Groundbreaking study identifies two bacteria in the gut that trigger MS

expose-news.com ^ | August 5, 2025 | Rhoda Wilson, Dr. Jessica Rose

[HereInTheHeartland]

What you are promoting is an elitist anti science position .
The Sri Lanka disaster is relevant as it was done when a small group elite leaders imposed an edict on the nations agricultural system. People starved .
It’s the same mentality you are promoting. Yes you can find an unsound study saying GMO’s aren’t safe.
There are dozens showing the opposite.
These ideas come from elites and steal money through higher costs from normal people trying to feed their families .
Again the same mentality of the greenies wanting to ban fossil fuels. It’s a religious belief for these people .
And don’t say it’s off topic.
It’s part of the same mish mash of un scientific beliefs.

[linMcHlp]

bttt

[so_real]

Wrong, and you are utterly off topic. I have stated specifically I support hybridization and modern farm mechanization, but oppose genetically modifying organisms to turn our agriculture into pesticide manufacturing plants poisoning the food we ultimately consume. Rather than accepting my assertion, you have thrown-up all manor of Luddite attributes to my person that exist exclusively in your own head. You acknowledge that handling pesticides is dangerous, but close your eyes and plug your ears rather than consider consuming pesticide producing vegetation is likewise dangerous. If not wanting to consume pesticides is "elitist" then we should all be elitist, but that description for the term likewise only exists inside your own head. The desire not to consume pesticides is not remotely "elitist".

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2021PDPAnnualSummary.pdf

More than 99 percent of the products sampled through PDP had residues below the established EPA tolerances. Ultimately, if EPA determines a pesticide use is not safe for human consumption, EPA will mitigate exposure to the pesticide through actions such as amending the pesticide label instructions or changing or revoking a pesticide residue tolerance, or not registering a new use.

So more than 99% of the sampled food items contained pesticide residue, and 1% contained pesticide residue at higher than EPA deemed safe level exposure. I look forward to the labeling instructions showing where the GMO pesticide producing agriculture falls into that spectrum. If only the "food lobby" were not spending 100s of millions of dollars desperately trying to prevent GMO food labeling:

Food Lobby Spends $101 Million in 2015 to Avert GMO Labeling
https://www.ewg.org/research/food-lobby-spends-101-million-2015-avert-gmo-labeling

Gee, I wonder what they are trying to hide. If you have your way, we'll never know, will we, and your neighbors will continue consuming pesticides and suffering for it ... or, hopefully, they will wise up and stop eating the glue.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“Gee, I wonder what they are trying to hide.”

You are quoting the Environmental Working Group another radical leftwing group. They are funded by the organic food industry and likely other radical leftist groups.
Why are you spouting extreme leftist information on Free Republic?

[so_real]

Nope, "gee, I wonder what they are trying to hide" is an expression I use frequently. I use it with the Pfizer covering up mRNA vaccine safety studies. I use it with Congress covering-up sexual assault case pay-offs. I use it with Epstein redactions covering-up for the island visitors. Etc, etc, etc. Only in your brain do you attribute my use of such a common phrase to an activist group. Just another strawman argument in a series of strawmen you've constructed. And, quite literally, everyone on Free Republic who knows me would not confuse me with a "leftist" anything. So, shooting the messenger logical fallacy? Stay on topic.

[HereInTheHeartland]

I’m glad they are spending money lobbying.
Your leftist friends have huge resource amounts they are using to stop agriculture.
Glyphosate in particular they are trying to ban .
Do you realize that usage of that has allowed a much lower amount of tillage to be done thus saving precious topsoil ?
Yes that needs to be defended!!!

[so_real]

You are "glad they are spending money lobbying" to prevent truth-in-advertising labeling in GMO foods. It's settled then. Your ambition is to enable pesticide laden agriculture to be put into the mouths of your friends and neighbors without their knowledge. You wouldn't even allow them the opportunity to read the label and choose for themselves what they will and will not serve to their families. Is that correct? If so, I think we have reached the heart of the debate. And when submitted to vote, the conclusion as to which of us has the conservative viewpoint, and which one of is either leftist at worst or RINO at best is clear.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“to prevent truth-in-advertising labeling in GMO foods”

I’m GLAD they are spending money to counter left wing fake science lies. The EWG you quoted is one of the worst.
Their leader is a wacko.

[so_real]

You keep tossing up strawmen to attack. Celebrating the use of hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent transparency is never a conservative position -- not in government, not in vaccinations, not in criminal acts, and not in food production. But I'm glad you are here on this conservative forum regardless. Keep reading.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“ Celebrating the use of hundreds of millions of dollars ”

But it’s ok for your EWG friends to make up fake science and disparage farmers?
Cmon man.
People that support EWG aren’t conservatives .
EWG is to the left of the Sierra Club.
Ken Cook who runs it is radical left

[HereInTheHeartland]

“ Your ambition is to enable pesticide laden agriculture to be put into the mouths of your friends and neighbors without their knowledge. ”

And this sentence in one of your earlier posts CLEARLY shows what you think of farmers.
Man oh man.
In all seriousness you really should spend time on a modern farm.
Not some hippie on the edge of town with 2 acres of organic chard .
But a real farm that feeds people .

[so_real]

More strawmen. I don't know the EWG or have EWG friends. Only in your mind does such a link exist. And you keep tossing it up like a strawman so you can beat it down. Go ahead. Beat it to death. It does not affect me even tangentially. After all the lies you've tossed into this thread, when you say the EWG are or are not conservative, I can't trust you. I'd have to look them up to discover their views for myself because I simply cannot trust your interpretation of their views given your gross and persistent misrepresentation of my views. My point stands -- you celebrating the use of hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent transparency and enable the food industry to embed pesticide production into the DNA of the food we eat is not and will never be a conservation position. We encourage full transparency. We encourage truth in advertising. We encourage product labeling. We encourage analysis based on merit. We encourage freedom of choice. You are actively advocating the opposite of all these things while accusing *others* of being "leftist". That is wild to me. You are an interesting character.

[so_real]

"conservative position", not "conservation position", rather.

[so_real]

“ Your ambition is to enable pesticide laden agriculture to be put into the mouths of your friends and neighbors without their knowledge. ”

And this sentence in one of your earlier posts CLEARLY shows what you think of farmers.

No. Try reading that again slowly to gain comprehension. That sentence from one of my earlier posts CLEARLY shows what I think of YOU. The word "Your" in the sentence subject "Your ambition" is a clear giveaway that I am referring to YOU and not to farmers as a collective group. And in that very same post, I followed up my analysis with an opportunity for YOU to refute my conclusion with the question "Is that correct?". And, interestingly, you didn't refute it. I have to presume my analysis was correct and that is indeed your ambition.

Fortunately, not all farmers are like you and not all advocate hiding the presence of GMO pesticides in produced food. Some are actually advocating for truth-in-advertising GMO product labeling. Indeed, over 400 organizations across the spectrum of food production supported the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015". It's a shame that bill died in the Senate as the folks you celebrate lobbied against it.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“I don’t know the EWG or have EWG friends. ”

You posted one of their studies to make a point.
Now you are backtracking with you don’t know anything about them .
Ok I’ll give that you just didn’t do your research and grabbed the quickest thing you could find .
But you should really research them .
They are rotten

[HereInTheHeartland]

“conservative position”, not “conservation position”, rather.

Caught me, posting on a phone screen while doing other things will do that.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“Some are actually advocating for truth-in-advertising GMO product labeling.”

You want to add extra regulation to businesses for a phantom issue .
Big government advocates aren’t conservative .

[so_real]

I posted a meta study showing the summary results from 264 published articles on the topic -- scan the text and you'll find EWG doesn't exist anywhere in it. It's just another connection you formed in your mind that does not exist until you prove it. Which of the 264 published articles were paid for by the EWG? I have nothing to backtrack from. I'm not the one celebrating hundreds of millions of dollars spent hiding from my friends and neighbors that the food they are eating might be genetically modified pesticide producers.

[so_real]

But you must see that you are the very reason regulation is required. With you having your way pesticide producing agriculture becomes part of our daily diet. You are not only encouraging us to be fed pesticides, but are willing to hide our pesticide consumption from us by fighting labeling requirements on our food stuffs. You would willingly allow us to get sick without knowing what might be causing it or perform a simple dietary change to alleviate our symptoms. You'd keep it all hidden away so you can call it a "phantom issue" and feel good about yourself. You are the reason regulation to some degree will always be necessary and indeed is one of the reasons civil governments are formed in the first place. The degree to which the regulation becomes burdensome and the purpose for the regulation determine how conservative it is ... not the need for regulation itself. Truth in advertising labeling is absolutely a conservative position. Full disclosure is absolutely a conservative position. Freedom of choice is absolutely a conservative position. You may not like it, but it is so.

[HereInTheHeartland]

Well my friend, the evidence is clear on the safety of GM foods.
I will share this post I found that sums it up nicely .
Yes I know it’s Reddit but it has many good links

Excerpt ;

“If you think GMO products should be labeled as such, or if you support the common trend these days of companies getting their products verified as “non-GMO” then you are (whether intentionally or not) enabling companies and organizations to deliberately spread anti-scientific propaganda to the public, and you are allowing them to profit off of fear-mongering.

Why do I say this? Well first, the reason is because the overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that our GM food products are just as safe as conventionally produced food products (and in many cases are actually better):

In the three decades since the introduction of GMO crops, there have been more than 2,000 studies evaluating health and environmental aspects of genetically engineered products. The vast majority of studies have found nothing to indicate that GM foods represent a health threat. The consensus among scientists is that gene altered crops offer no more risk than those developed through conventional breeding techniques.
More than 280 independent science organizations from around the world have issued statements that GMOs pose no unique health or safety concerns. Among them are the National Academy of Sciences (USA), American Medical Association, Health Canada, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, British Medical Association, and the French Academy of Sciences.
More than 110 Nobel Laureates issued a joint communique in 2016, stating: “Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production.”
After a two-year evaluation of more than 1000 studies, the US National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2016 that “there are no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health from eating GE foods than from eating their non-GE counterparts” and that “the committee could not find persuasive evidence of adverse health effects directly attributable to consumption of GE foods”. It further concluded that there were some health benefits to GMOs: “There is some evidence that GE insect-resistant crops have had benefits to human health by reducing insecticide poisonings and decreasing exposure to fumonisins.” The panel found “no justification for the labeling of GM foods for safety reasons, as we found no identifiable concerns”.
The European Commission, which has overseen independent research on crop biotechnology since 1986, stated in their publication, “A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research: 2001 - 2010”, that “the main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g., conventional plant breeding technologies”.

Link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/e6oxbe/cmv_the_desire_to_mandate_the_labeling_of_food/