Anytime
a peer-reviewed publication reveals something startling that could
literally shut down an entire industry, it seems to be retracted. This
is a big problem, and perhaps the biggest when it comes to medical
science, with multiple doctors, professors and scientists coming forward
in abundance to stress the fact that more than half of all the
published research out there could be false. This is why we see
so much independent peer reviewed research completely contradict that
which is put out by government health authorities.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal (source)
“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be False
is an article that provides more examples when it comes to the truth
about peer-reviewed research. That doesn’t mean it’s not legit,
obviously a lot of it is. It’s no different with food science. Big food
corporations have been putting out information that completely
contradict a lot of other science that’s been published.
Here’s a great quote from the CDC Spider
(CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in
Research). More than a dozen scientists came together a couple of years
ago emphasizing the manipulation in the industry, although you probably
never heard about it. It’s a problem in all areas of science.
“We are a group of scientists at
CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our
agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by
outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and
Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our
leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not
the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly
aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the
other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know
are not right. We have witnesses across the agency that witness this
unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our
respective units.”
You can read the rest of the letter here addressed to Carmen S. Villar, the Chief of Staff of the CDC at the time.
There are loads of examples; the
approval of high fructose corn syrup (sugar), processed meats, and
packaging that is full of hormone disrupting chemicals. Artificial
sweeteners being another. These, and more, are linked to a variety of
diseases and surrounded in controversy for the simple reason that the
science speaks for itself, and the science used by the big food
corporations and their close relationship with government is precisely
why they are so commonly used. We’ve been made to think that these
things are ok, when in reality, a large portion of the academic, health
and science community continue to do their best to emphasize that
they’re not.
It is, however, proving to be more
difficult in learning of this information as big corporations and their
close relationship with government and mainstream media
makes sure we don’t come across this type of information. In fact, when
questioning certain things, they make you feel like you are stupid to
do so. We never hear of the narratives the corporate world does not want
us to know, we have to dig for it, and that’s because they have
tremendous amounts of power and influence to sway the public perception
when it comes to certain developments, like Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs).
One thing that makes this even more
evident is the relationships that big corporations, like Monsanto, have
with the US government.
GMOs have come under scrutiny, but no
matter who creates awareness of this and provides ample evidence of it,
there is always a harsh reaction assuming that their questions and
concerns are illegitimate. It’s similar to vaccine safety, and all of
the science that’s emerged over the years showing cause for concern, the
mainstream still makes those who question vaccine safety feel inferior
and out of place for even asking questions.
It’s not right, and the day science stops asking questions is the day we’ve drifted far from real science.
There are countless examples of concerns
raised with genetically modified organisms, and why they should not be
deemed completely safe for human consumption. The common narrative is
that the overall scientific consensus/majority agree that GMOs are safe,
but this simply isn’t true. There are hundreds of scientists sharing
their concerns, and it just seems as though all we see are GMO safety
campaigns and efforts constantly sharing the idea and overall consensus
that they are safe, but that doesn’t seem to be true..
If they were safe, there wouldn’t be so
many concerns. Let’s take a look at one study that caused a lot of
controversy, the Séralini study.
The Séralini Study
In November 2012, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant genetically modified maize by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University (source). It
was a very significant study that made a lot of noise worldwide, the
first of its kind under controlled conditions that examined the possible
effects of a GMO maize diet treated with Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide.
There are no long term studies examining GMOs, Séralini’s study is the first and only of its kind.
In the study, 100 female and 100 male
rats were used . In both sets, some rats were fed NK603, some the GM
maize sprayed with Roundup, and the third group was given drinking water
with the lowest permissible limit of Roundup. A fourth, control group
was fed a standard diet of the closest variety of non-GM maize.
According to the peer-reviewed paper
published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, a journal from the reputed
Elsevier stable, rats that fed on NK603 or given water containing
Roundup died much earlier than the rats in the control group and
developed hormonal and sex-related effects. Females developed
significant mammary tumours, pituitary and kidney problems, while males
died mostly from severe kidney failure. Up to 50 per cent of the male
rats and 70 per cent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30
per cent and 20 per cent in the control group.
This would, and should, basically mark
the end of GMOs, along with all of the other studies that have raised
other concerns and have seen strong correlations between GMOs and
multiple diseases. Here is one of multiple examples.
After
the research was completed, it went through rigorous reviews, as well
as a four month review process by scientists and researchers. It was
eventually approved and published, only to be retracted by request of
the Journal. Although hundreds of scientists around the world condemned
the retraction, and the researchers addressed the criticisms.
According to a post on Séralini’s website:
“The implications are extremely serious, says a press note issued by CRIIGEN,
an independent organisation of scientific experts that studies
genetically modified organisms (GMO), pesticides and impacts of
pollutants on health and environment, on the research results. “They
demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread
transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when
ingested at extremely low levels (corresponding to those found in
surface or tap water).” The scientists point out that these results call
into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process which is
used the world over in assessing the health risks associated with such
products. They, therefore, demand that the market approval for these
products should be immediately reviewed and urged the extension of the
usual 90-day test to two years for agricultural GMOs.”
There is great news to report however,
as this major GMO study has now been republished following its
controversial retraction (under strong commercial pressure), with even
more up to date information and a response to previous criticisms. You
can read more about that here.
The study was then re-published by Environmental Sciences Europe. (source)
After the study was retracted, there
were more than a hundred notable scientists who came forward to oppose
the retraction, calling it an industry retraction. We’ll touch more on
that below.
Again, as illustrated above,
manipulation of science isn’t new. Just take a look at the recent
resignation of the CDC director, as well as the 16 scientists from the CDC who came forward saying that the corporate and political influence of science has gotten out of hand.
It’s all there for us to see, and when
discussing science, fraud is rarely brought up and needs to be factored
into the equation as one of multiple reasons why GMOs, and other
substances, are highly questionable.
Another concerning fact about this study
is that, if we look at urine samples, most of us are urinating out
Glyphosate. We are eating these GMOs, combined with numerous numbers of
pesticides within our blood stream.
There are countless amounts of harmful
substances that can lead to cancer, this could be one of many factors in
that equation and to help explain why cancer rates keep rising.
Hundreds of Notable Scientists Came Forward To Oppose The Retraction
Despite the fact that the news of the
retraction and slandering of the study hit almost every single
mainstream media news outlet, shaping the mass perception of it, a
number of scientists, who I believe are in the majority, have supported
Séralini’s work.
Professor Séralini was also honoured with the 2015 Whistleblower Award by the Federation of German Scientists and the German Section
“Prof Séralini received the
award in recognition of his research demonstrating the toxic effects of
Roundup herbicide on rats when administered at a low environmentally
relevant dose over a long-term period. After the research was published,
Prof Séralini was attacked in what the VDW and IALANA call “a vehement
campaign by ‘interested circles’ from the chemical industry” as well as
from the UK Science Media Centre. This smear campaign led to the
retraction of his team’s paper by the first journal that published it.
But Prof Séralini and his team fought back, countering the scientific
arguments raised against their research and republishing their paper in
another journal.”
Again, many international scientists and
experts have expressed support for Séralini’s study and for open
scientific debate based on the peer-reviewed publication system, but you
won’t see a debate, because there is no sound argument from the
opposing side.
A statement opposing the attacks, “Science et conscience”, signed by 140 French scientists, was published in the newspaper Le Monde.
“Such attacks on scientists who
highlight risks of GM plants are normal. It’s always the same
industry-linked GM proponents who immediately try to defame the critical
studies and their authors in a concerted campaign. This is about
money.” – Dr Angelika Hilbeck, a biologist at the ETH
Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), who said in a media
interview that she takes Séralini’s findings “seriously”. Hilbeck was
subjected to attacks similar to those leveled at Séralini after her team
published research showing that GM maize harmed beneficial insects. (Battaglia
D. Kritische Gentech-Forschung: “Hier geht es um viel Geld” [Crucial GM
research: “This is about large sums of money”]. Tages Woche. 2 November 2012. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14451)
Hundreds of scientists and academics from around the world signed an open letter that
supports Séralini’s research and sheds light on the way in which the GM
approval process is rigged, which is backed up by the suppression of
independent scientists working in the public interest. The letter states
that an “honest, rational or scientific debate” is being made
impossible.
Below are links to individual letters
from 160 scientists, which were sent to the journal that published the
original paper. These letters have been made public by Séralini’s
research institute CRIIGEN:
Monsanto’s Secret Documents Show Massive Attack on Séralini’s Study
When the original study was retracted ,
it was done so by the journal’s editor, A. Wallace Hayes. It was also
coincidentally done after the appointment of a former Monsanto
scientist, Richard E. Goodman, to the editorial board. Again the study
was republished with all the criticisms addressed, but this only
happened after the studies reputation was damaged due to the
corporation, Monsanto.
Fast forward a few years later and
secret internal Monsanto documents were released in 2017 by legal firms
in the United States. In these documents, it was quite clear how
Monsanto pressured Wallace Hayes, Editor of Food and Chemical
Toxicology, to retract the study.
You can access those documents here.
10 Things You Need To Know About The Séralini Study
1. Most criticisms of Séralini’s study wrongly assume it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study – and a well-designed and well-conducted one.
2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. See here: Why is this study important?
3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval.
4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency of cancer increases with age.
5. Compared with industry tests on GM foods, Séralini’s study analyzed the same number of rats but over a longer period (two years instead of 90 days), measured more effects more often, and was uniquely able to distinguish the effects of the GM food from the pesticide it is grown with.
6. If we argue that Séralini’s study does not prove that the GM food tested is dangerous, then we must also accept that industry studies on GM foods cannot prove they are safe.
7. Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.
8. Séralini’s study showed that industry and regulators are wrong to dismiss toxic effects seen in 90-day studies on GM foods as “not biologically meaningful”. Signs of toxicity found in Monsanto’s 90-day studies were found to develop into organ damage, cancer, and premature death in Séralini’s two-year study.
9. Long-term tests on GM foods are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.
10. GM foods have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory and farm animals in a number of studies.
2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. See here: Why is this study important?
3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval.
4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency of cancer increases with age.
5. Compared with industry tests on GM foods, Séralini’s study analyzed the same number of rats but over a longer period (two years instead of 90 days), measured more effects more often, and was uniquely able to distinguish the effects of the GM food from the pesticide it is grown with.
6. If we argue that Séralini’s study does not prove that the GM food tested is dangerous, then we must also accept that industry studies on GM foods cannot prove they are safe.
7. Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.
8. Séralini’s study showed that industry and regulators are wrong to dismiss toxic effects seen in 90-day studies on GM foods as “not biologically meaningful”. Signs of toxicity found in Monsanto’s 90-day studies were found to develop into organ damage, cancer, and premature death in Séralini’s two-year study.
9. Long-term tests on GM foods are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.
10. GM foods have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory and farm animals in a number of studies.
Concluding Comments & Book Recommendation
Ask yourself: why are dozens upon dozens
of countries across the world completely banning the import or growth
of genetically modified foods in their countries? Several of them have
already cited numerous environmental and human health concerns, and
others have simply stated that they’d like to do more research.
Again, the corporate and political
influence is huge. What we have here is fraud, not science, and clearly,
the “majority,” as mainstream media would have you believe, and have
most academics believe, are not “pro” GMO.
Another great example regarding the
politicization of this issue comes from Wikileak documents, showing that
the United States was threatening other countries to accept them.
Read more about it from The WikiLeaks Files: The World According To U.S. Empire
In 1996, Steven M. Druker did something
very few Americans were doing then — learn the facts about the massive
venture to restructure the genetic core of the world’s food supply. The
problem of unawareness still exists today, but it’s getting much better
thanks to activists like Druker.
Druker, being a public interest attorney
and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated
a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.
He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit (2015). In the book, Druker provides details of his experience, and he’s also released the documents on his website showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws that the FDA made in its policy.
The book has some very impressive
reviews. For example, David Schubert, Ph.D., molecular biologist and
Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological
Studies said that this “incisive and insightful book is truly
outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s
a pleasure to read – and a must-read.”
Stephen Naylor, Ph.D., CEO and Chariman
of Mai Health Inc., an individual who spent 10 years as a Professor of
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and Pharmacology and the Mayo
Clinic stated that Druker’s “meticulously documented, well crafted, and spell binding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us.”
No comments:
Post a Comment