[:22] Jeffrey Smith - founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the new Live Healthy Be Well podcast - introduces the podcast and Brent Wisner.  

[1:52] Jeffrey gives examples of ways that Monsanto rigs the research & manipulates science for their profitability. 

[4:00] Brent Wisner tells about the study that shocked Europe, what Monsanto should have done and what it actually did. 

[7:04] “They actually used that fact as evidence to defeat policy. I mean that is truly egregious conduct and it's really a dark chapter in Monsanto's history. “

[9:18] Monsanto disproves the damning toxicology study by saying there weren’t enough mice in the study. Brent explains to us why, in this case, less is more. 

[19:36] Brent explains historical controls and why they aren’t valid scientific proof but rather a way to manipulate findings of studies proving the dangers of glyphosate. 

[20:39] Brent tells Jeffrey about how he got the expert for Monsanto to agree with him about the misuse of historical controls. 

[25:21] Brent tells us about the one fact about Monsanto that blows his mind. “Here's the thing, when I asked them why - I got their expert on the stand,  I got their toxicologist on the stand, and I said, ‘Why haven't you done that? It seems like a no brainer, why haven't you done that in a rodent study?’

‘Well, because all the rodents would die.’ 

That was their answer!

[27:10] Monsanto used non-common sense to trick the government of Australia into thinking an organic protein was safe for human consumption but science proves that this level is thousands of times higher than what humans would be exposed to in the natural world. 

[30:01] The monkey study explains that toxic levels of glyphosate are being absorbed by our gut and Monsanto buried it. 

[32:01] Monsanto purposely broke federal law and didn’t give study results to the EPA. 

Brent Wisner - So not only did they attack the scientist, they attacked the science and tried to
discredit him. They actually used that fact as evidence to defeat policy. I mean that is truly
egregious conduct and it's really a dark chapter in Monsanto's history.

Hi, this is Jeffrey Smith. By now you have probably read about the fact that Monsanto has been
losing in the courts. Big awards, in one case a jury awarded a couple over $2 billion before the
judge actually reduced it. Now, of the three trials, two of those trials were lead by Brent Wisner
for the plaintiff and he also worked on the third trial. He's a brilliant young attorney. In fact, I
appeared with him on the TV show "The Doctors" for an entire episode and was very impressed
with him. I was very impressed seeing him in the court, reading his closing arguments, and also
interviewing him.

Here's one of the many interviews that I've done with Brent. You can catch others at the
responsibletechnology.org site. Just click through and there are several different interviews
including this one where you can actually see the interview. But for those that like to download
into their podcast to listen in the car, as their walking, etc. Please enjoy this amazing man as he
describes some of the inside information that he gleaned studying Monsanto and then winning,
in this case, he was talking about the first trial.

Don't forget to subscribe to this podcast, Live Healthy Be Well. You can do that at Live Healthy
Be Well.com or anywhere that you get your podcasts.

Jeffrey - Brent, I have written extensively about scientists who've been smashed by Monsanto
and their machinations. The opening of my book "Seeds of Deception" is about Dr. Arpad
Pusztai. He was given $3 million by the UK government to figure out how to test for the safety of
GMOs. He discovered that the generic process of genetic engineering causes massive damage
to animals in just 10 days.

When he went public with his concerns, we understand that Monsanto called President Clinton,
who called Tony Blair, and then his office called the Aberdeen Institute - the Rowen Institute
where he worked, and the next day he was fired after 35 years. Silenced with threats of a
lawsuit. They never implemented the protocols that he was creating that was going to be a part
of the EU law for assessing the safety of GMOs. It was only 7 months and one heart attack
later that he was invited to speak before Parliament and that got his data back, and it is now
published. It demonstrates that the process of genetic engineering caused: potentially
pre-cancerous cell growth in the digestive tract of animals, smaller brains, livers, and testicles,
damaged immune system, partially damaged liver, in just ten days.

So that was like the first one, he was the poster child, and they've been so effective at publicly
going after scientists who discover problems. One scientist, Elaine Ingham told me that there
are hundreds of scientists who refuse to do research on GMOs or Roundup because they don't
want to withstand the threats to themselves or their career. Even in nature, she described that
there is a knee jerk reaction where the scientists are attacked even personally if they discover
any problems related to GMOs. We also have demonstrated how they rigged their research.
How they used obsolete detection methods, the wrong statistics, the wrong controls, and did
everything they could to hide the evidence. And when they still found problems with the
animals, they dismissed them without explanation as not related to the treatment.
So you have a whole different set of information because you have been sorting through, I
understand you and your team, millions of pages.

Brent - Millions.

Jeffrey - Millions, which is one of their techniques to try to get you not to discover because they
flood too much. So what are some of the choice ways that you have discovered? It's trading
stories, like fishing stories, what are some of the ways that you have discovered that Monsanto
has corrupted science, covered up science, covered up evidence, threatened scientists, paid off
scientists, and been the malicious actor that we know they are?

Brent - Well, I mean, they do it in a couple of different ways, right? What you just told me in that
story is - it's so their playbook that it's not even surprising to me, and it's an unfortunate reality of
the way Monsanto deals with science.

So probably the most egregious example was what happened to Dr. Séralini. He's a researcher
out in France and he did something that Monsanto never did, he actually found a research
protocol for a rodent study that Monsanto had generated but refused to do the study because
they were worried about what it would find.

So he did it, and he didn't do it in the best possible way, he had some problems with the way he
did the study, but he did the study. What it showed was rampant tumor growth in these rodents,
and if you've seen some of these photos they are just unbelievable, these poor mice were more
tumor than mice.

Jeffrey- Yeah, they'd actually have to kill the mice - the rats, when they had 25% of their body
weight equalling the tumor.

Brent - Yeah, it was just unbelievable, and it was a really alarming study. It really, I think,
shocked the conscience of people in Europe, particularly, as well in the US. So much so that
Monsanto knew they had to do something about it and so -it's really funny. Monsanto, you can
talk about in the context of what it should have done and what it actually did, right?

So a responsible company would have said, "Oh my god, there are some problems with the way
the study was done, but these results are so damning, we should redo the study. We should do
it under proper laboratory techniques and verify that, in fact this is happening or potentially
disprove it," right? But look! Do the study! That's what a company that cares about public safety
would do.

What Monsanto did was the exact opposite, so they went after Dr. Séralini personally, and what
they did - they did a couple of things but all of them are pretty nasty. So the first thing they did,
is they reached out to the editor of the journal where it was published, and they got that editor
under Monsanto's contract as a paid consultant for Monsanto.
Jeffrey - Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology

Brent - That's right.

Jeffrey - A European journal, and it was Wallace...

Brent - Wally Hayes, right?

Jeffrey - Wallace Hayes, yeah.

Brent - And they got him under contract, so he was a paid consultant for Monsanto. Then, they
had a bunch of independent scientists send in letters to the editor complaining about this study.
Those letters were written by Monsanto employees, they put other people's names on it, and
were sent to the journal to sort of discredit and attack the science.

With the editor on payroll, with all these letters coming in, and then, of course, they generated a
bunch of media attacking it as junk science.

Jeffrey - And they got one of their former scientists to also be an Associate Editor of
Biotechnology at the same journal.
Brent - That's right.

Jeffrey - So he was there too, they started to load their people.

Brent - And a former employee of Monsanto, SAL MYRUS, he was an employee at the time, he
was a researcher there, had a relationship with the editor that he could exploit. So all these
connections, right? Of course, they end up retracting the article, but they go farther.
Okay, so at this time in California, there was actually a measure on the ballot that would require
the labeling of GMO foods, and it had a lot of support. It was not that GMOs are banned, it was,
"Hey, let people know that they're eating a GMO food." That's it. Just label it, that's all. People
can choose to eat it and that's fine, but let them make their own decision.
It was a big proposition and it got defeated. But one of the ways they were able to defeat it was,
they had a bunch of - like The L.A. Times. A bunch of these reporters were reporting about how
Séralini was using junk science to stir up concerns, proven by the fact that it was retracted.
So not only did they attack the scientist - they attacked science and tried to discredit him - they
actually use that fact as evidence to defeat policy. I mean, that is truly egregious conduct and
it's really a dark chapter in Monsanto's history.

Thankfully, the story actually has a happy ending. Séralini brought the paper to another journal,
they published it. Peer-reviewed, it's now available as a peer-reviewed journal article. The
journal that did the misconduct, they've been exposed for what they are, they're frauds.
Unfortunately, the proposition lost in California but Dr. Séralini sued Monsanto in France - in the
French court system - and they were successful.

Jeffrey - So it was interesting, I was in China with about 30 scientists and experts giving a
top-level exposure of what GMOs were doing to the world, and their country, and one of
Séralini's colleagues was there talking about the retraction. Wallace Hayes wrote a letter
explaining why it was retracted, giving reasons that were well known to never be the justification
for a retraction. He said it wasn't proven.

Someone looked at their own, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, they looked at it
and said, "Oh," if they had applied the same criteria, 1/3, or some large number, of what they
actually publish would be retracted.
Brent - That's right.

Jeffrey - And certain things were less strong but other things were very strong and were
essentially verified, but he didn't pay attention to that. So, he was very defensive and he wrote
another one. He wrote another letter saying, "Actually, it's because there were not enough rats
for a cancer study."

It was interesting, that was one of the charges that was part of the talking points of Monsanto's
echo chamber, of their front people. It turns out the word cancer was never in Séralini's study.
He didn't do a cancer study, he did a toxicological study. He had enough rats for the toxicology
study, and the fact that they developed tumors was a surprise to him. They started developing
tumors in the fourth month, Monsanto stops its research on rats in the third month!

Brent - It's also a scientific fallacy, okay. So when you're talking about a cancer study, it doesn't
matter what cancer study even if its a toxicology study, if you see a risk, the fact that you didn't
have enough mice that you would normally have doesn't mean anything. Right? It's the other
way around.

Jeffrey - Yeah false positive versus false negative.
Brent - Exactly, so if you did a rat study with 20 rats instead of 50, which is typically what you
want, per gender.
Jeffrey - 50 per gender is what you want for cancer studies.
Brent - Yeah, instead you only had 20 per group, right, because it's a lot of mice, you don't want
to kill a lot, it's expensive. Whatever, you only do 20 and you still see a risk with 20. That means
you've got a real problem because you are able to see a problem with so few rats. But if you do
it only with 20 and you see no risk, it doesn't mean it's safe, because you didn't have enough
rats in the study.
Jeffrey- You know that because there was a study done on non-Hodgkins lymphoma - that was
one of the strongest studies - that showed that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkins lymphoma and
the EPA dismissed it because it was only 20... Was it mice?
Brent - That's right. It was a mice study, and it wasn't on non-Hodgkins lymphoma, it was on a
promotional study. So what they did is they had 20 mice and they give them what's called an
initiator.
Jeffrey - Right, right.
Brent - And then they applied glyphosate for basically 12-13 weeks - no sorry 30 weeks, 32
weeks - and they applied it, and mice that were given the initiator but not given glyphosate,
none of them had tumors in their skin. The mice that got the initiator and then glyphosate, it
wasn't glyphosate, it was Roundup... They bought store Roundup, they used actually the same
people are using, they applied that to the skin. 40% of them had tumors in their skin.
Jeffrey - 8 out of 20.
Brent - That's unreal, that's an unreal result, and the EPA goes, "Well, there's not enough mice
in there for it to mean anything so we disregard it." Our scientist Dr. Portier went, "What are you
talking about? I wrote those guidelines for the EPA, I even freaking developed them. I'm the
mouse guy, and you only disregard it when it doesn't show a risk. When it shows a risk with few
mice that means you've got a real problem." Right?
Jeffrey - Let me slow this down for people.
Brent - Sorry.
Jeffrey - No, this is great. Some people get lost when you go false positives false negatives. So
if you run if you have 50 animals, that's enough so that you should be able to see, because
cancer's not a very high percentage disease. You would need a large population so if there's a
slight increase you can see it.
Brent - Let me break it down like I did for the jury. It's even more basic.
Jeffrey - Please.
Brent - So when you talk about something like non-Hodgkins lymphoma, 1 in 10,000 people are
going to get it just regularly, right? You can't do a mouse study with 10,000 mice, that's just
inhumane and also it doesn't make any sense. So here's how they deal with the problem, they
have four groups of mice, 50 mice in each gender for each group. So you have 400 mice in the
whole study, you have 50 men and 50 women in each of these 4 groups.
One group has no exposure, they're the control group. That means they get no exposure to
anything, they're sort of the background rate. Then you have low, medium, high, exposure.
One of the things that Monsanto always brings up, this is silly, but they always say, "Well those
mice in those really high exposure groups are getting exposure that no human being would ever
get." Yes, that's intentional because you only have 100 mice, right?
Jeffrey - Not 10,000.
Brent - You're trying to create an effect, and if it's a carcinogen you actually might see
something that might be 1 in 10,000, you'll see it 1 in 100, because you're using so much. That's
why you scale it. That way you can see this in the different groups. So one of the things they
always say is, "Well, these exposures are so unrealistic, they don't tell us anything."
Yeah, but the fact that you're seeing 7 tumors in 50 mice when in humans if it's a real
carcinogen, you'd see 5 in 1000. That tells you you have a problem, right? That's why you do it
though, and that's a common fallacy. So we're talking about the same study now, but instead of
50 in each group, we have 20. That was a reason for the EPA to go, "Well, not enough - 50, so I
don't even look at it even though it's showing me that 40% of the mice that get exposed to
glyphosate develop tumors in their skin." I mean that is outrageous!
Jeffrey - Essentially, let me just be clear to make sure that this is clear. When you get that large
a percentage of cancer in the mice with a small group, it's more evidence, it is better evidence,
that is greater evidence than if you did it with 50. Because the percentage is so high, even when
you only use 20 you still see it.
So basically they use 50 because they don't want you to say if you see nothing it means
nothing, but if you see something it means something. So if they see something with 20 then
you have to pay attention. But they ignored it.
Brent- That's right. The other reason why they ignored it, to be fair, was they said they didn't do
a full histopathological examination. Which means, they didn't take each of the mice and dissect
every single tissue, whatever, they just did the skin.
Jeffrey - The gross tumors in the skin.
Brent - exactly, that's all they looked at. Which, fair enough, but again that problem is when you
have an insufficient study, right? So if they had not done that full histopathological examination
and they saw nothing, it doesn't mean it's safe.
Jeffrey - You don't need to do a deep histopathological evaluation if you're just trying to count
the number of tumors!
Brent - I have a very great scientist that I've worked for for years, and he always talks about
these studies and he goes, "You know, some things are obvious, right? For example, I don't
need to have 50 people jump out of a building to know that if you just out of a building, you die.
You just need a study of one. So hey, ya know what, you die." Sometimes common sense gets
lost in these like hyper "I want to apply these rules: and then you start going "Why are you doing
that?"
Jeffrey - I'm going to give you an example of how Monsanto uses this non-common sense. So
for years, I was pointing out - and trying to get scientists to pay attention - that the animal feed,
the rat chow, and the mice chow that they use for these control groups all over the world have
GMOs and Roundup.
brent - Don't get me started.
Jeffrey - There are two people that did research on it - one was Anthony Sampson and one was
the Séralini team, so theSéralini team publishes it. You see one of the big arguments against
his study was that 70-80% of the rats got tumors compared to maybe 10% of the control group.
The people were saying, "Well these are Sprague Dawley rats, they're supposed to get cancer
at 80-90%."
But Séralini was saying, "Yes, but under tightly controlled conditions it was 10% compared to
70-80%." "Oh, no no, you have to compare it to historical controls to controls" that weren't even
used in that particular study which is entirely unscientific. So Séralini pointed out that in all of
those studies they were using rat chow and mice chow which he then analyzed and found
GMOs, and Roundup, and glyphosate, and heavy metals, and other pesticides. So in all of their
safety studies, they're feeding the experimental group GMOs and Roundup and now the
experimental animals are being fed GMOs and Roundup.
So the reason why Sprague Dawley rats get 70 or 80% of tumors is because they're always
feeding them cancer-promoting chemicals like glyphosate.
Brent - This is something that is really important for understanding the science, right? When
you're looking at risk it's all relative. Relative to what? That's what the control group is for, right?
The idea is, you have unexposed and you have exposed and you compare the difference.
But if your comparing exposed to exposed, that difference between them decreases and when
it decreases too much it becomes no longer statistically significant, and scientists ignore it. This
is a common thing that's done to help hide risks, but it's actually kind of worse because while all
the control groups are getting that when they talk about historical controls.
Jeffrey - Yes! I'm so glad you're bringing this up.
Brent - When they talk about those historical controls, the EPA guidelines are very clear about
what you do. This is not an unknown thing, it's black and white. It's really funny, their expert, the
mouse expert for Monsanto, at trial, he ultimately just agreed that I was right. He's like, "I'm
wrong on this." it was like a -
Jeffrey - I want to hear that one.
Brent - But we're talking about historical controls and I said, "Listen, it's black and white right
here that the most relevant group for comparison is the group in the study, the concurrent
controls." Those are the ones that tell you because they've got the same exposures, the same
treatments, the same light, the same food. They've got the same stuff as everyone else and so
that really tells you what the difference is.
When you go to historical controls, one of the ways that they mess with it is they go what is the
historical rate. Not the historical average, but you have to use the average right? So this
happened in the mouse studies, there are five mice studies that were done on glyphosate; four
of them had elevated, statistically significant rates of malignant lymphoma.
Jeffrey - Four out of five.
Brent - Four out of five.
Jeffrey - That's pretty strong
Brent - For the mice exposed to glyphosate, I mean, that's pretty compelling evidence. But
here's how they got rid of it, they look at the historical rate of these mice getting lymphoma and
they said it was within a historical range.
Jeffrey - Within the range of historical data that sometimes mice get this much.
Brent - Exactly, and the range went from 0 to 12%. That was the range, and these mice were
getting it at 12% in the glyphosate group. Well, it's within the range. It's at the higher end of the
range, but it's in the range, so it's all within the historical controls.
But you know you don't use the range, because if you go out and look at the actual data - there
was one study that had 12%, but the rest were like 1,3, 2, 4. They were all around 2 or 3 and so
if you take the average, the average historical rate, it's like 2-4%, right? You take the range,
yeah, the one study where they had 12. Fine 12%, but the vast majority, this is like 60 or 70
studies, they're all in the 2% range so the average is really low 2-3%
Jeffrey- And that 12%, they could have been feeding higher doses of glyphosate.
Brent - Precisely, that's the point and that's why you don't use the range, you use the average.
When you compare the average they're all well outside the historical average. Dr. Portier
explained this and their own expert, he buckled. Actually, it was a moment.
Jeffrey - Tell us, tell us!
Brent - So he's up there and he's actually a really nice guy. He's a scientist out of Canada and I
think his heart's in the right place. Before I started the cross-examination, I came up to him and
he has this long gray ponytail, and I go, "Hey doctor, nice to meet you. Before we get started,"
and this is outside the jury, no one's hearing this and I go, "Doctor, can I ask you a question?"
He was like, " Yeah."
I said, "I see the ponytail, hippie or Harley rider?" Because it goes either way right?
He looks at me and he goes, "I don't ride motorcycles."
I was like, "Oh okay so he's a hippie." I walk back and I go, "If this guy's a true hippie, if he's
someone who believes in a healthy lifestyle and he cares about public health, I can get him. I
think I can convince this guy."
Jeffrey - You're brilliant.
Brent - So I did it, and I was super nice. I didn't attack him - some of the other experts, I came
after them. This guy, kid gloves. Showed him the studies and I go, "Sir, you said it's 12%."
He goes, "Yes, that's the average is 12%."
I said, "Alright, how do you know that?"
He's like, "That's what the study shows."
"What study?" And I showed him the study.
He goes, "Yeah this is the study."
"Okay, great. Let's look at the numbers, sir." And I showed him and I go, "That's the12%. But
let's actually look at the rest." I showed it to him and I showed him that it was about a 4%
average.
He goes, "Yeah that's the average."
So I go, "Sir, if the average is 4%, every one of these mouse studies - every single one of them
that has malignant lymphoma is outside the historical average, right?"
"Yeah."
"So earlier when you told this jury that they could disregard it because they're all within the
historical range, that's wrong."
He goes, "Yeah, I misspoke."
Jeffrey - Perry Mason standing up in the background.
Brent - No further questions.
Jeffrey - Let's let that one resonate like a bell, oh my gosh. So I'm going to tell you how
Monsanto has used these historical averages, and how they use statistics. I'm going to try to
make it as simple as possible. When you grow and you're looking for the differences in the
compounds of, let's say, one GMO versus a non-GMO, you want to grow it under the same
climatic conditions next to each other. Because if you grow it in different conditions you're
changing it so much because of the weather.
Brent - Apples to oranges.
Jeffrey - In The Journal of Nutrition, 1996, Monsanto published a study about their soybeans.
What they did is, they grew the soybeans in many different places and pooled all the results, not
showing the side by side. So that creates the increase in statistical noise meaning this one is
changing this, this one is changing this one. They designed it specifically to hide the changes.
They described a case where they grew it side by side in Puerto Rico but they didn't include the
data. So Barbara Keeler, a medical investigator, contacted the journal and found in the archives
of the journal, not yet published, was the data from that side by side comparison. That's when
they found that there were lower levels of protein, lower levels of all these things, higher levels
of an anti-nutrient, and as much as seven times the amount of an allergen in cooked GM soy
compared to cooked non-GM soy.
That allergen trips an inhibitor, when it goes it can cause all sorts of problems. Monsanto - in the
only side by side evaluation - they hid the evidence because the name of the study was that
their soy was substantially equivalent to the natural soy. So the side by side evidence proved
that it wasn't the case.
Then another study, where they looked at a genetically engineered corn and found all sorts of
outliers in terms of the number of certain compounds, so they used historical controls. But the
controls were from studies on corn that had been exposed to radiation and created this mutant
corn, and it shot up certain values. They say, "See, it's part of the historical control."
Brent - Wow.
Jeffrey - so they had painted a target around the bullseye saying, "Oh no, these are the kind of
things we would find normally." But if you look at the actual studies, they were very weird
studies.
Brent - You know, it's funny - glyphosate and Roundup, they're different things. People often
don't realize that. Glyphosate is one chemical in Roundup, Roundup actually has all these other
chemicals. In fact, most of Roundup is these other chemicals. Some of it is water, fine, I don't
think anyone's complaining about water. But the rest of it is surfactants and other sorts of trace
residue chemicals.
Those trace residue chemicals include formaldehyde, dioxin, lots of stuff that we know is a
problem. But putting that issue aside, this is going to blow your mind and it's something that
blows my mind whenever I tell people.
Jeffrey - We'll see because I know a lot of this stuff.
Brent - You probably already know, this will blow everyone else's mind. To this day, Monsanto
has never conducted a long term carcinogenicity study on Roundup. They've only ever looked at
glyphosate, they've never looked at the actual thing that people are using in the real world.
Here's the thing, when I asked them why - I got their expert on the stand, I got their toxicologist
on the stand, and I said, "Why haven't you done that? It seems like a no brainer, why haven't
you done that in a rodent study?"
"Well, because all the rodents would die."
That was their answer!
Jeffrey - That blew my mind!
Brent - Yeah! The reason is that to give them the kind of doses of Roundup that you would have
to see, would kill them because roundup is a heck of a lot more toxic than just glyphosate. So
the toxicity of the product is so severe that it would cause all these problems in the rats, it would
kill them all.
They wouldn't have enough living to make it through the study and that's why they haven't done
it. That's their explanation. Now, that's not true, right? It's toxic, but you can do the study. In fact,
there are some researchers that are doing it in Europe right now. That are actually designing,
they're getting the dosings properly set, they're actually going to do it.
But you know, it's funny that their defense, when I had them on the stand, "Why haven't you
done it?"
"Well because they'd all die."
You're like, "Are you listening to yourself?"
You're telling me that the reason why you haven't done it is that they're going to die, do you
think that might be a problem with your product? I mean come on, common sense.
That comes back to where we started, right? Applying common sense to basic scientific things.
You know Monsanto has no interest in doing that when it doesn't support profitability.
Jeffrey - Common sense, Monsanto said to the government of Australia, "Accept this high-lysine
corn that's genetically engineered for pigs. The protein that's increased in the corn, well it's in
soil anyway so it must be safe because we're exposed to eating soil as part of our diet. So
because we're eating soil as part of the coating on vegetables, it's completely safe for humans."
So Dr. Jack Heinemann evaluated. What is the average amount of corn the average American
male eats per day? How much of that protein would be in that corn? How much would they be
eating per day? Then he calculated how much protein is found in the soil and he calculated how
much soil they'd have to be eating per day in order to have the same amount as the corn they're
eating per day.
The amount of soil they'd have to consume to get an equivalent amount of that protein was
22,000 lbs per second. Every day, truckloads! So this is their common sense, they're off by
trillions. Another common sense example, I know it's crazy. Monsanto submitted for bovine
growth hormone and the FDA was prompted to approve it so they didn't do any approval until
this one study was coming in to prove that there was not a big increase in bovine growth
hormone in the milk.
So they didn't use Monsanto's dose, they used another company's dose, which is 2% of
Monsanto's, and they did it on a daily basis instead of every two weeks. So they completely
cooked the results that way. They checked the amount of bovine growth hormone in the milk
and they found that it increased by a significant amount. But what they did is they determined in
the study that pasteurization destroys 90% of the hormone.
Brent - Okay.
Jeffrey - But what they did is, first they pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal and
then they destroyed 19%, not 90%. So they added powder hormone to the milk, ** times the
normal hormone that's found in milk, and then they pasteurized it 120 times longer, and then
they destroyed 90% of the hormone. So the FDA said pasteurization destroys 90% of the
hormone.
Brent - Oh gosh.
Jeffrey - Under the most bizarre conditions that have never existed in reality, so it's like this.
Brent - Okay, one last one.
Jeffrey - This is just like trading horror stories.
Brent - The monkey studies, right? So one of the things that's an issue with glyphosate and
Roundup is the absorption into the body, right? One of Monsanto's big defenses is, only one or
two percent ever gets into you, the rest of it that does get into you comes out through your
urine.
We know that because of the monkey studies, right? But the monkey studies actually tell us
something very different because we actually did a deep dive into this. They actually have this
thing where the monkeys are strapped into a chair, it's pretty horrific actually, and they're
injected with glyphosate and Roundup and then they see how much of what they've injected
comes out in the urine.
When they inject it, it turns out 80-90% comes out in the urine, and so it shows that there's a
clear urine channel. But then they did a dermal study, so instead of injecting it so it's a massive
huge exposure at one time where it overloads the kidneys and it goes straight into the urine,
they did it on a patch where it's seeping in slowly like you would expect to see in the real world.
Jeffrey - Right.
Brent - They could only account for about 70% of the glyphosate, it wasn't coming out in the
urine. So somebody said, "Why don't you check the feces? I bet it's in the feces." So when you
absorb glyphosate at a slow rate, it's not absorbing at a 2% rate, it's 19- 20%, 15%, minimum of
10% is being absorbed through the fecal system. That was something they've never told the
regulators.
Jeffrey - That means it has exposed the entire digestive tract, and it's patented as an antibiotic.
As an antibiotic, it preferentially kills the good stuff like lactobacillus.
Brent - They've done studies on this actually. But the thing is, that 10% absorption rate, which
is the real absorption rate for Roundup on human beings, or I guess apes, but pretty equivalent,
for absorbing into your system to this day the EPA and EFSA -
Jeffrey - EFSA, the European Food Safety Administration.
Brent - Yeah, they don't know about the 10%, and they're all using a 1-2% absorption rate.
Jeffrey - The reason why is that those regulatory agencies have been captured by the biotech
industry and they only require studies on glyphosate, not on the formulation.
Brent - This one, it's not even more complicated than the fact that Monsanto just never gave it to
them
Jeffrey - But it was on roundup it wasn't on glyphosate, right?
Brent - They also did it on glyphosate.
Jeffrey - Oh too? 10% too?
Brent - And they still didn't give it to the EPA to this day. We have the study and actually, it's
really funny, there's another study they did on human applicators -
Jeffrey - Were they supposed to give it to the EPA?
Brent - Oh yeah, they're completely in violation of federal law.
Jeffrey - Well that's good to know.
Brent - No one seems to care, but that's the reality. This is another story, and I'm sorry I know
the segment's going long but it's really important -
Jeffrey - No, this is great.
Brent - They did an actual absorption study on humans, people wearing applicator - like gear -
and seeing how much was getting into their system. The rates were just outrageously high, well
beyond the 1-2% that they thought. They did this in the TNO research contract organization in
Europe and Monsanto gets this and goes, "Well clearly something's off. You're doing something
wrong."
TNO goes, "No no, this is legitimate. WE did it. In fact, we're so confident in the results, we'll do
it again for free."
Jeffrey - And Monsanto said no!
Brent - No. Instead, they internally said, "There's clearly something wrong in this study, we're
not using this data, ignore it," and it's never been shared with anybody. That was something that
came out in the trail.
Jeffrey - Can you put together the studies that should have been turned over to the EPA?
Brent - Oh yeah, our experts have looked at them, they rely upon them, we gave them to the
jury.
Jeffrey - How do we get it to the EPA? Not that they'd do anything with it.
Brent - That's the problem, right? I mean, if I had any faith in our government to do anything with
it, I would.
Jeffrey - Well you're not a criminal prosecutor but you could prosecute -
Brent - Well there is an ongoing Office of Inspector General investigation related to Monsanto's
potential collusion with the EPA, but that's been going on for a while and I'm not holding up
around it.
Jeffrey - If you're holding your breath, you're going to die long before the US government.
Brent - The way we get change is not through the EPA, and I've given up on the FDA and EPA
a long time ago, particularly the pharmaceutical realm. I've just given up on them. Maybe one
day they'll prove me wrong, and I hope to God they do, but until they do I'm going after
Monsanto directly. I'll make them pay, and if they have to pay enough money enough times
they're going to change their own ways because they can't afford to do it.
Thank you for listening to Live Healthy Be Well. Please subscribe to the podcast using whatever
app you use to listen to podcasts with. Or go to livehealthybewell.com to subscribe. This
podcast will inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption, and ways
we can protect ourselves, our family, and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors,
whistleblowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world until
now.
Please share the podcast with your friends who it will enlighten and it may even save lives. Safe
eating.