l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: ltsukida (LOL), 信区: Military
标 题: 来瞻仰一下转基因导致老鼠得癌的文章（看看comments）
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Sep 13 00:03:50 2013, 美东)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005
你抵制转基因是你的自由，毕竟你不懂，理解。但是以后别拿转基因致癌说事儿，谢谢
。Don't believe everything you hear！ |
y***u
发帖数: 7039 | 2 你看懂了吗？
看看结论部分和讨论部分。。
It is noteworthy that the first two male rats that died in both GM treated
groups had to be euthanized due to kidney Wilm’s tumors that were over 25%
of body weight. This was at approximately a year before the first control
animal died. The first female death occurred in the 22% GM maize feeding
group and resulted from a mammary fibroadenoma 246 days before the first
control. The maximum difference in males was 5 times more deaths occurring
during the 17th month in the group consuming 11% GM maize, and in females 6
times greater mortal- ity during the 21st month on the 22% GM maize diet
with and without R. In the female cohorts, there were 2–3 times more deaths
in all treated groups compared to controls by the end of the experiment and
earlier in general. Females were more sensitive to the presence of R in
drinking water than males, as evidenced by a shorter lifespan. The general
causes of death represented in his- togram format (Fig. 1) are linked mostly
to large mammary tumors in females, and other organic problems in males.
Tu- mors began to reach a large size on average 94 days before in treated
females, and up to 600 days earlier in 2 male groups eating the GM maize (11
and 22% with or without R).
Metastases were observed in only 2 cases; one in a group fed with 11% GM
maize, and another in the highest dose of R treatment group.
Up to 14 months, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of tumors
whilst 10–30% of treated females per group devel- oped tumors, with the
exception of one group (33% GMO + R). By the beginning of the 24th month, 50
–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up
to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected.
还有讨论部分：
The first large detectable tumors occurred at 4 and 7 months into the study
in males and females respectively, underlining the inadequacy of the
standard 90 day feeding trials for evaluating GM crop and food toxicity。
A consequent disruption of general metabolism in the GMO cannot be excluded,
which could lead, for example, to the production of other potentially
active com- pounds such as miRNAs (Zhang et al., 2012) or leukotoxin diols (
Markaverich et al., 2005). |
g*****n
发帖数: 250 | 3 lz不诚实啊！对这篇论文已有好多讨论 (letters to the editor)。lz有意不提，居心
不良。 |
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 4 你说什么呢？我题目里都说了，看那篇文章的comments，link也附上了，你连我的立场
都没看，上来就喷，真是让人无语。
【在 g*****n 的大作中提到】
: lz不诚实啊！对这篇论文已有好多讨论 (letters to the editor)。lz有意不提，居心
: 不良。
|
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 5 我看的很懂，你不用跟我argue，你自己去读读那些letter to the editor再说。
%
6
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 你看懂了吗？
: 看看结论部分和讨论部分。。
: It is noteworthy that the first two male rats that died in both GM treated
: groups had to be euthanized due to kidney Wilm’s tumors that were over 25%
: of body weight. This was at approximately a year before the first control
: animal died. The first female death occurred in the 22% GM maize feeding
: group and resulted from a mammary fibroadenoma 246 days before the first
: control. The maximum difference in males was 5 times more deaths occurring
: during the 17th month in the group consuming 11% GM maize, and in females 6
: times greater mortal- ity during the 21st month on the 22% GM maize diet
|
r****T
发帖数: 67 | 6 当反转成为一种信仰，生物大牛们企图在技术层面上和反转徒们讨论转基因就毫无意义
了。 |
y***u
发帖数: 7039 | 7 不要转换话题， 你让大家看文章的是吧？
为什么又绕过一线资料， 让我们去看letter TO the editor？
【在 l******a 的大作中提到】
: 我看的很懂，你不用跟我argue，你自己去读读那些letter to the editor再说。
:
: %
: 6
|
y***u
发帖数: 7039 | 8 看了两篇，第一片是个挑刺的老油条， 属于吹毛求疵，不值得一驳。
第二篇较为客观。
Most criticisms were of a general nature and without substance worthy of
entering the scientific debate. Some criticisms were specific, referring to
the type of rat used, the kind of statistical analysis, and the
interpretation of the response to increasing concentrations of the
agrichemicals, Roundup, or genetically modified plant ingredient.
I performed a quick review of papers on rat feeding studies using
genetically modified feed components also published in this same journal. In
addition to the paper by Seralini et al., I found seven studies between
2004 and now all published in Food and Chemical Toxicology in which Sprague
–Dawley rats were fed diets supplemented with material from GM plants. All
of these papers were published by those companies who developed the GM plant
used in the study. One paper was from Monsanto, and the others from DuPont/
Pioneer. None of the papers extended beyond ～90 days.
These studies used approximately the same number of rats as the study by
Seralini et al. All of them used the same kind of rat as the Seralini et al.
study. The 2004 study by Hammond used marginally more rats in the relevant
control group, but was in my opinion less powerful statistically because of
the inclusion of ‘reference’ control lines that were not fed on the near-
isogenic non-GM diet. The power gained by the additional rats (20/sex vs. 10
/sex) was offset by the noise introduced by irrelevant variables.
The statistics used in these other studies passed anonymous peer-review.
Aside from that, there is no other peer-reviewed evidence that these
statistical approaches are either uniquely appropriate or validated for
their use in this kind of study. On those fronts, I find Seralini et al.’s
statistical analysis equally valid. I would encourage both the scientific
community and the regulatory community to engage in an exercise of
validation of statistical analyses if this remains an issue of contention.
Where the Seralini et al. study has no peer in this group of papers is in
its duration. No number of 90 day feeding studies can refute the findings of
a long term study when the effects are largely those that appear after 90
days.
Some critics have attempted to disparage the most recent findings by drawing
doubt on the nature of the response, pointing out that the severity of the
effect did not uniformly increase with dosage. I am aware of a number of
toxicological studies that report similar phenomena. For example, Welshons
et al. (2003) said in their article in Health Perspectives: “Furthermore,
receptor-mediated responses can first increase and then decrease as dose
increases, contradicting the assumption that dose–response relationships
are monotonic.” The effect fits perfectly well with receptor-mediated or
saturated effects and within the hypotheses presented by Seralini et al.
While there is always room for more science on any topic, in my opinion the
Seralini et al. study stands shoulder to shoulder with the best of those
published by others on this same issue. Importantly, it explores hypotheses
that industry-based authors largely did not and therefore these earlier
studies are in no way evidence against the most recent findings. The proper
pathway forward is for any uncertainty in the findings to be put to rest
through: the establishment of a consensus protocol developed through a
transparent and openly peer-reviewed methodology; definitive study using
this protocol to be conducted by industry-independent scientists of
appropriate qualifications, such as Seralini et al., with reasonable access
for observation by those nominated by the industry and regulatory
communities.
In the meantime, it is my view that the recent study is a valuable
contribution to the scientific literature, debate and process of evaluating
technologies. I trust your journal to publish quality science and you have
vindicated my trust.
【在 l******a 的大作中提到】
: 我看的很懂，你不用跟我argue，你自己去读读那些letter to the editor再说。
:
: %
: 6
|
y***u
发帖数: 7039 | 9 对于转基因玉米易于诱发慢性癌变， 哪位科学界人士有疑问？
【在 r****T 的大作中提到】
: 当反转成为一种信仰，生物大牛们企图在技术层面上和反转徒们讨论转基因就毫无意义
: 了。
|
c******r
发帖数: 3778 | 10 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science
法国科学院算科学界人士么？可以反对么？
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 对于转基因玉米易于诱发慢性癌变， 哪位科学界人士有疑问？
|
|
|
y***u
发帖数: 7039 | 11 法国人如此浅陋得评论，应该不算科学界人士， 应该是利益集团得人士。
【在 c******r 的大作中提到】
: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science
: 法国科学院算科学界人士么？可以反对么？
|
c******r
发帖数: 3778 | 12 法国科学院不算科学界人士，谁算？你算么？
亮个牌子吧，毙掉法国科学院，大家也佩服啊。
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 法国人如此浅陋得评论，应该不算科学界人士， 应该是利益集团得人士。
|
r****T
发帖数: 67 | 13 你从 哪里摘录的，我看到的第二篇是这样写的：
I am writing to express my concern at the recent publication authored by Sé
ralini et al. in “Food and Chemical Toxicology.”
.......
I would strongly encourage you to closely examine the review and editorial
process that led to the acceptance of this paper.
to
In
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 看了两篇，第一片是个挑刺的老油条， 属于吹毛求疵，不值得一驳。
: 第二篇较为客观。
: Most criticisms were of a general nature and without substance worthy of
: entering the scientific debate. Some criticisms were specific, referring to
: the type of rat used, the kind of statistical analysis, and the
: interpretation of the response to increasing concentrations of the
: agrichemicals, Roundup, or genetically modified plant ingredient.
: I performed a quick review of papers on rat feeding studies using
: genetically modified feed components also published in this same journal. In
: addition to the paper by Seralini et al., I found seven studies between
|
y***u
发帖数: 7039 | 14 应该是第三篇把。
【在 r****T 的大作中提到】
: 你从 哪里摘录的，我看到的第二篇是这样写的：
: I am writing to express my concern at the recent publication authored by Sé
: ralini et al. in “Food and Chemical Toxicology.”
: .......
: I would strongly encourage you to closely examine the review and editorial
: process that led to the acceptance of this paper.
:
: to
: In
|
F*****8
发帖数: 243 | 15 这个版上的人还是比较 nice的。老方也不容易，那么费劲科普绝不退缩。
换我碰到胡搅蛮缠的文科生早开骂了 |
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 16 我都懒得理你，你就一文科生吧，你把result and discussion 放在这儿说有个p用。
我们搞生物的都是上来先看data好不好。第一眼都是data的gragh，对照组老鼠才10，
首先就没有统计学意义，有的组的老鼠喂了GMO的食物还是比control死的少，你怎么解
释？全文的理论基础就是10个control（死了25%）老鼠，专门用死的多组的data去比较
这10个老鼠。另外专门用这种容易得癌症的鼠去做这个实验到底valid不valid？这种破
文章就是来赚眼球的，能发了都是奇迹，你自己看看底下letter to editor有多少要求
retraction的，你明白retraction什么意思吗？你知道在搞科学的里面要求retraction
意味着什么？你没事儿少来biology版好吗？啥都不懂还胡搅蛮缠的。麻烦你到军事版
去讨论反转基因，谢谢。
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 不要转换话题， 你让大家看文章的是吧？
: 为什么又绕过一线资料， 让我们去看letter TO the editor？
|
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 17 science是靠data说话的，你光看讨论有个p用。见我楼上的帖子。
%
6
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 你看懂了吗？
: 看看结论部分和讨论部分。。
: It is noteworthy that the first two male rats that died in both GM treated
: groups had to be euthanized due to kidney Wilm’s tumors that were over 25%
: of body weight. This was at approximately a year before the first control
: animal died. The first female death occurred in the 22% GM maize feeding
: group and resulted from a mammary fibroadenoma 246 days before the first
: control. The maximum difference in males was 5 times more deaths occurring
: during the 17th month in the group consuming 11% GM maize, and in females 6
: times greater mortal- ity during the 21st month on the 22% GM maize diet
|
y***u
发帖数: 7039 | 18 你写出这段话，我已经知道你还是个没出校门的学生，就不打击你了。
retraction
【在 l******a 的大作中提到】
: 我都懒得理你，你就一文科生吧，你把result and discussion 放在这儿说有个p用。
: 我们搞生物的都是上来先看data好不好。第一眼都是data的gragh，对照组老鼠才10，
: 首先就没有统计学意义，有的组的老鼠喂了GMO的食物还是比control死的少，你怎么解
: 释？全文的理论基础就是10个control（死了25%）老鼠，专门用死的多组的data去比较
: 这10个老鼠。另外专门用这种容易得癌症的鼠去做这个实验到底valid不valid？这种破
: 文章就是来赚眼球的，能发了都是奇迹，你自己看看底下letter to editor有多少要求
: retraction的，你明白retraction什么意思吗？你知道在搞科学的里面要求retraction
: 意味着什么？你没事儿少来biology版好吗？啥都不懂还胡搅蛮缠的。麻烦你到军事版
: 去讨论反转基因，谢谢。
|
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 19 你敢说你是学生物的？不是的话， 该干嘛干嘛去。
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 你写出这段话，我已经知道你还是个没出校门的学生，就不打击你了。
:
: retraction
|
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 20 你刚才不是还要跟我讨论science吗？怎么我一分析data，你就“不打击我了”
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 你写出这段话，我已经知道你还是个没出校门的学生，就不打击你了。
:
: retraction
|
|
|
y***u
发帖数: 7039 | 21 我看过的Peer一reviewed，的生物的文章比你身高还高，你信不信。
你提的几个质疑，第三篇letter to editor己经基本概况到了。
小同学，不要越学越机械麻木。
【在 l******a 的大作中提到】
: 你敢说你是学生物的？不是的话， 该干嘛干嘛去。
|
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 22 data is crap,that all i know about the paper, no more to say. can't believe
i am wasting my time arguing here. geez
【在 y***u 的大作中提到】
: 我看过的Peer一reviewed，的生物的文章比你身高还高，你信不信。
: 你提的几个质疑，第三篇letter to editor己经基本概况到了。
: 小同学，不要越学越机械麻木。
|
l****p
发帖数: 27354 | 23 我觉得data没有明显问题，10个老鼠每组是OECD标准，如果你不知，说明你外行。
believe
【在 l******a 的大作中提到】
: data is crap,that all i know about the paper, no more to say. can't believe
: i am wasting my time arguing here. geez
|
c******r
发帖数: 3778 | 24 ok，所以呢？如果作者实在不会power calculation，10个老鼠没有差异，那做20个，
不行就30个，直到有差异为止。基本还算诚实。
没有统计差异的时候就换个统计方法，非要算出差异才算完。这叫什么行为？
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得data没有明显问题，10个老鼠每组是OECD标准，如果你不知，说明你外行。
:
: believe
|
l****p
发帖数: 27354 | 25 这行为叫做data dredging or data torturing.
但是，他这个分析方法也不能说完全不行，或许人家实验2个，一个有阳性结果，如果
这个出阳性的统计分析方法和另外一个同样好，就不能说明他是data torturing.
【在 c******r 的大作中提到】
: ok，所以呢？如果作者实在不会power calculation，10个老鼠没有差异，那做20个，
: 不行就30个，直到有差异为止。基本还算诚实。
: 没有统计差异的时候就换个统计方法，非要算出差异才算完。这叫什么行为？
|
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 26 对我是外行，你是内行。
我没有从他的data里看出来吃了GMO的老鼠得癌多。实验组60个老鼠，有些组得癌的比
control要少，有些组多一点儿，control 10个，我不觉得能说明任何问题。我觉得我
抛70个银币，10个control，另外60个分成不同的组，能得出跟他差不多的结论。也许
把control也搞成60个，能说明一些问题。period。
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得data没有明显问题，10个老鼠每组是OECD标准，如果你不知，说明你外行。
:
: believe
|
l****p
发帖数: 27354 | 27 如果有Dose-response,就可以，有时候剂量组的确可以出现好于对照组的情况，可能性
之一是Hormesis, 当然了，这个需要进一步验证.
【在 l******a 的大作中提到】
: 对我是外行，你是内行。
: 我没有从他的data里看出来吃了GMO的老鼠得癌多。实验组60个老鼠，有些组得癌的比
: control要少，有些组多一点儿，control 10个，我不觉得能说明任何问题。我觉得我
: 抛70个银币，10个control，另外60个分成不同的组，能得出跟他差不多的结论。也许
: 把control也搞成60个，能说明一些问题。period。
|
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 28 你那只眼看出来是dose response了？Hormesis，你还真提的出来，佩服。说不定我们
吃GMO还更有利于健康呢，Hormesis嘛。
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】
: 如果有Dose-response,就可以，有时候剂量组的确可以出现好于对照组的情况，可能性
: 之一是Hormesis, 当然了，这个需要进一步验证.
|
l****p
发帖数: 27354 | 29 看来你对Hormesis还真不了解，建议自己检索。
【在 l******a 的大作中提到】
: 你那只眼看出来是dose response了？Hormesis，你还真提的出来，佩服。说不定我们
: 吃GMO还更有利于健康呢，Hormesis嘛。
|
n******d
发帖数: 1055 | 30 那片文章基本上是伪造的。行内的人都不信的。但是，但是，你永远也无法用从科学的
角度来说服没有科学观念的信众。所以呢，要宣传转基因揍是好，揍是好，揍是好。。
。 |
|
|
c******r
发帖数: 3778 | 31 那几个问题：
1。 你需要定义好的标准。
2。 作者需要证明两个方法一样好。
3。 既然一样好，作者需要说明为什么选用一种很少使用，甚至没人使用的方法，原因
何在。
4。 需要说明这种新方法的适用情况和范围。
5。 其他作者如果使用这种自创的方法是否合适？
6。 其他作者是否能够使用自己认为合适的其他统计手段？如何保证手段的公正，科学
，严谨？
7。 孟三度公司能用这种方法说明自己的作物很安全么？孟三度能自创其他统计手段，
只要一样好，来说明自己的作物很安全么？
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】
: 这行为叫做data dredging or data torturing.
: 但是，他这个分析方法也不能说完全不行，或许人家实验2个，一个有阳性结果，如果
: 这个出阳性的统计分析方法和另外一个同样好，就不能说明他是data torturing.
|
l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 32 RE
【在 r****T 的大作中提到】
: 当反转成为一种信仰，生物大牛们企图在技术层面上和反转徒们讨论转基因就毫无意义
: 了。
|
b*****s
发帖数: 345 | 33 LOL同学撞枪口上了，还撞了两次。。。
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得data没有明显问题，10个老鼠每组是OECD标准，如果你不知，说明你外行。
:
: believe
|
D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 34 这篇文章的数据不就是说，适量吃转基因延长寿命，大量吃缩短寿命嘛，你看看那个图
，中间那一组更好啊哈哈。 |
d*p
发帖数: 534 | 35 找个有实验室的，综合所有意见设计实验，重新来一遍。 |
l******a
发帖数: 3339 | 36 哈哈，看看这些附和的人，还“我撞枪口了”，一看你就是不觉明厉的水平
【在 b*****s 的大作中提到】
: LOL同学撞枪口上了，还撞了两次。。。
|
