Monsanto’s Sealed Documents Reveal the Truth behind Roundup’s Toxicological Dangers -Richard Gale and Gary Null

http://prn.fm/monsantos-sealed-documents-reveal-the-truth-behind-roundups-toxicological-dangers-richard-gale-and-gary-null/

During an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on 9月 4, Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research. “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.
In order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings, Samsel explained that Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases. Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results. This is not an uncommon industry trick, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors.
Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings. In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science. By ignoring cause and effect relationships behind the onset of multiple cancers Monsanto engaged in a radical scientific denialism that has since raked in tens of billions of dollars.
But the cache of Monsanto documents, after Samsel’s and Seneff’s review, reveals much more that we should be worried about. Monsanto’s studies included doses from low to high range. Samsel observed that low glyphosate doses were equally if not more toxic than higher doses. The company later discontinued low dose trials, relying only on higher levels because it is customarily assumed to have greater toxicological risks. Samsel’s observation has recently been confirmed by a study published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France. The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats. These alterations, the study reports, “were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondria membrane dysfunction and ischemia.”¹⁴ Consequently low doses of Roundup are far more toxic than US EPA limits.

People talk about a ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change. Yes I understand that. But to talk of a scientific consensus on GMO’s is not the same – all you have to do is go down to the lab and test it!
That is why there can not be a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods and crops, according to a statement released today by an international group of more than 90 scientists, academics and physicians.¹
The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists, journalists, and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops were generally found safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls these claims “misleading”, adding, “This claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”

The biggest study on GMO’s ever undertaken showed very bad results for the GMO industry. It was completely independent too.
And it was the first ever 2 year study (life of the rat) and it found severe kidney deficiencies and hormonal disturbances such as breast rumours were caused by consumption of Roundup as well as the genetic modification of the corn.
All industry studies including Monsanto’s are only for 90 days. Seralini had to go court to in Europe to get the results from these industry studies. When finally he won the court battle and got the Monsanto results he saw clearly from that these shorter studies had issues that were being ignored by Monsanto, the FDA and the EU. -
The new two year Seralini study was then published by Elsevier as a proper peer reviewed study but in an extraordinary turn of events was later retracted by Elsevier by the editor Dr Wallace Hayes.
The reason Hayes gave for the retraction of Seralini’s Study was very confusing!
Dr Wallace Hayes conceded that an examination of Prof Séralini’s raw data gave:
“no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” and nothing “incorrect” about the data.
Hayes states that the retraction is solely based on the “inconclusive” nature of the findings!
This is extraordinary since ALL peer reviewed papers are probably inconclusive in one way or another and therefore they should all be retracted!!
Hayes’ new boss was of course – you guessed it – previously employed by Monsanto!!
Say no more!

最新情報をお届けします…

筆頭著者のマイケル・アントニオウ博士は、次のように述べています。私たちの結果は、規制当局がグリホサートベースの除草剤の安全性評価を再検討する必要があることも示唆しています。

トランスクリプトームプロファイル分析はラットを反映しています
慢性に続く肝臓と腎臓の損傷
超低線量ラウンドアップ曝露
ロビン・メスナージ1、マシュー・アルノ2、マヌエラ・コスタンツォ3、マヌエラ・マラテスタ3、ジル・エリック・セラリーニ4
マイケル・N・アントニオ1 *

GMO情報 http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/gmo?recruiter_id=47464

GMO情報

I love this page on the MAAM site. These are some really terrific and very informative short videos and a difficult subject. These will get you up to speed if you are new to the information and clarify things if you are not new to it and you might learn something new. Until I saw Zen’s talk with Anthony Samsel I didn’t know that farmers were using Glyphosate as a drying agent.