Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes
by Jon Rappoport
January 19, 2014
Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it?
He fed rats GMOs,
in the form of Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors.
Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical
Toxicology. Pictures of the rats were published.
A wave of
biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. "Experts" said the
study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and
Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn't like
Seralini at all.
The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.
Why? Not because
Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material,
not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:
He used rats which
(supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the
Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That's
it. Those were Seralini's errors.
Well, guess what?
Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study
and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto's study showed
there were no tumor problems in the rats. But here's the explosive
kicker. Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and
same number of rats (10). And nobody complained about it.
Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer's Union, explains in an interview with Steve Curwood at loe.org:
"Well, basically
what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto
did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that
study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain
of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all
of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same
experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and
their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the
number of rats is too small?
Well, if it's too small to show that there's a [tumor] problem, wouldn't it be too small to show there's no problem?
They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity.
So they're actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini's work was important, because you wouldn't follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study."
Well, if it's too small to show that there's a [tumor] problem, wouldn't it be too small to show there's no problem?
They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity.
So they're actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini's work was important, because you wouldn't follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study."
Boom.
I can just hear
Monsanto felons gibbering: "Well, we the biotech industry people
published our study. We used 10 rats and we used the Sprague-Dawley
strain. And that was fine. It was especially fine because our study
showed GMOs were safe. But then this guy Seralini comes along and does
the same study with the same kind of rat and same number of rats, and he
discovers tumors. That's not fine. That's very bad. He...he...used
the wrong rats...yeah...and he didn't use enough rats. He's a faker.
Well, I mean, we used the same kind of rat and same number of rats, but
when we did the experiment, we were Good, and Seralini was Bad. Do you
see?"
Yes, the mists are clearing and things are coming into focus.
Any comments, Monsanto? I'd be happy to pass them along to Michael Hansen.
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power.
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative
reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and
health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other
newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered
lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative
power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails
at NoMoreFakeNews.com.
Now voters may better appreciate why we are undertaking the challenge of a Common Sense Fresh Start Politics of Prosperity Constitutional Campaign for US Representative in Las Vegas District 1.
Join the campaign for Constitutional Government with Justice, Life, Liberty, Peace and Prosperity now.
http://www.amazon.com/Project-Fresh-Start-Politics-Prosperity/dp/149213452X
Get the campaign eBook here:
http://www.amazon.com/Project-Fresh-Start-Politics-Prosperity-ebook/dp/B00ENPP7WE
Register to vote Libertarian in Las Vegas here:
http://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=703
Tweet the campaign here:
https://twitter.com/RichardCharlesI
Support the campaign here, $100 or less per election, registered voters only, thanks:
Feel free to share with significant others to leaven the way for liberty
No comments:
Post a Comment