Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled

Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.

www.naturalnews.com...

Arpad Puszta was one of the leading scientists in his field. Instead of getting praised he and his colleagues were chastised by the industry and government officals. This is not the way scientific research should be carried out. Research that came out of Egypt backed up there claims that GMOs cause long term health damage.

It is evident that there are problems with GMOs. Heck they do not even serve them in Monsantos own food eateries.

Silly Humans. Why dont they understand that when they create something or cause something harm in any way they are just hurting themselves. They guys that fired the scientist will be a poor mother barely making it in there next life on earth and will suffer dearly from the toxic earth because of there actions from this life. Thats why it is important to love and treat each other with love so that the next life is a life of love, not greed or power hungry for what ever the cost is. Imagine a world ware the only job you have is taking care of your self and others and that there are no diseases, viruses, cancers, poisons, ect.. and that everything you need is giving to you and that all are equal, loving, sharing, and advanced. This life is a test, will you chose greed or love?

reply to post by purplemer


How am i not surprised at this..!

They also do not serve GMO in the Whitehouse... So what does that tell us.. do not consume GMOs...!
Thanks for the info OP

TBH their might not be health hazards and they just wanted a guy who was gonna throw a spanner in the woks out of the team, if one scientists says it all wrong then people wont buy it or believe it.

Originally posted by definity
TBH their might not be health hazards and they just wanted a guy who was gonna throw a spanner in the woks out of the team, if one scientists says it all wrong then people wont buy it or believe it.

The man in question is a scientist. His work is peer reviewed. His job is to work out the facts. If his work is to be challenged it should be done on a scientific level. Not by government officials or their industrial counterparts, who do not have the ability to challenge him on a scientific level.

Important info and all, but just an FYI, the man got fired 14 years ago. It's been covered many times on ATS. The way you worded it makes it sound like it just happened

reply to post by Son of Will


How have I made it sound like it just happened. When in the first sentence it states in happened in 1998...

When will scientists realize they will NEVER be GODS?

They may play God by making something from nothing...the difference is they playing around costs lives, not save lives.

reply to post by purplemer


I see you follow Natural News also. Did you read about the latest study done in France? Just out this year.
GMO linked to liver damage and cancerous tumors. More damaging to females. Our more sensitive hormone
system. The report included pictures of HUGE tumors.

running with the wolves

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by definity
TBH their might not be health hazards and they just wanted a guy who was gonna throw a spanner in the woks out of the team, if one scientists says it all wrong then people wont buy it or believe it.

The man in question is a scientist. His work is peer reviewed. His job is to work out the facts. If his work is to be challenged it should be done on a scientific level. Not by government officials or their industrial counterparts, who do not have the ability to challenge him on a scientific level.

really?....facts are getting harder and harder to verify. when you can manipulate a person into trusting nothing, you have ultimate control over them.

Natural news is awful. It's like infowars.com but for health nuts. They make up stories all of the time, and twist the facts to fit their agenda.

Seriously, this article is about a guy being fired 15 years ago....how the hell do you verify something like that, and why hasn't it been published before?

Run on sentence much?? Lol that was the longest sentenc I've ever read. This is to the quoted part of op.
Anyways. Is there a list or can anybody inform me of foods that are gmo. And what is monsota? Sorry I'm new to this. And I'm not surprised they don't eat em at the whitehouse. But probably every homeless shelter is stockpiled with them.

reply to post by purplemer


We all know that the short term, cost efficiency, quantity producing methods are far more important than the long term well being of our species and our planet.

Oh wait...

reply to post by dipsezbaby


Long story short, x-scientists say GMOs are safe; y-scientists say they are not safe.
Both have reports, studies, research.
Its a standoff, and at the same time a standstill.


Both try to debunk the other scientists, like for example: y-scientists say that the the findings of x-scientists (consider these the proponents for GMOs, if you will) are usually only short-term studies, and the while some findings state the GMOs are safe, sometimes those x-scientists use certain words that hide contradictory information[1]. y-scientists (which by now, you might consider opponents of GMOs) also claim that x-scientists have a bias towards the [GMO] industry; for example, Monsanto, a company that produces genetically modified seeds, sets up its own research for GMOs, Monsanto sometimes funds Universities to research into GMO technology, and scientists may also be funded or employed by "corrupt" agencies (claimed to have partial ties with Monsanto and/or other biotechnology companies).
This position basically implies that GM-proponent-scientists cannot be trusted, and GMOs are definitively
abominations.**

In the opposite end of this perspective, sometimes the GMO protesters are viewed to be surrounded by myths and health-nuts that easily persuade anybody that fears for their health and does not question the authenticity of the "facts" provided to them. There's as much grounds to follow this perspective, as you may note with the growing marketability of foods labeled "All Natural" and things like that.

**How would GM opponents come to the conclusion that GMOS are unsafe? They think that way because some scientists have observed adverse health effects in animals[***], as well as found traces of GMO components in humans[***], and those components have not been thoroughly studied because the GM seed companies claim it is useless to study effects on humans; the premise for that claim is that the GM seed Company's scientists say everything is alright with the genes they are inserting into their products, and that the genes themselves are not any different when they are placed into the new DNA of the specimens(plant seeds).
***Those studies are criticized and/or claimed to flawed by the GM proponents. Some Scientists are also fired and GM opponents use that to support their ideas that there is indeed something not right with GMO foods and "the industry is trying to cover this up". As you may have guessed it, this back&forth argument becomes a case of oppressors versus underdogs where the industry is the "bad guy" and scientists that are opposed to GM foods are the underrated heroes. Or at least that is how some see it around here.

What it boils down to is this:
If the GM opponents are making claims, the only a neutral observer can prove they are flawed/false or true is if they look into the research their self or hear from a credentialed GM opponent that the claims are untrue; if they hear this from a GM proponent, it only leaves one to question if they are "debunking" because of a bias.
The same thing above goes the opposite way (finding out if a GM proponent's claims are false/true).
One must then find a neutral observer to establish the facts (which could end up being us, while we observe an open GMO experiment[2]), or wait for a GMO proponent/opponent to come out and say that they are lying to promote some sort of agenda. There are many agendas one could speculate that motivate either side, since the nonGMO and GMO approaches are profitable; it has to do with food & market, so there's going to be money involved, don't you think?

[1] earthopensource.org...
(Section 3.1.2 & 3.1.4)
[2] www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by dipsezbaby


Google Gmo foods.....GMO fruits and vegetables. This will give you websites to visit that list GMO products.

running with the wolves

Well thanks for that. But how would I know that I am buyin/ consuming foods that are gmo??

reply to post by unknown32


Not silly humans. Diabolical eugenicists.

His research jeopardized future and possibly present funding. Of course he got dismissed along with all the other researchers. Under the confidentially clause they are unable to comment on the research without jeopardizing everything they own. Science is influenced strongly by funding, it is not real science anymore and it never really was. Research is expensive and the big corporations have a lot of our money to work with to suppress whatever they want. They have their own Lawyers so it doesn't matter if they sue someone. They might as well let their lawyers earn their salaries.

reply to post by dipsezbaby


In the USA and Canada, Genetically Modified foods or foods with derivatives from GM foods are not labeled...and genetically modified foods are in about 70% of processed foods throughout the market. Soy, corn and canola are the major three GMO crops, there are others but these three make up 80% + of their farmed crop-kind in the US; meaning that if you have something like "soy lecithin" in the ingredients list of your food, then there's a great chance it's from a genetically modified soybean-crop.
Some scientists have established that the DNA of GM crosp are nearly absent in refined food derivatives like canola oil, high fructose corn syrup, and sugar (genetically modified sugarbeets fit there)

You're grabbing in a bag of probabilities when you shop for foods that are processed or that are simply not labeled as GMO free / "nonGMO". < Those foods labeled as "nonGMO Project verified" supposedly use strict methods to make certain that no genetically modified ingredients are present in the product...they may not always be 100%, there's always a possibility the GM foods slip in through the cracks...

USDA verified Organic foods are also this way - no GMO's should be present in USDA Organic foods; but if there are, they should make up less than 5% of the entire product's weight, like in breakfast cereals I think.

Fruits & Vegetables with number-stickers on might be identified as GMO or not by the number-sticker on it:

A 4 digit number means it was conventionally grown (using chemicals).

A 5 digit number beginning with a 9 means it was grown organically.

A 5 digit number beginning with an 8 means it was genetically modified

eatdrinkbetter.com...

Originally posted by 1Learner
reply to post by dipsezbaby

 

Long story short, x-scientists say GMOs are safe; y-scientists say they are not safe.
Both have reports, studies, research.
Its a standoff, and at the same time a standstill.

The number of scientists who say GM food is safe vastly outnumber the scientists who say they are not safe. The studies that have shown problems in animals are usually flawed somehow.

Testing of whole (genetically modified) foods in laboratory animals has its problems. The specificity and sensitivity of the normally applied methods is usually poor. There is a need for improvement of the test methodology using in vivo and in vitro models. Moreover, there is a need for standardIization and harmonization of methods to test the long-term safety of whole foods.

source

And how do you say it's a standoff/standstill? More GM food is being added to the market everyday.

Look, you can Google anything and have it come up in the affirmative, or confirming whatever you say. If you google are GM foods bad, you'll get things that say it's bad. If you google "was hitler awesome".....well let's just say you get the picture.
Was Hitler a cool guy?