8 Comments

  1. Skeptologist says:

    Is it any wonder that the US has such a high infant mortality rate compared to other ‘civilized’ nations? … Though it is due to a confluence of factors, Monsanto is likely contributing to our atrocious infant mortality rate.

    Classic Sarich! ‘There’s no evidence to support my belief, but that won’t stop me from asserting my conclusions as a matter of faith!’

    1. michaelchristoff says:

      Nope, the “ABNORMAL MILK” produced in animals fed GM crops couldnt have anything to do with it? C’mon skeptologist. So please pray tell what a posteriori evidence based argument are you going to hypothesize? So if it isn’t GM products in some way, what could be an alternative explanation? Couldn’t you possibly admit there might be a link or do the denial spectacles due to lack of rigorous studies magnified too greatly cause you to turn the other way. I seem to remember cigarette companies saying there was no objective evidence that directly links smoking causing cancer. I am not an anti tobacco guy, but unless there are some other causative factors as far as GM products and infant mortality, what else could it be that has changed so significantly?

      1. Skeptologist says:

        I had a look over the paper (link below) that presented these findings. The findings are not nearly as concerning as this story makes them appear.

        The authors of the study concluded that the “fat and protein content in colostrum and milk until 15 days after kidding was lower in the GM group, and this difference disappeared at the successive milk samplings.” The difference was only observed in the colostrum, not the milk collected later than 15 days. This is odd, but jumping from this to “Monsanto causes infant mortality” is simply irrational (I hate being put in a position where I sound like I’m defending Monsanto. I’m not, I’m defending critical thinking).

        I don’t have any explanation for why this occurred, and significant, neither do the authors of the study. Sure, there might be a link. But there might also be no link. It could be a fluke. The authors used a significant threshold of p < 0.05, which means there is a 5% chance the the difference is due to chance alone. This is a standard threshold used in biology, but when there is only a single study showing an effect at a this threshold it is not enough to declare a definitive link. This finding needs to be repeated.

        Read the study for yourself. Stop jumping to conclusions.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448815000528

  2. michaelchristoff says:

    Hey Monsanto Roberts, where are you on this one? I thought GM products had absolutely NO adverse effects on anything and they were good for anyone consuming them. Please bestow on us non-GMO’ers your divine wisdom on this matter and pray tell how you can justify this one. My nose will be pressed against the computer screen waiting for your divine wisdom to enlighten us poor non-GMO simpleton folk on this article and the issues of GM fed animals producing ABNORMAL MILK!!!!!

  3. michaelchristoff says:

    Mr Monsanto Roberts, I understand if it will take you some time to formulate a laughable response. After all, make sure you check with your supervisors and they may need to consult legal to make sure the deceipt isnt indictable on the company that pays you to post. But in the meantime, my nose is just pressed to that screen waiting for your reply.

  4. Only buy organic, grass fed milk (no grains at all) whether it be cow, goat, sheep or even camel!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *