It is interesting how one sided the legal decisions have been. Farmers are being blocked from saving and using seeds from their own production because neighboring fields "contaminate" their seed with Monsanto genes. Based on a corrupt legal precedent, farmers are being told to change the way humans have fed themselves since pre-history. I can see how farmers who have signed agreements with Monsanto may have lost the right to use their produce but Satan's inability to keep their genes on their fields should not give them power over others.

Relevant details are missing in those arguments. Crops grown using Monsanto seeds do not breed 'live' seeds. A fact that accused Monsanto of binding farmers into buying Monsanto seeds every year.

'Monsanto grown' crops do not germinate so that 'Roundup resistant' seeds do not proliferate as weeds. So how does an adjacent farmer use seeds from Monsanto grown crops?

In the example, LG Electronics did not license (regulate) the use of products using their patent by third parties. A Monsanto license may have regulated how their product can and cannot be used. However, third party farmers did not sign a contract. Numerous and missing details.

In a similar case, a homeowner was using electromagnetic radiation on his property to light fluorescent bulbs. An adjacent electric company sued claiming he was stealing their property. Is it their property when they fill a homeowner's property with their radiation?

What is covered by patents or 'ownership' is not always obvious under the law. Because details can create a 180 degrees different conclusion. They can fill your house with electromagnetic radiation and you cannot use it?

Soundbyte reasoning implied you can use that radiated power. Add details and the soundbyte is wrong. Same applies to Monsanto's seeds. Topmost 'relevant details' imply facts are missing in "Monsanto verses that farmer".

TW, I snipped out quite a bit from the Times article, but here is one bit of the argument from Montanto:

Thus, it appears that "live seeds" are produced in these soybean crops.
And, it appears that in the past, Monsanto did not attempt to exercise control
over what happens to crop seeds, once the farmer sold the 1st generation crop.

I have a friend who says Monsanto is Mephistopheles and his father got sick working for them. I have to agree. About the Mephistopheles part; I don't know why his dad is sick.

BUT! I did work in a steel mill and THEY were HUGE polluters and it cost them LESS to pay the EPA fines than to fix the problem. three-eyed fish anyone?

tw is conflating a previous attempt by Monsanto to introduce a suicide or terminator gene with the facts of this case. wiki

Oh. I don't read tw. He's not on ignore or anything but I can't make heads or tails of his posts so I just presume they're a rant against something or body and go balls out and comment without reading.

naughty of me, I know, but a girl can only take so much.

I've always been in favor of the Antichrist motif, myself. I mean, one of the primary "signs" of the Antichrist is that he will claim he can "feed the world," which will propel him to popularity with the masses but we are supposed to recognize as a lie because it cannot be done, implication being that it encroaches on God's power over nature. (Keeping in mind that all this, like the Pope and the rapture and lots of other things, is based on no more than one tiny prophetic phrase and the mythological over-interpretation has been subsequently built around it.)*

But someone at Monsanto has surely got to have a sense of humor. I mean... Mon-santo? "My saint" and/or "My holy one?" I dunno, maybe it's an accident. But I still think they're the Antichrist.



*My favorite end-times scholarly book: When Time Shall Be No More. There's a whole chapter on the people who thought Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist. It's all really fascinating stuff.

I did not know that. Huh. Live and learn.

Feed the world?

How about water the world?

My spidey senses tell me water is the next oil.

At any rate----my crazy friend posted another video about how our pineal glands are being calcified by loads of stuff but mainly fluoride which is in our water. The vid says fluoride is a toxic substance and it only takes a pea sized bit to poison your pineal gland which is your third eye/intuition/god connection.

god, I love her stuff. She's an amazing theory-nut but MAYBE SHE'S RIGHT! that's what gets me---I think, ya know, L is crazy but (secretly) she may be on to something here. And then I get weirded out for a while then go about my day hoping a meteor won't land upon my head. Or do wish it, depending on my mood.

Don't go activating the pineal gland!




get into all sorts of problems activating the pineal gland.

Fluoride is found naturally in some water. People drank and remained healthy. Extremists hype myths - ie the dangers of fluoride - because their audience does not always demand reasons why and numbers. Dangers of fluoride were lies hyped by extremists who campaigned against 'evil Crest toothpaste' and an a devil worship symbol from Procter and Gamble. Intentional lies are obvious. Fears get framed by subjective claims - no numbers.

Salt, calcium, and vitamins are toxic. And are required for health. If using soundbyte reasoning, both statements contradict. Missing is what informed readers immediately need and demand. Underlying reasons why and the numbers. Extremists manipulate the naive because the naive do not demand underlying facts with numbers.

Griff provided necessary details: Genetic use restriction technology. New information often takes at least three rereads to comprehend. You know it is useful. Each wiki reread should provide more knowledge.

Lamplighter's article was troubling. Because it does not say why (it was intentionally condensed). Because that abridged article is understood in only one reading. Therefore it reported little that was new or useful. It only introduced new legal confrontations without necessary details. Round Up resistant seeds produced without GURT was a surprise and relevant fact. Such details are important.

Did you understand that fluoride video in one sitting? Then it was woefully insufficient. And probably intentionally misleading to promote hate. If a fluoride video was useful, then you were still learning facts in a third and fourth replay. And have numbers for dangerous fluoride.

Fluoride exists naturally in many water systems. And people are quite healthy. However those towns support fewer dentists. So fluoride must be evil?

BTW, an over active and healthy pineal gland can result in rape by aliens. Be concerned. Calcify that gland to protect yourself.

tell you what else is toxic...tooth decay.

Since water services were deregulated in the UK there's beena lot of divergence between different regions on putting flouride in the water. There was a study some years ago showing the rates of dental caries in children under 12, and how those rates changed with the introduction of flouride to the water supply. With the deregulated water companies, we now also have more recent studies showing rates of dental caries in the child population changing in response to a discontinuation of flouride in the water.

Tdub's right.

I often see the "Fluoride is poison!" hype from a few of my odder FB friends. Often with the "the Nazis used it, too!" add-on.

There have been a number of peer reviewed studies -mostly in China - showing that high levels of fluoride is associated with lower IQ. As well as the large numbers of possible confounding factors in industrial China, the key point is that these fluoride levels are many times higher than those you get from drinking fluoridated tap water.

Salt, water, oxygen ... pretty much everything is bad for you if you have too much. And too little. It's all Goldilocks, folks. Now eat your fluoridated soup.

Just remember Paracelsus: the dose makes the poison.

Fluoridated tap water has indisputably improved dental health in those with access to it. Overdoses of fluoride - not so helpful.

I think one of the big arguments about toxicity rests with the accumulative dose when flouride toothpaste, mouth wash and so forth are taken into account.

Even so, the amount needed to create flouride overdose...you'd basically need to be eating the toothpaste, as I understand it.

This is a more important debate than ever imo, with some of the recent studies seeming to show a causal link between toothdecay and some types of heart disease.