Continuing to explore the claims of the Safe Food Foundation & Institute and the warning on wheat that they issued, we evaluate the analysis provided by Jack Heinemann. We perform BLAST analysis with some parameters that attempt to replicate the data provided in Jack's Appendix 1. We have seen before that Appendix 1 is a fabrication of 2 different analyses. And we examine possible changes from the default settings that yield results like those provided in Appendix 1.
Further, we see that misuse of the large wheat sequence that Jack used enables him to inflate the claims about the number of matches that were worrisome.
In a blog post at Sciblogs in New Zealand I have attempted to obtain the actual parameters from Jack, but he is being evasive and refuses to address the specific questions. You can read the discussion there: sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2012/09/18/separating-the-chaff-from-the-grain-in-the-debate-on-gm-wheat/ .