Volatility

July 19, 2014

The Abdication of Science: The Example of GMO Feeding Trials

>

The double standard among “science” studies becomes more insane all the time. Food and Chemical Toxicology, the same journal which unsuccessfully tried to censor and suppress the 2012 Seralini study, has dropped even the slightest pretense to being “scientific” as it continues to publish the most patently bogus corporate “studies”. The latest is a Dupont trial of GM canola which compares it to a “commercial diet”. This is a typical scam of corporate feeding trials. The only valid scientific procedure is to compare a GM variety with the original conventional variety into which the transgene was inserted, only without the transgene. This is called the near-isogenic variety. But corporate trials almost invariably compare the GMO to an undifferentiated “commerical diet” composed of GMOs and feed which had been sprayed with various poisons. The goal is to prevent the trial from detecting any danger from the studied GMO by rendering the “control” diet as toxically similar to it as possible. This trial also engaged in the standard frauds: It was the typical 90 days in length (two years is the scientific standard, an absolute requirement for a real safety study) and compared the study group to irrelevant “historical control groups” which wouldn’t be part of any scientifically designed study. To top it off the authors, employees of Dupont, brazenly lie in declaring they have no conflict of interest.
 
Also tediously familiar, the trial used the same Sprague-Dawley breed of rats which the Seralini study did, and a comparable number of rats. The two main canned lies against the Seralini study are that this type and sample size were somehow illegitimate. But as per proper scientific procedure Seralini merely replicated the way every corporate trial uses this same type and number of rats. He merely extended his study’s length from the intentionally fraudulent 90 days to the scientifically valid 2 years, and measured legitimate health parameters. These measures are generally omitted or suppressed by the corporate trials, which measure only for industry parameters like quickly reaching slaughter weight.
 
It’s also characteristic of such studies that false negatives are a much greater risk than false positives. The fabricated media furore which slandered the Seralini study was in effect accusing it of attaining a false positive. But the number of rats used in ALL the studies which have ever been done, including every corporate trial without exception, is far more likely to generate false negatives. That’s why Seralini’s result was far more significant than those of the trials which allegedly found different results.
 
That’s also why the sample size of 10-12 rats was set as the industry standard, because it was more likely to generate false negatives than a larger sample size. If we could repeat the Seralini/Monsanto study design (as it ought to be called, as Seralini merely improved upon M’s own design) with larger sample sizes, we’d get a reinforcement and expansion of Seralini’s results. All the bogus procedures of 90 day study lengths, feeding the alleged “control” group a “commercial diet”, the gratuitous introduction of “historical control” and “reference” groups, are all meant to obfuscate the result and ensure this false negative. And yet in spite of all that, Monsanto’s own trials often found evidence of organ toxicity.
 
You’ll often see pro-GMO liars citing one or more compendiums of studies which allegedly give GMOs a clean bill of health. But in truth these are nothing but lists of such fraudulent corporate trials, all of which include most or all of the shoddy and fraudulent procedures I just listed. Ironically, in spite of all the attempts to suppress adverse data, many of these trials nevertheless found evidence that GMOs are toxic to human and animal health. The 2012 Seralini study was nothing but a time-extended replication of what was originally a Monsanto feeding trial, with the bogus corporate procedures fixed. The scientific imperative, including the need to serve the public well-being, caused Seralini to conceive and conduct his study. He’s a rare example of a true scientist, the extreme opposite of the mercenary hacks who work for the corporations and the hacks who carry the corporate water as propagandists.  
 
We can see that there’s no longer any such thing as establishment science. On the contrary what’s called “science” today is just a bazaar of ever more brazen lies told by ever more shameless frauds and charlatans. Those who to this day join in the slandering of the Seralini study are anti-science obscurantists, the most vicious enemies science has ever known. Since they attack science in the context of helping totalitarian and homicidal corporations poison our food, water, and soil while seeking total domination through domination of the entire food chain, these scienticians aren’t just frauds and charlatans, but criminal propagandists according to Nuremburg standards.

>

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Hey, Russ.

    I found this post particularly interesting because I have been seeing similar trends in the academic, peer-reviewed papers in the fields of economics and law. That said, economics and law are inherently political as both apply and enforce the dominant political philosophy of ruling elites. That’s not supposed to happen in science.

    A friend of mine, Mark Blaxill, was the first to identify the problem in scientific scholarship for me. Among other things, Mark is an activist in the autism community and identifies mercury as the cause of what he calls the “autism epidemic.” http://www.ageofautism.com/mark_blaxill/

    Having gone back through the Seralini papers and chronology, I think the scandal in GMO “science” is much worse, and the resulting health crises likely will be, too.

    Comment by taojonesing — July 23, 2014 @ 11:53 am

    • Hi Tao,

      Yup, it’s happening everywhere. And we’re learning that so-called science is inherently political as well, though I agree that it hasn’t always been as purely politicized as economics, which has long been straight ideology.

      As for the law, I was just thinking today how, more and more, the courts agree to help the rich and powerful just “make shit up as they go along”, doing whatever they have to do to make the finding desired by elites, no matter how much this twists the law or is in direct defiance of it.

      Of course, legislators have been working hard designing the laws to provide precisely this elasticity.

      Sorry it took me so long to reply to this.

      Comment by Russ — August 1, 2014 @ 2:09 pm

  2. Hi Russ,

    Have been keeping up with the GMO story from a distance, but came across the following movie which your readers may find of interest:

    Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMO’s – Full Movie

    Comment by William Wilson — August 17, 2014 @ 9:18 pm

    • Thanks William. I haven’t seen that one yet, but it’s on my list.

      Comment by Russ — August 18, 2014 @ 4:03 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: