数理统计并不能 tell truth, 只是帮助了解结果。

法国的这个所谓实验，早已被国际科学界判定为无效。原因很简单：首先，选择的实验鼠，本身就是容易生肿瘤的品种。长期饲养，即使不用转基因饲料，也有80%的几率生产生肿瘤。其次，样本量太小，只有10只鼠，统计学上无法定论，至少需要65只鼠才有可能在统计学上有意义。还有其他低级错误，如母鼠三倍剂量的转基因饲料，却产生了肿瘤率降低的现象，实验竟不作任何考察，也不纳入分析。法国本国就在当年十月有六个科学研究院联合声明，谴责这种有根本漏洞的有意误导公众的所谓实验。

比如说数理统计并不能 tell truth, 只是帮助了解结果。-- 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安全的论文从实验设计到动物使用都有问题，反而没什么争论。-This has nothing to do with this French article being BS.

又比如政策制订机构(FDA)只关注安全性，90天的实验考察用于FDA的安全性测试考察时间太短。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-浓度不正相关是正常的，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.