Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are GMOs bad for you?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?
Much of risk management developed from the thalidomide disaster.
Eagerness to say "safety hasn't been proven" despite all evidence to the contrary, resulted in great suffering as well as it does in all cases when emotion is considered over logic.0 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?
Thalidomide is a very poor example, given that the widespread havoc that this vaccine caused actually sparked the creation of the FDA and the stringent testing of drugs/vaccines that we currently have in place today.
Thalidomide wasn't a vaccine it was a pill a very good anti nauseant with side effects not noticed in animal testing. It's still used today for cancer patients.
...and perfectly safe once discovered cis/trans isomerism and the associated risk of taking the S variant. The R variant has a very safe pharmacovigilance profile.1 -
Can you please elabotrate, not sure what you mean here. There is no safe version of Thalidomide for pregnant women.NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
0 -
Can you please elabotrate, not sure what you mean here. There is no safe version of Thalidomide for pregnant women.NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
The R variant has a very safe pharmacovigilance profile.
2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?
For one, thalidomide is a thing, "GMO" is a process for creating things. It's like saying "we can't know cooking is safe". There might be things that actually become harmful when cooked but that doesn't make cooking bad, only cooking this one specific thing.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?
For one, thalidomide is a thing, "GMO" is a process for creating things. It's like saying "we can't know cooking is safe". There might be things that actually become harmful when cooked but that doesn't make cooking bad, only cooking this one specific thing.
.Cashews are poisonous raw so cooking is safe..;)
Raw vegans want to kill us all.3 -
Awwww. I wanted to be the first person to bring up the orbiting teapot.
There are plenty of examples of governments regulating/banning things based on public opinion rather than evidence. Fluoride is a great example.
http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoridated-water-ooptional-under-bill-passed-by-arkansas-house/
http://msof.nz/2014/11/other-countries-dont-do-it-excuse/0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Can you please elabotrate, not sure what you mean here. There is no safe version of Thalidomide for pregnant women.NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
The R variant has a very safe pharmacovigilance profile.
In pregnant women?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?
Thalidomide is a very poor example, given that the widespread havoc that this vaccine caused actually sparked the creation of the FDA and the stringent testing of drugs/vaccines that we currently have in place today.
As long as something positive comes out of the next big mistake, it's all good.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?
Thalidomide is a very poor example, given that the widespread havoc that this vaccine caused actually sparked the creation of the FDA and the stringent testing of drugs/vaccines that we currently have in place today.
The FDA actually kept thalidomide from being approved in the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/science/frances-oldham-kelsey-fda-doctor-who-exposed-danger-of-thalidomide-dies-at-101.html?_r=01 -
-
You are welcome to have your beliefs about the safety of GMO's. The only thing that I have seen questioned is what you are basing those beliefs on.
Are you at all a religious person? Do you belive in God (or some other higher power)? If yes, prove scientifically that God (or other power) is real.singingflutelady wrote: »
Since not naming sources is making you look awesome
I couldn't care less how you think I look. This is an Internet forum which means nothing. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone here. I do not have 1 source for all my information. It is a collective knowledge over the years of things I have read, people I have talked to and things I've seen...a collective general learned knowledge.
The only thing I have done is stated my opinion. My opinion is not fact...it is an opinion. I'm not trying to sway you to take my side...I have simply said what I belive.
I am not alone in believing GMO is harmful. If I were there would not be the GMO free certification because people wouldn't seek out out and buy it. Other countries wouldn't have them banned and quite frankly this thread wouldn't exist because there would be no question.
You all think I'm crazy...and again I don't really care. Apparently I'm doing something right in terms of health and nutrution because I am fit, active, a healthy weight and in great health. Bring on the woo!
10 -
-
You are welcome to have your beliefs about the safety of GMO's. The only thing that I have seen questioned is what you are basing those beliefs on.
Are you at all a religious person? Do you belive in God (or some other higher power)? If yes, prove scientifically that God (or other power) is real.singingflutelady wrote: »
Since not naming sources is making you look awesome
I couldn't care less how you think I look. This is an Internet forum which means nothing. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone here. I do not have 1 source for all my information. It is a collective knowledge over the years of things I have read, people I have talked to and things I've seen...a collective general learned knowledge.
The only thing I have done is stated my opinion. My opinion is not fact...it is an opinion. I'm not trying to sway you to take my side...I have simply said what I belive.
I am not alone in believing GMO is harmful. If I were there would not be the GMO free certification because people wouldn't seek out out and buy it. Other countries wouldn't have them banned and quite frankly this thread wouldn't exist because there would be no question.
You all think I'm crazy...and again I don't really care. Apparently I'm doing something right in terms of health and nutrution because I am fit, active, a healthy weight and in great health. Bring on the woo!
If the debate forum is causing you this much stress, you can always block it so you don't see the posts when you view the recent discussions. I only mention it because you don't seem terribly interested in actually debating (no judgement here, I tend to stay off the debate board myself). If you don't want your opinion to be debated, then the debate board might not be for you.4 -
There's many members of the flat earth society all around the globe.5
-
Comparing distrust of GMOs to religious faith seems a little too on the nose5
-
diannethegeek wrote: »
You are welcome to have your beliefs about the safety of GMO's. The only thing that I have seen questioned is what you are basing those beliefs on.
Are you at all a religious person? Do you belive in God (or some other higher power)? If yes, prove scientifically that God (or other power) is real.singingflutelady wrote: »
Since not naming sources is making you look awesome
I couldn't care less how you think I look. This is an Internet forum which means nothing. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone here. I do not have 1 source for all my information. It is a collective knowledge over the years of things I have read, people I have talked to and things I've seen...a collective general learned knowledge.
The only thing I have done is stated my opinion. My opinion is not fact...it is an opinion. I'm not trying to sway you to take my side...I have simply said what I belive.
I am not alone in believing GMO is harmful. If I were there would not be the GMO free certification because people wouldn't seek out out and buy it. Other countries wouldn't have them banned and quite frankly this thread wouldn't exist because there would be no question.
You all think I'm crazy...and again I don't really care. Apparently I'm doing something right in terms of health and nutrution because I am fit, active, a healthy weight and in great health. Bring on the woo!
If the debate forum is causing you this much stress, you can always block it so you don't see the posts when you view the recent discussions. I only mention it because you don't seem terribly interested in actually debating (no judgement here, I tend to stay off the debate board myself). If you don't want your opinion to be debated, then the debate board might not be for you.
It doesn't cause me stress. Kind of comical really. It doesn't matter what board I post on, I get the same reaction...so it doesn't really matter. Thank you for the tip though.astronaught wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There's many members of the flat earth society all around the globe.
All the sarcastic comments are pretty childish though.4 -
I read somewhere that the sector of the brain that retains facts is very close to the area where we store religious beliefs. Which might explain twitter.
And Flat Earthers
And Amway salespersons
And extremism in all it's forms. Devoted, unshakeable followers.
Of course, I can't find the gosh-darn article today, when citation rules. I did find this:
Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4876.full#F4
Interestingly, this study showed that when a participant disagrees with a particular statement, that is, their beliefs are challenged, all different parts of the brain light up.
This coincides with my own experience when I try and shake someone from a firmly held but potentially damaging belief. I really have to take the time to get to the root of why they hung their hat on that particular belief. Knowing the why is the key to loosening the rigidity in the thinking. And it his highly individual. There has to be a different approach to each speaker.
Which comes down to, who is really listening, on either side?2 -
A sorta-kinda relative on FB has started following David avocado wolf and food Babe. Because of their anti-science monetized propaganda campaign, she has decided not to get a flu shot this year. She is a genuinely sweet person ...and also has sarcoidosis.
Really doesn't have anything to do with this post, but it hurts my heart.1 -
Heather4448 wrote: »A sorta-kinda relative on FB has started following David avocado wolf and food Babe. Because of their anti-science monetized propaganda campaign, she has decided not to get a flu shot this year. She is a genuinely sweet person ...and also has sarcoidosis.
Really doesn't have anything to do with this post, but it hurts my heart.
These people are causing so much suffering in the world, its deplorable5 -
You are welcome to have your beliefs about the safety of GMO's. The only thing that I have seen questioned is what you are basing those beliefs on.
Are you at all a religious person? Do you belive in God (or some other higher power)? If yes, prove scientifically that God (or other power) is real.
Are you then equating your distrust of GMO to a religious belief?3 -
You are welcome to have your beliefs about the safety of GMO's. The only thing that I have seen questioned is what you are basing those beliefs on.
Are you at all a religious person? Do you belive in God (or some other higher power)? If yes, prove scientifically that God (or other power) is real.
Are you then equating your distrust of GMO to a religious belief?
I feel like this kind of closes out the debate. Whenever someone says they're accepting something on faith, the conversation is no longer one that can be conducted by referring to facts or objective reality.7 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »
Can you please elabotrate, not sure what you mean here. There is no safe version of Thalidomide for pregnant women.NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
The R variant has a very safe pharmacovigilance profile.
Link to study required.
You can look up the product pharmacovigilance profile on the FDA or EMEA sites.
What "study" would this be under? ...or are you just being argumentative at this point?
There are several pharmaceutical and medical devices that fall under some manner of increased surveillance program - the FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for example. This does not mean that the product isn't safe for the approved indication, but means that there is a history of negative impact, very often a result from off-label usage.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/rems/index.cfm0 -
This content has been removed.
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Not being argumentative just wondering in what world a pregnant woman would be given thalidomide.
Thalidomide is an angiogenesis inhibitor (inhibits growth of new blood vessels) and indicated for use in the treatment/prevention of erythema nodosum leprosum. It is also be used in conjunction with dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myelomas.
Actually fewer risks in comparison to ACE inhibitors, but lacking the media hyperbole.
The disastrous teratogenic effects of thalidomide were not known until the drug was used in off label indications for "morning sickness".0 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Not being argumentative just wondering in what world a pregnant woman would be given thalidomide.
Thalidomide is an angiogenesis inhibitor (inhibits growth of new blood vessels) and indicated for use in the treatment/prevention of erythema nodosum leprosum. It is also be used in conjunction with dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myelomas.
Actually fewer risks in comparison to ACE inhibitors, but lacking the media hyperbole.
The disastrous teratogenic effects of thalidomide were not known until the drug was used in off label indications for "morning sickness".
But is it now safe in any form for pregnant women? Because that is what I was questioning Northcascades about. You then posted a meme implying I was wrong. So where is the study showing it's safe in any form for pregnant women?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions