Are glyphosate and COVID-19 connected? Glyphosate, one of the most toxic chemicals in the world, may be the key to why some people get severely ill from COVID-19. An MIT senior research scientist reports:
Just over three weeks into the consultation the “Explainer” suddenly seemed to disappear from DEFRA’s website, possibly as a result of complaints.
One of France’s leading daily papers, Le Monde, just published an article on how “a group of toxicologists with tenuous expertise and veiled conflicts of interest are working to derail the implementation of European regulations” on endocrine disruptors – synthetic chemicals that are toxic at very low doses.
The Monsanto Papers are a treasure trove of internal documents slowly released since March 2017 as part of a US lawsuit by cancer victims against Monsanto over its ubiquitous herbicide, glyphosate. They tell a lot about how Monsanto actively subverts science, both in the company’s practices and the way it abuses science’s moral authority to push for its interests.
A common corporate tactic, well-honed by the tobacco industry, is to use “third-party experts” to bring the industry’s message to the public under the cloak of independent opinion or expertise. The idea is that academic types are far more credible than industry employees when it comes to defending the industry’s position. Over the years, I’ve written about many of these so-called “independent experts” that turned out to be anything but. Among them is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California.
On 25 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted Marc Fellous, former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and “the use of forgery”, in a libel trial that he lost to Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has authorised many GM crops for consumption.
GMOSeralini.org welcomes the news of the republication of the chronic toxicity study on the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. The republication restores the study to the peer-reviewed literature so that it can be consulted and built upon by other scientists.
This is a disease of poor farmers: a disease of rural villagers in Asian, African and Latin American countries. This is not a disease of the Western World. Hence, a low visibility in print and electronic media. Also there is emerging evidence that the disease is linked to agrochemicals produced by multinationals. They want to hide the link, promote other theories, and undermine the severity of the disease. Leading media institutions in the contemporary world are subverted by the hidden agendas prepared by political and economic behemoths. So how can we expect truthful reporting?
Does the fact that a pesticide is approved by regulators mean it is safe? A new study suggests not – and casts into question the assumptions on which all regulatory authorizations of pesticides are based.
“It must be as if the study had never happened,” said French MEP Corinne Lepage, who also challenged EU science adviser Anne Glover over her conflicts of interest with industry.
The controversy about the Séralini et al. study, which reported negative health effects of Monsanto’s NK603 GM maize and Roundup herbicide fed to rats over the long term, is still going on. According to a new review published in Environmental Sciences Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) used unscientific double standards to dismiss the Séralini study on genetically modified (GM) maize.
The biotech sector often yells for “peer review” when the anti-GMO movement refers to analyses or research-based findings to state its case. Despite Professor Seralini publishing his research findings (rats fed on GMOs) that were critical of the health impacts of GMOs in an internationally renowned peer-reviewed journal in 2012, his methodology and findings were nevertheless subjected to sustained attacks by the sector. Personal smears came his way too (1). Now he finds that his paper has been retracted by the journal.