Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahan
Apparently, the study is flawed. (not enough rats used, the race of species is known for developing naturally cancer, there was not enough indications on their diet beside the GMO food)
|
It goes without saying, the research was supposed to show that it increases the chance of getting cancer, not that taking the substance
gives you cancer. As such, it's absolutely normal to take a race of rat with a high chance of cancer.
Example, let's say a rat after 18 months of living has 1% chance of having cancer, even if a subtance double it, it will only be 2%, and in such a case can enter in the margin of error. But take a race with 30% chance of having cancer, if it becomes 70% it's totally different, both in term of proof and buzz. But yeah there wasn't enough indication aside the GMO taken.
Quote:
|
The fact the head researcher is a well known opponent to GMO and uses this study to promote a book that will come out in a few days should have raised a couple of flags.
|
And? France isn't UK, we don't have the same research misconduct as them. And when a UK research publishes something we don't go saying "it's coming from british, forcibly false". ... Well at least I hope my fellows don't think it.
At last there's is something I agree with cosmic, I think the issue comes from the herbicid used.