GM Free Cymru

GMO Retractions, Denials, and Downright Lies

Date Added to website 11th December 2013

by Kevin Coleman / December 9th, 2013

The saga surrounding Seralini's research and the Biotech Industry's Attempt at Damage Control…

Meanwhile back in the real world 266 scientists (and counting) call "foul" .......

I can only give readers a personal account of my brief encounter with Professor Seralini and the real truth behind the GM rats experiment. Especially written for those on the Dark Side who won't believe the truth.1

This letter has been signed by 266 scientists and 610 non-scientists from 51 different countries.2

Face to Face

I met with Professor Seralini in September 2013 at the Houses of Parliament in London, England where he presented his research to a packed committee room of the All Party Group on Agro-ecology.

From the outset he made it very clear to us all that his research was purely to find out if there were any toxicity issues associated with the herbicide Roundup.

They never set out to discover whether the herbicide or the GM corn could cause cancer.

He also made it very clear that they deliberately copied Monsanto's earlier (I believe it was their 2004 paper which I also believe appeared in the same journal) research 'precisely' by using exactly the same breed of rats and the same chemicals and food sources so that they could replicate 'exactly' Monsanto's research but run it to full term of life expectancy of the rats, rather than the original 90 days that Monsanto did, to see what would happen over the entire lifetime of the rats (which for the record is 2.5-3 years on average).

He also explained that when rats reach the end section of their lives in this particular research trial, which is usually the last 6 months or so of their expected lives, any illnesses or cancers were ignored as these could not be definitely ascribed to the treatments the rats were receiving or the fact that they were simply getting old.

The only other change from Monsanto's earlier research was to include an additional level of concentration of the herbicide Roundup to go along with Monsanto's original levels. They had two levels of herbicide toxicity. 11% and 33%. Professor Seralini added a 22% level to provide an additional point of reference for graphical purposes. Any scientist worth their salt would know why he added an additional concentration level and how this would be used on a graph, so to all those GMO supporters out there please don't even try to deny that this was a legitimate addition.

The research team discovered cancerous tumors were developing around 120 days which surprised them all. As stated before the research was looking for toxicity effects not cancers.

The really strange thing is why the likes of the biotech industry tried to make a mockery of this research because of the cancers when it wasn't a cancer research project. In fact it did show extreme toxic reactions in many of the rat samples in addition to some very worrying cancerous tumors. Not exactly an indictment of the safety of Roundup nor of the GMO corn.

Oh and get this GMO Supporters club. 90 days of a rats life is equivalent to between 7 and 9 years of age in humans. Now go figure out why there has been an abnormally high increase in childhood cancers over the same time period as that of the use of Roundup and an even larger increase since GMO food. That will take some explaining either way but to discriminate against a genuinely honest and thorough piece of research simply because it contradicts the corporate profit theory is scandalous.

If I was going to eat something I would want to be absolutely certain it would do me no harm. Besides it would be too late to do anything about it if I'm already on my death bed with terminal cancer. So why are you idiots of the pro GMO supporters club so suicidal?

It gets better

The international convention on research using animals states quite clearly that if any cancerous tumors develop at any stage of any research, regardless of the fact that cancer research may not even be the purpose of the research, that animal or those animals exhibiting cancerous tumors have to be observed to the end of their lives or until such time as they are euthanized in order to avoid unnecessary suffering as per the international conventions on animal welfare and treatment in experiments.

So Professor Seralini and his team had to abide by the international convention regarding the cancerous tumors even though that wasn't the reason for the research in the first place.

So what part of this research being for 'toxicity only' do the GMO supporters not get?

Now the really obvious bits.

In the EU we apply the precautionary principle to protect lives and environmental habitats. There is nothing political about that unless your a fascist dictator in need of population control measures of the fatal variety.

We also know the difference between corruption and truth. Sounds hard when things get complicated with meaningless dribble but hang in there. It will become clear.

In the EU the maximum contamination level for the herbicide Roundup in human drinking water supplies is twice the amount found in the Seralini research to cause severe breast cancer in the female rats at a very much earlier age than the breed of rats used would have ever shown.

Then we have the blatantly obvious fact that even Professor Son Huber has produced research into the herbicide Roundup which also calls into question its toxicity.

Then we have the current brawl down in Argentina where thousands of people have been poisoned with Roundup used on GMO soya crops. It is currently being investigated by independent authorities but as usual denied ferociously by Monsanto.

Then there are the glaringly obvious flaws of the original Monsanto research which Professor Seralini replicated and has had removed wrongfully from the journal, despite that Monsanto research being demonstrably flawed and still resides on the journals files as accepted. Odd really.

Odder still is the fact that under the international conventions on peer reviewing of research the only time a paper can be removed from a peer reviewed publication is if the research is deeply flawed, manipulated or is a replication of other peoples work PR an earlier work. The editor stated quite clearly that none of these conditions applied and made some feeding excuse to justify the retraction. Not a legitimate reason for retraction under the international convention of peer reviewing research.

Then we have this obviously biased appointment of a former Monsanto senior with an obviously biased and and hidden agenda. He also removed another peer-reviewed piece because it went against GMO crops but that has been subsequently been republished elsewhere.

My view of the criticisms leveled at Professor Seralini and his research have been altogether deviously corrupt and motivated by the strong arm tactics from the biotech industry. After all, they all have far too much to lose and far too much biased influence in the academic system through their financial leverage.

It's time we had some honesty here and not the bought and paid for hand wringing dishonesty of the biotech barons.

So all you GMO supporters wake up. The next victim of these biotech barons blight on the planet just might be you or worse still someone you actually care about.

Remember, when the brown sticky stuff hits the fan, as it will pretty soon now, your handlers will be nowhere to be seen.

You'll be on your own among us.

So choose your side carefully. You're going to need us long before your current handlers will need you.