Originally Posted By: MissingArty
"If you are a scientist and discover things that are of concern, then you are accused of doing “pseudoscience” and often viciously attacked by the industry and academics on the payroll."

Or, if you're a credible scientist who recognizes more gross examples of the seemingly endless barrage of commonly promoted lousy science theories, you may also choose to appropriately apply the label of “pseudoscience”.

FORMER genetic engineer Thierry Vrain's (Ph.D) "scientific" papers and reports are so full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, false assumptions, faulty logic and uniformly discredited theories, that you can drive a truck through them.


All the Gish Gallop (see bluezone*) in the world, doesn't change that fact.

The biggest example of such pseudoscience, is the incessant and universal claim that forced transgenics do not occur naturally. Not only does it do so, it happens almost as often as not. Emotional reactionism and ignorance of the scientific process is at the core of the vast majority of anti-GMO sentiment. Bottom line... peer reviewed science simply does NOT support such arguments.

And before you fly off half-cocked again, mistakenly or intentionally accusing me of being any kind of friend of Monsanto, etc., think again, I'm FAR from it. I believe that food labels should be labelled for GMOs so that people can make whatever informed or un-informed choices that they choose to.

My only allegiance is to the facts and to a process of intensely rigorous peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.