Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Urgent need for right to know GMO labeling *Video* of profound importance.

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Or perhaps this will be the physical state of everyone who eats GMO long term?




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
 


so you are trying to invalidate this reasurch because they used the same rats as the original study??????
why did monsanto use these type of rats then?


The fact that the rats used are known to spontaneously develop tumors in the long term would tend to cast some doubt on the cause of the tumors in Saralini's study.

Because the object of the research was not the same. The object of the Hammond research was to compare

Overall health, body weight, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues

www.sciencedirect.com...


so how do you dirive the cancer from gmos from the spontaneous cancer from the type of rat?
OR WOULD THESE CANCERS JUST BE STRUCK OFF AS DUE TO THE SPECIES OF RAT?

monsanto =uses these rats and discounts all tumours (species specific)
french= uses these rats and must be incompetent? wtf

xploder



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


so how do you dirive the cancer from gmos from the spontaneous cancer from the type of rat?

Good question. You can't from Seralini's study.



monsanto =uses these rats and discounts all tumours (species specific)
french= uses these rats and must be incompetent? wtf


Hammond study lasted 13 weeks. No indication of unusual tumor development
Seralini study lasted 24 months. "Old" rats spontaneously develop tumors. Very small sample sizes lead to the conclusion of abnormal development of tumors in test subjects as compared to controls.




edit on 9/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by Phage
 


Or perhaps this will be the physical state of everyone who eats GMO long term?


You mean the tumor prone rats? The study I mentioned was done in 1979. No GMO in 1979. The strain of rats spontaneously develops tumors.
edit on 9/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Where did you get 20 from? The study total is 200.

Gilles-Eric Séralini was aware that Sprague-Dawley developed spontaneous tumours. Read the fulltext for yourself and don't rely on third-party analysts who spin points.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



"Old" rats spontaneiously develop tumors.


control rats were used why did the control rats not show the same age related tumours?

why did the group on gmos have 6X the tumours of the control rats

xploder



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Phage
 


Where did you get 20 from? The study total is 200.

Gilles-Eric Séralini was aware that Sprague-Dawley developed spontaneous tumours. Read the fulltext for yourself and don't rely on third-party analysts who spin points.


Yes, I read that incorrectly. Can you provide a link to the fulltext?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Thing is in these studies the females are affected sooner but who knows how it will affect males in the long run. Interesting how Monsanto and their studies end at 3 months when the effects are not detectable until the 4th even though the damage has occurred.

Testing in the way they did, trying GMO alone, GMO and roundup and then roundup alone was intelligent rather than how monsanto did their tests, it was like "Duh"! The worst gmos are being eaten by americans and it is positive that the foods are contmanited.

They are insisting on a moratorium yet as we know the media and big business controls the information. Scientific proof was all it took. Some countries are responsible for the health of their citizens where as the US and others could care less, kind of puts into perspective the georgia guidestones and where the greatest casualties will come from.

I would love to put this video in the op.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


control rats were used why did the control rats not show the same age related tumours?

They did.


why did the group on gmos have 6X the tumours of the control rats

Because the control group was too small. It consisted of 10 rats.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


There are at least 2 links to fulltext. In Press, Corrected Proof format, not yet published in fixed issue.

The Sprague-Dawley rat choice and 2-year duration excuse are exposed as pseudosceptic spin points and poor debunking.

One only needs to read the fulltext.

research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
www.marklynas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/FCT-final-paper.pdf
edit on 22-9-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Are certain types of cancerous tumors on the rise and could it be related?


Both Senator Ted Kennedy and golfer Seve Ballesteros have undergone surgeries to remove brain tumors in recent months. The frightening diagnosis of a brain tumor is one that no one ever wants to hear. And, yet, it seems like it's becoming increasingly more common among people well-known and people unknown. Could it be possible that brain tumors are on the rise? The frightening answer is yes.


www.qualityhealth.com...

A bit more about the French findings as well as a great article:


This important finding confirms the findings of numerous other reports conducted in recent days concerning Roundup's toxicity in humans, including the fact that this widely-used chemical causes birth defects, cancer, and death (www.naturalnews.com...). But the real kicker in the new research is the combined toxicity from exposure to both Roundup and Bt toxin which, according to the study, is tremendous. In their conclusion, researchers noted that "modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants" (www.greenmedinfo.com...). So much for Monsanto's claim that Bt toxin, Roundup, and various other chemically-engineered traits are perfectly harmless. Monsanto actually claims on its website that human testing of GMOs is unnecessary because they are no different than conventional and natural crop varieties -- and regulatory authorities have never taken the agri-giant to task on actually proving this baseless claim, which flies in the face of independent science (www.naturalnews.com...).


Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
 


control rats were used why did the control rats not show the same age related tumours?

They did.


why did the group on gmos have 6X the tumours of the control rats

Because the control group was too small. It consisted of 10 rats.


i dare you to read the pdf linked above,
and refer to the biopsy photos of liver, kidney and tumour.


please explain how cels are obviously damaged in the gmo group,
and normal in the control group?

would you like me to post them here for reference?

xploder
edit on 22-9-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

(NaturalNews) The latest campaign finance disclosure records released by California's Secretary of State reveal that the most evil corporation in the world, Monsanto, has forked over another $2.89 million to kill Proposition 37, the historic bill that, if passed, will require genetically-modified (GM) foods and food ingredients to be labeled at the retail level in California.

Combined with its other recent contributions of more than $4.2 million (www.naturalnews.com...), Monsanto has now officially shelled out a total of more than $7.1 million to prevent consumers from knowing the truth about what is really contained in the foods they buy.

Along with Monsanto's latest contributions were similar contributions by the other five of the "Big Six" pesticide firms -- DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF, and Syngenta -- which together gave more than $2.6 million to the No on 37 campaign as part of their most recent contributions. To date, the "Big Six" have collectively contributed nearly $20 million to keep Californians in the dark about GMOs.


Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

WHY would they NOT want consumers to know if a product is GMO if they so boldly stand by their products and insist on its safety? Whats the harm?

It occurred to me this afternoon that even if everything does require proper labeling, the other supposed organics are going to fast become contaminated and more to the point, practically non existent as long as cheap food is available and monsanto is allowed to continue this downward spiral of insanity.

The idea or romance of shopping at your local markets and eating only "organic" foods is admirable but still way too expensive for most people, if and when they begin to label, organic prices will skyrocket to the point people will have to put their heads in the sand and go ahead and eat the toxic poison.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
 

The study briefly references two studies about spontaneous development of tumors and provides none of the data from them. It does not reference the Suzuki paper which showed a rate of 86% for males and 72% for females. In Seralini's study the control group showed only 30% of the females with tumors at 24 months. This seems odd and would indicate that the control group (10 animals) was too small to be statistically valid, showing an anomalously low rate. On the other hand, at 24 months 50-80% of the females of the other groups (a larger sample) showed tumors. That is in line with the Suzuki study.

By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected.

research.sustainablefoodtrust.org...

It appears that the test groups were sufficiently large to show typical spontaneous development but the control group was too small.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


The statistical problems are not the only concern. Here are some other observations by accredited scientists.
www.sciencemediacentre.org...
edit on 9/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Why are microscope slides from only one of the controls shown for each category? Did none of them show any pathology?

Why are none of the control rats shown when we know 30% of the female controls had tumors?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


thank you for the link,



"Although this paper has been published in a peer–reviewed journal with an IF of about 3


peer reviewed and published,

the control size dosnt cause 6X or factor of 6 increase in tumours

xploder



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Why are microscope slides from only one of the controls shown for each category? Did none of them show any pathology?

Why are none of the control rats shown when we know 30% of the female controls had tumors?


WHERE IS THIS EXACT SAME DATA FROM MONSANTO?

why if the new study has top provide those details does the monsanto study not offer the same?

it would seem like you want to discouint the reasurch but you are using the same argument that proves that monsanto has not published its method either

so why are you a monsanto fan?

xploder



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

You're welcome. Here's the entire statement.

Although this paper has been published in a peer–reviewed journal with an IF of about 3, there are anomalies throughout the paper that normally should have been corrected or resolved through the peer-review process.
www.sciencemediacentre.org...



the control size dosnt cause 6X or factor of 6 increase in tumours

Yes it does. The control group was too small, showing an unusually low incidence of spontaneous tumor development. This exaggerates the statistics in the test groups (which did not show an abnormally high level of incidence according to other research).
edit on 9/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Why are microscope slides from only one of the controls shown for each category? Did none of them show any pathology?

Why are none of the control rats shown when we know 30% of the female controls had tumors?


are you accusing the researches from presenting only one side of the story?
like monsanto did with its trials?

two standards are at play here

THE SECERET STUDIES BY MONSANTO,
and the open study by the french.

why did monsanto use this type of rat?
why do you seem to want humans to be some sort of guinna pigs?

shurly saftey should be paramount?

xploder



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


WHERE IS THIS EXACT SAME DATA FROM MONSANTO?

why if the new study has top provide those details does the monsanto study not offer the same?

What are you talking about? I didn't say Seralini "had to" provide the information, I just said it wasn't there so I used information which I had available.

The Hammond study was completely different from the Seralini study. It was a 13 month study which should no significant difference between animals fed GM feed and non-GM feed.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join