# Self Sufficiency/Living off the Land or Off the Grid > Cooking, Food Storage, & Preserving >  Who's anti-GMO?

## wilderness medic

First off this is not a troll...I'm not trying to start a fight or even a discussion about your beliefs(unless you want to)..but a request. I am doing a research paper on skewed studies people eat up and misinformation on how GMOs are "dangerous."

From reading a few posts in the past something tells me at least a few people here are against GMOs. Can you please tell me why you are (if so) to give me more to research. So far besides the disproven stuff on the web there's not much more.. I've tried talking to a few anti-GMO people but it's been equatable to talking to a potato (GMO free of course...) and unproductive. 


Do you have any specific science, research, or evidence beyond "Like messing with nature is bad"? Something you've read and believe from somewhere? What specifically makes you think they are bad or dangerous?


Thanks.

----------


## hayshaker

you mean aside from Monsanto wanting to control the world food supply by means of intellectual property rights.
the FACT that cattle feed on feed lots gmo corn and beans have to be slaughterd before 2yrs cause by that time their
guts are done . gmo F1 hybreads cannot be saved for seed.as well thru open pollination can contaminate non GMO
open pollnated seed.Monsanto has destroyed all the Ancient corn varieties in Mexico their all contaminated now.
farmers who for untold generations saved seed for next years planting con no longer do so.this entire company and all others
like it need to go .oh and the frogs here born with birth defects due to run off from the fields into the drainage ditches.

----------


## Rick

You had to know you were going to get posts like that. All you are going to receive are peoples' opinions. You need to research independent studies on the subject. This thread is just going to be a peeing contest. 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20the%20safety

----------


## hayshaker

rick you mean like my post.hmmmm unlike some i do live in the country i see all the super weeds that grow around
the out side of my treeline they got drift sprayed one too many times now their roundup resistant aka super weeds
you see,um out in the fields all the time.

----------


## hayshaker

no offence WM but you should concider just who is writing these pro gmo research studies are they corarate,GOVT,or land grant beholding
scientest these people tow the line cause their jobs and futures are on the line. 
just look at who funds these studies follow the money cause it is ALL about the MONEY afterall. and this aint PISSING it,s the TRUTH.

----------


## wilderness medic

Rick I did expect some but was hoping it could not be a pissing match. I'm used to getting responses like that but at least I was able to pick out a few things from Hayshakers post to use. Easier to have stuff like that written down to individually research than some angry person yelling obscenities at you like you just called their mother a you know what...

I have looked up several studies.

It's ironic you should say look up who is writing the studies. The study over the stomach inflammation you are referring to was sponsored by an organization (OFA) pro organic/anti-GMO that had much to benefit from a study in their favor linking GMOs to harm.  So no offense taken about considering who is writing the studies. :Smile: 

Please try to keep it respectful and state your facts, or even opinion, without getting huffy or having a "peeing match"

----------


## madmax

If you only knew what crap I've put in my body, this would be a moot point for me...

 :Yes:

----------


## wilderness medic

> If you only knew what crap I've put in my body, this would be a moot point for me...


LOL if I understand that correctly... a separate issue that kind of bugs me...if people spent half the time worry about their health in a tried and true way like exercise or putting down the cigarette...

Nothing funnier than watching somebody talking about the horrible health dangers of GMOs while smoking a cigarette and washing down a cheeseburger with a beer.... Even if it had minimal effects that would be the least of my worries.

----------


## Batch

I am not against it. I feel the people who are against it generally have that whole witch hunt vibe.

But, I also believe that using diversity in our crops is a better solution. But, the problem is that the money wants say all Russet potatoes. The farmers follow the money and plant all Russets. Then the Russets are less resistant to a particular pest. So, a lab makes a GMO Russet that is resistant and there is no scientific evidence that it is anything but a safe to eat potato and folks vote to get it banned on the word of a couple of celebrities. 

So, in the end for our health, thanks to the anti-GMO Russet potato eating folks. We get a potato that has much more pesticide (poison) applied to it than would be required on the GMO potato. 

The obvious solution would be to buy the already resistant non-GMO potato varieties out there and shift the money to that market. But, the big buyers of potatoes are fry makers, chip makers, powdered potato makers, fast food chains and what not. That makes it nearly impossible for the change to come at a consumer level.

----------


## madmax

58 years.

 I got my blood tests back  I'm healthy as a horse.  Go figger. I don't smoke anymore. 1981.  Done.  Love your sig.  Never forget,

----------


## hunter63

Got into a discussion at cardio-vascular therapy.......most everyone there has survived a heart problem of some sort.

Got around to...."What would you do if they told your you had 6 months to live? ...Guy about 80 says, "Heck I buy a pack of smokes...I really miss that."

So in this case, I don't think there is a answer on GMO.....just speculation......

History is written by the winners and best financed. 

Gonna get me some popcorn...(free range)

----------


## edr730

Insuffienct evidence and exaggerated claims would be your strongest arguement if the goal of the research was to bolster the pro-GMO arguement. Unfortunately this same arguement also applies to the con-GMO side.   

Other arguements would be the right to protection of intellectual property, unnecessary labeling laws, potential for greater food production in the future, potential for growing medicine such as human insulin (which has already been done) and vaccines.

 I do think it may end up to be a peeing contest and there is not a consensus. Individually we have our own opinions. My opinion would be that it is a bit like walking through a mine field. If we need to get through this to the other side, then let us have a reasonable amount of caution and examine both sides of the arguement.

This would be a site where your debunking could begin and I think you could find evidence of some exaggerated claims there.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

----------


## kyratshooter

Got a better question!

What would the world be like without GMO foods?

Not just the U.S. or your own pantry, but the WORLD!

Starvation makes you a lot less fanatical about organic farming heritage crops and only buying from that little "special counter" at the supermarket.

Drought resistant and disease resistant crops are keeping many nations from engaging in food war.

----------


## LowKey

The only thing I really have against GMOs are the lack of foresight put into their deployment.

Roundup Ready crops for instance. Great. You can spray the weeds in the same field with Roundup and the crops don't die. Except now we have more and more Roundup resistant weeds that have become resistant through natural selection.

There are other side issues such as not allowing farmers to use seed produced by GMO crops. Driving to a grain elevator to get crop seed is becoming a thing of the past.

There are limits to GMO technology. Check into some of the attempts to get a short (so it doesn't blow down,) drought tolerant wheat. The alleles for short also control root growth.

And then there is the silly. Developing an apple that doesn't brown by duplicating genes so that restaurants and McDonalds can serve apples that don't oxidize when peeled and cut. 

Check into the Golden Rice debate. It isn't that people are afraid of it, it just doesn't yield as much as their normal rice crops. And other food sources exist for the vitamin A it carries in many of the areas they are trying to sell it (mangoes and yams.) There are some stories out there that this seed crop was released to the non-profit organizations because the genes for the Beta-carotene transferred to the seed and therefore could not be controlled for profit.

There are various reports out there about Bt Corn and other crops that have been engineered to produce Bt. Never quite figured that one out as the bugs still have to eat holes in the crop to eat the Bt. Lately there have been reports that the insects Bt once killed are now becoming resistant to this insecticide. Will we be needing even more powerful insecticides? Will these resistant pests now migrate to plants that have not been genetically modified? It doesn't help when research such as the Monarch butterfly report gets out there either. There may actually be damage to beneficial caterpillar larvae, but now because of that one study, everything is suspect.

There is also the threat of the Terminator genes too. While not purportedly in production, they do exist as a genetic modification where seed production is rendered sterile in one generation. At some point the temptation for profit on seed sales will become too great to resist. 

The whole problem with trying to do any kind of research on GMO is you get two sources. The Big Ag research and the Oaty-crunchy fear-mongers. Any independent researcher that tries to do outside experimentation on these crops tends to get shut down in one way or another, usually through lack of funding. You won't find many vetted independent papers on GMOs out there.

----------


## wilderness medic

Typed a long response but this dang phone killed it. Anyway. 

Hunter- free range popcorn hahaha

Edr-Scientists as a majority believe there is little to no difference and no dangers in GMOs therefore the burden of proof lies on the antis to dispute this. 

Already had my way with that site. Have to check my works cited but I believe that's where I began learning of this anti study sponsored by the anti GMO organic only company.

Kyrat-Well said. If someone wants to avoid then because there's a .00001 chance it's slightly harmful whatever. Or avoid carrots because orange isn't a great color. Whatever. But this goes beyond little hippies pretending to be so health aware. With that cigarette. Try being hungry and then whining about how horrible the Food that wouldn't be there unless it was GM is.

----------


## nell67

I am 100% against gmo anything. They can not even call them plants or seeds or fruits anymore but (genetically modified) organisms. sorry, but that is my opinion, and there are plenty of doctors against them ( Not talking Oz here). There are numerous lawsuits by Monsanto of farmers planting their little gardens and their crops being contaminated by gmo. And sometimes monsanto wins, even though the farmers family has lived and farmed the land they live on for generations. Monsantos mantra is it is not their job to ensure the safety of their product, that is up to the fda.  Money talks, yadda, yadda. You know the rest.

I don't want cross contamination in my garden, nor do I want gmo crap in my cart at the store. But again, thats my opinion. You do what you want for your table, I'll set mine my way.

----------


## wilderness medic

> I am 100% against gmo anything. They can not even call them plants or seeds or fruits anymore but (genetically modified) organisms. sorry, but that is my opinion, and there are plenty of doctors against them ( Not talking Oz here). There are numerous lawsuits by Monsanto of farmers planting their little gardens and their crops being contaminated by gmo. And sometimes monsanto wins, even though the farmers family has lived and farmed the land they live on for generations. Monsantos mantra is it is not their job to ensure the safety of their product, that is up to the fda.  Money talks, yadda, yadda. You know the rest.
> 
> I don't want cross contamination in my garden, nor do I want gmo crap in my cart at the store. But again, thats my opinion. You do what you want for your table, I'll set mine my way.


And your reasons for being anti GMO were...?

----------


## nell67

> And your reasons for being anti GMO were...?


 My own, as I said before. If you are researching gmos, why are you asking lay people? why not talk to those who are creating them, and those who are researching them, for real. All you are getting here is opinions, some from people who have done some research on their own, and some who are traditionalist who don't trust putting things in their body that was created in a lab.

For me? I am a traditionalist, I don't want frankenbeans on my plate. My choice. 'nuff said.

----------


## wilderness medic

> My own, as I said before. If you are researching gmos, why are you asking lay people? why not talk to those who are creating them, and those who are researching them, for real. All you are getting here is opinions, some from people who have done some research on their own, and some who are traditionalist who don't trust putting things in their body that was created in a lab.
> 
> For me? I am a traditionalist, I don't want frankenbeans on my plate. My choice. 'nuff said.


I am doing that as well, of course. Because my paper is more on, as I said, people that buy one sided and skewed studies as hardcore truth. Therefore, it has a lot to do with peoples _informed decisions_ ofwhy . As well as people ignoring evidence that some or all of their reasons have been proven wrong (the witch hunt cult like mentality) That answer of "just because" or "it's not the way it's been done traditionally" is exactly the reason I chose this topic. Seems like a poor way to make progress in society. Fear change. 

Without trying to sound disrespectful, you didn't have to comment if you weren't willing to answer the question. I asked for an explanation so if you can't explain it, what was the point?

My paper is more along the lines of pseudoscience and people following blindly or cherry picking information that fits the current fads or fear mongering trends in general, GMO studies are just part of it.

For instance Hayshakers post was extremely useful actually. "FACT" Something he believes as absolute fact from a study that was faulty. Brought up the F1 hybrids not being able to be saved as seeds...something else to put in there and look up.

----------


## LowKey

There are people who believe that if something cannot be achieved through a normal hybridized breeding program that becomes man's attempt to play god (with a little g.)

I've seen the arguments from pro-GMO people that "man has been manipulating plants since the beginnings of agriculture." The "Pro-GMO" cannot see that the lab cut-and-paste of genetic material from organisms so different they would never cross in the wild is not the same as hybridization.

Why is it that much of the Euro-zone will not accept GMO foods from the US? People in America have no choice mostly. The Roundup-Ready GMO (soybeans) and Bt Corn and probably 50 other crops were already heavily entrenched in the food supply by the late 90s.

Here's an overview of how attitudes differ between the Eurozone and the US (lots of cited sources at the end):
http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-poli...politics/p8688
It points out an interesting fact that in the US, it was the Department of Commerce that ultimately decided how GMOs were to be regulated. Not the scientists. In Europe, it was their equivalent of the EPA that made their regulations.

As for needing GMOs to feed the burgeoning population...well...I've seen what happens when a bacterial colony over-runs the feeding capacity of its petri dish, or when wolves outnumber their prey, or when weeds eutrify a lake. Not pretty.

The use of this technology is producing huge swaths of monoculture. Where agriculture used to rely on crop rotation, now it does not and the same crops are grown on the same soil for years on end. All it will take is a single virus/pest mutation and those crops will falter. A lot of them. All at once. That won't feed anyone.

BTW,
Using a term like "Anti" to describe people who don't like GMO is derogatory in nature and will not get you any type of response. Using terms like "cherry pick" and "fear mongering" you have shown you have no patience or any intent to listen to someone who doesn't ascribe to GMOs as a food source and seem to want to ridicule and sneer at anyone who does. They may be Pro-Organic. Or Pro-Natural Selection rather than Anti anything. There actually can be science behind being anti-GMO. I have a degree in Botany with a minor in Wetland Ecology/taxonomy. I was still in school when Terminator genes were developed and there was quite the debate in plant physiology class over whether it was even an ethical use of science to ever conceive of such a thing in the name of profit.

The rate at which GMO DNA has been shown to appear in conventional crops through crossing demonstrates that this technology is not confined, that it can release into the environment at large and there is absolutely no way to determine the long term effects of that. For instance what happens when you cross two organisms that don't normally cross. Think Horse and Donkey. You get a sterile mule. It looks like people are willing, in the name of science, to risk contaminating the environmental genome with genetic material that was never meant to cross species, with totally unpredictable results. And until you can remove the trademarked and patented "rights" from the process of producing seed by whatever means, then you can't convince me, personally, that this isn't all done from a motive of profit, rather than feeding the masses of human population.

----------


## Rick

> normal hybridized breeding program




What on earth is that? Grafting is one of the most used commercial methods to produce plants that would "never cross in the wild" and is used all the time as a way to speed up the maturity of hybrid plants. Yep, it's a sterile mule. We don't think about that when we eat cherries do we? 

Here's a name everyone should research, Norman Borlaug. All the wheat you eat today can be traced back to the work this man did. It's estimated that he saved over 1 billion people from starvation, won the Nobel Peace Prize (along with a zillion other awards) and worked for the Rockefeller Foundation, a mega corporation.

----------


## LowKey

You'll notice that nowhere have I said the food is not safe to eat.
Nor did I diss Monsanto (other than their profit motive.)
Grafting is not a genetic technique. You are not mixing DNA when you graft. You can graft to dwarfing rootstock and still produce viable seed that is as true as any seed that is open pollinated. Grafting doesn't create mules.
Everyone understands that seeds from hybrid crosses, if not sterile do not reproduce true. Even the guys going to the grain elevator for their seed know this.

As an aside, why did this guy lose his lawsuit?
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-soybean-seeds

The work of Norman Borlaug was a lifetime of hybridized breeding programs using various cultivars of wheat he found around the world. He sped up his wheat breeding program by growing in a place that had two crop seasons (Mexico, I think.) 
He was not in the lab splicing bacterial DNA into the genome of wheat. 
That is the difference between GMO and "normal" hybridized breeding. 

He also developed multi-lines of the crop that varies disease-resistance among the plants in the field, giving the crop at least some chance of surviving if a portion is wiped out by disease. He was not growing monocultures of genetically similar plants manipulated to be resistant to single-target pests or pesticides.

If you want to grow corn resistant to corn borer, you select in the field the corn that the corn borer isn't eating. You do this for years maybe. You don't go grab a Bt producting bacteria and cross it with a corn plant. To do that you have to take it in the lab and take genes from the bacteria and with some steep chemical science, insert them somewhere in the plant DNA. And then you patent it. 

I'm far more concerned about this:
http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/blog...-spur-concerns
The farmers still growing non-GMO corn (and other crops the borer infests) now may not be able to use spray-applied Bt to control corn borer in their crops. Is this ok with you?
(granted the same thing may have happened with selection, but hopefully not to the point where monoculture has been established.)
Either scenario goes back to my petri dish analogy. If it has gotten to the point you can't lose some crop to a few worms...
There is no stemming this tide.

----------


## ClayPick

Its my understanding that Borlaug achieved most of his work through conventional plant breeding techniques and relied on hybridization within the boundaries set by nature and not through genetic engineering? His work would have been even more efficient if he had genetic mapping to work with. 
All I know about commercial grafting is what I see around here in the greenhouses ....... they graft roses to roses, apples to apples and tomato to tomato.
If people want to eat GENETICALLY ENGINEEED food thats fine by me, fill your boots. My thing is to catch and make as much of my food as I can and not rely on being spoon fed from the cradle to the grave. LK, you beat me to the button.

----------


## nell67

> You'll notice that nowhere have I said the food is not safe to eat.
> Nor did I diss Monsanto (other than their profit motive.)
> Grafting is not a genetic technique. You are not mixing DNA when you graft. You can graft to dwarfing rootstock and still produce viable seed that is as true as any seed that is open pollinated. Grafting doesn't create mules.
> Everyone understands that seeds from hybrid crosses, if not sterile do not reproduce true. Even the guys going to the grain elevator for their seed know this.
> 
> As an aside, why did this guy lose his lawsuit?
> http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-soybean-seeds
> 
> The work of Norman Borlaug was a lifetime of hybridized breeding programs using various cultivars of wheat he found around the world. He sped up his wheat breeding program by growing in a place that had two crop seasons (Mexico, I think.) 
> ...


Well said Lowkey.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

My opinion;   Like most things, there are good and bad points. The problem that I see, is the lack of "good" information. As has been said, money sways "research". We can find info for and against and we just don't know who is right.

 The plus side is that there is plenty of food. I'm for growing stuff cheaper and having plenty of it. The thing that I fear, is losing the old varieties of many foods. When you grow everything to last longer, be tougher to stand transportation and so on, you give something up. Is it just the taste? I don't know. I do know that there is a world of difference between a tomato from the store and ones grown at home. That makes me wonder what else I'm missing, by eating food that is sold in stores.

 Maybe I just want to have my cake and eat it too.

----------


## madmax

My brother works for Monsanto.  Defends them to the death.

----------


## hunter63

Like many things...logic doesn't have much to do with how people perceive this issue and decisions they make.....Unless you are a Vulcan.
People make decisions with their feeling , and gut reaction.


Home grown veggies taste much better to me over store bought,...and I know what's in them.... don't like paying more for organic, not sure if they are really organic, or not...depend on whose rules are followed.

I think it's a good thing people all over the world are being fed....but for the selfish reason, that hungry people would want ours/yours....if they weren't.

Data one way or another will never decide anything, either....pick your side and go for it.

----------


## wilderness medic

> I've seen the arguments from pro-GMO people that "man has been manipulating plants since the beginnings of agriculture." The "Pro-GMO" cannot see that the lab cut-and-paste of genetic material from organisms so different they would never cross in the wild is not the same as hybridization.


Good statement, thanks. One of the arguments I use, good to look into more of the lab side.







> BTW,
> Using a term like "Anti" to describe people who don't like GMO is derogatory in nature and will not get you any type of response. Using terms like "cherry pick" and "fear mongering" you have shown you have no patience or any intent to listen to someone who doesn't ascribe to GMOs as a food source and seem to want to ridicule and sneer at anyone who does. They may be Pro-Organic. Or Pro-Natural Selection rather than Anti anything. There actually can be science behind being anti-GMO. I have a degree in Botany with a minor in Wetland Ecology/taxonomy. I was still in school when Terminator genes were developed and there was quite the debate in plant physiology class over whether it was even an ethical use of science to ever conceive of such a thing in the name of profit.


Maybe to you. If that really hurts your feelings I don't know what to tell you. If you are not pro you are anti. Pro gun, anti gun. If that really upsets someone and they feel it's somehow derogatory... Tough, cry me a river. Wussification of American and having to be politically correct on everything so absolutely no ones little feelings get hurt. The same for cherry picked information. This is a term that is widely used and applicable to both sides. IF you pick and choose to fit your agenda and IGNORE the other side, it's cherry picked. For both sides, and I am not impatient or lacking intent to listen. I am here to learn and look at BOTH sides. Something that has been lacking from the majority of anti-GMO (yes anti) people i've talked to. You can show me evidence and peer reviewed research and I will accept having my mind changed. The problem lies with the people who are already concrete and won't accept new evidence, or anything that goes against what.....Hunter said perfectly...



> Like many things...logic doesn't have much to do with how people perceive this issue and decisions they make.....Unless you are a Vulcan.
> People make decisions with their feeling , and gut reaction.





> The thing that I fear, is losing the old varieties of many foods. When you grow everything to last longer, be tougher to stand transportation and so on, you give something up. Is it just the taste? I don't know.


Now THAT is a good reasonable fear. I like it.


Lowkey-Furthermore, while researching more groups most of them identify themselves as anti GMO. Unless that was some sort of joke I didn't pick up on I have no idea how you could construe that as derogatory.

----------


## edr730

"Enlist" a new GMO corn is resistant to the newer herbicide which is a combination of Roundup and Agent Orange (Enlist Duo) and has now been approved.

----------


## wilderness medic

> "Enlist" a new GMO corn is resistant to the newer herbicide which is a combination of Roundup and Agent Orange (Enlist Duo) and has now been approved.


"8. Is 2,4-D the same as Agent Orange?
No. Agent Orange was a mixture of two different herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, as well as kerosene and diesel fuel. Agent Orange contained high levels of dioxin, a contaminant found in 2,4,5-T that causes cancer and other health concerns in people. EPA canceled all use of 2,4,5-T in 1985 because of these risks.
In evaluating this requested use, we performed a thorough and conservative safety review for any potential human health and environmental risks associated with the expanded use of 2,4-D on these GE plants and also explicitly considered any possible risks from any formulation contaminants."

-EPA.org

----------


## edr730

I'll retract that statement. It is called the Agent Orange herbicide and contains 2,4-D which is one of the chemicals in Agent Orange....so not to worry.

----------


## Rick

As I said, one more peeing contest.

----------


## Batch

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

We picked cucumbers, strawberries, and tomatoes today. Organic, with sugar cane, purslane, water Hyacinth, water lettuce.

----------


## Rick

If anyone is interested they are splicing genes in human embryos in China. That ought to get some blood boiling.

----------


## wilderness medic

Who's having a peeing match? I learned something.

GMO topic is covered enough for what I needed. Thanks.

----------


## edr730

Yes, Rick they have been doing gene splicing for a while. Human/human, human/sheep human/cow human/mice. Kind of a different subject except when it could entail intellectual property rights. 
Part of the issue with many plants today, which include GMO's, are these intellectual rights or patent rights. Although 25% of the worlds farmable land produces 70% of the worlds food, it's becoming increasing difficult for these small farmers with diverse seeds to continue due to patents, controls and regulations. 
Recently, last fall, the Mayan of Guatemala protested against the many regulations which would, in effect, made seed saving and distribution illegal for these small farmers with these diverse seeds. It all involves international agreements or CAFTA. I was there when these same campesinos attempted to block the highway between Guatemala City and Antigua when the CAFTA agreement was being considered. A number of anti-CAFTA leaders and educators were assasinated. They had seen the economic disaster for the campesinos in Mexico after NAFTA had passed. During the time that GMO corn was introduced in Guatemala. through CAFTA, the price of tortillas, or corn, has doubled.

----------


## Rick

A large part of the increase in corn prices in Central America has been driven by conversion to biofuel rather than human consumption. The same is true of animals that consume corn. Their prices have gone through the roof as well. As long as we are dumb enough to convert food to fuel the supply will be limited and the demand will increase thus driving up the price.

----------


## edr730

Perhaps the price of field corn could drive the price up for the black or white maize used for food in Guatemala. I don't know.  I do know that less land is available for growing these food corn varieties of the productive diverse small farmer. 

My main concern is throwing the Mayan indians in jail or charging them two months earnings for saving their own seed. which they developed over centuries. I don't think that would be the ethical use of intellectual property law. 

The priests, educators, and Mayan campesinos have seen these problems coming for ten years and that is evident by the past and recent protests.

GMO companies play their role in this senerio by making the saving of seeds financialy impossible. They also will have large tracts of land with GMO corn contaminating other corn varieties. They then will own, though intellectual property rights, all the contaminated corn which they themselves will be guilty of contaminating.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Heck, if it wasn't for gene splicing, the aliens wouldn't have been able to turn neanderthals into humans and we wouldn't be here. Right, Rick? :2:

----------


## Rick

Did you or the mule post that?

----------


## crashdive123

> Did you or the mule post that?


I think we are witnessing gene splicing.

----------


## hunter63

> Heck, if it wasn't for gene splicing, the aliens wouldn't have been able to turn neanderthals into humans and we wouldn't be here. Right, Rick?


Yeah, YEAH, That's the ticket...I saw that episode......Crystal skulls.....Riiiiiiight, Redrum, redrum....

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

....and the pre-humans (Neanderthals, etc.) that didn't get gene splicing from the aliens, evolved into Yeti's, skunk apes, and Bigfoot's........Bigfeet....ah, you know what I mean.

----------


## ClayPick

Maybe the Anunnaki run Monsanto!

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Maybe the Anunnaki run Monsanto!


 Hmmmmmmm.....hadn't thought of that!!! LOL

----------


## wilderness medic

> Maybe the Anunnaki run Monsanto!


Um. Don't be silly.


It's the illuminati.


Or reptillians.

----------


## crashdive123

Nope.  Bilderbergs.

----------


## BENESSE

> Heck, if it wasn't for gene splicing, the *aliens wouldn't have been able to turn neanderthals into humans* and we wouldn't be here. Right, Rick?


There have been exceptions... :Sneaky2:

----------


## hunter63

.....and the sell insurance.....
Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Mannlicher

I  love GMO food, and am thankful for Monsanto for feeding the world.    :Punk:

----------


## madmax

Rick said "peeing" twice.  Where do you draw the line... :Balloon:

----------


## Rick

Hey, at my age you forget things so you have to do it twice just to make sure.

----------

