Independent Research? [modified]
-
Greenpeace said a study it had commissioned that was published in the
journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology showed rats fed for
90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize showed "signs of toxicity" in the liver and
kidneys.And...
"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-
reviewed journal, has proved that a GMO authorized for human consumption presents
signs of toxicity," Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France said in
statement.I also find it interesting that a group which includes such organizations as PETA among its "comprehensive list of all [their] favourite sites[^]" would commission a study designed to induce cancer toxicity in rats. Of course, I guess that comes as no surprise. After all, they are leading global warming advocates[^].
Of course, any studies which show GM food to be safe will be dismissed by Greenpeace as biased, but studies that they commission are of course completely unbiased.
-
Of course, any studies which show GM food to be safe will be dismissed by Greenpeace as biased, but studies that they commission are of course completely unbiased.
Not just unbiased, but the scientists they directly paid are actually "independent".
-
Of course, any studies which show GM food to be safe will be dismissed by Greenpeace as biased, but studies that they commission are of course completely unbiased.
The Greenpeace commmissioned research has been published. Any other scientist can duplicate, confirm, deny or criticize the study. Contrast that with the Monsanto rat study that was kept secret by Monsanto until forced by a German court to release it. If the corn is so safe what was Monsanto hiding?
-
The Greenpeace commmissioned research has been published. Any other scientist can duplicate, confirm, deny or criticize the study. Contrast that with the Monsanto rat study that was kept secret by Monsanto until forced by a German court to release it. If the corn is so safe what was Monsanto hiding?
I don't see that has anything to do with the point I made.
-
The Greenpeace commmissioned research has been published. Any other scientist can duplicate, confirm, deny or criticize the study. Contrast that with the Monsanto rat study that was kept secret by Monsanto until forced by a German court to release it. If the corn is so safe what was Monsanto hiding?
oilFactotum wrote:
If the corn is so safe what was Monsanto hiding?
If they were hiding something, and their research has since been published, why hasn't that been disputed. You can't blame a company for reluctantly resisting something which will just be "torn apart" by commissioned-independent scientists in the media, thereby causing them billions in damages. Science (specifically the biological branch) is an inherently imperfect and corrupt system. There is always a source of funding and consequently a source of bias (towards the desired result of producing the funding or, sometimes, of the scientists conducting the experiments) exacerbated by the fact that it depends so heavily on statistical inferences. The fact that certain branches of science have become so politicized (primarily by groups which advocate certain results in order to push their political agendas) makes a great deal of research immediately untrustworthy or highly suspect. Eventually a true picture becomes apparent, but oftentimes only after decades of contradictory research. Of course, when a political group like Greenpeace commissions "independent" research, their political machine works overtime to lobby the public into accepting their research as fact. A generally ignorant public has been brainwashed into seeing science as the absolute authority and is eager to accept it.
-
I don't see that has anything to do with the point I made.
You made a baseless claim about what Greenpeace's position is on other studies. Is there a point? You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true. I expanded on that point - the Greenpeace research has been published, allowing anyone to find any potential bias. A pretty good indication right there that it is not biased.
-
You made a baseless claim about what Greenpeace's position is on other studies. Is there a point? You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true. I expanded on that point - the Greenpeace research has been published, allowing anyone to find any potential bias. A pretty good indication right there that it is not biased.
oilFactotum wrote:
You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true.
:rolleyes: I don't think I've ever seen you formulate a thought that wasn't based entirely on who is delivering the message. Greenpeace: unbiased Mansanto: biased
-
oilFactotum wrote:
If the corn is so safe what was Monsanto hiding?
If they were hiding something, and their research has since been published, why hasn't that been disputed. You can't blame a company for reluctantly resisting something which will just be "torn apart" by commissioned-independent scientists in the media, thereby causing them billions in damages. Science (specifically the biological branch) is an inherently imperfect and corrupt system. There is always a source of funding and consequently a source of bias (towards the desired result of producing the funding or, sometimes, of the scientists conducting the experiments) exacerbated by the fact that it depends so heavily on statistical inferences. The fact that certain branches of science have become so politicized (primarily by groups which advocate certain results in order to push their political agendas) makes a great deal of research immediately untrustworthy or highly suspect. Eventually a true picture becomes apparent, but oftentimes only after decades of contradictory research. Of course, when a political group like Greenpeace commissions "independent" research, their political machine works overtime to lobby the public into accepting their research as fact. A generally ignorant public has been brainwashed into seeing science as the absolute authority and is eager to accept it.
Red Stateler wrote:
why hasn't that been disputed
It has been reviewed. Do a google search.
Red Stateler wrote:
You can't blame a company
Well, yes I can. They are trying to sell a product that they claim is safe but refuse to publish the research that they claim proves it? As for the rest - I don't buy your scientists as corporate whore theory.:rolleyes:
-
Red Stateler wrote:
why hasn't that been disputed
It has been reviewed. Do a google search.
Red Stateler wrote:
You can't blame a company
Well, yes I can. They are trying to sell a product that they claim is safe but refuse to publish the research that they claim proves it? As for the rest - I don't buy your scientists as corporate whore theory.:rolleyes:
oilFactotum wrote:
It has been reviewed. Do a google search.
Did I say "reviewed"?
oilFactotum wrote:
Well, yes I can. They are trying to sell a product that they claim is safe but refuse to publish the research that they claim proves it?
Companies perform that research in conjunction with the FDA (which serves to help remove that inherent bias). If you knew the first thing about science, you would know that it's not possible to deem a product (any product) "safe". That would involve the elimination of the possibility of every single possible danger known (and unknown) to man. Rather, the opposite is performed, in which a product is removed if a future study demonstrates it to be excessively unsafe. So no, it's absolutely not the responsibility of a company to "prove" a product is safe. Especially when that product is opposed for political reasons and no amount of research will satisfy those political groups.
oilFactotum wrote:
As for the rest - I don't buy your scientists as corporate whore theory.
Not just corporate whore... Government whore, activist whore, etc... Leftists are deficient when it comes to understanding science because they erroneously believe that it falls outside of the realm of economics (due to their dogmatic attachment to it). Consequently, they (as you are now demonstrating) lack the necessary skeptical approach to it.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true.
:rolleyes: I don't think I've ever seen you formulate a thought that wasn't based entirely on who is delivering the message. Greenpeace: unbiased Mansanto: biased
You seem to be completely incapable of understanding anything. What I think is "probably true" is that "Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased". I also state that publishing their research is an indicator that it probably is. It is you that makes assumptions based on who the speaker is.:rolleyes: Your post is a perfect example of your behavior.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
It has been reviewed. Do a google search.
Did I say "reviewed"?
oilFactotum wrote:
Well, yes I can. They are trying to sell a product that they claim is safe but refuse to publish the research that they claim proves it?
Companies perform that research in conjunction with the FDA (which serves to help remove that inherent bias). If you knew the first thing about science, you would know that it's not possible to deem a product (any product) "safe". That would involve the elimination of the possibility of every single possible danger known (and unknown) to man. Rather, the opposite is performed, in which a product is removed if a future study demonstrates it to be excessively unsafe. So no, it's absolutely not the responsibility of a company to "prove" a product is safe. Especially when that product is opposed for political reasons and no amount of research will satisfy those political groups.
oilFactotum wrote:
As for the rest - I don't buy your scientists as corporate whore theory.
Not just corporate whore... Government whore, activist whore, etc... Leftists are deficient when it comes to understanding science because they erroneously believe that it falls outside of the realm of economics (due to their dogmatic attachment to it). Consequently, they (as you are now demonstrating) lack the necessary skeptical approach to it.
Red Stateler wrote:
Did I say "reviewed"?
It has to be reviewed to be disproved.
Red Stateler wrote:
Companies perform that research in conjunction with the FDA (which serves to help remove that inherent bias).
They kept it secret.
Red Stateler wrote:
Not just corporate whore
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
-
You seem to be completely incapable of understanding anything. What I think is "probably true" is that "Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased". I also state that publishing their research is an indicator that it probably is. It is you that makes assumptions based on who the speaker is.:rolleyes: Your post is a perfect example of your behavior.
oilFactotum wrote:
You seem to be completely incapable of understanding anything. What I think is "probably true" is that "Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased". I also state that publishing their research is an indicator that it probably is.
OK. Let me get this straight, because your grasp of the english language is absolutely horrible... Person A: "I think my research is unbiased". Person B: "That's probably true". So then...you're saying that in the above text, you would interpret person B as saying that Person A is correct in that he "thinks" his research is unbiased rather than saying Person A is probably correct that his research is unbiased? Are you autistic or something? That makes no sense. Then, in the same breath, you say that the fact the Greenpeace published the research means that it is indeed probably not biased, thereby negating any possibility of the above interpretation of your words (and, by the way, verifying my above claim that you only consider the source of the message)? This is why I get frustrated with you. You're a completel moron.
-
You seem to be completely incapable of understanding anything. What I think is "probably true" is that "Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased". I also state that publishing their research is an indicator that it probably is. It is you that makes assumptions based on who the speaker is.:rolleyes: Your post is a perfect example of your behavior.
So, the is ExxonMobile funded research, which is published like GreenPeace's, also "probably unbiased"?
-
So, the is ExxonMobile funded research, which is published like GreenPeace's, also "probably unbiased"?
No, because that was funded by Exxon. :rolleyes:
-
You made a baseless claim about what Greenpeace's position is on other studies. Is there a point? You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true. I expanded on that point - the Greenpeace research has been published, allowing anyone to find any potential bias. A pretty good indication right there that it is not biased.
oilFactotum wrote:
You made a baseless claim about what Greenpeace's position is on other studies
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/516558.stm[^]
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You seem to be completely incapable of understanding anything. What I think is "probably true" is that "Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased". I also state that publishing their research is an indicator that it probably is.
OK. Let me get this straight, because your grasp of the english language is absolutely horrible... Person A: "I think my research is unbiased". Person B: "That's probably true". So then...you're saying that in the above text, you would interpret person B as saying that Person A is correct in that he "thinks" his research is unbiased rather than saying Person A is probably correct that his research is unbiased? Are you autistic or something? That makes no sense. Then, in the same breath, you say that the fact the Greenpeace published the research means that it is indeed probably not biased, thereby negating any possibility of the above interpretation of your words (and, by the way, verifying my above claim that you only consider the source of the message)? This is why I get frustrated with you. You're a completel moron.
Red Stateler wrote:
OK. Let me get this straight
I wish you would. this is a real waste of time Person A: "I think that Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased" Person B: "Thats probably true." Person B is saying that he agrees with A that "Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased."
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You made a baseless claim about what Greenpeace's position is on other studies
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/516558.stm[^]
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
-
So, the is ExxonMobile funded research, which is published like GreenPeace's, also "probably unbiased"?
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
OK. Let me get this straight
I wish you would. this is a real waste of time Person A: "I think that Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased" Person B: "Thats probably true." Person B is saying that he agrees with A that "Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased."
oilFactotum wrote:
Person A: "I think that Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased"
That's not at all what you said. You said, "You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true." Mine was an accurate quote and yours is a restatement. I'll just assume that you admit your folly, given the extent you're going through to restate what you originally said. You'll never admit it, though.
-
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
Because you only consider the source. Typical leftist mindless drone...