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. 



Popular posts from this blog

Film Review: The Need to Grow

-
Image
The recurring ads on Facebook pulled at me to watch The Need to Grow , a documentary film about food and farming.  As someone connected with these areas professionally and personally, I thought it would be worth a watch.  Here is a review. First the good things.  The film is nicely shot and well written.  The majority of the work builds on themes such as nutritious diets healthy soils, and efficient energy. Those are the central underlying values of the film, and ones that I wholly endorse.  However, where the film falls apart is in its approaches to achieve those end points.  Two of the "experts" recruited for the film are none other than Jeffrey Smith and Vandana Shiva, two people with little training in science or farming (and no, Vandana Shiva is not a physicist as the film claims).  The narrator is actress Rosario Dawson, who early in the film makes the proclamation, "Agriculture is the most destructive human activity on the planet." It is clear where t
Read more

Food Babe Visits My University

-
Image
It was 6:30 pm in the lab and I was just thinking about the last things I'd need to get done before I could go home.  Typical night.  Usually I'm riding home about 7 pm, but an email popped up asking me if I was going to go watch the Food Babe.  A click on a link would take me to the note on a UF Dean for Students Good Food Revolution Events website.  Vani Hari would be spreading her corrupt message of bogus science and abject food terrorism here at the University of Florida. Oh joy. There's something that dies inside when you are a faculty member that works hard to teach about food, farming and science, and your own university brings in a crackpot to unravel all of the information you have brought to students. She might have started from honest roots.  Her story says she was duped by an organic yogurt stand (join the club) into buying taro toppings that were filled with artificial, non-organic colors.  She realized that she could use social media to coalesce
Read more

Shame on Pediatrics. Rejecting Scientist's Comments

-
 A lot has been said about the journal Pediatrics December 2023 Clinical Report on "Using GMOs on Children". The poor scholarship and citation bias are alarming, and the bias against safe technology is clear.  When I wrote to editor-in-chief Dr. Lewis First, he indicated that I was invited to submit a response to the article that would be posted below the article on its website. I submitted my response, and it was not published on the site. My guess is that it illuminated the bankruptcies of the article in a manner that ran counter to the authors', editor's and journal's narrative.  So I'll publish my comment here.  Dear Pediatrics Readership,  The article by Abrams et al. represents a stunning example of how misinformation spreads- even through a credible conduit. Pediatrics is a respected journal, so when a paper implies a technology is dangerous, physicians and the general public take note. That’s good. But if the message runs counter to the scientific con
Read more