I accuse the GE Seralini on GMOs

[izentrop]

DEPLETE AND DESERTIFY: yes as the independent lobbies surveys show, the deforestation of developing countries (as some say) is not a sight of the spirit and whose aim is neither to feed the populations local or national, or enrich them (apart from a few large owners or pension funds), but the wealthy countries like America and Europe and therefore you… and not me!

Thank you for the intent. Let's stay correct. In Indonesia http://www.geo.fr/photos/reportages-geo ... sie-161035 and responsibility in the amazon is not as simplistic as you claim.

And it's me who mixes everything

[Janic]

I don't think Janic is hinting at any conspiracy theory at all.
you could say that everything happens as if it were a conspiracy, except that the reason is simply that the same determinism is at work among agents who have no particular links between them, except this common constraint ...

Completely agree and yet he is not completely wrong (now I support him, we will have seen everything! )

http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/complot
• PLOT, subst. masc.
A.- Secret design, concerted between several people, with the intention of causing harm to the authority of a public figure or an institution, possibly to attempt his life or to his safety.
When the United States Congress questioned tobacco companies, it was about the definition above and below. and there was every intention of doing harm to protect their business.
B. - P. ext. Any project secretly concerted between two or more people.
The Seralini case is one of them because it obeys the same mechanisms as you indicate.
Then yes ! Let's shout loud and clear, these are conspiracies !!!

[Ahmed]

Warning! I was only referring to the form of the generalized conspiracy and not to hidden consultations between interest groups, which exist, that goes without saying ...

[Janic]

janic wrote: DEPLETE AND DESERTIFY: yes as independent lobbies surveys show, deforestation in developing countries (as some say) is not a sight of the mind and whose goal is neither to feed local or national populations, or enrich them (apart from a few large owners or pension funds,) but the wealthy countries like America and Europe and therefore you ... and not me!

Thank you for the intent.

It is not a trial of intent, but an economic reality. The largest part of the cereal culture goes to animal food and when France does not provide enough, it imports the Americans, who come among other things from the destroyed forests to cultivate there enough to feed American and European animals.
Now, this site indicates that the natural elements destroy forests, of course, but they regrow and reform forests, not corn fields where soybeans GMO copiously sprayed with chemicals. So except not to eat these meats in question, this concerns you and not me.

In Indonesia http://www.geo.fr/photos/reportages-geo ... sie-161035 and in amazonia the responsibilities are not as simplistic as you claim.

Who is talking about simplism? When you defend GMOs, that is effectively simplicity by reducing the impact at the moment present without taking into account its effects in the medium, long and very long term.

And it's me who mixes everything

Obviously, it really can't be me.

Ahmed
I understood it well in this sense there; but what I pointed out probably would have been.

[izentrop]

Now, this site indicates that the natural elements destroy forests, of course, but they regrow and reform forests, not corn fields where soybeans GMO copiously sprayed with chemicals.

simplistic shortcuts.

So except not to eat these meats in question, this concerns you and not me.

Again, what do you know?

[Janic]

So except not to eat these meats in question, this concerns you and not me.

Again, what do you know?

absolutely nothing, hence this clarification. and if you don't eat it, then we are two not concerned: Is it the case?

[izentrop]

I had not seen the precision.

Is that the case?

By force of circumstances, my wife, influenced by L214 decided to stop eating it. I allow myself occasional sprains

[Janic]

By force of circumstances, my wife, influenced by L214 decided to stop eating it. I allow myself occasional sprains

It is above all a question of conviction! However, do not allow yourself to be dominated by emotion because, without an information process, this can give rise to particular problems. (see my last intervention on homeopathy)

[izentrop]

No, homeopathic remedies do not make Roundup a “detox”: an evaluation of the latest Séralini study https://theierecosmique.com/2016/12/12/ ... -seralini/

Some extracts:

The study in question is "Dig1 protects against locomoter and biochemical dysfunctions provoked by Roundup". As you can probably imagine, this is an article that is nothing exceptional. Truth be told, it's so bad ...

The first thing that stands out is that the last author is Gilles-Éric Séralini (the place of last author is usually reserved for the senior scientist responsible for supervising the project). Séralini, for those who ignore it, is known for its mediocre and marginal anti-biotechnology publications (in particular GMOs). He was indeed the main author of this infamous study on rats whose aim was to show that GMOs cause cancer, but actually demonstrated that Séralini understood nothing about the concept of a control group. The study was so bad that it ended up being retracted, after which Séralini published it again in a dubious newspaper ...

The article talks about the supposed benefits of a homeopathic product known as Digeodren (or Dig1), but was funded by the company that markets Digeodren (Sevene Pharma).
... it affirms not only that a homeopathic remedy works (I will come back to it), but that in addition it helps to eliminate toxins from your body. These two extraordinary claims go against a very large part of the scientific literature.

... systematic reviews of the literature show that homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo. Likewise, detox supplements, juice cures, foot baths, etc. are scams.

... This paper goes fishing with significant results. The comparisons were so numerous that some were found to be significant by pure chance. This is a common tactic among pseudoscientists ...

All that to make us swallow his homeopathic pill.
It reminds me of the memory of water

[Janic]

No, homeopathic remedies do not make Roundup a “detox”: an evaluation of the latest Séralini study https://theierecosmique.com/2016/12/12/ ... -seralini /

as a "scientific" reference (you must be able to do better than quote this rag of nonsense.)
On the other hand he cites some much more interesting "references", although under pretension of neutrality the position taken is clearly opposed ("chase the natural, it comes back at a gallop")
so: https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/2 ... -evidence/
"Randomized controlled trials
There are no large randomized controlled trials on vaccines and autism, and there are two very good reasons for this. First, autism is rare enough that you need an absurd sample size to have a reasonable chance of detecting a significant effect. They are therefore not practical (case-controlled and cohort studies are more suited to the question). Second, the benefits of vaccines have been established beyond any questionable shadow, so it would be unethical to deliberately give placebos rather than vaccines.

However, the lack of randomized controlled trials is not a problem. Randomized controlled trials are the most powerful experimental tool for establishing causation, but other methods are perfectly capable of showing lack of causation. For example, case-control trials can only show correlation, not causation, but since a lack of correlation also means a lack of causation, they can be very powerful tools to show that two things are not. not causally related. So if you had argued that vaccines cause autism, then the lack of randomized controlled trials would be potentially problematic (depending on the strength of the other studies, especially the cohort studies), but the lack of controlled trials randomized is really irrelevant for a negative outcome. "
it is the kind of speech which goes against the reference usually used to bring this famous proof claimed.
Then the author uses an authority argument: "Second, the benefits of vaccines have been established beyond any questionable shadowit would therefore be unethical to deliberately give placebos rather than vaccines"In short: move around there is nothing to see! unfortunately the scientific community does not share, by an incontestable unanimity, that this argument is valid. Or then certain scientific thinking heads are absurd:

Dr. J. Anthony Morris, virologist and former head of vaccine control who works with the FDA, is adamant, "There is no evidence that the influenza vaccine is useful. Its makers know it is not useful. nothing, but they continue to sell it nonetheless. "

And in March 2009, we learned from Dr. Deb Brandt, of Rapid City Medical Center's Urgent Care, that out of 106 patients with seasonal flu, 50% had been vaccinated that year.

In Japan, where mass vaccination against influenza for school children was made compulsory in 1976, a program unique in the world which was to suppress any epidemic of influenza, the percentage of people affected by influenza rose from 5 per 100 at 000 per 60. These figures show not only a total absence of protective effect from vaccination, but rather an aggravating effect.

the medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases confirmed that there is not enough evidence to know how much this vaccine can sometimes save lives, "or even if it only saves one."

Dr. Lone Simonsen, of George Washington University in the United States. "It is not possible that the flu vaccine will save 10 times more deaths than the disease itself causes," they rightly say.

Dr Jean-Michel Dubernard, renowned surgeon and member of the College of the Haute Autorité de Santé since 2008, reported that "there is no scientific proof on the usefulness of vaccines", but no one seems to have it heard."

etc ....