| The actual study is here: http
://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278
69151200
5637
A full
text version can be downloaded from here:
http://www.iatp.org/document
s/long-term-toxicity-of-a-
roundup-
herbicide-and-a-roundup-tolerant-genetically
-modified-
maiz
A very good counter argument (basically, that if this
effect
was
anywhere near what Seralini claims it would have been
obvious in
the
experimental rat population previously) is available at
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/21
/proof-
perfect-that-the-
seralini-paper-on-gm-corn-and-cancer-in-
rats-is-
rubbish/
Looking at
Seralini's previous work (e.g. ht
tp://ww.w.rapaluruguay.org/transgenicos/Maiz/Genet
ically_M
aize.pdf),
Seralini's statistics seems to grasping at
straws
(picking the statistical
method to apply according to what
gives the
result he wants). I'm not an
expert in this particular area
- my
statistics knowledge is basic, though I do
work a bit with
it daily
- but I've read a lot of scientific papers and I've
never
seen
anybody use this much intersection of different statistical
methods
and be up to anything good.
I do have available an expert in the
area of food safety,
and will
try to come back with an answer as to whether
this is par
for the
course, but I suspect the statistics are being done oddly
and are a
result of "knowing" what the result should be, and trying to
find
the statistics to just show "how the world really is".
See also http:/
/www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-
09/vfi-ves092012.php - example quote:
Séralini has
published
similar accounts before, but not one of them has
withstood
scientific scrutiny. That is because he draws conclusions
that
cannot be derived from the data.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
