Off-topic (split from, "Paper on GM affect on the environment")

[overtone]

 

 

I really wonder how you are able to read this into the study (and putting Bayes into everything does not necessary make it more palatable or in this case. any sense). You are now trying to read into the study things that even the authors did not do.

No, I'm not.

 

I was there and am rejecting every single conclusion of Seralini's study, accepting even the so far (here) unsupported assertion that the conclusions of kidney and liver problems were statistically invalid - (I can't find the calculations or data, and no one here has posted them)

 

(There's this, which is basically an argument from incredulity that overlooks its own observation about the size of the study groups:

 

 

Assuming I take their data at face value and make a direct risk assessment it would tell me that when it comes to pituitary abnormalities it is better to have a diet consisting of 33% GMO (8) than no GMO (8) or 11% GMO (23).

Likewise, high GMO+roundup or only roundup is as good as control for the kidneys. But if you drop the roundup the risk doubles. It just does not make any sense.

but since none of that bears on my point here, or has any but difficult and indirect relevance to the thread topic, I simply stipulated to the fact.)

 

As one is almost forced to include Seralini's study in an overview paper on the issue of potential GMO effects, as above, the recommendation would be to argue from the study as invalid and flawed and so forth exactly as described here - using only what we can see by its existence in comparison with others and infer from the simple data recorded.

 

What we can see is that inferences of lower risk in the general and long term human consumption of that particular GMO are not validly supported by any of the studies done by anyone, and indications of higher risk are present in the longest term and most comprehensively reported of the studies done (as well as from basic theory, assessment of past events, observations of fundamental flaws in manner of promulgation, and recognition of the scale of the ignorance involved).

 

We can also see that the badly flawed nature of that study is good evidence of the inadequacy of the oversight and regulatory setup alleged to be monitoring the effects of these GMOs. When the best long term and unrefuted study of one of the best studied GMOs, in a critical field of its potential effects, is so miserably inadequate and badly flawed, without the statistical power to detect even known kinds of potential harm, then we are running serious risks with this stuff. Again, an important aspect for the paper, and one that would almost require citing the Seralini study itself as well as its critics.

 

 

 

Exactly. I've pointed out the many flaws of this study to overtone before and it seems he has forgotten them

This is false. You have instead repeatedly asserted that the study is flawed and unethical. My familiarity with the flaws of the study is largely from my own investigation (improved in part, although I have been somewhat more exhaustive, by Charon)

 

When presented with your unsupported assertions about others, my context is your assertions about my posts.

 

 

 

As for the number of animals....the minimal number of animals used in a study depends on the type of study. Studies of carcinogenicity require larger number of animals than normal toxicology studies. - - -

As I pointed out above and elsewhere, the odd focus on cancer and tumors we see in both Seralini's sensationalism and all of the criticism linked here works to deflect attention from the issues at hand.

 

That does not dismiss cancer from consideration with any other GMO, of course - nothing about the "safety of GMOs" in general is implied by the fact that the risk of human cancer from eating this one has been somewhat diminished rather than increased by the studies published so far. And a paper on the effects of GM tech could use Seralini as a pivot for treating that significant matter - they vary widely, these GMOs. One doesn't speak for the other, and it's dangerous to talk about "the effects of GM" - one must be careful.

 

 

 

There is also a very real conflict of interest at work here.

There are very real conflicts of interest present in almost all research on GMOs. That's an important point here, since our knowledge of the effects of many GMO releases is primarily from this research. That is another good reason to cite Seralini's paper, in the absence of better examples.

 

 

 

How people can continue to defend Seralini or his work in light of the facts is beyond me

No one is defending Seralini or his work here.

 

We are simply observing that it is an appropriate cite for any paper on the topic until better studies replace it, if for no other reason than the nonexistence to date of those better studies - a matter directly bearing on the issue of GM's effects on "the environment".

 

 

 

This thread has gotten very off topic. Please get back to it and for the last time, overtone, stop derailing threads with what can at best be called speculations or the next time we suspend you, it will be permanent.

It ain't me derailing this thread, and I have posted no speculation whatsoever. Everything I have posted on my own tic has been directly focused on the thread topic, everything else is replies to other people's moderator approved (apparently) tangents that invite or demand response.

[overtone]

Lead

 

 

Do not continue to derail this thread. How much clearer can we make this for you? I have split your post into the trash

This is a pretty good teaching moment, for the OP poster or related passersby, if someone besides me wants to pick it up.

 

One might start by making clear how the relevant audience is determining what is "derailing" in a thread like this and what isn't, starting with this exchange:

 

 

If anyone is interested they can download it and read it over and then let me know what they think about it (i.e. does it need any corrections?)- - - -

2) You cite Seralini et al. (2012) to support an early assertion. You should be aware that this study was highly flawed and retracted based on both technical flaws and ethical violations. I would against citing it, especially since its no longer published.

- - - -

I realized that the paper was retracted form the journal, however, I've decided to keep it only in my introduction because of the bold statements it makes about the negative effects of GMC. So essentially it's just a hook to keep the reader interested in reader the rest of the paper.

 

then use the post I just had trashed by the moderators (it can be found) - the relevant audience - as "derailing", compared with posts 17, 15, 13, 11, and so forth.

 

That could be an excellent lesson in rhetorical technique: what one gains and loses by consideration of the relevant audience, and particularly the limits of reason in persuasion.

 

The poster is apparently using the Seralini paper as a "hook" only (little evidence and no argument supporting a negative assessment of any current GMO deployments or prospects appears in the subsequent prose, and the author confines their description of the Seralini paper to the standard brief allegation of cancer) which shows excellent audience awareness either conscious or instinctive,

 

and while even that is a bit dangerous for a paper purporting to actually engage with its topic rather than surveying current opinion among GMO promoters, the bullet is well dodged - the comparison with the trashed post would be most favorable and complimentary to the OP

 

and the lesson available fairly significant - worth the effort of reflection, if it's new to y'all.

Edited May 2, 2014 by overtone

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

See the FAQ on what is considered hijacking (entry #2)