General Discussion

SidDithers

(44,333 posts)

67. Yup, junk science being defended by woo peddlers...

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:38 AM

Jun 2014

I particularly liked this part from your linked article:

ESEU is perceived by scientists as having an ideological slant against genetic modification. Folta describes ESEU as a “journal with a less-than-rigorous grasp on reality, a clear anti-biotech slant, and the journal that has published such duds as Benbrook’s famous paper on increasing pesticide use that used interpolated and extrapolated data (because actual numbers didn’t exist).” He elaborates:

It boils down to this—if these data were significant, if the experiments were good, and the interpretations sound, this would not be buried in the depths of a crappy journal. If there was hard evidence that our food supply truly caused tumors, it would be on the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, or maybe Cell if he wanted to go slumming. But it’s not there. It is in a tiny, obscure journal that has quite a visible agenda, and that’s the only thing visible about it.

Sid

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

98 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Seralini Redux: Roundup-Ready GMO Maize Causes Serious Health Damage [View all] appal_jack Jun 2014 OP

Defamation fail! KT2000 Jun 2014 #1

Interesting article. nt ZombieHorde Jun 2014 #2

I have not eaten corn or corn products since I first heard of this report, because I figured djean111 Jun 2014 #3

no-- the rapid push back was because it's a bogus study, (now) published in a fake journal.... mike_c Jun 2014 #7

For some reason, science is lost on some people... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #16

...and now the rapid full-bore corporate propaganda spewback is because... Chiron Jun 2014 #25

Well-said, Chiron. nt. appal_jack Jun 2014 #51

Thanks Chiron and WhiteTara Jun 2014 #57

ya'll are welcome Chiron Jun 2014 #70

No one likes the thought that WhiteTara Jun 2014 #73

Thank you for this crucial background information on the validity of the Seralini study Crowquette Jun 2014 #71

ROFL... SidDithers Jun 2014 #72

Thanks for the welcome Crowquette Jun 2014 #74

this is the climate change denial and chem-trails FUD of the left.... mike_c Jun 2014 #76

LOL-- it's a self pay-to-publish online "junk journal" with an impact factor of zero.... mike_c Jun 2014 #4

Questioning the messenger is fine, but tiny & obscure journals have their place. appal_jack Jun 2014 #17

Exactly. blackspade Jun 2014 #22

"Big science"? alp227 Jun 2014 #28

This thread is about GMO's. appal_jack Jun 2014 #40

well said, appal jack. Cha Jun 2014 #91

Tiny PAY TO PLAY journals Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #32

Have you priced a subscription to any elsevier journals lately? appal_jack Jun 2014 #65

this is a FAKE journal, not just a small press.... mike_c Jun 2014 #75

Yup, junk science being defended by woo peddlers... SidDithers Jun 2014 #67

Suck it - Monsanto!! lark Jun 2014 #5

Sorry. Republishing an already-retracted study doesn't make it valid. alp227 Jun 2014 #6

And having the original study 'retracted' by a mystery panel of corporate shills does not Chiron Jun 2014 #35

Cue up the Monsanto shills blackspade Jun 2014 #8

Yep. Already happened. And I still won't buy anything with corn in it for my family. djean111 Jun 2014 #9

+1 blackspade Jun 2014 #14

Same here. No corn, no wheat. GliderGuider Jun 2014 #19

I don't buy anything with corn in it either arikara Jun 2014 #11

I buy GM free as much as I am able. blackspade Jun 2014 #13

Corporate infestation of the food chain Crowquette Jun 2014 #89

Yes, learning how to be objective Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #15

All corn is not GM. blackspade Jun 2014 #18

Actually, it IS the same. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #26

You obviously know little about the origin of corn then. blackspade Jun 2014 #39

Hahaha... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #42

woo, that childish term again..... blackspade Jun 2014 #48

As soon as I see that stupid woo term arikara Jun 2014 #86

This is funny. HuckleB Sep 2015 #96

Do you really use round up in your yard? arikara Jun 2014 #85

Willful obfuscation much? appal_jack Jun 2014 #21

They just ignore being called on their bullshit about selective breeding. djean111 Jun 2014 #23

Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #30

Oh my - jackass? Hit a nerve, did we? djean111 Jun 2014 #36

No, just calling it like I see it. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #38

You know, eventually we will get GMO labeling. Why waste your precious time. djean111 Jun 2014 #41

YAY! And we can be like the ignorant courts in Europe Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #45

only monsato science is the real science wisechoice Jun 2014 #62

Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #92

You know Aerows Jun 2014 #58

Is the DNA of the resultant corn the same as the original corn? Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #27

Your lack of understanding about agricultural science is on glowing display. blackspade Jun 2014 #43

Must suck for you if all the 'grown-ups' nearby are this clueless. appal_jack Jun 2014 #50

So, to you, genetic modification can ONLY happen in a lab? Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #53

That is the very definition of "Genetically modified" MohRokTah Jun 2014 #55

You are my hero of today BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #56

Cheers, Brother. appal_jack Jun 2014 #64

Bullshit propaganda with no relation to the truth. eom MohRokTah Jun 2014 #54

You say Monsanto shills, I say followers of legitimate science. alp227 Jun 2014 #31

Fail. blackspade Jun 2014 #49

! Crowquette Jun 2014 #95

you have phobia wisechoice Jun 2014 #63

No I don't. I care about science. alp227 Jun 2014 #69

Really. It's like they have a personal stake in the proliferation of Roundup. Cha Jun 2014 #90

Intriguing. I wasn't aware that anyone endorsed consumption of Roundup. Orrex Jun 2014 #10

Welcome down the rabbit-hole, Orrex. appal_jack Jun 2014 #94

So, self publishing a retracted bullshit study that was peer-reviewed and deemed to be bogus Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #12

Lumping the Anti-GM movement with blackspade Jun 2014 #20

Oh, they would lump us in with birthers , and still might, since the usual shite is being dismissed. djean111 Jun 2014 #24

Why is it the largest organic producers and retailers are AGAINST GMO labelling? Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #37

And how does the "free market" know what "genetically modified" even means? alp227 Jun 2014 #33

A sham how? blackspade Jun 2014 #47

No, your arguments are the same. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #34

Then you have no clear understanding of the issue. blackspade Jun 2014 #46

It's completely valid. They use many of the same techniques... SidDithers Jun 2014 #78

Your entitled to your opinion. blackspade Jun 2014 #80

Hello? Do you really believe this parroted anti-GMO propaganda? HuckleB Sep 2015 #97

"Peer review" doesn't matter when your corporate handlers are instructing you to make "woo" posts... villager Jun 2014 #29

People need to study the history of how the original Seralini study was anonymously undermined Chiron Jun 2014 #44

... SidDithers Jun 2014 #66

Well, I was very happy to see some Non-GMO Jolly Time popcorn in the grocery store! factsarenotfair Jun 2014 #52

And -------did it cost four times as much? n/t djean111 Jun 2014 #59

Well, honestly, I didn't even compare prices because I was so happy to see it. factsarenotfair Jun 2014 #60

Although I do refuse to eat GMO food, there are aspects to this study which I question. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #61

Do you live somewhere that requires labeling? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #77

Seralini's study was junk science that was properly retracted by Food and Chemical Toxicology... SidDithers Jun 2014 #68

'Junk science' seems a bit harsh. From the retraction statement - Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #79

I think the editors were being kind... SidDithers Jun 2014 #81

we have to use an article wisechoice Jun 2014 #83

You can use whatever article you want ... SidDithers Jun 2014 #84

And your sources are shit wisechoice Jun 2014 #87

Sure they are... SidDithers Jun 2014 #88

It's actually far too kind. HuckleB Sep 2015 #98

The original retraction reeks of corporate corruption Crowquette Jun 2014 #82

The corrupt critics of the Seralini study and their Pervert Science Crowquette Jun 2014 #93