Quote:
Originally Posted by imp
...
I'd like to see the scientific studies or the court cases, please, before I buy into something on the news or posted on a site. I admire critical thinking and fact driven articles that meet the standards of science. In light of that statement, please do not bother to bring up Serelini's discredited studies...
Disclaimer: Since there was already an allusion to people "paid by Monsanto" , I have never worked for nor received any pay of any sort from Monsanto, nor worked for a company that directly benefited from Monsanto. I do not love nor hate Monsanto, they are a company run for profit, as is the intent of most companies.
Side note: Has it ever been proven that Monsanto has paid people to counter post? If so, would like to see those facts as well. If not proven to be so, it is a way to discredit anyone with a differing viewpoint, and to close off a rational and calm discussion of facts....
|
Sorry Imp, but I find your statement about Seralini extremely offensive. You are the one bringing it up, and at the same time dismissing all other comments and the facts in the case.
The Seralini controversy is not about the question "are GMO's safe". It is about the heinous power that a large corporation can exert, to prevent valid research findings from being published.
FACT: The retracted study has been republished by a reputable journal after passing yet another peer review, and stands as part of the scientific literature, furthermore a rare example of a study on the subject which was not paid for by the company itself.
Here is a link to the published study. Enjoy.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/a...302-014-0014-5
Scientific literacy is the most important (maybe the only) thing I got from my bachelor of science degree. I have continued to read hundreds of scientific and medical papers, always with a critical eye for methods and statistical weaknesses or sources of error that were missed. I read the original Seralini paper and in my opinion there were no legitimate scientific grounds for the retraction. Yes I also read the criticisms that were made - many of them nonsensical in attempting to hold this research to a standard not followed by anyone else, including NIH (such as the use of Sprague-Dawley rats, as in NIH standards). And yes, it seems to me that many of the criticisms were intended to mislead the general public. The SD rat issue, for example, would sound like a valid objection to anyone unfamiliar with actual standards of research, which the study followed to a T.
What I found most unpleasant of all, the personal attacks to damage the reputation of a conscientious scientist, who dared to study a commercial product without sponsorship of its owner. I still find this really upsetting, and why I had to respond to your flippant remarks.
With regards to the question of comments being paid by Monsanto, the conflict of interest of major detractors of Seralini, including the editor who retracted the study, is an established fact. This is not slander or "fake news". These detractors were in Monsanto's pay.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/out-in...-paper/5610139
Certainly I don't think you were paid to make a derogatory comment about Seralini. But I think you are not well informed at all, to be making such remarks and purporting to be the voice of reason, and the final word!
By all means enlighten me if you have some special expertise or dedicated your intellect to the subject in some way that makes you feel you have the best informed opinion.
It is hard to find any published comment that doesn't come down on one side of the story or the other. But it is clear that Seralini continues to have both detractors and supporters among his peers. Over 1000 scientists have boycotted Elsevier for retraction of his work. So I am not alone in the conclusion that the work was legitimate and deserved publication. Again I have to stress the fact, this is not about drawing a final conclusion about the subject of the study. This is about duly accepting legitimate scientific results into the literature.
Seralini's work raises questions about the adequacy of 90 day studies to assess health effects of these products. That is a reasonable conclusion, which calls for further work to be done. The fact that some people will take a single study and wrongly run with its conclusions as if they are carved in stone, or exaggerate the conclusions that can be drawn, is not a valid reason to deny publication of science. We see this all the time in science/health journalism. Every new study is the be-all and end-all... final word. This is not a scientific standpoint, it is public opinion running amock. It could equally be said that the company and its supporters have done the same thing by insisting that no further research can challenge their 90 day studies, and have simply refused to consider any other possibility regardless of the evidence. This is not a scientific attitude, and where money is obviously at stake the conflict of interest is self evident.
One last comment, Monsanto is not at all the only corporation to have undue influence on the publication of science. There is increasing concern about the pharmaceutical industry practice of withholding from publication many of the studies they carried out on their products, so that negative results and serious side effects have sometimes been swept under the rug, with the consequence that the product is put out for sale and the consumers end up with consequences that could have been (or were) foreseen. The scientific standpoint (calm and rational) is that all of the studies should be reviewed before a conclusion is reached about health and safety. I agree with other scientists, this is in the public interest, and hope to see it become a law or standard in the future.