Print Friendly and PDF

True GMO Science and Dangers You’ll Never Hear About from the Media

Paul Fassa
by
November 24th, 2013
Updated 11/24/2013 at 8:47 pm
Pin It

gmo cam ns 263x171 True GMO Science and Dangers Youll Never Hear About from the MediaThe mainstream media (MSM) usually lamely refers to GMO issues as an undecided debate or controversy, depicting anti-GMO people as “emotional” and “unreasonable” while claiming genetic engineering is more “scientific”. But the only “science” the MSM is exposed to are press releases from the bio-tech industry. The fact is, numerous studies point to GMO dangers, and hundreds of scientists are beginning to publicly speak out against GMOs at large.

GMO Dangers

In the notorious French study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini on approved GMO corn and Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate, used for GMO Roundup ready seeds, rats fed GMOs had developed dramatic cancerous tumors.

Seralini’s two year trial was trashed by the biotech industry sycophants as unscientific, and the MSM accepted that trash without question. Those so called journalists never bothered to check the facts. The rats Seralini used were the same types used by Monsanto for their study to gain approval for their GMO corn.

But the Monsanto “approved” report was based on a three month study. Even without disclosing adverse effects, which is common with studies from industry funded research. The Monsanto trial was obviously too short.

Seralini’s was more appropriate for long term effects, and he added low glyphosate doses measured as equivalent to byproduct consumption of Monsato’s GMO corn. I don’t think Monsanto even included an animal testing for glyphosate.

The good news is Seralini’s study has been validated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Did that get covered by MSM or lamestream media? They probably don’t even know about it, and if they do, they won’t report on it. But here it is for you perusal.

But even before this controversy, scientists who know genes and microbiology, but weren’t bought and funded by Monsanto and their ilk, were expressing grave concerns about the promoter gene used for GMO products.

An Academic Whistle Blower Reveals GMO Promoter Gene Issues

In November 2009, The Organic & Non-GMO Report (online) interviewed Agro-ecologist Don Lotter, Ph.D, about his paper, “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science”, published in the 2009 edition of the International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.

Despite knowing how this paper might affect his career as a university researcher and professor, Lotter revealed more than the flawed scientific background of bio-technology arrogance. He also revealed a smoking gun that would ruin our health.

Lotter stated:

“The promoter gene used in genetically engineered crops, the cauliflower mosaic virus, is a powerful promoter of inter-species gene exchange. Scientists thought it would be denatured in our digestive system, but it’s not. It has been shown to promote the transfer of transgenes from GM foods to the bacteria within our digestive system, which are responsible for 80% of our immune system function. ” (Emphasis added)

Lotter added there are even worse concerns about this promoter gene, the cauliflower mosaic virus or CaMV-35S. The CaMV-35S used for plant genetic engineering is cited by most independent scientists as a source of viral recombination as well as a gene silencer and DNA disruptor.

In other words, it could spread viral disease and genetic havoc “horizontally” across plant, animal, and human life while simultaneously suppressing our immune systems. Other independent scientists have corroborated Don Lotter’s assessment of CaMV-35S promoter gene dangers.

There are numerous other studies available showcasing the negative effects and dangers of GMOs. You can’t rely on the words coming from the MSM or Big Ag.

Additional Sources:

i-sis.org.uk

Natural-Law-Party.org.uk

From around the web:

  • not happy

    so what is the difference of GMO to the gassing in Syria? One thing I see is GMO is slow kill.

  • Achemist

    EFSA did not validate the study design. You should actually read the protocol. He did not use enough animals. Look at the original paper and run some simple stats on the limited data in Table 2, or pull the survival numbers from the graphs as M. Festing did and you will find NO significance. Sorry the study was politically motivated, you have been dipped again….

    • Kev C

      As I stated above Seralini was using the correct number of rats for a ‘TOXICITY’ trial. He was not actually looking for cancerous tumours.
      You know the really dumb ass things that you and your kind keep spouting about is really sad. If there was any risk of developing cancer from eating some crap that had not been thoroughly researched then I would want to know and know now. Not when I’m lying on my death bed.
      So what is it with you people that you don’t get about ‘dangerous technology’ and ‘dangerous food’ and ‘serious and fatal threats to ones health’? Something tells me you don’t actually eat this crap otherwise you would be kicking up merry hell like the rest of us are.
      Biotechnology is deeply flawed and only exists because of the sheer monetary leverage of the likes of Monsanto, Dow, DuPont et all.
      If they did not have the freedom to screw us all over then we wouldn’t be eating this crap now.

      So unless you can come up with some actual facts that do not carry the Monsanto mark of excellence then I would be interested to listen.
      Otherwise stop telling lies. You only make yourselves look stupid.

  • jazzfeed

    When you hear about an (alleged) consensus on the safety of GM food products refer them to this for a clearer picture than any one person, invested or not. There IS a consensus, but not the one the GM food industry wants to hear: The consensus of 230 science people is that there is no consensus on the safety of GMO consumption.

    These are the signatories to the statement “There Is No Scientific Consensus On GMO Safety”, all two hundred and thirty — 230 international, experienced, medical and science professionals – MDs, PhDs, DVMs:
    http://tinyurl.com/puew4wb

    A nice writeup on the statement:
    http://tinyurl.com/krss2wr

    The statement:
    http://tinyurl.com/lurpml2

    ENNSSER is European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility

    Outline of Statement (each point is explicated at the link above):
    1. There is no consensus on GM food safety

    2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health

    3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate

    4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety

    5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety

    6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops

    7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops

  • Dave

    The comments by Don Lotter are intriguing, but I don’t buy the risk without data. I have tried to make bacteria accept plasmids with inserted genes before, and from first-hand experience, it is extremely difficult (even with bacteria selected to do this work, like DH5alpha E. coli competent cells). When bacteria don’t want to keep something around, they will kick it out. So, with having CaMV promoters floating around in our guts, it would be nearly impossible to stably get them into our gut flora. But, I would love to see some of his data.

    • jazzfeed

      And meanwhile you’re blithely eating food products containing GM ingredients?

    • Kev C

      Check out the Newcastle University’s UK research into horizontal gene transfer if you want to be educated about the real risks to human health. There is a lot of controversy about this subject and even when the risk appears to be small as in 2-3%, or 2 or 3 people per hundred it is still a large number when you consider the total population of any developed country as being in the many millions. Try healing that many victims of some nasty illness that is caused by something that those in power ‘claim’ is safe.
      I think I’d rather avoid the stuff. Besides we already grow sufficient food to feed almost twice the global population. Why do we need to use unwanted and untested novel ideas to do what we are already doing except to give someone a massive profit at the expense of our health?
      I’ll leave that with you.

  • el Gallinazo

    “GMO is a simply this: a “slow kill” biological and chemical weapon to be consumed by the unwitting population”

    Unfortunately, due to political influence and massive fraud, including much of the so-called organic food industry, this crap is also being consumed by the witting population. I would label the objective as “the slower kill” policy rather than the “soft kill” policy. Nothing soft about dying from cancer. Personally, I would rather take one of the DHS’s two billion 0.40 manshredder hollow points to the head.

    • jazzfeed

      Ambiguous

  • cam

    fyi if you want to convince anyone use reliable evidence, this rat study has been proven to be a manipulated study. htere are much more studies that have been done and i would advise you to do better research before writing biased articles unbacked by scientifically reliable facts

    • jazzfeed

      The article describes how you’ve become brainwashed. Read it again and reflect.

    • Kev C

      FYI the research that you claim to be manipulated was anything but. It was identical to Monsantos previous research using the same GMO and herbicide substances. It only differed because there were things that happened which were not expected when the trial reached 120 days ie cancerous tumours. You see we have all asked for more long term meaningful and independent research into GMO technology and when we actually get some done to a very high standard the spooks come out in force and try to claim its flawed.

      In fact fyi the research actually mimicked Monsantos previous research in every way except for two main factors.
      1. Seralini included a 22% concentration level for the Roundup herbicide to go along with the 11% and the 33% that Monsanto had used, so that Seralini could have three graph points to show the necessary detail as to the impacts of this Roundup toxin on the health of rats at different concentrations. Does it get worse as the toxin concentration increases or better etc.
      2. He allowed the duration of the trial to go to full life term. At is two and a half to three years for rats.
      After 120 days tumours appeared in the rats.
      He conducted the research according to the International Conventions on animal experimentations which clearly states that if any cancerous tumours develop in any of the animal subjects then the experiment must be continued until either the animal subject dies or the animal is euthanazed to avoid any unnecessary suffering from the tumours. This is to show what happens to the tumours over the lifetime of the animal.
      That is the International Convention that applies to all laboratory animal experimentation regardless as to who is conducting it.

      Fyi Seralini was only looking for the impacts or effects of Roundup herbicide toxicity…….not cancerous tumours.
      Hence the small animal numbers used. If he had been looking for cancerous tumours he would have used greater numbers of rats. He wasn’t so he didn’t.

      Even the rats were the same as the ones used in Monsantos experiment.

      You know the odd thing is that no one has actually called for a retraction of the Monsanto research for exactly the same reasons that they claimed Seralini was flawed. Now I wonder why that is?

      Oh and before I forget the equivalent age at which the rats began to show serious ill effects would be equivalent to a human child of between 7 and 9 years old. Ever wonder why childhood cancers are on the increase?

      Oh and it gets better!

      Did you know that the female rats developed massive breast cancer tumours very early on in the trials and did so with levels of the herbicide Roundup at 50% the maximum permitted dose for human drinking water supplies in the EU.

      Now go figure how your going to discredit this research as flawed very, very carefully. There are a lot of us out here that know a lot more about scientific research than you clearly realise.
      Have a nice day!

      • magnified11

        Your posts are better than the article!

    • John Cook

      Bull sh*t.

  • Undecider

    GMO is a simply this: a “slow kill” biological and chemical weapon to be consumed by the unwitting population.

  • SR Booth

    Thanks for posting this. It’s so important that people at least consider what’s been done to the food we eat. And the possible consequences.