Honestly, after reading the abstract, I could see that this might be a good paper.\u00a0 After reviewing the graphs (here<\/a>), I had some concerns.\u00a0 After reading the paper I have some major concerns.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n First, I want to talk a bit about the authors.\u00a0 This isn’t an ad hominem<\/a> attack.\u00a0 If you are talking to a car salesman about which car is best and he describes the virtues of a particular car, oh and by the way I have one for sale here\u2026 perhaps you should consider the source.<\/p>\n Now, the lead author, Gilles-Eric S\u00e9ralini, is also the author of a couple of books.\u00a0 One of which is title \u201cGenetically Incorrect\u201d and another is \u201cWe Can Clean Up\u201d.\u00a0 These are books talking about how genetic manipulation of organisms is wrong (ironic considering the lab rats he used for this research, but more on that in a bit) and are part of the organic food revolution in France.\u00a0 Do you honestly think he\u2019s unbiased?<\/p>\n One other point.\u00a0 S\u00e9ralini has been censured before for incorrect analysis of data and incorrect procedures<\/a>.<\/p>\n Another author, Jo\u00ebl Spiroux de Vend\u00f4mois, is a homeopath<\/a>.\u00a0 I\u2019m sorry, but the fundamental principles of homeopathy (like cure like, dilution, rejection of the germ theory of disease) are all wrong.\u00a0 I\u2019ve talked briefly about this before and I\u2019ll happily go into it again if anyone wants me to.\u00a0 But the principles of homeopathy aren\u2019t even wrong, they are impossible.<\/p>\n So, there\u2019s two of the authors of this paper.\u00a0 One seems to be committed to defeating genetic manipulation of organisms and the other (despite being a doctor) doesn\u2019t believe that science works.\u00a0 Now, would you buy a car from these two salesmen?<\/p>\n Again, this isn\u2019t an ad hominem attack.\u00a0 These people freely admit that they think these things, but they don\u2019t state so in their paper under\u00a0 the \u201cconflict of interests\u201d section.\u00a0 That\u2019s not to say that these people can\u2019t do good science.\u00a0 We should examine the science\u2026 so let\u2019s do that.<\/p>\n Here’s the results graph<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Fig. 1.\u00a0Mortality of rats fed GMO treated or not with Roundup, and effects of Roundup alone. Rats were fed with NK603 GM maize (with or without application of Roundup) at three different doses (11, 22, 33% in their diet: thin, medium and bold lines, respectively) compared to the substantially equivalent closest isogenic non-GM maize (control, dotted line). Roundup was administrated in drinking water at 3 increasing doses, same symbols (environmental (A), MRL in agricultural GMOs (B) and half of minimal agricultural levels (C), see Section 2<\/a>). Lifespan during the experiment for the control group is represented by the vertical bar\u00a0\u00b1\u00a0SEM (grey area). In bar histograms, the causes of mortality before the grey area are detailed in comparison to the controls (0). In black are represented the necessary euthanasia because of suffering in accordance with ethical rules (tumors over 25% body weight, more than 25% weight loss, hemorrhagic bleeding, etc.); and in hatched areas, spontaneous mortality.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n They are reporting in the graphic on page 4 that 10 males of the group that was fed Roundup sprayed GM maize died.\u00a0 Ten animals.\u00a0 That sounds bad.\u00a0 Then we learn that there were only 10 animals in that group.\u00a0 Holy crap, that\u2019s a 100% death rate for those animals.<\/p>\n Now look at the control group.\u00a0 All animals were fed non-GM maize with no pesticides.\u00a0 Seven out of 10 died.\u00a0 Holy crap!\u00a0 That\u2019s a 70% death rate.<\/p>\n Wait\u2026 what?<\/p>\n First let\u2019s look at the actual groups of animals in this study.<\/p>\n The females had similar groupings.\u00a0 So, there were 100 male rats and 100 female rats divided into 10 groupings.\u00a0 Then the control group of 10 was compared to each experimental group of 10.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a major flaw in the study.\u00a0 Most people won\u2019t recognize it because it\u2019s very subtle, but there is a huge statistical problem here.\u00a0 The potential for cherry-picking is super strong here.\u00a0 That\u2019s not to say it happened, but then, the complete results of every animal are not published here.<\/p>\n There are simply too many variables.\u00a0 A proper study would have been 50 male rats as a single test group and 50 male rats as a control group.\u00a0 The test should also be done using a couple of different breeds (again, more on why that\u2019s a concern in a minute).\u00a0 I have since learned that 50 animals is the standard for long-tern studies.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s talk for a minute about correlation and causation.<\/p>\n Correlation is the concept that two variables are moving at the same time.\u00a0 Causation is the concept that one of the variables is moving because<\/strong> of the other one.\u00a0 An example will serve.\u00a0 We note that over the last 100 years, the global temperature of the Earth has increased.\u00a0 We also note that over the same time period, that the number of pirates decreased.\u00a0 Those two numbers are correlated.\u00a0 Does anyone think that the lack of pirates is causing global warming (causation)?![\"\"](\"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/files\/2012\/10\/1-s2.0-S0278691512005637-gr1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\nYeah, I didn\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n