Scientific fraud? DuPont study deliberately hid toxic effects of GMOs fed to rats Learn

Why am I not surprised. This is total disgusting. And you have Hillary Clinton pushing for GMO!

In November 2013, FCT editor A. Wallace Hayes forcibly retracted a study led by researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini. The long-term study had found organ damage, hormone disruption and increased tumor and mortality rates in rats fed NK603 "Roundup Ready" (glyphosate-resistant) GM corn contaminated with glyphosate levels ruled safe by regulators. In retracting the paper, Hayes called the findings "inconclusive," because not enough rats were studied and because the variety of rat used (Sprague-Dawley) was particularly prone to tumors.

www.naturalnews.com... gn=buffer

I guess they didn't feel the need to inform all of us glorified lab rats of this particular study...

It's getting to the point where I think I've lost my "shocked face" forever.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Your right about the shock value, or lack there of.
When it comes to any company involved in the creation of the GMO's, that preaches to me how safe they are, I just don't believe them.

Especially after looking into the use in other countries, where they don't have even the "tightened" regulations we do.

"Tightened" used pretty loosely here.

I try not to eat GMO but it is nearly impossible to avoid it all. I read somewhere that Popcorn is not GMO yet, maybe it can't work for popcorn.

Humans cannot eat much corn or Soy without having problems with endocrine disruption anyway. Soybean oil is listed as a goiterogen. All products made from soy are endocrine disruptors I suppose, they dope us up so we can't see what is going on. Why do you think they are allowing Monsanto to do this, it was probably a solution thought of by Monsanto to control the people.

Well, at least we aren't bombing each other as much as other countries. I'd rather have coffee or tea to settle us down myself, Soy sucks. Make people think that the poison is good for you using scientific evidence to back your claims. Evidence created by the same people who sell you the product and buy the people of the agency governing it.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

You may or may not be right with your assessment of the dangers of GMOs and scientific fraud. Unfortunately, you have chosen what may be the worst possible example to support your case.

“With this post we depart from our usual practice of restricting the scope of this site to peer review of unreviewed science claims and critical analysis of poorly peer-reviewed scientific papers to publish this editorial. The Editors of AcademicsReview.org (Tribe & Chassy) have taken this step in response to the gross violation not only of scientific standards (i.e., proper experimental design and analysis) but of scientific ethics, animal welfare standards, and journalistic ethics of which Seralini, his co-authors, the journal editors, and publisher are objectively guilty. The code of scientific ethics clearly states that scientists who do not report misconduct are guilty of misconduct. A peer reviewed analysis of the paper itself will be forthcoming.”

In a Forbes.com article earlier this year, we speculated that Séralini was a scientist less guilty of actually fudging data to get the desired answer than of performing poorly designed experiments and grossly misrepresenting the results.

We were mistaken about Séralini. The experiments reported last week show that he has crossed the line by committing gross scientific misconduct and attempted fraud.

Séralini claimed that his experiments found harmful effects, including a high incidence of tumors, in laboratory rats fed genetically modified corn and/or water spiked with the commonly used herbicide, glyphosate. The treatments lasted for two years.

The investigators used a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumors as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose). Significantly, mortality rates and tumor incidence in all experimental groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. Therefore, the claim that the genetically engineered corn component of the diet or herbicide caused the tumors is insupportable.

The investigators have refused to release all the data from the experiment, which is scientific misconduct;

Inappropriate, unnecessary suffering of the rats, which should have been euthanized long before the tumors became so huge – an especially egregious ethics violation given that the study is, in any case, worthless.

academicsreview.org...

The above is a small fraction of the condemnation of Seralini and his study found in the article.

Using Seralini destroys all credibility. I would recommend stopping it, but it's up to you.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Reminds me of an interview I heard on CBC radio over the winter. They interviewed a PR woman from Monsanto Canada & it was funny to listen to.

She gave a b.s political answer when asked why Monsanto doesn't do any long term studies and instead only do short term studies. When she was asked if a company (not Monsanto, just any company period) has ever falsified scientific results in order to keep going with whatever they were doing & she responded no. Lol

I'm glad that the truth came out in this case & hope that we can stop using GMO. Aquaponic food farming is the only way to go

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Please forgive me for making such a lengthy post just prior to yours.

I'm glad that the truth came out in this case & hope that we can stop using GMO.

Let me summarize how scientists responded to the Seralini study, as described in my post.

The Seralini is a completely worthless, fraudulent study, packed to the teeth with scientific misconduct, conflicts of interest, and unnecessary cruelty to animals. His paper is an example of agenda science at it's worst and is completely bogus, false from start to finish.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Please forgive me for making such a lengthy post just prior to yours.

I'm glad that the truth came out in this case & hope that we can stop using GMO.

Let me summarize how scientists responded to the Seralini study, as described in my post.

The Seralini is a completely worthless, fraudulent study, packed to the teeth with scientific misconduct, conflicts of interest, and unnecessary cruelty to animals. His paper is an example of agenda science at it's worst and is completely bogus, false from start to finish.

Thank you for informing me of this.

That being said, the Seralini study isn't the only one out there that shows how bad GMO & I still stand firmly behind the fact that we do NOT need GMO for any reason but to do harm. Aquaponics is the answer

Gee a Du Pont involved. WHO WOULD EVER HAVE GUESSED? They didn't like hemp, outlawed commercial hemp, ran paper industry out of earth resources, and want to shove poisonous food down our throats. What I fail to understand about these families is why they're not behind bars and labeled monsters and psychopathic murderers.

In my world, they, the rockefellers, windsors, rothschilds would slammed behind bars in a nano second.

a reply to: charles1952

Nah its a perfect example. Two separate studies, same number of rats, and the same type of rats. One was long term and found the tumors. One short term before they developed. Well, the long term version of the same study that revealed the health problems was pulled, and all the scientists denounced it as inconclusive and those type of cancer prone rats shouldn't have been used, though they had been used in other accepted studies that later were duplicated and upheld. And yet in the identical test with much shorter time, was A OK, totally conclusive.

That is FRAUD and not only is it fraudalent and completely irresponsible for any scientists or scientific publisher to carry on those standards, but since this is life and death and endangerment of the public, would actually much stronger words than fraud.

GMO is equivalent to a weapon of mass destruction.