I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts (Reply #238)

In the discussion thread: GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all]

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #229)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:30 AM

Major Nikon (36,666 posts)

238. I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts

So far your methods of discrediting other people's sources is nothing short of totally hilarious.

Here's a short list of a few of the batshit crazy sources you have used and I'm sure will continue to use.

GlobalResearch

Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.

Globalresearch

Mercola

Joseph Mercola, doctor of osteopathy, is a popular guru of alternative medicine and a member of the right-wing quack outfit Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He advocates and provides a forum for many classic crank medical ideas, such as vaccine hysteria and the belief that modern (sorry, "allopathic"

medicine kills more people than it helps. His website is a veritable spring of pseudoscience, quackery, and logical fallacies. He is a promoter of the idea of an AMA/Big Pharma/FDA conspiracy.[1]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Seralini

Gilles-Eric Séralini is a professor of molecular biology at the Institute of Fundamental and Applied Biology (IBFA) of the University of Caen in France. He is also President of the Scientific Board at CRIIGEN.[1] He was fairly well known in the biotech community for having a history of flawed studies,[2][3] but his controversial 2012 study on transgenic NK603 maize made him immensely popular among the anti-GM communities.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seralini

Food Babe

Hari is maybe not quite as dangerous as Joseph Mercola (who endorses her) or Mike Adams, but that's not exactly comforting. Her standards of evidence are terrible and based on total nonsense, and rather than promoting moderation, she mostly just wraps up obsessiveness and scolding in an apparently well-meaning package. Is she incompetent or a liar? Well, it doesn't really matter. Most of her "investigative" process can be summed up as either "Joseph Mercola said so, therefore spinning water in a blender really does make it healthier" or "if I can't pronounce it, it must cause cancer."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/FoodBabe.com

Mae-Wan Ho

Ho has been criticized for embracing pseudoscience.[7][8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

246 replies	Author	Time	Post
GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all]	Vote2016	Jun 2016	OP
Here we go.....	Coventina	Jun 2016	#1
This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end.	Dr Hobbitstein	Jun 2016	#2
Your article is about whether GMOs are safe. I'm not saying they are safe or unsafe. I'm saying that	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#8
GMOs don't promote any of that.	Dr Hobbitstein	Jun 2016	#18
Soy beans and wheat are raised from last years crop	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#20
No farmer I know (and I know dozens) uses last year's soy or wheat for seed	NickB79	Jun 2016	#71
It is not that easy to save soybean and wheat for field size production.	yellowcanine	Jun 2016	#92
Farmers who farmed for living did plant from last year crop	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#120
The Need to Save Seeds is a Bad Sign	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#122
Also in your words (self fertile )	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#126
You just responded to your own post.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#127
Well soybeans wheat and oats are self fertile. That is a fact.	yellowcanine	Jun 2016	#129
So how was Monsanto able to win court	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#132
You are mixing up a couple of issues.	yellowcanine	Jun 2016	#148
bribes	larkrake	Jun 2016	#178
Now you're (mistakenly) talking about Terminator seed technology	NickB79	Jun 2016	#180
Key word being "did." Not so much anymore.	yellowcanine	Jun 2016	#130
I still talk to the guys I worked for	hankthecrank	Jun 2016	#133
If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer	NickB79	Jun 2016	#177
the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#186
I notice you left off the link to where you pulled this bullshit from.	Dr Hobbitstein	Jun 2016	#202
RED ALERT: Calling all corporate apologists	Scientific	Jun 2016	#3
RED ALERT: Calling all conspiracy theorists	GaYellowDawg	Jun 2016	#5
Would you be more comfortable with the label "Monsanto apologist"? It's a little more precise.	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#9
Would you be comfortable with the term "circumstantial ad hominem"?	GaYellowDawg	Jun 2016	#11
Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise.	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#21
GMO haters	Corporate666	Jun 2016	#236
A switch to ecological farming will benefit health and environment – report	JohnyCanuck	Jun 2016	#4
Bingo. If we can't do this, all our bitching about GM/non-GM are for nothing	NickB79	Jun 2016	#74
Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#6
It seems suspicious that there is so much "pro-GMO" astroturf	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#17
Even more suspicious is the missing element of reality in the anti-GMO astroturf	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#22
What does that even mean? Monsanto has a financial interest in creating an agribusiness monopoly and	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#28
Good question	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#36
The strawman argument.	basselope	Jun 2016	#83
Strawman doesn't mean what you think it means	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#150
Actually, it does.	basselope	Jun 2016	#159
You stole my line!	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#163
Thank you for proving my point.	basselope	Jun 2016	#165
"Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity."	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#167
LOL.	basselope	Jun 2016	#169
I see where you fucked up	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#172
Are you dizzy with the spin?	basselope	Jun 2016	#173
How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#86
You might understand the law, but you don't understand the first thing about the scientific process.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#128
HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#135
And more fictions from the fantasy gallery.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#139
He's your guy - Keith Kloor - He DEFINITELY IS NOT KOOL	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#187
I'm not even convinced of that much	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#153
Indeed.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#155
Wannabe Monsanto shill sounds like a possible career choice	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#191
Which organic industry front pays you?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#203
You realize Monsanto won that case, yes?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#151
One name - Clarence Thomas	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#192
Five names - Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#197
The anti-GMO community winning the public relations war	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#190
Scientists promoting science. Who woulda thunkit?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#198
Monsanto and Dow are funding all the bullshit misinformation	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#231
Great job of reading the question that was actually asked	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#239
You mean from "skeptics" who have never seen a corporate press release worth "questioning?"	villager	Jun 2016	#226
What exactly has Monsanto monopolized?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#39
farming, chemical weapons- I assume what has it monopolized historically	larkrake	Jun 2016	#179
Monsanto doesn't farm anything, so zero market share hardly makes a monopoly	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#182
They made and patented dioxin, actually and their GMO product has harmed many many farmers	larkrake	Jun 2016	#183
Try harder to post something relevant	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#184
Easy to say from a comfy western nation...	TipTok	Jun 2016	#7
"The whole starvation thing" gets a whole lot worse	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#10
Who suggested they were doing it for humanity?	TipTok	Jun 2016	#12
We have the capacity now.	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#13
this ^	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#16
So much for growing it locally, according to you.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#45
Did you miss my comments about the downside	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#50
No, I'm not.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#51
speaking of Africa - $900 to eat a GMO Bill Gates banana	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#188
Woo	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#23
Bt-COTTON. Tasty! Woo yourself.	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#25
Not much need with all the woo freely available here	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#26
Has Monsanto patented the term "woo"?	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#54
As have a lot of grandmas cultivating new rose variatles	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#68
Grandma can't patent a DNA sequence unless she has a PCR machine in the basement.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#70
Plant patent laws existed before anyone knew what DNA was	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#72
Plant patent is not a DNA patent per se, for the reason you yourself admit.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#73
Sure, we should just go back to using methods far less precice and more ambiguous	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#77
If Monsanto didn't think DNA is powerful, they wouldn't spend billions on shuffling it.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#78
You stole my line!	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#80
OMG you don't think I'm that gullible right?	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#81
No, I'm sure of it	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#82
Off to the ignore-bin. It's cruel to fight with an unarmed opponent and I won't do it any more.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#87
You lost, again.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#91
Oh that really hurts!	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#152
I do, and you just proved it.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#85
You are pushing a fiction and you know it.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#46
You could make the same argument about any private monopoly. Often people need the product which a	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#14
GMOs and monopolies are separate issues...	TipTok	Jun 2016	#15
GMO crop systems do not increase output	GreatGazoo	Jun 2016	#19
Yeah, "rapidly" over 40 years	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#24
Less than that. Monsanto introduced Round-up Ready seeds in '97.	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#27
What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground.	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#29
Or WooUnderground	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#32
It's a mystery to me.	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#33
It's unbelievable - it's the troll DU Monsanto lovers -	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#43
I'm sorry, why do you think science is bad?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#47
Science is good but the tobacco companies misled with a false veneer of science just as you mislead	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#88
Newsflash: It's the anti-GMOers who are practicing tobacco science.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#89
You are wrong and you know you are wrong. My anti-GMO views are based on the ill effect it has on	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#93
LOL! Not even close.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#94
You keep posting arguments that GMOs are "safe." I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe. GMOs illegally	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#97
You keep ignoring the reality that GMOs do no such thing.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#98
Compare the markets that ban GMOs with the markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds. Oh, wait, there	Attorney in Texas	Jun 2016	#99
You're digging your hole deeper and deeper.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#106
So you compare tobacco to GMO, then freely admit the issues are completely different	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#156
HuckleB above link by Marc Brazeau - pro GMO shill	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#232
Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#241
All the "science" you quote is from shills	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#136
Your fantasies are rather sad.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#140
This is who you always quote - your beloved Keith Kloor	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#143
Aww. That's cute.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#147
Keith Kloor admits he is a shill - what can I say - you love the guy!	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#228
Monsanto shill science	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#138
One fantasy troll post wasn't enough?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#141
Sometimes, there’s a fine line between the rats and the scientists.	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#142
Your fictions are many.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#146
Yea - I smell a lot of rats in your "science"	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#189
Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#199
More than that	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#31
I was talking about Round-up Ready crops,	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#34
The post I replied to was talking about Roundup	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#37
My post you replied to was talking about Round-up Ready and '97	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#40
You are correct, that post was a non sequitur	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#41
bockbocbockbockBock	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#42
Most of your arguments can be applied to non-GMO, hybrid seeds as well	NickB79	Jun 2016	#30
^^This^^	truebluegreen	Jun 2016	#35
The talking point goes something like this	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#38
Ignore the evidence base, because people who go with scientific consensus are "curious."	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#44
The Precautionary Principle and GM crops	JohnyCanuck	Jun 2016	#48
Seralini Rule	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#49
Actually the courts have overthrown the BS attacks on Seralini. He was right.	Scientific	Jun 2016	#101
Are you referring to an Italian court?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#107
Bullshit	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#108
Skeptico blogs - give me a break - no one even signs the articles	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#229
I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#238
Umm. Sheesh.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#52
Good luck here!	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#53
What's up with that?	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#55
No one cares about Monsanto.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#56
I'm not debating the science. It is an intellectual property scam, and the labelling issue is a	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#64
All types of seeds are patented, not just GMOs.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#65
HuckleB posting Skeptical Raptor - Internet shill - links again	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#227
You love Monsanto - all your posts are from Monsanto shills	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#230
All I can tell you is my experience has been stunningly negative.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#57
The passive-aggressive shill gambit!	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#58
It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#59
Yes, surely that must be it - a bright, shiny future.	lagomorph777	Jun 2016	#60
No one is defending Monsanto.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#61
Not ok with who? Your boss?	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#62
Not ok with anyone who cares about honesty and ethics.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#63
Cool website. It's on the internet. It does not excuse the genetic piracy from pollen drift or	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#66
You don't appear to know much about pollen drift.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#67
Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#194
Kinda funny how they question Ronald's reputation	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#200
Pamela Ronald is an honorable scientist.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#242
it's the same shiny vision from Wired or the nuclear industry	MisterP	Jun 2016	#245
Bzzt. Wrong answer.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#246
queue the anti-science pro-gmo people.	basselope	Jun 2016	#69
Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ...	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#75
Thanks for proving the point so well.	basselope	Jun 2016	#76
Sure, because pointing out other's use of pseudoscience is so anti-science	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#79
Its called a false equivalence.	basselope	Jun 2016	#84
False equivalence doesn't mean what you think it means	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#154
Don't really care what you do.	basselope	Jun 2016	#160
Your refusal to provide any relevant examples of your assertion is telling all on it's own	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#162
I did several times.	basselope	Jun 2016	#164
Where?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#166
In this very thread.	basselope	Jun 2016	#168
Where?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#170
In this very thread.	basselope	Jun 2016	#171
Do I really need to be that specific, or are you just being obtuse?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#174
Thought you were "done".	basselope	Jun 2016	#175
I was with that leg of the thread	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#176
Use your eyes.	basselope	Jun 2016	#181
The problem is that the focus of the anti-gmo people is very broad...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#90
Not really.	basselope	Jun 2016	#96
What studies? n/t	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#102
Oh, I don't know.. pick any one of the thousands.	basselope	Jun 2016	#109
Can you link to any one of those studies? In addition, the WHO may end up reversing its decision...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#111
Yes	basselope	Jun 2016	#113
The first link didn't attempt to separate out whether it was glyphosate...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#114
As I suspected.	basselope	Jun 2016	#115
What are you babbling on about? Now you are just making shit up.	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#117
LOL. Read your post.	basselope	Jun 2016	#121
I said none of those things, you are just making things up, for what reason I don't know...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#123
LOL. Wow. That's some crazy spin you got going on.	basselope	Jun 2016	#144
What spin? I literally pointed out a shortcoming of the first paper that was pointed out...	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#157
And then you make stuff up?	basselope	Jun 2016	#161
Let's not forget - glyphosate is only 40 per cent of Roundup	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#233
You might want to clarify the difference between the IARC and the full WHO.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#112
Good point, but it appears this poster isn't interested in honest discussion.	Humanist_Activist	Jun 2016	#118
I know.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#119
OK. Show us some science to back up what ever you're implying.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#100
Posted lists too many times...	basselope	Jun 2016	#110
You do understand the difference between individual, cherry picked studies, and consensus, right?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#116
Now you are posting articles by David Gorsky who blogged as a woman	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#234
All you can do is attack people, but you can't support your claims.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#243
OK.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#124
I love science too.	basselope	Jun 2016	#145
Sure, wiggle words.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#149
So by all means, let's keep adding them.	basselope	Jun 2016	#158
Show us the data where cancer rates are higher due to GMOs.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#193
WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#195
that	basselope	Jun 2016	#196
That,	progressoid	Jun 2016	#207
Dietary exposure to glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer, U.N. report says	progressoid	Jun 2016	#206
Non definitive.	basselope	Jun 2016	#208
It is definitive. As defined through the EPA's rating system.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#209
Not definitive.	basselope	Jun 2016	#210
Yeah, still waiting for you to do that too.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#211
Already did.	basselope	Jun 2016	#213
My mistake.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#218
Your apology is accepted.	basselope	Jun 2016	#225
I didn't apologize.	progressoid	Jun 2016	#237
Yes you did. And I accepted it.	basselope	Jun 2016	#244
Sweet Jebus, is this really the best reply you could come up with?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#212
Facts are good like that.	basselope	Jun 2016	#214
No, sometimes mentioning them are simply moronic	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#215
Yes. Many are safe.	basselope	Jun 2016	#216
I asked you to name just one substance that fufills your requirement	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#217
And I answered.	basselope	Jun 2016	#219
This shit again?	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#220
Your apology is accepted.	basselope	Jun 2016	#222
Strange, namecalling is so unlike you	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#224
Where are all these lists?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#125
It's a fool's errand asking that one to prove any claim he's made.	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#221
So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet?	Rex	Jun 2016	#95
Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?"	Vote2016	Jun 2016	#131
No my view is why does it take this long? Why no out cry decades ago?	Rex	Jun 2016	#134
But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world.	valerief	Jun 2016	#103
It's fun to be passionate. But you need to actually be right.	Bonx	Jun 2016	#104
Or have at least a basic plan and ambition to change everything.	Rex	Jun 2016	#137
No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii	progressoid	Jun 2016	#105
GMOs suck the life out of life!	Dont call me Shirley	Jun 2016	#185
Did anyone notice the articles cited in OP are not science related?	pediatricmedic	Jun 2016	#201
This was really just a drive-by thread from another thread anyway	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#204
Sociology is a 'science', but.....	CanSocDem	Jun 2016	#205
Sociology isn't a hard science	Major Nikon	Jun 2016	#223
Did anyone notice the links cited by the pro-gmo Monsanto people	womanofthehills	Jun 2016	#235
Crazy is the OP's linkapalooza	Bonx	Jun 2016	#240

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.