HFI_Matt wrote:
angelas_2008 wrote:
Actually, I never supported Monsanto, Just pointed out that the study done was rigged from the start to fail. If you got more out of that than intended, you need to check your degree as mine is doing fine and the fact that disinformation is going both ways on that issue because of the money involved. Just like getting organic certification after 3 years of no chemicals but they fail to mention that half lives of the chemicals can persist in toxic form for decades and twice that in lake water. Your sensitivities I can appreciate and eliminating one source of aggravation is important. But, do also note that many illnesses of the body can be directly traced to water (if you'd check the California EPA list for toxic chemical allowances you'll see most water sources will fail if they are in farming areas or major cities).
Also, if you want to blame anyone, blame your congress for allowing the corruption in congress to get as bad as it is.
She changed her diet not her water consumption and got better results. Now just so we are clear are you a supporter of Monsanto or any genetically modified seeds? CD does not seem like she is attacking or blaming anyone here at least. I'm really curious because this site is mostly geared toward growing organically using non-GMO seeds so to come here just to stir the pot is not okay with me.
Evidently, you also read in between line what is not there. No I do not support Monsanto. Also, I would like to point out that since the early 50's issues with gluten sensitivity has increased dramatically according to researchers at Mayo I believe. Long before monsanto and genetic splicing. This is due to the increased use of gluten in many lines of foods for things as simple as texture. That people are predisposed to a situation and the straw that breaks the camel's back is monsanto does not make monsanto the only and singular cause. You people do not understand what can happen with half lives of farming chemicals, increased used of products such as gluten, continued use of preservatives, and the constant, always constant, petroleum chemicals in the environment. But you are quick to jump on studies which are biased from the beginning, or what action groups say. All studies can be twisted to show a desired result by leaving out critical datum. Activists make a living by doing exactly what the big corporation and government do in disseminating part truths and misleading trails.
I made a living cleaning up oil spills and contaminated former and current gas stations. I saw what most people do not and know what the limits are for these chemicals you cannot detect using the equipment employed by most city water utilities. A life time of consumption by the most puritan of people (meaning they do not over indulge in booze or tobacco and such) will still result in strange illnesses and cancers which cannot be explained except that they were genetically predisposed to cancer. They might be less resistant to constant chemical bombardment, but they aren't going to get sick just because they are, there has to be a trigger, be it smog, contaminated water, nano-traces of chemicals in foods, preservatives and coloring or stabilizers. What I am saying is there is always something else that is usually not taken into account for a given situation simply because the FDA says we have no long term data on that because we cannot measure to theoretical limits. An example is young women wearing a overly tight bra for all of their adult life which traps these minute traces of bad chemicals in tissue which cannot deal with accumulated concentrations.