Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (131917)	9/21/2012 2:47:06 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

Hi Carl, But why would the French need to study something you claimed was proven safe already? Unless that is valueless smoke your are blowing, Carl. Is it? Treating feelings and desires as fact before doing the science? Unlike the study you posted, and the question about duration you totally ignored (after you used it as an authority w/o even being able to defend it) the common person can actually look at what was done... research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf This is what the link you provided didn't do. Please be specific when you say Seralini published faulty papers in the past. Nobody can read your mind and nobody serious is going to just trust you. Otherwise, this is just more logical fallacy - in this case ad hominem. It is a fallacy for a reason - it isn't rational thinking. I'm into rational thinking - so try to up your game and actually express yourself outside of logical fallacy. From the study... "Before this period, 30% control males (three in total) and 20% females (only two) died spontaneously, while up to 50% males and 70% females died in some groups on diets containing the GM maize (Fig. 1)." "In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was vis- ible in 3 male groups fed GMOs" "In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher" "This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related." "Up to 14 months, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of tumors whilst 10–30% of treated females per group developed tumors, with the exception of one group (33% GMO + R)." "By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected. The R treat- ment groups showed the greatest rates of tumor incidence with 80% of animals affected with up to 3 tumors for one female, in each group." "The most affected organs in males were the liver, together with the hepatodigestive tract and kidneys (Table 2 and Fig. 3). Hepatic congestions, macroscopic and microscopic necrotic foci were 2.5–5.5 times more frequent in all treatments than in control groups. Gamma GT hepatic activity was increased in particular for GMO + R groups (up to 5.4 times), this being probably due to a liver disorder." "All treatments in both sexes enhanced large tumor incidence by 2–3-fold in comparison to our controls but also for the number of mammary tumors in comparison to the same Harlan Sprague Dawley strain (Brix et al., 2005), and overall around 3-fold in comparison to the largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats (Chandra et al., 1992)." "In our study the tumors also developed considerably faster than the controls, even though the majority of tumors were observed after 18 months. The first large detectable tumors occurred at 4 ad 7 months into the study in males and females respectively, underlining the inadequacy of the standard 90 day feeding trials for evaluating GM crop and food toxicity (Séraliniet al., 2011)." On to the complaints your claimed authority listed about the study: 1. The amount of ingested food wasn't explicitly stated. This is true, but it is also true that the study included the following comment: "All data cannot be shown in one report, and the most relevant are described here. There was no rejection by the animals of the diet with or without GMOs, nor any major difference in the body weight." This implies nothing nefarious, but it would be nice to get the actual data - so Tester could request the data. So why doesn't he? 2. Why didn't any previous studies flag these concerns. First of all, that's wrong. Plenty of studies have flagged similar concerns. They just don't pay as well to lie. youtube.com Secondly, a reasonable answer was in the nature of this study - it was the first study to follow the rats for their entire life. The obvious question, would never be asked by an industry shill is... why hadn't the industry every done a similar study in the last 15 years? 3. Why aren't humans dropping like fleas? Because we aren't rats. Duh! We live longer and there is more mass to humans. Any real scientist wouldn't expect the exact same impact on humans in a similar time frame. Please. That's preying on assumed population ignorance. However, we do see cancer rates rising. We do see allergy rates rising. We do see organ failure rates rising. We do see breast cancer rates rising. We do see ADHD rising. We do see food allergies rising. 4. The methods, statistics and reporting of results were "below standard." Of course there was no follow up. We have to trust the "authorities." IOW, appeal to authority logical fallacy. A real scientist would back up their claim. As for the study being only 10 rats - more would be better. Don't expect industry to complete such a study - they've resisted for 15+ years and they will continue to do so. For the children. -lol- 5. Rats get lots of tumors followed by an ad hominem logical fallacy attack. That is a straw man. The issue isn't whether rats get tumors or not... nobody said they didn't. That'sa straw man logical fallacy (do you get paid to deceive via logical fallacy? You don't do this for free, do you?) The relevant questions are: Why did the treated groups die 2-3 times more than in the control group? Why did the treated groups die faster than in the control group? Why was liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher in the treated groups compared to the control groups? Why did the control group exhibit 0% tumors at 14 months while every treated groups had 10% to 30% tumors over the same time frame? Why did 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups have tumors after 24 months when only 30% of the control group were affected? I could go on and on. But this kind of insight and these kinds of relevant questions are what people like Carl try to hide by the use of logical fallacy. My guess is Carl has no idea what he's doing. Monsanto and company, on the other hand, no exactly what they are doing. the non critical thinking, logical fallacy spewing sycophants are just a bonus to them.

To: Bilow who wrote (131917)	9/21/2012 6:30:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

Controversial study linking genetically modified corn to cancer under attack by scientists io9.com Monsanto's GM Corn And Cancer In Rats: Real Scientists Deeply Unimpressed. Politics Not Science Perhaps? forbes.com

To: Bilow who wrote (131917)	12/1/2013 10:12:16 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 132070

That Appalling Seralini GMO Cancer Paper Has Been Withdrawn As my colleague Jon Entine notes that seriously bad paper claiming that GMO crops gave lab rats cancer by Seralini et al has been withdrawn. In a stunning development, Food and Chemical Toxicology, which last year published the controversial rat study by Gilles-Éric Séralini that claimed to show that genetically modified corn could lead to a high incidence of cancer will be retracted and evidence of it expunged from the journal’s database. The editor of the journal, A. Wallace Hayes, sent the French scientist a letter saying that the paper will be withdrawn if he does not agree to do it voluntarily. According to Le Figaro, which broke the story, Séralini rejected Hayes’ findings. Excellent news: when it first came out I was highly critical of it. And prompted by a commenter here I was able to show that the paper must be wrong. The argument was quite simple. Seralini was claiming that lab chow made with Roundup Ready corn was causing these tumours in the lab rats. We’d certainly like to know if that were true. However, I went and contacted the maker of the lab chow that was used in the experiment. And, indeed, the lab chow that is used extensively across both the US and Europe. And that company does not keep GMOs, including Roundup Ready corn, out of its supply chain. Well, not deliberately it doesn’t. However, there is a natural experiment here. For their European lab chow is made from locally grown, European ingredients. And there’s very little GMO or Roundup Ready corn in Europe. But of course it is entirely pervasive right through the American supply chain. So, if it were true that Roundup Ready corn produced tumours in these lab rats then we should have seen an explosion of such tumours in US lab rats and a much lower level of them in Europe (for this breed of rat is known to get these tumours anyway). But we haven’t seen such an explosion therefore we must assume that the paper itself is wrong. In essence, between the EU and US populations of this breed of rat, we’ve been carrying out exactly the same experiment for the last decade or more, through several generations of rats used for all sorts of other experiments. And given that we haven’t seen an explosive change in cancer rates in those two populations then the original thesis must be wrong. forbes.com