Sen Ruderman, where is the proof

[Midnight Rambler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneself

This is all the proof i need -

https://www.facebook.com/iApparel/posts/...71775771:0

---

So if you had first seen that same picture only with the signs reversed, that would have been all the proof you need that GMOs are fine, right? smh...

[TomK]

+1 for midnight rambler. Sometimes I despair when it comes to rational thought here, but this is spot on.

[Guest]

There is no talking to ignorance. Enjoy your poison and tumors, that you so desperatly want to argue for. Anti GMO, is global. It will prevail, no one in the world wants to eat the ****.

[Russell]

A little background on the Seralini study, which GMO apologists love to cite because it was retracted:
----
Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it?

He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors. Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology (wikipedia). Pictures of the rats were published.

A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. “Experts” said the study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn’t like Seralini at all.

The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.

Why? Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material, not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:

He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That’s it. Those were Seralini’s errors.

Well, guess what? Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto’s study showed there were no tumor problems in the rats. But here’s the explosive kicker. Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10). And nobody complained about it.

Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, explains in an interview with Steve Curwood at loe.org (click here for the full article):

“Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.”
---

The Seralini study intentionally used the same protocol as in Monsanto's previous study. The criticism of the sample size being small is not proof of an incorrect study. It simply calls for a larger study. The story illuminates the extent to which the GMO industry goes to hide the facts, for as long as it's possible. Those who cite the study as pro-GMO evidence will have lots of egg on their face. I hope for their sake it's non-GMO.

Russell

[PaulW]

Obie, you're not adding anything useful.

[Obie]

Sorry
I removed my post !

[Obie]

Russell

Russell, you may have omitted a citation in your last post... perhaps you should review it.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/0...-explodes/

Edited because of DaVinci's suggestion

[rbrgs]

Santa Catarina (dwarf apple) bananas (available, and certified organic, at your local natural food store, or in commercial form at local supermarkets, and as plants at Home Depot) are (according to the definition in Bill 113) a GMO. This variety is a modern hybrid bred with the assistance of a mutagen. There are other GMO bananas available, too, but only Santa Catarina is cultivated commercially (so far).

I'd like to see both Richard (who grows this variety) and Russell (who sells it) comment on what will happen if the county actually tries to enforce this law.

[robguz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russell

The Seralini study intentionally used the same protocol as in Monsanto's previous study. The criticism of the sample size being small is not proof of an incorrect study. It simply calls for a larger study.

Russell

---

Take a biostatistics course. If you can ace it you should then be able to spot your errors in understanding the studies you mention. It might actually help in being able to understand quite a lot of medical research and how so many things sold as "alternative" treatments have no legitimate evidence proving they do anything.

[Guest]

Why does anyone need tests to tell you to not eat pesticides ?

Do you need a study to tell you to not touch fire ?