VACCINES work, GMOs are safe, and EVERYTHING is a CHEMICAL.

Vaccines do work. Everything material is a chemical compound or element. The jury's out on GMOs. What's your point?

If you don't believe that ALL our food is contaminated with di-hydrogen-oxide, then you are one of the sheeple, and your brain will rot!

argv wrote:

Vaccines do work. Everything material is a chemical compound or element. The jury's out on GMOs. What's your point?

That many people are selectively "pro-science" - it is quite common.

periodic reminder wrote:

Just a reminder--sometimes some people seem to forget:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.ecwid.com/images/9350453/461574526.jpg

Thank you.

Plastics and all FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are also safe. Never question your masters.

Vaccines work in general, but they're a huge source off repeat business for pharma. I think it's a safe bet that at least one or two of them are less effective/more dangerous than they say, and will be withdrawn in the future.

GMOs - not sure.

Agree with the last.

Obese America wrote:

periodic reminder wrote:

Just a reminder--sometimes some people seem to forget:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.ecwid.com/images/9350453/461574526.jpg

Thank you.

Plastics and all FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are also safe. Never question your masters.

You can read the clinical trials results for yourself and see if the efficacy meets your needs. If you don't trust the FDA, you can easily make your own decisions based on scientific results.

Vaccines work, but they also have unintended consequences as they can elicit undesirable immune responses in individuals. Considering that the government has made it almost impossible to sue the developers of a vaccine (See the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act under Ronald Reagan) by holding no fault trials in secret (no jury of your peers, no records for others to follow up on, great expense to bring a suit, a short statute of limitations, etc.). It is just another example of big pharm buying off the federal government under the guise of public health (see Obamacare, the irreplaceable boondoggle that will cost us all 2.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years). If you think vaccines are completely safe, you are naïve.

You should just meet with a GMO. It will change your prejudice views towards them. My dog is a respectable little man and will likely be open to meeting with you if you rub his belly and ignore his red rocket.

Take a read wrote:

Obese America wrote:

Plastics and all FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are also safe. Never question your masters.

You can read the clinical trials results for yourself and see if the efficacy meets your needs. If you don't trust the FDA, you can easily make your own decisions based on scientific results.

They are safe and nobody can say any different, until the FDA or someone else declares they are unsafe and they are pulled from the shelves, at which point they become unsafe and nobody has ever said any different...

DiscoGary wrote:

If you don't believe that ALL our food is contaminated with di-hydrogen-oxide, then you are one of the sheeple, and your brain will rot!

Gary wouldn't that contaminant be dihydrogen-monoxide?

Oh boy. These threads are always good.

If you think GMOs are "controversial" then you must also accept that climate change is "controversial" both have the same amount of science on the side generating controversy.

Let's be consistent here folks.

argv wrote:

Vaccines do work. Everything material is a chemical compound or element. The jury's out on GMOs. What's your point?

The Jury is out on GMOs? Not for scientists.

Scientific consensus on GMOs is higher than scientific consensus on man-made global warming. to quote the second article:

Let me put it this way – if you accept the enormous evidence that supports the scientific theory of climate change, then you should know that there is almost the same volume of evidence that supports the safety of genetically modified foods.

If you accept the science of climate change, but deny the science of GMOs, then you are a science denier. It’s pretty simple. In fact, many of us think that GMO deniers are the left’s version of climate change deniers.

Harambe wrote:

If you think GMOs are "controversial" then you must also accept that climate change is "controversial" both have the same amount of science on the side generating controversy.

Not exactly an endorsement of GMOs

Flounder wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

If you don't believe that ALL our food is contaminated with di-hydrogen-oxide, then you are one of the sheeple, and your brain will rot!

Gary wouldn't that contaminant be dihydrogen-monoxide?

Not necessary.

Pedantic Pete wrote:

Flounder wrote:

Gary wouldn't that contaminant be dihydrogen-monoxide?

Not necessary.

Hehe yu guys are making scienze jokes very funny hehehehehehehhehehe almoss as funy as the won abowt how adems maek up everything hehehehehe.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

If you accept the science of climate change, but deny the science of GMOs, then you are a science denier. It’s pretty simple. In fact, many of us think that GMO deniers are the left’s version of climate change deniers.

Absolutely. Now that the "vaccines cause autism!" canard has been thoroughly debunked, many people seem to have switched their emphasis to "GMOs aren't natural, so they're not safe!"

I've seen a similar kind of attitude in other areas. I really think that for some people it's because they can't accept the notion of something-for-nothing. If something is beneficial, there has to be a hidden cost: a vaccine causing autism, a GMO causing who knows what. I had a classmate (with a 4.0!) in a respected MBA program who was the same way: She could not accept that economies expand, so if someone was making more money, someone else had to be making less. Classic zero-sum thinking.

I remember when the first studies came out, showing definitively that disposable diapers exact less of an overall environmental cost than washable diapers do. Similar kind of response from many people: "That *can't* be true"--meaning, it can't be the case that something is both more convenient for us and less injurious to everybody.

But it *was* true...just as it's true that GMOs, which are one reason why a higher percentage of humans (than ever before in history) gets enough to eat, are both convenient and safe.

Vaccines weaken the population by promoting the survival of genotypes that would normally die of a particular disease. When (not if) civilization collapses and the vaccines are no longer available, the population will be vulnerable to catastrophic die-offs from the diseases they were formerly protected against.

Whether they cause autism or not is a red herring. They are still bad.

GMO's disrupt the ecology of non-GMO's. Crops engineered with a competitive trait can become invasive both on farmland and wildland, and create unintended hybrids with the potential to wreak havoc. GMO's designed to increase crop yields are particularly devastating because they allow the further development of the world's bloated population and civilization, which will certainly accelerate the environmental degradation already occurring. Those designed to resist pesticides like Roundup result in greater use of those pesticides, which are not safe to consume.

Whether GMO's themselves are safe to eat is a red herring. They are still bad.

"Chemicals," when spoken of in a negative context, generally refers to toxic or dangerous chemicals. Pedantically pointing out that non-toxic things are chemicals too is a red herring. The toxic chemicals that you damn well know they're referring to are still bad.

periodic reminder wrote:

VACCINES work, GMOs are safe, and EVERYTHING is a CHEMICAL.

An electron is NOT a CHEMICAL.

Just a reminder - sometimes some people seem to forget.

You're welcome.

Harambe wrote:

Oh boy. These threads are always good.

If you think GMOs are "controversial" then you must also accept that climate change is "controversial" both have the same amount of science on the side generating controversy.

Let's be consistent here folks.

9.11 was an inside job, very obvious to anyone who looks deep enough. So if your masters can commit such an act do you think they are capable of population control through food or vaccines?