Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

by Jon Rappoport

January 19, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it?

He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors. Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology (wikipedia). Pictures of the rats were published.

A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. “Experts” said the study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn’t like Seralini at all.

The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.

Why? Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material, not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:

He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That’s it. Those were Seralini’s errors.

Well, guess what? Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto’s study showed there were no tumor problems in the rats. But here’s the explosive kicker. Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10). And nobody complained about it.

Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, explains in an interview with Steve Curwood at loe.org (click here for the full article):

“Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.”

Boom.

I can just hear Monsanto felons gibbering: “Well, we the biotech industry people published our study. We used 10 rats and we used the Sprague-Dawley strain. And that was fine. It was especially fine because our study showed GMOs were safe. But then this guy Seralini comes along and does the same study with the same kind of rat and same number of rats, and he discovers tumors. That’s not fine. That’s very bad. He…he…used the wrong rats…yeah…and he didn’t use enough rats. He’s a faker. Well, I mean, we used the same kind of rat and same number of rats, but when we did the experiment, we were Good, and Seralini was Bad. Do you see?”

Yes, the mists are clearing and things are coming into focus.

Any comments, Monsanto? I’d be happy to pass them along to Michael Hansen.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

About these ads

42 comments on “Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

  1. Danny Davis says:

    Keep up the good work Jon. Monsanto is the epitome of corporate evil.

  2. […] via Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes […]

  3. […] Rappoport discusses the double standards in handling of Séralini’s rat tumour experiments far more eloquently than I could begin to. It […]

  4. 7thpillar says:

    While I generally admire your editorials and am firmly against GMOs for health and Nature reasons, as I understand the latest disclosures, the researcher in question used rats genetically maintained to manifest tumors and cancers.

    There is no value in presenting only anecdotal or one-sided information.

    The Boot-Strap Expat

    http://7thpillar.wordpress.com/

    • michael says:

      “the researcher in question used rats genetically maintained to manifest tumors and cancers.” -7thpillar………..

      ‘Maintained’…not quite the right word here 7th, they have been ‘bred specific’ since the thirties for lab work, the bred is very consistant across all lines of study. A remarkable animal actually. Quite intelligent. they respond very quickly to psychological studies, as they quik learners.

      Monsanto in their studies have used the same […] rats…this is a very popular rat 7th.

      Strange…the control group of Sprague-Dawley rats in the Seralini study were fed organic corn and pure water, they did not eat NK603 corn, and there was no Round-up in the water…they had no tumors, they had no organ damage.

      How possibly do you see this study as anecdotal or one sided….Sprague rats have no gallbladder, maybe that taints the study 7th…or that unusually secretion that resembles dried blood, from their eyes….maybe that taints the study. Possibly… that there is a inconsistency between the single lobed left lung, as compared to four lobes on the right lung within the all Sprague-Dawley rats.

      I think you and Monsanto are splitting hairs…a control group is a control group, as long as there is a consistency across the whole study. We could use 10,000 pink, bat shit crazy, one eyed cloned virgin rats, that respond to the name lucky. As long as all the rats in the study are the same, across all the study groups, then the study is valid…nes’t pas.

      Sprague-Dawley rats are bred specifically for this type of lab work.

      Better to question the water used, or the ventilation or lighting system in the lab….

      Monsanto on the other hand has been found guilty cutting the tumors from study rats or have postponed autopsy on study animals, were the rats were rotted to the point that the tumor diagnosis was useless and invalid.

      Michael

      Cruelty has a human heart,
      And Jealousy a human face;
      Terror the human form divine,
      And Secresy the human dress.

      The human dress is forged iron,
      The human form a fiery forge,
      The human face a furnace sealed,
      The human heart its hungry gorge.
      – William Blake

      • mikecorbeil says:

        Quote: “Monsanto on the other hand has been found guilty cutting the tumors from study rats or have postponed autopsy on study animals, were the rats were rotted to the point that the tumor diagnosis was useless and invalid.”

        I assume you’re serious and if you are, then I’m not surprised. It wouldn’t be unlike a cie like Monsanto to do as cited above from your comment.

        • Michael says:

          Maybe this a good thing, bringing attention to the Seralini study, as I’ve noticed there is a strange need to fixate on current media news issues within the status quo. Until the public is bored and moves on.

          Bringing attention to possibly all studies…could in the end be a good thing. They all fudge the results. But a greater amount is because of human ignorance.
          I mean what is necessary really, is to obtain,100 cloned rats, all the same weight, white, they all eat the same amount/type of food and water up until the beginning of the study. At a minimum two studies will need to happen, one for males and one for females. They are all living within an exact environment. All the rats have a full medical checkup, prior to the study beginning. The same lab assistant handles all the rats, without prejudice, all the rats eat at the same time….can you see where I am going here.

          Corporations supply what is needed by the money men or those who give the go ahead to produce a specific product; studies are done on many different things on a daily basis. And this happens really as simply protocol. Nobody is actually paying attention to the data. But the truth of the matter is no purpose is served through a terribly corrupted scientific community. There are good record keeping scientists, those who are artists at what they do… but very few are like this. Most are like any other occupation, are going to work collecting a pay-check. Living for the weekend. Living in the future.

          http://surfacestations.org/

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/04/an-investigation-of-ushcn-station-siting-issues-using-a-cleaned-dataset/

          For instance, NASA spends around a Billion dollars a year on climate study, now a lot of this and I hazard to make an intelligent guess, is on computer weather modelling. This is the growing trend. Downloaded data from satellites, or remote gathering from the environment; weather gathering data infrastructure is beyond aging. And in some cases, absolutely astounding dilapidated, as in temperature gathering from a remote station that originally, thirty year was in an open field. Now it sits on a black top in a mall, next to an exhaust fan from a Chinese restaurant.
          As progress builds around these things. Is the temperature/data from that specific station correct, absolutely not…but the data still goes into the equation. When in end lead to falty conclusions. And nobody is paying attention.

          In the end the scientists who get a nice bloated grant from NASA, or get to be part of that Billion dollars budget expenditure are the ones who tows the line….the consensus.
          If you feel AGW is questionable, needs more study, or a hoax of the greatest magnitude, you get no money for your study. And if the latter part of the above statement is your view, you will be ostracized and/or loose your tenure.

          The AGW/global warming conclusion is built on bad data…this is my conclusion.
          We are getting colder, going into a grand minima. Solar 24 was very strange. Co2 is of no consequence below the clouds, we are dealing with infrared here. Co2 follows temperature rise, it does not lead it, and there is a built in failsafe…it is called plant life. Do not get wrong, we are under a climate change, but it is not caused by man.
          “The first causality of war is the truth”

          michael

          “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.” -William Blake

    • 7thpillar says:

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

      My primary concern is that it is just as easy to “salt” the facts on one side of an argument as another.

      Shouldn’t we be testing with “Natural” Rats? Or “Natural” Humans? Rather than a line of creatures developed for their ability to grow tumors with or without environmental factors?

      Science and studies are only as good as the protocols employed.

      • Michael says:

        “Natural” Rats? Or “Natural” Humans?”…..7thpillar

        Lol awesome man…way too funny.
        I guess Dick Cheney, or Rumsfeld could be called a “Natural Rats”, or Obama….when I think about it there are a lot of “Natural Rats” out there.
        michael

  5. Hugo says:

    Gmo’s are as deadly as you think they are! Everyone is discovering how toxic they are to animals and people. Let their makers consume them, and get the heck out of everyone else’s food supply!

  6. Usor says:

    A result like this could be reason to revisit the Monsatan experiment to see if they (monsanto) made a “good” experiment or did not jigger with the data or the lab animals. There is good reason to distrust all these corporate research results and even research conducted by academics especially when sponsored by pharmaceutical companies is known to be littered with fraud. A significant segment of academia and it would seem most of the medical and food industry is morally bankrupt. They should not be trusted and they deserve or full suspicion in every transaction.

  7. Are Monsanto people idiots or trying to pull a fast one. Anyone with a basic understanding of statistics knows that a sample size less than 30 is virtually useless and the degree of confidence in that statistical number is very weak.

  8. Max Pont says:

    This is most likely how Monsanto did it eight years ago: They started the feeding study and after around nine to ten weeks tumors began to develop. They aborted the study and published their results claiming:

    “We did an 8 week study, here is the data”. The data is not directly a lie but this is advanced deception and half lying by omission.

    This corporate trick is described in the book “The truth about the Drug companies” by former editor of New England Jnl of Medicine, Marcia Angell.

  9. […] Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes (John Rappoport, Jan 19, […]

  10. mikecorbeil says:

    Some reader comments trigger a thought. Monsanto doing its own testing for its own product strikes me as conflict of interest. Parties truly independent of the cie must do the testing. It doesn’t prevent Monsanto from also doing its own testing, but the public to be able to have faith in the results reported requires independent testing.

  11. Shark says:

    The Monsanto study is freely available, as per a German court order, and it clearly shows that they used 400 rats, divided into 10 study groups, each getting a different dose of the GMO corn (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair for links). I don’t know where you have been getting your facts from, but they are wrong.

    You can also compare the amount of detail present in the over 1000 page report from Monsanto, and a single scientific paper of some dozen pages from a researcher whose previous work in the field has been largely criticized, not by Monsanto but by the independent scientific community. Disclaimer: I am a part of the said “scientific community”, get no funding from Monsanto and indeed would love to see the company doing badly, much due to the way they interpret patent laws. I however see no reason not to eat GMO foods, and in this particular case the facts are indeed on Monsanto’s side.

  12. […] Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes « Jon Rappoport’s Blog. […]

  13. MelissainVA says:

    How do we get the main stream media to revisit the Seralini Study? People need to understand this.

  14. McNamara says:

    Do you have a child with intestinal problems? Did you know :

    Intestinal Disease in American Children has increased 71% during 2000-2009 the same time frame GMO’s were rapidly expanding in the United States America

    From Science Daily June 25, 2013

    ~ The largest investigation to date has found a dramatic increase in the number of hospitalizations for children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during the past decade in the United States. The new study, published online in the Journal of Investigative Medicine, found a 65 percent increase in IBD hospital discharges from 2000 to 2009. The number increased from 11,928 discharges in 2000 to 19,568 discharges in 2009. IBD refers to a group of inflammatory conditions of the colon and small intestine.

    The major types of IBD are Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). When looking at these two types of IBD individually, the authors found a 59 percent increase in CD discharges and a 71 percent increase UC discharges.

    • Michael says:

      If BT-Corn turns an invading insect’s stomach in a pesticide factory, when the insect consumes the corn, in the fields that it grows in. Why would it be any different when we humans consume BT-corn, thusly natural probiotics in your gut are exterminated causing an over growth of the most hardy gut organisms?
      There is an increase in fungus in the gut. And the most potent of these is Candida (Yeast), which if you look is at epidemic levels as well.
      How many ads do you see on television for stomach medications, probiotics?
      Personally I relate over production of gut yeast to ADHD, and what is being purported as psychiatric disorders of brain imbalance chemistry. There is much more than the physical ailments.
      Thanks for the info, be well.
      Michael

  15. MelissainVA says:

    Please keep up this work. It’s urgent for so many reasons. One for the health of our nation and the world and to try to prevent the coopting of science that is going on right now. I will repost in multiple place, but please, please, keep this up!

  16. […] new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was “discredited.” But in case you think […]

  17. […] new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was “discredited.” But in case you think […]

  18. […] new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was “discredited.” But in case you think […]

  19. […] new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was “discredited.” But in case […]

  20. […] new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was “discredited.” But in case you think […]

  21. […] new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was “discredited.” But in case you think […]

  22. […] new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was “discredited.” But in case you think […]

  23. […] by Jon Rappoport for Jon Rappoport’s Blog […]

  24. […] Seralinin tutkimukset osoittavat että GM round up ready maissi aiheuttaa kasvaimia […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s