It’s trying to understand the world around us, for its own sake, and the betterment of mankind, isn’t it? Should that understanding and those discussions be reserved for the labs of universities and corporations, or does the rest of (condemned-as-uninformed-by-the-credentialed) humanity deserve to be in on the important discoveries of “science?”

The hubris and arrogance of those above who tout – while banking on the ignorance of their readers – the wonders of the modern “yield” of the commodity corn crop in the United States as proof that the world would be starving today without post-World War II industrial agriculture is appalling. Especially when those like the extremely hostile and self-proclaimed highly educated John Mercer, WyldPirate, Joe Buck (and even Organic George) treat their audience with contempt and disdain, in the worst tradition of vicious academic politics, because they disagree with all or part of Kirk’s earnest and good faith presentation to his lay audience.

Many of us here have read The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, which gives an outstanding and detailed description of the unsustainable hydrocarbon-fed source of the modern yields of American commodity corn, in terms all readers, whatever their education level, can understand. To pretend that such an obscenely wasteful, and fundamentally distorted, government-subsidized system of agriculture is one of the modern wonders of the scientific world is to reveal one’s arrogance and disdain for the wider world we live in. Force-feeding ruminants like cattle corngrain in CAFOs, where the animals need to be medicated just to keep them alive until slaughter on that thoroughly unnatural diet: Is that a modern scientific wonder? How does that side “benefit” of modern corn yields benefit mankind?

But fundamentally, I guess it comes down to whom you trust. The natural world that produced you, and created the brain you now use to accuse that world of threatening your existence with its random (and forever present) mutations?? Or “man” – and his superior to the ways of nature intellect (”superior” in particular during the last couple of centuries of his long existence) – who can outreason nature at every turn, and can safely mock those who defend it, because there’s no “proof” (beyond our own existence) that nature knows what’s best for us, even though we may never know and understand every subtle nuance of nature’s ways.

I’ll proudly defend the wisdom of nature, against every arrogant PhD and MD and multiple-credentialed “expert” who cares to taunt my “ignorance” – and I’ll do it using nothing but the common sense we were all born with, and my own ability to observe the ways of the world we live in.

I didn’t chase the links, but, you know, this strikes me as black helicopter territory.

I stand with science. How about you?

Since you notice their hypocrisy, perhaps you could explain Kirk’s blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy in taking a clear (albeit idiotic) position that mutations in the crops we eat are somehow dangerous for those who eat them, while neither knowing nor caring that one of the crops virtually all of us eats every day is the product of massive radiation mutagenesis.

sona wrote:
“WyldPirate can wax lyrical in support for GM crops…”

This is a straw man. I think I can safely speak for WyldPirate in noting that our only concern with transgenic crops is the safety of the protein being expressed from the particular transgene, not the piddling number of mutations caused by the transgene’s insertion.

What we are objecting to is Kirk’s ignorance, falsehoods (particularly lies of omission), and hypocrisy, topped with his pathetic attempt to claim expertise by advertising his MD.

There are attorneys who write excellent posts about the law here. Are any of them so vain and insecure that they have to append “JD” to their bylines?

In this context, to fight further corporate takeover bids for agriculture on a global scale, we also need to focus on the role the WTO is currently playing. It has recently ruled EEC’s limits on GM food imports as being anti free trade. A similar ruling has already forced Japan to relax its rules on GM food imports. WTO has already ruled against Indian farmers’ campaign against GM seeds even though that makes them totally dependent on annual seed purchases driving many out of farming and suicides as they lose their plots that have been in the family for generations.

Further to despairing’s comment @ #39, Mahathir Mohammed, the ex PM of Malaysia, labelled such theft of patents as corporate skullduggery that steals the earth’s bounty from the mouths of the poorest – not exact words but reflects the sentiment.

This whole recent fad of globalisation is really Orwellian speak for unbridled and unregulated multinational corporatism that bows to no sovereign government, many democratically elected, and that has neither any legitimacy nor any ethical/moral authority to dictate what consumers the world over would rather consume.

Why? Because it is clear to anyone with the most rudimentary education in disciplines related to the subject that he doesn’t know what in the hell he is talking about and that he is posting references that are complete and utter bullshit.. It is unconscionable for his post to even remain on the board as it is so error-filled. It is even worse to let him snow people with the MD moniker and for the moderators to protect him by not allowing comments that are critical of this complete and utter fraudlent charlatan who is getting away with using outrageous scare tactics to snow gullible lay people.

And I’m not the only one complaining about it either.

Here are more examples of bullshit Dr. Murphy is spewing in post 187:

I stated:

Genetically modified organisms are plant (or animal) mutants with alien species’ DNA forced into their genetic material. Unlike conventional plant or animal breeding, many Frankenseeds are not genetically stable. Their genetic instability means that each successive generation can express new genes, and so each generation has unpredictable new proteins.

.

Where to begin given that a three sentence paragraph has three totally bogus sentences that demonstrate total ignorance of the subject of Mendalian and molecular genetics?

Sentence one is horseshit because “Dr” Murphy (and yes, it’s an insult because at the very least he didn’t learn anything squat about genetics in med school) emphatically states that all GMs contain alien DNA forced into the organisms. This is nonsense because we have had the ability to remove native DNA, modify it and insert it back into the same organism for a couple of decades in the case of some organisms and at least 10-15 years in plants. Moreover, even if an “alien” sequence (most scientists would probably use exogenous instead of alien, or, perhaps foreign when talking to a lay audience) was used, the “alein” sequence encoding the SAME ENZYMATIC or STRUCTURAL FUNCTION as the intended target insertion site in the transgenic recipient would be the best choice in most circumstances. This is the case of the EPSP synthase gene in Roundup resistant soybeans. A less optimal choice would be to insert the exogenous DNA into the chromosome in a non-coding region of DNA that does not interrupt an open reading frame of native genes. Why? Because one wouldn’t want to inactivate a native gene needlessly and then have to figure out the deleterious effects of an unknown gene and then have to determine the effect on the physiology of the plant or animal (although this is a classic method of determining the function of an unknown gene that has been used for over 50 years).

Sentence two in Murphy’s hackitude of post 187 is equally abominable. Here it is in all of its glory yet again:P

Unlike conventional plant or animal breeding, many Frankenseeds are not genetically stable.

This sentence shows complete ignorance of Mendelian genetics. Conventional breeding techniques most CERTAINLY result in offspring that are genetically unstable. Look at different breeds of dogs that have chronic conditions because of “conventional breeding”–Dalmatians with high rates of deafness, Labrador retrievers and German Shepherds with hip dysplasia problems. One could literally find dozens of examples of “genetically unstable” products of “conventional breeding techniques with relative ease. On top of that, seed breeders have used “conventional breeding techniques” to produce hybrids that are genetically unstable in the F2 generation for decades. Many of the resulting F2 products of marketed hybrid seeds are either sterile or lack vigor in the F2 generation which, by definition, would make them unstable. That’s how they got farmers to purchase seed year after year. Hello, “Dr”. Murphy—haven’t you heard of Gregor Mendel, fer crissakes?!?!

Sentence three is perhaps the most hacktackular of “Dr” Murphy’s paragraph. Here it is again:

Their genetic instability means that each successive generation can express new genes, and so each generation has unpredictable new proteins.

This third sentence is astounding given its total and complete scientific ignorance. Claiming that a transgenic plant can produce completely new genes, which produce completely different protein products with completely different functions after one generation, much less “each successive generation”, in vivo has never been shown to my knowledge. To do so flies against all of the tenets of evolution. Moreover, anyone that could demonstrate what “Dr”. Murphy claims would be a shoe-in for a Nobel prize. The most likely outcome of what “Dr” Murphy describes would be a mutation resulting in reversion to wild-type (in the case of the reinsertion of an engineered native gene) or deletion of the engineered sequence (in the case of the insertion of exogenous DNA from another species). What categorically would not happen is what “Dr” Murphy describes because the engineered sequence is most certainly not going to magically evolve to encode different structural and functional domains in generation after generation.

In closing, I cannot reemphasize what a gross disservice to FDL readers is to let “Dr” Murphy continue to be a “frontpager” on the subject of GM crops or food products. It would be clear to anyone with any graduate training in biology that “Dr” Murphy is a complete charlatan when it comes to the subject of genetically modified foods or organisms. On top of that, he is hiding behind his MD to deflect criticism and accusing anyone that dares question him of being a troll or trying to employ “distractions”. He is perpetrating an enormous fraud upon the readership of FDL because he clearly doesn’t even understand the basic biology behind the subject that he is posting on. In the world of science, “Dr” Murphy is committing the equivalent of malpractice. That is why myself and John Mercer–both of whom are PhD-trained scientists that understand the biology in question–are raising so much hell.

But you haven’t presented any evidence to support your claim that they are toxic. Your appeals to authority are specious. Science is about the data, which you avoid like the plague.

Also, let’s get one particularly idiotic point out of the way right now. If I introduce a transgene that produces botulinum toxin (name a synthetic compound that exceeds its toxicity) it will be toxic. We’re talking about your totally unsupported claim that transgenic crops (”GMO” is a term designed to deceive, as radiation-mutagenized organisms are far more massively genetically modified) are CATEGORICALLY dangerous.

“GMOs are – of course – elective technology.”

Of course they are! So is radiation mutagenesis, the products of which you eat eagerly. So why are you so spectacularly hypocritical?

“Mutations from radiation arise from natural factors (or nuclear technology).”

Yes, and as applied to crops, they represent elective technology. So why is one elective technology not a problem, and another an evil plot, especially when the former causes far more mutations than the latter?

“I’ll leave the control of nuclear technology to PSR.”

We’re not talking about the control of nuclear technology, Kirk. We are talking about your flaming hypocrisy/dishonesty in claiming that one class of mutations is bad and the other is not a problem, without any rational basis for doing so.

“So we’re back to manmade causes of genetic changes with toxic effects: GMOs.”

We’re discussing your hypocrisy and/or ignorance wrt manmade causes of much more massive mutations with toxic effects to the organisms being mutagenized.

Why can’t you name the crop to which I refer? Your repeated failure to do so demonstrates that you are a charlatan.

“Which just happened to be the topic of the post.”

And I am pointing out your hypocrisy and/or ignorance wrt the topic of the post.

“A topic very unwelcome to the GMO inidustry and their supporters.”

I am neither a supporter nor a member of any GMO industry. I am an honest, liberal scientist who is offended by your dishonesty and ignorance.

“Dr Fagan’s discussion of the genetic mechanisms for toxicity in GMOs is untainted by your diversions.”

You haven’t shown any evidence that Fagan is a geneticist. I am. Do you not realize that everything I have pointed out about the radiation-mutagenized crop that you eat (but are too ignorant to name) applies to Fagan’s statements that are bolded, except that the mutations humans produced using radiation are orders of magnitude more numerous and severe?

Where is your concern, Kirk?

“When you demonstrate the reproducible findings that refute the mechanisms Dr. Fagan describes,, you’ll have demonstrated the concerns are invalid.”

People have been eating this crop for years, Kirk, and this fact refutes every one of the mechanisms he describes!

BTW, why do you present descriptions instead of findings? Why do you demand findings of me, when you present no findings at all?

“When you’ve presented the data on each GM organism. In each species.”

Why, when we’ve already done the turbocharged experiment a long time ago?

“ANd thanks for working at the NIH.”

I don’t work at the NIH, Kirk. Can’t you read? Where does most of NIH’s money go?

“When I worked with transplant and oncology teams, the products of transgenic organisms confined to laboratories were lifesavers.”

Sorry, but none of the transgenic experiments I’ve done relate to transplantation or oncology. However, I did experiments involving genetics and carcinogenesis as a Leukemia Society of America Fellow. Did you do any scientific fellowships, Kirk?

I’ve answered all of your questions, while you’ve answered none of mine. Which one of us is more forthcoming?

In addition to your spectacular ignorance of the massive mutagenesis involved in producing a crop that you eat readily if it is grown organically, another reason why you are a charlatan is that you are pushing the profoundly ignorant idea that mutations are bad things.

Here are some more questions that I predict you will avoid:

1) Does any evolution occur without mutation?

2) Is mutation a normal phenomenon? How many mutations occur on average, in the absence of any external mutagens or carcinogens, every time a cell in your very own organic-fed body divides?

3) Are most of the mutations underlying carcinogenesis spontaneous, induced, or inherited? If you believe that it is a combination, what are the relative contributions?

4) Can you name two deadly types of human cancer that are caused primarily by carcinogens?

5) Can you name the carcinogen responsible for each type from #4?

6) Are those carcinogens from #5 synthetic or natural?

The topic I’m addressing is the toxicity in our food supply arising from the deliberate introduction of GMO’s.

GMOs are – of course – elective technology.

Mutations from radiation arise from natural factors (or nuclear technology).

I’ll leave the control of nuclear technology to PSR.

If you have a proposal to control other causes of radiation, good on ‘ya.

So we’re back to manmade causes of genetic changes with toxic effects: GMOs.

Which just happened to be the topic of the post.

A topic very unwelcome to the GMO inidustry and their supporters.

Dr Fagan’s discussion of the genetic mechanisms for toxicity in GMOs is untainted by your diversions.

When you demonstrate the reproducible findings that refute the mechanisms Dr. Fagan describes,, you’ll have demonstrated the concerns are invalid.

When you’ve presented the data on each GM organism. In each species.

Don’t stay up too late.

ANd thanks for working at the NIH. When I worked with transplant and oncology teams, the products of transgenic organisms confined to laboratories were lifesavers.

Sleep well, John.

My best to your mice.