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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (131930)	9/23/2012 10:02:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

The study took 2 years. So? Industry is spending about $30 million to avoid labeling... I can't imagine this study cost even $1 million. Again so? None of that is relevant to whether or not GMO's in general, or this specific type of GMO, are in any way dangerous. The study passed peer review. So? Passing peer review is not an indication that the study was correct, or even well conducted, or at best its a very weak indication. The issue isn't that the rats got tumors... the issue is that the GMO/RU groups got 250-350 MORE CANCER than the control rats. With a control sample of twenty. 250 percent more doesn't mean much, esp. when the rats are prone to get cancer. You need a much bigger control group to really get you anywhere. Also it doesn't seem to be 250 to 300 percent more. "For example, is the death of three out of ten controls compared to five out of ten males in the treated group statistically significant?" Thirty percent to Fifty percent is two thirds more not 250+% more. Two thirds more might be a pretty significant result anyway, but not with a control group of twenty. And with other significant data not provided.