GENTECH archive 8.96-97

[Index][Thread]

Re: L-tryptophan - reply to Hite



>from Hite( clipped)
>
>In the paper, page 348-349:
>
>>Thus, both a reduction in the amount of powdered activated carbon and
>>the use of B amyloliquefaciens (strain V) were significant
>>manufacturing changes, but the independent contribution of each
>>manufacturing change could not be assessed because of the high
>>correlation between them.
>
>In my, layman's, view this indicates that there is a significant
>probability that Strain V [the most highly bioengineered version] *was*
>responsible for the poisonous contamination.


Rick replies:

I agree with the quote. Unfortunately for those trying to understand what
happened here, there is an even more significant probablity that carbon
filtering was responsible.  In the paper, just before your quote, is a
statement of these probabilities.  In layman's terms, there is a
probability of only 0.014 that the association of illness and carbon filter
is due to chance.  In contrast, there is a probability of 0.04 that the
association of strain V and illness is due to chance.

>
>In various other places it categorically states that the question of
>which contaminant actually caused the illness, EBT, PAA or other
>uncharacterised contaminants, is open to further study.


About further study, Mardi Mellon said essentially the same thing and I
agree.  This is still a far cry from claiming that genetic engineering WAS
responsible.

Rick