Bad science in the paper 'Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant GM maize'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I know this paper has come up before, but here's a nice explanation of the problems with it.

(links in the video description)

And most tellingly:

http://mylespower.co.uk/2013/06/29/drinking-roundup-herbicide-makes-men-live-longer/
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Found this in the comments there.



This was also posted there. They claim it is a translation from German. I saw no real evidence of it. The link came from naturalnews




http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/07...ge-to-genetically-modified-corn/#.UfczJazVXv4
 
It's actually a very poor and misleading video, from a guy who apparently had not even heard of a Sprague Dawley rat.
I'm surprised it was presented here as it suffers from one of the things discouraged here. The guy paraphrases the paper and in doing so claims things are in the paper that aren't there.

At the 41 second mark the guy in the video says "the paper came to the conclusion that rats fed on GM Maize that had been treated with Roundup would die prematurely and have major health problems including large mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage"
Here is the papers conclusions.
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
In conclusion, the consumption of NK603 GM maize with or without R application or R alone gave similar pathologies in male and female rats fed over a 2-year period. It was previously known that G consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failure 33]. The results of the study presented here clearly indicate that lower levels of complete agricultural G herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, can induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic, and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from overexpression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to comparable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acid metabolites or related compounds. Other mutagenic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including analyses of transgene, G and other R residue presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenerational studies will also provide novel insight into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of long-term deleterious effects arising from consumption of a GMO, specifically a R-tolerant maize, and of R, the most widely used herbicide worldwide.

Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors 3] that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.

We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.
The paper makes no conclusions about tumors being caused, but it does report them as the guidelines stipulate, and then recommends they be the subject of further studies.
How could the paper draw conclusions about the tumors as the study was a toxicological study not cancer study.
The thing is that even thouygh it was not a cancer study they were still obligated to report all tumors

Next the guy criticises the number of rats and the strain. He seems completely ignorant of the fact that the authors of the paper were repeating the Monsanto study, albeit over a longer time, and so they used the same rats and numbers. These rats and numbers are recommended for a toxicology study.

The video is pretty poor which is not surprising from a guy who did not appear to have even heard of a Sprague Dawley rat, which incidentally are also recommended for cancer studies ;)

I will have to come back and point out further problems later as I'll have to dig up references and provide actual quotations :)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
At the 41 second mark the guy in the video says "the paper came to the conclusion that rats fed on GM Maize that had been treated with Roundup would die prematurely and have major health problems including large mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage"
Here is the papers conclusions.
you are correct. He should have said "the AUTHORS came to the conclusion that....etc etc"

If you click the "here" link above it brings you to the study summary that Seralini asked for:
ff.PNG


and the very first paragraph says:
authors.PNG
 
Except Sprague-Dawley rats are prone to spontaneous tumors when allowed to live for longer than about a year or so.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-a-type-of-rat-naturally-prone-to-tumours/
Summary answer:
The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain that Séralini used is also used in long-term 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and academic scientists, as well as in 90-day studies on GMOs. If this was the wrong type of rat for Séralini to use, it was the wrong rat in all these other studies, and market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were authorized on the basis of these studies should be revoked.
Another flaw was a ridiculously small control group.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-too-few-animals/
Summary answer:
Séralini used ten rats per sex per group – the same number of animals as Monsanto analyzed for blood and urine chemistry in its 90-day tests claiming to show that GM foods are safe. This is the same number that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends for a 90-day subchronic test of the type that Monsanto does on its GM foods, as well as for one of its chronic toxicity protocols. According to statistics experts, groups of this size are enough to show toxicity, but not enough to show safety. This means that industry toxicity studies on this number of rats that claim to show safety are inadequate
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Do you have a link to that? because alot of scientists seem to be disagreeing with that http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...eact-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/
OECD guidelines do recommend 2 years for a carcinogenicity study.
http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/41362977.pdf
As pointed out by solrey, however, the strain is a critical error. The authors stated that the study wasn't originally meant to go as long as it did, but they decided to extend it partway through.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Hi Deidre I was unable to open that link. Can you tell me, was it the authors saying that or was it someone else summarising their findings?
i know its a word doc and im not sure how to pdf it. the authors, specifically seralini "hired" them i guess to PR his study. So one has to assume he approved it. i'll ask Mick if he can reformat the word doc.

edit: oh... just because its best if you can open the actual link, you can download "Word Viewer" onto your computer, thats what i did.

you cant use seralini sources. silly.
 
Do you have a link to that? because alot of scientists seem to be disagreeing with that http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...eact-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/
I will have to find the protocols. However here is the original Monsanto that that was repeated although for a longer duration.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Hammond_2006_corn_bor.pdf
I will get back to you though.

I think this is it.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docser...est&checksum=783C8281B8879CC8E70112E217B3F39F
Number and sex of animals 12. At least 20 animals (ten female and ten male) should be used at each dose level. If interim kills are planned, the number should be increased by the number of animals scheduled to be killed before the completion of the study. Based on previous knowledge of the chemical or a close analogue, consideration should be given to including an additional satellite group of ten animals (five per sex) in the control and in the top dose group for observation, after the treatment period, of reversibility or persistence of any toxic effects. The duration of this post-treatment period should be fixed appropriately with regard to the effects observed.
 
Last edited:

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Check solrey's references. Sprague-Dawley rats reliably develop spontaneous tumors. Most tumors in the Seralini study didn't form until after a year.

Where did they state that? thanks
I wasn't exactly correct in saying they changed partway through, here is their exact quote. I know it wasn't a carcinogenicity study, that wasn't my point.
 
Check solrey's references. Sprague-Dawley rats reliably develop spontaneous tumors. Most tumors in the Seralini study didn't form until after a year.
That is true. In fact they are used in cancer studies precisely because of the tendency to form tumors.
Seralini's paper noted the tumors and recommended further testing be done.
this seems the correct thing thing to do, as there were more tumors and larger ones in the rats fed the GM maize.

As the study was a toxicology study only 10 rats were in each group, so it lacked the necessary statistical power to form conclusions about cancer. A cancer study should have 50 rats per group. 50 rats per group using SD rats. A rat sensitive to tumors to tumors but enough rats to provide meaningful statistics.

However in reporting the tumors they acted correctly and in recommending further research when they saw rats in the GM fed group developing larger and more tumors is also correct.

It would be irresponsible to observe more tumors and larger tumors in one group and turn a blind eye.

from the paper.
Conclusion
Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.
 
The video in the OP is bunk. The guy in the video at the 6.24 mark says

1.
"a paper that used the wrong type of rat"
This is false. It is the same rat used by Monsanto. The same one used by the National Toxicology Program.http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/types/cartox/index.html

2.
"and had a control group of just 20 rats".
This is the number Monsanto used and that recommended under the protocol. (link above)

3. Thirdly as noted in post 4 the guy in the video claims Seralini made conclusions about the tumors. So he misrepresents the paper by paraphrasing rather than actually quoting the paper.

From the link in point 1
NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of Harlan Sprague Dawley rats and B6C3F1/N hybrid mice with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years.

For some test articles, rats are exposed during the perinatal phase prior to a 13-week or 2-year study. The perinatal phase includes gestation (in utero via the placenta) and lactation (via mother's milk). Perinatal exposures are selected after considering patterns of human exposure. Perinatal exposure occurs during critical periods of development and can result in differences in toxicity/carcinogenicity as compared to exposure starting only from adulthood.
 
i did it! no idea how lol

attached below , let's see if it works
you are correct. that summary seems to go beyond what could be concluded from a study with 10 rats per group (toxicology study).
I don't know why Seralini did not correct them.

When they say
The research shows that consuming even relatively low levels of the commercial NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize or of the herbicide, Roundup, can result in greatly increased levels of mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and premature death in laboratory rats
.

I think they should say they observed more tumors but did not have the statistical power to say that this feed "can result in"
It's possible that the fact that the rats fed the GM corn had more tumors and bigger tumors was just a coincidence
 
i think you mean he said "the paper" concluded. dont you? i didnt watch the video just going by post #4.
Yes that is right. He does not mention names. and again around the one minute mark he says
"the paper alleges these tumors (the large ones) were caused by a diet of Roundup treated GMO crop"
But can the paper allege it without Seralini alleging it?
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
As the study was a toxicology study only 10 rats were in each group, so it lacked the necessary statistical power to form conclusions about cancer. A cancer study should have 50 rats per group. 50 rats per group using SD rats. A rat sensitive to tumors to tumors but enough rats to provide meaningful statistics.
Exactly why these results are meaningless. Furthermore, the data shows no reliable pattern in a dose-response relationship. Feeding RoundUp to males didn't seem to affect them much but females developed tumors. Even though the females developed tumors, they looked like the rest of the test population. This is why Myles says in his video that the only significant conclusion that the data suggests is that if you're a male and put RoundUp in your drink, you will be healthier.

However in reporting the tumors they acted correctly and in recommending further research when they saw rats in the GM fed group developing larger and more tumors is also correct.
I don't think they acted correctly in reporting the tumors at all. Myles also points this out in his video, but they were extremely unethical about how they handled the rats and very unscientific in the way they presented their data. They measured number of tumors, which does not tell us anything significant. Cancer can metastasize and create a number of tumors depending on how aggressive it is and a cancer's aggressiveness (in a population of mice that are all more or less genetically identical) is random. In other words, a cancer caused by a carcinogen could take a while to metastasize while a spontaneous tumor could be more aggressive and spawn more tumors faster. A better way to assess the tumors when studying a substance that is not known to be carcinogenic or not would simply be to categorize the mice to groups that either developed or did not develop cancer. Seralini did not do this and instead let the mice live with cancer for an extended period of time, developing more and more tumors. Then they took pictures of the mice themselves and included them in the paper, pictures that offer no scientific value whatsoever. We cannot quantify those tumors, we cannot tell if they are multiple different cancers, we cannot tell the rate at which they grew, all they offer is an emotional response.

Lastly, no one can reliably repeat Seralini's results in an animal trial. The paper is bad science, and I think Myles' review of it is fair.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But can the paper allege it without Seralini alleging it?
youre the one picking on the video guy for "parphrasing". But no, i dont see how the paper can allege it without Seralini alleging it.

But the Food Trust that Seralini hired to spread his results globally said it. and the paper Seralini WROTE says it.

you said:
The paper makes no conclusions about tumors being caused
Seralinis paper says:
So either the publishers and PR firm Seralini are working with are grossly changing his words and he is allowing it. OR... HE is saying it. No?

edit to add tumor bolds and quote from wily.
 
Last edited:
Exactly why these results are meaningless.
Dan, you are not grasping what happened. The paper reports the tumors as they are obliged to and recommends a proper study be done. But just like Myles you won't quote the paper, so you are off target.
I don't think they acted correctly in reporting the tumors at all. Myles also points this out in his video, but they were extremely unethical about how they handled the rats and very unscientific in the way they presented their data. They measured number of tumors, which does not tell us anything significant.
Dan they reported the tumors and recommend a proper study be done. This would require 50 rats per group.
Cancer can metastasize and create a number of tumors depending on how aggressive it is and a cancer's aggressiveness (in a population of mice that are all more or less genetically identical) is random. In other words, a cancer caused by a carcinogen could take a while to metastasize while a spontaneous tumor could be more aggressive and spawn more tumors faster. A better way to assess the tumors when studying a substance that is not known to be carcinogenic or not would simply be to categorize the mice to groups that either developed or did not develop cancer.
No the best way would be to do a proper cancer study according to the protocols. Seralini recommends this after reporting the tumors.
Lastly, no one can reliably repeat Seralini's results in an animal trial.
How do you know?
This was the first study of this kind.
Anyway we will find out one day.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nto-safety-of-gm-food-launched-by-russian-ngo
A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

The organisers of the Factor GMO [genetically modified organism] study, announced in London on Tuesday and due to start fully next year, say it will investigate the long-term health effects of a diet of a GM maize developed by US seed and chemical company Monsanto.

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

According to the Nags, the experiment will try to establish whether the GM maize and its associated herbicide cause cancers, reduce fertility or cause birth defects. The scientists also want to know whether the mixture of chemicals present in Roundup (Monsanto’s tradename for its glyphosate herbicide) are more or less toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate
I might have to switch my avatar back to Boris Badenov after posting that link though :)
 
Last edited:
youre the one picking on the video guy for "parphrasing". But no, i dont see how the paper can allege it without Seralini alleging it.

But the Food Trust that Seralini hired to spread his results globally said it. and the paper Seralini WROTE says it.
So either the publishers and PR firm Seralini are working with are grossly changing his words and he is allowing it. OR... HE is saying it. No?
I don't see the problem, and I don't seeing the paper saying it in the sentence you emboldened. The paper notes the greater incidence of tumors in some groups compared to the control group. It hypothesizes an explanation that can be tested.
Isn't that how science operates? Observe, hypothesise, and test that hypothesis.
It seems like a fairly good use of science to me. We eat this stuff let's do a long tern test of it
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I don't see the problem, and I don't seeing the paper saying it in the sentence you emboldened
Its the entire paragraph. i only emboldened the part that show him not 'reporting the tumors as he's obligated to do', but drawing conclusions from the paragraph.
ill edit it
 
Its the entire paragraph. i only emboldened the part that show him not 'reporting the tumors as he's obligated to do', but drawing conclusions from the paragraph.
ill edit it
The paper notes kidney and liver issues, which was the reason for the study (which incidentally were the same issues looked at in Monsanto's raw data). It then asks the question if the higher incidence of and larger tumors could be related to the endocrine disruption or even to unintended effects of the transgene. I don't think they are drawing a conclusion that the tumors are caused by either of these.
The conclusion seems to be to do a proper cancer test.
Conclusion
Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The paper notes kidney and liver issues, which was the reason for the study (which incidentally were the same issues looked at in Monsanto's raw data). It then asks the question if the higher incidence of and larger tumors could be related to the endocrine disruption or even to unintended effects of the transgene. I don't think they are drawing a conclusion that the tumors are caused by either of these.
The conclusion seems to be to do a proper cancer test.
spin it any way you want to. They still said what they said.
 
spin it any way you want to. They still said what they said.
But I don't spin. I'm different. :)
The paper certainly does not draw conclusions about the cause of tumors.
And it is the paper that the guy in you youtube video is referencing.
I agree that the other summary should not have used the word "can" when it says "can result in". Perhaps they could justify using the word "could" instead. And that is an important error in the summary.
The Frenchman should have got someone who speaks English good and proper to thoroughly check the summary for such errors. Giles's English is not the best.

However that still makes the video bunk.

But lets assume that he, Myles in the video, had been referencing that summary rather than the actual paper.
He still goes even further than that summary when he says at the 41 second mark.
"the paper came to the conclusion that rats fed on GM Maize that had been treated with Roundup would die prematurely and have major health problems including large mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage"
So yes I agree that summary is wrong when it says "can result in". But my point still stands that the video in the OP is rubbish.
Myles in the OP video is wrong about every important fact he uses.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
But lets assume that he, Myles in the video, had been referencing that summary rather than the actual paper.
he was referencing the PR Firms Press Release.
authors.PNG


and btw, your "gmoseralini" website. says the same thing on multiple pages.

Do you have a link showing Seralini or any other author DENYING this was their conclusion?

If not, i've provided ample evidence that the video man did no wrong. qui est tout ce qu'elle a écrit. :)
 
Last edited:
he was referencing the PR Firms Press Release.
View attachment 13864
At what time in the video does he reference the above?
and btw, your "gmoseralini" website. says the same thing on multiple pages.
It would help if you showed us one :)
Do you have a link showing Seralini or any other author DENYING this was their conclusion?
I have the paper where it is not one of his conclusions, and as our man Myles in the OP was telling us he referred to it, I'll probably leave it there.
If not, i've provided ample evidence that the video man did no wrong. qui est tout ce qu'elle a écrit. :)
ok...well it's not worth arguing about. I've had my say :)
 
Last edited:

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
No the best way would be to do a proper cancer study according to the protocols. Seralini recommends this after reporting the tumors.
I am pointing out that the way Seralini reported the tumors is bad science and there is no reason it should be published or, by itself, warrant further study. Further study is always good and recommended, but not because of what Seralini reported. In a proper cancer study, or any study that recorded tumor growth, the researchers would do what I described, not publish results that tell us nothing about what is actually going on inside the animal in response to the experiment. I challenge you to find another paper that includes pictures of animals with multiple massive tumors in a carcinogen study. It's absurd.

How do you know?
Because no one else has reported even remotely similar results in animal trials involving GM feed or RoundUp. There have been many links to peer-reviewed studies posted all over this site to support that. If you can find studies that do agree with Seralini's results, please post them.

The paper certainly does not draw conclusions about the cause of tumors.
Yes they do, it's right in the abstract.....

http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GES-final-study-19.9.121.pdf
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It would help if you showed us one
what "they" think is irrelevant. but just so you dont think i'm lying.
And again, since the video man is by far (dozens of examples provided to you in previous links) not the only one reading Seralini's paper and press release this way,
ex:
sera.PNG http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse rattenstudie Séralini et al.pdf


It would be fair to assume that if Seralini disagreed with this interpretation of his paper, he would have corrected it somewhere. If you can find such a correction , then i will concede your "he's not very good with English" hypothesis.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
W W , do you have a link to publication of results of Seralini's control groups? I haven't ever seen those. It seems that what he chose to feature were the photos of the rats with tumors

SpragueDawly rats were developed for their ease in developing tumors, but tumor formation is a problem in many lines of pet rats as well. There is some talk about some breeders trying to reduce it.


Pet rats with tumors


http://www.sandyscrittercity.com/allabouttumors.htm


http://www.ratfanclub.org/tumors.html


http://rodentclub.livejournal.com/67495.html
 
I am pointing out that the way Seralini reported the tumors is bad science and there is no reason it should be published or
ok..previously you wrote he should not have reported them and that was the point I picked you up on. Its mandatory according to the protocol, 452 I believe.
, by itself, warrant further study.Further study is always good and recommended, but not because of what Seralini reported.
I've seen other studies that observed endocrine disruption associated with glyphosate. When Seralini's team noticed this too and more and larger tumors then any good science would ask whether the two were related. . I will find trysome studies and list them here if it lookes like this thread is going anywhere helpful
In a proper cancer study, or any study that recorded tumor growth, the researchers would do what I described, not publish results that tell us nothing about what is actually going on inside the animal in response to the experiment.
Didn't you already say you knew this was not a cancer study. yet you criticse a toxicology study for being toxicology study and not a cancer study...??
I challenge you to find another paper that includes pictures of animals with multiple massive tumors in a carcinogen study. It's absurd.
Ok..i'll look if you find another toxicology study where the reported tumors are similar.
Obviously if no other studies have the same extremely large tumors and higher incidence they would not have contemplated reporting them that way.
Because no one else has reported even remotely similar results in animal trials involving GM feed or RoundUp.
This was the first test of its kind.
There have been many links to peer-reviewed studies posted all over this site to support that.
Well show me one that is similar. And I mean similar. Show me a study that looked for toxicological problems that surfaced after 90 days. Can you even find a two year study? That was the whole point of this study. After Seralini took Monsanto to court and obtained the raw data they noticed issues with the organs and endocrine system that concerned them. So they decided to do a longer study and see what happened. When they did they noticed the groups exposed to the Monsanto products had more tumors and larger ones.
If you can find studies that do agree with Seralini's results, please post them.
As it was the first study of it's kind there wont be any. But i may post other studies that will be helpful but at the moment we seem to be going over the same points
Yes they do, it's right in the abstract.....
http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GES-final-study-19.9.121.pdf
The organ issues can be. the tumors could be too. We won't know unless we do further study.
It's called an hypothesis. they hypothesise a specific explanation that can be tested.
 
Last edited:
Some quotes from the paper that might help the discussion from going round in circles.


.
This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study.
Tumors are reported in line with the requirements of OECD chronic toxicity protocols 452 and 453, which require all ‘lesions’ (which by definition include tumors) to be reported.
By the beginning of the 24th month, 50% to 80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treatment groups, with up to three tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected.
 
Last edited:

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
ok..previously you wrote he should not have reported them and that was the point I picked you up on. Its mandatory according to the protocol, 452 I believe.
I stated they incorrectly reported the tumors and then described how.

I've seen other studies that observed endocrine disruption associated with glyphosate.
Then post them? I haven't seen any in the literature.

Didn't you already say you knew this was not a cancer study. yet you criticse a toxicology study for being toxicology study and not a cancer study...??
Look, it was a toxicology study, I know that. Much of their presented data, however, describes the tumors and that data is BAD. If they were going to report the tumors, why not present them in a useful way? Why instead present pictures and number of tumors? You don't even need expertise in oncology to get basic information. Regardless, letting the rats live as long as they did was unethical and there was no reason for that other than to exacerbate a premeditated conclusion the group already had.

Obviously if no other studies have the same extremely large tumors and higher incidence they would not have contemplated reporting them that way.
You won't find any because labs don't let lab animals live with tumors that large.. That's my point, Seralini did not have science in mind when he took those pictures.

Well show me one that is similar. And I mean similar. Show me a study that looked for toxicological problems that surfaced after 90 days. Can you even find a two year study?
Just because Seralini is saying that it is the first of its kind doesn't mean he is correct. Carcinogenicity studies following the OECD guidelines have been done. Again, this source and more are already posted in another thread.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715
The organ issues can be. the tumors could be too. We won't know unless we do further study.
It's called an hypothesis. they hypothesise a specific explanation that can be tested.
The group is making it very clear that they feel the treatment was responsible for the observed adverse effects. I don't know why you're trying to argue that they are not coming to that conclusion in this paper. When a group makes a conclusion in a publication, they are generally saying, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the discussion, "We observed evidence that X does Y and we think our results are significant, what do you guys (the community) think?"
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The group is making it very clear that they feel the treatment was responsible for the observed adverse effects. I don't know why you're trying to argue that they are not coming to that conclusion in this paper.
right? esp. since they just republished and did not fix their wording to indicate anything different then their original 'conclusions'.
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Unfortunately that paper cites old unpublished studies to back up its conclusions, one of them done by Monsanto, and the other ordered from a company by Monsanto.
It's a review paper, compiling data from multiple papers from multiple journals and labs. Not just Monsanto.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Paper: Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Sandor Szekely Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any. Flat Earth 1027
Mick West Orgonite Experiments Science and Pseudoscience 38
Inti Presenting the good stuff in Metabunk and Contrail Science in a different way? Practical Debunking 6
Leifer "What on Earth ?" science channel fail ? Practical Debunking 11
Georgie G Debunked: SpaceX Rocket Crash Landing Anomalies General Discussion 21
Mick West 1952 - Condensation Trails From Aircraft - With a 1937 Persistent Contrail Photo - Oldest Ever? Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Balance Met Office - Case Study Contrail-induced Cirrus Contrails and Chemtrails 0
MikeG Debunked: Fukushima Causing Bloody Tumors in Fish [Old Photos] Science and Pseudoscience 15
tadaaa Debunked: The Equator Drain Trick (direction of water flow) Science and Pseudoscience 11
JFDee Child Victim of "Alternative Medicine" Health and Quackery 4
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
Bruno D. Chocolate Diet hoax - interesting case about junk science General Discussion 4
MikeC 95,000 kids, 20 years of science - no connection between Autism and MMR Health and Quackery 1
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
MikeC Contrail Science on Skeptic.com Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West History and Science of Weather Modification Contrails and Chemtrails 11
JFDee "Escaping the Prison of Belief" - Science as a Remedy, by Ex-Scientologist General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Leifer Investigated: "Why are massive numbers of sea creatures dying along the west coast" Science and Pseudoscience 19
Zane O'Neill Is Contrail Science a CIA Disinformation site? Contrails and Chemtrails 51
Leifer What books are you reading ? (conspiracy related, science, etc...) General Discussion 128
Critical Thinker Scientific American: Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior General Discussion 2
Keef Wivaneff Faith v Science General Discussion 4
Gavriel Psychology Is Not a Science Science and Pseudoscience 3
Jay Reynolds The Day Italians United for Science Practical Debunking 0
Critical Thinker Links to science related educational websites Science and Pseudoscience 11
Mick West Closing comments on Contrail Science Site Feedback & News 14
RolandD Deceptive Headlines misrepresenting science Science and Pseudoscience 3
MikeC The Science about not believing Science General Discussion 4
FreiZeitGeist Australian Science: Chemtrails – Conspiracy Theory? Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Mick West Contrail Science Interactive Flights Map (beta) Contrails and Chemtrails 18
HappyMonday The science of persistence Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Popular Science 1958: Weather As A Weapon Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science Contrails and Chemtrails 8
P Facebook group dedicated to spamming contrail science Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Part II Science and Pseudoscience 6
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Science and Pseudoscience 16
Skirtz Science aside... Contrails and Chemtrails 74
tryblinking The 'Bad Science' of quackery , and other sterling TED talks. Health and Quackery 0
Mick West Contrail Science and Metabunk on the Critical Wit Podcast General Discussion 0
ThorGoLucky Contrail Science in Skeptical Inquirer Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Celebrities and Science 2010 Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West A "Molten Metal" 9/11 Photo - Is Just Burning Paper 9/11 20
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Jay Reynolds New Dutch paper Analyzes how Conspiracy Theorists see themselves Conspiracy Theories 3
MikeC Aluminium nano-particles stunt plant growth - paper Contrails and Chemtrails 3
ki_cz "The Chemistry in Contrails" - paper Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top