Skip to main content

This point on.

The first  cluster of information I wish to present was written by my good friend TrueDelphi back in 2008. The link to the information is here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...

The above writing  is a step by step record that occurred  over a three year period,  of what the Mainstream Media did when Big Oil was tied to one product, MTBE, that  was finally discovered to be extremely toxic.

The story that is related is not a very pretty picture, is it? Not pretty at all - the ongoing obfuscation, the cover ups, the delays in printing the Truth. And then at the very end of the matter, when Truth as embodied by MTBE researcher John Froines will not issue the statements that Industry needs, the press then simply substitutes outright lies by creating, out of whole cloth, fabricated quotes supposedly uttered by  John Froines .

Now this MTBE substance is the only actual chemical for which  TrueDelphi could  report on as she  did above. No other substance took up as much of her time, to the exclusion of other matters.  

But by inference, it is possible to assume that the same sort of activity and the same sort of coverups are induced by Associated Press and by other Big Media agents and reporters,  every single time that Big Industry is threatened, be it by the Big Industry of Gm seeds and crops, or by the Big Industry of E cigs or by the Big Industry responsible for vaccines.

Recently, here on Daily Kos, I was asked to reference those scientific citations by which I could back up my concerns about Gm seeds and crops.

Immediately what came to my mind was the Serralini study. This 2012 study was published under the auspices of a research laboratory at the University of Caens France. The landmark study found that rats fed for two years with Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant NK603 maize (corn) developed many more tumors and died earlier than control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumors when glyphosate (Roundup), the herbicide used with GM maize, was added to their drinking water.

However, Big Industry now has such persuasive abilities that almost immediately the critics who are allied with the vast powers of the Gm Industry were allowed to attack the findings of Serralin and his team.

Sidebar please: I am not the only person in the world who frequently  pauses to consider the powers of Big Industry. To that end, Sonoma State University annually releases the top 25 most censored stories. Often scientific research studies relating to risks that the public undertakes through  their use of "Safe Products" are mentioned as being involved as the subjects of one or more of the 25 articles named in the release.

Also, in 2005, the monthly "The Coastal Post, an ACLU-decorated newspaper that often brings to the fore the same "hidden  issues" that the Sonoma State University "Most Censored" Project mentions. So let me refer you to a 2005 article that discusses the pernicious and ubiquitous hold that Industry has over modern day science:

http://www.coastalpost.com/...
From the above article, again by Daily Kos writer Carol Sterritt (TrueDelphi)
 Recently the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) made an important announcement. It will no longer concern itself with the possible conflict of interest when an industry's money pays for scientific research. Apparently, there is simply so much meddling between industrial concerns that possess the big bucks and laboratories doing the research, be the labs university-owned, or private, that the Journal will now simply overlook whatever conflict of interest there might be and go ahead, full-throttle, to publish the results.

The fact that industry critics point to industry demanding "adjustments" in the data, omitting data results that are not favorable, and in other ways tampering with the findings, no longer seems to concern NEJM.

Up to now, the Journal tried to avoid publishing research that might be tainted. Now they stipulate that the influence can not be significant (Ah, they still possess some scruples!)
####

So in other words, rather than fold up publication, The Journal will publish any and all "studies" taht come to them, as Industry's hold is too ubiquitous that the only other alternative is for The Journal's editors to cease its existence.

A more elegant way of saying this: "Currently, Truth will be whatever the People with the most money can tell us it is!"

So in ending the sidebar, I wish to go back to the issue of the Serralini study.

I wish to sum up what happened in the wake of this peer reviewed, and journal-published science study which  exposed the risks of Gm through its linking the feeding of Gm Maize to rats to a proliferation of tumors can be summed up in one sentence:

Industry with its huge and substantial control over scientists and with its exorbitant
numbers of jobs to offer, and with  its ability to control the positions  and awesome amounts of money to throw at any situation deleterious to their profit margin can indeed destroy even the best researched data and conclusions that exist.

Although this Univ. of Caens' research was a stepping stone that should have assisted other researchers with  future incursions of studies of such risks to mammalian life, instead we activists see  the strong arm tactics of Monsanto and other Gm firms that attack truth. With the Power Plays they have at their disposal, the Big Gm Industry firms  have unfairly knocked apart both the indications of Serralini's research  and also his reputation.

So be forewarned, other noble Guardians of Truth - the consequences of playing against the Big Boys and Girls of Industry are as treacherous as playing with  dragons. Only those scientists and researchers who do not need a job or income or do not care for their reputation need put forth the efforts to go against the Vampire Squid control exerted by the Gm industry.

May I link to two other scientists who are concerned about truth as serralini?
http://permaculturenews.org/...

The following few paragraphs are from the above link, and are written by by Dr Mae-Wan Ho and Prof Peter Saundersby. (I will end this diary with their words) :
What followed was a concerted worldwide campaign to discredit the findings, including the appointment of ex-Monsanto scientist Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT [4]. Soon after Goodman’s appointment, a study by researchers in Brazil also finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs was withdrawn from FCT, but reappeared almost immediately in another journal.

On 27 November 2013, FCT editor Wallace Hayes wrote to Séralini’s team requesting them to retract their paper published just over a year ago on grounds that it was “inconclusive”, not because there was fraud or errors [5].

In fact, the paper was published after peer review by 5 referees – the usual number being 2 or 3 – and the criticisms post-publication answered in full by the team, and
appeared in the same journal [6].
(SNIP)

The reason the OECD protocol specifies larger groups for cancer testing than for toxicity is that cancer is less common and takes longer to become apparent and is therefore more likely to be missed, i.e. the aim is to avoid a false negative. The fact that excess tumours and cancer was detected even in 10 animals is arguably all the more significant, and may be due to the strong carcinogenic potential of the agents tested (see [7] Excess Cancers and Deaths with GM Feed: the Stats Stand Up, SiS 56). Even though the study was not designed to test for cancer, it would have been totally irresponsible for Séralini and his group not to report what they had found. Equally it is important for the article to remain in the public record for its implications on public health.
####

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Confirmation bias is bad for you. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tarkangi

    Seralini study is an example of a bad paper getting thru review. It happens. There were lots of other studies on GM crops since then and nothing similar happened.

    •  Given the speed by which you replied, you took (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos

      No time to read even one of my links.

      That is so often the case for "headline" readers.

      Those of us who examine the issues thoroughly do not have the ability to so glibly accept what the authorities tell us.

      •  If you have no idea what you're talking about, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tarkangi

        don't talk about it.

      •  when the authorities tell you the earth is round (0+ / 0-)

        do you glibly accept that?  Or do you perform experiments to see if it's really flat? How about when NASA claims it went to the moon--do you glibly accept that? Do you glibly accept evolution? Heliocentrism? The germ theory of disease?

        Or do you, uh, examine all those issues thoroughly? (snicker)

        Every anti-science fringer ALWAYS sounds the same.  They ALL scream "conspiracy!!!" at everything, and "you're part of the conspiracy!!" at anyone who thinks they're nutty.

        (yawn)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:43:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Confirmation bias is not what occurred. (0+ / 0-)

      Psychologically speaking, I would say you are guilty of "projection."

      Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

      by Truedelphi on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:58:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hi Elise, (0+ / 0-)

    I think it's important to note that there are valid scientific issues with the Serralini paper. That's not to say I think it's impossible for GMO consumption to have negative effects on higher animals (including us), it's just that the study design, lab animal strain, and statistical analysis weren't up to the task, nor (and this is a big problem) did they state any objectives in their introduction. Honestly, it probably needed 5 reviewers because the first few were up front about not being familiar with the stats methods that were used.

    I'm not a toxicology researcher, but from reading the criticisms, it sounds to me as though this study ought to have been a "pilot project" -- one that you would conduct to get preliminary data for a grant proposal to do a more in depth study.  And possibly researchers working just enough at the edge of toxicology/animal studies that they didn't realize they selected a tumor-prone rat strain for the study.

    European food safety assn response

    NHS clarification

    •  yep, it smells too much like the idiotic pig study (0+ / 0-)

      in which the study's own data didn't support any of its conclusions.

      I am against GMO because of the way Monsanto uses it as a bludgeon to beat its competition to death, to lock a vertical monopoly on the entire food-production process, and to keep farmers in a feudal dependency upon them. I also think NO natural process should be patentable for private profit. And Monsanto's attempt to control all the information about the use of its products is intolerable in a democratic society.

      But when the anti-science fringe keeps yelling silly things like "eating GMO causes cancer !!!!" or "everything is a Monsanto conspiracy !!!", it just makes ALL of us look like uneducated tinfoil-hat loonies, it hands Monsanto a big club to beat us all over the head with, and it doesn't help us at all.

      I wish the fingers would learn some basic biology. But alas, most people in the US don't even know what a "molecule" is.

      :(

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:35:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ack--I wish the FRINGERS would learn some (0+ / 0-)

        basic biology. Sorry for the typo.

        Though "fingers" is appropriate too, since all they do is point a finger at Monsanto and yell "conspiracy!!!", and point a finger at anyone who questions their CT kookery and yell "you're in on the conspiracy!!!"

        (shrug)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:38:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Early on, the main negative review of (0+ / 0-)

      the Serralini research was limited to expressing concern about the size of the survey. Of course, researchers at a University like Caens in France do not have unlimited monies.

      So you would think that since there was a problem with the size of a study, but that there is also a need to address the serious concerns that the Serrlini conclusions raiseed, that then Monsanto or some other Big Gm Company would step to the plate and undertake a suitably sized study. But no, industry never goes that route. They simply like to telegraph to the public how appalled they are at the "shoddy research" that was done, rather than doing the actual heavy lifting.

      Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

      by Truedelphi on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:55:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  maybe thats because most of the research IS shoddy (0+ / 0-)

        Take the pig study, for example---its authors crowed (and so did the anti-science fringers) that the study proved that pigs fed GMO corn got sick from intestinal ulcers. Monsanto bad.

        Alas, when the researchers released their actual data, it did not show at all what they said it showed. Not only was this study also flawed with its methodology and it small sample size, but the actual data showed that the "control" pigs that had NOT been fed GMO corn got sick with intestinal ulcers too, at nearly the same rate as the GMO pigs. The conclusion most reviewers reached was that ALL of the pigs had been kept in substandard conditions and it was their cage conditions which had made them all sick. The GMO didn't have anything to do with it.  Oddly, none of THAT was mentioned in the "report".

        Alas, that usually turns out to be the cased with ALL anti-science fringe "research", whether it's ESP studies, or "field research to find Bigfoot or Nessie, or "medical studies" on vaccines and autism, or "analysis" of the moon landings, or "scientific study" of evolution. NONE of the research actually shows what its proponents claim it does.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 05:26:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sticky wicket (0+ / 0-)

          I think a difficulty of doing this kind of research is that folks who are interested in effects of GMO ingestion are predisposed to finding problems. And designing a study with the intent of finding such problems is throwing out a major underpinning of good science: objectivity.

          I have a feeling that some of these studies are put together by people who are practicing at the edges of a particular field, and so may not know to adhere to particular modes of study design (i.e. sample sizes) or animal care standards or appropriate strains to use. That's not to excuse scientific sloppiness, though; scientists (of whatever persuasion) can be guilty of hubris.

          Monsanto isn't going to fund large scale studies by people with an axe to grind, and most of the anti-GMO organizations aren't large enough to fund a $1-2 million study. And, of course, any scientist working closely with Monsanto (which I'm going to guess doesn't fund this kind of research at the university level) is going to be automatically tarred as a shill by folks rabidly anti-GMO. Maybe they are a shill, maybe not.

          •  first someone has to show that there actually is (0+ / 0-)

            something to study. Nobody wants to waste their time chasing ghosts, especially when those ghosts are proposed by people who don't have a basic grasp of science. It's the same reason why nobody funds expeditions to look for Bigfoot or Nessie, or to study ESP or clairvoyance, or to look for a link between vaccines and autism. Such studies would be mere wastes of time and money.

            No one has even proposed any plausible demonstrable mechanism whereby eating GMO genes causes any health effect whatsoever.  And that is not surprising, since people literally eat billions of genes every day (you and I both ate wheat genes, corn genes, cow genes and/or pig genes just this morning), and none of them ever does anything to anybody.

            Until someone DOES propose a plausible mechanism, there's nothing to actually look for, and no "there" there.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:54:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Our understanding of the effect of diet alone (0+ / 0-)

              on the gut microbiome is in its infancy, true.

              diet and gut microbes

              Abstract of the paper:

              Long-term dietary intake influences the structure and activity of the trillions of microorganisms residing in the human gut1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but it remains unclear how rapidly and reproducibly the human gut microbiome responds to short-term macronutrient change. Here we show that the short-term consumption of diets composed entirely of animal or plant products alters microbial community structure and overwhelms inter-individual differences in microbial gene expression. The animal-based diet increased the abundance of bile-tolerant microorganisms (Alistipes, Bilophila and Bacteroides) and decreased the levels of Firmicutes that metabolize dietary plant polysaccharides (Roseburia, Eubacterium rectale and Ruminococcus bromii). Microbial activity mirrored differences between herbivorous and carnivorous mammals2, reflecting trade-offs between carbohydrate and protein fermentation. Foodborne microbes from both diets transiently colonized the gut, including bacteria, fungi and even viruses. Finally, increases in the abundance and activity of Bilophila wadsworthia on the animal-based diet support a link between dietary fat, bile acids and the outgrowth of microorganisms capable of triggering inflammatory bowel disease6. In concert, these results demonstrate that the gut microbiome can rapidly respond to altered diet, potentially facilitating the diversity of human dietary lifestyles.
              My emphasis above. IF there could be any effect of GMOs on humans, then it would possibly come from altering the microbial community associated with the GMO end product (secondary effect, rather than primary effect from the gene itself), and then, that microbial community affecting the human gut biome (tertiary effect). Secondary and tertiary effects are notoriously difficult to tease out.

              Anyhow, I agree with what you say elsewhere above. Monsanto is to be opposed more for the economic, environmental and social impacts of GMOs, than potential toxicity in the end agricultural products.

              •  since none of the GMO genes produce antibiotics, (0+ / 0-)

                though, I am not seeing any mechanism for them to do anything to our gut flora, either. And of course the actual food plant is the same, whether it has the added gene or not.

                Pretty much the only valid SCIENTIFIC argument I've ever seen against GMOs is that the pollen can potentially hybridize with wild weeds and thereby transfer the gene for herbicide resistance. But even that has some issues, since (1) nobody seems able to point to an observed instance of it happening, (2) weeds will inevitably develop resistance anyway once they are exposed to the pesticide, and (3) virtually all examples of herbicide resistance seem to be from plain ole ordinary natural selection, rather than the result of a gene introduced through hybridization--the role of hybridization seems to be very minor.

                Of far more concern with the fertile pollen is Monsanto's idiotic policy of suing anyone whose fields have their gene growing in it for "patent violations".

                Monsanto can of course stop that entire problem simply by making the pollen infertile. Why they didn't do that to begin with, is a mystery to me.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:16:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Circa 2005, there were headlines on (0+ / 0-)

                  Environmental sites about how three separate species of weeds, once sprayed with RoundUp, ended up becoming one hybrid  super weed, that became impossible for some Canadian farmers to remove without resorting to manual labor (The very labor that using RoundUp was supposed to allow farmers to avoid.)

                  •  irrelevant to your argument, (0+ / 0-)

                    unless it was an actual transfer of the Roundup-Ready gene in a Monsanto crop plant that caused it. If the plants just hybridized and produced immunity on their own, then the GMO is irrelevant. And since Roundup on its own does not introduce any gene for resistance, it too is irrelevant. It would be another case of evolution of resistance through natural hybridization and selection.

                    It always amazes me how so much of the "anti-GMO" arguments that get thrown around is really "anti-Roundup", to which the GMO genes are utterly irrelevant. The environmental and biological arguments against glyphosate, of course, are entirely measurable and have already been coinfirmed--after all, Roundup has been sprayed on plants for years before GMO crops ever even appeared. But blaming GMO crops for the effects of Roundup because that's what the Roundup gets sprayed on, (like the fringers do) is like blaming grass for the effects of fertilizer runoff because that's what the fertilizer gets sprayed on. It's silly.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:30:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Apaprently you have never heard of the (0+ / 0-)

                  Starlink grain, that had antibiotics in it. It was about to be thrown into the conventional grains we in the public buy at grocery stores, but at the last minute, that grain was instead quarantined.

                  OF course, that was about 10 years ago, so I'll let it pass.

                  But the Bt stuff is basically a pesticide and that is inside each and every cell of the Bt corn.

              •  Not a lamb - are you aware of the fact that in (0+ / 0-)

                Many other nations, the Precautionary Principle not only  exists, but is used to help steer elected officials into adopting a cautious approach to new technologies?.

                For concerns over exactly the type of situation that you spell out - we do not know all that much about the human immune system, the human gut reactions etc.

                Those fields of research are in their infancy.

                So most officials in other nations, the  understanding that the effects of a movement to re-design the very essence of seeds and crops could end up significantly posing a threat to human health - that is why the officials in foreign nations refuse to let Gm crap become a staple in their fields.

                Unfortunately here in the USA, we have things ass backwards - if we do not yet know if something is safe or harmful, it is full speed ahead on the new technology as "we rely on science!"

                For those who are unfamiliar with the principle, here it is:

                The 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarizing the principle this way:

                "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not

                •  why in heck should we be concerned about something (0+ / 0-)

                  that

                  1. you can't show exists, and
                  2. you can't explain how it even COULD exist

                  Nobody in Europe can give any mechanism for eating GMO genes to cause tumors, any more than anyone anywhere else can.  (shrug)

                  Where can we see all these people who have gotten cancer or gotten intestinal illness or grown two heads or whatever the heck else you think has happened, traceable to ingestion of GMO genes.  Show them to us. Where are they. Show us there has been any increase in any human illness traceable to ingestion of GMO genes.  

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:46:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So if you offer to babysit for someone, (0+ / 0-)

                    And you don't know for sure if the toddler will or won't go out on the balcony and then clamber through  the wide iron rails and fall to its death, I guess you would decide, "Oh heck, let's just see for ourselves what happens!"

                    One other way to examine your style of non-logic - If a Ming vase is thrown off the roof of the Empire State Building, as it  plunges through the air, you (being posted at the 55th floor) can proudly announce: "Just like I was told - the vase  was thrown, and has not yet been harmed. In fact it is still intact."

                    •  yeah, that's it exactly (sigh) (0+ / 0-)

                      Show us the effect you are claiming.

                      Or quit waving your arms.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 06:40:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  ps--I'm still waiting for this: (0+ / 0-)
                      Where can we see all these people who have gotten cancer or gotten intestinal illness or grown two heads or whatever the heck else you think has happened, traceable to ingestion of GMO genes.  Show them to us. Where are they. Show us there has been any increase in any human illness traceable to ingestion of GMO genes.  
                      Any time you're ready . . . .

                      But of course I already know that you will wave your arms, you will accuse me of being a Monsanto shill, you will give us all sorts of conspiracy theories--but what you will NOT do, ever, is show us the evidence and data.

                      That's because you don't have any. And you know it just as well as I do. (shrug)

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 06:45:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  recommended for starting with the issue of MTBE (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    not a lamb

    which I keep bringing back to dkos, because no one should be putting  toxic chemicals into the earth on purpose.

    I was in high school when they discovered that the MTBE they just had to put in the gas made it too thin to start on a New England below zero morning, and then they found out that it was so thin it just had a way of leaking out of every container they tried to keep it in. Now I'm a grandmother of three and they're still fighting about who will pay to clean this shit up.

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:51:53 PM PDT

    •  And it was proclaimed in the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nuclear winter solstice

      Early days of MTBE persuasion, that MTBE was going to be an environmental solution to the pollution our cars' cause. Of course, once you looked into its activity inside a car's compression chambers, you realized that only cars that had carburetors could benefit - and by the mid 1990's carburetors were few and far between.

      Now here is a bit of info on how the RoundUp chems are toxic in and of themselves - even if the crop,, like most wheat out there, is not Gm:

      Glyphosate immobilises nutrients required to maintain plant health and resistance to disease. This weakening of the plants defence could explain the infestation of GM crops with the new pathogen, which has now been observed in horse, sheep, pigs, cows, chicken, multiple animal tissues including reproductive parts (semen, amniotic fluid), manure, soil, eggs, milk, as well as the common fungal pathogen that is currently infesting RR crops, Fusarium solani fsp glycines mycelium. All are coming into contact with glyphosate either through direct exposure or consumption through animal feed. It is also highly abundant in crops suffering from plant Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome.

      The pathogen can be cultured in the lab, and has been isolated from livestock foetal tissue, replicated in the lab and re-introduced back into the animals. It appears to be very common and may well be interacting with the effects of glyphosate on both plants and animals, exacerbating disease and causing reproductive failure in livestock (see below). Although great expectations have been placed on Huber to publish his findings, he insists that before this can be done, further resources are necessary to be able to characterise the ‘entity’ and identify what type of species it is, including sequencing of its genome. This is a slow process and once complete, it is his intention to publish the work in a peer-reviewed journal.

      Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

      by Truedelphi on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:49:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  how exactly does eating a GMO gene cause tumors, (0+ / 0-)

    but eating the several billion other genes you ate for breakfast today, doesn't.

    Be as specific as possible.

    How does a gene that you ingest, have any effect on the DNA in your somatic cells.  

    Be as specific as possible.

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:25:20 PM PDT

    •  Most of us activists have spent at least some (0+ / 0-)

      20 hours watching films, like "The World According to Monsanto," for starters.
      Highly recommend this film as a starting point. If uyou can stream vids on yr computer, just google the title on YouTube and you are set to watch that film.

      Or you  can also watch any number of videos put up that concentrate on the information gleaned by Don Huber. Huber was Monsanto's top go-to researcher, until he realized the tremendous harm that the Gm crops are doing to our bodies, to the healthy soils we need to have healthy crops, and also to animal life.

      Here are two links to his YouTube interviews:

      https://www.youtube.com/...

      https://www.youtube.com/...

      Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

      by Truedelphi on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:50:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's nice. and in all that movie-watching (0+ / 0-)

        why is it nobody can tell me how exactly does eating a GMO gene cause tumors, but eating the several billion other genes you ate for breakfast today, doesn't.

        Be as specific as possible.

        Or how does a gene that you ingest, have any effect on the DNA in your somatic cells.  

        Be as specific as possible.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 05:15:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's the thing - when I was writing about (0+ / 0-)

          MTBE, one of the things that indie researchers were saying about MTBE was that it was causing leukemia.

          This was some year or 18 months before the Gov Davis Blue Ribbon Panel of chemical experts were assigned the job of evaluating it.

          People either realzied that my articles mentioning this  were indicating there was a serious problem with MTBE. No one, not among all the letters and phone calls I received, asked me to describe how leukemia occurs in the body.

          Biological functioning is a very specialized subject. If you want to listen to Huber, at one of the links I offered, then go do it. You will learn a lot from him about the actual specifics. he has the training. I don't.

          Asking me for the specifics is simply silly. Gm effects are extremely complicated - far more complicated than MTBE causing leukemia.

          However your insistence that I describe the interactions of Gm grain, soil, RoundUp etc on animal life is beyond my purview.

          Either listen to Huber or don't - but when you refuse to go and listen for an hour to a man who has the expertise to  explain it, and you refuse to take that time, then why pester me?

          If you do not understand the implications of Monsanto's top researcher now expressing not only alarm but actual significant data regarding a problem with the way that the soil is affected by the RoundUp and by the way that the metabolites excreted by animals who graze on grains that are Gm grain, then the decent thing for you to do is to  admit nothing anyone says will convince you and stop pestering me.

          I gave you some very decent links - if you don't want to get educated, then so be it.

          There are dozens of people I can deal with today that do want to be educated on the Gm issue. And there are millions of us that realize that these crops are causing sickness right and left. I used to be able to eat wheat grown in The USA. Why is it that over the last ten years, I can't do it? (Hint - high levels of formaldehyde found in RoundUp sprayed wheat.) But Big Pharma is happy with what is happening - they sell lots of Zantac and other 'stomach aides" that are now needed by so very many in our population.

          Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

          by Truedelphi on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:44:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, no mechanism given here (0+ / 0-)

            Nor any reason why GMO genes would do anything at all, while the millions of other genes you ate this morning don't.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:53:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  this, by the way: (0+ / 0-)
            If you do not understand the implications of Monsanto's top researcher now expressing not only alarm but actual significant data regarding a problem with the way that the soil is affected by the RoundUp and by the way that the metabolites excreted by animals who graze on grains that are Gm grain, then the decent thing for you to do is to  admit nothing anyone says will convince you and stop pestering me.
            has bupkis stuff-all to do with the question I asked, which is how GMO genes cause tumors, but other genes you eat, don't.

            I don't give a rat's ass what your "top researcher" says about soil or worms or Roundup or metabolites in pig shit, because that wasn't the question I asked.

            If you don't understand a subject, it's probably best that you not speak on it.  Just sayin.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:15:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think that's pretty much the issue with the (0+ / 0-)

              current anti-GMO. GMO is a tool that some corporation (Monsanto) is grossly misusing that's causing damaging side-effect. But, instead of addressing the fact that it's a tool being misused, most activist just want to ban the tool.

              Kind of like trying to ban kitchen knife because some serial killer used it to slit a lot of people's throat.

      •  note this response (0+ / 0-)

        I asked a simple question: "what is it you think the GMO genes are doing, specifically, to cause tumors".

        What I will get in response is lots of arm-waving, lots of irrelevancies, lots of conspiracy theory, and eventually lots of accusations that I am part of the conspiracy.

        What I will NOT get, ever, is a simple answer to my question.

        That's because they don't have one.

        And that's because eating GMO genes does not cause tumors, any more than eating all the OTHER genes you eat every day, does.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 05:32:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See my reply right above this one. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

          by Truedelphi on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:45:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  note that it doesn't answer my question (0+ / 0-)

            It just gives some arm-waving about why you shouldn't HAVE to answer it.  

            As I noted, NOBODY will answer my simple question. They'll just arm-wave, yell "conspiracy!", and then accuse me of being a Monsanto shill.  But what they WON'T do is just, ya know, answer the goddamn question.

            There are only three possibilities why they won't just tell me what the mechanism is through which ingested GMO genes do . . . well .  . whatever the heck they think those genes do.  Those are:

            1. there is no answer, because the ingested genes don't do anything at all

            2. there is an answer, but the fringers don't know what that answer is (which doesn't seem to prevent them from talking about it anyway)

            or

            3. there is an answer and they do know what it is, but for some reason known only to them, they don't want anyone ELSE to know that answer. (Maybe Monsanto is paying them to keep quiet.)

            My money, of course, is on the first option.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:58:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why should yr question have to be answered here? (0+ / 0-)

              Your question would be answered for you, if you yourself bothered to utilize the  links to Huber on YouTube.

              You are apparently too stubborn or ignorant or both to do that, so why call someone else out when  the problem is your being a lazy cow poop  artist?

              •  yeah, just because you posted a "study" that is (0+ / 0-)

                supposed to show that eating GMO causes tumors, why the hell would anyone expect an answer to the simple question "how does the GMO cause the tumors?"

                (snicker)

                Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly.

                I will not get any answer to my question. Ever. What I will get is lots of arm-waving about why nobody NEEDS to answer my question, lots of silly conspiracy theory, and lots of idiotic accusations that I am part of the conspiracy.

                But what I WON'T get, ever, is an answer.

                That's because there isn't any.  Eating GMOS does not cause tumors, any more than eating pig genes or cow genes or wheat genes or corn genes at breakfast, does.

                 

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:15:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ps--perhaps you should read the site rules about (0+ / 0-)

                posting links to support your statements.

                Though i do understand that you have none.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:17:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The only link I can think of, as a lay person, is (0+ / 0-)

              that changing genes (whether through GM or natural) changes expression of proteins. Some of the protein expressed may have harmful side-effects.

              Basically, the possible pathway of GMO issues is that the new protein produced by the gene may be harmful to human.

              Whether that's actually happening, I've no idea.

              •  alas, this is based on a misunderstanding of how (0+ / 0-)

                GMO works.  It does not "change any genes"--it simply moves genes from one organism (where they have already existed for billions of years) to another. It doesn't change the expression of any gene--indeed, the entire POINT of it is to NOT change the gene's expression, but to have the same gene express itself (and make the same protein) in the new target organism.

                And since the gene is EATEN, it doesn't ever reach any cellular DNA anyway, and it cannot express itself or make any proteins inside your stomach. That is why all of the billions of cow genes, chicken genes, wheat genes or corn genes that you ate for breakfast this morning, don't produce any cow proteins, chicken proteins, wheat proteins or corn proteins inside of you.

                I've heard some anti-science fringers argue that the new gene "somehow" interacts with the target organism's genes to "do something", but that leaves the question of WHAT genes the GMO gene is supposed to be interacting with, what that interaction produces, and how whatever it is supposed to produce has any effect on somatic-cell DNA to produce tumors.  The fringers can't answer ANY of those questions either. Mostly because it hasn't been seen to actually happen.

                The anti-science fringers have NO science to present.  None.  All they have is some arm-waving and some conspiracy theories.

                And that is why science pays them no attention. Nor should it. (shrug)

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 01:00:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well you are right and you are wrong - (0+ / 0-)

                  If I eat some Bt Corn, my body's cellular composition is not altered in the manner that the ears of  Bt corn were altered. In other words, there are no alterations that are occurring that force Bt to now appear inside each cell of my body.

                  But we know from Pusztai's work that the very stomach lining of the animals eating the Gm potatoes - that lining was altered.  Mammalian life simply does not know what to do with the molecular structure of this crap.

                  And we see the result in the fact that many of us, probably tens of millions  of us,  can no longer eat RoundUp sprayed crops, like wheat, nor can we eat gm altered grains.

                  Of course many people are downing Zantac and Prevocet with each meal - and that is one other reason the shit is going to continue to be planted. It not only benefits Monsanto and other Gm firms, it benefits Big Pharma.

                  •  Pusztai study was baloney just like the pig study (0+ / 0-)

                    and the Seralini study. The raw data shows that the non-GMO rats got just as sick as the GMO rats did. The Puztai study was in fact rejected by two of its peer-review referees as flawed--but they recommended it be published anyway, as one of them put it, "to avoid suspicions of a conspiracy against Pusztai and to give colleagues a chance to see the data for themselves".

                    PS--a review study of GMO-feeding experiments by the European Food Safety Authority GMP Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials studied a number of GMO-feeding experiments, including Pusztai's, and concluded, "The majority of these experiments did not indicate clinical effects or histopathological abnormalities in organs or tissues of exposed animals. In some cases adverse effects were noted, which were difficult to interpret due to shortcomings in the studies."

                    It's all online here:

                    http://academicsreview.org/...

                    http://www.sciencedirect.com/...

                    Try again.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 04:04:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Big Pharma? (0+ / 0-)

                    Are you an anti-vaxxer nutjob, too . . . . ?

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 04:05:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  show me some evidence for this claim (0+ / 0-)
                    And we see the result in the fact that many of us, probably tens of millions  of us,  can no longer eat RoundUp sprayed crops, like wheat, nor can we eat gm altered grains.
                    Show me the data indicating that anyone, anywhere, is experiencing any such effect whatsoever as a traceable result of GM genes.

                    Any. Show us some of these "tens of millions" of people, and show us the data that links anything they suffer from, to GM genes.

                    There is no such study and no such demonstrated link, and you know it.

                    Then show me the evidence that the effects of Roundup on sprayed plants are any different whether the plant it is sprayed on is GMO or not. What effect does eating Roundup residues on GM crops have that it does NOT have on non-GM crops. What difference does the presence or absence of GM genes in the plant have on the effects of anyone who eats Roundup residue on that plant.

                    You are simply full of baloney, and you will not support any of your silly claims--because you can't, and you know it just as well as I do.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 04:13:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  A bit late in respond. (0+ / 0-)

                  I wasn't talking about changing expression in the people who ate it. I was referring to that by changing (or, as you said, adding) gene to organism results in said organism generating new/non-native proteins. Those protein MAY have unintended side-effect in people who eat said organisms.

                  •  you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

                    The "new" gene has already been around for millions of years, inside the organism it was transplanted from. It produces the very same protein it always has. And it did nothing. To anyone. Anywhere.

                    The gene that prevents freezing in tomatoes, for instance, comes from a fish. A fish that has had that same gene, producing that same protein, for millions of years. A fish which people have been eating for tens of thousands of years.

                    You really don't understand any of this, do you . . . .

                    And that is why science laughs at you.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:28:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not against genetic modification/engineering. (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm very supportive of GM in general because its a powerful tool to resolve world-hunger.

                      I was trying to point out that the most likely way for a harmful DNA to cause harm is in the protein it generates, not the DNA itself.

                      Of course, as you stated, most of those protein already exists in stuff we consume.

                      I do understand the need for greater regulatory oversight if it ever comes to a time when we start inserting DNA that encodes protein we don't normally eat. Or labeling for crop with inserted DNA that encodes protein that might trigger allergic reaction.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site