Normally I wouldn't go on like this, but the "anti-GMO" movement is a pet peeve. Just as bad as the "vaccines cause autism" movement. Alarmist noise based on nothing but pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo and a bias against technology people refuse to understand or actually take the time to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961
Bottom line for me is...I try to avoid GMOs. I'll take a poorly done (?) 2 yr study over a 90 day study any day.  Cancer takes time to develop....as the longer study shows.
Maybe you should try the higher doses and see how it goes....then get back with us in a few years or so?
Link was what was visible...in other words...the quote is from the link you provided. |
Oh come on. The quote clearly states that "the researchers said" so and so, then the author goes on to refute the findings. The fact that the study covered two years means nothing if they did not control for variables. I've seen too many "health studies" in which outside variables were more significant factors than the tested ones. And those studies covered more than just two years. Sloppy work is sloppy work, and should not be excused.
Really should read the study with a critical eye instead of accepting the findings at face value simply because they seem to support a position you favor.
Would I drink fertilizer? No. There's a reason there's a prescribed safe limit for levels in groundwater. Which nobody is denying. Would I eat GMO corn? Sure. I've been eating genetically modified food products since the day I was born. So have you, actually. And you still do, whether you like it or not.
-
The whole ethos of ecomodding is grounded in science. Which is based on improvement through rigorous experimentation and validation. And this study makes a wild claim that needs validation. Just like someone's claim that an intake netted him fuel economy savings without ever bothering to perform easy-to-do A-B-A tests to validate whether this is true or not.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ord-22437.html
Your data covers two years. Does that make it any more valid than data gathered in a single day? Nope. Even less so, since you refuse to control for outside variables and test the improvement under controlled conditions.