Showing posts with label Dr. Mercola. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Mercola. Show all posts

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Psychoneuroimmunology—How Inflammation Affects Your Mental Health

English: Cover of the book Take Control of You...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)




By Dr. Kelly Brogan
Psychoneuroimmunology. This is what I aim to practice. Medical terms of this length command our respect for the interconnectedness of different subspecialties, for the futile segmentation and compartmentalization of the body into different organ systems.
As discussed in this previous article I wrote for Dr. Mercola, deconstructing the serotonin model of depression, psychiatry is in a crisis. It can no longer stand on its own, throwing more and more medications at its perceived target. 
It seems, therefore, fitting that psychiatry would follow the investigative path of other lifestyle-triggered chronic diseases such as cancer, autoimmunity, and heart disease. There already exists a bidirectional relationship between all of the major chronic diseases and psychiatric diagnoses (patients who struggle with chronic diseases are more likely to be depressed and vice versa). 
The role of inflammation, across these disease states, is better elucidated each day. Let's deconstruct what is known as it applies to mental health.

Inflammation and Depression

In this model, depression is a non-specific fever that tells us little about what is actually causing the body to react and protect itself in this way. The body is "hot" and we need to understand why. Depressive symptoms are the manifestation of many downstream effects on hormones and neurotransmitters, but if we swim up to the source, we will find a river of inflammatory markers coursing by.
The source itself may be singularly or multiply-focused as stress, dietary, and toxic exposures, and infection, as we will discuss here. As explored in the medical literature,1 inflammation appears to be a highly relevant determinant of depressive symptoms such as flat mood, slowed thinking, avoidance, alterations in perception, and metabolic changes. We understand this relationship based on:
Biomarkers  
Psychiatrists have longed to be legitimized in their role as science-based physicians. Despite this, there are no diagnostic tests that are validated for the assessment of psychiatric pathology. In the practice of functional medicine, however, the diagnosis becomes secondary to the individual's personalized interplay of factors and the "biomarkers" that can light the way toward healing. 

Cytokines in the blood, or inflammatory messengers, such as CRP, IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-alpha have taken the stage as predictive2 and linearly3 correlative with depression. 
Researchers have validated4 that, in melancholic depression, bipolar disorder, and postpartum depression, white blood cells called monocytes express pro-inflammatory genes leading to secretion of cytokines, while simultaneously leading to decreased cortisol sensitivity, the body's stress hormone and inflammatory buffer – a feedforward cycle.
Once triggered in the body, these inflammatory agents transfer information to the nervous system, typically through stimulation of major nerves such as the vagus, which connects5 the gut and brain. Specialized cells called microglia in the brain represent the brain's immune hubs and are activated in inflammatory states.
In activated microglia, an enzyme called IDO (indoleamine 2 3-dioxygenase) has been shown6 to direct tryptophan away from the production of serotonin and melatonin and towards the production of an NMDA agonist called quinolinic acidthat may be responsible for symptoms of anxiety and agitation. 

These are just some of the changes that may conspire to let your brain in on what your body may know is wrong.
Animal Models
While an animal model of depression may seem like an absurd idea, currently, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), an endotoxin produced by gram-negative bacteria, is used to induce these clinical models in rodents.
Mice that lack IL1-B7 (a cytokine that mediates inflammatory response), however, are protected against these LPS-mediated "depressive symptoms" (i.e., as demonstrated by loss of interest in sugar water), supporting the critical role of inflammatory messengers in the depressogenic cascade.
Pharmacology
One of the most predictable side effects of interferon therapy for Hepatitis C is depression. In fact, 45 percent of patients develop depression8 with interferon treatment, which appears to be related to elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and TNF.
A number of trials have examined the role of anti-inflammatory agents in the treatment of depression. In one recent trial,9 a subset of patients resistant to antidepressant treatment and identified by serum markers of inflammation, most notably C-reactive protein >3mg/L, were responsive to treatment with the TNF-alpha antagonist (anti-inflammatory) infliximab (Remicade).
The pain-killer celecoxib (Celebrex) has been found in randomized, placebo-controlled trials10 to be superior to placebo in antidepressant augmentation. In the setting of psoriasis treatment with etanercept (Enbrel), mood was improved11independent of psoriatic relief.
There has even been suggestion that the mechanism of action of antidepressants is through an anti-inflammatory effect, particularly on IL6. However, these observational studies have been largely inconclusive.12

The Gut-Brain Dance

What is driving this inflammation? How does it get kicked off? And how does it induce depression? With the limited clinical applications and revelations that came with the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2002, we have begun to focus on where we have outsourced our physiologic functions. 

The microbiome has become an important consideration, and particularly, the gut, which houses at least 10 times as many human cells as there are in our bodies, and 150 times as many genes as are in our genome. These microbes control many vital operations and are responsible for synthesis of neuroactive and nutritional compounds, for immune modulation, and for inflammatory signaling.
Our greatest interface with the environment is the 70+ percent of your immune system housed in your gut wall. Disturbances in gut microbiota, autoimmunity, head injury, childbirth, and infection can all trigger systemic inflammation. This immune activity takes the form of a TH1 dominant cellular response in which macrophages produce ILI, IL6, and TNFalpha, all of which have been shown to be elevated in the setting of depression.
The communication between our guts and brains appears to rely, in part, on the vagus nerve, and is bidirectional in nature as reported in this 12-year prospective study13 that looked at relationships between gut problems like irritable bowel disease, anxiety, and depression.  
The stage is set for the microbiome when we descend the vaginal canal and are breastfed. Unfortunately, the rate of cesarean sections doubled from 1990-2008, comprising one-third of US births. Maternal inflammatory states and diseases such as type 1 diabetes can increase risk of surgical birth, as can interventions such as ultrasound, 14 monitoring, and the epidural.15 Without vaginal transfer of mom's flora, the baby misses out on the most important inoculation.
A study16 of 24 Canadian babies at four months demonstrated that elective section resulted in the most diminished bacterial diversity. Surgically born babies had significantly less Bacteroides and Escherichia-Shigella species. In this cohort, formula-fed babies had overrepresentation of Clostridium difficilePeptostreptococcaceae, and Verrucomicrobiaceae. Excitingly, research is being done on "vaginal swabs" for inoculation in the setting of C-section.17

The Importance of Breast Milk

In our nationwide departure from physiologic birth and breastfeeding, less than one-quarter of women can be expected to be nursing by 12 months postpartumBreast milk18 contains unique nutrients for beneficial bacteria called oligosaccharides, but importantly, it is the vital follow up to the mother's vaginal flora, designed to support the baby's immune system during its infancy marked by an "anti-inflammatory" phenotype. During these first few months, the baby relies on the mother's breast milk to help inform its immune system of what is dangerous.
Over the course of lactation beginning with colostrum, the makeup of these bacteria and growth factors changes.19 A recent study20 confirms that mom's gut bacteria are vertically transferred through breast milk and that this "entero-mammary" connection is what helps to develop the baby's immune system. This is the beginning of natural immunity, which is so much more complex than vaccinologists would have you believe.
One of the many problems with formula is the glaring omission of these microbes leaving the baby susceptible to colonization by inappropriate strains, suboptimal diversity, and stimulation of the immune system by many of the toxic compounds in this synthetic food. In fact, infants fed breast milk had an anti-inflammatory cytokine milieu throughout infancy.21 Here22 is a stunning analysis of formula shortcomings.
Interestingly, this rat study23 demonstrated that the types of bacteria in the guts of these rat pups determined their response to stress on a physiologic level, and that it was more difficult to correct later in their rat-infancy. The gut bacteria influenced behavior and brain growth in these animals. I speak about some of the impediments to adequate milk supply here,24 but formula feeding25in the hospital and "supplementation" is a major offender.

Gluten Promotes Depression

Often processed with genetically modified oils in high glycemic foods, gluten is a brain and body poison. Its havoc begins in the gut, where it promotes intestinal permeability by upregulating a compound called zonulin. Local gut inflammation (often lectin-induced) precedes more systemic inflammatory responses accompanied by antibodies to the different components of gluten (gliadin and glutenin), complexes with enzymes called transglutaminase, and to tissue in the brain, gut, and thyroid through a process called molecular mimicry.
The neurologic effects of gluten intolerance include depression, seizures, headaches, multiple sclerosis/demyelination, anxiety, ADHD, ataxia, neuropathy as discussed here and here. Independent of the brain effects already discussed, gliadin peptides may travel through the blood stream and can stimulate opiate receptors in the brain, resulting in their being termed gliadorphins, accounting for temporary withdrawal symptoms! Get the full scoop in my anti-gluten missive.

The Impact of Unnatural Foods: GMOs

In the past year, there has been an explosion of terrifying information on the impact of herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) on our gut microbiome. As it turns out, this chemical is very active in slaughtering beneficial bugs in your intestines via its impact on the "shikimate pathway" previously assumed not to exist in humans.
By imbalancing this flora, pesticides/herbicides also disrupt the production of essential amino acids like tryptophan, a serotonin precursor, and promote production of p-cresol, a compound that interferes with metabolism of other "xenobiotics" or environmental chemicals, making the individual more vulnerable to their toxic effects. Even vitamin D3 activation in the liver may be negatively impacted by glyphosate's effect on liver enzymes, potentially explaining epidemic levels of deficiency.
We also have evidence26 that insecticidal toxins such as “Bt” are transferred into the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses, and that glyphosate herbicide transfers to breast milk. Delve27 into this fascinating analysis of what we are learning about these chemicals in our food supply. Genetic modification of foods, in addition to guaranteeing exposure to pest and herbicides, confer risks of gene transference to human gut bacteria, even after a singular exposure.

The Hazards of NSAIDs

Most people think of ibuprofen as an innocuous, over–the-counter comfort for aches and pains. Some are so lulled into a sense of safety and efficacy, that they keep these pills in their purses and nightstands for even daily use. In addition to other known risks, its effects on the small and large intestine may be best summarized by this statement:28
"The initial biochemical local sub-cellular damage is due to the entrance of the usually acidic NSAID into the cell via damage of the brush border cell membrane and disruption of the mitochondrial process of oxidative phosphorylation, with consequent ATP deficiency"
For anyone who recognizes the role of brush border integrity and energy production in health, this is quite a damning assertion. We need the gut lining to keep the gut contents away from the blood stream. Resulting increases in permeability allow for luminal factors (intestinal contents) to access the immune system and to set off autoimmune and inflammatory processes. More recent evidence29 suggests that unbalanced gut bacteria set the stage for NSAID-induced permeability through neutrophil stimulation. These changes occur within three to six months. There are no ways to mitigate these negative effects, which argues for getting to the root of why one is experiencing pain and resolving it through lifestyle change rather than suppressing it with medications that will whack-a-mole their way to new, chronic, and potentially more debilitating symptoms.

The Role of Stress

The monoamine hypothesis of depression has very little to say about brain/hormone interplay. The majority of studies30suggest that depression is associated with high cortisol states, and potentially from responses of this stress-system that were ingrained at birth or before. In the context of inflammation, however, cortisol, prolactin, and sex hormones are often dysregulated; in this model, depression is thought to represent a hypercortisolemic state which may result from elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines. 
Peripheral glucocorticoid resistance may exacerbate this elevation in cortisol (by interfering with feedback mechanisms) and immune response, simultaneously, which would also drive changes in sex hormones progesterone, insulin, and androgens31ultimately affecting mood states. Sleep is often compromised in states of stress, and sleep difficulties can also beget stress. The inflammatory effects of insufficient sleep were quantified in a study32 that deprived participants of sleep (just under six hours) for one week resulting in expression of genes associated with oxidative stress and inflammation.

How to Resolve It—You Feel What You Eat

Restoring optimal gut flora requires a variety of interventions, but beginning with a grain- and dairy-free diet, eliminating sugar, and genetically modified foods is a good place to start. Remember the role of LPS in depression? How depressive patients are more likely to have intestinal permeability allowing for toxic intestinal agents to circulate in their bodies? A traditional/ancestral diet may be an important modulator, according to Selhub et al. who state:33
"Traditional dietary practices have completely divergent effects of blood LPS levels; significant reductions (38%) have been noted after a one-month adherence to a prudent (traditional) diet, while the Western diet provokes LPS elevations."
For some, a FODMAPs diet may be indicated, and for others, a GAPs or Specific Carbohydrate Diet. This dietary approach will also confer the insulin stabilizing benefits of a high-fat, slower burning metabolic shift which protects cortisol, thyroid, and sex hormones. Increasing natural fats may also serve to protect the 60 percent lipid content of the central nervous system, precursors to hormones, and cell membrane composition while stabilizing blood sugar. I discuss three changes to make here.34
Herbs and spices may also play a palliative role in depression through their anti-inflammatory effects. Curcumin, a polyphenol in the Indian spice turmeric with elaborate anti-inflammatory mechanisms was recently found to be as effective as Prozac in small a randomized study I discuss here.35 Fermented foods, a part of traditional cultural diets, would also play a beneficial role, in this paradigm of microbiome-oriented, diet-supported mental health in ways stated here:36
"'This could manifest, behaviorally, via magnified antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity, reduction of intestinal permeability and the detrimental effects of LPS, improved glycemic control, positive influence on nutritional status (and therefore neurotransmission and neuropeptide production), direct production of GABA, and other bioactive chemicals, as well as a direct role in gut-to-brain communication via a beneficial shift in the intestinal microbiota itself.' In this way, we use bacteria to modify our own bacteria and subsequently dampen inflammatory signals."
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) offers an excellent guide to pesticide-free shopping,37 and a guide38 to avoiding genetically modified foods.

Psychobiotics

In a brilliant review entitled "Psychobiotics: A Novel Class of Psychotropic," Dinan et al tour us through the role of probiotics (therapeutic live organisms ingested as a supplement or as part of a fermented food) in mental health. Acknowledging the data for inflammatory cytokines influencing mood states, and the role of gut bacteria in triggering these cytokines, they review the available literature supporting antidepressant effects of probiotics. There is speculation that anti-inflammatory signaling through IL-10 may underpin probiotic efficacy.
For example, "germ-free" mice exposed to stress experienced normalization of their cortisol response after inoculation withBifidus infantis. In a related experiment testing the stress of maternal separation, adult rodent behavior was normalized with this inoculation despite persistent cortisol changes. Lactobacilli, on the other hand, improved both parameters. In human adults with irritable bowel syndrome, depression and anxiety symptoms improved with administration of Bifidus, and in the setting of chronic fatigue, subjects experienced improvement in anxiety with Lactobacillus casei, relative to placebo. 
In a recent double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study, subjects receiving B. longum and L. helveticus for 30 days experienced improvement on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, with decrease in urinary free cortisol. A probiotic-containing yogurt was also found to improve mood within 20 days in elderly volunteers. Intriguingly, a three-arm study39 looked at women consuming a fermented milk beverage three times a day vs milk vs nothing, found that those in the probiotic group had MRI-based changes related to midbrain emotional processing.

The Benefits of Meditation

Activating the relaxation nervous system – the one that allows us to "rest and digest" – is an effective means of easing symptoms and restoring an anti-inflammatory state. You can start with something as simple as listening to a guided meditation for several minutes a day and working up to 20 minutes twice a day for a therapeutic effect.
The interconnectedness of your gut, brain, immune, and hormonal systems is impossible to unwind. Until we begin to appreciate this complex relationship, we will not be able to prevent or intervene effectively in depression, slated to become the second-leading cause of disability in this country, within the decade. For true healing, and meaningful prevention, take steps every day toward sending your body the message that it is not being attacked, it is not in danger, and it is well nourished, well supported, and calm.
As a society, we can begin to think about protecting the microbiome by demedicalizing birth and infant nutrition, and as individuls, by avoiding antibiotics, NSAIDs, grains, genetically modified and non-organic food. Promising interventions for depression from a gut-brain perspective include probiotics, fermented foods as part of a high natural fat diet, and relaxation response for optimal digestion, anti-inflammatory and insulin sensitizing effects. No antidepressant medication required!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Unethical Journal Retraction Fuels Mistrust in GMO Science

Ciencia traicionada... ¿será?
Ciencia traicionada... ¿será? (Photo credit: jpazkual)





By Dr. Mercola
In September of last year, the first-ever lifetime feeding study assessing the health risks of genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready corn (NK603) was published in Reed Elsevier’s peer-reviewed journalFood and Chemical Toxicology.
The two-year long study1 led by Gilles-Eric Séralini revealed shocking health effects, including massive tumors and early death.
Rats given glyphosate in their drinking water also developed tumors. Glyphosateis the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, which has recently been implicated as a major contributor to chronic disease. Needless to say, Séralini’s findings set off a fire-storm of opposition from the industry.
Last month, the publisher retracted the study saying it “did not meet scientific standards.” While no errors or misrepresentation of data were found, the study had too small a sample size to make any definite conclusion about health effects, Elsevier said.2, 3, 4, 5
According to Reuters:6
“The journal said that while it received many letters expressing concerns about the validity of the findings, the proper use of animals and even allegations of fraud, its own investigation found ‘no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.’
‘However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected,’ it said.”

Séralini Defends His Research

Séralini vehemently defends his research, and according to some sources may end up taking the issue to court.7 He’s certainly no stranger to legal battles. A mere two years ago, he won a libel case against the French Association of Plant Biotechnologies. As reported by GM Watch in January 2011:8
“Séralini sued for libel following a smear campaign... This was part of a furious response from the GM industry to a number of papers by Seralini and colleagues which demonstrated serious statistical and other shortcomings in the Monsanto research dossiers submitted in support of applications for the approval of three GM varieties.
The papers had not argued that the Monsanto GM maize lines were actually dangerous, but had simply argued that there were no grounds for assuming them to be completely harmless. They asked for further research and longer animal feeding studies than those that had been conducted.”
The research team issued the following statement9 on GMOSeralini.org:
“We, authors of the paper published in FCT more than one year ago on the effects of Roundup and a Roundup-tolerant GMO, and having answered to critics in the same journal, do not accept as scientifically sound the debate on the fact that these papers are inconclusive because of the rat strain or the number of rats used.
We maintain our conclusions. We already published some answers to the same critics in your Journal, which have not been answered.”
It’s quite noteworthy that after an intense year-long review by the publisher—in addition to being reviewed by twice the typical number of referees prior to publication—the study was not retracted due to errors, fraud, or even the slightest misrepresentation of data.
It was retracted because the strain and number of animals used allegedly rendered the findings inconclusive. However, since when are studies retracted for showing inconclusive findings?

Inconclusive Findings Are Not a Valid Ground for Retraction

As noted by GM Watch,10 inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid ground for retraction. According to the guidelines for scientific retractions set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the only grounds for a retraction are:
  • Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error
  • Plagiarism or redundant publication
  • Unethical research
Clearly, the retraction is in violation of COPE guidelines. On his website,11 Séralini defends the use of Sprague Dawley rats, stating this strain of rats is routinely used in studies investigating toxicological and tumor-inducing effects, including in some of Monsanto’s own toxicology studies.
One main difference is that Monsanto ended their feeding study at 90 days, and Séralini’s team discovered that tumors and other devastating health effects occurred AFTER the 90-day mark. What’s more, contrary to Séralini’s paper, Monsanto’s study actually contains errors, yet it was never retracted. As reported by ISIS:12
“[A] study published by Monsanto in the same journal in 2004 does contain errors if not outright fraud, basically because the effect of GMOs was not compared with matched isogenic non-GMO controls, while the feed for controls was most likely contaminated with GMOs. That paper should be considered for retraction, but the issue was never even raised.”
Séralini also explains and defends the number of animals used, stating that while standard research guidelines call for 20 animals per group in carcinogenicity studies, the team was not performing a carcinogenesis study. They were assessing long-term chronic toxicity, and tumors just happened to be part of the outcome; hence they were reported. As noted by GM Watch:13
“It is important that scientists do not overstate their findings or draw conclusions that are not justified by the data, but Prof Séralini's paper does not do this. Because Prof Séralini's study was a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity study, which normally requires larger numbers of rats, He conservatively did not do a statistical analysis of the tumors and mortality findings. Instead he simply reported them, without drawing definitive conclusions. This is in line with the OECD chronic toxicity protocol, which requires that any ‘lesions’ (including tumors) observed are recorded.”

The Controversy Deepens

Interestingly, according to one report, Séralini may be planning an experiment that could throw serious doubt on virtually allprevious GMO research.14 According to Séralini, all experimental animals are routinely exposed to pollutants and (most likely) GMOs via their chow. This makes it impossible to properly distinguish spontaneous, natural tumors from tumors developed in response to GMOs and other toxic contaminants, and it doesn’t matter how many animals you use in your tests... As stated by Sustainable Pulse:15
“In short, the ultimate defense [of Seralini’s 2012 GM maize study] is to cast doubt on the relevance of the studies done so far. This statement – which would need to be seriously supported – will undoubtedly cause a wave of protest. The editors of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology were perhaps hoping to extinguish the controversy, but instead they may have fanned the flames.”
Indeed, the chemical technology industry, led by Monsanto, is not sitting so pretty right now, and victory shouts of “I told you so” in response to the retraction of Séralini’s hotly contested research falls flat when you consider that the GMO industry just lost one of its own primary scientific figure heads to a string of embarrassing study retractions. I’m talking about Pamela Ronald,16 of course, the public face of GMO research. Two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were retracted this year, and questions have been raised about a third paper. Her work was correctly retracted due to errors, which included mislabeled samples and failure to use replicable experimental conditions, and more.
What many don’t realize is that even a small number of retracted studies can wreak absolute havoc with the science-based paradigm. Other scientists, who have based their research on the results from studies that for whatever reason end up being retracted, are now perpetuating flawed science as well. In this case, Dr. Ronald’s retracted GMO studies have been cited by at least 121 times.17, 18 That’s a large cleanup job in a field that’s already heavily criticized for its preponderance of lousy science. This probably added pressure to even the playing field by removing some of the worst evidence of harm from the table. With Séralini’s findings dismissed, they’ve managed to at least slow down the GMO industry’s demise.

Mistrust in Science Grows as Conflicts of Interest Become the Norm

As if Elsevier wasn’t in enough hot water, the retraction of Séralini’s research comes on the heels of the installation of a Monsanto employee on the publisher’s editorial staff. Earlier this year, they created a brand new editorial position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology and filled it with Richard E. Goodman,19 who was a Monsanto scientist for seven years. Goodman is also an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute.
While on Monsanto’s payroll, he assessed GE crops for allergenicity and published papers on the safety of GE food. While there’s no proof that Goodman was responsible for the retraction, the timing and obnoxiously blatant appearance of conflicts of interest are hard to ignore. As stated by the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS):20
“The journal and its publisher are operating a double standard in retracting a paper reporting adverse health impacts for which no fraud or error was found, as opposed to one claiming no health impacts where serious error at least is involved. This is not just a blatant violation of publishing ethics, it means conspiring to remove from the public record results that could be of great importance for public health. Furthermore, it is an abuse of science and amounts to corporate terrorism on independent science and scientists. It strikes at the very heart of science and democracy, and the aspiration of scientists to work for the public good.”  [Emphasis mine]
Indeed, regardless of Goodman’s level of involvement, the bizarre justification for retracting Séralini’s study is enough to indicate that “corporate terrorism” has seized the field and is actively undermining science as we know it. Science used to be a field held in the highest of esteem, and all of modern medicine is built on the foundation of “science-based” treatments.
Now, it is abundantly clear that the preferred business model of an industry is created first, and “scientific evidence” is then concocted, sometimes almost like an afterthought, to support the established business model—not the other way around, which is how most people understand the fundamental role of science. This is precisely why the scam has worked this long. Everyone just assumes that scientific integrity is somehow assured; that there are safeguards along the way...

The Rise of Corporate Terrorism

“Corporate terrorism” is perhaps one of the most apt descriptions I’ve seen so far to describe what’s happening here. Again and again, papers assessing the prevalence scientific fraud and the impact of conflicts of interest with industry show that the situation is dire and getting worse. In short, we have lost scientific integrity. Without integrity, science is dead.
Instead of evidence-based decision making, we now have decision-based evidence making.
This is creating a tremendous mistrust of science, and rightfully so. The Séralini case reveals just how gaping a gulf this problem has become. If we don’t have real, independent and unbiased science, how are we to make well-informed decisions about anything—be it related to the medical, chemical, or genetic engineering industries? The entire notion of “science-based”—anything goes right out the window! Where does that ultimately leave us, and how do we proceed?
Ever since the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) seeds in the mid-1990s, the market for these chemical-dependent crops have spawned a multibillion dollar industry. Funding for the development of more varieties of GE crop varieties has come primarily from the privately-owned chemical technology industry itself. Over the last 15 years, conflicts of interest within science have exponentially increased, and at this point, it’s blatantly obvious that financial conflicts of interest play a major role when it comes to what research is done; what gets published, and what doesn’t. According to one 2011 study published in the journalFood Policy:21
“In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light. While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results, a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome. “
Here’s another example of corrupted science. As noted in a 2012 paper published in the journal Nature,22 when researchers looked into the reproducibility of what were considered to be “landmark” cancer studies, they were absolutely shocked to realize that scientific findings could only be confirmed in 11 percent of these “groundbreaking” research cases! Unless a finding can be successfully reproduced, the hypothesis doesn’t hold water.
Conflicts of interest are also at the heart of yet another round of controversy revolving around genetically engineered foods. Corinne Lepage, a Member of the European Parliament and former French environment minister recently called for the resignation of Anne Glover, chief scientific adviser to the European Commission. Glover, a GMO-advocate, was appointed to her position two years ago. Now, all of a sudden—for the first time since 1996—the commission is considering authorizing the cultivation of GM corn in Europe.23 Coincidence? Lepage doesn’t think so.
Other scientists have also spoken out about the abuse and intimidation they suffer simply for publishing findings that point to problems relating to genetically engineered foods. Some of them are addressed in Emily Waltz’s 2009 report “GM crops: Battlefield,” published in Nature.24

Take a Stand Against Unethical Science

As stated by Corinne Lepage at a November 28 press conference, Séralini’s paper raised valid questions about the safety of GMOs and Roundup, and retracting the paper “will not make these questions disappear.”25 Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, physician and co-author of the Séralini paper called the retraction “a public health scandal,” noting that the journal had already scrutinized the study more closely than other papers prior to publishing. And the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility issued a statement26 calling the retraction “a travesty of science” that “looks like a bow to industry.”
It sure does look like it, and Elsevier has the history to support such suspicions as well. Many may have forgotten this, but it was only four years ago that Elsevier was found to have created no less than six “science journals” that were nothing of the sort.27 The journals were designed to look like peer-reviewed medical journals—little did doctors know that the magazines were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and contained reprints of favorable studies and single-source reviews. In short, it was “undercover corporate propaganda.”
The publisher has also drawn enough ire from academics fed up with Elsevier’s business practices, especially its pricing. According to ISIS, more than 13,970 academics from all subjects have signed a boycott against the publisher, pledging not to publish, referee, or do editorial work for them.
Now, a group of scientists have drafted an open letter requesting Elsevier reverse its retraction of the Séralini paper, and to issue a public apology to the authors. Until this is done, we will boycott Elsevier, decline to purchase Elsevier products, submit papers for publication, review papers or do editorial work for Elsevier,” the letter states. The letter may be signed by scientists and non-scientists alike. In the time it took me to write this article, the letter received another 15 signatures by scientists. Please take a moment to sign the letter, and forward it as widely as possible.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State - to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.
I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beets, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.
If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as certified organics do not permit GMO’s. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:
Please, do your homework. Together, we have the power to stop the biotech industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole. All we need is about five percent of American shoppers to simply stop buying genetically engineered foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients—regardless of whether the products bear an actual GMO label or not.

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/17/seralini-gmo-study-retracted.aspx  Link back to Mercola.com website.
Enhanced by Zemanta