paying is an anomaly he's a public official and most people that are in these positions they do what their boss says they just keep in the box and go along not doctor paying that's not how science works you don't use negative data to refute positive data you want to do that i can take all of us decide we should smoke some of us get cancer some of us don't the guys who don't doesn't mean these guys don't get cancer you don't use negative data to refute positive data number one number two you don't even try to interpret a study until the product is made consistently ok and the product believing they can make it may be consistent for the intended product but all those weird things going on those free promoters turning things on  we don't even know how to screen for that so that's a problem ok now that stuff is active and crossing this is kind of a mask i'll go through this pretty quickly i have messed with g m products we took a genetically modified vaccine and we tested it in hiv patients it was for hepatitis b but how did we do it we produced in the laboratory where it was contained in a bio safety lab the product we took it to market we label that we gave it to the people who should get it high dose hiv and we only use it for hiv patients and it's a label when there's a mistake and there's been quite a few mistakes with different products we recall it i think it was worthwhile the risk benefit but you see how it's done contain labeled marketed use as indicated here we have the g m feel products and i said well that's that isn't there any protection they said no no no all the other wives are trying to make these handkerchiefs and they said but the badge is not for human consumption but the breeding the dust and said while i'll check this out so i called state state weighed their breeding and that's a heavy duty exposure he says are you a doctor is that yes he said i'll call you back call you back and he never did and i called him again and he never called me back again so i'm used to gettin but this kind of stuff i mean that's got to stop incidentally those guys are not dumb they came out first with a salivary gland tumors of tumour and they actually said we know we can never prove this but for the rest of us breathing th last can you help us so the department of labor department of labor shy to take a stand on this stuff now it's in the field and then lo and behold these guys try to grow food that ma factory the plant is a plant that can make products and then we eat the stuff now do you not think g m owes our dangerous industry was say harm has never been shown well there was one product it's the most fascinating thing i've ever read and it goes by the acronym t g n fourteen twelve and this was a g m product tested in correctly because that in humans first before it went to market and it was some immunomodulator like the one they tried to bring into kona which we blocked and they give it to ten guys but first they gave it to dogs the dogs did real well and they gave one fiftieth the dose to ten people in the u k that made front page headlines in star bulletin and now we news i have never seen a study of ten people make front page in and done in the u k in a period star bullet because it was the most bizarre medical things we have ever seen  now that was strange i don't know if they got the mutation or just the product or the product and the mutation who knows but they quickly to gero is the name of the company shut that down and don't talk about it and there was an inquiry worldwide thank goodness for new zealand the prime minister of new zealand said was that a g m o product and they refused to answer stonewall and they found out it was algae then what did the company say oh you know how weird stuff must have been a contaminant must have been a contaminant that's grey area isn't it all those unintended spots where you're going to call that contaminate so the german government said contaminant or not it was made to the correct recipe and if it was up contaminants it's in evitable in your product so that company quickly shut down never do we heard from again there's other companies that were messing and they were shut down do not rain on our parade let us go with the food ok so that was a little bit scary now when we get the pings here ok what do we propose i learned i always learned the precautionary principle before you can take any product you want and we're about to give it to humans or puttin environment before you do that you have to generate data data data not opinion to show the benefit to the rest of each of your products so we do it for aspirin we do it for vaccines we do it each product of ok and how do we show the data now is my chance to ad lib in the field of science there are four areas which i've learnt are so complicated we only evaluate them empirically we obs oeuvre we don't try to guess what's going to happen one is the brain if my god you know when i went through surgery you could cut that part and you could cut the bone and we kind of figured out if i cut the bone that thing is to happen there and i better not cut that but when you mess with the brain holy cow you said just do some general stuff like don't infect the guy but we do our best so he's on blade and we stand back and how did you see what happened on that because the brain is very complicated the next area complicated is the gene the genome and we learn this every day the next areas environment even mulch pile you know mulch i was talking to greenleaf that that's it that's complicated you mess with one thing you have no idea what you're causing so when we get data does that mean we can't study of course not that means we do stuff to it that's a guy looking in binoculars and he's looking to see what he sees generally there's two groups the treatment group and the control group and that's called imperiled data he does observes because he doesn't have the arrogance to say just is going to happen there's one more area that's real complicated we have no idea what we're doing we don't manipulate it deep space we can't manipulate deep space all we do is observe and go oh look at the good old black holes the good old white dwarfs were those viable planets so we observe and we have learned to respect things that we don't understand ok then once we generate the risk and benefit we compare the ratios amongst the alternatives you want this or you want that and then we usually compare would make sure we have a standard treatment and if the risk benefits outweigh the risks we go we mark it on a provisional basis if we do the trials because some animals we test them in humans phase one two three all the way to humans then we go marketing and we label it and we monitor post market and fifty percent of our drugs and vaccines fifty percent severe side effects are seen post marketing we either pull them back or we relabeled them not to be used with these conditions so post marketing is very very important but pos marketing means labeling until this step we are always always get informed consent like we don't really know the risks and that we get some ideas but we don't really know until twenty years of post marketing so when you're about to take this would you please sign this that you got informed consent this is not as this is not the see why a maneuver so you don't get sued i truly inform can inform you we don't know too much about this we think the benefits outweigh the risk when i try you're going to say what when i start getting sick and you stop the drug is that good and my home free sometimes i what the boys in philadelphia when we stop that gene transfer they had leukemia so in some things in humans once again the complex things genetics some things by the time we see it it's too late cancer and birth defects some things in the environment once you see a life form g m o's or a life form d n a it's too late so i was a little bit surprised that some of our politicians in the publication like a fire ant like the varroa mite not that i see it's harmful it's too late in humans that you're reversible too late effect this cancer and birth defects and then all those strange things we saw with t g and fourteen twelve you never heard a follow up what happened to those guys if it reversed once you stopped it ok now give you a very good example because months arthur was here they flew in a guy a professor from kansas about seven years ago and he you weigh it against the alternatives and move forward and i said cancer chemotherapy that's one heck of a proxy thing but it's your chance to cure you weigh the potus it against africa's a cancer chemotherapy you weigh it against the alternative do nothing or that other drugs and we move forward he didn't have any response when you don't have a sponsor quiet but i was dying to find out what that he knew and we will show what he uses later because it took me a long time to to figure out what they were trying to say it wasn't that complicated just i keep forgetting stuff when it doesn't make sense they are serious i'd look us up by clients but here is the also don't know it's negative side so we have to say we do not know the adverse health effects of g m food and this was the w h o woman saying that now i hate to do this but if it helps you remember this is it this is how i do it in collide in the classroom s that tube trust me there's a mixture of chemicals here i kind i don't know what they were at one time i did but i forgot i never did test this for harm or safety so no harm has been shown again to you no harm has b the first thing they say is has herman shown hasn't been shown show me the data and said well no harm has been shown when i drink this no harm has been shown so if it helps you to remember remember this furthermore this is one about inconsistent product if it did hurt you or help you i don't think i could repeat it because it's inconsistent not don't cha to ask me what it is because i truly don't know but it's three things organic or not this is a mass our explain this to you you don't have to try to read this this is a risk assessment monsanto brought in the professor from kansas who says we don't risk assessment to hackers odds so we keep  a can't do that once you identify the hazard you suppose say are there known rules to contain this hazard if you could identify it and i can tell you one thing never mind you can read this are reporting when you have a hazard or a product you don't know we've said this before and you goal to use it like we had to treat the grandma with experimental chemotherapy and i said i really don't know what this is it ten percent chance side effects will kill you thirty percent chance it will cure you but i'm not sure ok because we didn't test and tons of people she signed informed consent ok so then you identify the dose and the mechanism they would guess the dose response that's the next step we can do that maybe they do that maybe they don't because they don't even know what hazard then they would describe how you avoid it stay up when put the mask on them put the mask on washer close once a day and then you're supposed to reassess and go back in the loop and say you know what five of those things were not hazardous but ten more are the in in this loop what are they missing since they made the loop since the guy was here we have seen all the animal data the animal data is stupendous not uniform because of products inconsistent but don't you think you should feed it back in the loop to tell us there's hazards don't you think you should say you know there seems to be unknown hazards is not a b or c but the animal are still acting weird and that is the impera cause we gave a bunch of stuff i cleaned up as best i could the products and they're still having problems so it feeds back right now the g m o guys are moving through here they refused to accept the animal data because animals are most humans are humans that's a fair statement but at the very indicative that trouble is coming down the line the next thing they were tell you and this really bothers me is that we've eaten maybe one hundred million g m o meals we've seen nothing now first of our that statement we've seen nothing doesn't mean you looked case in point is cigarettes we did not show cigarettes cause cancer until the mid fifty's we were smoking since eight hundred ninety how many billions of cigarettes were smoke and we're seeing nothing can one hundred fifty or but now we are tuned in i know to look for smoke really how much longer until we saw secondhand smoke twenty years i mean we're primed to look at smoke and it twenty years before we said second hand smoke is causing it so number one i don't think you looked ok just saying we didn't see anything number two when i studied cigarettes for causing cancer i knew who smoked i see you smoked you know you smoked you didn't the gym or products or unlabeled i can't sort it out i cannot sort it out and we're certainly seeing a rise in many conditions but i can't sort it out so i don't i do not agree are or that we are not seeing anything or that if we eat one hundred million meals and we don't see anything so it's ok that's not true but suppose it was supposed tells you not to panic that was true one hundred million meals and i guarantee you know what our side effect now that in the last one twelve years we had a hundred million meals twelve years ago when we didn't know when you didn't have this retrospective data to kind of feel good about safety  you launched a product which we didn't fully know where is the informed consent you're supposed to informed consent my goodness i wrestled with this we had a live vaccine for she gala it's a bad disease we tested in  life so we had to get people's consent do you promise you would you like a vaccine here's a risk here's the benefits here's your alternatives you know where you think and so got some guide sign but we had to go to the whole village because it was  live in michael from her to her to him well we have to go to whole village the village headmen send out sign for a whole village so the world health organisation said no you won't you will go to the entire village and probably those two villages over there but if you use historical data to say say we've eaten enough you're ok when you first released it and it was unknown for health effects where is the informed consent now i know i didn't sign it because i have a place on the big island i'm surrounded by jim proposal which is during that i never meant to plant i didn't sign it so who is responsible here the industry the university no the regulators the guys who are supposed to say go to the ethical committee asked them where is the informed consent and if the regular ethical committee from cornell the guys from cornell and such were going to it was needed i want a committee investigated now i've asked for ethical committees to be investigated from the feds i've been asking nine years and all i get is stonewalling so it's with the regulators you expect the industry to kind of get away with what they can get away  the eight ball and one thing led to another it's mechanistic it's simple you try to describe that's what they're hoping for that one gene one protein we can put the gene it's going to express a protein and that's  unfortunately the genome is so complex you cannot predict deterministic one gene one protein you can't but this is what the models based on and it's wrong to base it on the model is simply wrong you should observe it so he would  w h o position two thousand and twelve says risk assessment shows it to be safe now i look at two thousand and twelve but i also saw the exact same message in two thousand and one so they took the two thousand one data two thousand forces we don't really have data they took this one and put in two thousand and twelve i don't care if you don't have two opinions just show me the data show me the data because when i worked for them it was data driven i have to show me today here is one group that is so smart they don't need the data and we listen to them this group is a national academy of science it's a purple book free online i would've brought a book but i've been to five copies i keep wearing out my copies are actually that good and it's the institute of medicine and it's called safety of genetically engineered foods approaches to assessing and intended health effects unintended health so i get the book these guys are smart two thousand and three and i start to read the book now i'll explain in a minute can see if there's a graph here that appears twice in the book of that's funny same graph two times this is are there ways you can modify plant standard cross pollination do something out and i put a star on the g m o methods so here's all the ways you can modify plant on this axis is the likelihood highly likely not really likely of unintended effects so you can see these three stars here highly likely for unintended health effects more so than the regular food ok say health effects this is an intended effect don't say half the title of the book is health effects believe it says how to facts so they start saying that next the next thing they say well first of all one more thing you see the center point that's the mean so this has a higher understanding how the back than that standard cross there is one that looks like a pretty safe way i don't know what that is that some genetic way but besides the mean you see the scatter that's the the inconsistency so you've got two problems here more unintended health effects and gosh knows maybe ormoc oversaw it didn't didn't then she thought no wonder it's all over the board you can't make a  group whatever association or some of pediatrics monsanto flu and doctors from duke harvard you see davis i think doctors to present to the pediatricians if there's really no problem agree you see bloody nose you see bloody nose you see cancer you see cancer stomach aches stomach but in gym most you see more the no question is a quantitative argument they never responded they had to catch a plane i mean i have nothing against harvard duke and you see but for for crying out loud answer the question ok then the woman from duke just kind of smart she goes we're going i'm not talking about all side effects i'm talking about known allergens well i'm talking about unknown weird stuff like the guys on t v and fourteen twelve those were beyond allergies the next issue seven years later a very prominent scientist from penn state she finally kind of this is getting viral and she says yup yup more unintended effects health effects we agree with you dr frank but they're not all bad they're not the kind of sounds good on face value they're not all bad well are you telling me that a bad effect for the head cancels out a good effect for the kidney is that when you tell me within the kidney there's four mechanisms of making urine bad for the girl marijuana good for the two bills what chance was out my friends this is how we do drugs there's some good effects and bad starts i ask you what's your problem this drug will help your head but not your kidney and you say yes it's like i want my head to be he wrong furthermore if you have perfect health why in the world should you eat g m foods that are bad for one thing and good for the other you can't improve on what you're good at and all you going to do is respond thing bad so they kind of stop bringing up that argument that i heard when i'm not in the room when you're by yourself to bring that up ok so i want you to say hey that doesn't make sense or at least try to convince yourself it doesn't make sense and fail now never mind as this is department of eggs and this is actually tom vilsack he says summarize it for you since science can show anything you want but who not your kind of not my kind of science this guy's a lawyer and for lawyer to say scientists can show whatever you want to show that we do that we want you to that's wrong that's not my kind of science but he said that and he kind of published that because he has the bully pulpit and he talks about the contamination of alfalfa