"David" wrote in message
...




Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us:

In my experience so do non GMO's - gastro enteritis

Cholera, typhoid, dysentry etc.can be quite bad too.

On Wed, 20 May 2009 22:59:47 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:17:44 +0100, David wrote:


On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)

That would be the "academy" that on its web site says "Visit the websites
of other organizations focused on Complementary, Alternative, Integrative,
Holistic & Funcational Medicine"

You have to question though the scientific credentials of those who
support "funcational" medicine and who refer people to homeopaths.

http://www.aaemonline.org/ -- Nothing about that on their website.

On May 20, 9:41*pm, Martin wrote:
David wrote:
[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007

None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

What a load of nonsense; no proper trials; who on earth paid for all
that gobbledegook?

Judith

On May 20, 10:01*pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't science..

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

Judith

In message , David
writes
On Wed, 20 May 2009 22:59:47 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:17:44 +0100, David wrote:


On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)

That would be the "academy" that on its web site says "Visit the websites
of other organizations focused on Complementary, Alternative, Integrative,
Holistic & Funcational Medicine"

You have to question though the scientific credentials of those who
support "funcational" medicine and who refer people to homeopaths.

http://www.aaemonline.org/ -- Nothing about that on their website.


On a cursory glance I don't see any reference to homeopathy, but the
rest of it is readily found -

http://www.aaemonline.org/community.html
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On May 21, 10:44*am, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France



wrote:
On May 20, 10:01*pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials..
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't science.

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. *It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World *who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. *In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

According to an article in the Guardian, a well known Dutch publisher of
scientific papers has accepted money to publish what looks like a peer reviewed
scientific paper for the pharmaceutical industry.
--

Martin

My husband was offered many lucrative deals by the Pharmaceutical
Industry; he simply was not interested Furthermore a peer review on
it's own won't stand, hence 2 referees are required and in some cases
a third.

Judith

"Judith in France" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 10:44 am, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France



wrote:
On May 20, 10:01 pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound,
Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research
on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the
so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the
EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't
science.

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

According to an article in the Guardian, a well known Dutch publisher of
scientific papers has accepted money to publish what looks like a peer
reviewed
scientific paper for the pharmaceutical industry.
--

Martin

My husband was offered many lucrative deals by the Pharmaceutical
Industry; he simply was not interested Furthermore a peer review on
it's own won't stand, hence 2 referees are required and in some cases
a third.

__________________________________________________ __

But if the "peers" are carefully chosen, junk can still be published. As
one of those peers, I once asked for considerable changes to a paper. It
was paublished a couple of years later after being sent to different,
easier-going "peers".
Graham

On May 21, 1:45*pm, Judith in France
wrote:
On May 21, 10:44*am, Martin wrote:





On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France

wrote:
On May 20, 10:01*pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't science.

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. *It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World *who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. *In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

According to an article in the Guardian, a well known Dutch publisher of
scientific papers has accepted money to publish what looks like a peer reviewed
scientific paper for the pharmaceutical industry.
--

Martin

My husband was offered many lucrative deals by the Pharmaceutical
Industry; he simply was not interested *Furthermore a peer review on
it's own won't stand, hence 2 referees are required and in some cases
a third.

Rather like a football match between Man. United and Chelsea.

On May 21, 2:46*pm, "graham" wrote:
"Judith in France" wrote in ...
On May 21, 10:44 am, Martin wrote:



On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France

wrote:
On May 20, 10:01 pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound,
Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research
on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the
so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the
EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't
science.

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

According to an article in the Guardian, a well known Dutch publisher of
scientific papers has accepted money to publish what looks like a peer
reviewed
scientific paper for the pharmaceutical industry.
--

Martin

My husband was offered many lucrative deals by the Pharmaceutical
Industry; he simply was not interested *Furthermore a peer review on
it's own won't stand, hence 2 referees are required and in some cases
a third.

__________________________________________________ __

But if the "peers" are carefully chosen, junk can still be published. *As
one of those peers, I once asked for considerable changes to a paper. *It
was paublished a couple of years later after being sent to different,
easier-going "peers".
Graham

In my husband's field Lyndon, you don't get to choose your peers; they
are chosen for you. If his grant came from the Science Research
Council; then they will send out his paper to referees; he has no
choice in the matter, and this is the way it usually works.

Judith

Judith

On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:49:32 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:


On a cursory glance I don't see any reference to homeopathy, but the
rest of it is readily found -

In their "Find AAEM member"

one is
http://www.drmagaziner.com/

or

Ingels, Darin J, ND, MT(ASCP) (Southport)
New England Family Health Associates

Practice Emphasis
Acupuncture
Allergy
Chelation
Clinical Immunology
Dermatology
Environmental Medicine
Family Practice
Homeopathy
Immuno-Metabolic Disorders
Nutritional Medicine
OB/GYN
Otolaryngology
Pediatrics
Preventive Medicine

Diagnostic Techniques

Ecological Oriented History
Sublingual P/N
Preservative-free Antigens
Dietary Elimination
Dietary Rotary Diversified
Immunologic RASTIGE
Immunologic RASTIGG
Electrodermal Screening

Treatment Techniques

Inhalant Neutralization
Inhalant Optimal Dose
Inhalant Sublingual
Food Sublingual
Avoidance
Chemical Sublingual
Preservative-free Antigen Therapy
Rotary Diversified Diet

They are not isolated examples.

In David wrote:

The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria
living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26]

No, it doesn't. From the cited article:

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v2...bs/nbt934.html (abstract)
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/06-272-005.pdf (full article)

"Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human
gastrointestinal tract"

" ... As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not
increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that
gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment."

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

David wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 22:59:47 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:17:44 +0100, David wrote:


On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)
That would be the "academy" that on its web site says "Visit the websites
of other organizations focused on Complementary, Alternative, Integrative,
Holistic & Funcational Medicine"

You have to question though the scientific credentials of those who
support "funcational" medicine and who refer people to homeopaths.

http://www.aaemonline.org/ -- Nothing about that on their website.

You didn't look too far then

http://www.google.com/search?q=homeo...aaemonline.org

http://tinyurl.com/p9vakp

Bert Hyman wrote:
In David wrote:

The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria
living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26]

No, it doesn't. From the cited article:

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v2...bs/nbt934.html (abstract)
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/06-272-005.pdf (full article)

"Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human
gastrointestinal tract"

" ... As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not
increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that
gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment."

Don't confuse Dave by quoting actual science.

On May 21, 6:46*pm, Martin wrote:
Bert Hyman wrote:
wrote:

The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria
living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26]

No, it doesn't. From the cited article:

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v2....html(abstract)
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articl...2-005.pdf(full article)

"Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human
gastrointestinal tract"

" ... As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not
increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that
gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment."

Don't confuse Dave by quoting actual science.



Perhaps it is YOU who are confused.

You claim Homeopathy has no science behind it and that you have to
"question" those who refer people to Homeopaths.

Suppose the referrer is an MD or other fully qualified health
professional? Do you wish to impugn all of them. Do you accuse the
MD's who practice Homeopathy of being "quacks"?

Or, perhaps, now that the sweepingly fallacies of your position have
been exposed, you will want to make belated acknowledgement of the
Homeopathic curative effect but quickly hide behind the "placebo"
tree, waving hands while shouting .... "but it's just the placebo
effect!!" forgetting that the "placebo" effect, a genuine phenomenon,
has not yet been explained by science, as with Homeopathy.

You claim that there are no double blinded placebo controlled
randomized tests for Homeopathy - but a quick search reviews numerous
ones, many with positive results - some even performing better than
standard medicines available as OTC remedies.

Next, the pseudo-scientific anti-Homeopathist will hysterically shout
that the high dilution remedies used in Homeopathy cannot possibly
work because all molecules of the curative substance have been diluted
away. Unfortunately for this point of view, Pharmaceutical
researcher M. Ennis, a skeptic of Homeopathy by the way, set out one
day to put to rest the "memory of water" idea with some experiments
but ended up dumbfounded when the experiment she did indicated that
the high dilution solution she had prepared STILL was able to
stimulate biological effects as though the molecules of the stimulant
were still there. Her results were published (Inflammation Research,
vol 53, p181) and repeated in other labs numerous times with positive
results. She correctly remains a skeptic of Homeopathy but admits
her results are without scientific explanation.

Then there is the "evidence" - 200 years of case histories and
clinical reports - oh to be sure, some of it nonsense to be
disregarded but still a huge body of case histories by competent MDs
and other health professionals which constitute the core of their
system, just as the accumulated case histories and clinical
experience, NOT double blinded trials, constitute the core of standard
medicine (seen any double blinded tests for heart surgeries, knee
replacement operations or chemotherapy done on HUMANS lately?).

So, what is all this talk about "science" attempting to discredit
Homeopathy when you don't know anything at all about the research, or
the genuine scientific researchers doing work in the field? The
mechanism of Homeopathy is unknown just as the mechanism of action of
HUNDREDS of pharmaceutical drugs remains completely unknown and under
research.

You claim to value science but then want us to believe your personal
mental models of chemistry as sufficient to banish all research and
excoriate anyone connected with Homeopathy.

That's not science, it's a witch hunt.

Citizen Jimserac

On May 21, 5:02*pm, Judith in France
wrote:
On May 21, 2:46*pm, "graham" wrote:



"Judith in France" wrote in ...
On May 21, 10:44 am, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France

wrote:
On May 20, 10:01 pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound,
Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research
on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the
so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the
EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't
science.

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

According to an article in the Guardian, a well known Dutch publisher of
scientific papers has accepted money to publish what looks like a peer
reviewed
scientific paper for the pharmaceutical industry.
--

Martin

My husband was offered many lucrative deals by the Pharmaceutical
Industry; he simply was not interested *Furthermore a peer review on
it's own won't stand, hence 2 referees are required and in some cases
a third.

__________________________________________________ __

But if the "peers" are carefully chosen, junk can still be published. *As
one of those peers, I once asked for considerable changes to a paper. *It
was paublished a couple of years later after being sent to different,
easier-going "peers".
Graham

In my husband's field Lyndon, you don't get to choose your peers; they
are chosen for you. *If his grant came from the Science Research
Council; then they will send out his paper to referees; he has no
choice in the matter, and this is the way it usually works.

Judith

Judith

Beg Pardon, that should have read Graham, how rude of me!!! slaps
myself on wrist.

Judith