GE Crop Study. Four Hundred Pages & Four hundred Missed Rats
Check out yesterday’s @CBSThisMorning clip on our #GECropStudy report here: https://t.co/MK8qoLNfLI pic.twitter.com/x6QRnaErAH— The Academies (@theNASEM) May 19, 2016
Lets look beyond the massive appeal to authority and check the substance. In this study, the NAS, which reports to the US Congress, is basing human health conclusions on animal studies, most of which I am familiar with having read the literature on the subject for about five years.
@davidgaliel Denial of ur science illiteracy, u mean?— Dr. Ena Valikov (@beachvetlbc) May 18, 2016
You have to flunk *Arithmetic* to believe GMOs safe @specterm @kevinfolta @nytimes
Is it possible to read just one paragraph of a four hundred page study and draw a conclusion?
Typically, I recommend you don't just read the headlines in the press, the title, don't settle for the abstract. My usual habit is reading the entire text, studying the tables and figures, introduction through the discussion section. Read studies from stem to stern-- I normally do.
But in this case, I'll show you why one paragraph was enough.
@beachvetlbc Stick to actual facts and evidence. Stay away from ad hom and epithets - we'll get along just fine and you won't be called out— Jonathan Swayze (@JonathanSwayze) May 19, 2016
Why I didn't need to and didn't bother reading the rest. It wasn't because I am not accustomed to researching hundreds of pages of scientific documents on the subject--I've read the Veterinary Committee Notes on the FDA website on genetically modified salmon-over 600 pages.
Rather, I learned enough in just one short paragraph to formulate the conclusion that over four hundred pages of this document will be using more words than necessary to say far less than is needed about GMO impacts on animal and human health for such an elite, prestigious institution.
National Academy of Sciences: Sway Me
How to hear the violins- long before it begins: Published scientific literature
"Real arguments are often embedded within a very long discussion. Richard Whately, one of the greatest of the 19th century researchers into informal logic, wisely said, "A very long discussion is one of the most effective veils of Fallacy; ...a Fallacy, which when stated barely...would not deceive a child, may deceive half the world if diluted in a quarto volume."
This "study" on BILLIIONS OF BROILER CHICKENS is how The National Academy of Sciences became The National Academy of Alchemy- attempting to turn chicken shit into diamonds.
@FarmFairyCrafts @beachvetlbc @cecilbadlands @theNASEM @xkit Hessian Crucible on the way....but FedEx very slow here.📫
— Philli H (@Olivefarmer) May 20, 2016
@FarmFairyCrafts @beachvetlbc @cecilbadlands @theNASEM @xkit Hessian Crucible on the way....but FedEx very slow here.📫— Philli H (@Olivefarmer) May 20, 2016
"Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops."
So, let's review the evidence
Here it is -listing medical findings: prevalence rates of various diseases and histopathology in livestock one must have to analyze livestock health.
There was no health related useful data before 1995 when GMOs were introduced.
The FSIS did not collect samples covering the period before GMO introduction or since.
Thus, this sentence: "Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops"
even if livestock data could be extrapolated to other animals who aren't livestock-pets, or humans-
can not be backed up by evidence- it is a blatant lie.
A legitimate argument for scientists and critical thinkers is factual evidence-data.
If you can't discuss the data, if you deny evidence- you are a denialist-- exactly the crime National Academy of Sciences just perpetrated on science--through erasure, disappearance of inconvenient studies and inconvenient data. [1,2]
Surely the NAS doesn't want to be remembered as an incompetent bunch of science illiterate jokers.
 Please add 400 rats together in all the tables in the standard rodent test conducted on the most prevalent GMO's in the food supply. HERE The Monsanto study that Van EEEnnnneeeennnnamaaam who is NOT an animal medical expert, nor has the integrity, competence or ethics to ever be completely erased!
 Since GMO Gremlins hacked the link to say "this blog post doesn't exist"- here is another link to help you do GMO Arithmetic.
Study GMO effects on Animal Health-without DVMs (experts) defies common sense. @FarmFairyCrafts @cecilbadlands @theNASEM @Olivefarmer @xkit— Dr. Ena Valikov (@beachvetlbc) May 20, 2016