Selalini study on GMO corn re-published

[ApostateAbe]

There is a myth that getting published in a scientific journal is a sign of good science, and I think that is bullshit. There is a lot of bad science that gets published. Some journals are better than other journals, and some peer-review is better than other peer-review. If you want to draw the most probable conclusions about objective reality, then it is best to look at the consensus of scientific results, not just the one or few that agree with you. Also important is a basic understanding of the biology you are trying to evaluate. Exactly what is in this corn that gives rats cancer? Why should we expect cancer genes or whatever? Why should we expect that genetically-engineered crops are significantly different from random genetic mutations that get artificially selected all the time for thousands of years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

The conclusions that Séralini drew from the experiments were widely criticized, as was the design of the experiments.[3][4] Scientists claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the experimental design – the small sample size together with the length of the study together with the known high incidence of tumors in the species of rats used, namely Sprague-Dawley rats. The paper was also refuted by food standards agencies.[5] Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered no health issues.[4][5] The release of the book and movie in conjunction with the scientific paper, and the requirement that journalists sign a confidentiality agreement, were also criticized and negatively peer reviewed.[3]​

Sources:

[3] Arjó, Gemma; Portero, Manuel; Piñol, Carme et al. (2013). "Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: An in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. Study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats". Transgenic Research 22 (2): 255–67. doi:10.1007/s11248-013-9692-9 . PMID 23430588 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23430588
[4] Kuntz, Marcel (2013). "Why the postmodern attitude towards science should be denounced" . EMBO Reports 14 (2): 114–6. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.214 . PMC 3566841 . PMID 23306654 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3566841
[5] Ricroch, Agnès E. (2013). "Assessment of GE food safety using '-omics' techniques and long-term animal feeding studies". New Biotechnology 30 (4): 349–54. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2012.12.001 . PMID 23253614 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253614​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a myth that getting published in a scientific journal is a sign of good science, and I think that is bullshit. There is a lot of bad science that gets published. Some journals are better than other journals, and some peer-review is better than other peer-review.

It's not that getting published means good science, it's that not getting published almost certainly means bad science.

 

[thief of fire]

Out of curiosity, why is this study crap? Is there a particular reason why bilby is rejecting it, as someone who has qualifications in this field?

The study is crap because the sample size was too small and they used the wrong rats--

They did not use the wrong rats nor was the sample size wrong.
Commentary: Update on Animal Models for NTP Studies

As a consequence of the reproductive performance in the Wistar Han rat, the NTP has decided to evaluate the Harlan Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) as the primary rat model for NTP studies. This decision came after much deliberation. Historical data from eight previous NTP cancer studies were available for the female Sprague Dawley rat, and data on litter size, sex ratio, and body weight were very favorable. Currently, the NTP is developing historical control data on spontaneous, nonneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in male and female Harlan Sprague Dawley rats from ninety-day and two-year studies and is using this rat in reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. We will continue to evaluate the suitability of the HSD rat for NTP studies and will make this information available to the public.

Monsanto used 10 rats per group to show that the corn was safe, so why can we accept that Monsanto used the right amount but Seralini did not?

 

[bilby]

Out of curiosity, why is this study crap? Is there a particular reason why bilby is rejecting it, as someone who has qualifications in this field?

The study is crap because the sample size was too small and they used the wrong rats--

They did not use the wrong rats nor was the sample size wrong.
Commentary: Update on Animal Models for NTP Studies

As a consequence of the reproductive performance in the Wistar Han rat, the NTP has decided to evaluate the Harlan Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) as the primary rat model for NTP studies. This decision came after much deliberation. Historical data from eight previous NTP cancer studies were available for the female Sprague Dawley rat, and data on litter size, sex ratio, and body weight were very favorable. Currently, the NTP is developing historical control data on spontaneous, nonneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in male and female Harlan Sprague Dawley rats from ninety-day and two-year studies and is using this rat in reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. We will continue to evaluate the suitability of the HSD rat for NTP studies and will make this information available to the public.

You admit to being unqualified to judge the validity of the study.

Why are you now making judgements that you admit you are not qualified to make?

Why should anyone take your comments seriously?

You quite explicitly don't know what you are talking about; you said as much yourself.

 

[thief of fire]

As an aside, the Monsanto study was better because a 90 day timeframe has the benefit of not extending the timespan through to the period in which cancer becomes certain:

The study was not a cancer study. They weren't looking for cancer. They merely noted increased incidence in some groups and suggested more study is needed.

If a rat of this species gets cancer at a certain percent chance every month, and increased cancer is what you are looking for, short time frames are more reliably able to show not-noise, since the noise effect is cumulative.

Except that short studies wont show problems that emerge after 90 days.

Better still, however, is to use rats that do not get so much cancer

This has been dealt with numerous times in this thread..

 

[bilby]

The study was not a cancer study. They weren't looking for cancer. They merely noted increased incidence in some groups and suggested more study is needed.

If a rat of this species gets cancer at a certain percent chance every month, and increased cancer is what you are looking for, short time frames are more reliably able to show not-noise, since the noise effect is cumulative.

Except that short studies wont show problems that emerge after 90 days.

You admit to being unqualified to judge the validity of the study.

Why are you now making judgements that you admit you are not qualified to make?

Why should anyone take your comments seriously?

You quite explicitly don't know what you are talking about; you said as much yourself.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Seralini included this image in his study:

(source: http://foodtank.com/resource-database-files/8/=Final-Paper.pdf)

The images were widely disseminated in the media and anti-GMO blogs and websites.

The problem is that more than half of this breed of rats look like this when you wait long enough, per the study Tumor Incidence in Normal Sprague-Dawley Female Rats: "A tumor incidence of 57 per cent was observed in 150 female rats allowed to live out their life-span as normal."

Why would you choose a breed of rat like that to draw a conclusion about cancer?

I think I know why. Immediately after the publication of the study, Seralini released his book and documentary.

Wait, no, that can't be it, because,

(source: ibid)

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nope, no questions!

 

[thief of fire]

There is a myth that getting published in a scientific journal is a sign of good science, and I think that is bullshit. There is a lot of bad science that gets published. Some journals are better than other journals, and some peer-review is better than other peer-review. If you want to draw the most probable conclusions about objective reality, then it is best to look at the consensus of scientific results, not just the one or few that agree with you. Also important is a basic understanding of the biology you are trying to evaluate. Exactly what is in this corn that gives rats cancer?

You could familiarize yourself with what is going on.
No one knows whether the corn gives rats cancer. Seralini is not claiming the corn gives rats cancer.
1.This was the first long term study of this corn.
2. It was a toxicity study, not a cancer study.
3. It was a repeat of the Monsanto study, except it was a longer study.
4. Higher incidences of tumors and more severe ones were noticed in the rats fed the GM corn, with the recommendation that further study be done to see whether there was any relationship between the greater number of tumors etc..and the GM corn.

 

[bilby]

There is a myth that getting published in a scientific journal is a sign of good science, and I think that is bullshit. There is a lot of bad science that gets published. Some journals are better than other journals, and some peer-review is better than other peer-review. If you want to draw the most probable conclusions about objective reality, then it is best to look at the consensus of scientific results, not just the one or few that agree with you. Also important is a basic understanding of the biology you are trying to evaluate. Exactly what is in this corn that gives rats cancer?

You could familiarize yourself with what is going on.
No one knows whether the corn gives rats cancer. Seralini is not claiming the corn gives rats cancer.
1.This was the first long term study of this corn.
2. It was a toxicity study, not a cancer study.
3. It was a repeat of the Monsanto study, except it was a longer study.
4. Higher incidences of tumors and more severe ones were noticed in the rats fed the GM corn, with the recommendation that further study be done to see whether there was any relationship between the greater number of tumors etc..and the GM corn.

You admit to being unqualified to judge the validity of the study.

Why are you now making judgements that you admit you are not qualified to make?

Why should anyone take your comments seriously?

 

[thief of fire]

Why would you choose a breed of rat like that to draw a conclusion about cancer?

Can you at least find out a little about the study?
That rat was used because that is the rat Monsanto used and that is the recommended rat for a toxicity study.
No one was trying to draw a conclusion about cancer. If they were they would have done a cancer study, which would mean 50 rats per group.
But if you notice more and larger tumors in one group then you don't hide it, you report it and suggest a proper cancer study be done. Which is what happened.

 

[bilby]

Why would you choose a breed of rat like that to draw a conclusion about cancer?

Can you at least find out a little about the study?
That rat was used because that is the rat Monsanto used and that is the recommended rat for a toxicity study.
No one was trying to draw a conclusion about cancer. If they were they would have done a cancer study, which would mean 50 rats per group.
But if you notice more and larger tumors in one group then you don't hide it, you report it and suggest a proper cancer study be done. Which is what happened.

You admit to being unqualified to judge the validity of the study.

Why are you now making judgements that you admit you are not qualified to make?

Why should anyone take your comments seriously?

 

[thief of fire]

Nope, no questions!

Except why didn't you do the most basic research on the topic before posting? Why are you thinking it was a cancer study?

 

[bilby]

Nope, no questions!

Except why didn't you do the most basic research on the topic before posting? Why are you thinking it was a cancer study?

You admit to being unqualified to judge the validity of the study.

Why are you now taking others to task for allegedly failing to do the most basic research, when you yourself have admitted to not having done the most basic research before posting?

Why should anyone take your comments seriously?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nope, no questions!

Except why didn't you do the most basic research on the topic before posting? Why are you thinking it was a cancer study?

OK, correct me. It wasn't a cancer study. So what was it? A tumor study? A throw-shit-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks study? A milk-the-anti-GMO-activists-for-money study?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nope, no questions!

Except why didn't you do the most basic research on the topic before posting? Why are you thinking it was a cancer study?

You admit to being unqualified to judge the validity of the study.

Why are you now taking others to task for allegedly failing to do the most basic research, when you yourself have admitted to not having done the most basic research before posting?

Why should anyone take your comments seriously?

If you post that one more time, I will put you on ignore.

 

[AdamWho]

This is a low impact journal that you PAY to be published in.

It is like getting your Noah's ark theory published in a creation science journal.


Thief_of_fire, what is your handle on reddit?

 

[bilby]

Nope, no questions!

Except why didn't you do the most basic research on the topic before posting? Why are you thinking it was a cancer study?

You admit to being unqualified to judge the validity of the study.

Why are you now taking others to task for allegedly failing to do the most basic research, when you yourself have admitted to not having done the most basic research before posting?

Why should anyone take your comments seriously?

If you post that one more time, I will put you on ignore.

If he can't answer the question, and he won't stop doing something he admits to being unqualified to do, then I won't stop calling him on it.

You and he can ignore me all you like, but that STILL doesn't make his position reasonable. Only by using reason can he achieve that.

 

[thief of fire]

If you post that one more time, I will put you on ignore.

Why were you making out it was a cancer study. It's reasonable to ask. After all you posted a link to the paper. I suspect it's because you only really looked at media reports and wikipedia. You could have even read this thread and realized you were on the wrong track. Had you bothered to do some research before your rather condescending input you would have known that.
Not only that you went and slandered Dr Seralini on the basis of your ill informed opinion.
But by all means put me on ignore and continue to be condescending and wrong about topics you have not researched.

 

[thief of fire]

Nope, no questions!

Except why didn't you do the most basic research on the topic before posting? Why are you thinking it was a cancer study?

OK, correct me. It wasn't a cancer study. So what was it? A tumor study? A throw-shit-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks study? A milk-the-anti-GMO-activists-for-money study?

The way the system works presently is this. The FDA assumes that GMO foods are sustantially equivalent to the foods they modify. This being the case they just ask Monsanto (or whoever) to do their own study and if they can get the result they want then the FDA ok's the food.
As Monsanto is making a lot amount of money out of this, it's reasonable to ask whether their results should be checked out. So Seralini's team did the original toxicity study again, but they did it for 2 years. This made it the first long term study of this kind.
So to answer your question. it was a toxicity study.
Now naturally when they noticed more tumors and larger tumors in the group fed the GM corn they said that another long term study, this time a cancer study, was in order.
So, it was you who were misled. You were misled into thinking they did a cancer study.