Monsanto knew a glyphosate cancer link existed four decades ago, yet hid the link and continues to do so. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel recently dug out a series of buried studies that showed Biotech bully Monsanto cherry-picked data from more than a dozen experiments in order to make the duplicitous declaration that Roundup is safe to use on crops meant for animals and humans.
Hidden Data reveals Monsanto Lies
Many of the studies showed Roundup to be dangerous and highly toxic to humans and animals; so Monsanto did not present the studies’ data in a clean and forthright manner. In place of honest reporting, Monsanto “introduced outlying controls to neutralize the findings” and make it appear Roundup were perfectly safe, according to Ethan Huff of NaturalNews.com.
“Samsel successfully obtained the hidden Monsanto studies after petitioning his senator for access,” wrote Huff, and then, “Dr. Seneff and Samsel pored through the documents, concluding that, contrary to Monsanto’s reinterpretation of the findings, ‘significant evidence of tumours was found during these investigations.’”
GMWatch.org reported that in order to create doubt and hide the statistical significance of damning findings, which may have prevented product registration, “Monsanto introduced irrelevant historical control data from other experiments.”
Monsanto has spent much time and money trying to design studies it hopes will show Roundup and GMOs are safe. This tactic has worked sometimes, but when it doesn’t work, the company obfuscates and misleads as best it can to minimize the damage.
Seneff and Samsel report that when Monsanto study findings are unfavorable, Monsanto adds “experimental noise” to obscure the facts. This noise cancels out adversarial safety findings by skewing the overall results. Monsanto, in this example, cherry-picked data from three to 11 unrelated studies in order to alter findings that questioned Roundup and Glyphosate’s safety.
Huff writes that, “[w]hen a particular study shows evidence of tumors in animals exposed to Roundup, (Monsanto) simply introduces data from another unrelated study showing no tumors, and voila – no more evidence of tumors in association with Roundup!”
One can lie by manipulating data, which is Monsanto’s M.O. It’s how Monsanto got glyphosate and Roundup approved in the first place. “No regulator in his or her right mind would ever have supported approval for the chemical herbicide based on actual scientific findings,” said Huff.
Seneff and Samsel said Monsanto uses, “dishonest magic of comparing the findings to data from unrelated historical controls.” This is how Monsanto “explains away as a mystery” the glyphosate cancer link.
Monsanto and Unsound Science
Huff writes that “this is exactly the type of garbage Monsanto considers to be ‘scientific evidence,’ and it’s what mainstream media and public health whores constantly say we should all accept as ‘fact.’ Truth be told, it’s absolute scientific fraud, and it needs to be called out as often and as loudly as possible.”
Monsanto’s Web of Lies
Seneff and Samsel write: “Using these deviations effectively neutralized the inconvenient results and thus allowed [glyphosate] to be brought to market. Had they not engaged in this deception, glyphosate may never have been registered for use.”
EPA disagrees on Glyphosate
Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expressed concern over glyphosate’s shady approval, noting that not every EPA reviewer agreed with the shady decision to greenlight it.
Seneff and Samsel remind us: “EPA documents show that (not) all members of the EPA glyphosate review committee approved the registration of glyphosate. There were those who dissented and signed ‘DO NOT CONCUR.'”
Beware of GMOs
Smart people might be wise to beware of corn, soy, beets, canola oil (another con) and other Monsanto-modified poison foods. NutraSweet, found in many diet drinks and hidden in many processed foods, is also a little Monsanto treat the wise would do well to study.