There are some people who said that the study done by Seralini is inaccurate but I don't see what is wrong with the study. A study such as this to find the most harmful effects of GMOs has to use the worst case scenarios that can be created in the study. People who said that the paper are biased are not aware of this need for the worst case scenario so they say that the study is trying to find fault with GMOs.
Why are the people who claimed the study to be flawed so stupid?
If a scientist wants to find the effects of the AIDS virus on humans, would he then ask his test subjects to wear the most amount of protection possible? I don't think so.
Cancer is always formed in the worst case scenario condition, so to recreate cancer, the worst case scenario conditions have to be created.
People need to think more before perceiving the study to be flawed.
I quote from http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/seralini-gmo-study-republished/
"- The population of rats used have a high propensity for tumors. This causes a great deal of background noise, and would likely favor a false positive result."
Humans who get cancer are exactly those who have a high propensity for tumors. Nothing wrong here.
"- There were only 20 rats in the control group, and 80 in the exposure groups, an atypical asymmetry."
Higher number in the exposure group can have a higher chance of detecting any strange tumors. Nothing wrong here.
"- The data reports that “some” of the test groups had a higher tumor incidence, while others did not – sounds suspiciously like cherry picking the data."
Again, the need for the worst case scenario effects would require the choosing of the higher tumor incidence. There is specifically the need for cherry picking the higher tumor incidence.
"- The statistical analysis done by the team was atypical, characterized by nutrition researcher Tom Sanders as ”a statistical fishing trip,” while a more standard analysis was excluded."
Again, I emphasise the need to find the worst case scenario effects.
"- Exposure to GM corn or the herbicide Roundup had the same negative effects. It is inherently implausible (admittedly not impossible) for such distinct mechanisms to have the same effect."
Everybody knows correlation is not causation, so? What the study is doing is to narrow down the suspect not to prove anything. Move on.
"- There was no dose response at all – which is a critical component of demonstrating a toxic effect."
Irrelevant. There is a need for bioaccumulation duration in the liver. Toxins need to take time to bioaccumulate in the liver.
"- The researchers did not control for total amount of food consumed, or fungal contaminants, both of which increase tumors in this population of rat."
Again, there is the need for the worst case scenario conditions. The rats can eat how much they want, who can determine the right 'standard' amount they should eat? Dumbass.
All these factors are deliberately meant to create the worst case scenario conditions to find the worst possible effects of GMOs on the rats.