數理統計並不能 tell truth, 隻是幫助了解結果。

法國的這個所謂實驗，早已被國際科學界判定為無效。原因很簡單：首先，選擇的實驗鼠，本身就是容易生腫瘤的品種。長期飼養，即使不用轉基因飼料，也有80%的幾率生產生腫瘤。其次，樣本量太小，隻有10隻鼠，統計學上無法定論，至少需要65隻鼠才有可能在統計學上有意義。還有其他低級錯誤，如母鼠三倍劑量的轉基因飼料，卻產生了腫瘤率降低的現象，實驗竟不作任何考察，也不納入分析。法國本國就在當年十月有六個科學研究院聯合聲明，譴責這種有根本漏洞的有意誤導公眾的所謂實驗。

比如說數理統計並不能 tell truth, 隻是幫助了解結果。-- True。 So for the same reason, the French article has no practical meanings. It can only caution people. So what's the point? Look at all the other post you would, people are already over cautious and mis-informed. A study like this French one is meaningless.

相反的一些支持GOM安全的論文從實驗設計到動物使用都有問題，反而沒什麽爭論。-This has nothing to do with this French article being BS.

又比如政策製訂機構(FDA)隻關注安全性，90天的實驗考察用於FDA的安全性測試考察時間太短。Again, true about FDA, has nothing to do with the paper, unless the paper trying to tell something; and we know already, the design of the research is meaningless.

毒性-濃度不正相關是正常的，receptor-mediated responses can first increase and then decrease as dose increases.- True， but that's quite a stretch. And we have no reason to suspect this is a receptor-mediated.

This is like saying to a criminal: you should not kill the victim. And the criminal says, other killers got away; I could be doing self-defense - you need to prove I didn't just do self-defense; although there's nothing to support self-defense. The logic doesn't stand.

People - we have to wait for more meaningful research to prove there is a point. For now, believe in FDA.