My thoughts on the republished Seralini rat study on GMOs: The need for the worst case scenario conditions

There are some people who said that the study done by Seralini is inaccurate but I don't see what is wrong with the study. A study such as this to find the most harmful effects of GMOs has to use the worst case scenarios that can be created in the study. People who said that the paper are biased are not aware of this need for the worst case scenario so they say that the study is trying to find fault with GMOs.

Why are the people who claimed the study to be flawed so stupid?

If a scientist wants to find the effects of the AIDS virus on humans, would he then ask his test subjects to wear the most amount of protection possible? I don't think so.

Cancer is always formed in the worst case scenario condition, so to recreate cancer, the worst case scenario conditions have to be created.

People need to think more before perceiving the study to be flawed.

I quote from http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/seralini-gmo-study-republished/

"- The population of rats used have a high propensity for tumors. This causes a great deal of background noise, and would likely favor a false positive result."

Humans who get cancer are exactly those who have a high propensity for tumors. Nothing wrong here.

"- There were only 20 rats in the control group, and 80 in the exposure groups, an atypical asymmetry."

Higher number in the exposure group can have a higher chance of detecting any strange tumors. Nothing wrong here.

"- The data reports that “some” of the test groups had a higher tumor incidence, while others did not – sounds suspiciously like cherry picking the data."

Again, the need for the worst case scenario effects would require the choosing of the higher tumor incidence. There is specifically the need for cherry picking the higher tumor incidence.

"- The statistical analysis done by the team was atypical, characterized by nutrition researcher Tom Sanders as ”a statistical fishing trip,” while a more standard analysis was excluded."

Again, I emphasise the need to find the worst case scenario effects.

"- Exposure to GM corn or the herbicide Roundup had the same negative effects. It is inherently implausible (admittedly not impossible) for such distinct mechanisms to have the same effect."

Everybody knows correlation is not causation, so? What the study is doing is to narrow down the suspect not to prove anything. Move on.

"- There was no dose response at all – which is a critical component of demonstrating a toxic effect."

Irrelevant. There is a need for bioaccumulation duration in the liver. Toxins need to take time to bioaccumulate in the liver.

"- The researchers did not control for total amount of food consumed, or fungal contaminants, both of which increase tumors in this population of rat."

Again, there is the need for the worst case scenario conditions. The rats can eat how much they want, who can determine the right 'standard' amount they should eat? Dumbass.

All these factors are deliberately meant to create the worst case scenario conditions to find the worst possible effects of GMOs on the rats.

New Study Finds Saturated Fat Not Linked to Heart Disease

An article I just read stated that a new study found saturated fat is not linked to heart disease contrary to previous assumptions. I wrote a blog post on this issue a couple weeks ago.

Update: I did a search and found that TODAY newspaper has already published a similar report in Oct last year — Saturated fat, heart disease link a ‘myth’ and someone wrote in to Voices to comment on the report — Educate us with the right nutritional knowledge 

However, sites such as the health Promotion Board and Singapore Heart Foundation are still not updated on this fact — Saturated fat: low, lower, lowest!


Here is what I wrote  weeks ago:

Cholesterol Level and Saturated Fats are Not the Real Factors of Heart Disease — Glycation is One of The Main Factors

http://thethinktankguideforsmarterliving.blogspot.sg/2014/03/cholesterol-level-and-saturated-fats.html

The theory held by many people including doctors that LDL cholesterol and saturated fat can cause heart disease is still a theory not yet proven to be true.

Plaque is known to constrict blood vessels that lead to heart disease. However, the smooth endothelium(one-cell thick lining of blood vessels) has to first be damaged in order for plaque to accumulate.

The low-density lipoprotein aka LDL(that carries cholesterol and lipids/fats) has to first enter damaged areas of the smooth endothelium(one-cell thick lining of blood vessels) in order to create plaque.

Cholesterol is found inside the lipoproteins and cholesterol cannot simply attach to the smooth endothelium nor damage it, it is a mistaken false theory that many doctors and writers of health sites still follow. LDL is also not 'bad' and its particle size doesn't affect heart disease.

Cholesterol cannot simply attach to the smooth endothelium, and therefore is not a cause of heart disease.

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/WhyCholesterolMatters/Atherosclerosis_UCM_305564_Article.jsp
"Exactly how atherosclerosis begins or what causes it isn't known, but some theories have been proposed."

http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/condition/atherosclerosis
"No one knows the exact cause of atherosclerosis"

We have got cholesterol completely wrong
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/


Personal opinion:

Blood cholesterol level and saturated fat are actually not the real factors of heart disease. It is when the smooth endothelium(lining of the blood vessels) get damaged by factors such as glycation(destruction of protein fibers in blood vessels) that the low density lipoproteins aka LDL(that carries fat and cholesterol) get to enter the damaged area. The repeat of such endothelium damage and entering of the LDL eventually forms plaque that can constrict the blood vessels and can lead to heart disease. Other factors can also come from constriction of the blood vessels by things like polyphenols(olive oil). Other proinflammation factors can also weaken the blood vessels over time.

It is not cholesterol or saturated fat that leads to heart disease but the damage to the smooth lining of the blood vessels. Too much blood vessel 'scarring' is harmful. This is why it is important not to consume excessively on foods such as starches and sugar that are very high on the Glycermic Index, which can lead to glycation that can damage the lining of the blood vessels and set off the progression of heart disease.

People who still think that cholesterol level and saturated fat lead to heart disease are still not aware of the bigger picture of heart disease.

I realize that many researchers have not yet made such a conclusion perhaps they are not well-aware of the effects of glycation and other factors on the endothelium. Perhaps in future, this can be confirmed in lab studies.

Deleterious effect of glycation on the ability of HDL to counteract the inhibitory effect of oxidized LDL on endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23908137

Proinflammation: the key to arterial aging
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24365513

How Eating Meat Can Indeed Be as Bad as Smoking Cigarettes

I saw many people disagreeing with an article from The Guardian on how eating animal protein can be as bad as smoking cigarettes. I wasn't surprised that the people who disagree with the article are currently eating meat and want to continue eating it.

Their response to the article—
http://www.todayonline.com/voices/report-protein-rich-diet-was-misleading
http://robbwolf.com/2014/03/04/meat-bad-cigarettes/
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/03/animal-protein-as-bad-as-smoking/

The National Health Service in UK(NHS) misread the study and did not realize the article was referring to a meat protein diet—
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx


The following is my response to all of them—

Cooked meat contains heterocyclic amines(HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs).

Chemicals in Meat Cooked at High Temperatures and Cancer Risk
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats

"-Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are chemicals formed when muscle meat, including beef, pork, fish, and poultry, is cooked using high-temperature methods, such as pan frying or grilling directly over an open flame.

-The formation of HCAs and PAHs is influenced by the type of meat, the cooking time, the cooking temperature, and the cooking method."

There is a strong correlation of Denmark's high grilled red meat consumption with its no.1 ranking for cancer rate in the world.

I wrote something about red meat consumption and its correlation to cancer a while ago.

http://thethinktankguideforsmarterliving.blogspot.sg/2014/02/getting-full-dirt-on-denmark-happiest.html

Grilled red meat shops are popular in Denmark and Denmark has the highest number of meat-cooking grills per capita. This high consumption of red meat correlates with Denmark having the top spot for the rate of cancer for all countries in the world, which seems too high of a direct correlation even if their free medical system allows more people to be detected from the life-threatening disease. The exercise the Danes get from cycling don't seem to be able to offset the effects of the toxins that come from eating cooked meat.

(Even a Danish Professor from the Department of Public Health at a Danish University has advised on the cutting down of red meat)
Barbecue season: cut down on the red meat.
http://skt.au.dk/en/current/article/artikel/grilltid-skaer-ned-paa-det-roede-koed/

Cancer rate per 100,000 ranked 1st in the world
Data for cancer frequency by country
http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_statistics/cancer_frequency.php

Why is Denmark the cancer capital of the world?
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8277418/Why-is-Denmark-the-cancer-capital-of-the-world.html"

Possible Explanation of Why 2 Different Types of Happiness Have Vastly Contrasting Effects on Human Genome

There is a research study on Happiness done by Barbara Fredrickson that has found that 2 groups of people who focused on seeking 2 separate types of Happiness(Hedonic and Eudaimonic) have faced 2 contrasting effects in their gene expression. The Hedonic group has high inflammation and low antiviral and low antibody gene expression, the Eudaimonic group has low inflammation and high antiviral and high antibody gene expression.

The reports state that focusing solely on Hedonic Happiness is a form of unhealthy Happiness--

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20130730/Different-types-of-happiness-have-surprisingly-different-effects-on-human-genome.aspx
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/30/health/happy-genes/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

"Inflammation is the first line of defense against infection, so that would be a very useful kind of protein to have; however, something that causes your body to create inflammation over a sustained amount of time can cause collateral damage to healthy tissue."


The Co-author Steve Cole theorized that the stress found in the group that concentrates on Hedonic happiness comes from having a vulnerable source of well-being and having no helpful support. I feel I have a more accurate explanation.

I feel that the stress from the Hedonic group comes instead from a lack of general direction and meaning in one's life. Without a good sense of direction and meaning of life to calm a person down, a person that is uncertain and lost within life would constantly be physically and mentally on-guard to face any sort of difficulties and future unknowns. They would constantly be on high threat alert to prepare to face any threatening scenarios. Therefore, I think the stress from this group comes from the fear of major life difficulties and possibly also the denial of facing such difficulties.

My Concrete Road Analogy of Happiness—
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Happiness can work together quite like ensuring a car can move smoothly on the road. Hedonic happiness is quite like the wheels of a car that individually lifts a car above the ground. Together with the long stretch of concrete road that also lifts the car above raw non-traversable terrain, they both allow the car to go where it needs to go.

I feel Hedonic Happiness is a smaller and concentrated range of Happiness dealing to offset small concentrated forms of negative disturbances/limitations that occur in daily life. For example, the car wheels offsets the strong disturbances/limitations of many small striking rocks on the road. Eudaimonc Happiness is a broader and longer range of Happiness dealing to offset less concentrated prolonged forms of negative disturbances/limitations. For example, the road serves to offset the less-prominent uneven prolonged disturbances/limitations found on raw uneven terrain.

The concrete road analogy that I mentioned also represents having a clear direction that the person can follow. The group that focuses on Eudaimonic Happiness would symbolically have a clear distinct road to follow. The other group focusing on Hedonic Happiness would not be riding on a road but on the rough terrain constantly trying to find a direction to head towards in life. Since they are not on a concrete road but rides on rough terrain, they face a bumpy and shaky(stress-filled) ride frequently trying to find a new direction. The other group focusing on Eudaimonic Happiness rides on a concrete road(Eudaimonic) with a direction, and face a pleasant and peaceful ride to a pre-determined destination in life.

Having no sense of direction in life can create stress and panic of dealing with feel meaninglessness, stress that comes from the need to find other sources of meaning, and the stress of rushing quickly to get to new ones. A life getting from one source of Hedonic Happiness to countless others is unsettling, disjointed and stressful compared to a life with meaning that is more stable.