Keith Hudson slanged: > The sample was far too small (110 people), That's big enough if the result is that clear (effect for 90% of the participants). Ask any statistician (e.g. me).
> there was no mention of a matched control > group (very important in such a study) and the illnesses were allergies > (notoriously difficult to define, many of them being hysterical). When people who had very bad pollen allergies can suddenly mow their lawn in the midst of bloom without problems, do you think that's because they were just hysterical? The symptoms are much too clear to be called psychosomatic. > For some years, Americans have chomped their way through thousands of tons > of GM maize and soya without any evidence of ill effects. How can they tell when the stuff is NOT LABELLED ? Talk about "control group". (Guess why the industry opposes labelling with tooth and claw?) What's sure is that Americans are the most unhealthy people, relative to wealth and healthcare costs. > I don't want to continue what you're determined to make into a slanging > match. This is a complex issue issue and not amenable to all-or-nothing I'm so glad that you finally understand that oversimplifications are wrong (like "cave-men trade" etc.). I sure hope you live up to it in your future postings. Chris
