skepticism as to whom you trust.


I don't consider this argument a waste of time. :) During our discussion, I have learned a couple more things about areas I'm interested in; perhaps you have done so as well, I would certainly hope so. I also enjoyed that we could have this discussion without resorting to name-calling or insults.

I question the value of your last argument as well, however. It's an argument with which you could justify any madness - let's say I believe that all yellow wax candles are part of an evil hive mind that will eradicate humanity by emitting untraceable substances that are lethal over time. I can't really prove it, but I'm convinced that it's true, there's a journalist who made a documentary about it and a community of sane people who believe him. Science couldn't find anything wrong with yellow wax candles, but that's because scientists are corrupt and untrustworthy, they have used too many candles in their labs, and have been bribed by the candle industry, which has been overtaken by the hive mind long ago. I probably can't convince you that I'm right because I frankly have no conclusive evidence at all, but consider that: If I'm wrong, then I only wasted five minutes typing that paragraph. However, if I'm right ... use your imagination. ;)