A gigantic research scam-What will be its impact on past scientific research?

Science is supposed to be based on truth and nothing but the truth. Research which is supposed to find the truth must be seen as an unbiased pursuit of finding the truth and must be above suspicion as scientists are trained to adopt ethical and trustworthy methods to unfold things which were not known earlier. Unfortunately during the last 5 decades the quality of research and motives of a significant segment of research scientists are increasingly being questioned because of intentional and improper investigations to come up with results that are questionable. Recent findings by a group of investigators questioning the veracity and reliability of many safety studies because of faulty research logistics is casting a shadow on the food research community which is not receiving attention it deserves. If these findings are true, the absolute trust of consumers who blindly believe their conclusions can be shaken severely while the scientific peers who vouchsafe for their trustworthiness will have to answer a lot for the terrifying consequences of such misdemeanors. Here is a take on the startling claims on the state of affairs vis-a-vis thousands of food products which were tested under inappropriate protocols.     

"Dominique Dupagne, a well- known doctor in France and frequent guest on the show, pointed out that the biotech industry's conflicts of interest and influence in this area are far greater than those of FIFA- this industry has much greater influence than FIFA and much more money. He calls this study by Séralini "remarkable" because everyone has been assuming that all of this testing had included control groups that were fed organic food, free of toxins, but this has not been so. This means that that totality of all of these safety studies done by industry for at least 100,000 products should be retracted. For years, industry has fraudulently been saying that these lab rats naturally tend to develop tumors, but that is not true. Their tumors were largely due to toxins and pesticides in their food.According to Dr. Dupagne, "Séralini's study here is flawless. He is absolutely correct. In all of these studies, how could you possibly conclude anything with a control group that is being exposed to toxins?" But there is a very powerful lobby in the press that blocks the publication of any studies finding flaws with these products. Séralini's study that was published in 2012 was pulled in an incredible manner. After having been peer-reviewed and published as a perfect toxicology study, industry was unhappy. The tumors on the rats were impossible to ignore, so it was criticized for not having been a proper cancer study. At the journal, a post was created for an industry-friendly editor who made it his first order of business to get that study retracted. The toxicological study has since been reviewed AGAIN by peers and it has been republished in another journal. It stands. This new study analyzed thirteen feed samples sent from nine countries on five continents. All samples were found to have levels of toxins much greater than the already high permitted levels- they were "extremely contaminated" They were tested for metals, dioxins, PCBs, GMOS, and pesticides. It has commonly been held that in these rats seeing a rate of 70% of breast cancer and 80% other cancers was normal after a 2 year period. But Séralini found that when fed food without pesticides the tumor rate was FIVE TIMES LOWER in the same breed of rats. So that shows at what level they are able to cover up the fact that their products cause cancer. The control group is polluted, and they say that is "normal". That is fraudulent and it allows them to cover up the fact that their products are causing cancer, they are masking the results."

If control samples which are used to compare the results of safety studies with newly developed products are contaminated, as being claimed, what sanctity one can expect for the results of such studies. After all the conclusions are drawn by comparison with the performance of control samples used and the quality of the research can be severely compromised. What next? Will there be a real soul searching on the part of scientists engaged in safety studies using laboratory animals and correct themselves at least hereafter for the sake of safety of future generations. What about thousands of products already in the market "cleared" being safe whose safety credentials are under the cloud? Will there be rerun of such studies using control samples with unquestionable purity? This is a matter to be decided by WHO after consultation with all countries for bringing about correction procedures and more transparency. The role of food industry, especially that of the large players, is questionable because of their suspected involvement in doctoring the studies through their financial clout.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"INSPIRED" SCIENTIFIC STUDIES-THE ETHICAL QUESTION

Drug industry has a vital stake in safety studies that can make or break a newly developed drug and as long as the safety protocols are strictly adhered to there my not be any problem in accepting the data generated. How ever serious concerns are being expressed about the transparency in making the safety data available to the public and often adverse findings are suppressed. More reprehensible is the tendency amongst some scientists to "doctor" the results to suit the interest of the sponsor. Here is a suggestion from an academician for tackling this issue.

Once a drug is approved, all data relevant to drug safety should be placed in the public domain and independent investigators across the country should be able to use it. There should be big financial penalties for withholding relevant information. Drug studies sponsored by industry must be truly independent--outside of company control. Companies should give outside investigators independence over every aspect of the study. There are too many examples of companies wresting control of clinical studies from their consultant investigators for reasons that seem more related to product promotion than clinical science. And on all sides there should be a commitment to protect against the intimidation of academics who are willing to raise questions about the safety and effectiveness of company products. The free flow of information about the effects of drugs and medical devices will best serve the public's interest.

It is a dilemma because safety studies are very expensive and time consuming. Only the industry has the necessary resources to shoulder the responsibility and when the very credibility of the developer is under scrutiny, an independent verification is a must. While this is true for drugs, same principle must apply to foods also and those who make health claims must organize unbiased and independent verification of their claims before making them in public.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com