Political ideology and GMOs

Any idea where this research paper proves that it is driven by political ideology.

It would also be good, though, if they would publish how many of the non-GM animals also have similar health problems to the experimental group, because it's not like one group is going to be completely sick and the other completely healthy. There may be some statistical differences between health rates in the two populations, but it won't be that pronounced.

There may be some statistical differences between health rates in the two populations, but it won't be that pronounced.

Quote:

There may be some statistical differences between health rates in the two populations, but it won't be that pronounced.

Really? What makes you say such a thing? Where are you getting your information?

There may be some statistical differences between health rates in the two populations, but it won't be that pronounced.

Too bad there isn't a clear cut, black and white distinction

Quote:

There may be some statistical differences between health rates in the two populations, but it won't be that pronounced.

You made a declarative statement. I want to know where you got your information from.

So, your answer to the question of where you got the information that the statistical differences between the health rate of the control and test groups in the Seralini study is . . . what? That you understand statistical research? You're going to have a hard time reconciling that with what I've just posted. Your rebuttal to it seems to be that statistics can make the obvious untrue.

Paul Deheuvels is an eminent statistician and a member of the French Academy of Sciences.

Yet he was not consulted when the Academy released a statement discrediting the results of the study on GMOs, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini. Revolted by these methods, Paul Deheuvels goes back over this matter where pressures and conflicts of interest got the upper hand. Here is the beginning of an interview with him:

[Rebelle-Sante:] How did you find out about the French Academy of Sciences’ position on this matter?

[Deheuvels:] In November 2011, during an award ceremony at the Academy, I exchanged a few words with one of my colleagues at the Institute, Professor Alain-Jacques Valleron, a biostatistician, for whom I have huge respect.

He made me aware that the Academy was preparing a statement on Gilles-Eric Séralini’s article. As I am currently the only member of the French Academy of Sciences 100% specialised in statistics, I was astonished not to have been consulted to judge this research, which has an important statistical content. Alain-Jacques Valleron told me that he found this study absolutely worthless. According to him, it had no value; it did not demonstrate anything and deserved to be exposed to public contempt. In return, I gave him a completely different opinion with solid arguments that I tried to get across.

During this discussion, I accidently found out that Professor Jean-François Bach, president of the Academy, intended to make public a very critical opinion of the same study. Finding it strange I asked to be in contact with Bach. The next day, he contacted me by telephone and told me that he thought that Professor Séralini’s work should be categorically rejected.

Unsurprisingly, I exposed my arguments leading to a position opposing his. During this discussion, Professor Bach kindly tempered his statements, telling me that, in the main, he and I should be able to reach a consensus. I told him that if we were able to find common ground, my reservations should be at the very least added to any communication that the Academy would be willing to make about this question, in order for the debate to remain balanced. He replied: "Too late, the shot has been fired."

Your thoughts?

I don't have the exact details of the specific study/studies in question

He's 'eminent?' Does that mean we should just trust him instead of thinking about the details of any research in question?

There's no specific details about anything being claimed; only vague metaclaims about the overall quality of the research.

I don't have the exact details of the specific study/studies in question

Quote:

He's 'eminent?' Does that mean we should just trust him instead of thinking about the details of any research in question?

Well if it's a choice between you and him . . .

Quote:

There's no specific details about anything being claimed; only vague metaclaims about the overall quality of the research.

Oh I don't think he was being vague. He basically said that the trashing of the Seralini study was the result of the corruption of the president of the French Academy of Science.

"The key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the former they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal, if at all.

"In the latter case, the tumours began to be detected much earlier (4 months in males; 7 months in females), grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours.

"Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised for welfare legal reasons due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts."

So far, you've refuted this with nothing but a lot of hand-waving.