I’m going to conduct a randomized controlled trial using the gaggle of geese that live at Town Hall in Wellesley, Mass:
I will bring two unmarked bags of cracked corn, one of which is non-GM. To ensure an unbiased experiment, I’ll select two people who don’t know what’s in the bags to dispense the corn from each bag simultaneously, while a third disinterested individual logs the amount of time for each ration of corn to be consumed. This will be done ten times on ten different days.
I will engage a biostatistician with no financial ties to either Monsanto or the Town Hall Geese to establish a statistical analysis plan including an appropriate non-inferiority margin for the primary endpoint of Time to Disappearance of all visible cracked corn. A secondary endpoint will be the volume of goose honking, rated on a 1 to 5 scale by the (blinded) food dispensers.
If you can make it to Wellesley, you can observe the experiment first-hand and place a wager on the outcome. I’ll even let you decide which biostatistician should design the SAP.
I presume from your posts on this board that you would be willing to bet that the GM corn will take much longer to be consumed than the non-GM corn, and hence the non-inferiority threshold will not be met for the primary endpoint. I’ll take the other side of this bet at even money for whatever amount you want to wager.
And if you put a plate of broccoli next to a pepperoni pizza what will the children invariably avoid? Just because the cattle chose natural feed does that mean it's better or just their preference? What was the cattle's feeding history prior to the study?
Re: "and a high percentage of the test animals died"
LOL
You do realize that in your ref'd Austrian mouse fertility study on GM/nonGM corn that the mice in the nonGM arm died (before reproduction) at a quite higher rate than in the GM arm?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
