this_jury_is_hung@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I would like to see the tests results, and the datasets used to calibrate them before believing them. This entire article shouts “trust us, we did science” without actually sharing any of the results or the methods used to obtain them.
That’s not how science works. Show us your methodology.
No1@aussie.zone 3 days ago
They covered it in the program. They analyze for various metals and elements which provides a ‘fingerprint’ of the source of the goods.
this_jury_is_hung@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yes, the general concept is explained, but not the raw data, or how they come to their “98% certainty” figure.
There are a number of factors that can effect the trace element and isotopes ratios in a crop, and they have made no effort to share what factors they have controlled for.
No1@aussie.zone 3 days ago
I’d trustt the scientist with years of expertise over the denials of every company.
Th parallels are eerily similar with the sunscreen fiasco, where all the companies caught with vastly lower SPF factors than they claimed, all denied it, and claimed the ABC testing was wrong or invalid.
Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Guy sounds like an anti vaxer/ home scientist…where’s the source data. I want to do my own analysis of it to find the truth they are hiding.
Seagoon_@aussie.zone 3 days ago
and yet the data actually does reveal facts that have been verified in other ways
strange that
Sre you somehow here to shill for companies found lying?