Spot-on Country Gal

It is the opinion of people on the land which (should) carry the weight.
I did email/invite the above url's for their opinion and I hope they will take me up on it.
This subject is too important to have it nullified by a few pro-GM lovers who don't know what this means to have our food chain manipulated by the corporate sector. It is "connecting the dots" what we need people to see and understand what goes on behind secret meetings between "vested" interests. If Nano-tech takes it's hold well and truly, we can say goodbye to all life as we know it.Poisons you can still handle (just) but when the particles are getting so small it can finish up in every life form.Just imagine...where does the average person find a filter to filter out those miniscule particles?
So where is the protection if something goes wrong with that technology? It's the usual,I'm afraid,make it first test it by a biased scientist,put it on the market....and if nobody dies within three months it is ok to push it further.Sounds a bit like those toads, did they ever research a safetynet first? Yeh right!
You think a gas mask can filter out Nano particles? Water filter maybe? No way! Only look at the fluorine/fluoride problem.Where is a filter for that? This GM,Nano thing stinks to hell.We don't need this stuff and neither do our small fry and theirs and theirs.
Your on the button Country gal, keep it coming!

eftfnc, nice dictionary definition, but statistical bias is something good scientists rigorously avoid. Statistical bias does not make the research "biased", just bad.

You can't claim that research is biased, just because you don't agree with the outcomes. They did that back in Darwin's day and some still do so over evolution, but the facts remain the same. There is only one set of facts here and those facts are that GM per se is not dangerous.

Ah the cane toad. Funny how people never bother to look up the information on these topics. The cane toad was introduced into Australia with no testing and against the advice of scientists with knowledge in the area.

agro" Read it again.
**Collins dic.(bias) ref.5.Statistics,a latent influence that disturbs an analysis.**
(Bias) when used in connection with Statistics, Latent means: 'hidden',
Influence could mean: secret payments/pressure from 'vested interests'
Get my drift?

http://www.honestfoodguide.org/
http://www.newstarget.com/future_of_food.html

Agro: Here is the opposite: an 'UNBIASED" research on mercury.
http://www.iaomt.org/videos/

Here is another:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TransgenicPlumUSDA.php

and if anyone looked at page 19 'The Weekly Times' july25 2007, you'll see a Biased wish for a review on GM, from a commercial point of view.
Quote:" They have push-polled Australians to dishonestly inflate support for GM" I believe that!
"GCA chairman M.Jones said Australia's grain growers were losing markets to competitors who were using GM crops" Yeah right! Which markets is he talking about? Not the Arab countries for sure,maybe the poor African countries were the US has been DUMPING GM stuff for god knows how long? Surely EU wouldn't have a bar of it! So here goes again,Spin-doctoring is the norm again.

I see eftfnc, research is biased if you don’t agree with it and unbiased if you do. At least that makes life simple for you. Though, I would suggest it is a silly way of operating, but that is your choice.

Oh, what happens if you agree with some of it and disagree with some? Is the research then both biased and unbiased?

While you are working on answers to those, I would like to comment on the video you directed me to. I must admit I didn’t watch it as I am on dialup and it takes too long to download. Instead, I looked at the organisation behind it IOAMT. Two things worry me about them. Firstly, they set out to sponsor research to show amalgam fillings were dangerous. The trouble with this is they have already biased the research by stating what the results need to be before the test is conducted. I don’t have a position on the toxicity or otherwise of amalgam fillings as I have not looked into the issue in depth, but these sorts of statements immediately make me dismissive of this group.

Secondly, they believe fluoridation of water provides no health benefit. This is at variance with both a large number of studies and 50 years of experience. Until the last decade, dental caries in communities with fluoridated water had decreased to very low levels. I was the product of such public health intervention. Dental caries are increasing now in response to the consumption of bottled as opposed to tap water. I didn’t read their report in detail, but one of their arguments seemed to be that ingestion of water didn’t help because only topical application of fluoride helps. They forget that in order to be ingested, water goes past your teeth providing topical application on the way down.

As for Mae-Wan Ho and Joe Cummins and their comments on GM Plums, the pair of them seem to have no understanding of the fate of unprotected nucleic acids on digestion. Their comments on the topic are total rubbish.