to be true. just a clarification. this idea talking points. one of the reasons why some of these things may occur as arguments again and again is that they re actually right. okay? there are many people that are saying these things. they re not using them as talking points. and this is a possibility to consider the same arguments are made generally with other groups there. they re well trodden paths. the second thing is i really think it s a little disingeneralous to say you have nothing against genetically modified organism it s they were tested enough. i heard the same thing with environmentalism and stuff. actually, not you personally necessarily, but everything is being done to prevent the kinds of testing that you would require in order to certify that something is safe. it is absolutely impossible to prove that something is safe. you can show that you can t see any damage from it given the kinds of test that s are done. you cannot make that proof. in fact, whether fie
industry which is common that, is career ending. it s going to be examined in a very detailed way. so the usual attack or feeling about our technology is actually the fda is extraordinarily conservative and resistant to allowing these sorts of things through. and, in fact, if i looked at the pressure that the pharmaceutical industry could bring to bear on the fda and sort of the heft of big pharma is far bigger than biotech like monsanto. it really surprises me that you think the fda is captured in the sense that it, you know, will allow junk science as you claim it to be to be the basis for regulatory approvals. and most of the people, those kinds of scientists that i referred to that, you know, they look at that stuff and they would have no problem at all saying it s totally garbage because not everybody is captured by the monsantos in the world. let me get a question in the center here. get the boom over here. you brought references to high blood pressure and autism. i