MovieChat Forums > CarrotTopGun > Replies
CarrotTopGun's Replies
Bill Nye, Neil Degrauss Tyson, Michael Schermer, and the other skeptics will tell you that has nothing to do with GMO and the science itself. That's a political problem.
If GMO is no different than conventional, then how can it have patent protection? It can't be the same such that it doesn't have to be labeled, yet different such that it can't be cultivated. FDA can't have it both ways, so you know they're lying.
Scientists will tell you there's "a mountain of evidence" that GMOs are safe. But even according to Monsanto right on their own website, there is not one single scientific study on the effects of GMO consumption.
What they don't tell you is why. It's two reasons. One, it's actually illegal because of intellectual property laws. Two, no scientific organization would do it anyway because they consider it "bio-unethical". You won't believe why. Get this. You can't test something on people that is hypothesized to be bad for them, like you can't give someone lead and study how many brain cells it kills or something. We estimate that from rats. So instead, scientists consider it perfectly bio-ethical to feed GMOs to the entire population unknowingly in a giant uncontrolled experiment.
Here's why GMOs are likely to be bad for you. The "modification" we're talking about allows the crops to stand up to more pesticide spraying. Over the years, America has already loosened its laws on allowable limits for contamination. Now we get to have even more as a benefit of GMO. Pesticides are estrogenic. They promote obesity and other endocrine disorders. That could explain something. Thanks scientists!
That's Canada and Mexico. Illegal in America.
Who's going to pay for that? Why would you want to redirect funding away from something with more direct benefits to the population? Why not at least research prevention instead of treatment? Does xenoestrogenic pollution contribute to transgenderism? Maybe we should outlaw birth control pills, which pollute our public waterways.
Other than circumcision which they claim prevents AIDS, none of that stuff is covered by health insurance.
I could sit on a rock therefore there's no such thing as chairs.
If it's not a mental disorder, then health insurance can't cover it. Health insurance doesn't cover cosmetic stuff. They won't even cover laser eye surgery. Sex change is very expensive. Do you want to pay for it?
AOC wants to put people in camps and shake hands with dictators? Sounds more like Trump.
Is that the one who went on Infowars and talked about the globalists and fluoride?
That "trash" is whole grains, the same stuff they want you to eat.
[url]https://kfiam640.iheart.com/content/2019-04-23-nyc-to-ban-hot-dogs-and-processed-meats-to-improve-climate/[/url]
[quote]Mayor Bill de Blasio approved an ambitious $14 billion Green New Deal on Monday, April 22, to combat climate change. The plan will cut purchases of red meat by 50 percent in its city-controlled facilities such as hospitals, schools, and correctional facilities. The new commitment builds off of the Meatless Mondays campaign that was adopted by all NYC schools in 2017.
“It is a difficult plan. It is a necessary plan.... Estimates that tell us that we have only 12 years to get it right. Let’s be clear, we have until 2030 to change things fundamentally, or our lives won’t be the same,” de Blasio said at an Earth Day event yesterday.
By 2030, New York City's Green New Deal will reduce greenhouse emissions by 30% while also creating new jobs.[/quote]
We went to war in Iraq because of Israel. It was your fault. You cause all of our wars.
The worst global warming projections are based on zero-emissions scenarios. Emissions aren't anywhere near zero and are still increasing. The only country that has even slowed their rate of growth is America. In fact the only real change has been that CFCs were banned. That was supposed to increase warming even more. Back when they were still around, they were the excuse for why the models were always wrong. The were said to be "masking the warming".
I believe in global warming and you make our side look bad. You can't come into a thread and spout ignorance so arrogantly like this. It's how deniers beat us and how we fail to convince anyone. They know more than you do. Just admit it and stay out of it.
Basketball players make too much money. I hope they all lose.
That's not true. The mercury is still in the vaccines, particularly the worst one, the yearly flu vaccine. Funny thing about that is they used to tell pregnant women to avoid it. Now they tell pregnant women they're most in need of it. It flipped in early 2000s based on some bogus study about the flu causing schizophrenia, but it's actually the immune reaction to the flu, which the vaccine makes a certainty.
They did something similar with fluoride. They put it in tap water to make it unavoidable, and because fluorosis was such an epidemic visibly affecting nearly everyone raised on it, CDC had to admit it and make concessions. They say, quietly, that infants are supposed to avoid all sources of fluoride. Well first of all, how are they supposed to bathe, even if they can afford bottled water? But second, lots of bottled water specifically marketed for infants has extra fluoride added to it. CDC says nothing.
They also quietly reduced the level at which water is "optimally fluoridated". You see, fluoride doesn't have a Recommended Daily Allowance like every vitamin and mineral does. It has an LD40, a lethal dosing. Supposedly .7mg/liter is "optimal" even though it totally disregards the fact that that means different people are ingesting very different amounts all of which are optimal for each individually? Supposedly .7mg/liter is just right and anything even a little bit over would be too much. The previous level, also said to be "optimal" at the time, was just slightly higher at 1.4, and questioning it was tantamount to questioning 6 million in the holocaust. It proved to be very wrong. How did they come up with these numbers? Think about what kind of studies these scientists would have had to do to find out so precisely. It never happened.
If only we were all forced to get our information from approved sources...
The internet is the reason information from all sources is as trustworthy as it is. There's competition. You can't say anything on the internet without being scrutinized. Try that in a scientific journal. You get fired.
Benefits versus risk? The benefit is the risk, of catching a virus. What about the loss? The toxic burden is a certainty. You're just repeating something you heard somewhere.
Are we also better at diagnosing asthma and every other skyrocketing autoimmune disease?
That difference doesn't hinge on how many credentials you have either. That's what science is for, so we don't have to trust you. Quit pretending like you know something, or you would have just explained it yourself.
Do you believe in the food pyramid and male infant circumcision as well? Literally everything you've said in this thread is an appeal to authority, and the problem with that is you don't get to pick and choose.