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?
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.
Seagoon_@aussie.zone 3 days ago
No1@aussie.zone 2 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.
notgold@aussie.zone 1 day ago
Bloke sounds the opposite to me. This article could have been funded by woolies and SPC for all we know
budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Probably not Woolies as they were caught passing cage eggs as free range by the article.
this_jury_is_hung@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Nope, just an engineer who has seen similar methods fail hilariously when the trying to extrapolate from a limited datasets.
When the only data supplied is opaque guarantees from a private company that profits from enticing more interest in their services, they need to state clearly how they came to make those guarantees.
Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Most articles won’t provide a decent level of sources. Then again most articles (journalism) are shit.
I will say decent journalists will answer emails. Depends on volume of articles written and if its a well worded discussion.