Andrew Weil, his woo, and anti-GMO hysteria...

[roseBudd]

146. ^ A subject line with no rebuttal

Pub Med, not Weil or Mercola woo

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=seralini+affair

Genetically modified (GM) food is discussed as an example of the controversial relation between the intrinsic uncertainty of the scientific approach and the demand of citizen-consumers to use products of science innovation that are known to be safe. On the whole, peer-reviewed studies on GM food safety do not note significant health risks, with a few exceptions, like the most renowned "Pusztai affair" and the recent "Seralini case." These latter studies have been disregarded by the scientific community, based on incorrect experimental designs and statistic analysis. Such contradictory results show the complexity of risk evaluation, and raise concerns in the citizen-consumers against the GM food. A thoughtful consideration by scientific community and decision makers of the moral values that are present in risk evaluation and risk management should be the most trustable answer to citizen-consumers to their claim for clear and definitive answers concerning safety/un-safety of GM food.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9164252

Overfeeding by ad libitum (AL) food consumption is the most significant, uncontrolled variable affecting the outcome of the current rodent bioassay. The correlation of food consumption, the resultant adult body weight and the 2-y survival in Sprague-Dawley rats is highly significant. Feeding natural ingredient diets that varied in protein, fiber and metabolizable energy content did not improve low 2-y survival if Sprague-Dawley rats were allowed AL food consumption

Seralini's "study" was set up to result in tumors. That is fraud, and animal abuse.

A scientific analysis of the rat study conducted by
Gilles Eric Séralini et al

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

On 19 September 2012, Gilles - Eric Séralini and his colleagues published a sensational study that, in their opinion, brought to the fore clear indications that genetically modified crops and Roundup are dangerous to health. Media across the world picked up on this report and published disturbing photos of rats with enormous tumors. Scientists reacted with shock and were quick to criticize the study. The scientific analysis in this document shows the research design that Séralini et al. used contained fundamental shortcomings that preclude any sensible conclusions from being drawn. In other words, the statements that Séralini made about the health effects of GMOs and Roundup were baseless. Moreover, the research shows signs of selective interpretation of the findings or a misleading representation of these, which is contrary to prevailing scientific ethical standards.