12 comments on “The New Pig Study Gets An “F” In Science

  1. Very nice. They also say in the paper that they did not use gm food and its isogenic equivalent– they got different diets. They also make an ambiguous comment about obtaining stomachs from another source, not clear what that means.

    The stats people are spot on. Plus, a big difference between statistical significance and biological significance.

    PLUS!! MOST OF ALL the second author, Howard Vleiger is the guy that is the source of the fabricated and irreproducible Stunning Corn Comparison!! He’s got the cred! Nice stuff Julie.

    • I knew Vlieger was THAT guy and wanted to do a footnote about it but didn’t because I had already done the other footnotes and it would have been first :/ Lazy I guess!

  2. Pingback: Carman-Vlieger “Pig” Study Links | Vegan GMO

  3. The sad thing about this “study” is that all the anti-GM people latch on to it and will post it all over the place thinking that this is their saving grace of what they have been preaching. It drives me nuts when uneducated people tout their stuff like the have “scientific proof,” when in reality all they understand is the bits and pieces from bogus websites like Mercola, Smith, and Natural News. Keep up the good work Julee on looking beyond the propaganda!

  4. Pingback: I’ve Looked At GMOs From Both Sides Now | SLEUTH 4 HEALTH

  5. First, let me admit that I haven’t even read the Carman paper, so my comment may be invalid. I’m commenting based only descriptions in the public criticism.

    One of the things the authors did with the stomach inflammation data was to separate the test and control animals into subgroups based on severity of the stomach inflammation and then report that there were more of the GMO fed pigs in the worst subgroup. If the criteria for separation into severity categories is specified beforehand, OK. But if one has the freedom to look a the data first and then create the categories it’s another fruitful way to cherry pick the data.

    For example, here are two totally random data sets that I created by just using a random number generator. Let’s imagine that big numbers represent worse health than small numbers.

    X = 2,2,9,16,23,24,27,30,48,51,60,80,89,90,97
    Y= 3,15,21,33,42,45,46,48,60,71,72,77,77,86,96

    Just by chance set Y has an average of about 53 and set X has an average of about 43. So Y represents worse health than X, but just by chance. Now suppose I say that a big number is anything 50 or more. Y has seven severe cases and X has only six.

    But if I say that a big number is anything 80 or more, X has four cases and Y has only two. What goes into the press release? “Category X had twice as many severe cases as category Y. “

    • There were multiple problems with this study. The statistics alone were completely ripped apart for some of the very reasons you’re describing – in essence – data mining.

  6. Pingback: [Ctrl-P] Julee K: I’ve Looked At #GMOs From Both Sides Now | skepfile·be

  7. Pingback: [Ctrl-P] Julee K: I’ve Looked At #GMOs From Both Sides Now | Kritische Massa

  8. Pingback: Review of "10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health" | Mass Muscle Maker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s