It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remember the thread about the retraction of the GMO study from France..B.S. Trust nothing

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Remember the thread about the retraction of the GMO study from France.. Trust nothing for the following link tells the why, who, and wherefore all of the supposedly flawed study that was a mirror of the same study Monsanto used for the approval process to begin with. Same type rats and everything.

www.activistpost.com...


After a 2012 study linking cancer with Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, the scientific journal that published the study is now retracting it, after hiring a former Monsanto employee to fill a new editorial position reviewing biotechnology papers.



In February of 2013, the FCT hired Monsanto’s former employee, Richard E. Goodman, for a new position reviewing biotechnology papers. On November 19, the FCT reported its decision to retract the published paper stating the study’s results were inconclusive because there weren’t enough rats used in the study, and the strain of rat used was not acceptable.

Writing for CRIIGEN, the independent lab with which Seralini is affiliated, Frédérique Baudouin noted that a short Monsanto study, which was published in the same journal to prove the safety of its product, “was conducted with the same strain and number of rats.”

Séralini has promised to sue.

Much more to the article and as most are aware there is Monsanto's money helping at every step to include the published out come of the study. In many ways this reminds me of the selling of cigarettes back in the 50 and 60s with the actor doctors claiming health benefits from smoking.
Maybe to harsh ? You read and you decide.




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


I think they need to use the Executive rats and any other rats with two legs they may have on their pay roll ...



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
It wasn't the type of rats that was the issue, it was the number that was used for the control group. I actually believe the author has a valid argument saying that control rats have diets and other factors that would jeopardize his study, so he refused to use historical control data.

However, the issue isn't the rats, it's the number of them.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Something to keep in mind, if you are trying to prove scientific fraud, or manipulation, the best means to tackle it is not by perpetuating lies or creating spin, or doing the exact same thing you are trying to stop.

It has to be done with something iron clad that can't be washed out by some member of XYZ corporations hit squad.


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Here's a solution. Conduct a 10 year study by having a test group of people of all ages eat only GMO foods every meal every day. Then see the difference in health from start to finish.

For the test group let's use employees, executives, shareholders, and their families to include elderly and children of Monsanto. If it's as harmless as Monsanto says it is, there should be no problem.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

727Sky
Remember the thread about the retraction of the GMO study from France...


Sure I remember the thread.
This news was already posted in it.

NINE years after he quits Monsanto.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 




However, the issue isn't the rats, it's the number of them.


If I read the article correctly the study was to mirror the original Monsanto study that got their GMO product approved. Same type rats, same number, only longer study.


edit on 1-12-2013 by 727Sky because: ..



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

727Sky
reply to post by boncho
 




However, the issue isn't the rats, it's the number of them.


If I read the article correctly the study was to mirror the original Monsanto study that got their GMO product approved. Same type rats, same number, only longer study.


edit on 1-12-2013 by 727Sky because: ..


You're wrong. The author himself clearly states he didn't use control data for his rats. It doesn't matter how many rats he used.

If Monsanto and he both used 10 rats, but monsanto compared it to 1000 data sets in historical control groups and he compared his to 10 other rats, it's not even close to the same thing.

He released his data to the publication but it's not open to the public (as far as I know). So without that information I can only speculate on the actual numbers.

Response from Editor in Chief

Author of the study's repsone.

(Author's words)


There are several reasons for this. Control diets for rats are generally
not monitored, neither for pesticides (Hayes, 2004), nor for
chemicals leaching from cages or other environmental sources
(Howdeshell et al., 2003). This artificially enhances background effects.
The supplier even recognizes that their historical data come
from rats potentially fed GMOs since this was not controlled for
(Harlan communication), except in our experiment. Thus, it was
not appropriate for us to use historical control data. This is also
the reason why we did not use reference groups fed different
non-substantially equivalent diets, as they increase the standard
deviation of the control groups, hiding differential effects due to
treatments.


edit on 1-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


Someone else posted something relevant in the other thread as well. For carcinogenic studies they recommend 50 rats, as opposed to 10 in the study.


Séralini’s study was over two years — almost a rat’s lifespan — and for tests of this duration, the OECD recommends at least 20 rats of each sex per group for chemical-toxicity studies, and at least 50 for carcinogenicity studies.


www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...
edit on 1-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Carreau
Here's a solution. Conduct a 10 year study by having a test group of people of all ages eat only GMO foods every meal every day. Then see the difference in health from start to finish.

For the test group let's use employees, executives, shareholders, and their families to include elderly and children of Monsanto. If it's as harmless as Monsanto says it is, there should be no problem.
I agree! If these GMO's are so safe then those stating it should have no problem having their families participate in the study.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

alfa1

727Sky
Remember the thread about the retraction of the GMO study from France...


Sure I remember the thread.
This news was already posted in it.

NINE years after he quits Monsanto.


To be fair, networks are for life. Not to mention some jobs go way beyond a single corporation. Not to mention lingering loyalty, formative time early in someone's career, etc.

Whether or not the study is bunk, he could still have had something to do with it being addressed in the Journal's behind the scenes.
edit on 1-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I find Monsanto to be quite scarily powerful. I mean if your influential enough to have a law made just to protect you, then there's something not quite right. No one should be more powerful than the government, this is so we can have our votes go to people who will make laws to protect us, not votes that go to men who sell out their people to companies for a profit percentage cut.

New law: All political party members must have their bank accounts monitored at all times, all politicians seen to be receiving funds from private businesses (who do not have the future of the human race and natural world in mind) and any found receiving funding from anyone except civilians of the given nation, should pay damages to the state and be barred from working in the politics.

Oh yeah, I went off topic... burn all the GMO!



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Thank you. I was waiting for someone to get on top of this one.

S&F& : up :



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Monsanto Corp. only serves organic food in their cafeteria to their employees. I don't need to research the issue any farther than that.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by nugget1
 


Do you have a source for this?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

soficrow
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Thank you. I was waiting for someone to get on top of this one.

S&F& : up :



Thank you for the confidence but alas I am but a relay that got activated when I saw the article. Is the article hype or inaccurate; each must decide for themselves? I doubt either camp will be swayed much either way, however knowledge of the possibilities is an empowerment in itself IMO.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   

nugget1
Monsanto Corp. only serves organic food in their cafeteria to their employees. I don't need to research the issue any farther than that.


Indeed I want a source for your claim or your full of it.


I know what your claim stems from and I see you do not like research so it is no wonder you spout nonsense.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
A little more info on the type of study conducted:
www.activistpost.com...


It is important that scientists do not overstate their findings or draw conclusions that are not justified by the data, but Prof Séralini's paper does not do this. Because Prof Séralini's study was a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity study, which normally requires larger numbers of rats, he conservatively did not do a statistical analysis of the tumours and mortality findings. Instead he simply reported them, without drawing definitive conclusions. This is in line with the OECD chronic toxicity protocol, which requires that any "lesions" (including tumours) observed are recorded.[4]

The criticisms of the low number of rats and choice of rat strain have been addressed by Prof Séralini's team in a comprehensive response to critics that was published in FCT,[5] as well as by independent scientists writing in support of the study.[6]



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
OK then,
we need ten volunteers to conduct a study .
5 rats 5 mice from random locations Be it fields or pet stores.
Obtain monsanto feed from any local farmer corn producer and
begin your study at home. Track the findings for a two year period
and post your findings on You tube.

lets throw in a study with soy also, since that also is in nearly everything
edit on 1-12-2013 by Lil Drummerboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

The Independent newspaper reports that there is a notice in the cafeteria of the Monsanto pharmaceutical factory is High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, advising customers “as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.”

The notice was posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group.

Monsanto confirms the authenticity of the notice, but company spokesman Tony Coombes says the only reason for the GM-free foods is because the company “believes in choice.”

search.yahoo.com...=A0SO8xODU5tSiiUAbulXNyoA;_ylu=X3o'___'EzcDRqcWFvBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDI3NV8x/SIG=1322p7j2g/EXP=1385 939971/**http%3a//monsantoboycott.com/monsanto/gm-foods-not-served-in-monsanto-cafeteria/

Monsanto Workers Ban GMO Foods From Their Own Cafeteria


The staff cafeteria at biotech-crop Monsanto’s UK headquarters reportedly banned GM foods from the menu back in 1999.

The private catering company running the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by Granada Food Services, told its clients, including Monsanto, that it would no longer use foods containing GM soya or maize because of “customer concerns” about the technology.

search.yahoo.com...=A0SO8xODU5tSiiUAdOlXNyoA;_ylu=X3o'___'EzYW5rdXMyBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDI3NV8x/SIG=14eduq661/EXP=1385 939971/**http%3a//articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/09/01/monsanto-workers-ban-gmo-foods-from-their-own-cafeteria.aspx

Several articles on Yahoo search about the subject; take it for what it is worth



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Carreau
Here's a solution. Conduct a 10 year study by having a test group of people of all ages eat only GMO foods every meal every day. Then see the difference in health from start to finish.

For the test group let's use employees, executives, shareholders, and their families to include elderly and children of Monsanto. If it's as harmless as Monsanto says it is, there should be no problem.


You may find you have an odd lack of people to follow-up on by the end of those 10 years, given that criteria for the study. I'll volunteer for the 'Control' group eating normal food. No offense to GMO, but I'll leave the 10 years of eating modified garbage to more adventurous people.




top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join