You can't criticize one pseudoscience when supporting another.

[Sancho]

281. At this point I've provided you scholarly references and quotations refuting your position.

I'm sure you realize I haven't debated every type of bacteria with you because the point was that early researchers did not anticipate the superbugs of today. If you want to do so in the science forum, we can have a debate about the history of antibiotics. I was not giving you a biological example, but instead the viewpoint of early researchers.

My links from scholars, summaries from the CDC, quotes from the Surgeon General, and links to references make my analogy irrefutable that medicine and MD and governments did NOT anticipate the problems we have today with antibiotics.

The point being is that today's science MIGHT be missing future problems with GMOs in a similar fashion. The original post makes a comparison with the science of vaccines and GMOs. It's a false comparison - because the history of vaccines is much order as an applied science and vaccines have generally been demonstrated safe and beneficial.

If the original post had been a comparison with the applied history of antibiotics instead of vaccines, then we would have to URGE CAUTION with GMOs - because antibiotics were abused by farmers, not well regulated, and now the medicine is struggling with a man-made disaster.

The original post could just as easily be an indictment of GMO science!!!