On MSG and Genetically Modified plants
Replies
-
No... sorry. I disagree. I'm willing to concede that there might be some negatives to GMO, though I still think the positives likely outweigh those negatives, but gene transfer isn't going to happen. We are not plants. Our genetic material is not compatible with plants. And the viruses that act on plants will not act on us. Zoonotic diseases are relatively rare (those that pass from animals to us)... plant diseases? I've never heard of such a thing. Gene transfer will not happen. It's a scare-technique used to pointlessly worry people.
So yes... possible environmental concerns? Maybe. The occasional GMO recall because of unexpected protein production? Okay. Could happen. Gene transfer? Fiction.
Could you list for me the positives of GMOs? I'd like to know. I have only heard you state "higher yield", which just isn't true.
Are GMOs themselves better for us and more nutritious than conventional or organic crops? No. In fact, there is some evidence that they could be less nutritious, given that we continue to plant and harvest the same crops throughout the seasons. We don't know yet what happens to GM crops when , for example, they are processed down into HFCS or soy lecithin or maltodextrin, but I don't see the point in taking the chance.
Do they produce a higher yield than conventional crops? No.
Are they good business for farmers? No. GM crops keep farmers poor. Not only do they rely on a huge corporation to supply their seeds, the government subsidizes these GM crops a lot more than others. Even conventional farmers succumb to the pressures of big GM seed companies, especially when their neighbors are growing GM seeds and they just happen to cross-pollinate into their fields. The big seed companies seem to think they have a right to sue those farmers for "stealing those seeds". The big corporations usually win. It's even worse big seed companies do to farmers in other countries after they have forced their seeds on them.
Is it good for the environment? No. The amount and type of pesticides used isn't good for us. It's not good for the farmers who use them. It even gets into our water.
It's only good for the big seed companies.0 -
No... sorry. I disagree. I'm willing to concede that there might be some negatives to GMO, though I still think the positives likely outweigh those negatives, but gene transfer isn't going to happen. We are not plants. Our genetic material is not compatible with plants. And the viruses that act on plants will not act on us. Zoonotic diseases are relatively rare (those that pass from animals to us)... plant diseases? I've never heard of such a thing. Gene transfer will not happen. It's a scare-technique used to pointlessly worry people.
So yes... possible environmental concerns? Maybe. The occasional GMO recall because of unexpected protein production? Okay. Could happen. Gene transfer? Fiction.
Maybe you're right about direct gene transfer, but I believe that somehow it will indirectly effect genetics beyond scientific understanding. It's science not law. If you could explain simply how humans are safe to eat these GMO's then I would admit to being out of my league. But until then GMO=EVIL0 -
No... sorry. I disagree. I'm willing to concede that there might be some negatives to GMO, though I still think the positives likely outweigh those negatives, but gene transfer isn't going to happen. We are not plants. Our genetic material is not compatible with plants. And the viruses that act on plants will not act on us. Zoonotic diseases are relatively rare (those that pass from animals to us)... plant diseases? I've never heard of such a thing. Gene transfer will not happen. It's a scare-technique used to pointlessly worry people.
So yes... possible environmental concerns? Maybe. The occasional GMO recall because of unexpected protein production? Okay. Could happen. Gene transfer? Fiction.
Could you list for me the positives of GMOs? I'd like to know. I have only heard you state "higher yield", which just isn't true.
Are GMOs themselves better for us and more nutritious than conventional or organic crops? No. In fact, there is some evidence that they could be less nutritious, given that we continue to plant and harvest the same crops throughout the seasons. We don't know yet what happens to GM crops when , for example, they are processed down into HFCS or soy lecithin or maltodextrin, but I don't see the point in taking the chance.
Do they produce a higher yield than conventional crops? No.
Are they good business for farmers? No. GM crops keep farmers poor. Not only do they rely on a huge corporation to supply their seeds, the government subsidizes these GM crops a lot more than others. Even conventional farmers succumb to the pressures of big GM seed companies, especially when their neighbors are growing GM seeds and they just happen to cross-pollinate into their fields. The big seed companies seem to think they have a right to sue those farmers for "stealing those seeds". The big corporations usually win. It's even worse big seed companies do to farmers in other countries after they have forced their seeds on them.
Is it good for the environment? No. The amount and type of pesticides used isn't good for us. It's not good for the farmers who use them. It even gets into our water.
It's only good for the big seed companies.
See... I disagree with a lot of this. I still think they give a healthier, heartier crop. You're using genetic engineering to make these plants more resistant to frost, to blight, to insects, so common sense dictates that your ARE going to increase yield. I have a very hard time believing any studies that show otherwise because they simply don't pass the common sense test... I therefor think of them as propaganda.
Same thing with the claim that the have no economic benefit. Farmers are businessmen and a lot of them are pretty good businessmen. They won't plant something just because. They plant because they like the results.
So while I think maybe I need to do more reading on GMOs... I'm just not buying all the anti-GMO propaganda out there. I will never buy the anti-GMO propaganda because I think it's anti-science.
Science isn't about perfection. It never has been and never will be. Science evolves. We build upon each other's observations, on each other's theories, we analyze each other's data and we go forward, always tweaking, correcting, re-evaluating. If GMOs have some down-sides, if their are negative consequences to planting them, then we look critically at those negative consequences, re-evaluate, and try again. There's too much potential there for good.
You ask what that potential is? I already mentioned one- in some countries, people eat the same foods over and over because it's all they can grow and it's all they can afford. Sometimes those foods are nutrient deficient. Imagine if we could engineer a complete food? Something easy to grow, cheap, with all the necessary amino acids and fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. We could make a serious dent in malnutrition.
And I actually like the idea of putting pharmacuticals in plants. What if we could engineer a cure for malaria and put it in food? That would be pretty darn cool, if you ask me.
I don't think technology should be shied away from. Should we be cautious? Yes. Should we be afraid? Not me.0 -
Being cautious does not make one anti-science. Monsanto owns the patent on their GM seeds, and therefore, they get to say who does the research on their seeds. There are hardly any independent research studies done on their GM crops. If you also looked into the conflicts of interest surrounding the approval of GM crops, you might have some more perspective on the research out there. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests GM crops are more nutritious for us. None. GM seeds were not created to feed the world, they were created to sell pesticides.
I wouldn't work in cancer research if I was anti-science. Just because we can do something, and because we have the technology to do so, doesn't mean we should. Just because science is good and science makes sense, doesn't mean it's always done properly. And we have had over a decade of GMOs, over a decade of negative consequences, and no one is doing anything except developing more pesticides. There is no way anyone can argue that pesticides aren't terrible for our health.
When it comes to health and medicine, there is no room to do science "just for the sake of science". If we wanted to study GMOs, we would have done so under more rigid conditions, created regulatory definitions and policies surrounding biotechnology that make sense, and we should most certainly not quickly approve food for human consumption with proper testing. We should still be testing GM crops for safety. They should not have been approved so easily.
I encourage you to watch the documentaries I listed, and then go on to do your research from there. This is not about science, health, or nutrition. This is about one or two huge companies making money. It's about politics.0 -
Being cautious does not make one anti-science. Monsanto owns the patent on their GM seeds, and therefore, they get to say who does the research on their seeds. There are hardly any independent research studies done on their GM crops. If you also looked into the conflicts of interest surrounding the approval of GM crops, you might have some more perspective on the research out there. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests GM crops are more nutritious for us. None. GM seeds were not created to feed the world, they were created to sell pesticides.
I wouldn't work in cancer research if I was anti-science. Just because we can do something, and because we have the technology to do so, doesn't mean we should. Just because science is good and science makes sense, doesn't mean it's always done properly. And we have had over a decade of GMOs, over a decade of negative consequences, and no one is doing anything except developing more pesticides. There is no way anyone can argue that pesticides aren't terrible for our health.
When it comes to health and medicine, there is no room to do science "just for the sake of science". If we wanted to study GMOs, we would have done so under more rigid conditions, created regulatory definitions and policies surrounding biotechnology that make sense, and we should most certainly not quickly approve food for human consumption with proper testing. We should still be testing GM crops for safety. They should not have been approved so easily.
I encourage you to watch the documentaries I listed, and then go on to do your research from there. This is not about science, health, or nutrition. This is about one or two huge companies making money. It's about politics.
I agree. Caution with logic and basic reasoning doesn't equate an anti-science outlook, rather promotes a healthy pro-science outlook. Having a system of control is what the overall agenda is with these 1%ers. Mansanto figured out a way to patent what was previously non-patentable. One cannot hold a patent on corn seeds, but if one genetically modifies a corn seed then he can obtain a patent. This is where corruption of power comes in. Even patenting a seed thats been modified is a loop hole in what was previously a solid and fair system. Now big companies can force farmers out of business, legally, when their organic crops cross pollinate with GMO strains. Naturally this cross pollination takes place beyond any farmers control. Then these patent holders come and say, hey, you cant grow those crops because they have our genetic strain that is patented. Completely blindsiding farmers who have been growing crops and such for generations. It's happening in Canada and all over the world. It's not just about money. It's not just about politics. It's about control and power. Where is this lust for control and power by the 1% going to stop. Nowhere and never. The only way to defend against this tyranny is by spreading the truth.
“I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend?”
- Robert Redford -0 -
I think I will just agree to disagree at this point
Where you see danger, I see hope. I fully support more GMO research.
I do need to do more digging. Absolutely. I am not as knowledgeable in this area as I'd like to be. But in the spirit of honesty- I won't start with the documentaries. In my experience, documentaries persuade with emotion and not logic or hard science. They are rarely unbiased and they can never substitute for quality, peer-reviewed science. Documentaries certainly have their place in the world. They're great for making people think about important issues, but when I start digging, I will start with pub-med and I will ask myself first if there is any evidence that GMOs cause harm to humans. I will then look at the environmental impact of GMOs and I will go from there.
Good luck in your endeavors.0 -
The problem with documentaries is that the people who make them go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find, and edit their films to make sure that idea comes through.
Obvious example taken to the extreme: Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theories show. They go out of their way to prove that whatever crazy conspiracy they are pushing is real, and anything that's on the show that doesn't agree with that take gets marginalized or bullied.
Similar Idea but slightly less biased: Brad Meltzer's Decoded. They tend to go into things with a certain theory about it, but allow themselves to be guided by evidence as to whether their theory holds up or not, but they still try to cling to their preconceived theory as long as possible.
Most documentaries I've watched follow the first formula to a T.0 -
I think I will just agree to disagree at this point Where you see danger, I see hope. I fully support more GMO research.
I do need to do more digging. Absolutely. I am not as knowledgeable in this area as I'd like to be. But in the spirit of honesty- I won't start with the documentaries. In my experience, documentaries persuade with emotion and not logic or hard science. They are rarely unbiased and they can never substitute for quality, peer-reviewed science. Documentaries certainly have their place in the world. They're great for making people think about important issues, but when I start digging, I will start with pub-med and I will ask myself first if there is any evidence that GMOs cause harm to humans. I will then look at the environmental impact of GMOs and I will go from there.
Good luck in your endeavors.
The point of suggesting the documentaries was to merely give some background on the history of GMOs, the company that produces most of the seeds, and the conflict of interest and regulatory practices that occurred during the review and approval of GMOs. It helps when you’re reading through those peer-reviewed articles later, when you then start to research the authors of those articles, and you realize they aren’t as, well, “peer-reviewed” as you expected them to be. You can read the research that is out there, but there is a lot that went on when those studies were going through the FDA, a lot of interesting people that were involved in the approval of GMOs, etc. “The World According to Monsanto” is simply a great introduction to this. It was made by a French group, actually, and I find it to be one of the less “fear-mongering” documentaries out there (in general, not just those about GMOs). I don’t think you can just read the perr-reviewed articles here, because there is so much more to the story of GMOs.
The other one, “The Future of Food”, is interesting because it explains what GMOs actually are from a very introductory, but scientific standpoint. From what I recall (it’s been quite a while since I’ve watched that one), they don’t actually give much of an argument that is “anti-GMO” (I could be wrong but I don’t remember thinking that it did).
Documentaries themselves are meant to be biased. They are meant to explain a single point of view from different angles. Some are more biased than others, but they are great place to start forming your own questions for later research on your own.0 -
The problem with documentaries is that the people who make them go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find, and edit their films to make sure that idea comes through.
Obvious example taken to the extreme: Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theories show. They go out of their way to prove that whatever crazy conspiracy they are pushing is real, and anything that's on the show that doesn't agree with that take gets marginalized or bullied.
Similar Idea but slightly less biased: Brad Meltzer's Decoded. They tend to go into things with a certain theory about it, but allow themselves to be guided by evidence as to whether their theory holds up or not, but they still try to cling to their preconceived theory as long as possible.
Most documentaries I've watched follow the first formula to a T.
That is likely true, but I don't see the harm in watching a documentary for the sole purpose of getting some background information and a good foundation for what you want to research later or what types of questions you really want to ask. The question, "Are GMOs harmful to humans?" is an incredibly loaded question, one that can't simply be answered by the little research that is actually out there by the groups that produce and sell the seeds. Like I just said, there is more to the story than a few select research articles.0 -
The problem with documentaries is that the people who make them go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find, and edit their films to make sure that idea comes through.
To be fair, the problem with documentaries would be the people who make them, and the people who watch them. "go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find." The door swings both ways. Logic and reasoning dictate that. Further more Jesse Ventura has covered topics that aren't conspiracy at all on that show. For instance, MK Ultra research was well documented and de-classified as mind control experiments conducted during the 50's involving drugs, especially methamphetamine. Wow. I wonder why meth is one of the biggest problems in the war on drugs in America and the world. The problem with debating and saying conspiracy is crazy, is that it limits and controls the debate. It helps create this sort of zombie optimism, when in fact there is tons of evidence that suggests conspiracy and cover ups. I mean look at the back of a one dollar bill. There is a star of david above the eagle, hidden. Just connect the dots. Or stars. Now what's the Jewish hexagram doing on the back of U.S. currency? How is the Federal Reserve, that prints those one dollar bills, organized much like private corporations—possibly leading to some confusion about ownership. I recommend looking up a video on youtube called Secret Societies and Biblical Prophesy. It's an amazing documentary that focuses on facts and not conspiracy. Absolutely amazing. At least watch 30 minutes of it.
Here's a conspiracy- The word S A N T A is really a subliminal message for S A T A N.0 -
Pure Awesomeness.The problem with documentaries is that the people who make them go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find, and edit their films to make sure that idea comes through.
To be fair, the problem with documentaries would be the people who make them, and the people who watch them. "go into them with an idea already in mind as to what they want to find." The door swings both ways. Logic and reasoning dictate that. Further more Jesse Ventura has covered topics that aren't conspiracy at all on that show. For instance, MK Ultra research was well documented and de-classified as mind control experiments conducted during the 50's involving drugs, especially methamphetamine. Wow. I wonder why meth is one of the biggest problems in the war on drugs in America and the world. The problem with debating and saying conspiracy is crazy, is that it limits and controls the debate. It helps create this sort of zombie optimism, when in fact there is tons of evidence that suggests conspiracy and cover ups. I mean look at the back of a one dollar bill. There is a star of david above the eagle, hidden. Just connect the dots. Or stars. Now what's the Jewish hexagram doing on the back of U.S. currency? How is the Federal Reserve, that prints those one dollar bills, organized much like private corporations—possibly leading to some confusion about ownership. I recommend looking up a video on youtube called Secret Societies and Biblical Prophesy. It's an amazing documentary that focuses on facts and not conspiracy. Absolutely amazing. At least watch 30 minutes of it.
Here's a conspiracy- The word S A N T A is really a subliminal message for S A T A N.
0 -
Thats kinda funny Ron. LOL.
Are you a sheople?
SHEOPLE DEFINED:
The definition of a sheople: NOUN (plural only) Hybrid of sheep and people. One who mindlessly follows others like a herd of sheep. (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Unable to think freely, kin to a Zombie, brain dead. Possibly make a good politician.0 -
I think we all need to be aware of how profit driven most things are in the world today. Monsanto holds the patent on Round Up Ready Tomatoes and also produces Round Up Ready. So, they make the tomatoes resistant to the pesticide and then use even more pesticide to grow the plant. That's part of what makes me try to avoid GMO's.
Someone had also pointed out how many vegetables contain nitrates. I totally agree but the difference is that when nitrates naturally occur in food, they are also accompanied by naturally occurring vitamin C. Vit C is what prevent the nitrates from converting into nitrosamines.
I love seeing a debate like this on here!0 -
I think we all need to be aware of how profit driven most things are in the world today. Monsanto holds the patent on Round Up Ready Tomatoes and also produces Round Up Ready. So, they make the tomatoes resistant to the pesticide and then use even more pesticide to grow the plant. That's part of what makes me try to avoid GMO's.
Someone had also pointed out how many vegetables contain nitrates. I totally agree but the difference is that when nitrates naturally occur in food, they are also accompanied by naturally occurring vitamin C. Vit C is what prevent the nitrates from converting into nitrosamines.
I love seeing a debate like this on here!
Yoga Mama. You rock. I love it when people get real and righteous0 -
Let's not forget nitrates. Cured meat is the devil, but nitrates are found in much higher concentrations in vegetables.
Hot Dogs/Cured meat 10ppm
arugula 4,677 ppm
basil 2,292 ppm
butterhead lettuce 2,026 ppm
beets 1,279 ppm
celery 1,103 ppm
spinach 1,066 ppm
pumpkin 874 ppm
I knew there was a reason I didn't like arugula
Damn nitrates.
It's been my understanding that it isn't nitrates that are the problem in cured meats but rather the nitrosamines that they form in your stomach when mixed with your stomach acids. the nitrosamines are the suspected cancer causing agents. Nitrosamines are neutralized by Vitamin C, so I imagine arugula and some of these other things mentioned above would not form nitrosamines due to the vit C content. If you have a BLT, the Tomato neutralizes the nitrosamine effect of the bacon. Orange juice with bacon will do the same thing.
as for GMO's, they need to label them. I am reading the book "Wheat Belly" and there are some very interesting things about today's wheat, which is a GMO product and does not resemble the wheat we grew and consumed just 50 yrs ago. My daughter has developed wheat/gluten allergy and it is becoming very common. Those gluten free isles in the regular grocery stores that are becoming all too common are not just the fad of the moment. (by regular grocery store, I mean not health food, whole foods etc, but Giant foods, Safeway, etc.)0 -
I think we all need to be aware of how profit driven most things are in the world today. Monsanto holds the patent on Round Up Ready Tomatoes and also produces Round Up Ready. So, they make the tomatoes resistant to the pesticide and then use even more pesticide to grow the plant. That's part of what makes me try to avoid GMO's.
Someone had also pointed out how many vegetables contain nitrates. I totally agree but the difference is that when nitrates naturally occur in food, they are also accompanied by naturally occurring vitamin C. Vit C is what prevent the nitrates from converting into nitrosamines.
I love seeing a debate like this on here!
Vitamin C or not, it still doesn't change the fact that vegetables have 100+ times the amount of nitrates as most cured meats, and you're ignoring the fact that most people get more than enough Vitamin C throughout the day that to make the entire argument moot anyway.0 -
And I find it interesting that, especially in the United States, we would consume something anyway even when we don't know anything about it and we claim that it "hasn't been proven to be bad yet". And yet, with medication/drugs, there is no way we would approve something for an indication until it was proven safe, with rigorous research over several years and several studies. With food, it's "approve until someone complains or people get sick", and by then big business has enough money and power that it doesn't matter anymore. Forgive me if that sounds like fear-mongering, but it's essentially true. I have asked people if GM foods were labeled if they would still consume them. A lot of people say, "Yes, because I don't know anything about GMOs." It's sad to me that we would put things into our bodies without knowing what it is. Maybe that just comes from my knowledge of the regulatory practices in this country and how terrible they are, I don't know.
This.
Double triple this! It's all about $$$ and not about what is best for us. Big Pharma and Corporate giants own this country. How can you give a company, Monsanto, a patent on a seed, a biological product, when that product in itself can wipe natural and organic crops out of existence by cross contamination. Kudos to Hungary for burning those GMO fields to the ground.0 -
Double triple this! It's all about $$$ and not about what is best for us. Big Pharma and Corporate giants own this country. How can you give a company, Monsanto, a patent on a seed, a biological product, when that product in itself can wipe natural and organic crops out of existence by cross contamination. Kudos to Hungary for burning those GMO fields to the ground.
Yes, Big Pharma is very evil.
Oh wait. Could it be? Do they really produce the drugs that save countless lives?
This is another example of the dangers of black-and-white thinking. I don't like the politics involved in pharmaceutical research (my field). I get really frustrated when they won't share proprietary information that I want. And I get pissed about the patent thing too. I've said some pretty negative things about "Big Pharma" in the past and I'm sure I will in the future. The games infuriate me. But when it comes right down to it... "Big Pharma" and Big Pharma's evil, evil money? It costs MILLIONS of dollars to get a drug from bench to market... they have those dollars. They have the man power. They have the expertise. They have the resources. The "system" saves lives- as corrupt and frustrating as it is. The alternative? Well, no one would be living through breast cancer, for starters.0 -
Double triple this! It's all about $$$ and not about what is best for us. Big Pharma and Corporate giants own this country. How can you give a company, Monsanto, a patent on a seed, a biological product, when that product in itself can wipe natural and organic crops out of existence by cross contamination. Kudos to Hungary for burning those GMO fields to the ground.
Yes, Big Pharma is very evil.
Oh wait. Could it be? Do they really produce the drugs that save countless lives?
This is another example of the dangers of black-and-white thinking. I don't like the politics involved in pharmaceutical research (my field). I get really frustrated when they won't share proprietary information that I want. And I get pissed about the patent thing too. I've said some pretty negative things about "Big Pharma" in the past and I'm sure I will in the future. The games infuriate me. But when it comes right down to it... "Big Pharma" and Big Pharma's evil, evil money? It costs MILLIONS of dollars to get a drug from bench to market... they have those dollars. They have the man power. They have the expertise. They have the resources. The "system" saves lives- as corrupt and frustrating as it is. The alternative? Well, no one would be living through breast cancer, for starters.
But we also have to ask ourselves (especially since Big Pharma has big investments in Big Food and Big Ag, as well as Monsanto), would we need to have all of these therapies to cure breast cancer if we had taken steps to prevent it in the first place? Not allowed our environment and our food to be contributing to disease? Who's spending money on that? Certainly not Big Pharma. We most definitely do not have a good system in place to properly treat and cure disease, and our efforts are focused far too much in one direction.
Also, someone mentioned there was GM wheat, which is not true (that I know of). No one has developed it (yet).0 -
I support GM foods. They don't coddle pests and I respect that.0
-
Abstract
Human pharmacokinetics data indicate that i.v. ascorbic acid (ascorbate) in pharmacologic concentrations could have an unanticipated role in cancer treatment. Our goals here were to test whether ascorbate killed cancer cells selectively, and if so, to determine mechanisms, using clinically relevant conditions. Cell death in 10 cancer and 4 normal cell types was measured by using 1-h exposures. Normal cells were unaffected by 20 mM ascorbate, whereas 5 cancer lines had EC50 values of <4 mM, a concentration easily achievable i.v. Human lymphoma cells were studied in detail because of their sensitivity to ascorbate (EC50 of 0.5 mM) and suitability for addressing mechanisms. Extracellular but not intracellular ascorbate mediated cell death, which occurred by apoptosis and pyknosis/necrosis. Cell death was independent of metal chelators and absolutely dependent on H2O2 formation. Cell death from H2O2 added to cells was identical to that found when H2O2 was generated by ascorbate treatment. H2O2 generation was dependent on ascorbate concentration, incubation time, and the presence of 0.5-10% serum, and displayed a linear relationship with ascorbate radical formation. Although ascorbate addition to medium generated H2O2, ascorbate addition to blood generated no detectable H2O2 and only trace detectable ascorbate radical. Taken together, these data indicate that ascorbate at concentrations achieved only by i.v. administration may be a pro-drug for formation of H2O2, and that blood can be a delivery system of the pro-drug to tissues. These findings give plausibility to i.v. ascorbic acid in cancer treatment, and have unexpected implications for treatment of infections where H2O2 may be beneficial.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/38/13604.full
Above is a link to the full article. I'm surprised nobody has talked about these already proven truths and facts. It goes to show you that mother nature knows more than any scientist. We just have to open our eyes. Soon the internet won't be free anymore so take advantage of it while you can. Conspiracists believe that the recent attack by the government on its own USPS is the start of communication freedom being eroded. glados and bekah could probably decipher the information to the link I sent better than I. Please look and tell me what you think0 -
Let's not forget nitrates. Cured meat is the devil, but nitrates are found in much higher concentrations in vegetables.
Hot Dogs/Cured meat 10ppm
arugula 4,677 ppm
basil 2,292 ppm
butterhead lettuce 2,026 ppm
beets 1,279 ppm
celery 1,103 ppm
spinach 1,066 ppm
pumpkin 874 ppm
I knew there was a reason I didn't like arugula Damn nitrates.
It's been my understanding that it isn't nitrates that are the problem in cured meats but rather the nitrosamines that they form in your stomach when mixed with your stomach acids. the nitrosamines are the suspected cancer causing agents. Nitrosamines are neutralized by Vitamin C, so I imagine arugula and some of these other things mentioned above would not form nitrosamines due to the vit C content. If you have a BLT, the Tomato neutralizes the nitrosamine effect of the bacon. Orange juice with bacon will do the same thing.
Still not an issue:
"Not all cured meat products contain nitrosamines; when present, they usually are in very minute amounts. According to S.R. Tannenbaum and T.Y. Fan in "Uncertainties about Nitrosamine Formation in and from Foods," proceedings from the Meat Industry Research Conference, University of Chicago, 1973, many variables influence nitrosamine levels: amount of nitrite added during processing, concentrations of amines in meat, type and amounts of other ingredients used in processing, actual processing conditions, length of storage, storage temperatures, method of cooking, and degree of doneness. For example, the USDA now requires adding ascorbic acid (vitamin C) or erythorbic acid to bacon cure, a practice that greatly reduces the formation of nitrosamines. "
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/nutrition/DJ0974.html0 -
She is saying that nitrosamines are a by product of nitrates and stomach acid reaction. I believe that it is hydrochloric acid in which starts the process that produces nitrosamines0
-
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/38/13604.full
Above is a link to the full article. I'm surprised nobody has talked about these already proven truths and facts. It goes to show you that mother nature knows more than any scientist.
LOLWUT?
The study showed that Vitamin C in "pharmacological doses" may be effective in treating cancer. How, pray tell, does that lead to "mother nature knows more than any scientist"????
And the study was funded by the same GUBMINT that you are so afraid of.0 -
Above is a link to the full article. I'm surprised nobody has talked about these already proven truths and facts. It goes to show you that mother nature knows more than any scientist. We just have to open our eyes. Soon the internet won't be free anymore so take advantage of it while you can. Conspiracists believe that the recent attack by the government on its own USPS is the start of communication freedom being eroded. glados and bekah could probably decipher the information to the link I sent better than I. Please look and tell me what you think
i don't really want to jump into this, so will only comment on the above[Clinical pharmacokinetics analyses show that pharmacologic concentrations of plasma ascorbate, from 0.3 to 15 mM, are achievable only from i.v. administration (7). These concentrations are cleared within hours by renal filtration and excretion. In contrast, plasma ascorbate concentrations from maximum possible oral doses cannot exceed 0.22 mM because of limited intestinal absorption, which is bypassed with i.v. administration
please read that and tell me how that relates to mother nature
and what is this about the USPS? the same USPS that has a monopoly on first class mail and has been swimming in red ink for years? the same USPS that just handed out very generous benefits and wages in their latest labor negations, even though they are deep in the red? there was no attack by anyone they shot themselves in the foot by continually giving into their unions and not being forward thinking enough
read about the privatization of postal services in europe and how that improved services and saved taxpayers money.0 -
Vitamin C has been successful at curing or treating. Not sure which, but thats better than all the other pharma crap. And the USPS is a monopoly, but the government has interfered with their employees health care system starting a downward spiral in which they are now in discussion of making it privatized, just exactly as in Europe. Europe had to change their whole monetary system to the Euro and now is on the brink of financial meltdown just like what is happening here in USA. World banks in collusion with the Federal Reserve are pushing for a one world currency, simultaneously as the US dollar devalues.0
-
Vitamin C has been successful at curing or treating. Not sure which, but thats better than all the other pharma crap. And the USPS is a monopoly, but the government has interfered with their employees health care system starting a downward spiral in which they are now in discussion of making it privatized, just exactly as in Europe. Europe had to change their whole monetary system to the Euro and now is on the brink of financial meltdown just like what is happening here in USA. World banks in collusion with the Federal Reserve are pushing for a one world currency, simultaneously as the US dollar devalues.Ascorbic acid (vitamin C, ascorbate) has a controversial history in cancer treatment (1). Observational reports described ascorbate, given in pharmacologic doses of 10 g daily, as effective in treating some cancers and in improving patient well-being (2-4). Subsequently, the same dose had no effect on patient well-being and survival in two double-blind placebo-controlled trials, and ascorbate was discarded as a treatment modality (5, 6). Recent clinical evidence, however, indicates that the role of ascorbate in cancer treatment should be examined anew (7). The originally reported observational studies used i.v. and oral ascorbate, but the subsequent double-blind placebo-controlled studies used only oral ascorbate. It was not recognized that the route of ascorbate administration might produce large differences in plasma concentrations. Recent pharmacokinetics studies in men and women show that 10 g of ascorbate given i.v. is expected to produce plasma concentrations of nearly 6 mM, which are >25-fold higher than those concentrations from the same oral dose (7-9). As much as a 70-fold difference in plasma concentrations is expected between oral and i.v. administration, depending on dose. Despite inconsistencies, some in vitro studies showed that ascorbate killed cancer cells, although mechanisms and physiologic relevance were unclear (10-12). Complementary and alternative medicine practitioners worldwide currently use ascorbate i.v. in some patients, in part because there is no apparent harm (13-15).
How did the government interfere with their employees health care? have you read GAO reports on the unsustainable business model the USPS has? Not just recent ones but ones for years that have warned about their modelEurope had to change their whole monetary system to the Euro and now is on the brink of financial meltdown just like what is happening here in USA. World banks in collusion with the Federal Reserve are pushing for a one world currency, simultaneously as the US dollar devalues.
0 -
I didn't realize that one of the reasons people were scared of GMOs was because they feared they would somehow alter their DNA. Wow! That is actually pretty funny... and sad.
Techniquely, your DNA can be altered by UV rays, beer, whiskey, burnt meat, lotions, make-up, food preservatives (probably meaning this), cereal grains, peanut butter, and a whole crapload of other things, but it's usually not major.
By the way, that wasn't trying to be rude, I'm just saying this because I love filling people with useless information.
0 -
I don't know if articles on naturalnews are credible, but I do know reading the articles there is very depressing.0
-
But we also have to ask ourselves (especially since Big Pharma has big investments in Big Food and Big Ag, as well as Monsanto), would we need to have all of these therapies to cure breast cancer if we had taken steps to prevent it in the first place? Not allowed our environment and our food to be contributing to disease? Who's spending money on that? Certainly not Big Pharma. We most definitely do not have a good system in place to properly treat and cure disease, and our efforts are focused far too much in one direction.
Also, someone mentioned there was GM wheat, which is not true (that I know of). No one has developed it (yet).
The greatest risk factor for breast cancer? ESTROGEN.
I don't think an environmental link has been proven, at least not definitively. There's some hints here and there, but if you suggest that we take steps to eliminate breast cancer, the most logical step would be an ovariectomy before we hit puberty.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions