General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)

11. Sure, Seralini's "study" isn't junk science, just ask Seralini

Mon Oct 5, 2015, 12:16 PM

Oct 2015

Meanwhile regardless of what they want to claim Seralini's study was about, days after it was released he was promoting it by showing blown up pictures of rat tumors. The site fails to mention the dubious nature of the published conclusions. Very telling that. So regardless of the objective of the study, Seralini himself was aggressively promoting the cancer results which he knew were complete shit.

Not surprisingly this crank site also fails to mention his toxicology data was also complete shit and not reproduceable. Nor does it mention Seralini's financial connections to the organic industry and homeoquackery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seralini#CRIIGEN

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GMO Propaganda and the Sociology of Science [View all] JohnyCanuck Oct 2015 OP

Evidently the author is counting on nobody following up on her examples Major Nikon Oct 2015 #1

Meanwhile your heroes have their hands full defending themselves from RICO violations GreatGazoo Oct 2015 #2

Question... Major Nikon Oct 2015 #4

Seralini can speak for himself. JohnyCanuck Oct 2015 #3

Sure, Seralini's "study" isn't junk science, just ask Seralini Major Nikon Oct 2015 #11

Yup. Anyone, and I mean any-fucking-one, defending Seralini... SidDithers Oct 2015 #9

"Upstream" scientists? "Downstream" scientists? How about 88% of ALL scientists... LAGC Oct 2015 #5

Your logical fallacy is: Association Fallacy. GreatGazoo Oct 2015 #8

WTF are you talking about? Major Nikon Oct 2015 #18

Science for the win! GreatGazoo Oct 2015 #20

Try again with a cite that actually supports your assertion and you might have something Major Nikon Oct 2015 #24

Oh noes! Pesticides!!1! progressoid Oct 2015 #29

Seralini! NuclearDem Oct 2015 #6

Agricultural experts were aware of the risks of weed resistance to glyphosate from the start. yellowcanine Oct 2015 #7

The results speak for themselves Major Nikon Oct 2015 #25

Yes, the lack of resistance has been quite remarkable. yellowcanine Oct 2015 #27

Why isn't the anti-GMO side demanding "GMO Free" labels? jeff47 Oct 2015 #10

Exactly... SidDithers Oct 2015 #12

Well, they definately need to set up some sort of standards jeff47 Oct 2015 #13

But, but then they would have to include/exclude things like cheese, and they don't want that!!! HuckleB Oct 2015 #15

Oh good. Dr. Strange Oct 2015 #23

Those labels are already everywhere. NuclearDem Oct 2015 #14

Yup. That helps me to avoid spending money on companies that utilize unethical marketing. HuckleB Oct 2015 #16

I do occasionally have to buy ingredients with those labels NuclearDem Oct 2015 #17

Yeah, that is a definite problem. HuckleB Oct 2015 #19

An even better question is why the anti-GMO side isn't demanding "Mutation breeding" labels Major Nikon Oct 2015 #21

+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Oct 2015 #22

And the beat goes on... CanSocDem Oct 2015 #26

bring out the clowns SoLeftIAmRight Oct 2015 #28

Facts are so stinky progressoid Oct 2015 #31

all we can make are tentative deductions SoLeftIAmRight Oct 2015 #32

No, we can make quite certain deductions. progressoid Oct 2015 #33

you seem to have a problem with your thinking SoLeftIAmRight Oct 2015 #34

the type of agricultural process fostered by GMO crops is not sustainable? progressoid Oct 2015 #35

I notice that you tend to the banal and avoid the essence while ignoring the complexity SoLeftIAmRight Oct 2015 #36

So which are you espousing? progressoid Oct 2015 #37

"all we can make are tentative deductions" SoLeftIAmRight Oct 2015 #38

"Perhaps 20% of the scientists in the Pew poll work directly or indirectly on GM technology" progressoid Oct 2015 #30