You cannot claim that the Seralini research did not happen, whether anyone wanted it to happen, tried to stop it, doesn't like it's results, or if it is valid. It was done and has been published. That case is closed.
Your claim was that studies were/are/will not be "allowed" is false. It was studied.
YOU pointed to it without realizing the import. Too bad.
End of story.
Yikes, classic straw man argument, your just not comprehending the problem with censorship, OK one more time from the top. This monsanto user agreement clearly defines that no seed shall be used in any research whatsoever.
http://www.monsanto.ca/ourcommitments/Documents/TUG_English.pdf see pg 31 terms and conditions.
However, we know "censored" research is being conducted, by virtue of it being required to be vetted through monsanto, specified here.
from
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-sca...n-humans/14570
One of the great mysteries surrounding the spread of GMO plants around the world since the first commercial crops were released in the early 1990’s in the USA and Argentina has been the absence of independent scientific studies of possible long-term effects of a diet of GMO plants on humans or even rats. Now it has come to light the real reason. The GMO agribusiness companies like Monsanto, BASF, Pioneer, Syngenta and others prohibit independent research.
An editorial in the respected American scientific monthly magazine, Scientific American, August 2009 reveals the shocking and alarming reality behind the proliferation of GMO products throughout the food chain of the planet since 1994. There are no independent scientific studies published in any reputed scientific journal in the world for one simple reason. It is impossible to independently verify that GMO crops such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybeans or MON8110 GMO maize perform as the company claims, or that, as the company also claims, that they have no harmful side effects because the GMO companies forbid such tests!
That’s right. As a precondition to buy seeds, either to plant for crops or to use in research study, Monsanto and the gene giant companies must first sign an End User Agreement with the company. For the past decade, the period when the greatest proliferation of GMO seeds in agriculture has taken place, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta require anyone buying their GMO seeds to sign an agreement that explicitly forbids that the seeds be used for any independent research. Scientists are prohibited from testing a seed to explore under what conditions it flourishes or even fails. They cannot compare any characteristics of the GMO seed with any other GMO or non-GMO seeds from another company. Most alarming, they are prohibited from examining whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended side-effects either in the environment or in animals or humans.
The only research which is permitted to be published in reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals are studies which have been pre-approved by Monsanto and the other industry GMO firms.
The entire process by which GMO seeds have been approved in the United States, beginning with the proclamation by then President George H.W. Bush in 1992, on request of Monsanto, that no special Government tests of safety for GMO seeds would be conducted because they were deemed by the President to be “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO seeds,
I guess I could have specified "uncensored" research, but then, censored research isn't really research at all now is it ;-)
Oviously, if you read up on the Seralini study, he must have vetted his process and had it approved for research through Monsanto. Which then requires his findings to be again vetted through them IE made available for censorship. Monsanto subsequently disproved his findings for publication, at which point the work could not be submitted for peer review. So apparently Seralini didn't and just published an abbreviated version minus some key elements, which is likely why he refuses to divulge further information, he'd get sued.
I also find it curious that Monsanto must have approved his study parameters at one point in order for him to get there permission to move forward at all, yet now they and there PR people are complaining about his study's design ?
What is most interesting is that complain as you might about the possible errors in the study it is remarkable in that its findings were so startlingly similar to a previous study that was reviewed, corrected and published, under a much older legal considerations. See
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Roundup-Glyphosate-Teratogenic30apr03.htm ( Oh and I might add that the peer review process often results in corrections being made before a work is accepted for publication, something Seralini was unfortunately prevented from doing )
Both studies were on rats
Both studies tested glyphosate GMO
Both studies were longer term
Both studies looked at multiple health effects
Both studies found cancerous reactions and or malformations
Both studies found cancerous reactions and or malformations proportional to the exposure rate
Both studies found similar proportional rates of cancerous reactions or malformations
stunning if you ask me. I've done my share of research and if I saw that in any pair of studies paralelling one another so closely I'd be seriously thinking there's a link.
I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. Oh I'm sure I'll make an error or two based on the lack of uncensored purely scientific independent information available for me to analyze But based on what I can find, if I were a betting man, I'd bet your better off not eating GM foods.
From a scientifically objective point, I'd have to question why research into GM food safety is so closely guarded, why what science there is, is so heavily censored and why these products where considered substantially equivalent when in fact they are technologically altered life forms combining species that could not otherwise transfer there genetic material.
That said, your comments belie that you are already exhibiting an overflow of Kingdom principles. Cause and effect is sew and reap. To seek wisdom is greater than gold and silver. Wisdom has two forms. One may lead to the other or not. Content from external source:
