Jarhyn just so you know here is what happened.
1.Monsanto did a 90 day toxicology study.
2.Seralini obtained the raw data that Monsanto tried to keep secret.
3.Seralini had concerns about possible liver and kidney (and other related things) damage.
4.Seralini did a longer toxicology study over the entire life of the rats (two years)
5.Seralini reported no only liver and kidney (and various other data) data but tumor data , as is required.
Yet here you are complaining that the study was not designed as a cancer study
You really have to get your information from better sources. I never heard of Seralini, so the first place I went was Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
article said:
During the press conference, Séralini also announced that he was releasing a book and a documentary film on the research.
Oh, look. There's Seralini's motive!
The conclusions that Séralini drew from the experiments were widely criticized, as was the design of the experiments.
More criticism of Seralini:
The method by which the Séralini team publicized their 2012 paper was widely criticized. The original Agence France-Presse story noted: "Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication."[81] The confidentiality agreement contained a severe penalty for breaching the agreement: "A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study."[36] An editorial at the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, noted: "With such strong claims and the predictably large effect they will have on public opinion, researchers should take care how they present their findings to the public and the media. They should spell out their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats; and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and replicated, by the scientific community. That didn't happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations offensive, with a related book and film set for release this week. Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research had to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit, refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories — the ones that most people will remember."[82][83][84] National Public Radio's program, On the Media, discussed the way the paper was released to the media on 28 September 2012, with Carl Zimmer, a science journalist, who was especially critical of science journalists who allowed themselves to be manipulated, as well as criticizing the Séralini lab.[85] Zimmer had earlier posted on his blog at Discover magazine, "This is a rancid, corrupt way to report about science."[86] Cosmos Magazine's Elizabeth Finkel, wrote, "...a clause barring the gathering of independent opinions is extraordinary. What it meant was that Séralini’s story, when it broke, got to prance unfettered in the media limelight before second opinions could dull its shine. By the time the storm of criticism blew in, the media limelight had moved on."[87] The ethics committee of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) also criticized the public-relations offensive as "inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientific debate, and reminded researchers working on controversial topics of the need to report results responsibly to the public."[36]
And of course, the paper was retracted by the journal that published it
In November 2013, Elsevier, the publishing company for Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal that published the 2012 paper, announced that the journal was retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[5][88] The editors of the journal concluded that, after an in-depth look at the raw data of the study, no definitive conclusions can be reached regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in overall mortality or tumor rates, given the known high incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats and the small sample size. Normal variance could not be excluded as the cause of the results.[5][89] Séralini and his supporters strongly objected to the retraction,[88][90][91] and Séralini himself threatened to sue Food and Chemical Toxicology.[92] In January 2014, an online petition calling for the Séralini study be reinstated was posted by a group of Séralini's supporters from the Bioscience Resource Project.[93]
All this from just the first place I looked for information about Seralini.
What do you think I'll find when I look at what the science blogs have to say about this?
Look, Tupac, I used to hang out at lots of liberal message boards on the Internet. I know how they are. All those spurious articles they show each other is one of the big reasons I stopped going to such places. Besides, being a liberal is much more fun in places in places like this that provide lots of opportunities to tweak the noses of protofascists (*ahem* of course I
meant to say "conservatives and libertarians, who are of course completely different and not at all alike").
You have allowed yourself to be surrounded by people throwing "GMO bad!" articles at you. Either through repetition or groupthink, you accepted these conclusions without adequately researching the issue for yourself. You simply allowed other people to direct you to articles and I'm willing to bet that was the extent of your "research" on this topic. If your "research" is exclusive to people presenting only one side of an issue, then your understanding of that issue will be necessarily distorted.
This is the same mechanism by which pro-disease people convince each other that vaccines are harmful.
This is the same mechanism by which conservolibertarians convince each other that anthropogenic climate change is a vast international conspiracy involving over 90% of the scientists on the planet, and which is run from an obscure school in the UK.
This is the same mechanism by which creationists convince each other that all of biology, all of physics, all of geology, etc. are part of a vast international Satanic conspiracy.
It's the same mechanism by which
all anti-science movements perpetuate themselves. Many conspiracy theories are perpetuated in the same way (e.g. 9/11 conspiracies, Waco conspiracies, birtherism, etc.).
I'm not saying any of this to denigrate you. I also had to learn the hard way to be more careful about sourcing, and these forums helped me do that.
