Illumination 2.0

Dear Howard Vleiger, which one is it? Which one is correct? You have stood by your (probably bogus) data from the "Stunning Corn Comparison" on Moms Across America .  Here GMO corn is compared to conventional corn-- but the GMO corn, by your data, has no nutritional value and is full of formaldehyde and glyphosate.  Everyone in the anti-GM world stands by these data as valid (even though they are adulterated soil data-- we don't do those tests on biological matter). Now, you are second author on the "GM is bad for pig stomachs" study ( Carman et al, 2013 , Journal of Something Obscure ).  In this study it is stated in Materials and Methods on page 41: " The GM soy and corn used in this study have been determined to be compositionally and substantially equivalent to non-GM varieties of soy and corn ... which indicates that there should be no phenotypical variation between the GM and non-GM varieties used in this study that could influence the outcom

To many in the anti-GMO movement the report on pig stomach inflammation could not have been more welcome.  In a time were generating public hysteria is job #1, a flurry of hazard claims based on scientifically bankrupt articles in obscure journals is the best thing that can happen. Or is it? The latest attack on science comes from a report from renowned anti-GM activist Judy Carman.  Number 2 on her 'science' team is Mr. Howard Vleiger, the guy that came up with the stunning corn data that likely are fabricated numbers. So his stellar credibility may follow him here. Their paper has some nice points in that they finally start to use relevant numbers and measure lots of health parameters.  That's good.  What is atrocious is the statistical massage (beating) and the overstepping of the data, as long as some severe flaws in experimental design. These have been discussed elsewhere and I might fill in some of the gaps later. Good Ol' Mike Adams continues his scho

*** I posted this a few years ago and it really fits well in the current climate.  How much are scientists really "paid off" by corporate interests?  How much funding at public institutions comes from corporate sources? *** The scientific consensus of public, academic scientists tells us that: 1. The earth's climate is warming, with at least a component of human cause 2. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth and continues 3. Transgenic trangenic (GMO) food crops are safe and effective 4. Vaccines are a tremendous, safe cornerstone in public health. 5. Stem cell based therapies show great promise and some application now Every one of these statements is a well supported hypothesis.  Each is based on substantial data from different experiments and models, from many independent labs, worldwide. Critics suggest that such data and conclusions only are present because academic scientists are "bought and paid for" by big corporations.  The alleg

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

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

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 r

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 b