Hippiekinkster -> RE: GMO corn linked to organ failure (12/9/2011 12:42:47 PM)
|
A post I made on Fet (fairly long): quote:
Not so fast, Michaela. Quinn may possibly be correct. From the 2007 EFSA Statement (FSANZ Site footnotes): "The Panel has considered all Student t-test results for the various contrasts provided by Monsanto, including the direct comparison of the GM maize exposed groups with the respective non-GM near-isogenic control groups, and evaluated all statistically significant differences in the test parameters. These differences have been evaluated with respect to (i) type and severity, (ii) extent and frequency of occurrence, and (iii) potential dose and sex relationship. Observed differences in test parameters of exposed male and female rats were in most cases neither dose-related nor sex-dependent. In some cases there was an increase and in some cases a decrease in value and these were considered as isolated phenomena occurring by chance. Changes observed in certain serum or urine analysis parameters were not indicative of damage in, for instance, liver, spleen or kidney, since histopathological analysis did not show statistically significant effects." The Student's T tests are what is significant (pun intended). I note that the determination rests, as far as I know, on the assumption that Monsanto's data wasn't "massaged", as certain corporate studies have been known to do (check out "Neurontin data" for an egregious example. Pharm compnaies get fined all; the time for shit like data manipulation and failing to submit unfavorable study results.) Assuming Monsanto is on the up-and-up (>snort<), it would appear that there is disagreement between the governmental reviews of the statistical methods (EFSA) and the Seralini paper. (I have only checked on the credentials of one of the EFSA reviewers, Dr. Hilko van der Voet: Ph.D U of Gröningen, 1988, Mathematics and Sciences. While not a Ph.D Statician, he appears to be qualified.) However, http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/publi… I agree that a new study should be performed (NOT by Monsanto) with a duration considerably longer than 90 days. Considering all of the above, I don't think anything is conclusive, but I am biased against corporate-sponsored toxicology studies, as well as being convinced that Monsanto is a division of SATAN, Inc. .
|
|
|
|