I have no love for Monsanto. Not in anyone’s pocket but am interested in verifiable science that isn’t hyped to create headlines. I will check out your claims, but I have seen the critiques of the study. No one appears to have received a stipend from Monsanto for their opinions.

Highlights of the new EFSA guidelines include that the type of rat species used by Prof. Seralini, the Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat, is, indeed, appropriate for use in long-term food safety studies. (you know, it’s the type of rats used by Prof. Seralini in his study)

The EFSA agreed that long-term food safety studies do not necessarily need a narrow and fixed hypothesis. (you know, this was another criticism that was levied against Prof. Seralini’s work since GMOs themselves are considered still to be technically a novelty, constructing studies in a more “exploratory” fashion, like Prof. Seralini did, is considered completely acceptable).

The EFSA said studies using historical control data “should be considered with caution,” as it can lead to false outcomes. (you know, the type of study frequently used by Monsanto et al to essentially arrive at pre-determined outcomes). According to the EFSA,

But hey, don’t believe me. Get it from the horse’s mouth yourself.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3347.htm

Thank you, you’ve made it VERY CLEAR who pays your bills!!!

As always, expressed with forceful conviction. I agree with you that the authors of the study need to be censored by the academic community in a very public way.

That’s not the worst of it. The publication of false results in peer-reviewed journals suggests one has just as good cause to believe St. Mathew’s account of the supernatural virgin birth as to believe in results published in scientific journals. The traditional burning at the stake of religious heretics seems a bad policy, but it might be a good one for ‘scientists” who deliberately delude the public. Those who published the rat tumor report certainly knew their experimental method was unsound. It’s unclear what Mathew really thought about the validity of his virgin birth revelation.

Belief in Mathew’s report must be grounded on faith in problematic subjective revelation, but science has been trying to claim the ethical high ground because its assertions are ostensibly based on honest objective evidence that in principle is available to any interested person. A withdrawal of the distorted GMO rat study isn’t enough remedy for the offense. The scale of the sin requires that some of the sinners be burned at the stake or at least drawn and quartered. If children can’t place their faith in ‘science,’ where should they place it?