The differences are statistically insignificant. Including the incidence of cancer. A lot of crap can get through peer review, and I would not be surprised if this paper is retracted in the coming months.
This..... and it goes way beyond just cancer. Unfortunately since we are all eating it, it is very hard to make conclusive links. Obama picked his master, in this case monsanto.... I do not agree with it, I am very disapointed and believe that in 50 years it will be remembered as a failing of his tenure.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007843 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007880 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869151200796X In summary, we conclude that there are fundamental flaws in the design, analysis and reporting of the Séralini et al. (2012) study, which make it impossible to draw any conclusion. This study should not have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The public debate about the health and safety of genetically modified crops is very sensitive and it is our opinion that the public has the right to be provided with correct scientific information and should not be submitted to unsubstantiated fear. Did you know humans have been unknowingly genetically modifying their agriculture since the dawn of civilization?
You don't seem to understand what im saying matters from that study. GMO may be perfectly safe. I don't even care about the genetics portion and is an entirely different topic. It is the pesticides/toxicity of that food that is in question. The farming techniques associated with the GMO crops lace the food with roundup/pesticides. Straight up man-made environmental factors.
That's because NOTHING matters from that study. But the idea that pesticides can negatively affect human health is a very valid one.
The adding animal DNA to the plants is just a myth? Correct? The concern for me is. . . they kill some insects/animals which means they have some dangerous properties. Rocket River
edit: hard to see the graphic (removed), but monsanto and the US gov has ALOT of crossover in power. monsanto IS the US government. i mean, just read monsanto's wikipedia page (especially all the lawsuits they've paid out on): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto it's apparent this organization considers getting people sick a necessary hazard. and they're the one controlling the pesticides and our genetically modified food? i'm disturbed.
Coming to this thread on a zombified level, I agree that cancer is inevitable as one gets old enough. It will be an ongoing and eternal battle as we push our life expectancies into the triple digits while balancing that with over-population and the extreme technological and ecological measures we'll take to make all of that co-exist. Plus as people start families at an older age, we may very well pass on genetic deficiencies that were once rare and uncommon that will be seen in several generations down the line. PS. I thought Mark Lynas's editorial was a bit forced with hipster-like arrogance and grandeur. It's not only the scientists driving the research. Just like it's not the players of a team that make up the NBA, there's a whole support structure in place with several vested and varied interests. I don't think a discussion of intent should focus solely on the motivations of scientists.
As someone who knows a thing about two about cancer, I can tell you that in a nutshell, cancer cells are normal cells whose DNA has been changed (by virus, radiation or diet for example) such that they can replicate themselves indefinitely. There are many ways for cancer cells to attain that immortal stage. Therefore not only the DNA of the cancer cells between different patients are different, DNA of each cancer cell in the same patient's body There is a growing consensus that cancer should be differentiated by their mutations as oppose to their organ of origination. Therefore a cocktail of targeted therapy to target different mutations is believed to be able to treat cancer. This is similar in concept to the cocktail that "cured" AIDS but a different cocktail will be required for different people and the cocktail will need to change constantly for the same patient. I personally believe majority of cancer cases can be "cured" in the AIDS fashion in about 20 years after relevant targeted therapy drugs are developed. All these progress was only made possible by the Human Genome Projected that ended in 2004. The subsequent fall in DNA sequencing cost allowed large scale DNA analysis of tumor cells only in the last two years. In conclusion, I don't think there is any deliberate stalling of the cancer research. Cancer is just that complicated but the good news is that we are getting cracks on it as we speak now.
