I accuse the GE Seralini on GMOs

[dedeleco]

Gilles Eric Seralini launches an accuser, against the GMOs and their lobbies like E Zola there is 118 years !!
With a media war, even on wikipedia, attacked by powerful lobbies !!

And given the financial level of this war, it will be violent, as there is 118 years!

And look at these lobbies in action, on google, handsomely paid, to put the 4 links first with their responses denigrating Seralini, but then we find less rich links, such as the highlighting of lies to make accept the eggplant Bt:
http://www.criigen.org/SiteFr/index.php ... Itemid=113

http://www.criigen.org/SiteFr//index.ph ... &Itemid=76

It is certain that Séralini did not have enough credits, to take a nice collections of groups of 50 rats instead of 10, not on at least 2 years, but on 6 years, to have 3 generations of normal rats, and detect hidden epigenetic effects, on solid sewer rats et not only on rats, sick, special, made to live properly on less than 3 months, without too many cancers, because beyond, any study on these rats becomes impossible, with too many cancers, especially as they are given too much food too rich, without enough exercise, as the lobbys admit in their reviews, which require to have 50, even 1000 rats for a good statistics on 2 years !!
Ideal for lobbies, these sick rats, to limit studies on 3 months and never look for effects after, avoiding any study on 3 generations of real live normal rats like wild rats.

see VIB Belgian site, connected to the lobbies also:

For their study, Séralini et al. used 'Sprague-Dawley rats'. This is a laboratory that is known for its propensity to the spontaneous development of tumors ( www.harlaneurope.com under 'lifespan and disease'). The number of tumors that the rats develop spontaneously depends on the amount of food they are given3. The number of spontaneous tumors is higher when these rats are allowed to consume calories without any restriction4. Various figures for spontaneous tumors are reported. There are publications that mention 42 to 72% among female animals5-6. These figures are a bit lower, but there is a study that mentions over 86%

The rats can also develop tumors at a very early stage. Schardein et al. (1968) 8 reported that 6 out of 3,000 rats spontaneously develop tumors within three months, 10 out of 700 within 6 months, 20 out of 400 within 9 months, etc., increasing within 18 months

But let the lobbies reassure themselves, there is hope that humans in a few generations, to eat all kinds of junk, GMO, herbicides, pesticides, chemical, radioactive, etc. without limits, will be as fragile and suffering as these rats for life shortened !!

[Obamot]

Surely !

[Janic]

But that the lobbies are reassured, there is hope that humans in a few generations, to eat all kinds of junk, GMO, herbicides, pesticides, chemical, radioactive, etc. without limits, will be as fragile and sick as these rats for life shortened !!

This is currently the case since the end of the last war! This is also why these tests on rats with a "human" way of life react in this way. There are still 300.000 cancers detected per year, half of which (146.000) will die after developing these tumors and their metastases, despite radiotherapy, chemotherapy, operations and chemical drugs. Which still makes one death in 3/4. (146.000 for 555.000) Clearly in a family of 4 people, one will necessarily die of this "disease" and 2 will be affected. "they would not all die but all were affected"animals sick with plague!

[Christophe]

Can we read the letter somewhere?

[dedeleco]

Tap on vib.be
or GE Séralini
or IGM

to have an avalanche of answers to this study of Séralini

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/201 ... t%20al.pdf

since vib puts this at the top of their site:
http://www.vib.be/en/news/Pages/VIB-con ... ated-.aspx

It is certain that if they start a rigorous study with lots of 1000 sewer rats, not sick on 3 generations with fetuses, at VIB, they lose all research credits and close labs!

Do not forget that distilbene, a drug known as 50 years ago, with hidden danger, which has been prescribed for almost 30 years, with these rats on 3 months, reveals nothing, since it acts on the fetuses, at a very precise but short time, this for many generations to come.

None of the products sold by the industry have been soldvalid studies, and credible, 1000 normal rats not weakened, with fetus, on 3 generations.


They admit that food with but usual commercial used by Séralini, can easily be contaminated with toxins, without being detected commercially, fungi, molds, roundup herbicide residue, with even the risk of synergy from other herbicides, acceptable to us, humans and animals, but intolerable for this study of Séralini:

There is no data about the quality of the maize that was used. When grown in damp conditions, it is possible to reduce the risk of myopathy, which is known to be toxic, toxic to the kidneys, and the effects of estrogen..
There is no indication whatsoever of the genetically modified maize was sprayed with Roundup contained traces of the degradation products of Roundup, and so, how much there was, and how this compared to the amount of Roundup that was fed to all animals. Moreover, Roundup consists of various components: the active ingredient, glyphosate, and a few other substances (among others a substance that promotes distribution of the spray over the leaves). These various components and their degradation products have been treated to a greater extent than in 'pure' Roundup. Some break down very quickly. In other words, Roundup in the 'Roundup' treatment could be completely different to Roundup in the 'GMO maize + Roundup'.

It is not clear whether NK603 has been treated with other herbicides and, if so, which

and they conclude by showing that these rats, used everywhere, are developed so that quick studies on 3 months and not longer, which, therefore, will never reveal the hidden dangers in the long term, seen their very great fragility beyond 3 months:

Sprague-Dawley rats, many other laboratory rats, and many other diseases, which are a consequence of this, many of the animals do not reach two years of age. But we have known this since the 1960s.

[dedeleco]

An answer defending Séralini, in showing the nature of hidden manipulation in critics with the 50 rats (sophism according to Obamot):


http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contributio ... bonne.html

MOST. The shock study on the harmfulness of GMOs, on the initiative of Professor Séralini and his team, is provoking heated reactions: critics are indeed many to question the methodological validity of this research. Paul Deheuvels, a member of the renowned Academy of Sciences and Statistician, explains why Séralini's study is reliable.
The purpose of this platform is to give my strongest support to GE Séralini, professor at the University of Caen. I became aware of the fact that Professor Séralini had carried out comparative studies which, recently, had a considerable impact.
To the best of my knowledge, these surveys have been designed and analyzed in accordance with the best professional standards in force, and should be appreciated as such.
The duration of the experiment: a guarantee of reliability
One of the most interesting and innovative points of these studies is that they have been conducted over unusually long periods. It is a well-known fact, known to experimenters, that similar assays performed in shorter periods of time are not able to detect long-term toxic effects.
The specific case of tumor development falls into this category, so it is not surprising that the existing studies, which have been developed for shorter durations than GE Séralini's work, have not revealed, so far , significant differences between the effects of treatments.
I therefore consider that Professor Séralini has provided very solid evidence to establish the existence of certain unexpected toxic effects on products previously considered safe.
Of course, there will always be people to challenge these results, just because they are likely to have significant industrial consequences.
Their point of view can only be supported in the light of new experience, since there is no doubt about the seriousness and reliability of Professor Séralini's current conclusions.
Unfounded statistical reproaches: concrete explanations
For example, GE Seralini is criticized for having carried out his study with blocks of 10 animal guinea pigs, while the most common use is to use 50.
This criticism is unfounded. Indeed, in a statistical study, one can seek either to demonstrate the safety of a product, or to highlight its harmfulness.
Take the example of a product that is suspected to be a poison. If it is administered to 5 patients and if there are 5 dead, there is no need to go further to decide that it is toxic. If, on the other hand, 5 patients survive, this does not mean that the product is harmless, because 5 patients
are not necessarily representative of the entire population.
It is for this reason that studies commissioned by companies wishing to admit the safety of their products require that the samples used be of minimal importance.
In this case, it is natural to impose a minimum of 50 guinea pigs (here, rats) for comparative analyzes. It's totally different if you're looking for toxic effects. In this case, the fact of detecting significant differences in small groups (10 in the case of the GESeralini study) reinforces the conclusion, instead of weakening it.
Two types of errors in statistical studies
I conclude by insisting on the following principle. In a statistical study, if we detect toxic effects, there is always a risk of being wrong, but the error, if there is one, can easily be dispelled by subsequent analyzes. On the other hand, if studies do not detect effects, one generally commits a fault by deducing that these effects do not exist. Because there is two types of errors:
1. Detect toxicity when it does not exist;
2. Admit safety while toxicity exists.
Most of the time, we control the risk (1) (the standard is to fix the decision rules so that its probability is fixed at 5%). On the other hand, the risk (2) depends on the size of the study, and is often very important (40% or even 60% or more).
It is to limit the risk (2) that one seeks to impose studies involving many individual experiments (or guinea pigs). On the other hand, when the toxicity is detected, there is only 5% probability of error, whatever the number of guinea pigs used.

[Obamot]

Yes, quite: sophistry (cf willingness to harm established)

And even in some cases of white collar crime!

Because

This is also why these tests on rats with a "human" way of life react thus.

In principle purebred females! Knowingly weakened for "laboratory studies" (if we can still call it that ... On the other hand, we do not see how we could do otherwise, given the complicit laxity of the health authorities of certain policies, without which none of this would be possible ... aaaah human greed!)

But the chemical industry has long since worse: tests on human guinea pigs, some of whom do not even know that they absorb hazardous or even deadly substances (seen on Arte last night: "Bitter Pill - The Bottom of Pharmaceutical Research")
http://www.arte.tv/fr/pharmatests-a-l-e ... 29610.html

So proven sophism, since there is a will to hide, to deceive, so to harm in many ways. When will a prosecutor take care of this case? A Carla del Ponte from the agro-pharma ...

[dedeleco]

Can we read the letter somewhere?

GE Séralini's article to read carefully:

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.or ... -Paper.pdf
put on econology:
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... ZFbeBw.pdf

Abstract:

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified 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. This difference was visible
in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles
were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors
before controls, the pituitary was the second most the sex hormonal balance was modified
by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5
times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. marked
and severe kidney nephropathies were also 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large
palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very
significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments, 76% of the altered parameters
were kidney related. These results can be explained by the linear endocrine-disrupting effects of
Roundup, but by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

[dedeleco]

3. results
3.1. Mortality
Control male animals survived on average 624 ± 21 days, while
females lived for 701 ± 20, during the experiment, plus in each case
5 weeks of age and the beginning of 3 weeks of stabilization period.
After mean survival time had elapsed, any deaths that occurred
were considered to be largely due to aging. Before this period,
30% male control (three in total) and 20% females (only two) died
spontaneously, while up to 50% males and 70% females died in
some groups on diets containing the GM maize (Fig. 1) HOWEVER,
the dose rate is not proportional to the dose
reaching the threshold (11%) or intermediate (22%)
amounts of GM in the equilibrated diet, with or without
the R application on the plant. It is noteworthy that the first two
male rats that died in the past GM treated groups had to be euthanized
Due to kidney Wilm's tumors that were over 25% of body weight.
This was a year before the first animal control
died. The first female death occurred in the 22% GM maize feeding
group and resulted from a mammary fibroadenoma 246 days before
the first control. The maximum difference in males was 5
times more deaths during the 17th month in the group
11% GM maize, and in females 6 times greater mortality
during the 21th month on the 22
without R. In the female cohorts, there were 2-3 times more
deaths in all treated groups
the experiment and earlier in general. Females were more sensitive
to the presence of R in drinking water than males, as evidenced by
a shorter lifespan. The general causes of death in histogram
format (Fig. 1) are linked to large mammary tumors
in females, and other organic problems in males.

Up to 14 months, no animals in the control groups
signs of tumors while 10-30% of treated females per group developed
tumors, with the exception of one group (33% GMO + R). By
the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80% of female animals had
tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per
animal, only 30% of controls were affected. The R treatment
groups showed the greatest rates of tumor incidence with
80% of animals affected with 3 tumors for one female, in each
group. A summary of all mammary tumors at the end of the experiment,
independent of the size, is presented in 2 Table. The same
R in their drinking
water; all except one (with metastatic ovarian carcinoma)
presented, in addition to mammary hypertrophies and in some cases
hyperplasia with atypia (2 table).

The lifespan of the group of animals corresponds to
mean rat lifespan, but is frequently the case with most mammals
including humans (WHO, 2012), male on average died before
females, except for some female treatment groups. All treatments
in both sexes enhanced tumor tumor incidence by 2-3
in comparison to the Harlan Harang Sprague Dawley strain
(Brix et al., 2005), and overall around 3-fold in comparison to the
largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats (Chandra
et al., 1992). In our study the tumors
faster than the controls, even though the majority of tumors were
observed after 18 months. The first large detectable tumors occurred
at 4 and 7 in the study in males and females
respectively, underlining the inadequacy of the standard 90 day
feeding trials for testing GM crop and foody (Seralini
et al., 2011).

In conclusion, it was already known that glyphosate consumption
in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic
and kidney failures (EPA). The results of the study presented here
clearly demonstrates that lower levels of complete agricultural glyphosate
Herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially
set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent
mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption
of biosynthetic pathways that can result from overexpression of
the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to comparable
pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced
phenolic acid metabolites, or related compounds. Other mutagenic
and metabolic effects of the GMO can not be excluded.
This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene
glyphosate presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenerational
studies will also provide new insights into these problems.
This study represents the first detailed documentation of long term
deleterious effects arising from the consumption of GM Rtolerant
maize and of R, the most used herbicide worldwide.
Altogether, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological
effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different
amplitudes. We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and formulated pesticides must be evaluated very carefully by long term
studies to measure their potential toxic effects

[dedeleco]

19 studies done before that also show these dangers:

http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/0 ... standards/