...it follows then that perhaps I mirror your predicament and do not properly understand your comment. Upon rereading yours I still find it oddly fragmented as you obviously do mine.

However, the references to deficiencies in my character and process appear clear.

I will reread my response and you may do so likewise with yours...or not.

In any case my opinion of you remains intact and as I would prefer it. However, I am always willing to learn.

It is with disappointment that I find your comments. ...belittling, condescending, and insulting. After the many comments privately exchanged up to this point that this one is not proffered so is indicative of a lack of respect I can only find interesting and telling.

As to the video, its merits or lack thereof and for the various opinions about same, it may be that in the fullness of time consensus will change...or not. As to my investment in the matter, I presently have none. To knee jerk, in your vernacular, comments or opinions garnered from snippets, headlines, media articles, predilection of personal beliefs,etc,. I have little to no respect to offer.

I do find the subject of this video interesting and have done enough research to find merit in further evaluation and a skeptical eye towards purported findings. But, that is neither here nor there. I posted it primarily for my own archival purposes fully expecting the reaction received with no concern about it. This practice will be repeated exercised if not often so. I will admit surprise at the development precipitating this exchange. Oh well.

I do not need to agree with others, as is often the case, to respect and even like and care for them. I do, however, have a disdain for apparent character deficiencies as is evidenced by behavior. Also, oh well. Neither do I suffer the defect of ego that I must defend a point of view or opinion or engage in any allied exercise of futility and certainly not in this environ as the honored civilized pursuit of intelligent discourse is so oft shunned in favor of banal, insipid and vitriolic attacks.

Enjoy and thank you for the many civil, kind and pleasant exchanges this one notwithstanding, of course.

I think he did. He said the study shows a 1.5% to 3% difference between the two groups, though i think he should have referred to how significant that is, statistically speaking - i.e. what are the uncertainties, cos if it's ±2% uncertainty then the results are practically meaningless. He also said that the study only took sun-time into account, and spoke about the habits associated with people that avoid sun altogether - difficult to exercise and be active without exposing yourself to sun. He mentioned vitamin D deficiency - which is synthesised by sunlight in humans, and deficiency has an impact on all kinds of health issues. Finally he mentioned that there wasn't a control group - average people who neither hid from the sun nor bathed in it, because that would help them narrow their uncertainties or identify critical problems with the study.

What Neil deGrasse Tyson and some of the other scientists/doctors (myself include) have are saying is that the IDEA of GMO's is a great one. The fact that we can engineer our foods to get the traits we want or add additional beneficial traits is an incredibly useful tool. We've already engineered rice that is able to produce vitamin A, which has been a huge help for places with vitamin A deficiencies and we can engineer potatoes to absorb less fats and oils when we fry them, there is also a professor at SUNY-ESF who is using GMO's to try and save the American Chestnut tree from extinction.

GMing is simply another tool in humanity's struggle to survive. First it was finding which foods were safe to eat, then it was breeding organisms within species to make inbred organisms that had the traits we wanted (think cattle, dogs, cats, corn, banana's; some of these things are more inbred than the Hapsburgs), then we starting creating our own hybrids across different species, and now we have GMO's.

However, what I object to is the current corporate use of GMO's to exploit farmers over patents, and breed for traits that people do necessarily need. NdT I'm sure is not advocating for that, but is advocating for the use of transgenic organisms/GMO's to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

GMO's are probably the most powerful tool we have to curb world hunger, and mal-nutrition, and it could also be the thing that allows humans to venture beyond the solar system. What the Sift seems to be objecting to, and the rest of the "developed" world is the use of GMO's by greedy corporations who care more about turning a profit than solving world problems (there isn't very much money in feeding the needy and hungry). They are the one's making what appear to me more or less useless and potentially dangerous GMO's. Turn your anger away from GMO's specifically and narrow it to the ill use of GMO's by greedy corporations.

Lastly, the argument that "we don't know what they'll do" is for the most part unfounded, there are a decent amount of studies (find them yourself sorry) which show that GMO's in general won't cause harm (though it really depends on what you're trying to make). The same argument was made about the LHC "We don't know what will happen when we turn it on!" but everyone was fine.

And, by the way, this may be why you're having such a hard time reconciling what I'm saying with your worldview. Just because I don't think that people who use cocaine are not "cognitively deficient," doesn't mean that I must also use cocaine 'all day'. It's not black or white. The sooner you get this, the better off you'll be (i.e., the fewer "fights" like this one you'll find yourself embroiled in).

Yes, you're ignored, and I read your comment anyway.

No, in saying "use drugs," I was not "implying cannabis." I said "use drugs" because I meant "use drugs." Rather than trying to interpret or 'read into' what I'm saying, it might help if you responded to my post, and not what you post in your mind on my behalf.

And I will take you up on your 'challenge:' below is a list of ten "highly intelligent" people who have used cocaine (note: at no point did I say "encourages the use of cocaine." I said "use drugs" without becoming addicted, and being able to function), so that you can provide me with 10,000 more** whose lives and families have been destroyed by it. (**And note here, we're talking about individuals whose lives were destroyed by the use of cocaine itself, and not by the pointless drug laws that imprison people for having a mental or emotional condition that provokes "self-medication" as a form of treatment. Nor are we talking about the illegal status of cocaine which, itself, gives rise to violent cartels that function in the shadow of its legal status.)

So, while certainly many of the following list of "highly intelligent" (non-cognitively deficient) and successful "celebrities" may no longer be using cocaine, all of the following have used cocaine and are/were not addicted and function(ed) just fine:

Sigmund Freud
Thomas Edison
Oprah Winfrey
Stephen King
Tim Allen
Hunter S. Thompson
Angelina Jolie
Robert Louis Stevenson
Steven Tyler
Robert Downey, Jr.

There are others (like William Burroughs, Eric Clapton, Grover Cleveland, David Crosby, Arthur Conan Doyle, Isadora Duncan, Ulysses S Grant, Abbie Hoffman, Elton John, King George V, Larry Kudlow, Sir Paul McCartney, & Barack Obama), but I thought I'd stop at 10.

And if you post the 10,000 names of those whose lives and families were destroyed by cocaine (and not by the pointless drug laws or its illegal status) by the end of the week, I'll take your point.

Oh, I see. You think people use drugs out of a deficient cognitive ability. Wow, that's some bigoted thinking! Do you have any research to support this assumption or do you just think that people become addicts because of "low IQ" (or some other prejudiced stereotype)? By the way, NEWSFLASH: many highly intelligent (non cognitively deficient) people use drugs and, furthermore, they don't get addicted and are able to function just fine. How do you propose to "educate" them (outside of passing laws) to get them to do what you want them to do, rather than allowing them to live their lives however they see fit?

Here's a longer version of the clip. Turns out that tone-deaf old Bill keeps on digging his hole. He really seems confident that he can convince these women of his point that women have a "gender deficiency to lead the free world." Just watch the face on the woman on the right.

http://youtu.be/085FHc5uA64

Yer right about that Kalle, where's the toasty-buttered-bread and veggies ya Yank cunts??!

-My theory though, why y'all back-a-Bourkers are so back-ass-wards ?? B-12 deficiency. This might explain the pernicious anemia that caused all y'all to sign-off on those insane gun laws you adopted down there when y'all got scared of the invisible boogy-man of run-away mass murder by some of the more whacked-out folks in the herd...That, and yer all sun-baked!!

Switch to Marmite and watch your collective nerve come back

If that is all true (and I read through much of the linked study and made little sense of it since I'm not a nutritionist and only took one semester of advanced molecular biology, it was particularly technical and hard to follow), then golden rice seems to be the exception.
As I read it, 55-70% the RDA was the maximum vitamin A that could be expected, with the range being quite large. (oddly they cite a 200 gram rice dose given in the study has 1.3mg b-carotene/3.8 to get .34mg retinol, then a 100 gram dose is estimated to provide 55-70% EAR , then they say a 50 gram dose, a more reasonable amount for children to eat, would provide the same amount as the 100 gram dose did?) Even if it can supply 1/2 the daily allowance of vitamin A (which I'm not sure it can from the study you cite), that still does not make it 'safe' to release into the 'wild', or 'better' than natural, easy to grow alternatives as unknown long term side effects have not been studied. It may be better than doing nothing, or even better than natural alternatives, but without long term studies we simply can't know. That's my main point.
$10K a year is not much for a farm to make, most small farms make far more than that, but also need to spend all they make to keep going. That limit seems to say they DO intend to charge most farmers for this seed eventually. If that's $10K a year profit, I'm OK with that.
I would say we should hold up potentially life saving technology until we know the unintended side effects, we should not experiment on the needy (or the public in general) and claim it's in their best interest. We certainly should not do it in secret, as in non-labeled gmo's.
Monsanto is not the only bio-tech company that acts like this, just the most public. Most GMO creating bio-techs are pitbulls about protecting their 'intellectual property', even when it floats onto someone's property without their knowledge.
I stand corrected, she did say that. I missed it. I do not claim they don't have higher yields, I think that's their whole point and I think they do a decent job of producing more. I just don't see that higher yields are worth the possible long term damage and I think more, longer term, double blind studies need to be done by disinterested parties. Long term side effects can take a long time to show up, and with something this new to the food source, it deserves careful consideration, not profit driven usage.
Again, 'golden rice' is an exception if you are correct. My limited experience is with Monsanto corn and soy, which seem to be in a different category. Most GMOs are not made with variety, and ARE made to have a clear adaptive advantage, so I made an assumption that 'golden rice' would be the same. My bad. Even with that though, the genes WILL end up mixing with some other non-gmo rice, making it difficult or impossible to ensure your crop is not gmo of that's what you want. They may not dominate, but if they end up causing cancer in 10 years, and by then 99% of rice is 'contaminated', then what? I just think safety (edit: I meant to say forethought) is the better part of valor, and better that a few go without today than open the possibility of all going without tomorrow when patience and thoughtful examination can prove safety. Of course, I'm not going blind of vitamin A deficiency or starving from lack of corn...so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter.
To a few of your other points, if gmo's are safe, prove it (Monsanto and the like) and do it incontrovertibly and publicly, then we'll all want them. If the argument is that 'stupid hippies have convinced everyone they're bad, so we have to sell them in secret', that argument doesn't hold water in my mind. Monsanto could certainly afford a public service campaign if the science was in, but the LONG term studies aren't done yet.
Teaching someone to grow peppers or other vegi's seems easier than modifying a crop and spreading the seeds, it takes about 5 minutes and adds variety. I think that's better than treating them as un-teachable and experimenting on them.
...and I agree with the scientists in sciencemag, destroying the test fields isn't helpful and answers nothing.

Monsanto does not own Golden Rice. Also many subsistence farmers in third world countries grow rice, because it is a cheap dietary staple. Asking them to switch to producing a totally different crop in order to fight vitamin deficiency is unrealistic.

And it seems so is what you say, false that is...
From what I've seen, the argument that 'golden rice' cures vitamin A deficiency is false. There's simply not enough vitamin A in it. It is useful as a supplement, as are many other things less dangerous to the food supply.
Yes, it is distributed to farmers for free, at first. Then, once other varieties are no longer available, they begin charging for it, and suing anyone that doesn't pay to grow their crop (the only one left to grow). Is that a difficult concept to understand? It's the same business plan crack, meth, and heroin dealers use, get you hooked for free, then charge you once you're hooked. They certainly did that with their corn.
She did not claim they do not produce higher yields, she said the science that claims they do is only produced by the companies that benefit. Those are different claims. When only the one benefiting from positive results does the science, it's not trustworthy, ever.
If 'golden rice' replaces the other multiple strains of non-gmo rice because it offers SOME vitamin A, then there's a disease that kills all 'golden rice' (as always happens when variety is homogenized for profit and convenience) then what? There's NO rice for anyone. That's what's happening with chickpeas, the staple food for a HUGE portion of the population. One strain was adopted for profit and convenience, and it's now failing world wide. Wild chickpeas, incredibly hard to find now, offer the only solution to the failing commercial chickpea, and it may be far too late. If we lose rice too, we'll lose a large portion of the population of the planet. Now, with that possible outcome, is it worth it to experiment with GMO rice and exclude other strains? (those who grow GMO rice are usually forced to grow ONLY GMO strains to 'avoid cross contamination'.)
Most vocal activists are NOT science deniers, they are people pushing for legitimate, responsible science where the populace is not the guinea pig for corporate experiments. That is NOT responsible science.
Most of what this girl advocates is labeling, which can not be legitimately argued against. Like others said, if GMO's were good, they would WANT you to know they're in there. If they could PROVE it was good, they would. The science isn't in on long term effects, or on short term collateral unintended effects, so the products should not be for sale, certainly not without a label warning those using it that they are experimental and unproven. At least that's how I see it.

As much as I disagree with Kevin O'Leary on most things, I'm with him on this. The girl is impressively assured and sharp for her age, but a lot of what she is saying with such confidence is simply false.

For instance, she says that Golden Rice has been shown not to work. Untrue. There is plenty of scientific evidence showing that Golden Rice is a good source of vitamin A (example). Given the huge problems associated with vitamin deficiency in the third world, and the strong scientific support for the efficacy of Golden Rice, the movement against its use is basically like the anti-vaccination movement -- uninformed and dangerous.

Also, Golden Rice is distributed for free to poor farmers (thanks to Ingo Potrykus, its creator), so its not like farmers have to go into debt to pay Monsanto or something in order to use it.

There were other falsehoods in what she said (like her absurd claim that GM crops don't produce higher yields) but this one really stood out for me. Golden Rice seems like a no-brainer: an unambiguously positive scientific development that is being distributed in an ethical manner. Spreading misinformation about it in order to discourage its adoption is unconscionable.

I think its important to have people out there protesting and warning against the excesses of companies like Monsanto, which has an unfortunate stranglehold over most GMO distribution. I just wish the most vocal activists weren't also science-deniers.

Man energetically lists onto tracks with hands in pockets-Welcome to the damaged world of mental deficiency, acute depression, or peer through a window into human suffering and get that full dose.

What an idiotic statement about diabetes. There's much higher rates of diabetes type two in families with diabetes than type 1. So there are people who are more predisposed to it independently of lifestyle/body weight. In some people, where increased body weigh and sedentary life style are the main risk factor then it has been shown that gastric bypass sugary can 'cure it' independently of weight loss with the current thinking being that hormones released by the stomach in contact with food can have a massive effect on our endocrine system as well as satiety.
Regardless, the argument is stupid - if you found out that you had a enzyme deficiency at causes a stroke later on in life and the treatment/rehab would cost you millions of pounds. The 'i exercised and dieted' view doesn't help pay the cheque for something that was set in stone when your mum and dad had an accident all those years ago.