Sometimes I wonder if it was such a great idea to study so much science. I feel like that guy in the old Monty Python skit "Spot the Looney". I'm the guy in the suit, sitting calmly... I see and hear so many bad science arguments these days that I think we might be finished. I am probably right that this is the new dark age.

That's nice. But, I'll leave what I said right there. I'm not defending Natural News. I don't read it.

Good AR analogy...my thought was...why not...everyone knows their all about fake news anyway...no one will believe it.

Who knows why. Maybe to show the other side at their own expense, or worse, maybe a Hank Rearden spending/giving money to those who want to nail him.

Interesting...Monsanto is a big advertiser for them...makes me wanta go Hmmm...Laughing.

No, re-reading that statement I can see that my editing, always, after posting...was flawed.
Boy, did I ever screw that up! Laughing.
Basically, information in our brain is compartmentalized and used for survival...even solving a problem, teaching or performing your job, can be considered survival but the brain alone, cannot have insight, objective introspections or integrate information. (it takes the mind to do that)-(and that as we begin to understand better, (work in progress) is not physical)...PS. not mystical either.

Sorry, I thought we had discussions on Jaynes.
It's Julian Jaynes...He found evidence that we did not always have self introspection or conscious awareness of our behaviors and outlines a time when awareness of one's own awareness started to happen, (between the Iliad and the Odyssey).

The link to natural news says "Even CNN has published investigative articles documenting the toxicity of glyphosate herbicide." Good grief, if you like fake news, CNN is the place to get it.

I recommend buying Novella's entire course from Great Courses (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/course.... When you say " the brain is amazing but only can hold information beyond survival," are you saying the information in the brain is somehow retained after the individual is dead? To which "Jaynes" do you refer?

Just listened to one his lectures: Steven Novella: The Skeptical Neurologist (2011) and it reminded me of what I learned from Jaynes about bicameral man.
Laughing, He describes the brains of the brain only, and the young, (minus the conscious mind) and I thought of all the bizarre creatures in congress...spot on, he also mentions the effects of Ego which I maintain is not necessary when one has access to the mind. His depictions of the superego's senses of right and wrongs are hilarious.

Still, the brain is amazing but only can hold information beyond survival, which it can apply to many things. It alone, cannot have insight, objective introspections or integrate information. Pretty much falls in line with Jaynes and others so far.

Thanks, I'll be listening to more of his stuff as time permits.

Ah, but avoiding the spin...just the overlays were telling...had we never gone down the nitrogen route, we wouldn't have the rest of it. Now, would we have realized or invented a way to revitalize the soil without crop rotations? dun know...but those details were a direction into more research.
Oh, sadly, most are, in fact obese anemic's...thanks to the changes in wheat, designed to put weight on starving kids in Africa without adding any nutrition. He's right about that. I can't eat modern day wheat but I can eat an ancient wheat called Spelt with no problems...unfortunately though, Nothing allows me to gain weight...so, I am not only old ugly carl but a skinny one too!

Interesting point: My gardens were played out and could not afford to replace the soil. Last year the soil temp, never came up. This year, abet a month late, it finally did. I researched a product that would replace the minerals in the soil, which would allow the plants to take up the nutrients and keep the bugs at bay and it only cost 20 bucks and was well recommended. It is called: My Grow Minerals, and BOY! did it work...plant's poked thru in 5 days and are now just where they should be if I have planted them in April instead of late may.
So, from that perspective alone, what I learned from that video alone was worth it's weight in gold.
There is always some value buried deep in all things good, bad and ugly, if only to realize that which is not.

That link worked. Surprise, surprise. Dunning’s website is like Mike Adams: he sells his stuff and all else is terrible. Full of post hoc connections. If we were to accept all Dunning says, then we should all die young and be obese anemics between now and death. If the plants don’t get the right nutrients, the plants do not thrive.

Farmers want plants to thrive so they can sell them. Gee, the free market.

Sorry, Esceptico...I just recheck, this one should work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpIN-...
Of course you can eat as much as you want...hell, I'll give you my share!
Don't say I never gave you anything, though> Laughing.

The link was bad, so I did not see the video. I have so many studies and articles urged upon me, which I read, by acquaintances and friends who hold your position, all of which I found to be in error, that I doubt your video had anything new or of much value to me. And, so long as you allow me and others to buy and eat whatever we want, I am happy. I can eat what I want, you can eat what you want, and everyone should be happy. Actually, the whole GMO controversy looks to me to be similar to CNN’s Trump-Russia connection.

Politically that is. (strange bedfellows?)
There is more than enough scientific investigation that brings into question whether these products and procedures are safe or not. This has nothing to do with opinions or mysticism's. As for the laws...how's that working out for us...not to well, I posit. It, like everything else, is politically and [e]special[ly] interest[edly] entwined. There is Rarely any impartiality, logic or reason employed by the courts. The issues of the day have been so confounded it is difficult to tell what the heck is going on.
I, like you, am aware of the Charlestons in our mists on both sides, however, there are many whom have the ability to take a fresh look at these subjects impartially, objectively and with honesty.
I personally, "at this point!", think the scientist in this posting is one to pay attention to.

I am surprised that after viewing the video that you at least haven't gone...Hmmm
If not that video then at least this one (from a different perspective): :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpIN-...

When you state All food has been GMO for 10,000 years you are flat out wrong!

Sleeping with them? I don not understand what you mean.

You sound to me that you think the government should prosecute people who hold different opinions than yours. The law already holds people accountable for their actions, and I have seen nothing to show GMO foods are improper. Therefore, no case.

II think you may be over limiting your view of GMO to the one issue of Roundup. Although we disagree on the Roundup issue (I have done my homework, by the way) and it is best to let that one rest, GMO rice can save 1 million kids a year from blindness has been outlawed by governments of areas that need it most. One can only wonder how much was paid by whom. In any event, from an Objectivist viewpoint, government should not be telling anyone what they can or cannot eat.

NO! EVERYONE...should be held accountable!

No, but they shouldn't be sleeping with them either.
They should, however, thru the courts, prosecute where harm is proven or highly suspected, (demanding responsible, purely scientific testing)...and it seems that's where all this alternative, non political science is going so far.

AND!...the kakistocracy should Never hinder the free flow of information...you can't argue with that one...we should, be able to have a conversation involving all sides of the issue...just like we are doing here.

The flip side: Should government establish legislation to declare that Monsanto cannot be held responsible for any side effects of their genetic manipulation of food?

It is important to differentiate .This is a discussion about how glyphosate is being absorbed into GMO foods. A hybrid will die from Round up a GMO plant is genetically altered to absorb the herbicide. " Your thousands of years"is wrong and irrelevant .
You need to do your homework.

Do you hold that government should enforce your opinion regarding, inter alia, GMO products?

Natural, nature accepted cross breeding or modifying is very different than laboratory FORCED modification where nature and natural processes have no choice, (so to speak). Not to mention the means inwhich these perversions are forced.
This is the very first among many disturbing problems expressed in Altered genes/Twisted truth; it was "Assumed" from the beginning that un-naturally forcing modifications upon nature would be ok and no different than a farmer splicing two different seeds or plant stems together, letting "Nature" take it's course.

Shamefully, the GMO creatures never checked how the cells of the body would respond to these perversions. That's what This scientist and many many others have been looking at.

Now, do you think, your heroin, AR, would approve of a value creator irresponsibly not checking the results or effects of their creation upon the end users of their product? I don't think so.
Monsanto has Never done any double blind, platinum level scientific testing in regards to human health nor the effects upon nature itself.

Mankind should be working With nature to tame her and not doing For nature, against her will. (metaphor) The same goes for the human body.

Whether the genes are modified in the field or in the lab is not important to the discussion. The genes are modified and have been for thousands of years.

"The site rants about adverse effects of genetically modified crops (GMO), apparently without understanding ALL food has been genetically modified since humans began to cultivate farms about 10,000 years ago. I am amazed it has such a large following, but I shouldn’t be, look how many people love socialism."
Check your facts . To dismiss this study because of other articles that may or may not be conclusive or even wrong.That would be akin to dismiss your entire comment because of this error.
Farmers and gardeners have NOT been cross-breeding seeds like this for thousands of years. What those well-intentioned readers fail to understand is the fundamental difference between hybrid seeds and GMOs.
Unlike hybrid seeds, GMO seeds are not created using natural, low-tech methods. GMO seed varieties are created in a lab using high-tech and sophisticated techniques like gene-splicing. Furthermore, GMO seeds seldom cross different, but related plants. ... The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant.