Her parents haven’t broken it to her – because they don’t know – that she and her food are made up of chemicals
Because – duh – it didn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. Not to worry; the discredited researcher can alwys get a job in the global warming industry where faith, rather than reason rules.
LONDON (Reuters) – The publisher of a controversial and much-criticized study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumors in rats has withdrawn the paper after a year-long investigation found it did not meet scientific standards.
Reed Elsevier’s Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT)journal, which published the study by the French researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini in September 2012, said the retraction was because the study’s small sample size meant no definitive conclusions could be reached.
At the time of its original publication, hundreds of scientists across the world questioned Seralini’s research, which said rats fed Monsanto’s GM corn had suffered tumors and multiple organ failure.
The journal said that, while it had received many letters expressing concerns about the validity of the findings, the proper use of animals and even allegations of fraud, its own investigation found “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”.
“However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected,” it said.
“The major flaws in this paper make its retraction the right thing to do,” said Cathie Martin, a professor at John Innes Centre. “The strain of rats used is highly susceptible to tumors after 18 months with or withoutGMO (genetically modified organisms) in their diets.”
David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said it was “clear from even a superficial reading that this paper was not fit for publication”. In this instance, he said, the peer review process had not worked properly.
When Bush was president, liberals (including the guy who replaced him) all demanded an end to “the politicization of science”. They’ve achieved that: they’ve eliminated the science.
For What It's Worth 
the child says it all — the activists are behaving like children – niave and immature just respond with they emotions
Reuters is usually pretty good, but they missed the back story on this one. The new journal editor who retracted the paper has extensive ties to Monsanto, including being a former employee. Sadly, so-called ‘science’ in this day and age has more to do with corporate and government.interests than the truth. BTW, I come from the world of big business. not from the ‘liberal’ or ‘global warming’ direction. Read about the journal editor’s Monsanto background at the following link.
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/french-researcher-claims-monsanto-lobbyists-pulled-his-study-from-journal/
And this release by the European Network of Scientists explains exactly what the GMO toxicity study was about and why it remains valid.
Who decides what ‘science’ is anyway? Corporations and governments with a commercial agenda, or independent researchers?
Journal’s retraction of rat feeding paper is a travesty of science and looks like a bow to industry.
http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-the-retraction-of-the-seralini-et-al-2012-study/
Au contraire, it is the political/scientists who first reported their “scientific study” who were playing the game. Real science requires a proposition, proof of that proposition by verifiable, repeatable results: this was a sample too small to allow any objective observer to evaluate it, and it used rats with a genetic propensity to develop tumors (they’d had their genes modified, ironically, to achieve just that result) within 18 months, well within the test period. In other words, they would have developed tumors regardless of what they were fed.
Garbage in, garbage out.
From the European Network of Scientists …
Séralini paper a chronic toxicity study, not a full-scale carcinogenicity study
‘the paper is a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity study, which would require a higher number of rats. The authors did not intend to look specifically for tumours, but still found increased tumour rates. Secondly, both of Hayes’s arguments (the number of rats and their tumour susceptibility) were considered by the peer reviewers of the journal, who decided they formed no objection to publication. Thirdly, these two arguments have been discussed at length in the journal following the publication of the paper and have been refuted by the authors of the paper and other experts. Higher numbers of animals are only required in this type of safety studies to avoid missing toxic effects (a ‘false negative’ result), but the study found pronounced toxic effects and a first indication of possible carcinogenic effects. The Sprague-Dawley strain of rat which was used, is the commonly used standard for this type of research. For these reasons, the statistical significance of the biochemical data was endorsed by statistics experts. The biochemical data confirm the toxic effects such as those on liver and kidney, which are serious enough by themselves. The tumours and mortality rates are observations which need to be confirmed by a specific carcinogenicity study with higher numbers of rats; in view of public food safety, it is not wise to simply ignore them. Unpleasant results should be checked, not ignored.’
http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-the-retraction-of-the-seralini-et-al-2012-study/