Posts Tagged ‘NEJM’

gmo-safety

GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health

Monsanto’s lies and its troll army are contradicted in no uncertain terms. They have monkeyed with science in numerous ways, and corrupted the process of ensuring food safety.

nejm

In our view, the science and the risk assessment supporting the Enlist Duo decision are flawed. The science consisted solely of toxicologic studies commissioned by the herbicide manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s and never published, not an uncommon practice in U.S. pesticide regulation. These studies predated current knowledge of low-dose, endocrine-mediated, and epigenetic effects and were not designed to detect them. The risk assessment gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law. It failed to consider ecologic impact, such as effects on the monarch butterfly and other pollinators. It considered only pure glyphosate, despite studies showing that formulated glyphosate that contains surfactants and adjuvants is more toxic than the pure compound.

…This decision was made in haste. It was based on poorly designed and outdated studies and on an incomplete assessment of human exposure and environmental effects.

…National Toxicology Program should urgently assess the toxicology of pure glyphosate, formulated glyphosate, and mixtures of glyphosate and other herbicides.

Labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops.

19027731

New Report From The NEJM On Clinical Trial Reporting Further Tarnishes Biopharma’s Image

New England Journal of Medicine destroys the bullshit monkey wrenching of pharmaceutical trials and cover-up. It’s difficult to find any aspect of our top-down corporatocracy that isn’t completely full of shit and running on fraud and propaganda.

The action may put a stop to the practice of cherry picking outcomes for public disclosure. An investigation published in March found that during the following 12 months after completion of industry funded trials, only 17% of trial outcomes had been reported.

This number increased to just 41% after five years. Results for the trials funded by the National Institutes of Health produced only 8% disclosure after 12 months, and 38% after five yearsIt is logical to assume that the results presented to the public were supportive of study hypotheses.