[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Gene Tinkering: YOU Are The Mice And They Don't Want You to Know



In article <aquilla.1193305560B@news.erols.com> on  Mon, 16 Sep 96 23:52:00 GMT 
aquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:

> Ayurvedic medicine doesn't exactly embrace the Western approach to medicine
> or biology.

Probably not true and not relevant to the discussion. I quoted two 
references, which you asked for. Have you read them, rather than the 
titles?

> ... but it should be noted that the two
> philosophies are as mutually exclusive as creationism and evolutionism. In
> other words, Vedic medicine rejects virtually everything inherent in modern
> Western medical practice. It is more of a philosophy than science.

Not true. Emotive words irrelevant to a scientific discussion.
 
> Also interesting is the author's background. John Fagan was a successful
> scientist at the pinnacle of an impressive career, when he returned over
> $600,000 in grant money to NIH, abandoned his Western beliefs, and gave up
> science to delve into the art of Ayurvedic Medicine.

Not true. Please provide any evidence you have as to John Fagan's 
motives? What you say is directly contradicting the evidence he gives 
in his own book about his own motives and past and future aims in life.

> My point is not to
> attack the author's personal philosophy, but rather to point out that his is
> the viewpoint of a highly biased extremist who rejects the most basic
> concepts embraced by scientists.

You sound like a mugger who says "I did not mean to hurt the old lady".
This <was> an ad hominem attack and as such has no place in a .sci 
discussion. It is clearly a false statement as it stands because
Fagan, even by your own description, is a scientist.

> Supplement tablets are not what I'd call food products. The FDA treats
> supplements separately from real food.

Fine.

> Actually, I believe what happened was that they started using a different,
> unapproved host strain, which turned out to be toxic.  This was a human
> ERROR, due to the fact that someone 'responsible' was not doing their job
> properly. It actually had nothing to do with a genetic experiment gone awry,
> as the enviro-terrorists would have the public believe. It was a case of
> stupidity, not a lack of knowledge or testing of any product.

So now we know what your beliefs are Tracy. Why not give use some 
references to research or facts to back them up? You could always,
like a real scientist, start with the Tibtech reference that Fagan
cites.

By the way, I was quoting John Fagan. Is he the <enviro-terrorist> you 
are referring to?

> >   There is still controversy regarding the cause of this toxicity. 
> >since, in addition to using the new genetically engineered bacterium 
> >this company had also begun to cut corners in the procedure for 
> >purifying their tryptophan. To protect the good name of genetic 
> >engineering, the industry has blamed the toxicity on these procedural 
> >changes, and the company has destroyed the bacterium, so that further 
> >research cannot be done.
> 
> This is merely speculation.

What is speculative in this paragraph? 1)the controversy 
2) new GE bacterium 3) cutting corners 4) attempt to protect good name
5) procedural changes blamed 6) destruction of bacterium 7) motive for so 
destroying?

Most significantly (to my mind): was the bacterium destroyed? Why?

> Please name some who have spoken out publicly on this issue, besides Fagan.

How could I? I told you I was not a scientist. You are, and are in the 
field, have you <<really>> asked around? Of what relevance is it to 
the truth?

> Certainly much of the information in question is proprietary and I'm sure
> many of the court documents remain sealed from the public. The facts will
> remain obscure in this case. While it is possible that such "genetic
> manipulations" were involved, if they were it was in violation of many
> regulatory statutes designed to protect the public from such irresponsible
> behavior. I might point out that although similar incidents have occurred in
> the past, particularly in regard to the pharmaceutical industry, this is the
> only significant case opponents of "genetic engineering" have been able to
> latch onto as their version of "The Andromeda Strain". (Remember also that
> automobiles kill many thousands daily, but we continue to take that risk,
> and it's the most significant risk most of us take daily by orders of
> magnitude.)

I do not know what the "andromeda strain" is but Fagan's book makes 
little more of the tryptophan issue than I quoted in my first posting.

Regarding automobiles - are you trying to give me a personal course 
in "home risk management"? Please don't. It's incorrect, unscientific 
and not worthy of your credentials.

Regarding the pharmaceutical industry. Now there is a something of
interest. I do not have the reference to hand but there was a recent(ish)
study showing that one third of hospital in-patients were being treated
for iatrogenic (physician induced) complaints. 

In my layman's view the modern pharmaceutical industry was at first 
heralded as a world saver. The pharmaceutical industry, as you yourself
point out, is one of the most highly regulated and studied scientific 
fields. Nevertheless, regrettably, over the years many unwanted 
side-effects of the <wonder drugs> have surfaced. In such cases the 
drugs is withdrawn or used in more restricted ways.

Now scientists of a similar calibre are modifying the genetic 
makeup of <self replicating>, <free standing>, <living organisms> which
form the basis of our food supply. Not only do these organisms provide
our food but they also <compete with humans>, and <every other living
organism> for living space on this planet.

How, if at all, could these genetically modified organisms be <withdrawn>
<if> unwanted side-effects (of any sort) were later discovered?

> That's why there's a huge body of regulatory law, requiring extensive
> testing of any theraputic compound or device. Why on the one hand does the
> public demand cures for cancer and AIDS and on the other condemn the
> industry which provides them? If you don't trust your doctor, maybe you
> should become a Vedic!

I'm sorry Tracy - you are letting your emotions slip again.

> If you stick to the topic I was discussing and do some research,

<<You>> asked for references on the tryptophan poisoning incident.

  -> I gave one.

  -> You responded with a load of emotive, off-topic, claptrap.

> you will find that the alleged dangers from using insect viruses as
> biological controls are unwarranted by the scientific literature.

And scientists are completely rational...

William |WRC Solutions: Computer Consultants|Tel (+44)(0)1695  50470
   Hite |MS-Office, Visual Basic, FTR, Text |Fax (+44)(0)1695 720889
        |wrhite@cix.compulink.co.uk, http://www.u-net.com/~wrcs/home




Follow-Ups: References: