Aug 28 2014

Bt and Leukemia – Another Anti-GMO Myth

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Bt and Leukemia – Another Anti-GMO Myth”.

Share

25 responses so far

25 Responses to “Bt and Leukemia – Another Anti-GMO Myth”

  1. Bronze Dogon 28 Aug 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Other problems include a small sample size, lack of proper dose-response curve, and the fact that the mice were fed doses orders of magnitude greater than potential human exposure.

    It’s a textbook health scare tactic: Take a study where they fed rats an enormous amount of some chemical that humans only encounter in trace amounts and pretend that they’re equivalent. Because of this, I’ve often said that if someone tells you something is toxic without mentioning the dose, they are trying to deceive you.

  2. Mukiwaon 28 Aug 2014 at 3:38 pm

    I have just recently been learning about the terrible effects of dihydrogen monoxide. Governments should definitely ban this, after all you only have to consume several litres in one go before your kidneys malfunction!

    http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

  3. David Haddadon 28 Aug 2014 at 6:08 pm

    “In the case of anti-GMO opinions, I have found that overwhelmingly those who are anti-GMO cite the same or a very similar list of standard claims, most of which are myths or misinformation.”

    Reading any anti-GMO site is like reading a list of evolution denying talking points. I’ve recently seen a meme making it’s way around Facebook with the top 10 reasons not to use GMO. 10 out of 10 blatant lies. This list from Jeffery Smith is typical, one distortion after another.

    http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

  4. BillyJoe7on 29 Aug 2014 at 1:00 am

    http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

    Supported by Joe Mercola and Mike Adams!

  5. MaryMon 29 Aug 2014 at 12:08 pm

    Ah, right, Sayer Ji. Sayer is trying to get into the Mercola/Adams misinformation space. Orac has had a number of run-ins with his bad science on other fronts too. I have seen him regularly abuse other types of genomics data as well (I was howling laughing at his description of gluten protein and proteomics).

    He’s also running with this crowd, that’s trying to stalk Kevin Folta and Mark Lynas and other biotech speakers: http://www.donotlink.com/bebq They no longer name Kevin and Mark, but I have screen shots of their earlier text that named them specifically as people they were going to challenge at talks they give. We were wondering if that’s how that woman who had the first question at NECSS for Kevin found out about his appearance. I’ve been waiting for that video–is it up yet? Or can someone tell me who she was?

  6. The Sparrowon 30 Aug 2014 at 8:45 pm

    The Institute for Responsible Technology seems awfully focused on just anti-GMO “reporting” to justify their name…

  7. BBBlueon 30 Aug 2014 at 10:16 pm

    From the Biofortified article, which I think deserves highlighting:

    Finally, I will end with a note from Karl Haro von Mogel, who is currently looking a little deeper into this paper’s curious history: “There’s something going on here that matters to everyone who cares about the peer review process that we depend upon to sift reliable studies from specious claims. Paired with rapid amplification through political advocacy, the reputation of science is at risk of being hijacked to obscure the truth.”

  8. Mlemaon 01 Sep 2014 at 11:55 pm

    Dr. N – I owe you a debt of gratitude for this one. I will promptly remove this paper from my anti-gmo repertoire. ;)

    There was a positive control: cyclophosphamide.
    http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdf

    But the paper is an inappropriate support for anti-by GMOs expressing Cry toxins because it’s unclear exactly what they were feeding to the mice.. But does this paper suggest that these forms might be homologous? Hopefully, biofortified will answer for us.
    http://jb.asm.org/content/96/3/721.full.pdf

    Either way, I think it does illustrate further the caution that needs to be taken with the bt sprays – recommendations include: masks should be worn to avoid inhalation, skin protection and washing after use is also important.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566654/
    the sprays “may lead to allergic skin sensitisation and induction of IgE and IgG antibodies or both”

    The sort of research in the toxicology paper has an inapplicability to GMOs somewhat similar to the research which manufactures the Cry toxins in recombinant bacteria, and then tests it’s digestibility in test tubes, and then concludes that it’s safe to eat food full of these proteins – even though we don’t necessarily test the combos used or amounts ingested, how they’re actually expressed in the plant, or what effects they have on animals like humans.

    Consider the facts about these bacterial toxins talked about in this paper:
    Potential human health risks from Bt plants
    http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/healthrisksbtheinemann.pdf

    And then consider the sum total of appropriate feeding trials done on not just any old bt plant – but the one you’re going to be eating as whole food on your dinner plate – and and then tell me why I should feel confident eating bt/rr sweet corn. Really. Tell me. Because I’m ready to be convinced. And the attempts people have made by explaining the theory as to why they shouldn’t be harmful, without actually providing any evidence that the concerns and indications raised by the science are irrelevant, are unconvincing. ANd the fact that I can’t find any evaluation at all of the actual food that we’re now supposed to be confident about eating is ridiculous.

    I’ve gathered all the feeding trials I can find on bt crops. There aren’t as many on stacked traits. But I will try to post these here over the next week or so, and I’ll ask anyone who can find any that I haven’t to add to the list. We’ll then have a pretty good idea exactly where we stand on the evaluation of safety for human consumption.

  9. Steven Novellaon 02 Sep 2014 at 11:08 am

    Mlema – here is a good review with a listing of studies: http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31

    Highlights – Bt has no homology to known allergens or toxins in the protein database. Mice exposure studies show it is safe. Long term studies have not been required because the protein is digested and does not survive long.

    In fact, Bt crops tend to have fewer mycotoxins (actual toxins from fungal contaminants that ride along with the insects) and so may be less toxic than their non-Bt counterparts.

  10. Mlemaon 02 Sep 2014 at 10:07 pm

    Doc, Sadly I remain unconvinced of the safety of bt sweet corn or eggplant. (but you knew that was gonna happen, right? :)
    I appreciate your reply. I’ve read all of the papers except the 1995 review of toxicity of bt pesticides.
    I was already familiar with all those dated after 2000. The review is superficial and doesn’t address the concerns raised by Heinemann. It’s an overview of the technology and a bit of explanation about safety regulations/assessments – like how we test the proteins as purified from recombinant bacteria and don’t necessarily do feeding trials.
    http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/are_bt_crops_safe.pdf

    The last bit of the review is probably the only significant part to human consumption. I think the final question there is: was the EFSA justified in dismissing the findings of 2 independent scientists who re-evaluated the raw data from Monsanto’s feeding trial on MON863. Why would that be important?

    Well, let’s see what the review says in its last two paragraphs, and then let’s see what the studies referenced in those 2 paragraphs say (references 18-24)

    “In 2002, APHIS announced the deregulation of a corn variety, Mon863, with increased rootworm (Diabrotica spp.) resistance. Food safety assessments by the company used 90- day mouse feeding trials to demonstrate safety (18); independent assessments also demonstrated the safety of Mon 863 (19, 20, 21). Mon 863 contains a variant Cry3Bb1 with seven amino acid differences from wild-type Cry3Bb1 to enhance plant expression and insecticidal activity against corn rootworm (22)….A 2007 paper (23) contained a statistical reanalysis of the original data that was different from the earlier risk assessment analyses, which caused the authors to conclude that “with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.” After the 2007 peer-reviewed publication, the European Commission requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to determine what impact the reanalysis had on their earlier decision. The EFSA concluded that the reanalysis did not raise new safety concerns (24).”

    So:
    Monsanto did a 90 day mouse feeding trial for MON863. (the review didn’t provide that reference, which is confusing because they footnoted another paper as if it were that one – footnote #18, which is a reference to info on Starlink corn , so the footnotes are messed up and missing a reference to this study – but – here is the Monsanto study:
    http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Hammond2006-Corn-Rootworm.pdf

  11. Mlemaon 02 Sep 2014 at 10:08 pm

    The review says there were also independent feeding studies, but the three studies referenced all include at least 2 Monsanto authors, and the last one has 7 Monsanto out of 8 authors. So none of the studies were really independent. But maybe more importantly, they don’t seem too relevant to human safety. The first was to learn whether MON863 effected the efficiency of milk production in cows fed stacked MON863/nk603. (19)
    http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1724&context=animalscifacpub
    I suppose if milk production were decreased it might have been an indicator that it might be good to do more studies. The second was on “growing-finishing pigs” – and was simply a weight/carcass evaluation. (20)
    http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/83/7/1581.long
    The third was on chickens. (21) on “feed conversion” (how much did they eat and how much did they weight)
    http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/83/7/1581.long
    So why does the reviewer say that there were 3 independent safety assessments? All these evaluations were done by Monsanto and only one was relatable to human safety: the 90 day mice feeding trial.

  12. Mlemaon 02 Sep 2014 at 10:17 pm

    Apparently, it attempting to commercialize MON863 in Europe, some European countries raised questions about safety. There was legal tousling and Monsanto was forced to release its raw data. Our friend Seralini got hold of the raw data and did a re-analysis. (23)
    http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/seralini.new_.an_.2007.pdf
    He said there were all kinds of things wrong with the study, and indicators of possible toxicity that needed to be followed up: differences in hematology, blood chemistry, and lesions in kidney and liver, etc.
    Debate ensued. Then the European Commission told the EFSA to check it out. (24) and the EFSA said the Monsanto study’s OK..
    http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/19r.pdf
    Then Germany commissioned Pusztai to evaluate Monsanto’s original study. He said it sucked.
    http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service219.htm
    And then Monsanto apparently tried to use some data from another study to serve as comparison in order to show that there were no problems with the first study (item #2 at the bottom of that same link)

    ANYWAY – that was a good place to start. Maybe end too. I wouldn’t have included the studies on chickens or cows, or pigs in my own list, and I wasn’t planning to discuss the MON863 affair, but I think this little exercise illustrates how something that seems very simple and straightforward may not be after all. But in the end MON863 was mostly meant for animal feed and non-protein extracts for processed foods. So this review says very little about the safety of eating RR/bt sweet corn at the summer barbecue. There are several varieties available according to the Monsanto website. I’m sure Monsanto was careful – since this is the real deal. But this isn’t Europe. And I don’t think most people in the US realize that they’re finally going to be eating a real GMO, although one activist group checked grocery stores and found there wasn’t much floating around. I remember hearing Walmart was going to sell it when it came out a couple of years ago.

    But, as a result of learning about these matters I’ve located a local source for non-GMO sweet corn. Because how are you going to gross the kids out if they can’t find a worm or two when they husk the corn? :)

    There are more feeding studies on bt food crops. I’m starting to feel like there are a lot. But when you start looking at the parameters, events, etc and the mixed results and who’s done the studies compared to what kind of results, you realize there are only a handful and about half of them are questionable (I would say)

    And yes, I’m familiar with the reduction in mycotoxins. Of course that is a benefit of engineering these crops. But it’s not what the average person is really wondering about when they question the safety of GMO food. In an ideal world, it might be. But we’re not there yet.

    But where are the mice studies? There were two referenced in the review but the first one was on the bt pesticides and the second was the Monsanto. But, there are others – perhaps I will link to them if I get motivated. I also saw at least one animal study where the protein wasn’t digested, and one where it was. Typically that sort of testing is done in the lab with enzymes (the ideal gut – which few Americans have) oh well. If you’re interested in me linking to all the rat/mouse feeding studies on bt gmos, let me know. It sounds like it would be ridiculously long, but it wouldn’t be.

  13. grabulaon 02 Sep 2014 at 10:38 pm

    so let’s see:

    Dr.Novella says: “Highlights – Bt has no homology to known allergens or toxins in the protein database. Mice exposure studies show it is safe. Long term studies have not been required because the protein is digested and does not survive long”

    …because we understand biology, Mlema retorts with:

    “Sadly I remain unconvinced of the safety of bt sweet corn or eggplant”

    Because science is hard to understand. and this is a classic:
    “Apparently, it attempting to commercialize MON863 in Europe, some European countries raised questions about safety.”

    Because countries never express concerns or ban foods out of hand!

    “But, as a result of learning about these matters I’ve located a local source for non-GMO sweet corn.”

    But I’m still open minded!

    same ole same ole

  14. jsterritton 03 Sep 2014 at 12:20 am

    What is with you, Mlema? This is a blog post about (yet another) GMO myth and you’re here proselytizing about feeding studies and coaxing ever more attention to yourself and your strange, “personal journey” (i.e., a great big circle; or in your case the shortest distance between the same point: standing completely still). It’s been weeks and weeks — across all kinds of topics — and you’re still laboring the point with your special pleading and special needs. You have taken trolling to a whole new level.

    I’d say nobody cares about you and your corn and your damnable smiley faces, but clearly I do — you are an insufferable boor!

  15. Bronze Dogon 03 Sep 2014 at 9:16 am

    “Apparently, it attempting to commercialize MON863 in Europe, some European countries raised questions about safety.”

    I’ve seen convenient shifts towards authoritarianism like this before. Whenever a government agrees with a woo, the woo often pounces on it and sets up an enthymeme that said government is infallible and incorruptible. Politicians, judges, and other government officials suddenly become god-men who know better than mere peasant scientists. This also makes cherrypicking convenient since one can often find governments on all sides of an issue.

    I’ve seen it with health scares where the fact that a country banned a chemical is substituted for evidence that the chemical is harmful at the typical exposure level. I’ve seen people use the US and Soviet parapsychology research as “evidence” that there must be something to psychic powers because no one would ever waste tax dollars on something unless it was promising. Same thing with the USAF researching teleportation.

    Rational people know that governments are prone to bad decisions that are often based on ideology, greed, vanity, and/or getting politicians reelected, rather than on what’s best for its citizens.

  16. Sylakon 03 Sep 2014 at 9:57 pm

    I thought Anti-gmo people loved BT? it is considered a natural pesticide, Am i wrong? Lot of pro-organic person think Bt is good, and organic farmer can use it.

    They are never happy. Funny how those activists don’t go help the farmer kill the bugs with their hands, or in Jeffrey Smith cases, scare them with yogic flying.

  17. jsterritton 04 Sep 2014 at 4:40 pm

    @Bronze Dog

    Mlema wrote: “Apparently, [in] attempting to commercialize MON863 in Europe, some European countries raised questions about safety.”

    Bronze Dog replied: “I’ve seen convenient shifts towards authoritarianism like this before. … Politicians, judges, and other government officials suddenly become god-men who know better than mere peasant scientists. This also makes cherrypicking convenient since one can often find governments on all sides of an issue.”

    This is an excellent point about fallacious reasoning. The “What They Do In Europe” fallacy is a fine example of lazy thinking caused by ideologically-informed motivated reasoning. I love Bronze Dog’s characterization of public servants suddenly transforming from incompetent dunderheads (if not criminal co-conspirators) to infallible fonts of wisdom and truth — exemplars of perfect thinking on the subject at hand, because that thinking corresponds exactly with the cherry-picking motivated reasoner’s. The absurdity ratchets up a notch when appeals to authority and from popularity come in the form of “What They Do In China” (or Zambia or Zimbabwe — as we’ve seen in these pages). The irony is palpable and almost blinding in its stupidity, yet cannot be seen by the true believer who believes they’ve just nailed a slam dunk.

    It reminds me how here in the US, legislators are elevated above all of science if they merely take the temperature of the room and make a bandwagon appeal to those who “science” has left in the dust (even the Romney campaign used quackery to court niche voters in VA — i.e., “chronic Lyme disease” conspiracy theorists). As I write this I am in Hawaii, where political careers are won and lost on who panders best to the anti-GMO (vocal) minority and pro-GMO (quieter) majority of farmers. You don’t want to piss off a Hollywood movie star-cum absentee boutique farmer with “science.” The rule of thumb here is zero-tolerance for any GMOs except past ones that get grandfathered in, current ones (same), and future ones for which exceptions will be made. Hear that? No GMOs! Except all GMOs! Eventually! That’s one catchy slogan…and some serious politicking.

  18. Bronze Dogon 05 Sep 2014 at 8:14 am

    Nice to have a comment of mine appreciated.

    I like that you also made an implication of mine explicit: The opposite depiction of politicians as universally incompetent and/or corrupt. I’ve read about the Orwellian term, “blackwhite” where someone is willing to say and believe black is white to toe the party line and not acknowledge that they previously believed the opposite.

  19. Raidenon 09 Sep 2014 at 9:59 am

    I’m firmly against GMOs as they are now – owned by evil corporations who want to control the food supply in order to make a profit.

    Even if they are safe to eat, we know the corporations selling them would lobby for less and less testing to be done before the product is released. They would eventually become unsafe.

    We have seen that GMOs don’t increase yields (US corn yields are no higher than Europe), and instead are designed to make huge corporate profits from patented monoculture and proprietary pesticides.

    The blurb that they will cure world hunger is just marketing. Marketing that seemingly gets swallowed whole by many people.

    “I caused half a million babies to be born mutated in Vietnam. Now, I’m going to cure starvation. But first, you’ve got to give me control of the world’s food supply.”

    Only a fool would trust the benevolence of these people.

  20. Steven Novellaon 09 Sep 2014 at 11:54 am

    Raiden – how do you know that seed companies are “evil” or that they want to control the world’s food supply?

    All industries lobby for less regulation of their industry. Voters need to pressure their representatives to maintain effective regulation. You could make the same point about cars – so why do you drive?

    Regarding yields, you can’t talk of “gmo” as a whole. You have to consider each variety. Most of the GM varieties in fields in the US today are not meant to increase yields, but to reduce loss in bad years. They are generally successful, reducing loss, reducing risk, and therefore are financially beneficial to farmers: http://www.news.wisc.edu/21505

    I don’t think anyone here claimed that GMO will cure world hunger. GM is one technology. It has the potential to be a useful technology in our struggle to grow enough food to feed a growing population while reducing our environmental footprint. Some GMOs in the pipeline are very exciting, like boosting photosynthesis and reducing the need for nitrogen fertilizer. I don’t see why we should tie one hand behind out back.

    The agent orange gambit is lame. It is a complete non-sequitur.

    And finally, no one is saying we should abjectly trust any large corporation. We need oversight and regulation.

    Your position seems to be – they are evil and can’t be regulated, so trash the whole technology. Not a very compelling position.

  21. jsterritton 09 Sep 2014 at 8:40 pm

    @Raiden

    “Even if they are safe to eat, we know the corporations selling them would lobby for less and less testing to be done before the product is released. They would eventually become unsafe.”

    You are begging the question (“even if they are safe to eat”). There is overwhelming independent science on this topic; there is no “if.” We understand chemistry, biology, toxicology, and physics and we understand the risk:benefit of GMOs. If there’s one thing that we know very well, it’s farming, which is perhaps the oldest continuing codified practice there is (that is, it’s a little bit like science).

    To insist that GMOs will somehow become unsafe, because they are developed by for-profit companies is absurd, if only because it hangs all the sh!tty tradeoffs and pitfalls of capitalism on this one product. I will take this opportunity to point out that this particular product is a “B2B” (business to business) one: the GMOs developed by for-profit companies are being sold to canny and knowledgeable customers (farmers), not being pawned off on the “masses” of “unsuspecting fools” as grand conspiracy canards usually have it.

    As for testing, no one is arguing for less of it. That is not to say that testing should be unduly onerous or that standards should be unnecessarily demanding or unmeetable (e.g., precautionary principle or Mlema’s personal and fear- and ignorance-based criteria). As Dr Novella explains, industry will always lobby for their interests. I would worry more about the very real corporate abuses that have been shown to be far reaching and deleterious to our welfare than about purely speculative ones that have good science in their corner.

    Your straw man arguments about yields, Agent Orange, and curing world hunger suggest that you might be somewhat new to the learning process of having opinions on GMOs. Dr Novella explained yields to you above, the Agent Orange trope is just embarrassing — basically a reductio ad Hitlerum — and the curing world hunger claim is one nobody is making. It might interest you to know that the GM crops that are being considered to address hunger and malnourishment (e.g., Bt brinjal and Golden Rice) were developed by partnerships between public-sector institutions and leading universities — not by for-profit companies. These technologies are made available free-of-charge for humanitarian purposes.

    You are making a fundamental mistake by conflating business practices and food safety. Safety will never be determined by business practices, no matter how nefarious. Safety can only be determined scientifically and no amount of fallacious reasoning will change that.

  22. grabulaon 09 Sep 2014 at 9:06 pm

    @Raiden

    There’s a lot of silly stuff in your post.

    “owned by evil corporations who want to control the food supply in order to make a profit. ”
    On what basis are you accusing them of being ‘evil’? They certainly what to have some control over the market – all business do, but this is not inherently evil, neither is making a profit. Anti-GMO types tend to equate business practices with evil and/or have a hard time disassociating their hatred of business with useful technology, this is a huge and ignorant mistake.

    “Even if they are safe to eat, we know the corporations selling them would lobby for less and less testing to be done before the product is released. They would eventually become unsafe. ”

    Again, what’s your evidence for these claims. Certainly companies prefer less regulation but that’s why we need to stay vigilant. Keep in mind as well with controversial products like GMO it’s often in a companies best interests to work with the system to make people feel comfortable. Quite a few GMO’s are fed through the FDA’s voluntary evaluation system. This also feeds into that ridiculously paranoid idea that companies will sacrifice consumers to make a buck. I’m not saying corporations, haven’t or won’t do despicable things from time to time for the almighty dollar but in general they have to be able to maintain a consumer base that’s happy to come back for their product – should a product be shown to be unsafe then generally speaking that’s bad for business.

    “We have seen that GMOs don’t increase yields”
    Which GMO’s? Does this imply you don’t understand that the technology will progress? One of the main goals of GMO is to increase crop yields, your assumption this won’t happen is premature.

    “The blurb that they will cure world hunger is just marketing”

    Ah an oldie but a goodie – no one’s claiming this will absolutely solve world hunger and it’s a strawman to make this claim. It will definitely help solve some hunger and nutritional problems, has, and in the future may prove to be even more effective. Denying the use of GMO as a source for relieving hunger and nutritional needs is like denying vaccinations are useful for preventing disease.
    “I caused half a million babies to be born mutated in Vietnam. Now, I’m going to cure starvation. But first, you’ve got to give me control of the world’s food supply.”

    Where’s the half million babies mutated from GMO in Vietnam? Who’s asking for control of the world’s food supply?

    “Only a fool would trust the benevolence of these people.”

    Only a fool would consider any of your arguments to have any validity. Fortunately for you, the world is full of them. You’re assumptions are bizarre – that companies can and will assume positions of control over products that will be detrimental to mankind – just consider what would happen if the doom and gloom you imply even began to rear it’s ugly head. Not to mention the fact that your assumption that those who are pro-GMO aren’t also interested in seeing ongoing testing and regulation. You anti-GMO idiots act like it’s the wild west out there and you’re just plain wrong.

    Dr. Novella said: “Your position seems to be – they are evil and can’t be regulated, so trash the whole technology. Not a very compelling position.”

    This seems to be a common thread amongst anti-GMO types. The evil of corporations is enough to deny the technology has any use what so ever. The same people who turned to homeopathy and other magical woo because ‘Big Medicine’

  23. grabulaon 09 Sep 2014 at 9:06 pm

    @jsterritt

    “You are making a fundamental mistake by conflating business practices and food safety”

    Either the dogma is just that strong with this crowd or this is an alter ego of mlema.

  24. jsterritton 09 Sep 2014 at 11:29 pm

    @grabula

    “You anti-GMO idiots act like it’s the wild west out there and you’re just plain wrong.”

    I really like your observation re “the wild west.” It’s amusing how anti-GMOers, who have done so little — in terms of research, education, and critical thinking — ride into this complex, yet well-understood area of inquiry as if no civilizing influence had ever been brought to bear upon it. It’s cute. That said, I think you are being unduly hard on Raiden, who seems like something of a naif (or newbie) and might be genuinely interested in having a discussion and learning about the topic. I don’t recall coming across Raiden’s moniker before and am inclined to give her/him the benefit of the doubt. Needless to say, we have all been pushed to the breaking point by other commenters here, not to mention the same zombie clichés, tropes, gambits, and fallacies ad infinitum.

    @Raiden

    I don’t take kindly to being called a “fool” — no matter how roundabout or passive-aggressively you do it. I don’t think anybody “trusts the benevolence” of for-profit companies (or dogmatists for that matter). So I don’t think you’ve outfoxed anyone there. I do trust in well-supported and well-informed expert analysis and scientific consensus. I also hold my own considered understanding — especially on the matter at hand — head-and-shoulders above the tired false choices and fear-mongering of random dummies on the internet.*

    *Said the random dummy on the internet.

  25. grabulaon 10 Sep 2014 at 4:38 am

    @jsterritt

    Raiden’s been around, he’s an amateur mlema, only pokes his head in occasionally. Regardless his talk doesn’t indicate anything more than another dogmatic drone pushing the corporate evil claims. I’m certainly a little burnt on these guys and their science denial but I’ve never had a lot of patience with them anyway. If he struck me as a new guy wandering in and honestly looking to have an actual conversation I’d certainly put on the kid gloves but mark my words, this is going the same direction we’re used to. I mean, he’s practically apoplectic in his post lol.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.