4
   

Political ideology and GMOs

 
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 10:48 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Any idea where this research paper proves that it is driven by political ideology.

I've already said that in another thread it was proposed that someone holding the position that GMOs have not been proven safe is someone driven by a political ideology since their safety has not been proven.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 10:50 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
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.

Perhaps Monsanto has done such research. Why don't you see if you can find it.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 11:20 am
I need to rewrite the post at the top of this page. What I meant to say is that I've already said that, in another thread it was proposed that someone holding the position that GMOs have not been proven safe is someone driven by a political ideology. However, since the safety of GMOs has not been proven, those who vouch for their safety are the ones driven by their political ideol0gy. Either that, or they're driven by their own personal bias.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 12:09 pm
@livinglava,
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?
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 01:50 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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?

Because it's not poison they are feeding the test subjects, it's corn. The corn may be GM corn, but that is not likely to cause every animal to get sick, just as eating non-GM corn is not going to make every animal in the control group immortal.

Both groups of animals are going to have some sickness, but the question is whether there is a significant statistical difference between the sickness experienced in the two groups. Then, the question becomes how big is the difference; i.e. how many more animals got sick in the experimental group, and how much sicker did they get, with what kinds of sickness?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 02:13 pm
@livinglava,
I agree. Too bad there isn't a clear cut, black and white distinction.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 02:17 pm
@livinglava,
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.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 02:36 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Too bad there isn't a clear cut, black and white distinction

Dr Michael Antoniou, a reader in molecular genetics and member of Criigen the Committee of Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, has something to say about that.

"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."
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 06:46 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

It was a colloquial way of stating the obvious, if you understand how statistical research works. The only way you'll get all the experimental subject animals to get sick is if you give them some poison or infection. Even tobacco and other known carcinogens don't generate cancer in entire populations that are exposed to them. Do you not already understand this?
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 08:52 pm
@livinglava,
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?
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 06:29 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

I don't have the exact details of the specific study/studies in question, but I understand generally how comparison of an experimental group with a control group works, and how likely it is for all individual test subjects in the experimental group to exhibit effects that are totally absent in the control group; i.e. very unlikely.

Now, in the paragraph I just types there is more information than in the entire text you posted previously:

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

He's 'eminent?' Does that mean we should just trust him instead of thinking about the details of any research in question? The purpose of experts should be to elucidate facts, not enshroud them behind a veil of metaclaims.

Quote:
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.

So a 'specialist in statistics' found a study 'worthless' and 'deserved to be exposed to public contempt?' And what would the public's opinion be based on? The opinion of experts? There's no specific details about anything being claimed; only vague metaclaims about the overall quality of the research.

Quote:
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.

So he thought someone's work 'should be categorically rejected?' Again, absolutely no details about the work to assess.

Quote:
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?

All posturing. No content. Nothing to assess.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 10:32 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
I don't have the exact details of the specific study/studies in question

Really? I could have sworn I posted a link to it.
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.
_______________________________________________________

Dr Michael Antoniou, a reader in molecular genetics and member of Criigen the Committee of Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering commented on the study:

"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.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 10:44 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
I don't have the exact details of the specific study/studies in question

And yet you sit there denigrating those who do have the details, totally oblivious to what that means about your credibility here.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 02:26 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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 . . .

My point was that the text you posted only discussed quality of the researchers and their social-political interactions. It said nothing about why the research in question was bad, i.e. what it was specifically in the research that was a basis for the response to it.

Quote:
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.

That says nothing about the content of the research.

Quote:

"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.

And they were fed the GM corn for how long? Also, were both groups fed the same quantities/portions of food, with the only difference being that in the experimental group, the corn was GM and in the control group, non-GM?

Quote:
"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.

Isn't this same GM corn currently fed to livestock? Are they also getting tumors? Why haven't I seen any news about that?

Quote:
"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."

Well, I'll give you that these quotes describe actual content of the study; but where are the statistics that describe the exact numbers of animals tested, the number with tumors, and the number of tumors per animal?

I have a feeling they are generalizing by describing what happened to a few noteworthy animals, but they are ignoring many others where the effects weren't as pronounced. What was the total number of animals used in the study, btw?

Quote:

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

I haven't had anything to refute yet. If you can answer the questions I'm posting here now, there will be more to discuss and maybe I will have to refute myself when it turns out that ALL the GM-corn fed animals ALL got tumors in contrast to the many non-GM-corn fed animals who didn't and 'died in their own time' (which means what, exactly? what did they die of and how much longer did they live after the research ended?).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What Fascism is and isnt. - Question by tsarstepan
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 04:42:35