Monsanto’s secret studies showed glyphosate caused cancer four decades ago
The world’s most hated chemical company, Monsanto, knowingly engaged in some shady wheeling-and-dealing to get its prized herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate), approved for commercial use, a new independent inquiry has revealed.
Dr. Stephanie Seneff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and her colleague Anthony Samsel, recently unearthed a series of hidden studies showing that Monsanto cherry-picked data from at least a dozen different experiments to make the declaration that Roundup is safe for use on crops consumed by animals and humans.
Rather than present the actual data procured in these studies, many of which exposed Roundup as dangerous and highly poisonous, Monsanto introduced outlying controls to neutralize the findings and make it appear as though Roundup is perfectly safe.
Samsel successfully obtained the hidden Monsanto studies after petitioning his senator for access. Along with 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.”
“‘[T]o create doubt and obscure the statistical significance of inconvenient findings, which may have prevented product registration,’ Monsanto introduced irrelevant historical control data from other experiments,” reports GMWatch.org.
When industry studies show unfavorable results, corporations just add ‘experimental noise’
Monsanto has spent an inordinate amount of time and money over the years attempting to construct studies that it hopes will arrive at preconceived findings in favor of Roundup and GMOs. Sometimes this tactic works, and sometimes it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, the company has a few other tricks up its sleeve.
According to the Seneff and Samsel paper, Monsanto deliberately adds so-called “experimental noise” to the findings of many of its unfavorable studies, which effectively cancels them out and skews the results. In this case, Monsanto hand-selected data from anywhere between three and 11 unrelated studies to alter the findings of studies looking at the safety of Roundup.
When a particular study shows evidence of tumors in animals exposed to Roundup, for instance, Monsanto simply introduces data from another unrelated study showing no tumors, and voila – no more evidence of tumors in association with Roundup!
It’s essentially lying through data manipulation, if we’re going to be blunt. And it’s the only reason Roundup is even approved for commercial use, because no regulator in his or her right mind would ever have supported approval for the chemical herbicide based on actual scientific findings.
Using the “dishonest magic of comparing the findings to data from unrelated historical controls,” to use the words of Seneff and Samsel, Monsanto has been able to “[explain] away as a mystery” the cancer-causing effects of glyphosate, “and [deem them] not to be related to administration of the glyphosate.”
Internal disagreement at EPA further demonstrates lies in Monsanto safety studies for Roundup
It’s the antithesis of sound science. But 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.
“Using these deviations effectively neutralized the inconvenient results and thus allowed [glyphosate] to be brought to market,” Seneff and Samsel’s paper explains. “Had they not engaged in this deception, glyphosate may never have been registered for use.”
Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated concerns with the way glyphosate was approved, noting that not everyone within the agency was on board with the decision.
“EPA documents show that unanimity of opinion for product registration was not reached,” the paper explains. “Not all members of the EPA glyphosate review committee approved the registration of glyphosate. There were those who dissented and signed ‘DO NOT CONCUR.'”
Sources for this article include: