Science is good. Anti-science propaganda is bad. DU should know this!

[HuckleB]

Alas, too many DUers will "recommend" the most bullshit nonsense without thought. As, has been noted on the Health forum, as people glom on to a ludicrous "reiew" in regard to GMOs...

Look, GMOs are a mixed bag, but the religious attacks against them tend to be, well, ridiculous. Progressives should know better. Here's a response to a recent BS "review" of the literature. The fact that the "review" got play at DU is rather sad.

I'm wondering if pro-science DUers will support an OP that shows reality more than the anti-science DUers pushed the BS.

It's a fair test for DU. What matters most?

Does Glyphosate Cause Celiac Disease? Actually, No!
http://ultimateglutenfree.com/2014/02/does-glyphosate-cause-celiac-disease-actually-no/

[Drew Richards]

1. And bad science, is corporate propaganda n'est ce pas?

[HuckleB]

2. ?

[Berlum]

28. Eat it up, Huck

[HuckleB]

32. Thanks for the example of blind faith in anti-science routines.

Last edited Wed Mar 5, 2014, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit: It's also funny to see you post a ridiculous, pointless and silly attack upon "scientific materialism" simply because the science doesn't support your preconceived notions.

The passive aggressive nature of that OP is also hilarious.

[wisechoice]

77. why posting that is anti-science

So pointing out that science has debated and changed conclusion is anti-science?

[HuckleB]

78. It's a logical fallacy, and hit has no point in the discussion here.

Using it is a clear admission that you have no actual argument.

[pnwmom]

81. C'est vrai.

[Archae]

3. Two words that anger me: "Natural News"

I've never seen a website so highly touted by some, yet has zero to none actual science backing anything there up.

"Age Of Autism" is really bad too.

A good source of information about the kooks is here:

http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/

Political, religious, snake oil, etc.

Another good source is here:

http://www.skepdic.com/

I wrote to ABC, asking them why they put Jenny McCarthy on their show, seeing as she has been so thoroughly discredited.

They never did get back to me.

[HuckleB]

4. Both are Libertarian BS sites, and anti-progressive to the core.

Anyone supporting their fictions should be called out.

[HuckleB]

13. Surely, you're joking.

Please tell me you're joking.

[alp227]

27. Oops I misinterpreted your post

I thought the "both sites" referred to the skeptical links.

[HuckleB]

33. My post was clearly not clear.

[SidDithers]

23. You're talking about naturalnews and ageofautism, right?....

I don't want your comments to be misinterpreted, and for readers to think you're calling skepdic or americanloons "Libertarian BS sites".



Sid

[HuckleB]

24. That's correct. Thanks!

[GoneOffShore]

60. Jenny McCarthy is now hawking e-cigs.

Yet another string to her bow.

And every time a friend posts something from "The Health Ranger" I point them toward http://www.skepdic.com

Thanks for the other link.

[HuckleB]

117. WOW!

I'm not saying I give a crap, but damn!

[LostOne4Ever]

98. I'm pretty fond of

rationalwiki myself.

[HuckleB]

121. +1,000,000,000 .... 000

[LostOne4Ever]

124. Here are a couple of blogs you might be interested in:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

I have a strong dislike of denialism and pseudoscience myself.

[petronius]

5. I'm confused: you refer to a "fair test," but your post is laden with leading

and loaded terminology and the so-called test is in the form of a push poll. As a rational, pro-science sort of DUer I must decline to participate in an experiment that is so obviously biased by design. But I want to rec a thread with insightful and thought-provoking content. What to do, what to do...?

[HuckleB]

6. Whatever.

If you give a crap, you'd see beyond frustration.

So...

[Feral Child]

43. I'll REC it for you, then.

So there!

[Crunchy Frog]

65. You could always find an actual pro-science thread to rec. n/t

[HuckleB]

91. Awwwwww.

Why do you pretend?

[RobertEarl]

7. You should invent a vaccine for that

But don't go drinking none of that Glyphosate crap, ok? That stuff is made to kill. And I thank you for not trying to sell me any of it, either.

[HuckleB]

9. What?

Hmm.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I find the anti-GMO hysteria to be more than a bit ridiculous, for sure.

It's a technology, it can be used for good or ill... I understand questioning the value in Monsanto engineering crops to sell more pesticides. Does not strike me as the best use, to say the least, of this potentially revolutionary technology.

But the technology itself is not inherently "evil".

[SidDithers]

25. Exactly...

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2014/02/24/gmo_virus_vs_b_cell_acute_lymphoblastic_leukemia/

GMO virus vs B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Why is this not a standard therapy yet??

WHY IS THIS NOT STANDARD THERAPY YET?

Efficacy and Toxicity Management of 19-28z CAR T Cell Therapy in B Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

I wrote about this last year:

‘Dismal prognosis’ with leukemia? Nothing a GMO virus cant fix.

In the previous study, scientists took cytotoxic T-cells from five B-ALL patients, and infected them with a genetically modified virus. This GMO virus had a genome that essentially contained a ‘cheat sheet’ for teaching those CTLs how to kill B-ALL cancer cells. Four out of the five B-ALL patients recovered enough that they could get a bone marrow transplant.

In this new paper, they treated another 11 patients.

As per the current standard of care for adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL, the initial primary aim of therapy is to reinduce a CR (8–10). This, in turn, renders the patient eligible for an allo-SCT, which is, at present, the only therapeutic modality with curative potential.

This means, they need to get the patient healthy enough for a bone marrow transplant. *That* is what ‘cures’ the cancer, not chemo, not radiation, not GMO viruses.

With standard ‘salvage chemotherapy’, 30% respond well, and 5% respond well enough to get a bone marrow transplant.

With ‘salvage chemotherapy’ and this GMO virus therapy, 88% responded well, and 44% were able to get a bone marrow transplant.

Science is doing amazing work with GMO viruses, using them to attack specific disease cells. Not all GMO is bad.



Sid

[U4ikLefty]

10. Shilling for Monsanto is bad.

[HuckleB]

14. Shilling for anti-science BS is much worse.

[alp227]

12. Sadly, it's where progressive values clash.

Being for science vs. being against the system, what to do? what to do? I think people take such iconoclastic anti-GMO/pro-woo/anti-Pharma positions to feel better about themselves despite knowing little about real science. With America valuing individualism and "thinking for yourself" as much as it does, there's little wonder why otherwise sane people believe what isn't so.

[Orrex]

15. Nice post, you scientific materialist.

I suspect that you're part of the claque.

[HuckleB]

46. Ah, LOL!

It's funny to see that exact passive aggressive response up in its own OP this morning.

[NuclearDem]

16. Some people can't recognize the bad logic with hyping woo.

Whether GMOs or pharmaceuticals are safe and effective or not is a scientific issue.

The bad behavior of pharmaceutical companies and Monsanto is an economics issue, and when it gets to the physician level, an ethics issue.

You can be in favor of using pharmaceuticals or GMOs based on the science while still wanting to see Big Pharma and Monsanto's behavior reined in.

But the logic is: Big Pharma is driven by profits, therefore eat this root to treat your cancer.

[The Straight Story]

17. The author at the link is so-so

But I agree with your post in general.

"and I strongly believe that her claims are not supported by the current evidence"

"this article appears to be an exercise in political activism and does not deserve to be in a legitimate scientific journal."

'Believes, appears'....really, just stick with a real analysis and not things just cut and pasted from google searches (which the author admits they do in the comments).

I think the problem many have when it comes to science and things like this is that you can't trust scientists to stick to facts. They are bought and paid for just like politicians and pollsters. We shouldn't just listen to someone because they claim they are a scientist and have written some paper on topic X.

All sides of an issue would do well to consider the politics of science:

3. OK, then what does it mean to “misuse science”?
An upper-level seminar course took on this challenge in 2004, and came up with six different categories relevant to understanding “misuse.” The first two are not misuses, but often are characterized as such:

Cherry picking: When making an argument people often selectively choose or present information that makes their case look as strong as possible. Not only is this an effective tactic in argumentation; cherry picking is inescapable as all uses of facts are selective by their nature.

Dueling Experts: On complex scientific subjects there are typically many valid ways to interpret data and present findings. This is part of the richness of science, particularly regarding highly complex topics. In cases where experts disagree a decision maker frequently can and must select among expert opinions. This is exactly how the adversarial legal process works. Simply because experts disagree is not a sufficient basis for identifying a misuse of science.

The other four categories are examples of the misuses of science:

Mistake: A mistake is an unambiguous factual error.

Mischaracterization: A mischaracterization of science refers to the intentional or unintentional characterization of a body of research or a particular finding in a way that is simply incorrect or clearly misleading. There is clearly room for interpretation as to what constitutes mischaracterization versus cherry picking.

Delegitimization: Conflicts of interest, real or perceived, can delegitimize information-producing bodies to such a degree that whatever information they produce is discounted in the decision making process, eliminating any chance for knowledge to contribute to effective decision making.

Arguing morals/politics through science: Some issues are debated in terms of science, but are really about underlying politics or moral issues.

The full report can be found here.

4. Is it true that science is increasingly politicized and misused?
Yes. It does seem that there is a long-term trend of the politicization of science, and with it more complaints about misuse. One reason for this trend is that many issues of public importance involve a science and technology component, such as stem cell research, genetically modified organisms, and climate change, to name just a few. Another reason for this trend is that since the end of the Cold War, the scientific community has been asked to make its research more relevant to society. One response to such calls has been for scientists to become more involved in political debates.

5. Is the Bush Administration the worst misuser of science in history?
Perhaps, but no one has systematically looked at the issue. Such claims probably say more about the political predispositions of the one making the claim than anything else. It is true that the Bush Administration has shown a remarkable penchant for controlling information, and the area of science seems no different. But a close look at the history of science in policy and politics in various presidential administrations clearly shows that the misuse of science is a bipartisan affair, with a storied history.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/news/media-resources/science-politics.html

[HuckleB]

20. In this instance, the issue also goes to the fact that the reviewers...

... are not qualified, and the journal is clearly among those abused by "scientists" to push preconceived agendas.

[Enthusiast]

18. You are so passionate on this issue!

[HuckleB]

115. I just wish progressives would be more critical of bad propaganda.

I feel like it's a lost cause, however.

[xchrom]

19. du rec.

[chrisa]

21. The concept that we shouldn't genetically modify anything is silly.

"GMO" is passed around as a buzzword like GMO crops are dangerous and can never be beneficial. That's absurd. Being GMO doesn't make something harmful - it can, but regulation would take care of that.

[wisechoice]

22. The problem is with regulation

1) labeling
2) Seeds should not be owned so that eventually few control the food source
3) Long term independent study and not accepting reports from Monsanto in good faith.
If we can work on these regulations then there is no issue with anyone. Everyone will have the right to choose. Until then GMOs are evil.

[upaloopa]

58. Regulation? Sure we live in a country that just loves more regulation.

That's like saying if you are wrong we can legislate the genie back into the bottle.
You make less and less sense.

[HuckleB]

118. Say what?

[SidDithers]

26. DU rec...

but what do us scientific materialists know.

Sid

[Democracyinkind]

29. As is zealotry.

Sincerely, someone with a BA in Philosophy (of Science).

[HuckleB]

30. And that's a good part of my point.

[Corruption Inc]

31. Smoking isn't bad for you either, LOL

You must yearn for the good ole days of unchecked propaganda.

[HuckleB]

34. I'm actually working against blind-faith propaganda.

[wisechoice]

35. You don't need to convince

That GMOs are good. There is no benefit from GMOs currently. There is no urgency. They may have potential. But the potential to abuse is even more. So you should convince the seed companies to label the food, not to have ownership and encourage them to do long term testing. IMHO that is better time spent on than putting down the critics of the GMO technology.

[HuckleB]

36. Ah, so you're going to go with the "slippery slope" pseudoscience routine.

Thanks for offering up another example.

Oh, and you also put words in my mouth, and then responded to your own creation. That's never ok.

[wisechoice]

62. If being critic is pseudoscience then be it.

Don't be too sure your path is the right path and everyone else is unscientific.

[HuckleB]

72. I've challenged myself.

I know what actual criticism is, and pushing blind faith propaganda is not criticism, so don't fool yourself.

[tkmorris]

40. "you're either wit us or agin us!"

A person can value logic and reason WITHOUT shilling for corporations you know. It isn't a binary situation.

[wisechoice]

63. Thumbs up

[HuckleB]

73. You clearly missed the point of that response.

Oh, goodness.

[Vashta Nerada]

37. There's a lot of woo that gets a pass here.

It's sad, really.

[FSogol]

38. K & R. n/t

[upaloopa]

39. Please give me the rest of the list that

progressives should know so I can let you do my thinking for me!
It's my body and I don't want GMOs in it !

[HuckleB]

41. You can choose however you want to choose.

Ignoring the science of the matter leads to less than progressive actions. I'm allowed to point that out.

[upaloopa]

47. I disagree

Progressive ideals should lean toward natural occurring nutrition not more processed manufactured foods. You using the word progressive to sell GMO is offensive!

[HuckleB]

48. You're choosing a religious view over a science-based humanity is not progressive.

I'm sorry, but you're pushing a romance instead of what's right. And now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not pushig anything but the use of science to help us move forward, while pointing out that ignoring science is something that is likely to cause harm to other humans.

[upaloopa]

49. All you do is label things. Your labels do not equal truth

or reality. You're a huckster

[HuckleB]

51. Actually, that's what you're doing.

But...

[upaloopa]

50. Humans cannot improve on nature. All we can do is destroy it

[HuckleB]

53. Thanks.

Thanks for the meaningless cliche. It's also quite untrue, of course. It is, in fact, a great example of the religiosity of those who do not want to actually understand the world via evidence. So thanks for that!

[upaloopa]

57. Calling me names and again labeling my ideas don't

make what you say become the truth.
Go to your grocery store and buy a tomato and put it on the window sill to ripen. It won't ripen it won't rot it doesn't smell like a tomato it doesn't taste like a tomato. Of course you might be too young to know what tomatoes use to smell like and taste like.
Doctors tell patients to take supplements because the produce today doesn't have the nutritional value it use to.
Go to the San Joaquin valley and watch them harvest a crop and plant the next. After the harvest they put chemicals on the land to kill all vegetation. Then they put on more chemicals to fertilize the ground and plant. The cycle goes on over and over. The soil isn't soil anymore it is a mix of dirt and chemicals
Only a fool would call that progress.
Soon there will be no more naturally occurring seeds. If GMO is found to be a worse liability in the future you won't be able to go back.
To you science is a religion. You have blind faith just like a fundamentalist.

[Bonx]

64. This post is a perfect example of the point of the OP -nt

[upaloopa]

79. Still doesn't make the OP truth

The OP is opinion just as mine is. I am proud to be what you say my post is.

[HuckleB]

85. The OP merely shows that a non-scientific paper is bogus.

And it is ridiculous to see such a paper posted and liked so many times at DU.

[wisechoice]

67. I really don't know why they think GMO is the miracle science

200 thousand farmers committed suicide in India because of bt cotton. They think we all should accept GMOs are safe and seed companies can ruin poor farmers, have monopoly on the seed source while rest of the poor are helpless. They need to look at the priorities.

[HuckleB]

71. You do realize that the India suicide claim is bogus, right?

Also, why are you putting words in my mouth?

Can you discuss the matter on an honest basis?

[HuckleB]

69. You seem to think that you're offering something else.

I'm not about to waste tons of time on someone who clearly does not want to engage in actual discussion.

[wisechoice]

74. Is this true?

"Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While arguing that seed companies' intellectual property rights ought to be protected, Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the Environmental Protection Agency to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to genetically modified products for testing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

[HuckleB]

75. It probably is.

Science is messy. Here's more information:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/13/1277286/-About-Those-Industry-Funded-GMO-Studies

[wisechoice]

82. And is this conclusion valid

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919210001302

[HuckleB]

83. It could be, but there's a lot more to that story, if you'd check the link I offered.

[wisechoice]

92. So there is debate on GMO's

safety. Then why are you saying that we should not question the GMO safety? If we think it is unsafe, then it is anti-science? You want to be rational, but the moment we show that there is doubt regarding the safety of GMO, you switch to "we are anti-science crowd". There are so many of pro GMOs here that want to ridicule the critics and call names.

[HuckleB]

93. Ah, so you're choosing to ignore consensus by noting cherry picked studies.

Regarding scientific consensus: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/24/hostility-towards-a-scientific-consensus/

You went through all of that for what? And it's clear you ignored the piece I offered with all of its supporting links.

The question is: Do you have an open mind? Will you challenge your preconceived notions? I used to be arguing what you are now arguing. I challenged myself, so let's not pretend that it's otherwise.

If you want to discuss the matter with serious people, I can give you the links to their discussions. It might be fun.

[wisechoice]

99. I have open mind

But do you have?
Consensus does not mean that we should not doubt. There will be more studies done in the future and the conclusion may be reversed. Then there is the inherent danger that the seed companies can accidentally ignore testing certain aspects of their seeds apart from willfully not testing certain aspects. There have been cases of recalls of GMO food.
So are they safe? That is still in debate.
Will I oppose GMOs - Yes, because of Monsanto, because Science has not fully understood genomics and also it is not easy to recall crops.
Will I call those who are pro GMOs as anti-science? - No

[HuckleB]

102. I do. You claim to do the same, but this post actually speaks otherwise.

Interesting.

Also, can you list the recalls of GMO foods?

Thanks.

[upaloopa]

84. It is too bad you think so highly of your opinion.

You are not in the majority. If you give us a choice we reject your ideas. This is like a gunner discussion. There is only one side and if we don't accept it you call us names and belittle us. People don't want to eat your frankinfood. That is the real truth where you like it or not.

[HuckleB]

86. Ah, so popularity is all that matters, to you.

It's easy to foment fear, no matter how baseless, and the anti-science crowd has all the usual propaganda techniques down.

[upaloopa]

94. The trouble with your thinking is that you

feel entitled to think for the rest of us.
I am a vegetarian. I try to eat natural foods when I can get them. Your science does not make room for people like me because I may have a popular point of view.
You just don't get to make decisions for the rest of us

[HuckleB]

100. The trouble with many of your posts is that you put words in my mouth...

... and thoughts in my head and then "argue" against your own creation.

Not ok.

[wisechoice]

66. What science?

Science has not concluded anything. There is debate going on. "So far" there has been no widespread issue with GMO is the "consensus". There are still scientists that are against GMOs. I don't know how you are so sure that you are right and others are anti-science.

[HuckleB]

70. You keep telling yourself that.

I know you will.

[HuckleB]

42. Another article that shows the ludicrous nature of the "review" in question.

http://www.examiner.com/article/does-roundup-cause-celiac-disease-or-gluten-intolerance

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. While I'm on your side in this debate, ugh...the Examiner. I know people

who "write" for the Examiner. There has got to be a better link.

[HuckleB]

54. The Examiner is an oddball outfit.

Most of its output is crap, but, for some strange reason, it also publishes decent pieces now and then. Inconsistency seems to be the way in this day and age.

[ScreamingMeemie]

55. I know them all too well as a freelance writer.

Edited because second half didn't show up.


And I made a promise to myself I would never click on a link and send them (or their writers) money.

[HuckleB]

56. Got it.

I will try harder in the future.

[Fumesucker]

44. Are you in favor of labeling allowing consumers to know exactly what is in the food they eat?

A very simple question.

[HuckleB]

45. I'm in favor of labeling food to let consumers to know what exactly is in their food.

I've never seen such a proposal made, however.

If you're interested, this is a good piece on a small part of the labeling issue:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/03/1252782/-Why-I-Think-Mandatory-Labels-for-GMO-s-is-Bad-Policy-and-Why-I-Think-It-Might-Be-Good-Strategy

[upaloopa]

59. What happens when GMO has replaced all natural occurring seeds?

What good will your labels be then?

[wisechoice]

68. The mission is accomplished

We all can only buy seeds from the Monsanto and there won't be any more debates to whether GMOs are safe or not. All natural crops will be contaminated by GMO genes and hence will be owned by Monsanto.

[HuckleB]

89. Got hyperbole?

Goodness.

[upaloopa]

96. You know as well as I that GMO mixed with natural seeds

Is the end of the natural seed. It already has happened in this country and is the reason other countries will not allow GMO crops.

[HuckleB]

103. You know perfectly that other forms of seed modificaton have already done similar things,

but you only worry about GMOs.

Thus, something does not mesh.

[upaloopa]

105. Look we don't just accept taking risks we don't have to

just because something went wrong in the past. You surely are smarter than that.

[HuckleB]

111. You seem to think that one form of modification is magically more risky than others.

That's simply fear for fear's sake.

[upaloopa]

95. That's our future if we don't stand up to this

[HuckleB]

87. When will that happen?

You seem to think that companies that make GMO seeds, only make GMO seeds. That's not accurate.

[upaloopa]

97. You don't make other seeds you grow them!

[HuckleB]

101. Seriously, that's your response?

Why do you bother?

[sakabatou]

61. Celiac is genetic, if I'm right

Glyphosate wouldn't do that. That being said, herbicides can be harmful to humans.

[pnwmom]

80. Celiac is genetic but not everyone with the genes develops it -- usually a trigger is involved.

That's why people develop it at different times in their lives.

And they're still learning about non-Celiac gluten sensitivity.

[HuckleB]

90. The bottom line is that this "review" is all correlation without any way to connect...

the claim to the disorder. Further, the authors are not qualified to do such work, and the journal appears to be one used to be abused by a few. It's not reviewed by anyone who would be hired at a legitimate journal.

[pnwmom]

76. I stopped reading since the author's very first claim wasn't supported by his own link.

The author cited a non-celiac gluten sensitivity rate of .6, but the only reference he gave was to a study reporting celiac disease as .7

The prevalence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity has not been established, and is not even mentioned in the reference provided by the author.

It is discussed, however, in the abstract below.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23934026

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: questions still to be answered despite increasing awareness.

Volta U1, Caio G, Tovoli F, De Giorgio R.

Abstract
Recently, the increasing number of patients worldwide who are sensitive to dietary gluten without evidence of celiac disease or wheat allergy has contributed to the identification of a new gluten-related syndrome defined as non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Our knowledge regarding this syndrome is still lacking, and many aspects of this syndrome remain unknown. Its pathogenesis is heterogeneous, with a recognized pivotal role for innate immunity; many other factors also contribute, including low-grade intestinal inflammation, increased intestinal barrier function and changes in the intestinal microbiota. Gluten and other wheat proteins, such as amylase trypsin inhibitors, are the primary triggers of this syndrome, but it has also been hypothesized that a diet rich in fermentable monosaccharides and polyols may elicit its functional gastrointestinal symptoms. The epidemiology of this condition is far from established; its prevalence in the general population is highly variable, ranging from 0.63% to 6%. From a clinical point of view, non-celiac gluten sensitivity is characterized by a wide array of gastrointestinal and extraintestinal symptoms that occur shortly after the ingestion of gluten and improve or disappear when gluten is withdrawn from the diet. These symptoms recur when gluten is reintroduced. Because diagnostic biomarkers have not yet been identified, a double-blind placebo-controlled gluten challenge is currently the diagnostic method with the highest accuracy. Future research is needed to generate more knowledge regarding non-celiac gluten sensitivity, a condition that has global acceptance but has only a few certainties and many unresolved issues.

[HuckleB]

88. IOW, your usual routine.

You'll cherry pick to support your preconceived notions, and you'll cherry pick to ignore the whole picture.

No, I'm not surprised. You supported the OP in the health forum about this bad propaganda, and now you'll go to your usual lengths to defend it. Once again, you kick intellectual honesty in the gut.

[janlyn]

106. I am a little confused

In what way do you feel she has cherry picked? Her link is reputable. There is nothing in the link that changes the snippet she included in her comment. Honest question.

[HuckleB]

109. She cherry picked one thing and then ignored the bigger picture.

[pnwmom]

107. It's hardly "cherry-picking" to point out that the FIRST statistic cited isn't supported

by the author's own link, leading me to question the fact-checking involved in the rest of this essay.

Intellectual honesty isn't one of your strong points.

[HuckleB]

110. It is cherry picking.

You can't defend the reality that the piece covers. The only thing you can do is pretend it's not accurate.

Oddly, you failed to bother to criticize the supposed "review" that this piece shows as ridiculous nonsense. You, in fact, supported it blindly. Now, you're here trying to pretend that such a dishonest response to something that supports your preconceived notions and to something that shows that support to be baseless is somehow honest.

I've always shown why you're not being honest. You have not done so when you claim I'm not being honest. Thus, so some thread of decency, and cut the crap.

Seriously, do you think that "review" is worthy of anything but derision? If so, that explains everything. If not, then buck up, and point out where your initial response went wrong.

[pnwmom]

113. "I've always shown why you're not being honest. You have not."

You are hysterical.

[HuckleB]

114. I love this response.

It proves my statement correct so succinctly.

Thank you.

[HuckleB]

116. Since logical fallacies are your thing...

Here's a thread where you defend the likes of Jenny McCarthy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3283548

[pnwmom]

119. Way to go!

Way beside the point, as usual.

[HuckleB]

120. I'm on point, as usual, as you well know.

Last edited Thu Mar 6, 2014, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

The fact that you fail to be honest, and acknowledge any mistake you've made, and boy have you made some big ones, is very telling.

[LostOne4Ever]

104. Agree totally!

One of the many many reasons I am a liberal is because liberalism tends to support science logic and reason. Issue after issue after issue I find that liberals tend to be on the side of science.

Evolution vs Creationism

Climate Change

Vaccinations

Spanking/child pyschology

Economics

The list goes on and on. However, the GMO issue distresses me as I see liberals and progressives lining up with conservatives supporting this conspiracy driven anti-science agenda.

Im all for labeling GMO's and regulation, but denying the science on their safety is woo and should be called out.

[etherealtruth]

108. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future

"As Mark Twain put it, “The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/141679/unscientific_america%3A_how_scientific_illiteracy_threatens_our_future

[HuckleB]

112. Good piece from a good book! Thanks!

[JoeyT]

122. It's a bit weird.

You can think the technology of genetically modifying crops isn't a bad thing, or even that it's a good thing, AND hate Monsanto and their ilk.

[HuckleB]

123. You can do whatever you want to do.

Do you have something more to share?

Cheers!