GMOs

RT: ANTI-GMO ARTICLE IN SCIENCE JOURNAL SUPPRESSED

December 14, 2013 By Joseph P. Farrell

Ms. M.W. shared this story from R.T, and it more than adequately summarizes what's wrong with not only the whole GMO agenda, but western "corporatized" science - "big science" - altogether:

Ratted out: Scientific journal bows to Monsanto over anti-GMO study

Note the problem here: F. William Engdahl, a respected researcher in the USA and author of numerous books, would never be allowed an op-ed piece in the Washington Post or the New York Times, but he can find a voice on Russia Today.  

Now note the next layer of the problem: the journal in question published a long-term French study of the effects of GMOs on rats, the only long term study thus far conducted:

   In its November, 2012 issue, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. It was a highly important study as it was the first and, astonishingly, still the only long-term study under controlled conditions of possible effects of a diet of GMO Maize treated with Monsanto Roundup herbicide.

Seralini submitted his study results to the respected journal following a rigorous four-month review by scientific peers regarding methodology and such. Seralini’s group tested more than 200 rats of a diet of GMO corn over a period of a full two years at a cost of 3 million euro. The study was done in absolute secrecy to avoid industry pressure.

The publication created an atomic blast rocking the entire edifice of the GMO industry. Pictures of test rats with grotesque cancer tumors appeared in newspapers around the world.

Seralini’s group studied the effect of a Monsanto GMO maize diet on the rats for much longer than Monsanto had done in their study submitted to the EU European Food Safety Authority for approval. The group conducted its study for the full two-year average lifetime instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long-term span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared four to seven months into the study. In the industry's earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen, but were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA alike.

In other words, as we have stated here over and over again, it would seem like common sense to subject GMOs to such long term study, but this was never done; government agents and agencies were bought off, as Dr. Scott de Hart and I indicated in our book Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, in the name of the principle of "substantial equivalence"(a product, not surprisingly, of the first Bush administration), by which the agribusiness industry argued that no such safeguards or testing needed to be conducted since, from a consumption point of view, their product was essentially the same as normal agronomically developed crops. Of course, when it came to patents, royalty and licensing rights, substantial equivalence - and science - went right out the window.

Then came the attempt to damn the French scientists for "faulty methodology":

" On November 28, 2012, only a few weeks after the study was published, EFSA in Brussels issued a press release with the following conclusion: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine [sic!] previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said “EFSA’s analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue.”

"EFSA argued that Seralini had used the wrong kind of rats, not enough rats and that the statistical analysis was inadequate. By these standards, all toxicity studies on glyphosate and GMOs should be retracted because they used the same type and approximate number of rats as those in the Séralini study."

Engdahl isn't buying it and neither should we: faulty methods or not (and they're not), it was more study and scientific attention than was ever given to GMOs by  any of the agribusiness corporations, and certainly more than was ever given to them by the Food Disaster Administration(formerly known as the Food and Drug Administration).

The bottom line, in a corrupt culture driven by love of money, evil is the only result, and science itself cannot be done, nor even reported, since science is about truth. And truth requires a moral commitment from the scientist, be they atheist, theist, agnostic, or what have you. When that moral commitment is purchased, and the results bought and paid for, science cannot, and does not, advance. Big money only gets thrown at big projects designed to prove the theory with results always interpreted to be in line with its dictats.

This is yet another serious sign that Western culture is in serious trouble folks, for it's not just the GMO issue at stake here, it's science itself. Kuddos to Mr. Engdahl for reminding us of it.

See you on the flip side.