Boycott the poison

#151 Edited by l34052 (3216 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
...Where is the proof that has shown direct correlation to health problems? Because all that's been proven is that GMO foods have increased crop yields and saved lives.

Its too early say absolutely either way, however i do think its prudent to be aware of potential problems rather than simply wash them away while you concentrate on what the powers that be parrot fed you about crop yields etc etc.

#152 Posted by foxhound_fox (88776 posts) -

@l34052: You know they bananas are a GMO right? And so is everything that humans have selectively bred since the dawn of agriculture? It isn't the government telling us GMO are safe, it's scientists who work in these fields to SAVE LIVES from starvation.

It truly amazes me how someone can even think a GMO isn't safe because it's "not natural". Well, welcome to the world of agriculture. Almost everything we grow has been modified in some way over the millennia. Even something as basic as wheat and rice. GMO is nothing new, it's just become a lot nor complicated over the last several decades, which makes it harder for people to understand.

#153 Posted by bforrester420 (1662 posts) -

Genetically Modified agriculture is going to ensure that the planet is fed.

#154 Posted by lostrib (37774 posts) -
@seahorse123 said:

The Department of Paediatric Oncology at Manchester University studies in a news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1715741.stm

can you stop posting decades old news articles

#155 Posted by lostrib (37774 posts) -

@l34052 said:

@foxhound_fox said:
...Where is the proof that has shown direct correlation to health problems? Because all that's been proven is that GMO foods have increased crop yields and saved lives.

Its too early say absolutely either way, however i do think its prudent to be aware of potential problems rather than simply wash them away while you concentrate on what the powers that be parrot fed you about crop yields etc etc.

Genetically modified organisms have been around since the 70's and commercial GMO crops have been approved since the 90's

#156 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

@thegerg: Where is the source of this information?

#157 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

@bforrester420: Fed with poison by Monsanto criminals.

#158 Posted by thegerg (15462 posts) -

@seahorse123: What information?

#159 Edited by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

"Advanced paternal age combined with maternal age significantly influences the incidence of Down syndrome." "Children with Down syndrome have a tenfold to twentyfold increased risk of leukemia compared with children without Down syndrome."

#160 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (631 posts) -

@seahorse123: as a guy who's lifted bodybuild style for a decade, i laugh at popmedia and the fools who listen.

#161 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

@udubdawgz1: We need to awaken these fools to the real world, and yes they will laugh at you at the start because they are scared of the big bad world. There will be some people like thegerg who can't be reasoned with and they should be just left to it.

#162 Posted by The-Apostle (12190 posts) -

I haven't and never will. >_>

#163 Posted by thegerg (15462 posts) -

@seahorse123: Follw the links. Are you new to the Internet?

#164 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

Sorry I was on my phone, somehow it did not show the text highlighted. This is down syndrome linked to cancer by parental age, not an increased risk in cancer on its own, I did not ask why do down syndrome children get cancer more and more? I said why are children healthy children getting cancer more and more? Instead I get information that is about down syndrome leaves children more likely to get cancer and parents are having children later which makes their chances of getting down syndrome more likely. Not all children who get cancer have down syndrome.

#165 Posted by thegerg (15462 posts) -

@seahorse123: Older mothers are more likely to give birth to children who are more likely to develop certain childhood cancers. That's a fact. It may not be exactly the answer you want, but it's the answer to your question.

#166 Edited by InEMplease (6343 posts) -

Whatever's in me, I'm sure this alcohol will kill it.

*downs beer*

Pinkies up, gentlemen.

#167 Edited by teske4444 (58 posts) -

There's no way he's not trolling. In my opinion, only lunatics actually believe the few articles/studies that show slight contradiction to the vast amount of data collected showing they are safe.

#168 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@teske4444 said:

There's no way he's not trolling. In my opinion, only lunatics actually believe the few articles/studies that show slight contradiction to the vast amount of data collected showing they are safe.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gmos%20linked%20to

#169 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1638 posts) -

Why are people trying to say selectively bred organisms are GMOs?

#170 Edited by hoosier7 (3846 posts) -

@l34052 said:

@foxhound_fox said:
...Where is the proof that has shown direct correlation to health problems? Because all that's been proven is that GMO foods have increased crop yields and saved lives.

Its too early say absolutely either way, however i do think its prudent to be aware of potential problems rather than simply wash them away while you concentrate on what the powers that be parrot fed you about crop yields etc etc.

Personally i'd pay more attention to the "potential" problems if it wasn't for the fact that the evidence for it largely comes for very questionable studies. Most of the apparent facts on GMOs are perpetuated online from articles that have been retracted years before. I don't know about you but i haven't boycotted TVs and electrical appliances because of weak studies saying they can harm you so i'm not going to do it with food.

If anything you should be pro-GMO as it can reduce pesticide use which has been strongly linked to a whole host of health problems and ecological damage.

However the companies like Monsanto are completely crooked, now there's a reason to boycott them.

@InEMplease said:

Whatever's in me, I'm sure this alcohol will kill it.

*downs beer*

Pinkies up, gentlemen.

Ironically genetic modification is used in brewing to give more productive strains of yeast yet no one seems to care then.

#171 Posted by PurpleLabel (302 posts) -

Seriously guys? This guy is either or a troll or a fucking lunatic. Want to improve gamespot? Ban people like this.

#172 Edited by teske4444 (58 posts) -
@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@teske4444 said:

There's no way he's not trolling. In my opinion, only lunatics actually believe the few articles/studies that show slight contradiction to the vast amount of data collected showing they are safe.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gmos%20linked%20to

I can link to google as well....

#173 Posted by teske4444 (58 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa: Also I should have worded my initial post better. I think it's crazy to preach about it in the manner he is, and he's going pretty extremist with the majority of his posts. There is potential they could be bad, but to throw the claims out like he is just makes him sound crazy. It's as if he has a secret study that proves without any doubt that GMO's will kill you within a year of eating them...

#174 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
@teske4444 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa: Also I should have worded my initial post better. I think it's crazy to preach about it in the manner he is, and he's going pretty extremist with the majority of his posts. There is potential they could be bad, but to throw the claims out like he is just makes him sound crazy. It's as if he has a secret study that proves without any doubt that GMO's will kill you within a year of eating them...

I agree, TC is acting extremely stupid with it.

#175 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@teske4444 said:
@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@teske4444 said:

There's no way he's not trolling. In my opinion, only lunatics actually believe the few articles/studies that show slight contradiction to the vast amount of data collected showing they are safe.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gmos%20linked%20to

I can link to google as well....

I found this in your link.

"The problem with concluding that GMOs are safe is that the argument for their safety rests solely on animal studies. These studies are offered as evidence that the debate over GMOs is over. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Animal studies have value in that if something demonstrates harm in animals, it will also likely cause harm in humans. Although some animal studies have found harm from a GMO diet, these hotly debated studies are not the point of this article. The point is, if an animal study does not find harm with a particular substance, it could still cause harm in humans. A good example of this is what's happened with artificial sweeteners. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved artificial sweeteners for use using animal toxicology studies. Once these sweeteners were added to the food supply -- and labeled as such -- scientists were able to do epidemiological studies (also called observational studies) in humans. Several of these studies found that artificial sweeteners are linked with negative health effects."

#176 Edited by sSubZerOo (43216 posts) -

@seahorse123 said:

The Department of Paediatric Oncology at Manchester University studies in a news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1715741.stm

So your line of thought is : Study finds increased rate of cancer... ?????... Must be GMO's! You do realize the radical changes we have had in the last 50 years is not just medicine (in being able to detect and properly diagnose cancer) but numerous changes including a aging population.. While having a steady increase in GMO's in every ones diet, our life expectancy is higher than it has ever been, if it is clearly "poison" we should be dropping dead left and right.. When we aren't, in fact the greatest health risk right now is obesity.. Meanwhile there is a crushing consensus of the Science community that has shown GMO's have no increased health risks over the alternative.. It has been studied so much in fact that if you doubt this, why the fvck are you in front of a computer? Because chances are the emissions given off by electronics and cell phones for instance have been studied far less in being "safe" as GMO crops currently.. Making you, a hypocrite.

#177 Edited by sSubZerOo (43216 posts) -
@jer_1 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

80% of our food is either genetically modified, uses genetically modified ingredients, or eat genetically modified food. You're going to be eating it in some form or other.

So I should just give up and chow down on GMO's? No thanks man, you can be my guest though I don't mind. It's everyone's right to eat what they wish.

First world problems right here.

#178 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3953 posts) -

GMOs are a good thing.

#179 Edited by rabakill (704 posts) -

@seahorse123 said:

Who else has stopped consuming GM foods, Soda's, foods with colours and flavourings, stopped consuming refined sugar and started drinking filtered water? Has anyone else boycotted the globalists poison?

I did, a few years ago. People ask me why I don't look like I'm aging.

If you don't think GMO's are bad for you the first step is to clean your system and get your pallet balanced so you can taste things properly. Then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste, sometimes it's not like that but it's rare. Spinach is the best example, organic spinach versus other stuff you get crisp dark green versus floppy, soggy light green spinach, doesn't take a genius to figure out which is healthier to eat.

#180 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7807 posts) -

You know, I've always despised the bat shit crazy right wingers who deny climate change/evolution, however these folks protesting against GMO foods, vaccines, and yammering on and on about the health benefits of organic food are starting to inch closer and closer for me.

There is nothing wrong with GMO food, there is nothing special about organic food, and if you don't vaccinate your children you're an idiot.

#181 Posted by lostrib (37774 posts) -

@rabakill said:

@seahorse123 said:

Who else has stopped consuming GM foods, Soda's, foods with colours and flavourings, stopped consuming refined sugar and started drinking filtered water? Has anyone else boycotted the globalists poison?

I did, a few years ago. People ask me why I don't look like I'm aging.

If you don't think GMO's are bad for you the first step is to clean your system and get your pallet balanced so you can taste things properly. Then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste, sometimes it's not like that but it's rare. Spinach is the best example, organic spinach versus other stuff you get crisp dark green versus floppy, soggy light green spinach, doesn't take a genius to figure out which is healthier to eat.

sounds like it's all in your head

#182 Edited by rabakill (704 posts) -
@lostrib said:

@rabakill said:

@seahorse123 said:

Who else has stopped consuming GM foods, Soda's, foods with colours and flavourings, stopped consuming refined sugar and started drinking filtered water? Has anyone else boycotted the globalists poison?

I did, a few years ago. People ask me why I don't look like I'm aging.

If you don't think GMO's are bad for you the first step is to clean your system and get your pallet balanced so you can taste things properly. Then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste, sometimes it's not like that but it's rare. Spinach is the best example, organic spinach versus other stuff you get crisp dark green versus floppy, soggy light green spinach, doesn't take a genius to figure out which is healthier to eat.

sounds like it's all in your head

now try your argument with an objective argument based on logic and not a rhetorical personal attack, I bet you can't

#183 Posted by lostrib (37774 posts) -

@rabakill said:
@lostrib said:

@rabakill said:

@seahorse123 said:

Who else has stopped consuming GM foods, Soda's, foods with colours and flavourings, stopped consuming refined sugar and started drinking filtered water? Has anyone else boycotted the globalists poison?

I did, a few years ago. People ask me why I don't look like I'm aging.

If you don't think GMO's are bad for you the first step is to clean your system and get your pallet balanced so you can taste things properly. Then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste, sometimes it's not like that but it's rare. Spinach is the best example, organic spinach versus other stuff you get crisp dark green versus floppy, soggy light green spinach, doesn't take a genius to figure out which is healthier to eat.

sounds like it's all in your head

now try your argument with an objective argument based on logic and not a rhetorical personal attack, I bet you can't

Um, I'm basing it on your statement, "then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste"

Sure, I guess I should have said that it's "quite possibly just in your head"

I mean seriously? you're claiming to be able to determine differences in nutritional value based on taste. Or that you can some how tell the difference between a GMO product and an organic product. Not to mention your final comparison: Just pick better spinach.

#184 Edited by Serraph105 (28161 posts) -

@seahorse123 said:

@foxhound_fox: Saved lives you must of been reading globalist propaganda. GM foods and the pesticides added to all crops kill bees. They have been proven by many real scientists that it leads to increases in many diseases which are already increasing at a ridiculous rates, but these findings have been suppressed by the globalist funded scientific institutions.

As far as I know they don't have a decent sense for why the bee population is currently in trouble. That being said I have never heard of GMO crops ever being brought up as a possible reason why until you said it in this thread.

I actually echo the sentiment that GMO's have been shown to increase crop yield and better feed the planet.

#185 Edited by rabakill (704 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@rabakill said:
@lostrib said:

@rabakill said:

@seahorse123 said:

Who else has stopped consuming GM foods, Soda's, foods with colours and flavourings, stopped consuming refined sugar and started drinking filtered water? Has anyone else boycotted the globalists poison?

I did, a few years ago. People ask me why I don't look like I'm aging.

If you don't think GMO's are bad for you the first step is to clean your system and get your pallet balanced so you can taste things properly. Then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste, sometimes it's not like that but it's rare. Spinach is the best example, organic spinach versus other stuff you get crisp dark green versus floppy, soggy light green spinach, doesn't take a genius to figure out which is healthier to eat.

sounds like it's all in your head

now try your argument with an objective argument based on logic and not a rhetorical personal attack, I bet you can't

Um, I'm basing it on your statement, "then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste"

Sure, I guess I should have said that it's "quite possibly just in your head"

I mean seriously? you're claiming to be able to determine differences in nutritional value based on taste. Or that you can some how tell the difference between a GMO product and an organic product. Not to mention your final comparison: Just pick better spinach.

yes you can notice a difference in nutrition from taste, showing ignorance shows a huge lack of knowledge on cooking and nutrition. A good chef will get his ingredients with the most nutrition as they are most often the most flavorful, I would know, I've worked in a dozen large restaurants and have experience working with professional chefs. Nutrition is directly proportional to taste in the large majority of foods. Most people have such imbalanced pallets they are unaware of the fact, such as yourself. A healthy person with a balanced pallet can taste nutrition in food.

#186 Edited by lostrib (37774 posts) -

@rabakill said:

@lostrib said:

@rabakill said:
@lostrib said:

@rabakill said:

@seahorse123 said:

Who else has stopped consuming GM foods, Soda's, foods with colours and flavourings, stopped consuming refined sugar and started drinking filtered water? Has anyone else boycotted the globalists poison?

I did, a few years ago. People ask me why I don't look like I'm aging.

If you don't think GMO's are bad for you the first step is to clean your system and get your pallet balanced so you can taste things properly. Then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste, sometimes it's not like that but it's rare. Spinach is the best example, organic spinach versus other stuff you get crisp dark green versus floppy, soggy light green spinach, doesn't take a genius to figure out which is healthier to eat.

sounds like it's all in your head

now try your argument with an objective argument based on logic and not a rhetorical personal attack, I bet you can't

Um, I'm basing it on your statement, "then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste"

Sure, I guess I should have said that it's "quite possibly just in your head"

I mean seriously? you're claiming to be able to determine differences in nutritional value based on taste. Or that you can some how tell the difference between a GMO product and an organic product. Not to mention your final comparison: Just pick better spinach.

yes you can notice a difference in nutrition from taste, showing ignorance shows a huge lack of knowledge on cooking and nutrition. A good chef will get his ingredients with the most nutrition as they are most often the most flavorful, I would know, I've worked in a dozen large restaurants and have experience working with professional chefs. Nutrition is directly proportional to taste in the large majority of foods. Most people have such imbalanced pallets they are unaware of the fact, such as yourself. A healthy person with a balanced pallet can taste nutrition in food.

Prove it

#187 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1638 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@rabakill said:

yes you can notice a difference in nutrition from taste, showing ignorance shows a huge lack of knowledge on cooking and nutrition. A good chef will get his ingredients with the most nutrition as they are most often the most flavorful, I would know, I've worked in a dozen large restaurants and have experience working with professional chefs. Nutrition is directly proportional to taste in the large majority of foods. Most people have such imbalanced pallets they are unaware of the fact, such as yourself. A healthy person with a balanced pallet can taste nutrition in food.

Prove it

Generally you hear about chefs talking about fresh foods when it comes to taste. I don't think I've ever heard someone talking about tasting the nutrition in their food.

What would that be like anyway? "Mmmm, I can sure taste those vitamins in this spinach vs. that spinach over there".

#188 Posted by rabakill (704 posts) -

@StrifeDelivery: generally raw foods have features of color, texture and ripeness that are indicative of its overall quality. The lettuce you get at subway is nearly white with very little green, is often soft and isn't fresh at all and as a result the taste is very mild. If you go into a garden and eat a leaf of lettuce and the taste will be drastically different because of the nutrient value, the distinct taste of the vegetable is it's nutritional quality. It's a self evident truth that anyone with an acute enough sensory system can detect. Most people don't know this because their digestive system is adapted to prefer less nutritious salty and cheesy food because of the enzymes and metabolic processes that change to suit a north american lifestyle.

#189 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@rabakill said:

@StrifeDelivery: generally raw foods have features of color, texture and ripeness that are indicative of its overall quality. The lettuce you get at subway is nearly white with very little green, is often soft and isn't fresh at all and as a result the taste is very mild. If you go into a garden and eat a leaf of lettuce and the taste will be drastically different because of the nutrient value, the distinct taste of the vegetable is it's nutritional quality. It's a self evident truth that anyone with an acute enough sensory system can detect. Most people don't know this because their digestive system is adapted to prefer less nutritious salty and cheesy food because of the enzymes and metabolic processes that change to suit a north american lifestyle.

I don't have that issue with the Subway I eat at. I would complain if that was what they tried to give me and would tell them to get a fresh batch of green lettuce or cancel my order (that they have already started making).

#190 Posted by SUD123456 (4488 posts) -

@rabakill said:

@StrifeDelivery: generally raw foods have features of color, texture and ripeness that are indicative of its overall quality. The lettuce you get at subway is nearly white with very little green, is often soft and isn't fresh at all and as a result the taste is very mild. If you go into a garden and eat a leaf of lettuce and the taste will be drastically different because of the nutrient value, the distinct taste of the vegetable is it's nutritional quality. It's a self evident truth that anyone with an acute enough sensory system can detect. Most people don't know this because their digestive system is adapted to prefer less nutritious salty and cheesy food because of the enzymes and metabolic processes that change to suit a north american lifestyle.

Well there is some truth to that, I think you are confusing multiple different concepts. For instance, If you cut out a lot of refined sugar and sugar substitutes form your diet then your palette will change and you will start to notice the natural sugar in many vegetables. That part I agree with. I also agree that fresh food often tastes better. And that food like fruits and vegetables retain more nutritional value if they are fresher. Pretty sure almost everyone would agree up to this point.

Where you confuse the point is conflating the foregoing with somehow being related to the difference in organic vs 'regular' store bought or vs GM equivalents. Part of the difference is in how fresh the product is which is not inherent to the style of farming. Organic is not better because it is organic, but it may be better if it is locally grown and therefore fresher compared to something that takes an extra 3 or 5 days to arrive in the grocery store. Another factor is soil conditions, such as acidity, which can effect taste, time to ripeness etc. All things being the same, such as soil and time to market, I don't believe you can differentiate.

In any case, you correctly point out the essential importance of enzymes which are produced by your pancreas to break down food which allows your body to access the nutrition. Think about that for a moment. Your body cannot access the nutrients without enzymes breaking the food down, which occurs far after your taste buds. I would suggest to you that this by definition means that you cannot taste all the nutritional value. What you can taste are things like natural sugars which are then broken down, but this is not the same as saying you can taste the nutritional value nor does it imply that you could differentiate organic from GM, all other things being equal as discussed above.

Finally, one of the aims and potential benefits of GM is to produce food strains that are more easily digestible. Of course, the result would be less stress on the body, particularly the pancreas, and better health. On a macro scale, it would also imply less food required to feed the same number of people.

#191 Edited by PurpleLabel (302 posts) -

Why are any of you still entertaining this guy? He's a troll or an absolute nut case. Watch out for the lizard people!

#192 Edited by Serraph105 (28161 posts) -

@StrifeDelivery:

Regardless of whether or not freshness equals more nutrients we need to figure out how to store food for even longer periods of time. Increasing crop yields may be one thing we can do to combat hunger, but currently we throw away around 50% of our food. We need to find ways to bring that number way down.

#193 Posted by sonicare (53485 posts) -

@seahorse123 said:

The globalists solution is for de-population using hard kill and soft kill methods. Many Bilderberg members have said the world needs to have an 80% population reduction.

These soft kill methods are scary. They take about 80-90 years to kill someone, but OMG nobody seems aware of it.

#194 Edited by RadecSupreme (4683 posts) -

@seahorse123: While I don't believe GMO food is entirely bad, it does seem to have it's issues such as lack of labeling which is because of total lobbying and market manipulation which is quite stupid. It should definitely be labeled just as organic food is labeled. The problem is there are plenty of risky chemicals in organic food. Such as carrageenan in dairy products such as organic chocolate milk. Carrageenan is considered a potentially cancerous chemical. Another problem is that the label of organic no longer applies to products that are completely devoid of harmful pesticides or genetic modification, but rather only partially which removes credibility from the label and creates an entirely new slippery slope. It's definitely a good thing to be aware of major government corruption in the so called "nonprofit regulation sectors" so you can at least not be completely gullible because at least a little bit of cynicism helps one be a lot more inquisitive.

However there are also certain things that shouldn't be automatically considered facts despite lack of evidence. Some foods seem to cause tumors on mice and other animals but we forget that animal anatomy is not the same as humans. For example, chocolate in quantity while harm a dog and even potentially kill it because of it's components and the damage it causes to the digestive system of the dog but it is perfectly safe for the most us humans to consume chocolate unless we are allergic to it.

#195 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

Why are any of you still entertaining this guy? He's a troll or an absolute nut case. Watch out for the lizard people!

You seem to be confused. We are talking to each other now, not to TC. TC and his extreme views have become irrelevant in this thread.

#196 Posted by kaealy (1467 posts) -

@seahorse123 said:

Quoted from this site

http://www.envirohealthpolicy.net/kidstest/Cancer%20Pages/IncreasingChildhoodCancer.htm

Childhood cancer-

In 1996, the National Cancer Institute reported that the frequency (incidence rate) for cancer of all types in children increased 10% between 1973 and 1991. This means that 10% more new cases of cancers per million children were found in 1991 than in 1973. During this period, brain cancer and soft tissue sarcoma each increased more than 25%

So, the increase can't be explained by advancement in that field of medicine? You know, like methods of finding the cancer in question or classification? I am sure that medical science made no progress between 1973 and 1991.

#197 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

Listen you can laugh in your realm of ignorance or you can wake up to the real world I know some of you don't want to know the facts, fair enough but for the people who want to know the truth to the questions no one is asking I am here. For the people who say "oh he is crazy, lizard people, tin foil hats" good for you I hope your like your ignorance, because you are doing just what they want you to do.

#198 Edited by Riverwolf007 (23865 posts) -

maybe they can make a vaccine for the gmo folks.

oh wait, they wouldn't take it because of some other fear they have backed up with no evidence.

#199 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (7325 posts) -

@Riverwolf007: It wouldn't work anyway. There has to be something wrong with GMOs for a vaccine to have any effect.

#200 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

Keep eating your GMOs, love that ignorant sheeple attitude. It comforts me to know you will have many health problems in later life if you live that long.