Seems the main criticism is sample size - what was it?
> showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”, said a statement from Elsevier, which publishes the journal. But the small number and type of animals used in the study means that “no definitive conclusions can be reached”.
The type of animal is the same as used in the compared Monsanto study, so that seems shaky.
> showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”, said a statement from Elsevier, which publishes the journal. But the small number and type of animals used in the study means that “no definitive conclusions can be reached”.
The type of animal is the same as used in the compared Monsanto study, so that seems shaky.