Jennifer Byrne from the University of Sydney began her truth journey after discovering some anomalies in a few scientific papers about human genes and cancer. She noticed that a DNA type mentioned in a few of these papers was apparently not the one that the researchers who wrote the paper actually tested, so she started writing these researchers, as well as the journal editors that published the papers in question, to let them know about the problem. (RELATED: Find more reports of fake science in science journals at FakeScience.news)

Along with her colleague Cyril Labbé from the University of Grenoble Alpes in France, Byrne utilized detection software known as SciDetect that knows how to identify fake scientific papers. Upon running the software, Byrne and her colleague found that all five of the papers in question had used a faulty primer. They published their findings in the journal Scientometrics.

Byrne had expected proper corrections to these papers, but instead was greeted with a mixed bag of responses. Rather than see all the papers either pulled or corrected with prudence, only two of the five that she identified were retracted, and it took as long as two years for this to happen — not exactly a rapid response in the interest of maintaining scientific integrity.

Published studies from all around the world fraught with scientific fraud, investigation reveals

Interestingly enough, the five papers that Byrne and her colleague identified were not even authored by the same people, suggesting that scientific fraud is much more prolific than just in a few oblique corners of the scientific world.

“We wanted to make a reasonable comprehensive description of a phenomenon that if correct, is important,” Byrne stated as to why she took so much time away from her normal duties to pursue this major issue in the scientific literature. “Many of those papers may be fine, but if there is any hint of a systematic issue in the literature that is not as described, that is really serious.”

After encountering more than their fair share of resistance in trying to correct these five particular papers, Byrne and Labbé came to realize that there are far more of them out there with similar problems. After probing both PubMed and Google Scholar, the duo stumbled upon at least another 30 papers utilizing the same flawed methodology as the original five. (RELATED: See Scientific.news for more coverage of problems in modern science.)

This is just one area of science, after all, where problems were observed — a relatively limited area of research focused on just one type of cancer gene known as TPD52L2. Chances are, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other papers looking at other areas of cancer research and disease in general that are wrought with similar flawed premises.

In their paper, Byrne and Labbé highlight how, based on evidence that some of the papers in question contained information that was gathered from outsourced companies, “science” in general could be riddled with so-called purchased data that is laden with errors and incorrect information that serves as the basis, in some cases, for clinical practice.

“People do cancer research to improve cancer sufferers’ lives. It’s not funny, the consequences (of fraudulent research) can be dire,” their paper explains. “This is the start of the pipeline that translates to better cures for patients. If the start of the pipeline is basically a sham, then what’s the point in the end?”

Sources for this article include:

RetractionWatch.com

NaturalNews.com

And in our profit-driven world, that is an issue that the dairy industry is clamoring to remedy.

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) petitioned the FDA to amend the “standard of identity” for milk and 17 other dairy products. [RELATED: Keep up with the latest FDA headlines at FDA.news]

Why? So they could use any kind of approved sweetener, including artificial sweeteners like aspartame, without having to indicate that the beverage contained a sugar substitute on the label.

Items that contain artificial sweeteners or other ingredients to reduce their calorie counts are required by the state to indicate that they are “reduced calorie” on the label. According to the IDFA and NMPF, this label is a turn off for many consumers. Perhaps this is because many people try to avoid consuming artificial sweeteners?

Regardless, their deceitful proposal would remove the tell-tale phrase from the products’ labels, but it would not impact the actual ingredient list. However, that means one would have to inspect the ingredient list on every milk bottle they purchase to ensure no undesirable ingredients are present. [RELATED: Learn more about what’s hiding in your food at Ingredients.news]

How many people would actually do this, and how many would actually be aware that they had to? The industry relies on consumer ignorance to sell products; a proposal such as this clearly demonstrates that. They are trying to fool people into buying milk sweetened with a chemical they would otherwise avoid.

How is this even being considered as a possibility? Americans have the right to know what is in their food, and industries like Big Dairy do not have the right to be deceitful. Many other products would still be subject to bearing the “reduced calorie” label — why should they get a pass? There is no reason for milk, or any other food stuff, to lie about what it contains — especially when it contains harmful chemicals like aspartame.

The ill effects of aspartame

Aspartame has been the subject of immense scrutiny for quite some time. In 1996, a study published by The Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology posited, “Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors.”

The research team, from Washington University Medical School, noted that at that time, evidence that potentially indicated aspartame as a cause of brain tumors included an animal study that revealed an “exceedingly high incidence of brain tumors” in rats that had been fed aspartame, compared to no brain tumors at all in the concurrent control group. The team states that aspartame was introduced into the US food and beverage market just a few short years prior to the drastic increase in brain tumor incidence and malignancy around the country.

In their conclusion, the researchers stated, “We conclude that there is need for reassessing the carcinogenic potential of aspartame.” That was just over two decades ago.

Research has continued to demonstrate that aspartame poses a threat to overall health and can be especially harmful to the brain. A more recent study, published in 2007 found that exposure to aspartame over the course of rodents’ lifespans greatly increased the incidence of lymphomas and leukemias in both male and female rats. Female rats exposed to aspartame also exhibited an increased incidence of mammary cancer. The team concluded, “The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of [aspartame’s] multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans.” The team also noted that when exposure began during fetal life, the carcinogenic effects were amplified.

Several researchers from that study went on to publish a report in 2014, entitled, “The carcinogenic effects of aspartame: The urgent need for regulatory re-evaluation.” In that report, the team discussed the increasing evidence of aspartame’s toxic and carcinogenic nature.

In the abstract, the researchers concluded, “On the basis of the evidence of the potential carcinogenic effects of [aspartame] herein reported, a re-evaluation of the current position of international regulatory agencies must be considered an urgent matter of public health.”

And this is what the dairy industry wants to put in milk, to trick children into drinking it?

Sources:

OrganicAndHealthy.org

NPR.org

FDA.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

The largest study of its kind ever conducted on aspartame was put together by researchers from the University of Iowa. They looked at 60,000 women who consumed aspartame-laden diet beverages over the course of 10 years and found that those who consume two or more diet drinks per day are significantly more prone than other women to develop cardiovascular disease — and to die from it.

The paper compared the health outcomes of women who consume diet beverages to those who don’t, observing that those who do are 30 percent more likely to suffer some kind of cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke. Among those who suffer such a fate, those who consume aspartame are 50 percent more likely to die from it compared to non-diet beverage drinkers. (Related: Learn about other toxic ingredients at Ingredients.news)

Dr. Ankur Vyas, lead investigator of the study, noted that this is one of the largest studies ever to look at aspartame, and that the findings are “consistent with some previous data, especially those linking diet drinks to metabolic syndrome.”

“On average, women who consumed two or more diet drinks a day were younger, more likely to be smokers, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and higher body mass index,” the paper explained.

Aspartame, artificial sweeteners make people fat

It is hardly surprising, then, that diet soda sales have continued to plummet year after year as research such as this continues to emerge. Folks are waking up to the dangers of aspartame and switching to healthier alternatives like local honey and stevia extract. Not only is aspartame dangerous in these many ways, but it doesn’t even do the one thing that most people falsely believe it does — help them to lose weight.

There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which include the fact that artificial sweeteners like aspartame do not activate the food rewards pathway in the brain that tells people that they’re full, and that it’s time to stop eating. Instead, diet soda consumers can chug can after can, and bottle after bottle, of their favorite chemical-laced soft drink and simply not stop.

Aspartame specifically has also been shown in studies to actually make people more hungry than if they simply consumed sugar. Since anything that tastes sweet enhances appetite, the hunger-promoting effects of aspartame end up leading people who consume it to also consume other foods — and lots of them!

There is also evidence to suggest that consuming aspartame increases fat storage in the body. Since phenylalanine and aspartate, the two chemical components of aspartame, interfere with insulin and leptin, both of which control how fat is handled by the body, their consumption actually causes people to pack on more pounds rather than shed them.

And then there’s the science suggesting that aspartame could increase the risk of brain tumors. A 1996 study published in the Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology identified a strong correlation between aspartame consumption and brain tumors in mice, leading the researchers of that study to conclude that “there is need for reassessing the carcinogenic potential of aspartame.”

Another web resource coming soon: Sweeteners.news, covering aspartame, stevia, Sucralose and more.

Sources:

EatLocalGrown.com

UIowa.edu

GlobalHealingCenter.com

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

When taken orally, massive quantities of vitamin C are either broken down or excreted unused by the body. In contrast, intravenous administration of vitamin C produces blood levels 100 to 500 times higher than oral administration.

This could explain why many clinical trials on vitamin C and cancer — most of which have used oral administration — failed to support the results seen in laboratory studies using cancer cells.

Surprisingly, the most recent study on the topic from researchers at the University of Iowa (UI), published in the journal Redox Biology, suggests that vitamin C’s cancer-fighting potential might come not from its antioxidant capabilities, as previously assumed. On the contrary, vitamin C appears to generate free radicals that tear apart cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed. (RELATED: Learn more about the benefits of nutritional supplements at SupplementsReport.com)

Targeting a weakness of cancer cells

In prior research, the same scientists found that high-dose vitamin C selectively killed cancer cells in the laboratory, and had the same effect in mice … if the vitamin C was administered intravenously. In the new study, researchers sought to discover the causes behind this effect.

They found that in the body, vitamin C quickly breaks down, generating the free radical hydrogen peroxide as a byproduct. This is a paradoxical effect, because free radicals are the very cell- and DNA-damaging chemicals that antioxidants such as vitamin C remove from the body.

But the researchers further found that healthy cells seemed to have defensive mechanisms that easily allowed them to resist the oxidizing effects of hydrogen peroxide (hydrogen peroxide is, in fact, used as a defense mechanism by the body’s own immune system). Tumor cells, however, were much more likely to be damaged and destroyed by the chemical.

“In this paper we demonstrate that cancer cells are much less efficient in removing hydrogen peroxide than normal cells. Thus, cancer cells are much more prone to damage and death from a high amount of hydrogen peroxide,” lead researcher Garry Buettner said.

“This explains how the very, very high levels of vitamin C used in our clinical trials do not affect normal tissue, but can be damaging to tumor tissue.”

Treatment on the horizon?

The researchers found that healthy cells use various mechanisms to remove hydrogen peroxide, and that one of the primary mechanisms is the enzyme catalase. They found that the lower cells’ catalase activity, the more damage they suffered from hydrogen peroxide exposure.

“Our results suggest that cancers with low levels of catalase are likely to be the most responsive to high-dose vitamin C therapy, whereas cancers with relatively high levels of catalase may be the least responsive,” Buettner said.

The researchers are planning future research to develop ways to measure tumors’ catalase levels and test this hypothesis further.

UI researchers also conducted clinical trials using intravenous, high-dose vitamin C in patients with pancreatic and lung cancer. Earlier, smaller trials suggested that this treatment had limited side effects and might improve patient outcomes. The larger study hopes to establish whether vitamin C, in conjunction with other cancer treatments, actually boosts patient survival. (RELATED: Discover more medical breakthroughs news at Medicine.news)

Research continues to uncover new and surprising mechanisms by which vitamin C attacks cancer cells. A 2007 study by researchers from Johns Hopkins University found that many tumor cells rely on a protein known as HIF-1 for their survival, which allows them to continue growing in the absence of oxygen — which cancer cells tend to use up through their out-of-control reproduction. But HIF-1 only functions in high concentrations of free radicals, which vitamin C removes.

A 2015 study published in the journal Science found that in colorectal cancer cells with particular cell growth-related mutations, vitamin C induces oxidative stress and shuts down an enzyme that the cells use for reproduction. This finding was particularly promising, since cancer cells with this mutation are almost entirely immune to chemotherapy.

Editor’s note: We strongly recommend sourcing non-GMO vitamin C where possible. Most vitamin C is currently made from GMO corn. Very few providers currently offer non-GMO vitamin C.

Sources:

MedicalXpress.com

MedicalDaily.com

ScienceDaily.com

One particular ingredient, aluminum salts, found in many deodorants has been put to the test by Swedish researchers. As reported by Thelocalch.com, the University of Geneva researchers used rats to determine what the long term exposure of aluminum salts would do. They were actually replicating a study that had already been done with the isolated mammary cells of women. Both studies demonstrated the same result. They discovered that “long-term exposure to concentrations of aluminium caused cells to form tumours and metastasise.”

Oncology professor André-Pascal Sappino, the co-author of the study, compared the use of aluminum salts to asbestos, which is banned in the European Union and Switzerland, but not in the United States. He’s hoping that Switzerland will soon ban aluminum salts as well.  Even though this study didn’t establish a “formal link” with breast cancer, the team’s work has added to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the dangers associated with aluminum salts, including cancer. He’s advising women – and men – to avoid deodorants that contain this chemical.

Aluminum salts are also known by a few other names. As reported by Pubchem.ncbi.gov, aluminum salts can be labeled as “Aluminum chloride, Aluminum trichloride, Aluminum chloride (AlCl3), Aluminium trichloride and Trichloroaluminum; AlCl3.” Take a look at what you are spraying or rubbing under your arms. If it contains aluminum salts, or other ingredients that you can’t pronounce, toss it. You can use a chemical free alternative available through the HealthRangerstore.com.

According to Breastcancer.org, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer for women, besides skin cancer. During a women’s lifetime, there is a 12% chance of invasive breast cancer. That’s 1 in every 8 women in America.  Men are also subject to breast cancer, though at lower rates. The lifetime risk for men is 1 out of 1000. Why not lower your risk by eliminating aluminum salts from your deodorant?

Sources:

Cancer.org

TheLocal.ch

Asbestos.com

Pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Science.NaturalNews.com

BreastCancer.org

For several years, Fata lied to patients about their cancer diagnoses, claiming that they needed chemotherapy when they didn’t; he forced others to receive “maintenance” chemo while convincing those who were terminally to remain under his care despite the hopelessness of their case. He would push for unneeded treatments and even overdose some of them so he could charge more money than what he could have otherwise.

For several years, Fata continued with his fraudulent practice. While others grew wary of him, most — especially those who were in power — turned a blind eye to it. The biggest reason why Fata was able to get away with his crimes for so long is simple: He was just too profitable to put behind bars.

A Federal investigation showed that, by the time he was apprehended, Fata had purchased over $45 million worth of drugs annually for a staff of three doctors. Normally, a full-time oncologist would have spent only around $1.5 to $1.9 million, according to an oncology report. Given these figures, too much wealth was at risk for those involved in Fata’s practice.

Now, despite his 175-year prison sentence and the possible financial remuneration that his victims and their families would receive, it’s just too late for the several hundreds — or even thousands — whose lives have been needlessly destroyed by Fata’s greed.

Source:

MedicalDaily.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Neuro-oncologists are treating patients with aggressive brain tumors in England with a combination of temozolomide (a pharmaceutical drug) along with Sativex, a cannabis oral spray developed by GW Pharmaceuticals.

St James’s University Hospital is a major centre for high-tech patient care, teaching and research, and its network of buildings are a landmark visible for miles across the city. The hospital has a pivotal, £220 million wing, named the Bexley Wing, which is home to the St James’s Institue of Oncology. This contains 10 floors dedicated to some of the best treatment for cancer patients available anywhere in the world.

Guzman and his colleagues have been observing the effects of cannabis compounds for over 15 years and found that tumors in one third of the rodents they studied were eradicated, and tumors were reduced in another third of the rodents.

Guzman’s research indicates that a combination of THC, CBD and termozolomide appears to work well in treating tumors in rats. These compounds seem to attack the cancer cells by preventing them from spreading, but also through apoptosis.

While much research needs to be done, in fact, scientists haven’t even scratched the surface of research into the medicinal properties of cannabis, Guzman remains cautiously optimistic and in his own words “At least the mind-set is opening around the world, and funding agencies now know that cannabis, as a drug, is scientifically serious, therapeutically promising and clinically relevant.”

This gives hope to thousands of cancer sufferers who, up to now, have relied on anecdotal evidence to give them hope. Anecdotal evidence, while fascinating, can be unreliable and sometimes downright fraudulent.

There are cases where cannabis has done nothing more than help counter the effects and damage done by chemotherapy and nausea, and some patients’ cancers are resistant to cannabis treatment.

Sources:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21220494

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2015/06/marijuana-science-drug-research-legality/

But did you know that there is a pretty simple preventative measure you can take that comes along with a whole bunch of other amazing benefits?

Exercise! Now when you’re on the treadmill thinking about all the calories you’re burning and using it as motivation, you can also think about all the cancers you are avoiding!

There have been several studies done which support the fact that not only does a good, hard work out help prevent cancer, but it helps to treat it if you do have it.

According to an article titled “Exercise Shown to Shrink Tumors and Reduce Cancer Spread” published by Natural Health 365, “For now, research shows us that exercise supplies that surge of adrenaline that enables more effective movement of cancer-killing immune cells toward cancerous tumors. Researchers at the University of Copenhagen determined that a surge of adrenaline, induced by high-intensity exercise, gave a boost to cancer-killing immune cells, pushing them toward lung, skin and liver tumors.”

This doesn’t mean a short little walk that doesn’t raise your heart rate. This means a good, long, hard work out that leaves you tired and a little out of breath. It is also recommended to take it a step further, and utilize opportunities to be active. Take the stairs, park farther away, and keep that heart pumping throughout the day.

So, whether you’re working out to lose weight, for therapeutic purposes, or just to be physically fit, now you can rest easily knowing that you’re doing everything you can to prevent a wide array of other potentially deadly diseases as well!

Source:

Shrink cancer tumors with the right form of exercise. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.naturalhealth365.com/cancer-tumors-aerobic-exercise-1815.html

Home to cancer fraudster Dr. Farid Fata, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison for an extensive list of unspeakable crimes, Michigan currently has three major hospitals under investigation for cases of medical malpractice resulting in death or other significant injuries.

These include Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, McLaren Flint hospital, and Crittenton Hospital Medical Center.

In 2010, Detroit-based Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute partnered with Crittenton Hospital, based in Rochester Hills, to build a $16 million facility called the Karmanos-Crittenton Cancer Center, where Fata rented office space to carry out what would later be deemed the biggest case of healthcare fraud ever to be observed in U.S. history.

Three major Detroit-area hospitals under investigation for malpractice

Fata, who presided over Michigan’s largest private cancer practice – the Karmanos-Crittenton Cancer Center – was convicted of administering aggressive chemotherapy and radiation treatments on cancer-free individuals in order to fraudulently bill Medicare, under treating patients that actually had cancer, and defrauding the government out of $23 million.

It remains unclear exactly how many patients fell victim to Fata’s scam, but TruthWiki reports that federal investigators uncovered records showing more than 550 patients unnecessarily received 9,000 chemotherapy infusions and injections.

“If we genuinely care about the health and safety of cancer patients, we must reasonably ask how many patients have died under the care of Drs. Farid Fata or David Gorski? How many of those patients were African-American?” asked Mike Adams, author of Food Forensics, science lab director of CWClabs.com and creator of Medicine.news.

“Is there a disparity in patient outcomes between blacks and whites? We already know that Dr. Farid Fata committed systematic medical murder involving Karmanos in Detroit. That is now established fact. What we don’t know is how many other people have died from dangerous medical interventions carried out by other colleagues such as Dr. David Gorski.”

Intent on disclosing just how many people Fata hurt, Natural News contacted St. John Hospital Cancer Center, which signed a five-year deal to manage Crittenton Hospital Medical Center and to lease the former Karmanos-Crittenton Cancer Center, where Fata rented space to carry out his elaborate scheme.

A hotheaded cancer nurse

I identified myself as reporter from Austin, Texas searching for information on how many people may have received negligent care under Dr. Farid Fata, the woman answering the phone quickly transferred me to her manager.

When the cancer center’s manager picked up, I repeated my question: “Hi, I’m looking for information on how many people may have received negligent care under Dr. Farid Fata, can you assist me with this?”

The female manager quickly grew irritated, annoyed, and borderline belligerent, repeating over and over “I have nothing to do with that” before slamming down the phone. Shocked, I took a moment to gather myself before calling back again.

After being transferred to the same manager, I asked her to identify herself and her title; she refused, angrily shouting out a phone number belonging to Crittenton’s Marketing Manager Shelly Ottenbacher, before slamming the phone down a second time.

Puzzled as to who this manager was and why she was acting so combative in response to a simple question relating to a widely publicized (meaning they’re probably used to these sorts of calls) Crittenton doctor convicted of murdering and maiming countless individuals.

After a little digging, I learned that the rude woman on the other end of the line was likely Nicole Phillips, the center’s Oncology Nurse Navigator, a position responsible for providing personal guidance and education to cancer patients.

Needless to say, this is not the woman I’d want offering me reassurance. Phillips’ demeanor is highly representative of the healthcare provided by Crittenton: nasty, flawed, and extremely unprofessional.

Is St. John Hospital still covering for Fata?

When I finally reached Ottenbacher, she was a bit more helpful, but not much. She shrugged off my complaints about Phillips’ rude behavior, defending it saying she was just “following protocol” and is not allowed to respond to media inquiries.

But…since when does “following protocol” condone pugnacious behavior?

When I asked how many people were hurt by Fata, Ottenbacher told me they have no records on that because he was a “private physician,” leading me to question, if the hospital he was working under didn’t provide oversight, then who did?

The answer to that may very likely be “no one,” which is why Fata was able to commit the crimes he did for as long as he did.

“It is no coincidence, I believe, that Karmanos isn’t releasing any aggregate numbers of patient deaths. To do so would all but admit guilt, and it might ensnare other doctors who continue to bring in revenues that are desperately needed by the Karmanos group,” said Adams.

Fata’s scheme was so elaborate, it’s suspected others may have been involved.

“Eight others physicians have been named as part of the investigation as those who knew Fata was bilking the system,” Click on Detroit reported in September 2014.

“One of the counts he [Fata] plead to was conspiracy, and one person cannot be convicted of conspiracy. There has to be co-conspirators,” said attorney Donna MacKenzie. “Who are those co-conspirators?”

MacKenzie reportedly “has a growing list of cases” regarding medical malpractice filed in Oakland County Circuit Court involving Crittenton, Karmanos, and McLauren hospital. We reached out to MacKenzie for an update on those cases, but she did not return our request for comment at the time of this writing.

It appears that in some fashion, Fata’s crimes are still being covered up, namely by Crittenton hospital, which continues to shift the blame rather than acknowledge its involvement.

So who exactly were Fata’s accomplices?

Is it possible pro-vaccine troll David Gorski was somehow involved in Fata’s scam or at least privy to it? Gorski’s professional career is embedded in the same circle as Fata’s. He works as a surgical oncologist at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, and though he has no reports of disciplinary action, neither did Fata, that is until just a few years before his scheme was exposed.

What Gorski does have are several very dissatisfied patients, who describe him as a “garbage doctor” more interested in blogging than treating patients.

Sources:

http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-farid-fata/

http://www.truthwiki.org/orac-david-h-gorski/

http://www.naturalnews.com/053719_David_Gorski_Wikipedia_VAXXED_documentary.html

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/antifraud/story/how-broken-leg-set-fraud-investigation-against-farid-fata/2016-01-18

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/antifraud/story/how-broken-leg-set-fraud-investigation-against-farid-fata/2016-01-18

http://www.crittenton.com/medical-services/womens-services/breast-care/

http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_David_Gorski/reviews

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20151012/NEWS/151019972/dmc-mclaren-settle-lawsuit-over-karmanos-acquisition

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140406/NEWS/304069970/crittenton-turns-over-cancer-center

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/crittenton-hospital-medical-center-joins-ascension-michigan-300152552.html

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/us-v-farid-fata-court-docket-13-cr-20600

https://w2.lara.state.mi.us/VAL/License/Details/130194

Genetically modified (GM) corn is rat poison. That is at least what the results of a controversial study linking GM feed with cancerous tumor growths in rats would seem to suggest.

During a two-year study, originally published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues discovered that rats fed Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” corn developed significantly more tumors than rats not fed GM corn. In addition, rats fed a GMO diet developed aggressive tumors and died sooner than rats in the control group, reports Natural News.

Even more alarming, the study found these adverse health reactions were observed in rats exposed to Roundup Ready herbicide at levels many regulators regard as safe.

Welcome to Tumorsville

Roundup Ready crops are engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The active ingredient in the herbicide is glyphosate, which the World Health Organization (WHO) recently deemed probably carcinogenic to humans. In the scientific literature, Roundup Ready corn is referred to as NK603.

The study has been heralded as “the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats.” Images of the tumor infested rats took social media by storm.

Among other findings, the research found that 50 to 80 percent of female rats developed three large tumors at the start of the 24th month. Approximately 70 percent died, in comparison to 20 percent in the control group.

Furthermore, the tumors of rats of both sexes fed GM corn were two to three times bigger than rats not fed GM corn. The massive tumors developed in females after seven months. Comparable tumors didn’t develop in the control group until 14 months. The researchers report that the tumors were “deleterious to health due to a very large size.”

Monsanto attempts to dismiss study

In response to the study, Monsanto said the results were not significant, because the development of tumors in the GM fed rats were “within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors.” In short, the biotech giant attributed the tumors to the rats’ genetics. What is ironic is that Monsanto conducted a similar study of a much shorter duration, 90 days, which enabled their NK 603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize to be approved by the EFSA, explained Mike Adams, author of the new book Food Forensics: The Hidden Toxins Lurking in Your Food and How You Can Avoid Them for Lifelong Health.

The problem is the rate of tumor growth was significantly different between the GMO-fed rats and the control group. Although tumors did develop in both groups, tumors among the GMO-fed rats were more prevalent and aggressive than the control group.

“This is a basic principle of science and it is worrying that attempts are being made by pro-GM lobbyists to override it in the interests of keeping the products of powerful multinational biotechnology companies on the market,” reads a public briefing made by the food sustainability nonprofit Earth Open Source.

The briefing also noted that using “historical data” to disregard statistically relevant data is junk science and rejected by serious scientists. Real scientific studies almost always have a control group and an experimental group to observe differences between the two populations, and to make sure those differences are due to the tested variable at hand.

“The use of historical control data is an unscientific strategy used by industry and some regulators to dismiss statistically significant findings of toxicity in … studies intended to evaluate safety of pesticides, chemicals, and GMOs,” the briefing states.

Seralini’s long-term study linking glyphosate to rat tumors was unfortunately retracted from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology due to pressure from Monsanto lobbyists. The results of the study have since been republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.

Sources include:

NaturalNews.com

DailyMail.co.uk

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

IJBS.com

EarthOpenSource.org

OccupyForAnimals.net

Science.NaturalNews.com

EnvEurope.SpringerOpen.com