This article is supposed to "debunk" this study, but what it actually does is confirms the level of corruption behind the GMO take over. Only approved questions get answered. Only reports that say GMOs are safe get passed into the "official" scientific journals. The same ones that say cancer can't be cured. The same ones that keep millions of people taking "approved" drugs, and the same ones that now refute all anti-gmo evidence.
The following is from GMO Compass <--- (The setting-up of this website was financially supported by the European Union within the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme from 1 January 2005 until 28 February 2007. The European Commission and other EU agencies are not responsible for the content.) That's how you know you can trust the material when the first thing you read is them claiming no responsibility for their information. The article reads...
Dr. Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Sciences recently released a study reporting higher mortality rates and lower body weight among young rats whose mothers were fed a diet of herbicide resistant, genetically modified soybeans. According to experts at the British Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, a serious review of the study is not possible until more experimental data is made available. In addition, the study’s findings go against reviewed scientific studies that have refuted negative health effects.
At a conference for the Russian National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS) in October 2005, a Russian research team shared preliminary results on the effect of genetically modified soybeans on rats and their offspring. The team led by Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences found that the mortality rate of the offspring of rats fed genetically modified soy four was six times higher than that of rats raised with feed from conventional soy. In addition, the surviving offspring of rats fed GM soy had significantly lower bodyweight compared to control groups. Dr. Ermakova claims her findings raise serious concerns regarding possible health risks to humans. Bild vergrößern According to Dr. Ermakova, the smaller rat's mother was fed GM soy. The larger rat was purportedly born at the same time, except its mother was fed conventional soy.
As of now, no details on the study have been made available. The media propagated Ermakova’s claims. The Russian newspaper Pravda predicted sinking life expectancy for consumers because of genetically modified soy. The Daily Mail in Great Britain warned of dangers for unborn babies. There is no question that such findings merit close attention. Dr. Ermakova’s research looked at a genetically modified soybean cultivar from Monsanto that has been grown commercially in the United States since 1996 and is now also grown in Brazil and Argentina. It is used to produce ingredients and additives found in many processed food products. Approximately 60 percent of the world’s soybean production is genetically modified. Inadequate information An adequate assessment of the study and its implicated negative effects on consumers is only possible if details on methodology and results are made available. For this reason, a comprehensive review of Dr. Ermakova’s findings has not yet been possible. The study has not yet been published in a recognised scientific journal and has therefore not been subjected to review from other scientists. The peer-reviewing process is considered essential for ensuring that published scientific findings are based on sound methodology and reliable experimental design. The Australian scientist Dr. Christopher Preston (University of Adelaide) addressed Dr. Ermakova’s research in an article in AgBioWorld (October 2005). According to Dr. Preston, the data released on the experiment could not withstand a scientific review. He also criticised Ermakova’s approach to communicating her findings. She presented her research at an anti-GMO conference with a strong media presence. By doing this, she publicised her results and avoided subjecting her findings to assessment by the scientific community. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), which is responsible for GMO safety evaluation in Great Britain, also questioned Dr. Ermakova’s findings. They considered the results sketchy and inadequately supported. For example, there is no information about the composition of the rats' diets. Therefore, the possibility of faulty methodology cannot be refuted. The ACNFP issued a statement mentioning a number of possible explanations for Ermakova’s findings having nothing to do with genetically modified soy. One of the possible reasons could be that the test group was given feed containing higher levels of mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are toxic by-products of fungal diseases that sometimes affect soybeans. The ACNFP will consider further details if they can be obtained. The European Commission asked the European Food Safety Administration (EFSA) to comment on Dr. Ermakova's findings. Like the ACNFP, EFSA's GMO Panel searched for all available information on the study, but could not conclude on the research due to a lack of experimental details.
So in short, these findings are considered "Contradictory" to previous findings According to the ACNFP, Dr. Ermakova's findings are inconsistent with a recognised, published research report. In other words, any research that shows the truth about GMOs is quickly covered up and ridiculed. Only approved by Monsanto scientists are allowed to proclaim the miracle of GMO. At South Dakota State University in the United States, Denise Brake and Dr. Donald Evenson conducted similar feeding studies on mice with GM soybean and published their results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2004. Test animals were fed a diet containing 21% GM soy over the course of four generations. Along with number of offspring, mortality, and bodyweight, test animals were checked for changes in testicle morphology, which is a sensitive indicator of food toxicity.
Brake and Evenson’s studies found no negative effects. (of course they did.)
Source -->
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/stories/195.study_gm_soy_dangerous_newborns.html
But what do you think? Do you think with the level of corruption on our planet that they wouldn't control something like this too? Everything is controlled when there is a dollar up for grabs. To think corruption is everywhere and it didn't make it into the scientific field is just plain mad. There are great forces at work making sure that all truth is swept under the carpet and you're fed your new franken-food without a hitch. There are billions up for grab in this monopolization of the food supply. He who controls the food, controls the people. The awake need not hear a single word, whilst nothing can wake the asleep. No amount of evidence will convince you one way or another if you are dead set the government has your back. We used to be called "conspiracy theorists", until everyone started to slowly figure out we were right the whole time. But, don't just take our word for it. Do what you like. But, if it's ok with you, we are going to support 100% organic food and lifestyle so that we have a better chance of our Earth returning to a more harmonious state of balance. We know all the dangers of GMOs, and you can't even simply label them to make the problems go away.
We should ban gmos!
