/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7397867
Yes, being anti-GMO is basically being anti-animal husbandry and anti-horticulture.

>>7397867
Depends. If you think there are health issues with GMOs, you're talking out your ass.

If you are against the economics/business side of GMOs and the effects they have on farmers and all that shit, you may have a point.

As far as science goes it is a great technology which has been extensively studied because of scaremongering and it has come out clean.

>>7397867
Not necessarily, there may be valid systemic risk angles on the matter. Nassim Taleb put out a paper to that effect. I'm not in that camp, but I'm fine with them camping there.

>>7397891
On a side note, if bugs in software are difficult to find. Imagine how difficult it is to find bugs in GMOs.

>>7397884
It does affect farmers it's true. But trying to restrain GMO farming is equivalent to restraining industrial mining because it hurts the guy who collects bog peat for iron smelting. We can't feed 7+ billion people with small scale and hobby farming anymore.

>>7397902
True, BUT, errors in gene code at overwhelmingly just going to kill the plant. The concept of a mutant rouge wheat that takes over the world is romanticized.

>>7397918
And the ones that don't kill the plant might give everyone cancer in 50 years.

>>7397867
No. Confusion, poor reasoning, and poor self awareness is what leads to these two things seeming synonymous.

>>7397939
I seriously wonder what kind of utter mental retardation made you utter this total nonsense?
>muhh cancer in 100 years!!
is one of the dumbest possible arguments. You can say the same thing about literally every single thing on earth. Don't you think that the fact that GMOs have even stricter regulation than regular crops counts for anything? Don't you realize that the same fucking thing applies to any redneck farmer mating two animals or peaces of fucking wheat? Who's to say that they won't randomly end up with a gene that produces some ultra-dangerous cancer/AIDS causing product? In the case of GMOs, there's actually a lot more control because scientists know pretty much exactly what they're putting in.
Maybe you should fucking think about the words coming out of your shitty little mouth next time you decide to parrot some other idiot who told you what to think.

I'm anti-GMO because of the way patenting GMO crops works to destroy small farmers or subjugate them to the will of global conglomerates. I don't think that makes me anti-science.

>>7397956
Fuck, I apologize for the typos, I'm quite exhausted at the moment.

>>7397956
I'm another poster.
>Don't you think that the fact that GMOs have even stricter regulation than regular crops counts for anything?
No, I don't. It's like asking if "FDA approved" has much of any inherent meaning, of course it doesn't, and anyone with an opinion worth hearing (on either side) has already accepted this as a base axiom.

Nor do I think they've undergone proper and comprehensive long (or short) term safety testing in humans. Add to it the known effect of quick insect and "weed" adaptation, and you have a clear case of myopia and sheer profit driven engineering. It's a shameful throwaway idea we should never have started using. There's no opt out for this guinea pigging.

>In the case of GMOs, there's actually a lot more control because scientists know pretty much exactly what they're putting in.
I don't understand why you think you have an opinion. I'll be blunt with that, I really don't. Figuring out what makes you tick is a hell of a lot more interesting than GMOs.

Consider this, because it's what you're saying.
-Our gene insertion techniques are perfect. I'm not sure what we're using now, last I knew adeno-associated viruses were the preferred method because of their reliable insertion tendencies and higher storage, but regardless, it almost certainly isn't perfect.
-Our quality control is perfect.
-We have complete knowledge of the whole. These plant genomes we're working with, we understand fully how it works and what will happen in any circumstance that could arise. We can properly control for known and unknown error.
-We care about intelligent risk assessment. (It's clear we don't and never have as a species, we're reckless to the extreme. Add profit and a manipulable system to that, our tendencies get even worse.)

>parrot some other idiot who told you what to think.
Because that's not what you're doing. Scientist =/= myopic and delusionally self certain. Science is not a religion.

>>7397980
Your opinion can be safely discarded, Luddite.

>>7397878
GenModding has nothing whatever to do with animal husbandry and horticulture, fgt pls

>>7397995
Discarding opinions is a thing of fools. Enjoy muddling around in your own small mind, commoner.

>>7397907
But you can by slowly changing the world to a more whole foods, plant based diet.

Captcha: salad

>>7397980
>It's like asking if "FDA approved" has much of any inherent meaning, of course it doesn't

What the fuck are you blabbering about? FDA approval (for drugs at least) is contingent on whether you passed the CDER's approval process. Getting their approval means that you have a relatively substantial amount of evidence that points to the safety and efficacy of your product.

Saying that it has 'no inherent meaning' seems to imply that the FDA just approves shit by glancing at the active ingredients and stamping a form. That's not reality.

>>7398034
FDA is a revolving door for people with ties and a stake in the industry. They're also somewhat poorly staffed and funded, the process you're talking about is mostly paid for by the company submitting the drug for approval. Likewise, this process is not exactly strict and often after being approved off label uses are piled on.

Etc. The problems are endless and there are ample points for failure and or deliberate manipulation. There are also major downsides for going against large biotech firms.

>>7397939
wow you are retarded. why would the dna of a plant affect our dna? will you please post some empirical evidence(sources) instead of talking out your ass?

>>7397902
You won't, they are genetically altered so they won't require pesticides.

>>7398046
Just postulating possible mechanisms.

Via epigenetics our environment affects our own gene expression. Plant's DNA affects how plant functions and what compounds a plant will create. Eat plant that has different constituents, potentially, different gene methylation occurs in the consumer. Also potential for miRNA binding.

>>7398041
>FDA is a revolving door for people with ties and a stake in the industry.

Oh okay, I'm dealing with a, "FDA approves ineffective drugs and unsafe products because they get paid" kind of conspiracy theorist. I've dealt with this before, let's continue:

>They're also somewhat poorly staffed and funded

According to their FTE info, the FDA has anywhere from 13,000-15,000 people employed at any time. They receive about $5 billion in funding every year, which is fucking massive.

>the process you're talking about is mostly paid for by the company submitting the drug for approval.

So? They're expediting the process but that doesn't mean that their science isn't rigorous. I'll get back to that later.

>Likewise, this process is not exactly strict and often after being approved off label uses are piled on.

I'm almost certain that's bullshit. Approval is based on whether the drug is shown effective for the disease it's labeled to treat. If that wasn't the case, you could get something approved to treat eczema and then market it as a cancer treatment.

>The problems are endless and there are ample points for failure and or deliberate manipulation.

There are no 'ample points' for deliberate manipulation because it's entirely unfeasible to falsify data in a way that other people won't see. Other countries have their own drug approval agencies as well, and they replicate most of the studies that the FDA uses for drug approval. If companies were cooking the books and twisting the data to make an ineffective drug look like it works, they would get exposed as soon as other labs replicate their clinical studies.

There's absolutely no motivation to even try to flub your data because you'll get sued into oblivion as a result.

>There are also major downsides for going against large biotech firms

Such as?

Blindly trust some fag scientist

Im not anti-GMO but current gmo is goy shit

new poster, I feel like joining the shitstorm>

>>7398007
>all opinions are valid
LOL

>>7397980
> It's like asking if "FDA approved" has much of any inherent meaning, of course it doesn't
I think this >>7398056 anon did a fine job

>you're saying
>it almost certainly isn't perfect...it almost certainly isn't perfect.
>quality control not perfect, etc
You're saying that our techniques must be PERFECT, an impossible standard.
Are breeding techniques perfect?
How do we know that combining ingredients in a recipe won't cause some unknown reaction that could be harmful?

>We care about intelligent risk assessment.
Intelligent risk assessment acknowledges the notion of an acceptable level of risk. Risk cannot be escaped

>Scientist =/= myopic and delusionally self certain
no true scotsman

>>7398094
Fucked up the copy-paste
Should be:
>Our gene insertion techniques are perfect.... it almost certainly isn't perfect.

>>7397867
>Does being anti-GMO mean being anti-science?

No it means being informed on how badly the tests on GMOs have been corrupted by financial interests.

>>7397884
>If you think there are health issues with GMOs, you're talking out your ass.

If you think we have really TESTED for health issues with GMOs...

>>7397959
>I'm anti-GMO because of the way patenting GMO crops works to destroy small farmers or subjugate them to the will of global conglomerates. I don't think that makes me anti-science.

Agreed

>>7397980
>-Our gene insertion techniques are perfect.
>-Our quality control is perfect.
>-We have complete knowledge of the whole.

And our ship is unsinkable.
>Scientist =/= myopic and delusionally self certain. Science is not a religion.

LOL Science is perfect! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT9pygVQwgk

>===============================
Here is what corporate influence in science looks like:

1) Corporations perform a six month study with GM maize to show that it is safe.

2) Independent research group duplicates the study. Same kind, and number of rats. Same Maize. But this study runs for two years. The longer study finds serious health risks.

Surely the longer study is more accurate, right? NOPE!

3) While the original study faces no criticism, the publisher withdraws paper despite authors' objections, citing weak evidence!

So when someone tells you there is "no evidence" of GMOs being harmful, remember what happens to people who find evidence!

>>7398113

Oops, forgot link to the study in question:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/

>>7397956
>Don't you realize that the same fucking thing applies to any redneck farmer mating two animals

Last time I checked bacteria and wheat couldn't interbreed, so no, it's not the same thing. Could interbreeding two organism that weren't meant to be interbred cause dangerous side effects? Possibly.

>>7398113
>>7398129
All you have to back up your assertions (That's all they are) is a link to a propaganda site. Wow I'm convinced, thank you for showing me the light

>>7398135
>what is lateral gene transfer

>Could interbreeding two organism that weren't meant to be interbred cause dangerous side effects?
meant by whom?

Do you have any basis for your fears? Should we be afraid of every hypothetical we can conjure?

>>7398170

The basis for my fears is the way we have been growing food for the past thousands of years and we are still here. Meanwhile, GMOs haven't been around long enough to proven safe for public consumption.

>>7398192
So your fears are baseless. got it

>>7398199

Says one man who is certainly no wiser.

>>7398192
m8 literally every living thing is a gmo, it's called natural selection

>>7398192
Are you against vaccines too?

>>7398206

I am against injecting myself with a pathogen, how did you know?

>>7398209
Just a wild guess

>>7398209
Why are you so hung up on semantics and try to reduce things down to retard word associations to make sense of things

>>7398212
So I am not injecting myself with pathogens? Please explain.

>>7398203
Why do you regard GMO's as an inherently different class of life than "normal" organisms?

>>7398209
HAHAHAHA
Do you still ride around in a horse and buggy? How do you know you aren't going to get cancer by using lithium ion batteries? lol

>>7398214
Haha.

No, I just don't like playing chicken with biology considering I am a living organism, and all that.

>>7398209
do you happen to oppose municipal fluoridation as well?

>>7398213
>A pathogen or infectious agent is a biological agent that causes disease or illness to its host.
But vaccines prevent that
>http://www.unicef.org/pon96/hevaccin.htm

>>7398220
But dude, why would you play chicken with putting untested batteries near your body? That's totally not natural. Even though there's no evidence based reason to be concerned about that you never know man. You never fucking know. We should live in constant fear of all new technology

>>7398222
I am well aware of how a vaccine is supposed to work.

>>7398225
The effects probably wouldn't be as long term if I poured battery acid on my nipples.

>>7398226
So are all those children who don't have smallpox.

>>7398226
>supposed to work
let me guess, all studies on vaccines are just big pharma blinding us sheeple

>>7398209
The only risk you get from dead pathogens comes from having an immune system ravaged by AIDs or some rare medical condition. The only other risks vaccines carry are related to the sparse allergic reactions to its components (eg: eggs).

>>7398226
Then care to explain why you are against them?

>>7397980
>Scientist =/= myopic and delusionally self certain. Science is not a religion.

You're the one making the unfounded, delusional claim about muhh monsanto bribery.
I think it's about time you took your schizophrenia medicine, pal.

>>7398234
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/190/3/477.short

>>7398242
>something went wrong once
>whole thing is gay bullshit
did you stop travelling by car when you saw a crash, or by air when 9/11 happened?

Science is in itself not good or bad, being anti-science isn't bad, being pro-science isn't good.

From a philosophical perspective I don't agree with GMO, from a health perspective I am also against GMO.

There's nothing that can be said that will change this because there's simply no argument which provides sufficient evidence showing it's safety or longterm consequences.

>>7398225
This guy's right you know. Even if they're safe for now, in 50 years there might be some chemical alteration, a moving closer to an equilibrium, that causes the battery to emit dangerous radiation.
Better to avoid them all together, wouldn't you say?

>>7398245
Its not even that

I don't even know if >>7398242 read what he posted:

>Conclusions. Vaccinated students presented with milder varicella symptoms than did unvaccinated students. Individuals with breakthrough illness can be highly infectious. Time since varicella vaccination was associated with illness. Despite 29 breakthrough cases, the varicella vaccine conferred a high degree of protection against moderate illness.

>>7398242
According to your incident, those who were vaccinated were better protected. Had everyone been vaccinated, it wouldn't have mattered that there was an outbreak due to the vaccines. People would have felt minor effects at most.

>>7398246
>There's nothing that can be said that will change this because there's simply no argument which provides sufficient evidence showing it's safety or longterm consequences.

I think I know a board that better suits your needs.
>>>/x/

>>7398246
>no evidence will convince me

>>7398246
>being anti-science isn't bad
>being pro-science isn't good
Wow

>>7398254

> a couple decades of blackbox testing is sufficient to decide if something we ingest and becomes incorporated into us and the ecosystem is safe.

>>7398252

Just testing the water. It seems like there is no changing the minds of certain people in this thread.

>>7398242
Mate that study contradicts your position. It mentions that vaccines mitigated the illness even if they were not 100% effective at stopping transmission. The secret about vaccines is that they aren't 100% effective ever. This is where herd immunity comes in. Vaccines are effective enough that if enough people are vaccinated a disease will not cause an outbreak as it cannot effect enough people in a short enough time.

>>7398261
>doing something by hand which plants have been doing for millions of years is bad

>>7398263
Your example literally proved you wrong. Why on earth would anyone change their mind?
>vaccines aren't safe
>here's a study which says they are safer than the alternative

>>7398261
That's a true statement. Almost nothing you use in your daily life was tested for decades. If your position was correct we would still be in the stone age.

>>7398261
>thousands of years of eating crops is enough to prove that eating crops is safe
>millenia of drinking water without adverse effects proves it's safe
Wake up sheeple

>>7397261
>becomes incorporated into us
Mate when you eat lettuce the DNA doesn't magically merge with your own.Its destroyed in the stomach. "GMO DNA" is no different in this regard.

>>7398266

I didn't know plants were having animal genes injected into them for millions of years.

In fact this post shows that those defending GMO don't have any idea what the fuck they are even supporting.

>>7398273

Bifurcations m8.

>>7398261
becomes incorporated into us
Mate when you eat lettuce the DNA doesn't magically merge with your own.Its destroyed in the stomach. "GMO DNA" is no different in this regard.

>>7398268
I wasn't even trying to prove myself right. I was trying to prove that no matter what I put up there, nobody would actually take it seriously. Which is exactly the response I got from >>7398245.

>>7398261
>> a couple decades of blackbox testing is sufficient to decide if something we ingest and becomes incorporated into us and the ecosystem is safe.

Please explain to me how genetic modifications in a controlled environment done by experts on genetics is blackbox testing while a random redneck breeding his shit out in the wild isn't, you delusional retard.

>>7398280
You probably shouldn't post studies which prove you wrong when trying to be taken seriously

>>7398278
>plants were having animal genes injected into them
In fact this post shows that those against GMO don't have any idea what the fuck they are even denouncing.

>>7398278
>I didn't know plants were having animal genes injected into them for millions of years.
Difference without a distinction. This post shows you are grasping at straws to justify your irrational and inconsistent fears of an established safe technology.

>>7398284
Okay, whatever you say, mate.

>>7397907
But we are already producing more food than we eat, what are you talking about?

>>7398288
>i was only pretending to be retarded

>>7398278
>It's OK when a plant does it to itself, but if a person does it I'm fucking done
Didn't I read some popsci bullshit where it said we share massive sections of our DNA with fruit?

>>7398278
>Bifurcations m8.
What is this supposed to do? Being vague because you have nothing to say doesn't really work.

>>7398281

>experts on genetics.

Irrelevant designation.

Millions of years have vetted natural hybridization as acceptable process, we evolved with it/from it.

>>7398287

So what about wheat and bacteria?

>>7398292
That isn't some pop-sci bullshit, it's highschool biology

>>7398297
My apologies, I was a fedora /sci/entist who didn't take biology in highschool because I hated the memorization

>>7398287

Difference enough to be known as a difference, right?

There is nothing you can post to show GMOs are safe as there is simply not enough data to say so. You would need millennia along with comprehensive tracking of the subject population to make such a statement. It's absolutely not an established technology in so far as saying the effects of it.

>>7398154
>All you have to back up your assertions (That's all they are) is a link to a propaganda site.

Is it so outrageous to think that you might do some research yourself rather than expecting the truth to be handed to you?

>>7398301
Every living thing in the world is a GMO, you're being silly.

>>7398301

The smart people of Europe are starting to get on it seems.

>>7398305
>Makes a post
>Sources it with bullshit source
>everyone says wat
>then tells people to google it
Why not just source your claims with a good one?

>>7398306

So then perhaps we should use the term anthropologically genetically modified organism.

>>7398296
What about them?

>>7398309
>Why not just source your claims with a good one?

Because no source can be "good" if it doesn't agree with you.

>>7398309
Did you even read his link or is this some kind of clever samefag troll?

>>7398295
>natural
>acceptable
Wow, how can you be such a fucking hypocrite? Nature doesn't give a fuck about whether some mutation or combination is safe or not. It's all fucking random. You are afraid of something designed to be safe yet you are completely okay with putting random things into your body as long as they are "natural". You are fucked in the head.

>>7398312
>it's ok with nature does it

>>7398313
Well apparently listing two random organisms is witchcraft, so I am listing to actual organisms that have been crossed.

>>7398312
Thats the whole thing, they are only against GMOs because they have been classified under one term. It doesn't mean the term has any functional significance, it just means that people who are against GMOs don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

>>7398305
>makes a claim
>shifts the responsibility for verification on the reader
Thats not how this works bud. You spouted bullshit, you have to take responsibility for it.

In any case, goodnight /sci/. Can't wait to have this same conversation tomorrow and for all eternity

>>7398301
>There is nothing you can post to show GMOs are safe as there is simply not enough data to say so.
Here's the data that says so: There is not a shred of evidence that GMOs are harmful despite decades of rigorous testing demanded by you fucking fags.

How to be a luddite:

1. Demand a technology is tested

2. Ignore the test results

3. Go back to step 1

>>7398301
>You would need millennia
WHAT FUCKING TECH WAS TESTED FOR A MILLENIA??? FUCKING NOTHING. YOU ARE LUCKY TO GET YOUR DECADES OF TESTING YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT. DIE.

>>7398318
I have no idea what you're going on about man. Try making an actual argument instead of pretending to have one.

>>7398324

It's on the burden of those supporting the technology to demonstrate sufficient safety, this has not and cannot be done within such a timeframe or current knowledge.

>>7398331
>It's on the burden of those supporting the technology to demonstrate sufficient safety
Yes, and we did that conclusively. You are just ignoring the results, demanding more testing, which you will then ignore the results of. You are not interested in figuring out if GMOs are safe, you believe GMOs are unsafe and no evidence will change your mind. If you could prove GMOs were unsafe with scientific evidence or reasoning, I would admit your right right now. That's the fucking difference between a religious zealot and a rational person.

>>7398335
This. The thing is that the argument of "too short timeframe" can be applied arbitrarily, but for the delusional-anti GMO crusader it only applies to GMOs.

>>7398335
We would need to do a lifetime study on such a thing, wait till the GMO fed and control die, and do autopsies on their corpses before I am willing to put faith into GMOs.

>>7398342
Did you wait 60 some years to use a microwave oven because it wasn't tested yet

>>7398335

>conclusively.

No, a couple decades of black box testing doesn't prove anything when it comes to long term health effects or world impact.

It doesn't even prove anything in the short term when it comes to mass consumption.

In fact short of complete understanding of all genetics and biology I doubt such a product could ever be deemed safe.

There's simply not enough data or knowledge to make such a statement.

>>7398342
>We would need to do a lifetime study on such a thing, wait till the GMO fed and control die, and do autopsies on their corpses before I am willing to put faith into GMOs.
That's because you are being irrational. That level of testing is unnecessary and unfounded. That's all there is to say really. Luckily your faith has no bearing on science,

>>7398340
It's only too short of a time frame because we are talking about biological systems, rather than mechanical, electrical, etc.

>>7398349
Why are you using a computer, a battery, bluetooth or cell phones? None of those have been deemed safe by your dumb standards

>>7398349
>No, a couple decades of black box testing doesn't prove anything when it comes to long term health effects or world impact.
It is enough evidence to conclude that GMOs are safe. It is more evidence than we had of most technologies, even ones that were conceptually riskier. We would expect to see harm caused in that timeframe if they were at all harmful. If you cannot explain why GMOs would not cause harm for 20 years and then cause harm with scientific evidence and reasoning, then there is simply no reason to listen to your opinion. Your fears are inconsequential.

>>7398357

We have fundamentally different standards of safety and world view. You can ignore them personally but you won't be able to ignore our wallets or our legislation.

The anti-GMO movement is growing.

>>7398352
Mechanical and electrical technologies can effect health. Where are you getting these timeframes from anyway? What would be a proper timeframe? Has any medicine or biological technology been tested for that long?

>>7398357
So you are saying that side effects cannot possibly appear after 20 years?

>>7398360
Your money and political clout does not determine facts, science does. Pass all the laws you want, you're still factually incorrect.

>>7398362
Mechanical and electrical technologies are easier to test, compared to more complex biological systems.

>>7398367

There are no facts in what you say. You're not math and geneticists have at best a poor understanding of the very basics of genetics.

It's nothing to put faith into.

>>7398363
I'm saying there is no reason to think GMOs would produce side effects after 20 years. Do you understand that to argue a position you should have a reason to hold that position rather than "it could be true, maybe"?

>>7398370
>You're not math and geneticists have at best a poor understanding of the very basics of genetics.
Right, but you have a good enough understanding to know better than geneticists.

>It's nothing to put faith into.
Science relies on evidence not faith. Faith is what your argument relies on, not mine, zealot.

>>7398362
Also, biological change is slower compared to other systems. We did not evolve from chimpanzees overnight.

>>7398373
When we ask whether any technology is safe we are talking about its effect on our biological system. Your point is moot.

>We did not evolve from chimpanzees overnight.
We didn't evolve from chimpanzees at all, retard.

>>7398372

Short term inductive "proof" isn't proof, I agree on evidence, there's not near enough to make conclusions on safety.

>>7398379
We are talking about a biological systems effect on another biological system, my point is still valid.

>>7398319
>>makes a claim
>>shifts the responsibility for verification on the reader
>Thats not how this works bud. You spouted bullshit, you have to take responsibility for it.

If you are going to put something in my food and not tell me, then it is YOU who have the responsibility to prove it is safe.

>>7398383
It's what we call proof in science.

>>7398384
No, no it's not. Example: some retards think cellphones give us cancer. Some retards think GMOs give us cancer. So do cellphones need to be tested over a lifetime like GMOs?

>>7398373
>>7398384
>>7398387
delusional high schoolers detected

>>7398387
If that were true you should not be eating anything that isn't a clone of ancient cultivars. Hint: Nothing you eat has been tested for harmful mutations.

>>7398392

The assumed validity of a statement rests upon the significance of its impact. For most of science the impact is small, this is an exception and because of that requires substantially more evidence be accepted .

>>7398403
>The assumed validity of a statement rests upon the significance of its impact.
First of all, this is completely false. The validity is how much reason and evidence back it up. The idea that cellphones cause cancer is MORE reasonable than GMOs causing cancer.

Also, how the fuck is cancer from a cellphone, which almost every person on earth carries around 24/7 not as significant an impact as cancer from GMOs?

>>7398395
Ad hominem attack detected.

No, we need those hippies to act as a pressure group against unbridled corporate interests.

>>7398458
Wow, what a smart guy. You identified someone insulting you.

Hint: ad hominem is only a fallacy if it's used as the premise of an argument, such as "You are wrong because you are a delusional high schooler". Calling someone a delusional high schooler because they are wrong is just an insult.

>>7398290
he's parroting Monsanto's talking points without knowing/caring WTF he's talking about

>>7398290
> we produce more food than we eat.
Which do you mean:
1. Food wasted by shitty logistics
2. non-food crops grown for fuel or feeding livestock
3. Food wasted because Americans are lazy and food is cheap?

>>7397884
This guy knows what's up

yeah I'm more for natural selection then GMO. but farming is expensive and very few people do it. nobody wants to put their money into that because usually people who have lots of money are only well informed in the business that they do. they're dumb for anything else most of the time.