Share Button

Transcript by Admin on GMO Skeptics Forum

Citizens Oversight (2015-06-01) Ray Lutz

This Page: http://www.copswiki.org/Common/M1596
More Info: Gmo Open Forum, March Against Monsanto

The GMO-Skeptics Forum has been demonstrating a vast degree of censorship and pro-GMO bias.

Transcript with Ray Lutz and the Admin

My interaction with your Admin:
I have to say, Julie, that I absolutely do not appreciate the implication that I am a five year old, and that I need you to explain things to me. I request that you remove the thread that I started from the "Explain to me like I'm 5" list. How about, "Robust discussions" or something like that? And the title IS not what it should have on it. This is not a discussion about why the Seralini study was not good, and to put that title on it spins in a direction that is unfair to the conversation. A fair title would be "A discussion about the Seralini Study in comparison with Hammond." Please don't put your opinions into the title.
sorry Ray- I explained why I put it there under that heading in the thread
I object. Please take it out and retitle it without your opinion and slam. I am not a five year old and you are not here to explain things to me, or anyone else. Putting it in that category means you think I am a five year old or have that mental capacity.
what you don't realise is that there are others who don't have this knowledge already. I, for one, am appreciative that there are members who are interested in explaining the topics in ways that don't require a university degree. The saving of the thread wasn't for you. It was for me.
Fine. I don't mind archiving it. I do mind the title of the group an the title YOU CHOSE without asking me, for the thread that I started. Please take it out of the 5-year old group and retltle it without any spin.
Ray,

I regret to inform you that you have been removed from the GMO Skepti-forum for failing to provide evidence that Chad was requesting. If you choose to return to GMO Skepti-Forums, you will need to provide this evidence via PM to me and we will go from there.

Evidence required

>>> I am going to call you out right now. Provide evidence that 16 rats per sex per group is less than the minimum required for normal oral acute toxicity studies. If you cannot, then admit that GRACE has enough power

I can't believe it. Please re-member me so I can address the forum. I have been in the process of addressing that but now I can't can I. Please also address my complaint with your slam by placing the thread in the 5-year old area.

I have not been rude, no flaming, etc. It is entirely unprofessional of you to do this, Julie.

That is not the topic of the thread. If you want to address that, please start a new thread. I am not addressing it here because it is off topic.
You made the claim, it is up to you to support it.

I will not be unblocking you until you provide evidence as per our rules and principles.

I strongly advise you to read all of these rules and principles, as this will be the last time that re-instatement is offered to you

Regards,

http://wiki.skeptiforum.org/wiki/Facebook_Rules_%26_Principles

Facebook Rules & Principles - Skepti Wiki

We operate under a community-moderated model and expect our members to speak up when they observe others not interacting according to the rules and principles outlined here. These serve as a general idea of the culture we promote in our forums. If there is ever any doubt, you can ask a moderator. Ou… wiki.skeptiforum.org
Ray Lutz
Please send me the entire thread so I can archive it.

I call out Chad as well. He must show that rounding down form the calculations in the GRACE study will not compromise any likely result.


My paper and your response by banning me has been placed here: http://www.copswiki.org/Common/M1595 -- Independent Review of the Seralini GMO-Roundup Rat Study


I would like CHAD to give me my quote where I said what he is asking me to prove, because I never did say that. And really, this belongs in the forum and not in PM messages.
Ray- I have muted this conversation.
I will check back from time to time to see if you have provided evidence.
Regards,
Julie
I started a new discussion on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/477555692412861/

In case anyone is interested in having a conversation. I request that you relay that to the group. If they want to talk about this, then we will discuss it there.
Here you go. Directly from the GRACE paper, they calculate 17 members per group.

(pasted image)

Now, have CHAD explain why it is okay to disregard those calcs and use 16 instead, because it is not demonstrated in the paper. Plus, as I stated, given the death in the Hammond study, the possibility of euthanized rats for other unrelated reasons (also in Hammond) it is prudent to buffer the numbers on the high side, not make them smaller.
Would you please provide the link that you copied that from?
Thank you
You can direct Chad to this page where this issue can be discussed. The section on the GRACE study in my paper on copswiki.org (link provided on that FB page) describes my position on the issue.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/gmoopenforum/permalink/477588802409550/

Please review this detailed review of the Seralini study in comparison with the Hammond study, with some reflection on the GRACE study. http://www.copswiki.org/Common/M1595

Ray Lutz

Tell Chad to read the section headed GRACE STUDY on this page.

http://www.copswiki.org/Common/M1595 -- Independent Review of the Seralini GMO-Roundup Rat Study

I can't do any more than that, unfortuantely, as I never made the claim he says I made. I appreciate the retitling of the link in the wiki but I still request that you do not put it in the 5-year old section. Sunday 2:10pm

I can do a little bit better. Please see this. You will note that power analysis based on the criterion listed in GRACE says that 17 animals are needed. This is based on the assumption, which they make without any justification in the paper, that the Signal to Noise Ratio S/N is 1.0 That would need to be justified. Also, in this excerpt, we read that in toxicology studies, which this certainly is, that the standard is to use 90% power. This article can be found here:

http://www.3rs-reduction.co.uk/html/6__power_and_sample_size.html

6. Power and sample size

A power analysis is often used to determine sample size. The use of too many animals (or other experimental units) wastes animals, money, time and effort, and it is unethical. But if too few animals are used the experiment may lack power and miss a scientifically important response to the treatmen…

With 90% power, the number of animals is 22

QED
Sunday 3:21pm

Please unban me.
the ban is in effect until tomorrow regardless (automatic 24 hours) but I will give your info to Chad and await his decision.

6 hours ago
I am curious. These "call you out" things you do are like two kids going outside to fight. Pretty childish, in my view, but since this is what you do:
  1. If Chad does not want to admit that I am right about this, (which I am) then is this reviewed by an independent (and knowledgeable) third party to get a fair ruling?
  2. If Chad loses in his challenge, then does he have to suffer a similar 24-hour ban?
  3. Honestly, bans should not be used for this purpose. I am a courteous (although assertive) forum participant. I have an advanced degree. I have run for U.S. Congress, and state seats. I have been an intervenor at the highest levels in the Public Utilities Commission. I have more than 30 years of professional experience. I have started corporations, both for and nonprofits. Your treatment of me by the site is really quite stunning and frankly, outrageous.


Hi, Ray.
I'm sad that you feel this way.
The Skepti-Forums were built for the express purpose of promoting science to the layman.
Regardless of your history, everyone has something to learn, and it is a shame that you aren't willing to accept that each and every topic has someone who is more knowledgeable on that subject than the rest of us.
You were removed from the forum due to repeatedly ignoring requests of evidence from your claims- not because you were part of a kiddy brawl.
Our forums aren't all pro-GMO
We have many members who are fence-sitters, antis and everything in between.
What we all try to be is respectful and willing to change our stance when the evidence speaks.
No one is asking you to change your stance. No one is asking you to do anything other respect the members and follow the rules.
Telling a statistical university professor that you know more about math than him isn't likely to go over well, and is merely seen as grandstanding.
Present the evidence and read others evidence and discussion will always be fruitful

Please unban me. I have presented my point of view. The issue that Chad believes is black and white is not. Everyone can be wrong, even university professors. Banning people without notice is extremely over the top in terms of rudeness.

Please appeal this decision to an appeals board. You have already demonstrated your personal bias in support of GMO crops, due to the labeling and 5-year old slam -- which still isn't rectified.

Your group slammed Seralini for not being open. But your own forums are closed to the outside world, and you ban anyone with a differing point of view through this childish "I call you out" routine.

Comments

Media Form edit

Title Transcript by Admin on GMO Skeptics Forum
Publisher Citizens Oversight
Author Ray Lutz
Pub Date 2015-06-01
Media Link
Remote Link
Embed HTML
Forum Link
Note
Keywords Gmo Open Forum, March Against Monsanto
Media Type Article
Media Group News, Blog Entry
Curator Rating Plain
Book ISBN
Author Name Sortable
Thumbnail Link
Topic revision: r2 - 2015-06-13, RaymondLutz
 

This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Copswiki? Send feedback