>>Further comments from other scientists:
"Other issues that have come up:
• ‘All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here’ – this is a quote from the paper.<<
Formatting concerns? Really?
>>• Small sample size<<
That doesn't invalidate the study, rather, the small sample size reduces the stated confidence interval. No mention of why they don't like the confidence interval.
>>• Maize was minimum 11% of the diet – not balanced<<
It's one study. Whatever number they picked could be challenged, so this is nonsense without more detail. My guess is human diets are over 50% GMO... so if there was a problem, it was that GM/RU is likely too low.
>>• No non-maize control?<<
What does this mean?
>>• No results given for non-gm maize<<
I thought that is what the control group ate. I'll double check.
>>• For nearly 20 years, billions of animals in the EU have been fed soy products produced from genetically modified soybean, mainly from Latin America. No problems have been reported by the hundreds of thousands of farmers, officials, vets and so on.<<
This is a lie. Problems have been reported and documented. I've heard farmers tell their stories of GMO making their livestock sick, going non GMO made them better, going GMO again made them sick. Now, you might contest their reports, but to say there aren't any reports is a flat out lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. They are preying on the ignorant and naive.
>>• The same journal publishes a paper showing no adverse health effects in rats of consuming gm maize (though this is a shorter 90-day study)<<
No mention that all cancer in this study showed up after 90 days? That's relevant, but no criticism because these guys aren't balanced, they are like defendant paid witnesses.
>>• Statistical significance vs relative frequencies.<<
These could always be better, regardless of the study So let's recommend more studies! Uh, no, right? The shills just critique this study without calling for a better study. Their master has spoken.
>>• We also have to ask why the rats were kept alive for so long – for humane reasons this study would not have been given approval in the UK.<<
Different laws in different countries. They were doing research. Nice ad hominem painting the French government as inhumane for not prohibiting this study.
>>• In Fig.2, I assume the bars with a zero is for the non-maize control. Those bars don’t looks significantly different from the bars indicating 11, 22, and 33% of GM maize in the diet? Have the authors done stats on their data?"<<
Call them, find the answers and then report on them. Or don't - just make them look all scary like and inhumane.
Not like the humane Monsanto that lies about Agent Orange, DDT and rBST safety and gets journalists fired who don't lie in the media on their behalf.
Cutting and pasting more nonsense isn't going to change anything. It also won't encourage you to think for yourself.
You know my views - post some piece of real information that challenges my views. You'll have to invest in thinking instead of copying and pasting, but I think that is a good thing. |
