You Asked for Independent Replication... Stunning Corn, Again

A mantra of the anti-GMO movement is that they want independent research, from neutral sources devoid of  special interest.

That is, until it is their special interest.

The Moms Across America "stunning corn" is old news here. In short, anti-GMO websites everywhere showed that GM corn was full of formaldehyde and had no nutrients. The data presented were so fake that anyone with half a brain could see right through it.  They were soil data, and likely faked soil data. 'Moms' promoted, and rabidly defended, fake results as authentic. Still do.

When I questioned them on their websites I was banned, blocked and then criticized.

Last week on Mae-Wan Ho's website I offered to personally pay for a replicate of the experiment.  I was greeted by a kind email from Dr. Ho, and clear indication that Howard Vlieger and Dr. Don Huber (the goofy one, not Don J. Huber) were on board for the new test.

I was excited to say the least.  They clearly were ready to move forward, or they thought they were calling my bluff.  I'm a scientist, not an activist, so I don't have time for bluffing.  Forward we go!

Now I've opened the conversation and I'm surprised they are playing along.  Dr. Maewan Ho has been always accommodating and pleasant.  Could we actually do a real test?  I'm actually starting to think that we'll get somewhere!  No contact from Vlieger on the specifics we need to replicate the test.

YES!  Here we go!  I'm actually really pleased that there's some movement in a common direction.  Maybe they really did get those data and there was a mixup at the lab-- they were being honest.  Maybe those were real data and corn is poison...  I can't fathom that, but it is in the spectrum of possibilities I guess.  The re-test will tell.  This is great!

Let's now put everyone on the hook...  we're all accountable!

This is really coming together!  Ebony and Ivory!  Water and oil!  Union and Confederates!  Kum-by-effin-ya!


I asked Zen Honeycutt and Kathleen Hallal from 'Moms Across America" to please contribute.  I asked them to feel free to shape the next experiments, and offered them authorship on the work.  I wish I could access the old Facebook posts, but they are beyond my history's reach.  Hallal said that nobody ever claimed the results to be real, and that is just bullshit. I did have a note I sent to Honeycutt, so far unanswered.  Of course, she'll never offer to be part of the work.  Her flimsy organization has too much to lose.

Of course, not reply from Zen or Kathleen.  The light of science, the independent verification they want, causes the science-less cockroach fear promoters to scurry for shelter.


Of course, they are on the spot now.  It is time to do the independent, multiple location, replicated, statistically correct test-- they say scientists never do.  Let's do it!


And then, the black helicopters hover......

This is where they have to back out, because they know that independent tests will expose their fraud, or at least their support of a mistake or data someone else faked.  I do not believe it is a mistake, because if they were real data, they would be eager to replicate with independent scientists. 

In the meantime Anastasia Bodnar sources some maize analytical labs we we're getting loads of input on this website about numbers of replicates and experimental design. Unfortunately, none of this comes from those supporting the data.  From Moms Across America's Kathleen Halall, she tells me that they are willing to do the experiment, but I can't be part of it because it has to be an independent scientist... of course, I'm as independent as they come.  Plus, all of this is transparent! 

But you guessed it, they are retreating.  

So they don't want independent replications, they want to do their own replications, where they can control how much formaldehyde the soak the corn in, where they can manipulate the numbers.

I demanded transparency, independent replicates, multiple sites and labs!  Now they are backing out! 

I'm a little disappointed because I thought we were getting somewhere.  My reply:



And one last time to salvage that Kum-by-ya...

I know, I"m such a monster. 


*****

And this is where it stands.  I was never contacted by Vlieger of Huber, and marching moms were just pointy, mean and nonconstructive, true to form. 

If you are someone that understands and accepts the evidence that biotechnology is a safe and useful tool, again the critics have been silenced.

If you are someone that is anti-GMO, if you feel this is dangerous, most of all if you are afraid of those corn data-- then you need to seriously think about who is representing you.  You need to see how they operate, how they are fakes and will not stand by the data they promote!

If you hate GMOs, hate Monsanto, hate biotechnology-- STAND WITH ME and DEMAND that MOMS AGAINST AMERICA, Dr. MAEWAN HO, and others that promote this fake corn data either REPEAT THE TEST INDEPENDENTLY with GREAT RIGOR or TAKE DOWN THEIR BOGUS WEBSITES AND ADMIT THE DATA ARE FALSE.

They'll never do it. They are not big enough people to admit it and their house of anti-science cards depends on it perpetually scaring people, even if it means promoting data that don't match biology, and they don't want replicated.

I've done my part to promote science and reason.  This shows what cowardly stewards of misinformation they are.  I'm maintaining my offer and stand by to do this test. 

Calling Dr. Ho, Dr. Huber, Mr. Vlieger...

I'm so excited about the comments coming in on a potential replicate of the "Stunning Corn Comparison" originally posted on Moms Across America. I've asked for a large, transparent and independent series of tests and I'm willing to cover the costs, personally.  It will not be cheap. 

The plant science community has stepped up and offered many excellent comments about experimental design in the comments section of previous posts.  I have not heard anything from those promoting the data as real.  This morning I sent the following email to those named in the salutation:


Dr. Ho, Mr. Vlieger and Dr. Huber, 

I hope that we can move forward with a series of independent, transparent and replicated tests on GM corn grown in glyphosate-treated fields versus non-GM corn.  The data presented in the original data set certainly raised eyebrows and drew criticism.  I was one of the biggest critics.  I don't understand much about the data, such as how corn can have 1% brix and why cation exchange capacity was used. 

The way to really clear this up is to have promoters and critics join together to design a transparent test.  It is a win-win for me because it either clears up that there was something wrong with the original data, or they replicate and we get to share authorship on a paper showing 1% Brix corn full of formaldehyde.  That's a huge story and I'd be glad to put my name on that. It would likely go to Science or Nature. 

I've encouraged both promoters of the original data and the wider plant science community to participate in the design and execution of the experiments.  We can do replicated plots with sufficient numbers to generate powerful statistics.  So far, I have heard nothing from the people that voraciously defend these data as legitimate, except for the kind response by Dr. Ho. 

Most of all, I've PERSONALLY agreed to cover the cost of the re-analysis.  For this to be legitimate, we all need to participate and need to decide on analytical methods and multiple independent analytical facilities. 

Please, let's agree to do this.  If the technology is as bad as you claim, and the data your promote are legitimate, we'll need hard numbers from well-designed experiments to replicate and make a very strong case.  A perfect replicate is a very good outcome for me, if we do it together. 

Best wishes, and let's please drive the science forward together, 

Kevin


I provide this note here in the spirit of transparency and working together to resolve an important scientific issue. I'm standing by for their response, which at first, was kind and enthusiastic from Dr. Ho.   If you are against the technology and/or stand by these data, please encourage these anti-GMO luminaries to participate in a larger, more comprehensive evaluation. 

Putting My Money Where Your Mouth Is!

The Stunning Corn Comparison promoted by Zen Honeycutt at Moms Across America was certainly stunning.  While Zen, farmer Howard Vlieger and Profit Pro stand by these data as authentic, a codified scientific community sees them as either poor quality, a mistake, (or at worst) fraud.

If the results are real and GMO corn is stripped of almost all carbon, loaded with (carbon-based) formaldeyde and glyphosate, plus a Brix of 1%, it would be a remarkable story that would shake the foundation of modern production agriculture. Such findings, if found transparently and in independent, replicated trials, would likely grace the covers of major science weeklys like Science or Nature.

It would be huge news, and as a scientist, I am thrilled to test the hypothesis that the previous data are authentic.

So excited!  I love to see experimental data replicated! 

More numbers, locations, etc, the better I sleep at night!

I have agreed to personally finance the analytical portion of a replicate of the experiment. Experimental design is pending based on the corn genotype, culture conditions and analytical tests performed to obtain previous data. I am waiting to hear back from those that obtained the last numbers.

It is expected that those that produced the original data participate, and I'm working on that.  I think they'd be glad to see their stunning results replicated in statistically meaningful independent trials. Since they stand by the data so rabidly, it is expected that they participate.

At this point, here are the conditions (please submit suggestions in Comments)

Experiment:

• The experimental design will contain corn from at least two locations.
• Each location will contain the "GMO" and "non-GMO" lines (hybrids?) used to obtain the original numbers. 
• Each measurement will come from three replicates of each genotype. 
• Statistical methods will be determined up front and be adhered to.
• At least two analytical facilities will be used. 
• All samples will be coded in the field by independent personnel (County Agents, grower cooperators) and coding will not be revealed until final data are complete.
• Exact analysis will be based on previous data reported, including %Brix, carbohydrates, amino acids, minerals, organic compounds (formaldeyde, glyphosate) and any other tests suggested.  I'm not sure how to test "anerobic biology", so I'm waiting for information from Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Howard Vlieger to tell me how to do this or where we get it done.  Or what it is.

Dissemination:

• The data will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal consistent with impact of results. Publication will be pursued regardless of results obtained. 
• All participants will be co-authors.  Offers have been extended to Dr. Ho.  I would also like to include Huber, Vlieger and Zen Honeycutt, as they stand by these data and should be included in their publication.
• Results will be prominently featured, potentially after publication, on websites and blogs, regardless of outcome.  An announcement will be made to obtain agreement to report results on various websites. This will be a written agreement and publicly accessible.  It is expected that Moms Across America will stand by their rabid defense of the original data and agree to post these findings. 

A proposal will be circulated early this week and it will be adjustable based on public input and the scientific team that vetted/promoted the original data.   We want an airtight, valid, mutually-agreeable experimental design here so that we can have the biggest impact with the results! 

Here goes!  I'm so excited to see this get off the ground.  I'm grateful for Dr. Ho's agreement to participate and also for all of the experimental advice from Anastasia Bodnar and Karl Haro von Mogel. 

Verifying "Stunning Corn Data"

As the fields begin to grow and acres of corn blanket the nation, it is a great time to re-think the numbers from the chart shown on Moms Across America.  To recap, a chart claiming to be a chemical analysis of GMO and conventional corn was shown, featuring dramatic differences in nutrient content and chemical contamination.

The data, without information of source or method, were widely criticized, including by Yours Truly. However, the person that did/commissioned the test, Howard Vlieger, stands by the data as authentic, along with a host of others, including Zen Honeycutt from "Moms".  UFO Blogger and the Paranormal Society have lent their scientific analysis and are convinced too.

However, in the YouTube video (@7:51) Vlieger says clearly that the data were not repeated, "Just those two samples".  He then goes on to defend the Seralini rat study, so the scientific rigor is not necessarily high here.

Let's re-test those results!  Who's on board! 

As the corn grows in 2013, we are presented with a great opportunity to verify these earthshaking results. I'm excited to have the opportunity to lead a rigorous study to replicate these data.  I've been contacted by Dr. Maewan Ho, and she has Vlieger on board and apparently Dr. Don Huber of anti-GMO fame.

With help of others, we are currently designing a double-blind, multiple location test.  The plan is:

1.  Devise a mutually-agreeable proposal, including tests at multiple sites.

2. The same seeds will be used as in the previous replicate (provided they can be shipped, as they are transgnenic)

3.  Two separate laboratories will be sent coded samples.

4  Data will be returned and then matched to location/genotype.

5.  All facets of the project will be shared here and on Biofortified.org, and wherever others involved would like it posted.

***  All participants must agree on the experimental design, testing facility, procedure.  All must agree to be named authors on the publication.

Personally, I think the last results were crap, that's why I want the most airtight and solid experimental design to go forward.  If it is done right, and the same results are obtained, it will be a huge story in food and corn biology!  That would be really good, so the experiments need to be perfect.

This is the plan at the moment.  Stand by!!

The Great Debate... GMO Science

It is an amazing pleasure to get to discuss science in a public forum, every single time.

But imagine my excitement when I get to discuss biotechnology with Jon Entine on a panel at the CATO Institute! 

Imagine my excitement when I learn we get to discuss biotechnology with Jeffrey Smith and Giles-Eric Seralni!   I had to pinch myself.  I know Smith and Seralni's work inside and out, and would love the opportunity to discuss science with them in a live, public format.

The discussion is to take place in Washington DC on June 4.  Stay tuned for details

So excited to talk science and how it relates to biotechnology...

how can we use it to help people rather than scare them? 

.

Himalayan Sea Salt! GMO Free! With Extra Plutonium!

Yesterday I wrote about a website I found HERE and could not believe my eyes.  It was a picture of Himalayan Sea Salt, VERIFIED GMO-Free!   I wrote a little something about this and its insanity. 

I decided to follow up on this curious stuff.  Himalayan Sea Salt.  GMO-Free. Going forward, when I mention "salt" we're talking table salt. Table salt is one simple molecule, a sodium and a chloride locked together in ionic bliss.  In our typical table salt they add a pinch of goiter-busting iodine and calcium silicate to prevent caking. Other than that, pretty simple stuff. 

I know I'm risking being called a shill for big salt, but here goes...

So I go online and the first thing that pops up is Mercola's website- he loves not good old sodium chloride, but Himalayan Salt, over 250,000,000 years old, so it claims. 

 Dr. Mercola must have slept through chemistry class. Click on this to read the words of a true anti-scholar.  Plus, people that refer to themselves as "Dr. _______" all the time drive me nuts.  

First, the "Purest Salt on Earth".  What a great claim.  The purest salt on earth is the reagent grade sodium chloride on my lab shelf.  Mercola claims that table salt has nothing in common with natural salt, and that "heat alters the natural chemical structure of (table) salt".  

Altering sodium chloride's natural chemical structure is pretty difficult to do.  Aside from dropping it in water and dissociating it into ions, the stuff together, dry and happy, is simply sodium chloride.   

Turns out that Himalayan Sea Salt (which if it actually comes from the Himalayas is about as far as you can get from the sea) is loaded with all kinds of fun elements.  Over at Salt News (no kidding) they did a spectral analysis of Himalayan Sea Salt.  No GMOs, but plenty of things that would get spark an activist frenzy if they were present in Monsanto corn.  The laundry list of evil elements present is long, and there are detectable levels of lead, arsenic, plutonium, radium, uranium,  and the list goes on and on.  They also refer to "tungsten" as "wolfram", which explains the "W".  The list is shown after the end of this posting.

The analysis says 97.5% good ol' sodium chloride, at least as I can back calculate from these numbers. Keep in mind Mercola's note above, "Today's common table salt has nothing in common with natural salt", which is exactly true, if you ignore the fact that they are both 97.5% sodium chloride. Plus, using "common" twice in his sentence is confusing. He needs a better proofreader, but they'd probably correct his loony science too. 

Now I know damn well that the vanishingly small amounts of these elements are probably present in many food items.  No argument there.  They are there at levels that are undeniably physiologically irrelevant. 

The point is, if such chemical analysis was done on corn you'd read about how GM corn contains lead, arsenic, plutonium and uranium. It would be posted on every anti-GM website and it would be the obvious link between GM and disease.  Correlations are the mainstay of anti-GM "evidence". 

The ironic part is that 1 in 10 deaths in the USA are blamed on salt, 2.3 million deaths a year worldwide. That's exactly 2.3 million more than GMOs, as transgenic plants have killed 0.0.  Salt consumption is linked clearly to high blood pressure and is a contributing factor in stroke and cardiovascular disease.

Ultimately, that ear of corn is not nearly the poison that the big pink rocks of Himalayan salt are. 

However, they do taste delicious together when used in prescribed amounts.

Here are the data from Salt News.  No other source is provided, so take them with a grain of salt. 

Monsalto

Here's how we know that science is dead in the anti-GMO movement.  

The Non-GMO Project and their crack scientific team has verified, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that salt is not a transgenic plant. 

For many that have been scared to death by pictures of lumpy rats and Jeffery Smith, this comes as a surprise.  Without a label, how would they know that salt is not a transgenic plant?  Luckily the Non-GMO project provides this important verification. 

And the anti-GMO world erupted in excitement, as now they could enjoy giant pretzels and something on the rim of their margaritas-- and confidently sip knowing that the salt will not give them allergies, autism, parkinson's disease, obesity, ADD, ADHD, cancer, liver failure, kidney dysfunction, and it won't get into their umbilical cords, even on guys. 

I wonder if it is non-GMO tequila?

Once again a swing and a miss.  It shows that labels are not necessary, as if you put a Non-GMO label on everything then you can assume the rest is evil.  Good times, stay hot.   

The story was originally posted HERE