Hi Tim,
Why Do Supporters of Genetically Engineered Foods Insist on Organics for Their Own Families?
articles.mercola.com
What control group size is acceptable and why?
Your claim that no evidence exists that animals have been hurt by GMO is 100% false. Don't confuse the fact you are ignorant of something to mean that something doesn't exist. Don't believe corporate advertising at face value, either.
jeffreydach.com
responsibletechnology.org
Those links aren't for the willfully ignorant, rather for someone interested in evidence that you are misleading people with blatant untruths.
The rest of your claim is built on a straw man.
I don't know how dangerous GMOs are. That's the problems. The 3 months studies are a joke. Thatt's 3/24 or about 12% of the life span of the rats tested. If the Romans did a 3 month study on their lead pipes... well, maybe they would've claimed lead pipes were safe. Even in the French study the cancer didn't show up until the 4th month. If it had been cut short at 3 months, the huge differences in the occurrence and size of cancer would've never been discovered. That's the outcome that a profit motivated would desire, of course.
2 year time studies are trivial for a billion dollar company - but they absolutely refuse to do them.
>>That regulation should be eliminated. There is no good reason to have such a label. It feeds in to pseudo-science and conspiracy theories, but its not fraud unless its actually a lie, and as long as the statement is true, they should be able to make it.<<
Said from a state of admitted complete ignorance on the safety issues. Wow, someone who thinks his feelings define reality.
>>Even if your statement about Monsanto is true, that wouldn't make your earlier points relevant. Its just a summary of the points. Its an attack on Monsanto. But Monsanto is not this study. All your points could be false, and this study could still be solid, or all your points true, and the study could be garbage. Those points are irrelevant to discussion of the study.<<
It is true - 100% established. Your desire to remain ignorant doesn't change reality. Would you continue to do business with a company that continually lied to your detriment? Why or why not? your answer will expose the absurdity of your "a history of lying and manipulating media is not relevant" when assessing the trustworthiness of said company. It isn't like they have any real science to support their views, so they can't know, by definition. They have a profit motive to not know.
>>I don't think all the information needed to calculate that was released, or at least I don't have it. But you don't need the whole calculation to know a control group that is either 10 or 20, is too small to amount to much of a control in cancer studies (or just about any type of study).<<
If the validity of the control group depends on unreleased information, how can you claim that 10 was too small to yield a credible result? -lol-
It sure sounds like you are just parroting the "company line" without any actual insight. |
