Excuse me! You are excused, sir. I was under the impression somebody posted an article looking for reactions, not that they were expecting us to dig out the original source and evaluate the viability of the research. My reaction is entirely appropriate for what was posted.
So you're throwing the baby out with the bath water?
That link you sent also goes to a special interest groups page which is still suspicious. No. The link is to the peer-reviewed article, which happens to be hosted on such a site. This is the scientific publication, not a blog, and you can find the same thing with EBSCO or JSTOR. Regardless I don't have the expertise (do you?) Yes, this is one of the areas where I'm not restricted to speculation. to evaluate this research. In the medical and biological sciences there is a lot of hack research. It depends on who funds it. The private sector tends to be biased towards... the private sector by using a brute force approach to find anomalies that support their goals, basically funding a ton of studies and suppressing the results that don't suit them, or ending experiments at the first sign of a negative result without even waiting for a semi-complete dataset. Right now I'm running a side project using an insect to introduce a transgenically engineered virus to an invasive plant population that happens to be a problem pest for a certain industry. The frequency with which supposed tested methods fail is astonishing, as there are surprising holes in places where they shouldn't be. It's enlightening, in all the wrong ways and speaks to data suppression. This may be some, may not, which is why I wait for general acceptance by those communities until I form an opinion. It will be a long time before general acceptance exists in the GMO arena because there are no objective evaluators. The closest entities are government agencies, which review results submitted by the private sector. Legally, unless it's a major fiasco, you'll never see them running tests themselves, just reviewing what was submitted to them. If they don't like it, they ask the industry to redo it, as if they weren't speaking to the fox guarding the henhouse. Same for the rest of the FDA, including pharmaceuticals (although pharm companies stand a greater risk, so they tend to do a better job regarding what goes into people. What happens after it leaves people is another tangent).
Legit?
And anyway, what's the difference between rats and mice? Same nasty little piece of shit anyway. Some people keep either one of them at home, whether intentionally or partially. Nasty people.
