Monsanto caught ghost writing pieces published in Forbes

[MindWars]

Newly released emails show how Monsanto infiltrated a scientific journal and persuaded them to retract a published study which revealed tumors on rats who were fed GMOs and Roundup.
Report: Monsanto Caught Ghost-Writing Pieces Published In Forbes
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheep won't ever believe how huge companies that rake in big bucks will do anything to cover up what can kill us all .
They do it with food, they do it with our water supply , they do it to the air we breathe.

But sheep will only take their Medical Gods word for it all and still won't have a clue how their very own fkd up medical Gods get big kick backs for pushing the very drugs they prescribe. LMFAO

 

[bgrouse]

So what did the study actually show? So what if rats who ate roundup got tumors? Correlation is not causation. I will reserve judgment until I see the study.

 

[MindWars]

So what did the study actually show? So what if rats who ate roundup got tumors? Correlation is not causation. I will reserve judgment until I see the study.

did you go to the article? Try it sometime, and click provided links.

 

[MindWars]

So what did the study actually show? So what if rats who ate roundup got tumors? Correlation is not causation. I will reserve judgment until I see the study.

I'm sure when you are laying in a hospital bed dying of cancer because your science GODS told you all the bs in your food is ever so safe, you will say the same thing. Only it will be denial because your doctor will tell you it's Genetic LOL..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Newly released emails show how Monsanto infiltrated a scientific journal and persuaded them to retract a published study which revealed tumors on rats who were fed GMOs and Roundup.
Report: Monsanto Caught Ghost-Writing Pieces Published In Forbes
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheep won't ever believe how huge companies that rake in big bucks will do anything to cover up what can kill us all .
They do it with food, they do it with our water supply , they do it to the air we breathe.

But sheep will only take their Medical Gods word for it all and still won't have a clue how their very own fkd up medical Gods get big kick backs for pushing the very drugs they prescribe. LMFAO

In November 2013, Elsevier announced that FCT was retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[7][82] The journal's editors concluded that while there was "no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data", the results were inconclusive and "[did] not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology". After an in-depth look at the study's raw data, no definitive conclusions could be reached regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in overall mortality or tumor rates, given the high incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats and the small sample size. Normal variance could not be excluded as the cause of the results.[7] Following many enquiries about the retraction, FCT's editor-in-chief said that:

“ The retraction statement could have been clearer, and should have referred to the relevant COPE guidelines. The data are inconclusive, therefore the claim (i.e., conclusion) that Roundup Ready maize NK603 and/or the Roundup herbicide have a link to cancer is unreliable. Dr. Séralini deserves the benefit of the doubt that this unreliable conclusion was reached in honest error. The review of the data made it clear that there was no misconduct. However, to be very clear, it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is a definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted. Dr. Séralini has been very vocal that he believes his conclusions are correct. In our analysis, his conclusions cannot be claimed from the data presented in this article. ”

— A. Wallace Hayes, Editor in Chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology answers questions on retraction[1]

Séralini and his supporters strongly objected to the retraction,[82][83][84] and Séralini himself threatened to sue FCT.[85] David Resnik examined the case and wrote in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics that articles should not be retracted for inconclusiveness, but that retraction due to flaws in study design or due to ethical violations may be appropriate, and that republication of retracted papers should occur only after additional peer review.[86]

Séralini affair - Wikipedia

 

[ABikerSailor]

They are saying that the recent decline in the bee population is because of GMO's and pesticides.

Remember people, if the bees go, we are soon to follow. Pollination is essential for crops and fruits to produce. Without the bees, there goes the fruits and veggies.

 

[bgrouse]

So what did the study actually show? So what if rats who ate roundup got tumors? Correlation is not causation. I will reserve judgment until I see the study.

did you go to the article? Try it sometime, and click provided links.

The study was criticized by various regulatory authorities and scientists. With few exceptions, the scientific community dismissed the study and called for a more rigorous peer-review system in scientific journals.[35]

Many said that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high risk of cancer over their lifespan (one study concluded that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females developed cancer under normal conditions).[36][37][38] The Séralini experiment covered the normal lifespan of these rats. The longer an experiment continues, the more rats get cancer naturally, that makes it harder to separate statistical "noise" from the hypothetical signal. For the study to achieve such separation (statistical power), each control and test group would have to include sufficiently many subjects.[3] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines recommend 20 rats for chemical-toxicity studies, and 50 rats for carcinogenicity studies.[39]:5–6 In addition, if the survival of the rats is less than 50% at 104 weeks (which is likely for Sprague-Dawley rats) the recommended number of rats is 65.[3][37][38] The Séralini study had only ten per group.[3]

Séralini affair - Wikipedia