可怜的猪啊，中国农业部和澳大利亚科学家都用猪做转基因实验

[eclipse]

中国的实验结果总在卖相，皮毛顺滑：
农业部正在委托中国农业大学进行转基因大米的小型猪90天喂养试验。10月21日，试验负责人，中国农业大学食品科学与营养工程学院黄昆仑教授在接受《新京报》邮件采访时表示试验已完成，结果显示"试验用猪在90天喂养期间，无中毒或死亡现象，皮毛顺滑，行动灵活，饮食正常，生长发育状况良好。"

澳大利亚非常不人道，把实验猪都杀了：
据澳大利亚广播公司报导，今年6月份一项由澳大利亚和美国研究人员合作进行的新研究发现，由转基因饲料喂养的猪的胃炎发病率远高于传统饲料喂养的猪。

　　该项研究的首席研究员是阿德雷德健康与环境研究学院院长、流行病学家和生物化学家卡曼（Judy Carman）。研究人员针对美国一个商业养猪场里的168只刚断奶的猪仔进行了为期22.7周（159天）的研究。

　　他们将一半的猪仔用转基因大豆和玉米喂养，这些大豆和玉米来自商业供应商，另84只用同样份量的非转基因饲料喂养，两群猪都在同样的环境和条件下饲养。

　　5个月后，他们将这些猪宰杀，由两名兽医对它们的尸体进行解剖。这两名兽医不知道哪些猪是由转基因饲料喂养、哪些不是。

　　研究人员称，这两群猪在采食量、体重的增加、死亡率和血常规生化测量上没有区别，但是在胃和子宫这两个器官上出现了差异。

　　喂转基因饲料的猪患上严重胃炎的几率要高得多，为32%比12%，而这种区别在雄性猪身上就更为明显，转基因饲料喂养的雄性猪的患病率是非转基因饲料喂养的雄性猪的4倍，雌性猪则为2.2倍。转基因饲料喂养的雌性猪的子宫重量也比非转基因饲料喂养的雌性猪重25%。

这个是澳大利亚的Juday Carman 的 paper原文pdf，一来证明我没有传谣，更重要提供教徒转教主方便批判。
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

 

[苦逼热狗]

LZ你吃了一辈子的猪肉，现在才觉得猪可怜啊

 

[老闹子]

中国的实验结果总在卖相，皮毛顺滑：
农业部正在委托中国农业大学进行转基因大米的小型猪90天喂养试验。10月21日，试验负责人，中国农业大学食品科学与营养工程学院黄昆仑教授在接受《新京报》邮件采访时表示试验已完成，结果显示"试验用猪在90天喂养期间，无中毒或死亡现象，皮毛顺滑，行动灵活，饮食正常，生长发育状况良好。"

澳大利亚非常不人道，把实验猪都杀了：
据澳大利亚广播公司报导，今年6月份一项由澳大利亚和美国研究人员合作进行的新研究发现，由转基因饲料喂养的猪的胃炎发病率远高于传统饲料喂养的猪。

　　该项研究的首席研究员是阿德雷德健康与环境研究学院院长、流行病学家和生物化学家卡曼（Judy Carman）。研究人员针对美国一个商业养猪场里的168只刚断奶的猪仔进行了为期22.7周（159天）的研究。

　　他们将一半的猪仔用转基因大豆和玉米喂养，这些大豆和玉米来自商业供应商，另84只用同样份量的非转基因饲料喂养，两群猪都在同样的环境和条件下饲养。

　　5个月后，他们将这些猪宰杀，由两名兽医对它们的尸体进行解剖。这两名兽医不知道哪些猪是由转基因饲料喂养、哪些不是。

　　研究人员称，这两群猪在采食量、体重的增加、死亡率和血常规生化测量上没有区别，但是在胃和子宫这两个器官上出现了差异。

　　喂转基因饲料的猪患上严重胃炎的几率要高得多，为32%比12%，而这种区别在雄性猪身上就更为明显，转基因饲料喂养的雄性猪的患病率是非转基因饲料喂养的雄性猪的4倍，雌性猪则为2.2倍。转基因饲料喂养的雌性猪的子宫重量也比非转基因饲料喂养的雌性猪重25%。

这个是澳大利亚的Juday Carman 的 paper原文pdf，一来证明我没有传谣，更重要提供教徒转教主方便批判。
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

这是今年出来的，大概算是最新的一个关于转基因食品不利健康的科研报道。我估计科学界还来不及反应或检验它呢。那些法国英国关于转基因食品导致小老鼠肿瘤之类的报道的科学性，也是要经过一段时间，才被科学权威部门否决的。

但是，加拿大贵而富大学的兽医学教授已经对这个报告有全面的驳斥了。

Full Statement by Professor Robert Friendship, University of Guelph on Study by Carman et al on Feeding of Genetically Modified Corn and Soybeans to Pigs
Dr Robert Friendship, a professor in the Department of Population Medicine at the Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph and a swine health management specialist, reviewed the paper [see reference below]. He concluded that “it was incorrect for the researchers to conclude that one group had more stomach inflammation than the other group because the researchers did not examine stomach inflammation. They did a visual scoring of the colour of the lining of the stomach of pigs at the abattoir and misinterpreted redness to indicate evidence of inflammation. It does not. They would have had to take a tissue sample and prepare histological slides and examine these samples for evidence of inflammatory response such as white blood cell infiltration and other changes to determine if there was inflammation. There is no relationship between the colour of the stomach in the dead, bled-out pig at a slaughter plant and inflammation. The researchers should have included a veterinary pathologist on their team and this mistake would not have happened. They found no difference between the two experimental groups in pathology that can be determined by gross inspection.”
，，，，，，

 

[TIFF]

呀，看来这次试验结果有争论，那还得多喂几头猪再看看。

 

[小 篆]

呀，看来这次试验结果有争论，那还得多喂几头猪再看看。

其实不必再牺牲更多的猪了，有争论本身就已表明之前某些人拍胸脯保证的“无害”论是漏洞多多的。曾几何时，方教主挺转时都是以代表国际科学界主流自居的，现在形势不对了，难怪教主要跑去美国买房了，顺便还去发廊卖了几本书。

 

[TIFF]

其实不必再牺牲更多的猪了，有争论本身就已表明之前某些人拍胸脯保证的“无害”论是漏洞多多的。曾几何时，方教主挺转时都是以代表国际科学界主流自居的，现在形势不对了，难怪教主要跑去美国买房了，顺便还去发廊卖了几本书。

要不让方教主挺身而出替代猪也行。他不是说安全吗？

 

[一心无住]

中国专家总是在做表面皮毛文章，看着像骗子。

 

[ottawa_it_blue_collar]

据说崔永元从央视辞职了，来美国调研转基因食品现状。方肘子也回来了？

 

[小 篆]

要不让方教主挺身而出替代猪也行。他不是说安全吗？

 

[eclipse]

澳大利亚的实验和Guelph的质疑都挺有科学道理。同时看看中国的教授，“皮毛顺滑”，真是奇芭啊。靠这帮人保证的安全，嘿嘿。

 

[TIFF]

澳大利亚的实验和Guelph的质疑都挺有科学道理。同时看看中国的教授，“皮毛顺滑”，真是奇芭啊。靠这帮人保证的安全，嘿嘿。

真是奇葩！我还以为是恶搞的笑话.

 

[风过]

其实不必再牺牲更多的猪了，有争论本身就已表明之前某些人拍胸脯保证的“无害”论是漏洞多多的。曾几何时，方教主挺转时都是以代表国际科学界主流自居的，现在形势不对了，难怪教主要跑去美国买房了，顺便还去发廊卖了几本书。

方教主吗？ 他不是常驻中国吗？ 找退路？

 

[小 篆]

方教主吗？ 他不是常驻中国吗？ 找退路？

你以为呢？狡兔都有三窟，身为一教之主还不得有个九窟十窟的。

 

[小 篆]

真是奇葩！我还以为是恶搞的笑话.

我也以为是恶搞的，原来那教授真是这么说的，汗啊，挺转知识分子们就这么发表科学结论的？

 

[老闹子]

中国的实验结果总在卖相，皮毛顺滑：
农业部正在委托中国农业大学进行转基因大米的小型猪90天喂养试验。10月21日，试验负责人，中国农业大学食品科学与营养工程学院黄昆仑教授在接受《新京报》邮件采访时表示试验已完成，结果显示"试验用猪在90天喂养期间，无中毒或死亡现象，皮毛顺滑，行动灵活，饮食正常，生长发育状况良好。"

澳大利亚非常不人道，把实验猪都杀了：
据澳大利亚广播公司报导，今年6月份一项由澳大利亚和美国研究人员合作进行的新研究发现，由转基因饲料喂养的猪的胃炎发病率远高于传统饲料喂养的猪。

　　该项研究的首席研究员是阿德雷德健康与环境研究学院院长、流行病学家和生物化学家卡曼（Judy Carman）。研究人员针对美国一个商业养猪场里的168只刚断奶的猪仔进行了为期22.7周（159天）的研究。

　　他们将一半的猪仔用转基因大豆和玉米喂养，这些大豆和玉米来自商业供应商，另84只用同样份量的非转基因饲料喂养，两群猪都在同样的环境和条件下饲养。

　　5个月后，他们将这些猪宰杀，由两名兽医对它们的尸体进行解剖。这两名兽医不知道哪些猪是由转基因饲料喂养、哪些不是。

　　研究人员称，这两群猪在采食量、体重的增加、死亡率和血常规生化测量上没有区别，但是在胃和子宫这两个器官上出现了差异。

　　喂转基因饲料的猪患上严重胃炎的几率要高得多，为32%比12%，而这种区别在雄性猪身上就更为明显，转基因饲料喂养的雄性猪的患病率是非转基因饲料喂养的雄性猪的4倍，雌性猪则为2.2倍。转基因饲料喂养的雌性猪的子宫重量也比非转基因饲料喂养的雌性猪重25%。

这个是澳大利亚的Juday Carman 的 paper原文pdf，一来证明我没有传谣，更重要提供教徒转教主方便批判。
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

找到了这篇评论。直接把这个澳大利亚的实验报告称为“Junk Science”。并列举了一系列其他科学家对它的负面评论。
More Junk Science: Is the Carman Pig Study “Seralini 2.0”?
http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and...udy-seralini-2-0#frameId=jim-frame&height=485

A new pig feeding study authored by Australian researcher Judy Carman, and Maurice, Iowa farmer Howard Vlieger, claims that pigs fed genetically modified (GM) corn and genetically modified (GM) soybean meal showed increased incidence stomach inflammation.
This study was authored by two veteran anti-biotech campaigners, Judy Carman and Howard Vlieger, and was published in an obscure online journal financed by the organic industry. It reaches conclusions that are diametrically opposed to the great preponderance of the scientific evidence gathered from hundreds of independent food and feed safety studies that found no difference in between animals fed GMO or non-GMO diets.

While the first day news coverage bordered on alarmist, the scientific community has reviewed and analyzed the paper in the hours since and has concluded that this is more anti-biotech junk science.
尽管在它发表的当天这个报道引起了一些轰动，但是科学界很快就审阅和分析了这篇报道，并得出结论说这是又一篇反生物技术的垃圾科研报告。

Listed below is a brief summary of some of the more scientifically balanced coverage with links to the broader analysis.
下面列举的是一些更加全面性的科学评论的概要。

Agronomist Andrew Kniss (Ph.D) of the University of Wyoming took the data (such as it is) in the Carman-Vlieger pig study and applied the usual statistical tools, and the differences between the different groups of pigs disappeared.

Kniss summarizes his analysis:
“If I were to have analyzed these data, using the statistical techniques that I was taught were appropriate for the type of data, I would have concluded there was no statistical difference in stomach inflammation between the pigs fed the two different diets. To analyze these data the way the authors did makes it seem like they’re trying to find a difference, where none really exist.”

See “The evidence of GMO harm in pig study is pretty flimsy”

[The thing to look at is the p-value. A relatively high p-value means the data result more from chance than from the factors being studied. You're looking for a p-value of 0.05 or less. So the p-values of 0.5669 or even 0.2408 are sky-high and indicate that the implied hypothesis -- that GM grain is bad for pigs -- is not supported by the data.]

Austailian geneticist David Tribe (Ph.D.) analyzed the study on his GMO Pundit blog:
“The paper by Carman and colleagues avoids rigourous analysis of whether the differences are attributable to chance. In the study there is no clear-cut hypothesis about what component(s) of the diet is different and what affect the component might have specifically on the animal.

“Instead of a well formulated prior hypothesis the investigation consists of a survey of a fairly large number of parameters -18 are mentioned in one table, 17 in another, and there is no necessary statistical analysis to check for false discovery of effects because of repeated searching for differences.

“It’s what some call a fishing expedition in search of a finding, and a known pitfall of animal feeding trials on whole foods…Using the standard criteria of a one in 20 chance that observed differences are randomly generated, about one or two apparent effects in this study might be a false discovery.”

See “Pigs in the real world — feed them different diets, measure many health parameters, some with show differences– but what does it all mean?”

Dr. Mark Hoofnagle (MD/PhD) analyzes the study on his Denalism blog saying:
“Looking at the data there were no differences in any of the major variables evaluated by the study, such as weights, veterinary costs, illnesses, or mortality. No significant differences in blood biochemistry were found. At autopsy most organ weights were similar between groups. There was a statistically significant (but likely clinically-meaningless) increase (0.1kg vs 0.12kg) in uterus weights in the GM group. At pathology there were nonsignificant decreases in cardiac and liver abnormalities in the GM group (half as many), in stomach pathology there was one significant finding of more ‘severe inflammation’ (on a 4-point scale from no inflammation to severe) in the GM group. This is the finding that has been amplified as variably ‘damning’ or ‘concerning’ depending on which source is reporting.”

See “Pollan and Bittman, the Morano and Milloy of GMO anti-science”

An analysis by the Science Media Centre found:

“The paper does not support the claim that GM crops cause stomach inflammation or increased uterus weight… it is let down by an inappropriate choice of statistical analysis methods.”

See “GM pig feed and stomach inflammation”

UK science writer Mark Lynas says of the study: “This is propaganda dressed up as science, which is why it didn’t make a proper peer-reviewed journal” and he also points out that the Journal of Organic Systems does not appear in PubMed, “suggesting it is not taken very seriously in the scientific community. It only publishes about twice a year, mostly with research touting the benefits of organic agriculture.”

See “GMO pigs study – more junk science”