General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I want to know if it's GMO! [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)We've seen them over and over again.
But let's just take the Seralini study, which is one which I am most familiar. It has been retracted and Seralini has apparently republished it in some open journal. It is also very bad science.
Read here:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/
And the peer review on the republished study here:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/
And here's an article about Seralini's latest study, in which he has a big conflict of interest:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-new-seralini-study/
So you cite studies from bogus journals, and one from a known journal that has been retracted and was conducted by a poor scientist with an apparent ideological bias? That is typical of ideologues who want to create a consensus out of whole cloth, one that does not exist.
Please don't waste any more time trotting out the same rejected science. It gets tiring debunking the same rubbish over and over again.
And no, I am not going to bother with your other citations. I apologize but I firmly believe it would not be worth any further effort by me.