[permaculture] OT Fwd: Re: [SANET-MG] small sample cancer positive test of GM maize

Lawrence F. London, Jr. lflj at bellsouth.net
Wed Oct 17 09:51:48 EDT 2012


An important followup.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] small sample cancer positive  test of GM maize
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:44:15 -0400
From: jcummins <jcummins at UWO.CA>
To: SANET-MG at LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

On 10/16/2012 7:49 PM, thomasredick at aim.com wrote:
"I cross-examined Robin Mesnages (co-author) at his defense of this 
study in Hyderabad India and we now know for certain that this study 
should not have been published with the non-statistically significant 
results, since OECD guidelines require 50-70 rats of each sex (and 
common sense from every scientist I've consulted in my capacity of 
President of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology).
Also, the tumors were non-carcinogenic for the most part -- something
that is not reported in the media frenzy, along with the 10 rats
(worthless to science) in the sample.  Add in confounding results
showing a protective effect at higher doses --- this adds to the need
for a real study, not this publicity-seeking tripe.
This is simply shameful publicity-seeking, and should be ignored until
it is reproduced with valid science."

In reply to Lawyer Redick I point out again the comment of Paul
Deheuvels, a professor at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris
and a member of the French Académie des sciences, has now drawn
attention to another serious error in the criticisms.Deheuvels pointed
out that the fact Séralini and his colleagues had  used smaller groups
than recommended makes the results if anything more convincing, not
less. That is because using a smaller number of rats actually made it
less likely to observe any effect. The fact that an effect was observed
despite the small number of animals made the result all the more
serious. These comments were supported by Prof. Peter Saunders
professor of mathematics University of London. Both are highly qualified 
authorities in the area numerical anaysis.

Tom Redick studied international environmental law at the University of
Michigan (J.D. 1985, B.A.). Mr. Redick represents clients in the
high-technology and agricultural biotechnology industry sectors with
issues relating to regulatory approval, liability avoidance and
compliance with industry standards addressing socioeconomic and
environmental impacts of multinational operations. His practice
emphasizes transportation issues for high-technology, chemical and
biotechnology applications. He currently coordinates compliance with
complex regulatory frameworks covering toxic substances and innovative
technologies, preparing global regulatory roadmaps and product liability 
prevention plans for technology clients. There does not seem to be any 
evidence of qualifications in numerical analysis or cancer research 
anywhere near the  professors. In my years of research at the Cancer 
Institute in Wisconsin I never heard the terms ' tumors were
non-carcinogenic'. Tumors can be cancerous or not and radiation,
chemicals, viruses or GM maize  may be carcinogenic (cancer causing).
GM maize that causes cancer is a serious matter  and those observing
that effect deserve respect  and thoughtful discussion, Certainly the
two professors who commented and the Professor who made the discovery
deserve respect for their professional accomplishments. The critical
comments of a lawyer  with no obvious accomplishment in the area of
cancer research or numerical analysis pale in comparison. Strangely the
European Union bureaucrats are more intimidated by lawyers than they are 
by those with knowledge.
Sincerely, prof. joe cummins



More information about the permaculture mailing list