General Discussion

truedelphi

(32,324 posts) Fri Jul 11, 2014, 08:18 PM Jul 2014

Serralini's Univ of Caens' Study of Monsanto's GM corn has been re-published:

The criticisms that were made have been addressed. Now the governments in Europe will have to consider the situation of how the risk of eating the Gm maize far outweighs the benefit!

http://www.alternet.org/food/major-study-demonstrates-monsanto-gmo-corn-product-can-cause-damage-liver-and-kidneys-and

Serralini Study has been republished, after addressing concerns

The chronic toxicity study examines the health impacts on rats of eating a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto's NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.

The original study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012, found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU. However it was retracted by the editor-in-chief of the Journal in November 2013 after a sustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.

Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize. Additional unexpected findings were higher rates of large tumours and mortality in most treatment groups.

#### More information at the alternet link, at the top of this OP

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Serralini's Univ of Caens' Study of Monsanto's GM corn has been re-published: (Original Post) truedelphi Jul 2014 OP

Second one of these threads today. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #1

I looked through 18 hours of GD discussions (Mostly abt apprecitation!) and didn't see it. truedelphi Jul 2014 #2

Nope, GD MohRokTah Jul 2014 #3

Last reply was about 2 hours ago... SidDithers Jul 2014 #5

The criticisms were not addressed... SidDithers Jul 2014 #4

he paid for publication-- it's a fake "vanity journal" and it's editor admits no peer review.... mike_c Jul 2014 #6

Mike you might want to consider statements by the New England Journal of Medicine truedelphi Jul 2014 #7

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

1. Second one of these threads today.

Reply to truedelphi (Original post)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 08:21 PM

Jul 2014

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)

2. I looked through 18 hours of GD discussions (Mostly abt apprecitation!) and didn't see it.

Reply to MohRokTah (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 08:33 PM

Jul 2014

Of course, my eyes do glaze over.

And it might have been posted on Late Breaking News, or over at health.

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

3. Nope, GD

Reply to truedelphi (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 08:35 PM

Jul 2014

Might want to read through it for how the republishing of this "study" is meaningless:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025226677

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)

5. Last reply was about 2 hours ago...

Reply to truedelphi (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 08:39 PM

Jul 2014

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025226677

'Course, yours is only about the 7th or 8th thread about the study being republished that we've had over the last 3 weeks.

Sid

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)

4. The criticisms were not addressed...

Reply to truedelphi (Original post)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 08:38 PM

Jul 2014

Seralini et al "published" their study in a zero impact factor, pay-to-publish open access "journal" that did no peer-review at all on the content of their paper.

Their study is just as flawed and meaningless as it was when it was retracted by the much more respected Food and Chemical Toxicology.

Sid

mike_c

(36,281 posts)

6. he paid for publication-- it's a fake "vanity journal" and it's editor admits no peer review....

Reply to truedelphi (Original post)

Fri Jul 11, 2014, 08:40 PM

Jul 2014

http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463

Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) decided to re-publish the paper to give the scientific community guaranteed long-term access to the data in the retracted paper, editor-in-chief Henner Hollert told Nature. “We were Springer Publishing’s first open access journal on the environment, and are a platform for discussion on science and regulation at a European and regional level.” ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)

7. Mike you might want to consider statements by the New England Journal of Medicine

Reply to mike_c (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 12, 2014, 03:32 PM

Jul 2014

Regarding what is happening. The statement was made back in 2002.

Extrapolating outward from that statement: It is all, in its own way, vanity publishing. The people with the Big Fat Thick Pockets of cash control the science labs in this country, from the university chemistry lab on up. (Development that started really setting in toward the end of the 1990's)

The same Fat Cats control Congress, and governmental agencies and the "government stamp of approval." And if you think we have ourselves a free press, rather tthan the one that exists to influence people into deciding that Corporate Controlled Products are safe, or that the Journals aren't totally contaminated by the tentacles of Corporate Control, there are several bridges that I could sell you.

Anyway here is the article discussing a very interesting development over at New England JoM:

www.coastalpost.com/02/07/05.htm

Reply to this discussion