Which is exactly why I say I don't buy into the report and that this particular item should be investigated further. That link shows that there are reasons to believe the scientists who reported the Bt in blood came to the wrong conclusions, but it's not the same as a real scientific study of Bt in blood, tracing the source of the Bt (GMO or else), and proving or disproving that it is harmful of not. It should also be easy to analyze some stored blood sample from before the GM era to check for the presence of Bt. There's a dozen other verifications I can easily think of that would allow to validate or refute this theory.
GMOs: Séralini 2-year study retracted, and gluten allergy
