This paper has been shot, stabbed, hung, drawn, quartered, burned alive, and retracted. It is so obviously fallacious that even someone with barely any understanding of toxicology could look at the raw data and say “hang on, that doesn’t look right”. The only statistically significant result in the dataset is that men live longer when they drink straight RoundUp - that might explain why there is no freakin’ statistical analysis done, simply barefaced assertions based on naive readings of the data.
And yet it’s back. Can we all agree that open-access journals don’t count? Please? Or at least that they’re guilty until proven innocent? Because the people who reviewed it at Springer are obviously scientifically illiterate, unaware of the stance of the research in the field, and incapable of using fucking Google! Nice fucking going, assholes. Knock peer review down another peg. Publish more harmful pseudoscientific bullshit. Next, in the adventures of Springer publishing, their new sociology journal is going to pick up Regnerus’s bullshit anti-gay study. And, for good measure, their physics journal is going to start publishing articles on cold fusion. Or maybe a Duesburg piece.
But no, the real villain here is Seralini. Seralini, who is obviously blind, deaf, and dumb, or incredibly dishonest. Seralini, who didn’t take the hint when essentially everyone with real qualifications in the field told him “your paper is crap, stuff it up your ass” or when even the shoddy journal it was originally published in retracted it. Seralini, who is so valiantly opposed to advances in food science that he’s willing to continue to lie about a paper which has caused so much harm. I’m a fucking 2nd-year computer science student and even I can tell your paper is not worth the disk space it’s stored on. Why can’t you? Or are you just a dishonest fuckwit who can’t admit that he’s wrong even when he obviously is?
You’ve got to love the excuses given on Seralini’s websites, too.
No, Dr. Antoniou, the fact that this study was republished is not a testament to its rigour or integrity. It’s a testament to the fact that open-access journals will publish any shit they get paid to publish. And Dr. Heinemann, the study did not “prevail”. It “prevailed” in the same way the Wakefield study would have “prevailed” if Wakefield had submitted his fraudulent to a bottom-tier open-access journal and it had been accepted. It’s a fucking zombie - it should be dead, by any reasonable examination, and yet it shambles on, infecting people with stupid. I wonder how many journals he applied it to before they settled on a journal which is both open-access and bottom-of-the-barrel. :rolleyes: Is there any way to check that? To see if a paper was submitted for review with other journals? I bet it would be rather eye-opening for this one.
Yes, the science does reveal itself, Dr. Antoniou, and actually reading the paper reveals it. I wonder - did you read it? Did you try to do a cursory statistical analysis on it? Do you have even a fucking high-school level understanding of toxicology? No dose-response, no statistical analysis, clear abuse of animal ethics…
Just… Ugh. What a bunch of dishonest, stupid douchebags.
Seralini seems intent on morphing into the Andrew Wakefield of the anti-GMO movement.
He’s far from alone, though, when it comes to sloppy, bad science which gets exploited by ignorant activists with an agenda.
Take Don Huber, who since 2005 has been proclaiming that a novel organism caused either by glyphosate or the glyphosate resistance gene in GM plants is causing health problems in animals and humans. No one outside of Huber’s circle has been able to confirm such an organism (virus? bacterium? prion?) and Huber refuses to cooperate with other scientists to riddle this “mystery”.
Then we have another staple of the anti-GMO crowd, the Carman/Vlieger “pig inflammation” study which was supposed to show harm to piggies from eating GM grain. These nitwits pointed to pig stomachs at autopsy looking reddish which they said meant they were severely inflamed - except no one bothered to confirm inflammation was present microscopically, leading to meaningless conclusions. (Vlieger at the time of publication also neglected to disclose that he runs a company selling non-GM grain, a wee conflict of interest).
What a sad, stinking mess. Meantime, idiots use “science” like this to continue opposing valuable crops like golden rice, which could prevent millions of cases of blindness and death from vitamin A deficiency in the developing world.
In this case, don’t attribute to stupidity what can be better explained by malice. There’s big money in that particular industry. For someone who really doesn’t want to see Monsanto (et al.) start increasing their business in Europe (where GM foods are a comparatively small %) , a research hit piece is probably a really good cost/benefit.
I’m pretty sure European farmers produce as much if not more GM crops as the US. GM foods have been controversial in the UK since well before anyone in the US was talking about them (mostly thanks to His Royal Jugearedness Prince Charles, I think.)
Me too. As someone who doesn’t have much reason to read scientific studies, it’s not obvious to me what’s wrong with this one (it seems poorly written), or why it would make anyone angry. I have a few guesses, but my ignorance is such that it would be foolish to assume I can pick more holes in it than the authors or reviewers. I also suspect we’re supposed to have heard of this before.
You don’t really need to know anything except that the journal that originally published Seralini’s paper asked him to retract it, then retracted it themselves when he wouldn’t. The message is that the science is so flawed that merely publishing it made them look bad (or that they are abettors of the giant GMO conspiracy and Monsanto paid them off, wake up sheeple, if you prefer.)
The basic gist of it is that Seralini published a study in 2012 which he claimed showed clear kidney and liver damage to mice who consumed roundup-ready corn, as well as advanced tumor growth. In reality, it did no such thing - the paper had tiny sample sizes, Seralini did no statistical analysis, and when you actually look at the data the only statistically significant result is that male rats who drank straight RoundUp lived longer on average. In other words, the data was a complete wash, but Seralini still strung it along to try to conclude that GMO corn was harmful. It was pretty much universally panned… By scientists. By the time they got their hands on it, there had already been substantial buzz in the popular media due to Seralini holding the paper back from anyone who might give it a negative look. It was later retracted, but now he’s published the exact same study with the exact same data again… Just this time in a bottom-feeding pay-to-play journal. The multitude of severe issues involved remain entirely unaddressed. This paper had no business passing peer review the first time; this time it’s just… Ugh. Were the reviewers at Springer clinically dead or something when this came across their desk?!
Statistically. Though I’m guessing this wasn’t corrected for multiple testing. That is, when you have a big pile of data and start comparing this number to that number over and over again, then just due to chance, you’ll start seeing links that seem significant. Good statisticians correct for this effect.
Have you finally recovered enough for your epic pitting that you are going to start posting pointless and annoying pit threads three times a week again?
Who the fuck is Seralini? That’s the big problem. Its like coming into the middle of a conversation and everyone assuming you know what has been said. Take a little time and write a coherent OP if you want everyone on board. Use the cites to back up your claims. Don’t require us to do research.
I know, right? Sounds crazy… But that’s what the research showed. Of course, this wasn’t exactly touted in the paper. Because if it was, people might realize what was actually going on - that with 20 samplings of each only 10 rats, and with rats that had such high base rates of disease and cancer to begin with, sooner or later you were going to find some result you could use to scare people with. Given the experimental design, there’s no way of knowing that the fact that some of the control group did marginally better wasn’t pure dumb luck. Meanwhile, there’s no dose-response, results are all over the map, and the paper is garbage. And that’s not even addressing ethical concerns, such as leaving rats alive until their bodymass was something like 25% tumor to get “shocking” photos (we didn’t get any photos from the control group… I wonder why? Probably because they looked exactly the same).
Sickening.
And, to certain others, excuse me for getting worked up at anti-science bullshit and perversion of the peer-review process. It’s one of those things I happen to really give a damn about. And you ought to as well. This shit matters.
