=======================================
Evidence in Rebuttal - Life Sciences Network
20 February 2001, 9:24 am
Press Release: New Zealand Life Sciences Network

Conclusion:

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information

Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

=======================================
Evidence in Rebuttal - Life Sciences Network
20 February 2001, 9:24 am
Press Release: New Zealand Life Sciences Network

Conclusion:

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

As they want others to be exact so they must be taken at their word.

But they leave plenty of room for misunderstanding:

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information

That could either mean that all the info is classifed that way, or
rather that there has been some innacuracy, some lack of care. and
futhermore the interesting admission by Life Sciences Network -
exaggeration by Ingham's submission. So they are admitting some
truth to it just exaggerated.

to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

And the tone of that is that it is unlikely to kill off all the
plant life on the planet, therefore go ahead with it.

21. It appears, however, that the research referenced by Dr Ingham has
never been in front of the relevant authorities in the United States.
The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) database and the
ISB database (Information Systems for Biotechnology) have no mention
of any field trial application or granted approval relating to any
Klebsiella planticola research. No specific citations of docket
numbers or other proof of assertion have been offered by Dr Ingham.

22. Moreover, correspondence from Dr Janet Anderson (EPA, Environment
Protection Agency), and Dr Sally McCammon, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) (emails attached) indicates no record of an
approval for field trials of K. planticola as submitted by Dr Ingham
(Witness Brief, Exec Summ, para 2).

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

21. It appears, however, that the research referenced by Dr Ingham has
never been in front of the relevant authorities in the United States.
The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) database and the
ISB database (Information Systems for Biotechnology) have no mention
of any field trial application or granted approval relating to any
Klebsiella planticola research. No specific citations of docket
numbers or other proof of assertion have been offered by Dr Ingham.

22. Moreover, correspondence from Dr Janet Anderson (EPA, Environment
Protection Agency), and Dr Sally McCammon, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) (emails attached) indicates no record of an
approval for field trials of K. planticola as submitted by Dr Ingham
(Witness Brief, Exec Summ, para 2).

Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were
withdrawn?

A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against
approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ.

The other organisation withdrew the application.

Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a
dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn?

On 27 Aug 2003 23:05:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

Gordon Couger <gcouger@nospamprovalue.net> wrote:


Elaine has no connation with Oregon State University other than a
courtesy
card giving her library privileges and one professor allows her to use
his
equipment,

Then do you think this is wrong?

Yes, it's just a greenie PR blurb buildup for a money making workshop.
Have you seen Elaine's website? Good little money earner
Do you believe the real estate adds in the weekend papers?

Linkname: DR ELAINE INGHAM
URL:

http://www.westnet.com.au/satlink/KACHANA-WORKSHOP/Dr%20Elaine%20Ingham%202003.htm
size: 495 lines

[...]
In 1986, Elaine moved to Oregon State University, and joined the
faculty in both Forest Science and Botany and Plant Pathology. For
several years, Elaine's "home" department was Botany and Plant
Pathology. In 1991,because the number of samples from outside Elaine's
immediate program being sent to her for analysis were becoming a large
component of what she was doing, Elaine opened a service through the
University called the Soil Microbial Biomass Service. The Service
offered researchers and commercial clients the ability to have soil
samples analyzed for soil foodweb organisms. During this time, Elaine
became known as an energetic and easy-to-understand speaker who
explained what life in the soil was all about, and she started
speaking to groups throughout the United States about the Soil
Foodweb.


By 1995, the number of samples coming into the Soil Microbial Biomass
Service was close to 8,000 samples a year, and the amount of lab space
required to process this number of samples was greater than originally
planned. The head of Elaine's department asked that the commercial
portion of the Biomass Service be taken off-campus. Thus, in the fall
of 1996, Soil Foodweb Inc. became a commercial enterprise.


With the move into a private lab, Elaine's focus turned more to
grower-related issues, focusing on the expense of intensive chemical
use as well as the damage these chemicals inflict on beneficial
organisms in the soil and on foliage.


The research and practical understanding and application of soil
organisms continue at Soil Foodweb Inc., while much of the academic
side of her work remains at the University. In December 2000 a new
Soil Foodweb lab was opened in Australia, at Southern Cross University
in Lismore, Australia so that growers down-under could have
overnight access to the assays they need to improve plant production
without the use of high levels of inorganic chemicals. The Lab
Director at the Australia lab is Merline Olson, Certified Soil Foodweb
Advisor.
[...]

her paper was not published until after the fact, what the EPA
calls peer review does not meet the standards of any other peer
reviewed
journal

It was peer reviewed first by teh journal it was published and later by
EPA for their purposes.

and the results claimed by statistics used in the paper were not
supported by the data in the paper according to 3 professors that teach
statistics.

Do you have a ref for that please?

This might help.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/0b/0b/200102200924.c6e82a6c.html

Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming

Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming
affiliation with OSU she was not employed by them.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:02:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming
affiliation with OSU she was not employed by them.

Come, we have dealt with that to nauseau, you're beating
a dead horse.

On 28 Aug 2003 14:23:53 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:
Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were
withdrawn?

A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against
approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ.

The other organisation withdrew the application.

Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a
dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn?

No idea. You'll have to eyeball your regulator's documentation, I
would think.

On 28 Aug 2003 13:51:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

=======================================
Evidence in Rebuttal - Life Sciences Network
20 February 2001, 9:24 am
Press Release: New Zealand Life Sciences Network

Conclusion:

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

As they want others to be exact so they must be taken at their word.

But they leave plenty of room for misunderstanding:

Read the rest of it.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information

That could either mean that all the info is classifed that way, or
rather that there has been some innacuracy, some lack of care. and
futhermore the interesting admission by Life Sciences Network -
exaggeration by Ingham's submission. So they are admitting some
truth to it just exaggerated.

Grasping at straws?
There is a tiny bit of truth in everything, that's life.

to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

And the tone of that is that it is unlikely to kill off all the
plant life on the planet, therefore go ahead with it.

Nope. If some of it's wrong, then it must all be looked at
sceptically. And that's what happens.

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:6rrskvgp0ca2h5ro939d6hlcc4adopfar6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:02:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming
affiliation with OSU she was not employed by them.

Come, we have dealt with that to nauseau, you're beating
a dead horse.

yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could be
tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still never
admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful

Jim,

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

21. It appears, however, that the research referenced by Dr Ingham has
never been in front of the relevant authorities in the United States.
The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) database and the
ISB database (Information Systems for Biotechnology) have no mention
of any field trial application or granted approval relating to any
Klebsiella planticola research. No specific citations of docket
numbers or other proof of assertion have been offered by Dr Ingham.

22. Moreover, correspondence from Dr Janet Anderson (EPA, Environment
Protection Agency), and Dr Sally McCammon, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) (emails attached) indicates no record of an
approval for field trials of K. planticola as submitted by Dr Ingham
(Witness Brief, Exec Summ, para 2).

Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were
withdrawn?

A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against
approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ.

The other organisation withdrew the application.

Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a
dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:02:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming
affiliation with OSU she was not employed by them.

Come, we have dealt with that to nauseau, you're beating
a dead horse. Let's have some -serious- criticism. Lest
you forget, you made this claim about her paper:
"data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded"
That's a pretty serious accusation.

I am only quoting the paper that says outliers were discarded without

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bilsve$94l$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could be
tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still never
admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful

Jim,

Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He
could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data in
the paper. Showing his work of course.

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:6rrskvgp0ca2h5ro939d6hlcc4adopfar6@4ax.com...

..> Lest you forget, you made this claim about her paper:
"data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded"
That's a pretty serious accusation.

I am only quoting the paper that says outliers were discarded without
listing them or specifying them number. <snip hurricane of handwaving

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:34:46 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bilsve$94l$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could
be
tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still
never
admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful

what a maroon


Jim,

Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He
could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data
in
the paper. Showing his work of course.

Gordon, that is a misunderstanding of what a paper is, of what
you can expect to be able to do on the basis of the information
given in it. A scientific paper is generally not supposed to put
the reader in a position in relation to the raw data, such as to
make it possible for him to duplicate the statistical analysis
of it. One could say, a paper is meant to be read on the trust
that the authors and peer reviewers of the paper have done a
proper, sound job. This is not to say that the trust in this
cannot be called in question, only that it must be there
a priori and until it may be proved unwarranted.