Peer Reviewed Research Proves Biotech’s Studies on GMOs are Flawed, Inaccurate
by Christina Sarich
October 27th, 2014
Remember when doctors and scientists told us cigarettes were safe, with doctors even showing up on commercials puffing away? Or how about when Vietnam Vets were told that being sprayed with Agent Orange wouldn’t cause them any significant health problems? The ‘studies’ supported by biotech on GMOs have been suspected of being falsified in one way or another, and now there is an independent, peer-reviewed study to prove it.
Many believe that if enough individuals think there is enough ‘proof’ that GMOs are perilous, then the U.S. government will have no choice but to stop biotech companies like Monsanto from making them, but I believe this is an erroneous assumption.
A growing number of people are starting to think that the U.S. government is using flawed science on purpose to justify centralized manufacture, production, storage, and distribution of an altered world food supply to be used for political power and international rule. If we don’t eat our GMOs, take our vaccines, and assent to being sprayed with chemtrails while our municipal water is being poisoned, then their aims will be supported by our military and police forces.
Until we oust practically every criminal in office, including those who are about to run for office (i.e. Hilary Clinton, who cheerleads for biotech), we will continue to have this problem.
In a recent study that reviewed the histopathology on rats who ate three of the most predominantly consumed GMO genes by humans, the following was surmised:
“Our review also discovered an inconsistency in methodology and a lack of defined criteria for outcomes that would be considered toxicologically or pathologically significant. In addition, there was a lack of transparency in the methods and results, which made comparisons between the studies difficult. The evidence reviewed here demonstrates an incomplete picture regarding the toxicity (and safety) of GM products consumed by humans and animals.
Therefore, each GM product should be assessed on merit, with appropriate studies performed to indicate the level of safety associated with them. Detailed guidelines should be developed which will allow for the generation of comparable and reproducible studies. This will establish a foundation for evidence-based guidelines, to better determine if GM food is safe for human and animal consumption.”
Furthermore, the significant differences between say non-GMO corn, which contains well – corn, and GMO corn which may contain E coli bacteria, antibiotic resistant markers, up to six varieties of Bt toxins, pesticide residues, and RoundUp residues, how can these crops be compared to regular food at all?
The researchers:
“…found 21 studies for nine (19%) out of the 47 crops approved for human and/or animal consumption. We could find no studies on the other 38 (81%) approved crops. Fourteen out of the 21 studies (67%) were general health assessments of the GM crop on rat health. Most of these studies (76%) were performed after the crop had been approved for human and/or animal consumption, with half of these being published at least nine years after approval. Our review also discovered an inconsistency in methodology and a lack of defined criteria for outcomes that would be considered toxicologically or pathologically significant.”
GMOs are not safe. It’s about time we wake up to the reality that biotech and the U.S. government won’t listen to a single study saying they are cancerous, cause birth defects, or destroy human embryo cells. It’s time we take a different track altogether. You can assess what you and your family should do in such a hostile environment where our food is concerned.
![Thread 'Is Sucralose Bad For You? [The Facts abut Splenda]'](https://www.enhancegenetics.com/data/attachments/27/27063-83e3b209652c0784062e66b6517f8e16.jpg?hash=AU8b0FIKOC)
