Monsanto name to become Bayer

When I was growing up, "exponentially" was generally used to describe the way a quantity grew over time. Recently, non-science types have started using the term to describe the difference between two fixed quantities. I always wince when people use it with that new meaning, which has nothing to do exponents.

I agree with you Kolyo, that is a pet peeve of mine too. But I agree with the basic sentiment of what MaPorsche was saying.

Speaking of which, where's the studies you were asked to produce that will show that GMOs have been thoroughly tested?

Science and medicine were fine with colloidal silver until the big pharma industry was invented. After that, what they couldn't patent or otherwise make a fortune off of was written off and the use of it discouraged. Only thing, the law says that it and other remedies that have long histories of use cannot be outlawed.

50 years ago, you would have been the first to tell us that our worries about smoking were unscientific and anecdotal. I suppose you think vaping is perfectly fine, of course.

Edgar, you are attacking the scientific establishment... ignoring the fact that the scientific community includes many different organization and groups all working with peer review backed by a strong educational and research institutions.

These scientists (that is the scientific establishment) are contradicting your ideological world view. That is why you are calling them "sellouts", and "confused".

This is untrue on all counts. The scientific establishment knew that smoking was dangerous from the 1950s, and the first studies were in the 1930s. It was the public rejecting the findings of the scientific establishment (with psuedo-science propaganda from the tobacco industry) that was the problems.

You are attacking scientists, and the scientific establishment. This is completely, it was scientists who raised the alarm. Scientists and scientific institutions were pretty consistently saying there was a link between smoking and cancer since the 1950s.

This attack on science is bogus.

Anecdotal evidence that smoking was bad for you has existed much longer. If my remarks were wrong, I was only wrong about the number of years.

Chichikov in Dead Souls says he won't touch a pipe because "it dries you out". That was written well before 1900.

Speaking of ignoring . . .

I'm attacking industrialist con artists. It has nothing to do with legitimate science. We have real scientists who design new pacemakers, artificial limbs, do transplants and joint replacement and so forth. Then we have the opioid pushers and phony 'scientific studies' aimed at moving substandard product, with FDA blessing. And you have been suckered into not knowing which is which.

Edgar, you are attacking any scientist that disagrees with your ideological views. It is the scientific community; it is institutions, Universities, agencies, and journals that you call "con artists" because they dare to disagree with you about GMOs and colloidal silver.

It is the same scientific community that are designing new pacemakers and researching climate change. The only difference is whether they agree with your politics or not.

Conman is a pretty nasty attack on scientists.

The point is that the scientific establishment has never said that smoking was healthy... at least not since the 1930s. As research was done, and evidence grew, the scientific community came out solidly saying there is a link between smoking and cancer.

You want to attack the scientific establishment. The facts in this case don't support your attacks.

Not every scientist agrees with you about Monsanto and those who say C Silver does not work are lying or have been lied to.

Conman is a pretty nasty attack on scientists.

As I said, you have been conned into thinking anybody calling themselves scientists are never wrong, when in fact, there is a great array of pseudo scientists and sell-out scientists, raking in the dough at the consumer's expense.

Not every scientist agrees with Evolution, or with climate change either. The scientific community works through peer review and general consensus. When the vast majority of scientists agree on an topic based on peer reviewed research, it becomes the scientific view.

When you attack this process, you are attacking science.

Let me ask you this question... what would it take to change your mind about either GMOs or colloidal silver? The scientific consensus already exists. There are peer reviewed papers, research, and reputable scientific organizations including public organizations and Universities, all saying that you are wrong.

I go by the scientific community... if there is new peer reviewed, repeatable research that is accepted by a variety of reputable organizations saying that my view is wrong... I change my mind.

The problem with ideological beliefs is that they remain steadfast no matter what the evidence or the experts say. Rather than accept what scientists say, you call them "conmen and pseudo scientists".

The only difference is whether they challenge your ideological beliefs.

Uh huh. Now if you would just produce these peer reviewed studies showing that Edgar is wrong about GMOs, that would go a long way toward you being taken seriously.

We'll take this up tomorrow.

You see, you have to qualify your statement with "since the 1930's".

Today's "science" is often tomorrow's phlogiston.
But you just blindly endorse whatever the majority of scientists agree with at the time.

I want you to take a stand, though.
Is vaping safe or isn't it?

You, like most citizens, are convoluting real science with con men.

You can't disprove colloidal silver to a user who has benefitted from it in many positive ways for 20 years. It can't be patented and that's the only true reason they don't want us to have it.

There are lots of reasons to not be a Monsanto lab rat. I will let you and the ones like you have the honor. And products like Roundup are adding to the illnesses our people suffer. Monsanto wants the money too obsessively to be honest about what they do. I don't have time to get into it more just now.

There are scientists who were in on Monsanto's work who recanted. Their grasp for money and power overrides all honesty.