As the public awakens to the true reality of GMOs and the disease-breeding practices of biotech juggernaut Monsanto, billions stand to be lost with the culmination of GMO labeling initiatives across the United States and abroad. And with such a large amount of money at risk, some investors and executives will resort to any measures necessary in order to secure their stake.
That’s why I’m predicting that we are not too far off from corporations like Monsanto and agricultural lobby groups coming together and funding a massive ‘study’ that ‘scientifically proves’ GMOs to be ‘completely safe.’ A ‘scientific study’ that is backed by millions in PR, hitting the mainstream media like a tidal wave of bought and paid for false conclusions.
And trust me, it’s not hard to release a study that is completely false.
Its been well known for years that even many well-intentioned scientific studies turn out to be completely wrong, oftentimes for a number of different reasons. That’s why it’s always important to think for yourself and use basic reason when it comes to so many different health topics, using studies as a guide, but never your ultimate resource.
But let’s go beyond the basic possibility of mistake, and enter the realm of direct scientific manipulation.
How Phony Study Will Claim GMOs Are ‘Completely Safe’
I believe that this coming ‘mega GMO study’ will be fashioned in a very similar way to the latest attack ‘study’ on organic food — which was torn apart so hard by experts that it led to retractions from media organizations. This study, which boasted ‘Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, study finds’ on the Stanford website, was a perfect example of warping statistics in order to favor a pre-determined outcome.
As we found out back in 2012 when the anti-organic study came out, top researchers are very good at this statistical manipulation practice. In fact, the anti-organic study actually utilized the ‘father of statistical lies’ in order to reach the conclusion that organics were the ‘same’ as conventional products when it comes to nutrition.
The study’s author, Ingram Olkin, actually worked closely with Stanford University to develop a “multivariate” statistical algorithm in order to ‘lie with statistics.’
As one page describes it: “Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality.”
Because, after all, studies sometimes aren’t about conforming to reality. Instead, they’re quite often about conforming to the goals of those who fund them — whether for the right or wrong reasons. And in the case of the coming pro-GMO study that will surely invoke a similar media hype to the anti-organics story, the motive is clear.
While I certainly hope that this prediction is incorrect, or at the very least that the public and even media outlets disregard the coming study as Monsanto-backed falsification, I do believe that it is coming. And I do believe that Monsanto and pals will ensure that their names are not directly tied to the support of the study — pushing the research as an ‘independent look’ at the safety of GMOs.
This looks like the only possible way to salvage Monsanto’s foothold on the food supply and make us all look like ‘anti-science’ lunatics for ever rejecting GMO-laden products. And with the World Health Organization agreeing that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide is probably causing cancer, it will be that much harder for the company to dig itself out of the public backlash.
Do you think people will fall for the coming Monsanto-backed GMO ‘safety’ study?
This article originally appeared at Natural Society.