Science vs the Fructose/HFCS Conspiracy

Post by **Ironman** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:23 pm

Peter Rouse wrote:http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxificat ... artame.htm

If you trust a company like Monsanto then I feel very sorry for you and anyone you manage to convince.

Why would I trust Monsanto or any company for that matter? There is no trust needed, nor should there be. I am diametrically opposed to blind trust. That's why the scientific method is applied. It and logical deductive reasoning are the only way to know anything after all.

Peter Rouse · Post by **Peter Rouse** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:23 pm

Are you avoiding the question regarding GMO? I just want your take on GMO.

Post by **Ironman** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:28 pm

Peter Rouse wrote:Ironman, what's your thoughts on GMO?

There is nothing wrong with the technique itself. It depends on how you aply it.

This is like asking, "what do you think of soldering?". Well it's great for electronics, but if you use it to burn people, than not so much.

I would caution jumping on the "natural=good, technology=bad" bandwagon. One should examine these things on a case by case basis and neither blindly accept nor dismiss out of hand.

Peter Rouse · Post by **Peter Rouse** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:30 pm

This proves it, you are an idiot. You have no understanding of the science behind GMO.

Peter Rouse · Post by **Peter Rouse** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:32 pm

BTW the study mentioned was funded and controlled but one of Monsanto shell companies. Do your homework.

Post by **Ironman** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:38 pm

Peter Rouse wrote:This proves it, you are an idiot.

Oh yea, I like to examine evidence instead of blindly following someone. Isn't that just the epitome of idiocy?

Nice ad hominem attack. When argument fails, you may as well sling insults.

Why is gullibility such a virtue with so many people? I find that very strange.

So I guess we should abandon the scientific method and base our entire epistemology on some nonsensical feelings spouted off by any person we happen to come across, or just insert any fable we happen to like.

This is some of the most utterly fatuous tripe I've ever been subjected to.

Post by **Ironman** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:45 pm

Peter Rouse wrote:BTW the study mentioned was funded and controlled but one of Monsanto shell companies. Do your homework.

So businesses aren't allowed to do research? It was a blind, peer reviewed study. You are using the "guilt by association" logical fallacy.

You can't say everything they do is bogus, because of some unrelated accusations.

Peter Rouse · Post by **Peter Rouse** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:45 pm

Ironman wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:BTW the study mentioned was funded and controlled but one of Monsanto shell companies. Do your homework.
So businesses aren't allowed to do research? It was a blind, peer reviewed study. You are using the "guilt by association" logical fallacy.

You can't say everything they do is bogus, because of some unrelated accusations.

I am in the research field and can tell you the peer review does not mean what it used to.

Most of todays research is brought and paid for - it's a sad state but I know this from first had experience.

There have been whistle blowers that have provided evidence of this. Some have even turned up dead (reported in mainstream media), this is how serious this game is.

It is extremely easy to produce results a certain way and even when the results are not favorable they either just change the results or just throw the study away and not publish it (they own the study so they don't have to publish it if they don't want to).

Why are there not more whistle blowers.... they are scared. The ones that have come forward have been blacklisted and never able to get a grant again - not only that, they are attacked and persecuted.

When studies to leak out they are mainstream media is blocked reporting on it. We have seen this many times. Here is an example
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0392&hl=en

Rucifer · Post by **Rucifer** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:41 pm

Everyone seems to be on the stevia bandwagon as of late. I cut out artifical sweeteners myself, how does stevia compare to them?

Peter Rouse · Post by **Peter Rouse** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:56 pm

Why do we need sweeteners in the first place?

Post by **Ironman** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:32 pm

Peter Rouse wrote:I am in the research field and can tell you the peer review does not mean what it used to.

Well that explains a lot..... I hope you are just a lab tech or something like that..... Your objectivity seems quite questionable. You seem to begin with a desired outcome and then try to shape things according to that. You also don't seem to be aware of what makes a proper experiment. Maybe you could work for the Discovery Institute........

Post by **TimD** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:49 pm

Now, now kids. We all know how you both feel on the issue, lets keep it civil. It's starting to get ugly. Let's move on to the two questions just put out there, like "how does Stevia stack up with the others" and "why do we need sweetners in the first place".
Tim (the other mod and admin)

Post by **Ironman** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:19 pm

Rucifer wrote:Everyone seems to be on the stevia bandwagon as of late. I cut out artifical sweeteners myself, how does stevia compare to them?

Well it's not natural, and it's not sugar. Most importantly it tries let you make something sweet with little or no calories and little to no effect on blood sugar. It sweetens things, so it HAS to be bad for you somehow, if it isn't in the same way as sugar then of course it must be MUCH worse.

Since it isn't natural it of course causes cancer, aids, necrotising fasceitis, MS, Parkinsons. Lupus, heart disease, gingivitis, PTSD,terminal flatulence, bubonic plague, small pox, polio, halitosis and bad posture.

Post by **Ironman** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:29 pm

TimD wrote:Now, now kids. We all know how you both feel on the issue, lets keep it civil. It's starting to get ugly. Let's move on to the two questions just put out there, like "how does Stevia stack up with the others" and "why do we need sweetners in the first place".
Tim (the other mod and admin)

I don't feel anything about it. If you will notice, I did keep it civil. He was the only one to use ad hominem (attacking me rather than the argument).

Now I did use sarcasm to respond to his personal attack, but that's really what it calls for.

Now the post I just made to Rucifer, I'm totally just joking. That's obviously intended to be funny, as I was being completely ridiculous.

But look at all the rest of my posts, I do nothing but respond to the arguments..... er point out the lack of them as the case may be.

Peter Rouse · Post by **Peter Rouse** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:44 pm

You are an idiot as without even knowing the science involved with GMO you make the statement that it is safe.

If it's so safe why did Monsanto have to cover it up and why have so many countries banned GMO if it is safe. You telling me that 90% of the world's scientists are stupid and don't know anything.

So many scientists involved in this field have spoken out yet in this country the are prosecuted for dong so.... elsewhere in the world they listen.

Look at what happened in India. If GMO is safe how do you explain that and why did Monsanto spend hundreds of millions trying to cover it up.

Monsanto is one of the most corrupt companies in the world right up there with government - in fact if you look at how many from the FDA have moved in to high paying positions within the FDA.

How about the Monsanto worker who submitted papers to the FDA for approval, left Monsanto to work for the FDA to only end up aproving her own submission.....

If you are blind to the truth then do the world a favor eat more Aspartame - natural selection is a wonderful thing.