Any one have Round-up shares?

[husaberg]

Reading further into your links I'd say "activist pseudo science" is bang on the money. It's the same crew associated with Seralini and it's just garbage research. Check out some of the letters WRT the retraction for a more detailed description of it's limitations.

Love to know who is funding the "research".

The research was paid for by CRIIGEN
Séralini co-founded CRIIGEN in 1999 because he judged that studies on GM food safety were inadequate.

The two-year toxicity study, which cost €3.2 million, was conducted at the University of Caen by Séralini and seven colleagues. It had been funded by and run with the collaboration of CRIIGEN

Even prior to this study he has had issues with his use of data.

In 2009 the Séralini lab published another study (Séralini 2009), which re-analyzed toxicity data for NK 603 (glyphosate resistant), MON 810 and MON 863 strains.[15] The data included three rat-feeding studies published by Monsanto scientists on MON 810.[16][17][18] This study concluded that the three crops caused liver, kidney and heart damage in the rats.[15] The EFSA concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by their data, that many of the statistical criticisms of Séralini 2007 applied to Séralini 2009, and that the study included no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions.[19] The French Haut Conseil des biotechnologies (High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee or HCB) reviewed Séralini 2009 and concluded that it "presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs." The HCB questioned the authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the "body to which the authors belong" displayed material from a 2008 Austrian anti-GM study, the results of which had been acknowledged as mistaken by the study's authors.[20] Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results of Séralini 2009 were due to chance alone

Before 2012 Séralini had published other peer-reviewed papers that concluded there were health risks to GM foods.
In 2007 he and two others published a Greenpeace-funded study (Séralini 2007).
It concluded that MON 863, a corn rootworm-resistant Bt corn developed by Monsanto, caused health problems in rats, including weight changes, triglyceride level increases in females, changes in urine composition in males, and reduced function or organ damage in the liver, kidney, adrenal glands, heart and haematopoietic system.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the normal range for control animals, and that the paper had used incorrect statistical methods.The French Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (AFBV) also criticized the study's conclusions

When this study was retracted by the publisher this is what they had to say.

The retraction statement could have been clearer, and should have referred to the relevant COPE guidelines. The data are inconclusive, therefore the claim (i.e., conclusion) that Roundup Ready maize NK603 and/or the Roundup herbicide have a link to cancer is unreliable. Dr. Séralini deserves the benefit of the doubt that this unreliable conclusion was reached in honest error. The review of the data made it clear that there was no misconduct. However, to be very clear, it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is a definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted. Dr. Séralini has been very vocal that he believes his conclusions are correct. In our analysis, his conclusions cannot be claimed from the data presented in this article.

The ethics committee of the French National Centre for Scientific Research wrote that Seralini's public-relations approach was "inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientific debate."[3] Science journalist Carl Zimmer criticized the science journalists who participated.[32] Cosmos Magazine's Elizabeth Finkel said that the confidentiality clause had allowed Seralini's story to "prance unfettered" before second opinions arrived

I note there is two separate processes involved here.
(1) the use of Roundup on the crop
(2) The Monsanto GE modified Corn that was subsequently used.

A chief criticism was that each part of the study had too few rats to obtain statistically useful data,
particularly because the strain of rat used, Sprague Dawley, develops tumors at a high rate over its lifetime.

Following widespread criticism by scientists, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November 2013 after the authors refused to withdraw it

Plus we have a bit of a showman not normally what you expect from a respected scientist.

At the press conference, Séralini emphasized the study's potential cancer implications, and photographs from the article of treated rats with large tumors were widely circulated by the media.The French Society of Toxicologic Pathology pointed out that, because such tumors are commonly found in older rats, the inclusion in the article of those images from treated rats, without also showing control rats, was misleading

Séralini also released a book and documentary film about the study in conjunction with the press conference

The study was criticized by various regulatory authorities and scientists. With few exceptions, the scientific community dismissed the study and called for a more rigorous peer-review system in scientific journals

[bogan]

I note there is two separate processes involved here.
(1) the use of Roundup on the crop
(2) The Monsanto GE modified Corn that was subsequently used.






Plus we have a bit of a showman not normally what you expect from a respected scientist.

So clearly the next step is to do a more thorough study/test/investigation to validate or invalidate his hypothesis from the first. His research gives a strong indication towards that hypothesis, unfortunately it is a long term study, and unfortunately he didn't perform robust enough tests to begin with.

He might be many other things, but it is objectively utterly irrelevant unless you have some subjective faith based notion on this issue which prevents rational discussion about his science clouding your judgement.

[husaberg]

So clearly the next step is to do a more thorough study/test/investigation to validate or invalidate his hypothesis from the first. His research gives a strong indication towards that hypothesis, unfortunately it is a long term study, and unfortunately he didn't perform robust enough tests to begin with.

He might be many other things, but it is objectively utterly irrelevant unless you have some subjective faith based notion on this issue which prevents rational discussion about his science clouding your judgement.

I don't agree, firsty he used a breed strain of rats that are prone to producing tumours naturally.
He never kept details (or never released them)on the feeding level of the control vs the study samples. For a professional study its either pretty shoddy or it was designed to be misleading.
Its well known rats develop tumors when overfeed, which is why feed levels are meant to be documented and rigorously followed and controlled

The real kicker though he never followed up and redid his study. The original was released in 2012 he has had plenty of time to repeat his study. One with the factors that he was admonished on removed.
Yet he hasn't ,or if he has it never gave the results he wanted and wasn't published.

As for my thoughts on him being a showman it is relevant as a scientist lets the facts do the talking not posing for photo ops with rats with tumours

^ Nature, September 2012: "With such strong claims and the predictably large effect they will have on public opinion, researchers should take care how they present their findings to the public and the media. They should spell out their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats; and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and replicated, by the scientific community. That didn't happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations offensive, with a related book and film set for release this week. Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research had to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit, refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories — the ones that most people will remember

If you look at his history he has a documented history of inaccurately presenting data and using said data in a not very subjective way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

In 2009 the Séralini lab published another study (Séralini 2009), which re-analyzed toxicity data for NK 603 (glyphosate resistant), MON 810 and MON 863 strains. The data included three rat-feeding studies published by Monsanto scientists on MON 810.[16][17][18] This study concluded that the three crops caused liver, kidney and heart damage in the rats. The EFSA concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by their data, that many of the statistical criticisms of Séralini 2007 applied to Séralini 2009, and that the study included no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions. The French Haut Conseil des biotechnologies (High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee or HCB) reviewed Séralini 2009 and concluded that it "presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs." The HCB questioned the authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the "body to which the authors belong" displayed material from a 2008 Austrian anti-GM study, the results of which had been acknowledged as mistaken by the study's authors. Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results of Séralini 2009 were due to chance alone

[bogan]

I don't agree, firsty he used a breed strain of rats that are prone to producing tumours naturally.
He never kept details (or never released them)on the feeding level of the control vs the study samples. For a professional study its either pretty shoddy or it was designed to be misleading.
Its well known rats develop tumors when overfeed, which is why feed levels are meant to be documented and rigorously followed and controlled

The real kicker though he never followed up and redid his study the original was released in 2012 he has had plenty of time to repeat his study with the factors removed but he hasn't or if he has it never gave the results he wanted and wasn't published.

If you look at his history he has a documented history of inaccurately presenting data and using said data in a not very subjective way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

Exactly, the study was flawed, and should be redone. Anyone can redo it, it doesn't just have to be the original author.

[husaberg]

Exactly, the study was flawed, and should be redone. Anyone can redo it, it doesn't just have to be the original author.

But would it be received with the same sensationalism, would it change anyone's beliefs in the original flawed study.

[bogan]

But would it be received with the same sensationalism, would it change anyone's beliefs in the original flawed study.

Does it matter? Step 1 is get the science correct.

[husaberg]

Does it matter? Step 1 is get the science correct.

Step one for a logical thinker perhaps, step one for a conspiracy believer is create doubt, ignore any further studies that show the doubt to be misplaced then refer to the flawed original.
I do agree it should be done, it likely has been done but will never receive any publicity, as not causing tumours is not news or book or movie worthy.
If Monsanto did it people the conspiracy believers would say they are too biased.
Do you have any suitable rats? looks like we need about 200 at least.
I should make it clear I was never in favour of Roundup ready crops.
Nor did I support the dairy cows eating the sprayed (but not yet browned off) pasture this was actively promoted a few years back. (this was actually shown later to potentially cause withholding residue issues and was withdrawn as a label use)

[carbonhed]

Does it matter? Step 1 is get the science correct.

Don't think that's how Seralini works.

Step 1 in activist science is "draw your conclusion". All other things follow.

[husaberg]

Don't think that's how Seralini works.

Step 1 in activist science is "draw your conclusion". All other things follow.

He does get around.
http://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/wine...ith-glyphosate

All based on his flawed Data
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO150...nd-exports.htm

[Ocean1]

Don't think that's how Seralini works.

Step 1 in activist science is "draw your conclusion". All other things follow.

It's rarely that coherent.

In the absence of adequate logic symbology...

Ooh, look, a bogeyman!

Bad bogeyman!!!

[carbonhed]

He does get around.
http://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/wine...ith-glyphosate

All based on his flawed Data
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO150...nd-exports.htm

That ruralnewsgroup piece has so much shit in one short article it makes you despair

[bogan]

Step one for a logical thinker perhaps, step one for a conspiracy believer is create doubt, ignore any further studies that show the doubt to be misplaced then refer to the flawed original.
I do agree it should be done, it likely has been done but will never receive any publicity, as not causing tumours is not news or book or movie worthy.
If Monsanto did it people the conspiracy believers would say they are too biased.
Do you have any suitable rats? looks like we need about 200 at least.
I should make it clear I was never in favour of Roundup ready crops.
Nor did I support the dairy cows eating the sprayed (but not yet browned off) pasture this was actively promoted a few years back. (this was actually shown later to potentially cause withholding residue issues and was withdrawn as a label use)

Don't think that's how Seralini works.

Step 1 in activist science is "draw your conclusion". All other things follow.

Lets not get so carried away lambasting others for skipping step one that we do so ourselves, eh!

[husaberg]

Lets not get so carried away lambasting others for skipping step one that we do so ourselves, eh!

please explain As before I drew a conclusion, I actually read the relevant articles. I went into it with an open mind as it initially seemed reputable and was published.

[bogan]

please explain As before I drew a conclusion, I actually read the relevant articles. I went into it with an open mind as it initially seemed reputable and was published.

And is the science correct? no, it needs further investigation; just as you accuse that bloke of doing, you are also drawing a long bow...

[husaberg]

And is the science correct? no, it needs further investigation; just as you accuse that bloke of doing, you are also drawing a long bow...

I didn't accuse him I suggested it could be a logical assumption considering his past efforts based on the fact he was well qualified to know what was required to produce a valid scientific conclusion.
For all we know the study has been done, its just not NEWSworthy