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:
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:
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?
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 . 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 .
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 .
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  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.