tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1691334248577106141.post1864901222914565671..comments2022-03-30T10:24:08.667-06:00Comments on Stay Healthy Naturally!: 204 Scientifically Proven? [19 February 2013]Stan Hingstonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10903332734512607895noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1691334248577106141.post-8639704672692627912013-02-25T17:43:46.686-06:002013-02-25T17:43:46.686-06:00I wrote about the French GMO study in #195 in Dece...I wrote about the French GMO study in #195 in December. Can you find the review you mentioned and post a link in a comment below it? I agree that it's important to repeat studies like this by other independent institutions. Suggest your friends at U of S apply for funding for long-term multi-generational animal feed studies.Stan Hingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10903332734512607895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1691334248577106141.post-67351226117111038352013-02-22T10:26:11.324-06:002013-02-22T10:26:11.324-06:00I agree totally that ALL trials related to human m...I agree totally that ALL trials related to human medicine and food products should be published. It might be of benefit, too if reviewers' remarks were published along side. Just because a paper is "peer reviewed" does not mean that flaws and questions have all been looked after. I saw an article on a French study on GMO corn. It was so badly designed I don't know how it got published but they chose to publish in an out of the main stream journal. Of course the anti-GMO crowd are all over it and decrying the review as smear. That is what I expect from them. The research would have been extremely valuable had it been done right in the first place. the results may have even been the same but they would have been defensible in the scientific community. The Blog Fodderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441978691701289074noreply@blogger.com