|
re:山林,你的同党都说了,你的思路有误,还非...
山林,你的同党都说了,你的思路有误,还非赖着要我讲解那篇法国人的文章,干嘛,法国有文化?这样就讨好了LV系列?
我前面的话看来你没注意听。
比如那个doc里133篇引文,90%以上都是水得一沓糊涂的小字报和网站文章,反转人若不是急红眼了到处收罗材料,稍有理科基础的,怎么好意思把这些当支撑呢。其中最牛的那篇柳叶刀事件的真相,我已经在前面给的证据很充分了。
你想啊,如果去PubMed用GM safety搜索,出来的正经的科研文章成千上万,可那帮子从中挑不出可以用来支持自己观点的板砖。甚至有像直言了那样的,如367楼揭露的,还故意弯曲和反着说“找到啦”。所以这帮子只好扒些稻草回来充数了。
就算其中有几篇是正经的质疑转基因安全性的学术文章,又怎么样呢?这在哪一个学术方面都太正常不过了。而且,这里你可以清晰想到,成千上万篇里其余的都是不怀疑安全性的文章。可见,那帮人太折腾了。
好吧,为了在云帅回来前,留住你,做最后的策反工作,我就你提的那篇法国文章正面解答。
这篇文章所受到的质疑太多,总得说法是,数据远远不够充分,从设计到操作到统计到结论,全有缺陷。这些质疑让该文作者不得不在近期刚刚发文说“是的是的!我将改进实验,完善数据,否则良心大大地坏了”
我把该作者新文的认罪表格贴在这里,你自己看吧。
[tr]Critical parameters and interpretationsPresent regulatory assessmentImprovements proposedMain consequences if improvements not applied[/tr][tr][td]Number of animals / group[/td][td]10 measured on 20 /group[/td][td]At least 20 rats for 3 months, 10 or more for 24 months / group[/td][td]Low statistical power[/td][/tr][tr][td]Number of controls versus treatments[/td][td]Too many reference or control groups (320)/ 80 GMO-treated only[/td][td]Avoid to multiply completely different control groups[/td][td]Risk of concealing statistical effects[/td][/tr][tr][td]Species[/td][td]Rat only (in mammals with blood analyses)[/td][td]Rat and other(s) species such as Mice / Rabbit[/td][td]Results too much species-specific[/td][/tr][tr][td]Replication of toxicological test[/td][td]Only once[/td][td]At least two[/td][td]Reproducibility, Reliability not proven[/td][/tr][tr][td]Length[/td][td]Subchronic (3 months)[/td][td]Chronic (24 months) + developmental + transgenerational[/td][td]Missing long term, fetal or transgenerational effects[/td][/tr][tr][td]Doses[/td][td]2 doses[/td][td]3 doses[/td][td]Missing dose response relationship[/td][/tr][tr][td]Type of treatment[/td][td]GMO[/td][td]GMOs with/without associated pesticides[/td][td]Confusion between mutagenesis / pesticides effects[/td][/tr][tr][td]Food composition[/td][td]Substantial equivalence[/td][td]More detailed composition with specific pesticides residues and metabolites, adjuvants[/td][td]Missing potential contaminants and combined effects[/td][/tr][tr][td]Norms followed[/td][td]OECD 408 strictly or less[/td][td]OECD 408-453 with other details[/td][td]Lack of hormonal sex specific data for instance[/td][/tr][tr][td]Number of blood analyses[/td][td]2 measures only after 5 and 14 weeks[/td][td]At least 3 the first trimester[/td][td]Missing punctual phenomena[/td][/tr][tr][td]Biological interpretations Dose-effects[/td][td]“Dose-related”: proportional effects only taken into account with two doses ![/td][td]Non linear effects to be studied (U or J curves)[/td][td]Risk to avoid endocrine, carcinogenic, immune long-term effects…[/td][/tr][tr][td]Biological interpretations Sex specificity[/td][td]Effects studied only if occurring in both sexes[/td][td]Sex specific effects to be studied[/td][td]Risk to avoid endocrine-specific effects[/td][/tr][tr][td]Biochemical modifications linked to histopathology[/td][td]Necessary[/td][td]Not always possible in 3 months[/td][td]Risk of false negative results[/td][/tr][tr][td]Amplitude of effects studied[/td][td]Effects inside of undefined historical norm of the species not studied[/td][td]Any statistical difference with controls to be studied[/td][td]Risk of false negative results[/td][/tr][tr][td]Final biological conclusion for an effect[/td][td]Should be plausible for the regulatory committee[/td][td]Necessity of more objective criteria: ex. lengthening of the test[/td][td]Major risk of subjective interpretation[/td][/tr]-Int J Biol Sci 2010; 6:590-598 |
|