Montasanto GM Maize and roundup causes massive tumours and early death.

[Baff1 0]

Hi all

In Reply to Baff1's somewhat uninformed argument.

1) Are you aware that all scientific biological testing of chemicals and bio-engineered plants takes place in animal analogues first?

2) Are you aware that all scientific biological testing takes place in animal analogues first, because their shorter life span, means they highlight probable risks quicker, particularly those of cancer, than they would appear in more long lived species?

3) Are you aware that all scientific biological testing takes place in animal analogues because it would be un-ethical to test it on humans, before testing it on animals?

4) Are you aware that the scientific biological testing carried out by Monsanto was average rat life expectancy?

5) Are you aware of what the bell curve is?

6) Are you aware that "Average Natural Life Expectancy" experiments are based on flawed principles; since they automaticly ignore the causes of death and illness of half the population; all those who have longer than "Average Natural Life Expectancy" as they sit on the wrong side of the bell curve cut off?

7) Are you aware that the average rat life expectancy used by Monsanto is that of wild rats?

8) Are you aware that by using the average rat life expectancy of wild rats this also skews the experimental data particularly with cancers by ignoring the effects of increased life expectancy?

An Explanation of why the use of a Full Life experimental model is the correct model rather than the "Average Natural Life Expectancy".

The false argument that a study based on a wild rats average life span is the same as a Full Life study is a falacious one. Even the concept applied to wild rats only, automaticaly cuts out HALF the population studied as it chops the population you follow at the top of the bell curve on life expectancy so all the more long lived rats get ignored. As to the use of wild rats "Average Natural Life Expectancy" it to is mendacious. For, one might as well then take the average life expectancy of a third world person as enough for any human study of cancer in the first world; with the almost 50 year gap between the two you can see the obvious problems. And one of course has to recognise that cancer is primarily a first world problem, people in the third world do not get to live long enough to die of it very often.

So what actual science has been done?

The ONLY Full Life Study in Rats, as human analogues, is this one:http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf it was published in the peer reviewed and respected Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and is the only Full Life Study on the matter of the long term effects of of Roundup and the GM Maize modified to tolerate Roundup in the ever increasing doses it now requires in order to work.

The fact that Monsanto could not even be bothered to carry out such a Full Life Study is totaly and utterly down to Monsanto's own failings.

Until more detailed science can be done, the precautionary principle must apply and this GM Maize, its products and Roundup should be banned.

Use Steam it is cheaper

And of course as I pointed out the whole concept of using ever increasing amounts of expensive chemicals for weed control is a con trick on the stupid, for those who are foolish enough to believe the marketing.

FACT: steam kills off weeds and all other pests at lower cost and far more effectively, and of course the only chemical residue it leaves behind is good old H2O.

Kind Regards walker

Not really all that intrested in the hot air alone.

I was just after the science mate, you know, the results of the study you were referring to.

I think it's for the best that I take your long winded failure to know of any, as reinforcing evidence of it's imaginary nature.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Baff1

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Too tired/not enough time for me to look for other sources, but I just noticed this.

http://spreadlibertynews.com/the-organic-review-eu-says-french-gmorat-study-is-a-flunk/

[walker 0]

Hi all

It always amazes me that people confuse the words of a commitee with being expermental scientists and even ascribe equal validity to the opinion of a commitee over a single experiment.

All the top naval commitees in the world said the world was flat once, then a bunch of real sailors sailed round it.

One scientific experiment, outweighs every commitees' hot air.

In reply to Darkhorse 1-6's post an equaly valid article from an equaly valid source:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2236219/GM-corn-variety-regarded-safe-Dr-Gilles-Eric-S-ralini-hits-critics.html

The fact that a Monsanto controled commitee (Hint look up who is on the commitee), says it is safe does not make it safe, it just means Monsanto say its safe and pay their commitee members enough to say so. Science requires experiments, the words of a commitee are just hot air nothing more.

The ONLY Full Life Study in Rats, as human analogues, is this one: http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf it was published in the peer reviewed and respected Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and is the only Full Life Study on the matter of the long term effects of Roundup and the GM Maize, modified to tolerate Roundup, in the ever increasing doses it now requires in order to work.

Oh and by the way, a certain risk of the Monsanto maze and the masses of chemicals it needs to survive, that the real scientists who do experimnents, as distinct from the chatty administrators on commitees, pointed out; is causing increases in pests, not decreasing them, and causing other sources of maze to be damaged thus reducing successful maze crops, whoops eh?.

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/aap/8567929/corn-risks-damage-if-gm-maize-is-planted

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/bugs-damaging-monsanto-corn-may-do-same-to-syngenta-crops-1-.html

Science seems to be something Monsanto and their apologists do not understand.

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 30, 2012 by walker

[kavoven 4]

I think we already talked about the validity of the study.

You don't seem to know a very common problem with "scientists", Walker.

MOST OF THEM DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE STATISTICS OR HOW TO PLAN A PROPER EXPERIMENT!. Period.

I can tear all studies using structure equation models apart. I can tear all studies using some weired regression models apart. I can tear all studies apart that don't make proper use of control groups, group sizes or the requirements needed to use statistics AT ALL.

There are other effects, as well. Alpha inflation, publication bias ... the list goes on and on.

You can not trust these studies.

[walker 0]

I think we already talked about the validity of the study.

You don't seem to know a very common problem with "scientists", Walker.

MOST OF THEM DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE STATISTICS OR HOW TO PLAN A PROPER EXPERIMENT!. Period.

I can tear all studies using structure equation models apart. I can tear all studies using some weired regression models apart. I can tear all studies apart that don't make proper use of control groups, group sizes or the requirements needed to use statistics AT ALL.

There are other effects, as well. Alpha inflation, publication bias ... the list goes on and on.

You can not trust these studies.

Hi all

In Reply to kavoven's point.

1) It was published in a respected peer reviewed publication where those matters were gone through by the peer reviewers.

2) No evidense or opinion counter to the peer reviewed article has been through any of the caveats you espouse.

3) There is no other full life study on which to base any analysis on so this is the only evidense that exists.

All the chatting and hot air counts as nothing compared to actual real experiments.

It is not my or indeed these scientists fault that Monsanto has failed to do a full life experiment. It is not my or indeed these scientists fault that Monsanto's scientists conducted flawed science.

The plane fact is that this is the only experment on the subject of full life cancer risk using a rat analogue.

Also it was conducted with controls eg Rats that were not exposed to Monsanto's Maze or its roundup pesticides. The experiment shows that Rats in the control group did not suffer as much cancer as those exposed to Monsanto's Maze or its roundup pasticides.

Here read it your self:

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

I can not understand why Monsato and their apologists are so afraid of carrying out the experiment themselves in order to falsify it. If as they claim it is not true.

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 30, 2012 by walker

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

It always amazes me that people confuse the words of a commitee with being expermental scientists and even ascribe equal validity to the opinion of a commitee over a single experiment.

If the committee is comprised of experts in the field, then yes, you're damn right I will. Because it is ONE study. If they do several studies, followed proper procedures when doing so, etc. and they all come up with the same general conclusion, then yeah, you've got something solid. One study does not trump one committee of people who know what they are talking about.

[kavoven 4]

1) It was published in a respected peer reviewed publication where those matters were gone through by the peer reviewers.

All kind of articles are published in "respected" publications. That doesn't make them more valid. These magazines need money, too. Do I have to say more?

2) No evidense or opinion counter to the peer reviewed article has been through any of the caveats you espouse.

I don't quite understand you but I guess you mean the methods? They used some weired regression analysis. This kind of experiment could easily be analysed with a simple t-test. But using some complex models already shows that valid statistical methods didn't bring the desired results.

3) There is no other full life study on which to base any analysis on so this is the only evidense that exists.

ONE STUDY! You clearly don't know the term publication bias. It means that we have for example 20 studies about one topic. Taking a 5% confidence level, one study could only BY CHANCE become significant. The study gets published, all the others don't, since they didn't find the desired results.

It is not my or indeed these scientists fault that Monsanto has failed to do a full life experiment. It is not my or indeed these scientists fault that Monsanto's scientists conducted flawed science.

And you clearly don't know much about statistics at all. You can't prove that there is no difference. Thats something about Alpha and Beta errors. Its statistically NOT POSSIBLE to prove that there is no difference. And again, showing no significant results means --> no publication.

The plane fact is that this is the only experment on the subject of full life cancer risk using a rat analogue.

Same point.

Also it was conducted with controls eg Rats that were not exposed to Monsanto's Maze or its roundup pesticides. The experiment shows that Rats in the control group did not suffer as much cancer as those exposed to Monsanto's Maze or its roundup pasticides.

They used rats that suffer many times more from cancer than normal rats. The results are not comparable.

I can not understand why Monsato and their apologists are so afraid of carrying out the experiment themselves in order to falsify it. If as they claim it is not true.

Same point.

[mrcash2009 0]

@Kavoven:

I don't know anything about biology or genetics, but you don't need to

Ah and for those people saying "but cancer and allergies are increasing"

There is a real "simple explanation" for this effect. People have bad genes. People always had bad genes.

Well, I hope you enjoy your GM foods for your grandchildren mate. Will you be the first on the list to order you pure GM daily intake? Please report back your findings im sure they will be rock solid data. If anything should happen, dont worry it was bad genes, simples.

Edited December 2, 2012 by mrcash2009

[kavoven 4]

@Kavoven:

Well, I hope you enjoy your GM foods for your grandchildren mate. Will you be the first on the list to order you pure GM daily intake? Please report back your findings im sure they will be rock solid data. If anything should happen, dont worry it was bad genes, simples.

I don't understand your first quote and you simply have no evidence for me being wrong. You're a typical representative of todays online generation who can't put clear and provable arguments on the table. So instead of just writing some incomprehensible blabla, show me your arguments to prove your point. Even if I don't agree with Walker - at least he is using some kind of scientific language.

I never said anything about the true effect regarding the discussed topic. (I even approve of Walkers method using steam to kill parasites - way less complicated than using genetically changed stuff) I'm just pointing out flaws in the design of the study and that you can't use it as SCIENTIFIC fact.

[hellfire257 3]

Allergies and cancers are increasing, but so is the population. I'm willing to bet they are proportional. Is that data taking population into account though?

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to kavoven

On the matter of Controls; I refer you first of all to the peer reviewed scientific papers abstract:

...The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modiï¬ed maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated

with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In

females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was vis-

ible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological pro-

ï¬les were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and

before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was mod-

iï¬ed by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5

times higher. This pathology was conï¬rmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked

and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large

palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data conï¬rmed very

signiï¬cant kidney chronic deï¬ciencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters

were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of

Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences...

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

As always follow the link to the original text in full

My use of bold in the quoted text

I then refer you to 2.3 of the paper

2.3. Animals and treatments

Virgin albino Sprague-Dawley rats at 5 weeks of age were obtained from Harlan

(Gannat, France). All animals were kept in polycarbonate cages (820 cm 2 , Genestil,

France) with two animals of the same sex per cage. The litter (Toplit classic, Safe,

France) was replaced twice weekly. The animals were maintained at 22 ± 3 "C under

controlled humidity (45–65%) and air purity with a 12 h-light/dark cycle, with free

access to food and water. The location of each cage within the experimental room

was regularly moved. This 2 year life-long experiment was conducted in a GPL envi-

ronment according to OECD guidelines. After 20 days of acclimatization, 100 male

and 100 female animals were randomly assigned on a weight basis into 10 equiv-

alent groups. For each sex, one control group had access to plain water and standard

diet from the closest isogenic non-transgenic maize control; six groups were fed

with 11, 22 and 33% of GM NK603 maize either treated or not with R. The ï¬nal three

groups were fed with the control diet and had access to water supplemented with

respectively 1.1 " 10! 8 % of R (0.1 ppb of R or 50 ng/L of glyphosate, the contaminat-

ing level of some regular tap waters), 0.09% of R (400 mg/kg, US MRL of glyphosate

in some GM feed) and 0.5% of R (2.25 g/L, half of the minimal agricultural working

dilution). This was changed weekly. Twice weekly monitoring allowed careful

observation and palpation of animals, recording of clinical signs, measurement of

any tumors that may arise, food and water consumption, and individual body

weights.

ibid

which describes that the control group WERE of the same species as those who recieved the Monsanto Maze and Roundup and not as you wrongly state:

They used rats that suffer many times more from cancer than normal rats. The results are not comparable.

The key factors is that these are proper controls, in that the study compares like with like. Rats in both the control and the Monsanto Maze and Roundup tested group were of the same species. In fact they were bought at the same time from the same source.

That is what a control should be, a control is by definition comparing like with like where the experiment only varies the factor you are studying, in this case only diet is varied.

As to what the longer life span of these rats means, they are analogues to developed world life spans in humans. Rather than wild rat life spans which would be comparable to feral human life spans. We get more cancer in the developed world rather than the undeveloped world as we dont die before it develops, so that is where we want to study. Deliberatley desiging your experiment to ignore when the affect takes place is faux science.

It has also amazed me that the "Monsanto Science?" used a method that deliberately ignored half the test subjects by stopping the experiment at the top of the bell curve for willd rats. If the same was applied to Humans for which the "Monsanto Science?" was applied as an analogue; then the affects of Monsanto's maze and its roundup would have been ignored after every one reached 39 years old. That is what stopping the experiment at the top of the bell curve does.

In fact it is worse than that, because "Monsanto Science?" uses wild rat life spans, so the the equivalent in humans would be feral humans, the nearest analogue to which would be either third world humans or tramps life expectancy, this would then have the bell curve cut the experiment at just 22 years old!

I am surprised that when

ONE STUDY! You clearly don't know the term publication bias. It means that we have for example 20 studies about one topic. Taking a 5% confidence level, one study could only BY CHANCE become significant. The study gets published, all the others don't, since they didn't find the desired results.

That you fail to apply the same standards to the viewpoint you argue for, Monsanto conducted NO FULL LIFE STUDIES

Just to kind of be obvious: ONE STUDY is more that NO STUDY.

Now I am not saying that the study presented in the respected and peer reviewed Food and Chemical Toxicology journal is difinitive but it is the only evidense!

Since that evidense now exists and since there is not a single other jot of evidense refuting it and as I keep pointing out, I fail to see why Monsanto failed to adequately test their product? Clearly it makes Monsanto as well as any company that from now on sells products based on Monsanto's GM maze and Roundup, and their scientists and advertiser, as well as any insurers, legaly liable for any affects.

Untill such time as Monsanto or any other body can carry out full life experiments to test Monsanto's GM Maze and the increasing levels of Roundup necasary to keep it alive, the precautionary principle needs to apply and Monsanto's GM Maze and Roundup should be banned.

Kind Regards walker

Edited December 3, 2012 by walker
grammar clarity

[mrcash2009 0]

You're a typical representative of todays online generation who can't put clear and provable arguments on the table.

Well seeing of most of us dont work in laboratory's or are high level trained with papers to release we should lock this thread then I guess going by that logic. My point was, at what stage can you point for point argue with Walkers links & current finding and Monsanto's practices and the nature of GM in general, I am interested if you will be first in line with your family to eat it, as that's the end results in the future, but you didn't answer.

BTW can you please post your "clear & provable arguments", I haven't seen them yet, I have seen the "argument with walkers posts" part, we seem to come from the same online generation thus far.

[hellfire257 3]

I study in labs, does that count? :D

I can't remember who said it, but someone said that what can asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As far as I see it, what can be asserted with evidence can be dismissed with evidence. I consider the original paper to be useless until I have seen multiple studies from multiple sources confirming the original paper's findings. Formulating an opinion based on one paper is bad judgement IMO. However, the precautionary principle does apply here with regards to safety in the short term.

FYI, the people who do peer review these papers do not need to agree with the findings, only judge whether it is based upon poor scientific method or written badly.