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: TimF who wrote (131931)	9/23/2012 11:21:50 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>Re: The study took 2 years. So?<< Seriously? You can't figure out why this is relevant when the author attacks the scientists as doing this for Prop 37 when they had no way of knowing Prop 37 would even exist when they started their study? How about chance - the author understands chance in studies, even if lies about any level of chance invalidating a study (hint, any complex study has chance elements). >>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.<< Why would GMO industry spend $30 million to avoid labeling in 1 state when they could spend $1 million to prove their GMO products safe? They spent millions in Oregon already. Why spend $100 million (which they will over time) fighting labeling instead of spending $1 million on real rat studies? I don't think this is complicated. I'd spend the $1 million and save the $100 million or so. Then again, I'd be proud of my product and put a label on it anyway. I believe in freedom and the citizenry's right to be informed and make free, informed choices. >>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.<< Agreed, but the lack of direct complaints against the study, coupled with the reliance on various logical fallacies, indicates this study's results are significant. Not proof, mind you, but definitely an indication that more SCIENCE and RESEARCH is required. Do you oppose long term health SCIENCE and RESEARCH on pesticide foods and herbicide saturated food? Why? How can you know it is safe if there is no long term research? >>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.<< 1. 250% to 350% is a lot and totally unexpected. Especially because it was concentrated IN ALL THREE GM/RU groups compared to the control. Is it proof? Nope. Is it evidence that indicates more studies are worthwhile? Absolutely. I know why Monsanto hates long term health science and research. Why do you shill for them? Do you despise long term health science and research as well? Why? Do you despise an educated and informed populace making free market decisions? If so, why? Prop 37 is all about advertising GMO foods for what they are. People are free to eat what they want. 2. You conflate two separate findings. the 250% - 350% had to do with cancer incidence, not death. You can't just change the subject like that and make any sense at all. BTW, did you know that fluoridated water is opposed by the Environmental Protection Agency? WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION nteu280.org Do note how an intelligent article is put together. The reason I mention this is because the science and research indicates fluoridated water damages the brain and lowers the IQ and ability to think and reason clearly. It also bio-accumulates and the effects get worse over time. Think of it as sort of a "dementia on the installment plan." Also, Harvard came out with a study confirming that fluoridated water brain damages children. Impact of Fluoride on Neurological Development in Children hsph.harvard.edu Now, why am I telling you this and not the "media?" I know it is all cool to be on the "in" crowd that can spout the media party line and laugh at people who actually do the research and understand the media is controlled by the profits they generate from the multi-nationals... but that's cold. Pouring toxic waste into the water and filter it through children as it damages their cognitive ability and actually damages their teeth... wow. Be careful who you claim as an authority. They might just be out to brain damage your children and give you dementia. Of course, that means their $40,000 million a month looting will go unchallenged and they will maximize Big Pharma profits treating your illnesses.