Anytime a peer-reviewed publication reveals something startling that could literally shut down an entire industry, it seems to be retracted.
This is a big problem, and perhaps the biggest when it comes to medical science, with multiple doctors, professors and scientists coming forward in abundance to stress the fact that more than half of all the published research out there could be false.
This is why we see so much independent peer reviewed research completely contradict that which is put out by government health authorities.
Here’s a great quote from the CDC Spider (CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). More than a dozen scientists came together a couple of years ago emphasizing the manipulation in the industry, although you probably never heard about it. It’s a problem in all areas of science.
“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have witnesses across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.”
It is, however, proving to be more difficult in learning of this information as big corporations and their close relationship with government and mainstream media makes sure we don’t come across this type of information. In fact, when questioning certain things, they make you feel like you are stupid to do so. We never hear of the narratives the corporate world does not want us to know, we have to dig for it, and that’s because they have tremendous amounts of power and influence to sway the public perception when it comes to certain developments, like Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).
One thing that makes this even more evident is the relationships that big corporations, like Monsanto, have with the US government.
GMOs have come under scrutiny, but no matter who creates awareness of this and provides ample evidence of it, there is always a harsh reaction assuming that their questions and concerns are illegitimate. It’s similar to vaccine safety, and all of the science that’s emerged over the years showing cause for concern, the mainstream still makes those who question vaccine safety feel inferior and out of place for even asking questions.
It’s not right, and the day science stops asking questions is the day we’ve drifted far from real science.
There are countless examples of concerns raised with genetically modified organisms, and why they should not be deemed completely safe for human consumption. The common narrative is that the overall scientific consensus/majority agree that GMOs are safe, but this simply isn’t true. There are hundreds of scientists sharing their concerns, and it just seems as though all we see are GMO safety campaigns and efforts constantly sharing the idea and overall consensus that they are safe, but that doesn’t seem to be true..
If they were safe, there wouldn’t be so many concerns. Let’s take a look at one study that caused a lot of controversy, the Séralini study.
The Séralini Study
In November 2012, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant genetically modified maize by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University (source). It was a very significant study that made a lot of noise worldwide, the first of its kind under controlled conditions that examined the possible effects of a GMO maize diet treated with Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide.
There are no long term studies examining GMOs, Séralini’s study is the first and only of its kind.
In the study, 100 female and 100 male rats were used . In both sets, some rats were fed NK603, some the GM maize sprayed with Roundup, and the third group was given drinking water with the lowest permissible limit of Roundup. A fourth, control group was fed a standard diet of the closest variety of non-GM maize.
Monsanto’s Secret Documents Show Massive Attack on Séralini’s Study
When the original study was retracted , it was done so by the journal’s editor, A. Wallace Hayes. It was also coincidentally done after the appointment of a former Monsanto scientist, Richard E. Goodman, to the editorial board. Again the study was republished with all the criticisms addressed, but this only happened after the studies reputation was damaged due to the corporation, Monsanto.
Fast forward a few years later and secret internal Monsanto documents were released in 2017 by legal firms in the United States. In these documents, it was quite clear how Monsanto pressured Wallace Hayes, Editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, to retract the study.
10 Things You Need To Know About The Séralini Study
1. Most criticisms of Séralini’s study wrongly assume it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study – and a well-designed and well-conducted one.
2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. See here: Why is this study important?
3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval.
4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency of cancer increases with age.
5. Compared with industry tests on GM foods, Séralini’s study analyzed the same number of rats but over a longer period (two years instead of 90 days), measured more effects more often, and was uniquely able to distinguish the effects of the GM food from the pesticide it is grown with.
6. If we argue that Séralini’s study does not prove that the GM food tested is dangerous, then we must also accept that industry studies on GM foods cannot prove they are safe.
7. Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.
8. Séralini’s study showed that industry and regulators are wrong to dismiss toxic effects seen in 90-day studies on GM foods as “not biologically meaningful”. Signs of toxicity found in Monsanto’s 90-day studies were found to develop into organ damage, cancer, and premature death in Séralini’s two-year study.
9. Long-term tests on GM foods are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.
10. GM foods have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory and farm animals in a number of studies.
Ask yourself: why are dozens upon dozens of countries across the world completely banning the import or growth of genetically modified foods in their countries? Several of them have already cited numerous environmental and human health concerns, and others have simply stated that they’d like to do more research.
Again, the corporate and political influence is huge. What we have here is fraud, not science, and clearly, the “majority,” as mainstream media would have you believe, and have most academics believe, are not “pro” GMO.
Another great example regarding the politicization of this issue comes from Wikileak documents, showing that the United States was threatening other countries to accept them.