Hawaii GMO Papaya: Real Solutions, Real Lives

Dialogue, discussion and the success of the genetically engineered papaya offer solutions to the conflict over GMO agriculture that has polarized communities in Hawaii.
#GMOs #GMOpapaya #Hawaii

[@desmond_hunt3593]

POV your science teacher assigned this

[@tome5853]

yuppp hahahah

[@m1ll3n1um5]

My Bio teacher actually

[@tome5853]

@@m1ll3n1um5 HEY JAHSEED ITS LYDIA HAHAHAHAHHA

[@gingyyeets2119]

my gkp teacher actually

[@amandapanda3750]

This helped a lot with my research project. Thanks much !!!!!

[@AkamaiBackyard]

At a small scale, backyard level, I use soap and water and a scrub brush to get rid of the blemishes on my papaya trees that can create spots. I use a firm brush on a broom stick and scrub up and down the papaya stalk. It seems to work. That could be utilized for people who donʻt want to cut their existing trees in their home areas. I am not an expert, but that is my recommendation for people who have trees that do not seem to be performing well. I have great soil conditions, so my papayas, in general, are fast growing, with thick trunks and abundant, large fruit. Some have branches so thick, a man can stand on them.

[@joehajjar5246]

Healthy soil=organic

[@FelyKotagbia]

Gene therapy is a gift of God GMO food is a blessing

[@joem7174]

Please for truth and anybody researching go to the doctors show on KZbin. Will we ever know the truth about glyphosate and see on ur own

[@goshelhajaj9792]

Yes for sure 100 percent agree. The science is manipulated even. Very in shock

[@joem7174]

@@goshelhajaj9792 I see its clear.

[@joem7174]

Well gmo enable the use of the chemicals. And its the chemical that have to be a concern.

[@albertrivero7323]

what! eating papaya can caused colds and hiv? really?

[@popeyegordon]

NO. That is NOT possible. It is far more likely to help you get over colds but there is no cure for HIV in existence, don't let any quack tell you different.

[@joehajjar5246]

It can cause cancer on long run and obesity from roundup.

[@popeyegordon]

@@joehajjar5246 That is a complete lie. No proof exists from any science studies of a link to cancers or weight. In fact, there are studies that show glyphosate can CURE cancer: *Glyphosate can cure cancer? Yes, some research ‘shows’ that - but what does it mean? And what does it say about Roundup doomsday claims?* "Now that three juries have said Bayer’s weed killer Roundup (glyphosate) causes cancer, many people believe there is clear evidence that the herbicide is dangerous. Organic industry-funded advocacy group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) certainly wants consumers to believe that. The California-based nonprofit has played a key role in the three cases, providing evidence the plaintiffs’ lawyers have used to make their case. None of these claims stand up to scrutiny from independent scientists or oversight agencies, as GLP has reported extensively. But USRTK has employed a tactic (favored by political groups of all persuasions) in its opposition to glyphosate that is worth examining: Sifting through the peer-reviewed literature to find studies that support their argument, while dismissing contradictory research-widely known as “cherry picking.” Selectively citing studies can lead to erroneous conclusions, which is why scientists criticize the practice and insist on evaluating all the available research, a standard known as “preponderance of evidence.” But if you want to show that glyphosate is dangerous, despite a mountain of contrary data, picking cherries is a useful approach. To illustrate how easy it is to defend an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and why we should be skeptical of sensational claims about chemical harm or safety, let’s “demonstrate” that glyphosate might be a ‘cure’ for cancer by highlighting only the research that helps make the case. Over the past several years, a handful of studies published in peer-reviewed journals and conducted by researchers at reputable universities has in fact suggested that glyphosate possesses cancer-fighting properties. The first such study was published in 2013. Researchers exposed human cancer cells in-vitro, or outside their normal biological context, to glyphosate and AMPA (the degradation product produced when glyphosate is metabolized). The experiment showed both substances inhibited cancer cell growth and promoted apoptosis (cell suicide), but left healthy cells unharmed, “…. suggesting that they have [potential] to be developed into a new anticancer therapy,” the authors concluded. The researchers published a followup study in 2015 and got a similar result. They exposed human prostate cancer cell lines to AMPA and a chemical called methoxyacetic acid (MAA), concluding that both chemicals could “…. be used as potential therapeutic drugs in the treatment of prostate cancer.” Glyphosate testing in animals hints at therapeutic potential In a 2016 study, the research team that found potentially therapeutic effects of glyphosate tested their thesis in animals. They exposed 25 mice to two different doses of AMPA. Compared to a control group of 14 mice, the experiment revealed that “….treatment significantly inhibited growth and metastasis of …. prostate tumors and prolonged the survival time of the mice.” Summarizing their findings, the authors wrote: [T]hese results demonstrate that …. AMPA may be developed into a therapeutic agent for the treatment of prostate cancer. Adding another interesting piece of data to the equation, consumer products company Procter & Gamble owns the patent on a pharmaceutical drug that contains glyphosate as an active ingredient and is designed to kill colon, breast and lung human tumor cells. According to the company, glyphosate in combination with a plant growth regulator called chloroprofam was “…. effective in killing tumor cells without significantly affecting healthy cells.” The unmarketed drug is potentially very interesting because it targeted cancer cells specifically and was also effective against viruses including HIV, herpes and influenza." geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/05/21/glyphosate-can-cure-cancer-yes-some-research-shows-that-but-what-does-it-mean-and-what-does-it-say-about-roundup-doomsday-claims/

[@popeyegordon]

@@joehajjar5246 *Another study finds glyphosate herbicide kills tumor cells. Is the much-maligned weedkiller a cancer fighter?* Cameron English | July 2, 2021 "Several studies published over the last six years have suggested that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the the much-maligned herbicide, may actually prohibit cancer cell growth. A paper published on June 24, 2019 in the Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B is the fourth such study since 2013 to suggest that Roundup may have cancer-fighting properties. The authors reported that the co-formulants-substances that enhance the performance of the active ingredient glyphosate-inhibited the growth of cancerous human liver, lung and nerve cells, while glyphosate was relatively harmless: If Roundup or one of its ingredients turns out to be an effective cancer treatment, it would be a stunning twist in the midst of Bayer’s ongoing legal battle. But that’s not yet the appropriate conclusion to draw from this evidence. The four existing studies are very preliminary. Three of them, including the June 24 paper, are in-vitro or cell culture studies, which involve dousing cells in chemicals to see what happens, a notoriously unreliable way to measure real-world toxicity." Full article at: geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/07/02/glyphosate-based-herbicides-kill-cancer-cells-and-has-no-significant-toxicity-to-humans-another-study-says-yes-but-what-does-it-mean/

[@popeyegordon]

@@joehajjar5246 Myth of a cancer connection with glyphosate - Debunking of gullible activists and KZbin flunkies referring to two and ONLY TWO sources that claimed there was a cancer risk, BOTH have been discredited for fraud and bribery, leaving NO SCIENTIFIC SOURCE for that malicious claim. Fraud number one - Seralini rat torture: allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/european-studies-disprove-seralinis-gmo-maize-tumor-claims/ Fraud number two - Organic farmers sent a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC through a corrupt USRTK lawyer to get them to make the low cancer risk statement about glyphosate. It was the cornerstone of all these shyster lawyer Roundup lawsuits but now that Congress has cut off its $2mill annual finding to the IARC they are in deep doodoo. Citations: geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/iarc-international-agency-research-cancer-glyphosate-determination-world-consensus/ geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/08/06/congressional-committee-cuts-funding-to-iarc-over-who-agencys-controversial-glyphosate-cancer-finding/ Ironically, the kind of cancer these liars claimed was caused by glyphosate has dropped in frequency and deaths during the same era we began eating GMO foods: seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/hodg.html

[@richardk8838]

GMO AKA FranKenFood Doodoo

[@popeyegordon]

Any time we see Franken we know that person is science illiterate.

[@collmeed]

The closing song "Over the Rainbow" was not credited in the closing text. Lest CAS thinks this song is in the public domain it is not. ""Over The Rainbow" will enter the public domain in 2034 at the earliest, which is 95 years following its original publication date of 1939. Or, because the copyright was renewed by the current copyright holder (Robbins Music Corporation, on behalf of MGM) in 1979, after the copyright law had changed the prior year, it might not enter public domain until 2056, which is 70 years following the death of Harold Arlen, who was the last of the song's writers to die in 1986. www.quora.com/Is-somewhere-over-the-rainbow-a-public-domain-song-I-can-use-from-any-artist-that-sings-it Iʻm not a copyright attorney but would consult one ASAP.

[@joehajjar5246]

Cornell alliance of science not bought up my Monsanto But as the empire of bill gates on KZbin that was censored dr mercola show. Bill gate who owned stocks in Monsanto now push the agenda on science or research cooperation

[@popeyegordon]

Why did Gates invest in Monsanto? "Biotechnology companies have been accused of selling expensive seeds to poor farmers in Africa and Asia, because they have to recoup the cost of developing their products. It can cost over $100 million to bring a new seed variety to market. But when well-funded foundations like Gates and Rockefeller invest in seed companies, they can ensure that genetically enhanced seeds are distributed on a pro-bono basis or sold at artificially low prices to Africa’s farmers, many of whom are unable to afford them otherwise. There’s an analogue to this investment strategy in the pharmaceutical industry. The latest anti-malaria drug was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the price was set low enough so Africans afflicted with the disease - another depopulation phenomenon - could afford it. If wealthy foundations can invest in drug companies to make life-saving pharmaceuticals affordable, then it makes sense that they would finance research to cut the cost of improved seeds for the poorest people in the world." geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/01/07/viewpoint-debunking-bizarre-conspiracy-theory-about-western-billionaires-using-gmos-to-depopulate-africa/

[@popeyegordon]

*It is crucial to understand that content moderation is not synonymous with censorship.* "Reckless use of the word “censorship” by public officials, in discussing the content moderation practices of privately-owned platforms, conflates the unique meaning of these two very distinct concepts. Censorship, which is the suppression or prohibition of speech or other communications, can sometimes cause real harm for marginalized communities and anyone holding and expressing a minority viewpoint. Content moderation, on the other hand, empowers private actors to establish community guidelines for their sites and demand that users seeking to express their viewpoints are consistent with that particular community’s expectations of discourse, yielding tangible benefits such as flagging harmful misinformation, eliminating obscenity, curbing hate speech, and protecting public safety. Put another way, some content moderation includes censorship, while other forms (fact-checking for example) are not censorship since they do not suppress or prohibit the original speech. Conflating the two ideas in order to allow for the spread of disinformation or hate speech is disingenuous and dangerous. It may feel cathartic for some policymakers to rail against companies alleging censorship, but in order to better serve the American public, a rational conversation concerning the proper place of content moderation is what is needed. The First Amendment only applies to actions undertaken by the government, so-called “state action.” As private entities, social media platforms are therefore free to make their own editorial decisions and develop their own community standards." www.publicknowledge.org/blog/content-moderation-is-not-synonymous-with-censorship/

[@P3DR0877]

not a fan of Papaya. smell like poop and tastes meh

[@joehajjar5246]

Popeye Gordon just don't reply on my comments. I don't need it okay. I don't agree with yr shit. It is so manipulated The science is manipulated. The corruption related to this chemical is well profound. And the gmo resistance will always live. To free the most vulnerable. It is a huge problem and we need to collab all even if they have invaded everything.

[@popeyegordon]

You don't get to lie hatefully about our honest hard working farmers and crop scientists if I catch you. I already corrected your lies here with soild irrefutable verifiable proof, now you stupidly pull the same shit again! There is no science that is "manipulated" in a bad way, you can never prove that. You can not prove ANY corruption you liar. GMO resistance is falling fast, every year more countries plant their first GM crops which are not patented and that seed is given free to farmers. I will provide a list if you ask.

[@joehajjar5246]

@@popeyegordon @Popeye Gordon are u a food science u payed shill. Can u proof my ass u payed shill. Ur evidence based source is too bad I couldn't open the site. Shame on u .