Dr Rima on the Horrifying GMO Rat Feeding Study
Corrupt and tainted “scientists” attacked on every front they could think of while Russia, France and other countries banned imports and cultivation of the dangerous corn used in the test, Monsanto’s NK 603.
While South Africa’s and the EU’s watchdog groups call for a total ban on GMOs (which the Natural Solutions Foundation strongly supports), NPR’s Science Reporter, Dan Castle and others condemned the study because, well, they just need to.
In fact, Castle identified the unlabeled use of GMOs in the US food supply as an experiment.
Tell your reps here that you are not an experiment: http://tinyurl.com/GMOtruthlabel.
I just had to respond.
Here is what I wrote.
I am afraid that I must take serious exception with your article. I agree that skepticism is important in evaluating science (consider the pseudoscience of vaccine research, for example, or pre-loaded and seriously distorted pharmaceutical research, which is the norm, it is also important to examine the premises of both research and criticism of research. You report Dan Charles of NPR saying “There’s no apparent reason why that should be true; No one has found new toxic substances in these crops. And the giant feeding experiment that’s been going on for the past fifteen years —millions of Americans consuming GMO ingredients — hasn’t produced evidence of harm, either…”
There is, in fact, every apparent reason to expect that the Serilini study findings should be true. Inserting genes is not a precise, neat process. It is messy and the inserted genes, plus the phages and marker genes used along with the trait genes, cause massive disarray in the genome of the target cell. That disarray disrupts the relationship of the genetic architecture so that genes, whose expression is determined not only by their base sequence, but by their relationship to other parts of the codon, are altered both directly and indirectly. Novel proteins, some of which have never existed before in biological history, as far as we know, are produced in a chimeric fashion since cells are impacted in a chimeric fashion.
Bacteria in the gut are altered through plasmid alteration and, given that 80% of the immune function of an individual is understood to rest in the GI tract, including the important function, and communication of the gut biota, these changes are, indeed, a huge experiment, as Mr. Charles calls it.
There are, of course, ethical problems with experimenting upon people, in this case, a world full of them, without their informed consent. Nuremberg made that a world principle. Of course, the US, although a convener of the Nuremberg Trials, refused to sign the resulting Nuremberg Convention.
I agree with Mr. Charles on the concept that GMO feeding studies have been conducted on the world population. They are uncontrolled and their results can only be inferred since it is forbidden by the FDA to label GMO products or ingredients. When confronted on this repressive and dangerous policy at a special Ad Hoc Working Group on GMO Labeling (Oslo, 2008), Dr. Barbara Schneemann, US delegate to that meeting, articulated that since US consumers would overwhelmingly reject GMO foods if they knew that they WERE GMOs, and since the FDA has administratively [and pseudo-scientifically – Dr. Rima] declared GMOs to be “substantially equivalent” to non GMOs, to prevent consumers from ‘making the mistake of rejecting GMOs’ [sic!], the FDA has made the labeling of GMOs illegal in the United States.
Mr. Charles’ naïve assumption that unless a toxic chemical has been identified, no harm can come from this technology is breathtaking. We are looking at genetic, genomic and epistatic impact, not at simple toxicology of chemicals.
Despite the fact that case law [Western ] and the US Constitution prohibits any such restriction, the lack of labeling makes precise evaluation of the results of this secret experiment impossible. What we do know is that serious allergies have skyrocketed since the unannounced start of this experiment. So have asthma, attention deficit disorder and other neurological conditions, especially in children, early macular degeneration (which I have seen in 17 year olds, despite the fact that it was previously defined as not occurring by definition in anyone younger than 65 years of age), cancers in younger and younger people, liver disease and failure (which is no epidemic in adolescents according to the CDC), infertility, sterility and auto immune disease to list only a few of the [I hope] unintended consequences of GMO infiltration of our food supply.
No harm to human health? How would Mr. Charles know that, given the government-mediated secrecy of the contamination of the food supply with “experimental” materials in unlimited, un-quantified and unidentified amounts and forms?
Other scientists have shown enormous harm to health: smaller kidneys, holes in the gut, decreased immune function, reproductive failure, birth defects, fetal loss, shortened life span, increased tumor formation, genetic alteration leading, for example, to hair in the oral cavities of third generation GMO chow fed rodents and more.
I recently coined the term Genomic Disruption Syndrome (GDS) to describe the genomic changes which poorly studied inputs like GMOs are having on our genetic material, www.GDS-Therapy.com. Given the declining health of people who consume GMOs, it is reasonable to assume that their genome is being impacted negatively by them. Certainly, the genome of our gut bacteria, super weeds super bugs and plants contaminated by horizontal gene transfer is being negatively impacted.
Why is it not reasonable to conclude that the precautionary principle might be applied to a technology which tampers with the very architecture of life, and that in secret?
The biotech industry sees no need to release its data in its one-sided, highly questionable “studies”. Sertolini is quite correct in withholding his raw data to make the point clear.
Two further points:
1. Which crops contain the Epicyte gene which causes both males and females to produce antibodies to sperm and which Monsanto and Dupont created a joint venture to “commercialize” in 2001? No harm to human health? Involuntary sterility seems harmful to me. These two biotech giants, supported by lapdog regulatory agencies are doing what to the genome without informed consent and
2. Large numbers of farmers report infertility and unexplained deaths in their GMO fed animals. In fact, the brief EU feeding trials on Monsanto’s corn were followed by the death of several of the small number of test animals.
Clearly, these are, at best, highly questionable substances deployed in thoroughly unethical and unprincipled ways through the complicity of irresponsible regulatory agencies.
I personally welcome the study under discussion and welcome its being replicated by other scientists.
By the way, were I the good Professor, I would have insisted on similar tight security. The other side of the “debate” has never been known for its scruples in refraining from corrupt practices and industrial espionage.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima, etc.
Disinfo here: http://storify.com/vJayByrne/was-seralini-gmo-study-designed-to-generate-negati
And here is your opportunity to make GMOs go away. Forever:
1. Take this Action Item by modifying the letter to reflect your personal thoughts, fill in the requested information and click “Submit” http://tinyurl.com/GMOtruthlabel.
2. Use Facebook, Twitter, aand other social networks, “Like” itd disseminate it as well.
3. Reach out to your Contact List and strongly urge people to take the action item an and send to your entire contact list asking them to do the same. Send them this link: http://tinyurl.com/GMOtruthlabel.
4. Click here, now, to make a donation to the Natural Solutions Foundation and help support this vital work.
Thank you for activism.
The Genome you save may be your own.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Natural Solutions Foundation
PS: Please send www.GDS-Therapy.com to the people you care about. The White Paper there could, quite possibly, save their lives.