Who's Afraid Of Gmo?

[current]

Has any body read the book by ; Steven M. Druker , Altered Genes, Twisted Truth ? (2015).

 

How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science , Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.

 

Just started the book .

 

" ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS OF THE LAST 50 YEARS "

 

Jane Goodall , from the forward .

 

Another quote ;

 

" Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course."

 

Joseph Cummins,PhD, Professor Emeritus of Genetics,

 

Western University, London, Ontario

 

Amoung many other Scientist that recommend this book .

Edited March 21, 2017 by current

[CraigD]

Has any body read the book by Steven M. Druker , Altered Genes, Twisted Truth ? (2015).

I haven’t, and because of reviews like MD Terry Simpson’s Steven Druker's book: Not worth reading, I don’t plan to.

 

From this biographical summary, lawyer Steven Druker sound like a well-intentioned, dedicated person, with a good humanities education, but from reviews like Simpson’s, it sounds like he’s written a book with naïve and unsound science. It’s unfortunate he didn’t collaborate with an expert in microbiology, since IMHO, there are sound scientific reasons to be concerned about the large-scale use of GM crop plants. Raising objections that have been scientifically discredited distracts from the legitimate concerns.

 

" ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS OF THE LAST 50 YEARS "

Jane Goodall , from the forward .

...

" Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course."

Joseph Cummins,PhD, Professor Emeritus of Genetics,

I’m chagrinned that a famous primatologist like Goodall or the late, would endorse a book with flawed science, even if that science is outside of her area of expertise.

 

The late Joseph Cummings was a geneticist, so I would expect him to have been more careful in his endorsement.

 

I worry that both Goodall and Cummings were over 80 years old when they endorsed Druker’s book, and may not be as mentally able as they were when they were younger.

 

It also concerns me that a book like Drucker’s, which, scientifically sound or not, is presumably intended to raise public awareness, is expensive. I think It’s more ethical to self-publish such a book at free or very low, not a premium, price.

[A-wal]

I worry that both Goodall and Cummings were over 80 years old when they endorsed Druker’s book, and may not be as mentally able as they were when they were younger.

Or had less to lose by endorsing it. ;)

[current]

I haven’t, and because of reviews like MD Terry Simpson’s Steven Druker's book: Not worth reading, I don’t plan to.From this biographical summary, lawyer Steven Druker sound like a well-intentioned, dedicated person, with a good humanities education, but from reviews like Simpson’s, it sounds like he’s written a book with naïve and unsound science. It’s unfortunate he didn’t collaborate with an expert in microbiology, since IMHO, there are sound scientific reasons to be concerned about the large-scale use of GM crop plants. Raising objections that have been scientifically discredited distracts from the legitimate concerns.I’m chagrinned that a famous primatologist like Goodall or the late, would endorse a book with flawed science, even if that science is outside of her area of expertise.The late Joseph Cummings was a geneticist, so I would expect him to have been more careful in his endorsement.I worry that both Goodall and Cummings were over 80 years old when they endorsed Druker’s book, and may not be as mentally able as they were when they were younger.It also concerns me that a book like Drucker’s, which, scientifically sound or not, is presumably intended to raise public awareness, is expensive. I think It’s more ethical to self-publish such a book at free or very low, not a premium, price.

The fact that you won't read the book because so and so says this about the book , is the smyptom of the lack of wanting truth .

 

The truth , wanting the truth , finding the truth , searching for the truth , is up to you .

 

When one is not interested in searching for the truth , then we become more vulnerable to manipulation of thinking and therefore what we think upon .

[CraigD]

The fact that you won't read the book because so and so says this about the book , is the smyptom of the lack of wanting truth .

Current, in your own words, how would you summarize Simpson’s criticism of Druker’s, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth

 

It can be just as or even more important to read critical reviews of books than to read the books themselves, especially if you are not well-educated in the books’ subjects. Since many books present only the author’s claims, it’s easy for the non-expert to be convinced of claims that aren’t true.

 

Have you read Druker’s book? Do you agree or disagree with Simpson’s criticism that “Druker’s tryptophan story is incorrect”? Why?

[current]

Current, in your own words, how would you summarize Simpson’s criticism of Druker’s, Altered Genes, Twisted TruthIt can be just as or even more important to read critical reviews of books than to read the books themselves, especially if you are not well-educated in the books’ subjects. Since many books present only the author’s claims, it’s easy for the non-expert to be convinced of claims that aren’t true.Have you read Druker’s book? Do you agree or disagree with Simpson’s criticism that “Druker’s tryptophan story is incorrect”? Why?

Just started Steven's book , on page 76 .

[current]

Druker is incorrect that EMS was not present before GMO, in fact, EMS was reported long before bacteria were genetically engineered.

 

Druker gets into this in his book .

Edited March 22, 2017 by current

[current]

 

http://gmopundit.blogspot.ca/2015/03/steven-drukers-book-not-worth-reading.html

 

Scroll to the comments

[exchemist]

I haven’t, and because of reviews like MD Terry Simpson’s Steven Druker's book: Not worth reading, I don’t plan to.

 

From this biographical summary, lawyer Steven Druker sound like a well-intentioned, dedicated person, with a good humanities education, but from reviews like Simpson’s, it sounds like he’s written a book with naïve and unsound science. It’s unfortunate he didn’t collaborate with an expert in microbiology, since IMHO, there are sound scientific reasons to be concerned about the large-scale use of GM crop plants. Raising objections that have been scientifically discredited distracts from the legitimate concerns.

 

I’m chagrinned that a famous primatologist like Goodall or the late, would endorse a book with flawed science, even if that science is outside of her area of expertise.

 

The late Joseph Cummings was a geneticist, so I would expect him to have been more careful in his endorsement.

 

I worry that both Goodall and Cummings were over 80 years old when they endorsed Druker’s book, and may not be as mentally able as they were when they were younger.

 

It also concerns me that a book like Drucker’s, which, scientifically sound or not, is presumably intended to raise public awareness, is expensive. I think It’s more ethical to self-publish such a book at free or very low, not a premium, price.

Very reasonable response and well said. 

 

On these internet forums I regularly find myself explaining to people that no scientist - or anyone else for that matter - is morally obliged to listen attentively to every nutter on the street corner. If we did that, we would get nothing done. We all, quite rightly, use filters in our daily lives, to select what is worthwhile paying attention to. This is especially important for time-consuming activities such as reading books or watching videos. Reviews by respected experts in the field are a very valuable tool for filtering. 

 

But it remains one of the favourite tropes of the crank, or the anti-science obsessive, to tell people they have forfeited their right to an opinion because they have not read or watched some mendacious rubbish or other. 

[current]

Very reasonable response and well said. 

 

On these internet forums I regularly find myself explaining to people that no scientist - or anyone else for that matter - is morally obliged to listen attentively to every nutter on the street corner. If we did that, we would get nothing done. We all, quite rightly, use filters in our daily lives, to select what is worthwhile paying attention to. This is especially important for time-consuming activities such as reading books or watching videos. Reviews by respected experts in the field are a very valuable tool for filtering. 

 

But it remains one of the favourite tropes of the crank, or the anti-science obsessive, to tell people they have forfeited their right to an opinion because they have not read or watched some mendacious rubbish or other.

 

Acually it is not a reasonable response . By CraigD . He won't read the book , and neither will you exchemist . You can't have a reasonable response if you ignore all the information in the book .

 

You haven't forfeited your right to your opinion , but you have forfeited your right to an informed opinion .

[A-wal]

On these internet forums I regularly find myself explaining to people that no scientist - or anyone else for that matter - is morally obliged to listen attentively to every nutter on the street corner. If we did that, we would get nothing done. We all, quite rightly, use filters in our daily lives, to select what is worthwhile paying attention to. This is especially important for time-consuming activities such as reading books or watching videos. Reviews by respected experts in the field are a very valuable tool for filtering. 

 

But it remains one of the favourite tropes of the crank, or the anti-science obsessive, to tell people they have forfeited their right to an opinion because they have not read or watched some mendacious rubbish or other. 

If someone claims to have evidence of something then you have no right to attack the claim while ignoring that evidence. This doesn't apply to theists claiming that their religious book of choice provides evidence because that's in no way evidence of anything. It's debatable whether it applies to a youtube video but at least it apparently has some experiments to support it. I'm going to watch that video later because it is an interesting claim and I want to see if it seems in any way legit.

[sanctus]

Current, your argument does not hold: I do not have to read an astrology book to criticise astrology, I just need to know what astrology is.

Your argument holds only if stated as: you can't criticise the astrology book if you haven't read it.

[current]

If someone claims to have evidence of something then you have no right to attack the claim while ignoring that evidence. This doesn't apply to theists claiming that their religious book of choice provides evidence because that's in no way evidence of anything. It's debatable whether it applies to a youtube video but at least it apparently has some experiments to support it. I'm going to watch that video later because it is an interesting claim and I want to see if it seems in any way legit.

Agreed

 

More importantly read Steven Druker's book .

[exchemist]

If someone claims to have evidence of something then you have no right to attack the claim while ignoring that evidence. This doesn't apply to theists claiming that their religious book of choice provides evidence because that's in no way evidence of anything. It's debatable whether it applies to a youtube video but at least it apparently has some experiments to support it. I'm going to watch that video later because it is an interesting claim and I want to see if it seems in any way legit.

I think you do have that right, if it is a claim that has already been discredited. If it is really new, then sure, I agree that if its advocate can make a strong case, you need to pay attention before dismissing it.

 

But water memory has been investigated by others and dismissed, as my earlier sources demonstrate. So in my view, it's a case of "Move along now, ladies and gents, nothing to see here.", unless the advocate can make a compelling argument to the contrary. 

 

For a known anti-science troll to come here, offer no such argument,  and just demand that we all watch YouTube videos or read books with poor reviews, does not, in my humble opinion, meet that criterion.

Edited March 22, 2017 by exchemist

[current]

I think you do have that right, if it is a claim that has already been discredited. If it is really new, then sure, I agree that if its advocate can make a strong case, you need to pay attention before dismissing it.

 

But water memory has been investigated by others and dismissed, as my earlier sources demonstrate. So in my view, it's a case of "Move along now, ladies and gents, nothing to see here.", unless the advocate can make a compelling argument to the contrary. 

 

For a known anti-science troll to come here, offer no such argument,  and just demand that we all watch YouTube videos or read books with poor reviews, does not, in my humble opinion, meet that criterion.

What others exchemist , provide the link .

 

Anti-science is you exchemist .

[JMJones0424]

I am dumbfounded, current.  You wish for a link that the claim that water has memory has been discredited?  All of reality shows that such a claim is false. You are making a positive claim, that water has a memory, but you have yet to provide convincing evidence that your claim is an accurate representation of reality.  I can, and do, make the counter-claim that you don't have any clue what you are talking about.  You ask for an experiment that shows that water does not have memory, I respond that every experiment that I know of shows that water, or any other molecule, does not have memory in any way that we can consider.  What others need be present when you make a claim that it is demonstrably false?  What link is sufficient when you claim that reality is not what it is experimentally?  There is no evidence that water has memory, specifically because water is but one of many molecules that respond exactly the same to a given circumstance regardless of how you track the composite atoms of the water.

 

I do not believe that exchemist is anti-science.  Instead, exchemist is asking the most basic of science questions.  How is it that you have come to accept your hypothesis that water has memory?  What experiment can you link to that supports your claim that a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom behaves differently depending upon its history?  I can think of a number of such experiments that could support such a claim, but I have yet to read any experiment that does.  When you drink from a bottle of water, do you consider the history of the molecules that make up the water you are drinking?  If so, why?  Why do you suppose that a molecule of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is more or less capable of remembering its historicity?

 

At what point do you presume that the source of the hydrogen or the oxygen becomes relevant?  Why have you picked such a point?  Is it not true that all Hydrogen atoms and all Oxygen atoms behave exactly as we would expect them to, regardless of their previous history?  This is a fundamental understanding of chemistry.  If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, and if you fail to provide this evidence, then you are choosing to retard our understanding.  What evidence do you have that a particular molecule of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom behaves differently than we should expect this molecule to behave?

Edited March 24, 2017 by JMJones0424

[exchemist]

I am dumbfounded, current.  You wish for a link that the claim that water has memory has been discredited?  All of reality shows that such a claim is false. You are making a positive claim, that water has a memory, but you have yet to provide convincing evidence that your claim is an accurate representation of reality.  I can, and do, make the counter-claim that you don't have any clue what you are talking about.  You ask for an experiment that shows that water does not have memory, I respond that every experiment that I know of shows that water, or any other molecule, does not have memory in any way that we can consider.  What others need be present when you make a claim that it is demonstrably false?  What link is sufficient when you claim that reality is not what it is experimentally?  There is no evidence that water has memory, specifically because water is but one of many molecules that respond exactly the same to a given circumstance regardless of how you track the composite atoms of the water.

 

I do not believe that exchemist is anti-science.  Instead, exchemist is asking the most basic of science questions.  How is it that you have come to accept your hypothesis that water has memory?  What experiment can you link to that supports your claim that a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom behaves differently depending upon its history?  I can think of a number of such experiments that could support such a claim, but I have yet to read any experiment that does.  When you drink from a bottle of water, do you consider the history of the molecules that make up the water you are drinking?  If so, why?  Why do you suppose that a molecule of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is more or less capable of remembering its historicity?

 

At what point do you presume that the source of the hydrogen or the oxygen becomes relevant?  Why have you picked such a point?  Is it not true that all Hydrogen atoms and all Oxygen atoms behave exactly as we would expect them to, regardless of their previous history?  This is a fundamental understanding of chemistry.  If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, and if you fail to provide this evidence, then you are choosing to retard our understanding.  What evidence do you have that a particular molecule of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom behaves differently than we should expect this molecule to behave?

Well said. And in fact I have already, on the water memory thread, provided evidence from research showing why the notion of water memory makes no sense, which raises the burden of evidence even higher for any proponent of it. 

 

But I don't think you are dealing with a person amenable to rational argument. The good news is his one month ban from sciforums expires in 8hrs (I've just checked), so he may soon be gone from here. :)

 

And I suppose we should not be dragging a discussion of (lack of) water memory across to this thread..... 

Edited March 24, 2017 by exchemist