Quantcast
Vaccination mediatic blitz

Forums - Politics Discussion - Vaccination mediatic blitz

Mr Khan said:
chapset said:
In the States money talk, your best bet to stop all this antivaccer craze going on is one parent, of a sick kid, suing an other one that didn't vaccinate his or her child that caused the first child to get sick. The deadlier the illness, the higher the cash reward will be.

Actually quite plausible, or better yet, Disney Land suing one of the parents that brought a measles carrier to their park, whoever patient zero was in this case. It would be terrible optics, but would tell these folks that they're going to come for you if you don't get your kid vaccinated, and the Republicans wouldn't be able to scream big government, since it would be private groups undertaking the matter.

I really dislike this mentality.

I'm sure there are other ways to deal with reluctant folks than "Coming for them". I'm not sure where you get this mindset from.



Around the Network
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
sundin13 said:

Its not up for debate...food can be genetically modified to have more nutrients and there are numerous cases where that happens (ex. http://banana.aatf-africa.org/news/media/new-gm-banana-could-help-tackle-uganda%E2%80%99s-nutrition-challenges ). Once again, it is not a blanket statement, but GMO isn't a blanket term. All it means is that the organism has been genetically modified. These modifications can increase nutrient content, increase herbicide resistance, increase size, increase yield, increase habitat etc.. 

Personally, I am against GMOs, largely due to economic reasons, however, I think it is silly to be scared of the phrase "genetically modified", as it really doesn't tell you anything. I do think more studies need to be done on individual gene changes, but insisting on the blanket statement "GMOs are bad" just seems reductive. 

There is a lot of work to be done moving forwards with GMOs and regulations, which starts at patent reform and moves through to heavier regulations on what is allowed, backed by government funded research. The current state of GMOs is dangerous as it rests solely on the backs of a business instead of on science, and that power needs to be equalized, however, once again, it is reductive to state the issue so simply as to say that "GMO

 

It's up for debate because there is no scientific reviewed evidence to back up these claims. Period.

Increasing the amount of vitamin does not make it more nutritional.  For example, vitamins themselves. I can buy a cheap brand of Vitamin D and take 5 times the amount of anothet brand and still have less absorb due to the quality. There is no evidence that by genetically modifying the fruit and adding extra vitams that the body would necessarily absorb it.

Soil also plays a major role in the amount of nutrition you intake. Most of the organic/ eco grown food you can purchase from Amish/Mennonites comes from soil that has not been depleted in the manner of major crops.

Do you actually know the science behind 'GMO'?

What you're asking for is fundamental to the concept of GMOs. They also get tested far more than vitamin supplements which have virtually no regulations.



Aura7541 said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

It's up for debate because there is no scientific reviewed evidence to back up these claims. Period.

Increasing the amount of vitamin does not make it more nutritional.  For example, vitamins themselves. I can buy a cheap brand of Vitamin D and take 5 times the amount of anothet brand and still have less absorb due to the quality. There is no evidence that by genetically modifying the fruit and adding extra vitams that the body would necessarily absorb it.

Soil also plays a major role in the amount of nutrition you intake. Most of the organic/ eco grown food you can purchase from Amish/Mennonites comes from soil that has not been depleted in the manner of major crops.

Every food that we eat is genetically modified. Genetic modification has been going on since humans invented agriculture. Humans have artificially selected certain individuals and crossed parents with advantageous traits so that the progeny contains those traits from both parents. Did you know that mangoes used to taste absolutely horrible (like PTC levels of bad)? Those sweet, juicy mangoes that you see in the supermarket were genetically modified. Ever wondered why there are so many different types of apples? It's because we have manipulated the apple's genomes so that their genes express for specific proteins and metabolic pathways for the tartness, sweetness, or crispiness.

Your vitamin example is confusing. One vitamin D molecule can't be less absorptive than the other because they have the exact same molecular structure. If a certain brand has "less quality" vitamin D, then we're talking about a supplement that may not even have vitamin D inside. Same thing applies to additional nutrients as a result from genetic modification of foods. The additional vitamins can't be less absorptive because the vitamins in the GMO and non-GMO are exactly the same.

You're mistaking genetic modification for natural hybrids. The two are not the same.  Splicing together genes from different organism in a lab (fish cells/tomato) is quite different from the natural result of cross pollination. The example you are using is flawed and a false talking point made to try and draw inaccurate examples between the two. One has its limitations in nature vs modifying that which could never naturally occur. 

The formulation of a vitamin can result in one brand having a lesser quality when it comes to absorbtion than another. The point I am trying to make is that increasing the vitamin content may not necessarily make it more nutritional. The method that is used to increase the vitamin may not result in the same potency found in the natural version of the fruit/vegetable. This is due to the vitamin no longer being the same molecule as it has been modified. The fruit/vitamin would no longer have the same molecular structure.



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

sundin13 said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

It's up for debate because there is no scientific reviewed evidence to back up these claims. Period.

Increasing the amount of vitamin does not make it more nutritional.  For example, vitamins themselves. I can buy a cheap brand of Vitamin D and take 5 times the amount of anothet brand and still have less absorb due to the quality. There is no evidence that by genetically modifying the fruit and adding extra vitams that the body would necessarily absorb it.

Soil also plays a major role in the amount of nutrition you intake. Most of the organic/ eco grown food you can purchase from Amish/Mennonites comes from soil that has not been depleted in the manner of major crops.


...like I said, its just genetics. There is no debate. You can factually alter a plant's genes to increase the nutritional content. 

Take for example, Golden Rice, genetically modified to contain Beta-carotene, which contains Vitamin A, which can be absorbed:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/3/658.abstract

Once again, I am not arguing any specific case about any specific GMO. I am merely talking about the fundamental nature of Genetic Modifications. There is no argument to be made that it is not possible to modify plants to increase their nutrients.


This has not been peer reviewed. I asked to provide a thorough peer reviewed study. Until then it is just false claims. An interesting article I found details why the study provided was heavily flawed.

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/09/golden-rice-not-so-golden-tufts



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

GMOs are generally not better or worse than their non-GMO counterparts. They are not more or less natural either. It is just a way of speeding up the breeding process of selection.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Around the Network
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

This has not been peer reviewed. I asked to provide a thorough peer reviewed study. Until then it is just false claims. An interesting article I found details why the study provided was heavily flawed.

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/09/golden-rice-not-so-golden-tufts


The only issues brought up are ethics issues so they are irrelevant here...

Once again, this is a fundamental principle of Genetic Modification. There is no debate. Look at what the WHO says about GMOs, look at what the FDA says about GMOs...there is a concensus that this is physically possible. Once again, I am not speaking about any specific GMOs, I am talking about the science behind it. Arguing this point just shows that you don't understand the science.



padib said:

Court Decision: Mercury and Aluminum in Vaccine Caused Autism

The court decision runs contrary to everything that is known of autism and vaccines.  They might as well have ruled that the Sun revolves around Mars or that the Earth is flat.



padib said:
Mr Khan said:
chapset said:
In the States money talk, your best bet to stop all this antivaccer craze going on is one parent, of a sick kid, suing an other one that didn't vaccinate his or her child that caused the first child to get sick. The deadlier the illness, the higher the cash reward will be.

Actually quite plausible, or better yet, Disney Land suing one of the parents that brought a measles carrier to their park, whoever patient zero was in this case. It would be terrible optics, but would tell these folks that they're going to come for you if you don't get your kid vaccinated, and the Republicans wouldn't be able to scream big government, since it would be private groups undertaking the matter.

I really dislike this mentality.

I'm sure there are other ways to deal with reluctant folks than "Coming for them". I'm not sure where you get this mindset from.

Say you got terrible food poisoning at a restaurant. You discover that it was because one of the employees of the restaurant was ignoring the hand-washing signs and not washing his or her hands. Would you not want the company to drop the hammer on them? It's much the same thing, anti-vaxxers are negligent, and folks need to show them that there is a real price for negligence.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

On the whole "GMOs and nutrition" argument. Here's a link to a good review on it:

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Trend/2-Bouis-GM-Food-Crops-Contribution-2003.pdf

I think it does indicate that genetic modification can and has been used to increase the nutritional quality of crops either for human or livestock consumption.



...

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

You're mistaking genetic modification for natural hybrids. The two are not the same.  Splicing together genes from different organism in a lab (fish cells/tomato) is quite different from the natural result of cross pollination. The example you are using is flawed and a false talking point made to try and draw inaccurate examples between the two. One has its limitations in nature vs modifying that which could never naturally occur. 

The formulation of a vitamin can result in one brand having a lesser quality when it comes to absorbtion than another. The point I am trying to make is that increasing the vitamin content may not necessarily make it more nutritional. The method that is used to increase the vitamin may not result in the same potency found in the natural version of the fruit/vegetable. This is due to the vitamin no longer being the same molecule as it has been modified. The fruit/vitamin would no longer have the same molecular structure.

You're showing that you know very little about genetic modification. The term is very self-explanatory. You modify the genome of a plant or animal. How do you do that? You can do it in the lab through various means such as gene knockouts to remove deleterious traits or horizontal transmission to add beneficial traits such as drought resistance. When you add a gene, the RNA polymerase transcribes that gene and the ribosomes translate the protein that grants the plant or animal that beneficial trait.

You can also do it by crossing two individuals in which each parent has a specific advantageous trait. Let's say these traits are dominant and are on different loci. Sweet fruit is on loci A and large fruit is on loci B. Parent #1 has sweet, but small fruit and is homozygous dominant for the sweetness, so its genotype is AA bb. Parent #2 has large, but bitter fruit and is homozygous for large fruit, so its genotype is aa BB. You cross these individuals together and their progeny will all be Aa Bb. Because both loci have dominant alleles, the offspring have both sweet and large fruit.

Your last paragraph also shows how little you understand chemistry. Nomenclature of chemical compounds is determined by what strucutural types (e.g. double C=C bonds, rings, disulfide bridge, etc) and orientation (e.g. trans, cis, L-, R-, etc) they have. If a "vitamin" is an entirely different molecule, then it is no longer a vitamin. A "lower quality" vitamin supplement is lower quality not because of the vitamins. It's lower quality because of the lower concentration or shoddy synthesis of the supplements.

I think you're being turned off by the fact that genetic modification is sometimes done in the lab. When you hear the word "lab", you're probably imagining a bunch of white coats in opaque safety goggles injecting mysterious blue liquid into a tomato. The negative connotation is what makes you against GMOs. But here's the fact: nearly everything we eat is genetically modified. If you want to eat "naturally", then good luck.