Jon Entine, who does as much as anyone to puncture environmental mythology, points out that Séralini is once again fabricating reality - he claims his paper was peer reviewed but the editor at Springer disagrees, saying that they took it on faith that it had been 'peer-reviewed' before and was retracted not because it was fraudulent, but because it was just terrible science, with an animal certain to get cancer if you let it live long enough regardless of chemicals, and making sure it lived longer than would have been allowed under the ethics laws of most countries.
So, basically, they have a rubbish journal that needs money and publicity so they published it.
Well, we knew it couldn't have been peer-reviewed. Even PNAS, which lets crazy papers hand-pick a friend to do 'editorial review' in advance, can't pump something out that fast.
Plus, you can't review something if you don't see any data, though PNAS is guility of that also.
Republished retracted Séralini GMO corn rat study faces harsh criticism from scientists - Jon Entine, Genetic Literacy Project
- Gilles-Eric Seralini Pays Springer To Publish His Retracted GMO-Rat Study
- Conflict Of Interest? Ethics Debate Intensifies Over Retraction Of Flawed Séralini Rat Study
- European Food Safety Authority Reviews, Dismisses Séralini Maize Study As Hopelessly Flawed
- The Industry Funding Behind Anti-GMO Activist Gilles-Éric Séralini
- 29-Year 100 Billion Animal Study Reinforces Safety Of GM Foods