Originally Posted by Fish
What studies? Those aren't studies. That's just a giant bullet list of nonfactual shit thrown on a page with no studies shown at all. No sources. No peer review of the claims.
I could go through that line by line and likely refute every bit of it, but it's just not worth it. It's all based on one book actually. And it's nothing but BS meant to scare, instead of inform. On the author's page about the book, there's even a section called "Media Manipulation" in which he defends himself against how the "Media" has tried to attack him over his book. In reality the "Media" is calling him out for self publishing a POS book full of inaccuracies.
And apparently it's such a horrible incorrect book, that it's already been exposed for the completely nonfactual tripe that it is. There's a website already out there, that actually goes through this fool's claims line by line and provides correct scientific information about what your loony author is talking about. Wow... this POS is even more incorrect than I thought...
Here's the humorous dismantlement of all your "Studies" by Academic Review:
If you want to know why what you posted is not reputable, just browse through the above site, and you'll see why this is all wrong.
After reading through the first part, it seems a bit of backtracking has been done
Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work
. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Smith fails to tell us this. When The Lancet published the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue (Kuiper 1999). The media has devoted little time and space to these critical analyses of Pusztai’s claims.
No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groups—GM-fed or not—and that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved
(Royal Society 1999)
Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure. The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes – raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells. Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999).
Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV. Scientists are expected to submit their findings to peer-review and publication in scientific journals. In their review of the Pusztai claims, the Royal Society concluded that scientists should submit their work to journals (Royal Society 1999). Peer-review is not always a guarantee that researchers’ conclusions are sound either
. Lancet published the paper by Ewen and Pusztai over the objections of reviewers: (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/472192.stm). Perhaps in some misguided sense of fairness or balance, some journals have published unsound papers that make claims about the safety of GM crops (Shantharum and others 2008).
Again very vague comebacks and experts not cited.