Originally published June 30 2014
Seralini study on GMOs re-published after unprecedented scientific censorship
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) A major victory has been achieved for science with the recent re-publishing of Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's study on genetically-modified (GM) corn treated with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. After being forcibly retracted by corporate scientists, Seralini's groundbreaking study will once again appear in the peer-reviewed literature, thanks to the concerted efforts of scientists who support free speech.
The study, which found that both Monsanto's NK603 GM maize variety and Roundup herbicide, led to kidney and liver damage in rats, among other serious health effects, was pulled from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in November 2013 after first being published in September 2012. The stated reasoning behind its retraction was that some of the findings may be "inconclusive," although nothing in its contents was either inaccurate or misleading.
As we reported previously, most peer-reviewed science is inconclusive on, at least, some matters, hence the ongoing pursuit of truth through follow-up research. Ironically, Monsanto's own 90-day feeding study on the exact same variety of GM maize is also inconclusive and yet it has remained in the scientific literature as "evidence" that GM corn is safe. However, as Seralini's study contradicts the industry line on GMOs -- mainly that they are undeniably safe and pose no risks to the public -- corporate interests saw to it that his study was removed from FCT and regarded as flawed.
Three rounds of peer review and Seralini's study was still determined valid
Thankfully, however, the tables have now been turned. According to GMOSeralini.org, Seralini's study now sits aside other credible scientific research in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe.
"This study has now successfully passed no less than three rounds of rigorous peer review," stated GMOSeralini.org editor Claire Robinson, noting that no other study has gone through this many levels of independent peer review to gain vested status.
"The first was for the initial publication of the study in Food and Chemical Toxicology. It passed with only minor revisions, according to the authors. The second review took months. It involved a non-transparent examination of Prof. Seralini's raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists.
"Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe."
Many scientists agree, having voiced their support for the integrity and accuracy of this important study. Dr. Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based out of London, told GMOSeralini.org that the three expert reviews through which Seralini's study was subjected serve as a "testament to its rigor, as well as to the integrity of the researchers."
Inadvertently, the vested interests that sought to discredit Seralini's study actually reinforced its findings by ramming it through multiple additional layers of peer review. Even the secret panel that evaluated it a second time, presumably in an effort to discredit it, was unable to come up with anything damning, affirming that there was absolutely nothing incorrect about its stated findings.
"If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself," added Antoniou. "If even then they refused to accept the results, they should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the human food and animal feed chain for many years."
Sources for this article include:
http://www.gmoseralini.org
http://www.enveurope.com
http://www.enveurope.com
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml