On May 21, 2:46*pm, "graham" wrote:
"Judith in France" wrote in ...
On May 21, 10:44 am, Martin wrote:



On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France

wrote:
On May 20, 10:01 pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound,
Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research
on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the
so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the
EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't
science.

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

According to an article in the Guardian, a well known Dutch publisher of
scientific papers has accepted money to publish what looks like a peer
reviewed
scientific paper for the pharmaceutical industry.
--

Martin

My husband was offered many lucrative deals by the Pharmaceutical
Industry; he simply was not interested *Furthermore a peer review on
it's own won't stand, hence 2 referees are required and in some cases
a third.

__________________________________________________ __

But if the "peers" are carefully chosen, junk can still be published. *As
one of those peers, I once asked for considerable changes to a paper. *It
was paublished a couple of years later after being sent to different,
easier-going "peers".
Graham

In my husband's field Lyndon, you don't get to choose your peers; they
are chosen for you. If his grant came from the Science Research
Council; then they will send out his paper to referees; he has no
choice in the matter, and this is the way it usually works.

Judith

Judith