bodnar, a
=<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font>Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) has been accused of unethical
journalistic practices after it published personal information about
individuals opposed to <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">genetically modified food</a> and changed the text of an article without the author’s permission.
<p>GLP is an organization that heavily promotes genetic engineering of foods and attacks critics of the technology.
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/unethical_750.jpg"><span class="image-container alignnone size-full wp-image-376957" style="max-width:750px;max-height:416px;">http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/05/genetic-literacy-project-crosses-ethical-line/
</span></a>
<strong>Posting Personal Information “Way Below” Ethical Line</strong>
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GLP has posted phone numbers, email and home addresses and other
personal information about GMO critics.</span> According to David Murphy,
executive director of <a href="http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/">Food Democracy Now</a>,
GLP posted the phone number and email and home addresses of Don Huber,
Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology at Purdue University. Murphy
contacted GLP asking them to remove the information, which they did, but
shortly after GLP posted Murphy’s cell phone number and home address.
“It’s one thing to have a public disagreement with highly trained
scientists and activists on a controversial subject like GMO safety, but
publishing personal information, home addresses and cell phone numbers,
is a new low, even for <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=monsanto">Monsanto</a>’s
smear merchant,” Murphy said. “Does Monsanto really want us publishing
their CEO and top scientists like Robb Fraley’s home addresses? One
wonders what they really have to hide if they’re willing to employ such
slimeball tactics against their critics.”
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GLP has also posted personal information about other GMO critics such
as Mike Adams, publisher of Natural News; Vani Hari, a.k.a. the Food
Babe; Henry Rowlands, publisher of Sustainable Pulse; Jeffrey Smith,
executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology; and
others. GLP even went so far as to post information about the value of
Smith’s house.</span>
Carey Gillam, research director at U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) and a
former veteran senior journalist with Reuters news service, said the
practice of publishing personal identifying information such as phone
numbers and addresses, was clearly an unethical practice.
“We here at USRTK are intentionally not posting the emails we’ve
obtained that include that kind of information because we think it is
below the ethical bar. Way below,” Gillam said.
<strong>Crossed an Ethical Line</strong>
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In November, pro-GMO journalist Keith Kloor accused GLP of altering
his article, “The Story Behind the Story,” without his permission. The
article, which was posted on his website, <a href="http://www.keithkloor.com" target="_blank">www.keithkloor.com</a>,
focuses on science writer Brooke Borel’s Buzzfeed profile of University
of Florida scientist Kevin Folta, who was hosting a podcast using a
fake identity.</span>
GLP reposted a segment of Kloor’s article on their website with a
different headline, “Did Brooke Borel cross ethical line in criticizing
Kevin Folta GMO parody site?”
<b>Kloor objected to GLP’s posting the article without his permission
and changing the headline and text</b>. In a blog, Kloor wrote: “It’s bad
enough that a website built on the aggregated work of journalists takes
something that belongs to you without asking for permission. It’s
outrageous when the website truncates your text in ways that change the
meaning of what you wrote, which is also what Genetic Literacy is guilty
of doing with respect to my post. It’s infuriating and unforgivable
when the person who stole your text puts his own flatly wrong headline
above it … That’s crossing an ethical line.”
On a personal note, GLP has also changed the headlines of articles
I’ve written that they’ve posted on their website. One headline they
changed contained text that was meant to be derogatory to me.
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Other authors also criticized GLP’s journalistic practices on
Twitter. These included Borel, Helena Bottemiller Evich, a journalist
with Politico, <b>Anastasia Bodnar,</b> policy director at the pro-GMO website <a href="http://www.biofortified.org/" target="_blank">Biofortified.org</a>
and Julie Kelly, a pro-GMO food writer, among others. The authors
objected to GLP changing the headlines and text of articles, listing
authors as GLP contributing writers when they aren’t and putting author
bylines with paraphrased articles.</span>
On Twitter, GLP Executive Director Jon Entine tried to assure the
authors that GLP has been responsive “to every concern.” But Kloor
responded sarcastically to that claim, asking Entine if he really wrote
that “with a straight face.”</p></div><div></div><div>https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/05/28/anti-gmo-leaders-withdraw-from-great-biotech-debate-forum-will-go-on/</div><div>
</div><div><h1 class="entry-title" style="border: 0px none; font-size: 18px; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: rgb(8, 8, 155); line-height: 1.2em; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);">Anti-GMO leaders withdraw from ‘Great Biotech Debate’ — Forum will go on</h1><span class="wt_meta vcard" style="border: 0px none; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 4px 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); display: block; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span class="vcard author post-author" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;"><a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/author/jon-entine/" rel="author" class="author fn" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">Jon Entine</a> | </span><span class="published updated post-date" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">May 28, 2013</span> | <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/source/genetic-literacy-project/" rel="tag" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">Genetic Literacy Project</a></span></div><div>...</div><div><p style="border: 0px none; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);">Smith and I are communicators, although of two very different kinds. As we were planning the event, we agreed it would be best to bring scientists into the mix. He opted to recruit French professor <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/04/26/when-media-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(22, 76, 157); text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">Gilles-Eric Seralini</a> of the University of Caen, whose <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/20/scientists-savage-study-purportedly-showing-health-dangers-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-corn/" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(22, 76, 157); text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">paper</a>released last fall claiming that rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified corn developed multiple cancerous tumors turned him into a global celebrity among anti-biotech campaigners. The anomalous study was <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/20/scientists-savage-study-purportedly-showing-health-dangers-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-corn/" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(22, 76, 157); text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">savaged</a> by mainstream scientists and rejected by every major independent research organization in the world that reviewed it. It was rife with methodological problems and obvious ideological biases. Nonetheless it has become a poster child for “GMOs will kill you” and Monsanto conspiracy theorists. Seralini, who agreed to join us via Skype, was the best the anti-biotech campaigners had to offer.</p><p style="border: 0px none; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; line-height: 19.6px; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">To counter Seralini, I originally recruited Anastasia Bodnar, a biotechnologist with a degree in sustainable agriculture who was previously a President’s Management Fellow and worked at the National Institutes of Health. Most notably she is co-director of the non-profit <a href="http://www.biofortified.org/" style="border: 0px none; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(22, 76, 157); text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">Biology Fortified</a> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">a site popular among young sustainability focused scientists, geneticists and food experts.</span></p><p style="border: 0px none; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);">However, because of a work conflict, she had to pull out. On short notice, I recruited a more than capable replacement in <a href="http://www.arabidopsisthaliana.com/" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(22, 76, 157); text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">Kevin Folta</a>, Interim Chair of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. He’s published two seminal texts on genomics and dozens of articles, and actively engages biotech issues in public. Like Bodnar, he is one of an emerging group of post-ideological scientists who understand the constructive potential of biotechnology.</p><p style="border: 0px none; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">Smith pulls out; Seralini follows</b></p><p style="border: 0px none; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);">The debate began to unravel just two weeks before the scheduled event. Smith objected to the unexpected substitution of Folta, who is an active <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(22, 76, 157); text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">online presence</a>, engaging and debating campaigners and carefully laying out counter, science-based arguments. Smith immediately balked at the substitution. According to Smith, Folta had “crossed the line” in some criticisms of him, although he didn’t provide any examples. His nerves clearly jangled, Smith ultimately decided he was not comfortable with Folta, and said he would not debate. He then said he had too many commitments, and could not prepare for the event even if he had wanted to. He then promptly flew off to Denver to address a relative handful of fellow anti-Monsanto conspiracy theory protesters missing out on the opportunity to talk with tens of thousands of people through this Internet streamed debate....</p><p style="border: 0px none; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);"></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Organic Consumers Association (among others) has gleefully announced: <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27523.cfm" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">New Study Links GMO Food To Leukemia</a> (also saved as a <a href="http://www.biofortified.org/wp-content/uploads//2013/05/New-Study-Links-GMO-Food-To-Leukemia.pdf?32a720" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">PDF</a>). This article by Sayer Ji was originally published on <a href="http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-study-links-gmo-food-leukemia" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">Green Med Info</a> on 12 May 2013. The paper is <a href="http://esciencecentral.org/journals/JHTD/JHTD-1-104.php?aid=11822?aid=11822" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice</a> by Mezzomo et al, published first in November 2012 then again in March 2013 (more on that later).</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The article states: “Bt toxins are capable of targeting mammalian cells, particularly the erythroid (red blood cell) lineage, resulting in red blood cell changes indicative of significant damage, such as anemia. In addition, the study found that Bt toxins suppressed bone marrow proliferation creating abnormal lymphocyte patterns consistent with some types of leukemia.”</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Except, the article doesn’t actually say that at all. I have a few quick observations, then a rebuttal provided by our own <a href="http://www.biofortified.org/community/user/dtribe/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">Dr. David Tribe</a>, and I wrap up this latest edition of whack-a-mole with a revelation. There’s a lot more to say about this paper, and hopefully we will learn more as time goes by, but this post is just a fast attempt to help people know that this is not a good paper to be pointing at.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="more-11887" style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Open Sans'; line-height: 23px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; font-size: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Are organic Bt sprays dangerous?</h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The strangest thing about the rush by OCA and other anti-GMO folks to call this the latest “GMO” scandal is that the study didn’t test Bt toxins expressed by biotech crops. It didn’t even test the Bt toxins expressed in bacteria then purified. Instead, the paper says they used “spore-crystals Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac and Cry2Aa from B. thuringiensis var. kurstaki were obtained in lyophilized form”. Some <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bacillus thuringiensis</em> bacteria can go dormant, forming a spore, and form crystals around the outside of the bacteria to protect themselves.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In other words, this study used the whole bacteria – the exact same thing that is used in organic Bt sprays. According to Organic Consumers Association, Bt sprays are used by “<a href="http://organicconsumers.org/Organic/ov3.cfm" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">at least 57 percent of organic farmers</a>” and “does not have detrimental effects on mammals, birds or non-target insect species and microorganisms. In addition, Bt sprays leave no poisonous residue on crops or trees and are readily degraded into the environment.” Yet somehow the exact same active ingredient, when expressed in a transgenic plant, lasts a long time in the environment and is now toxic to everything, according to OCA et al (despite the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/regofbtcrops.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">pesky science</a> that says it doesn’t).</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Anyway, the authors resuspended the whole bacteria in water, then orally administered them to the mice in incredibly high concentrations: 27, 136, and 270 mg of bacteria per kg of body weight.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The most important thing that sticks out to me here is that there could be all sorts of other things about the bacteria besides the presence of the Bt toxin that could be affecting the mice. Since the negative control was water instead of culture medium with Bt bacteria that don’t express the toxin, we have no idea what it is in the solution that might have affected the mice.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Strangely, they never mention this and while they are careful to conclude “results showed that the Bt spore-crystals… can cause some hematological risks to vertebrates” rather than saying it was the Bt crystals themselves, they then conclude there is “increased risk of human and animal exposures to significant levels of these toxins, especially through diet”.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So, I have to wonder – are the authors worried about organic farming? To reiterate, genetically engineered plants have only the Bt toxin, not the whole bacteria, while organic farmers use the whole bacteria as a spray. Realistically the dose of “spore-crystals” from a Bt spray residue is much lower than what these researchers claim harm from, but still. According to the<a href="http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/bt-ext.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">Pesticide Information Profile</a> published by Cornell, Bt sprays show every indication of being safe (and so do Bt toxins themselves).</p><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Open Sans'; line-height: 28px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; font-size: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">David Tribe’s Analysis</h2><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.biofortified.org/community/user/dtribe/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">David Tribe</a> wrote a great but short analysis over at <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/GMOFacts/comments/1ecxf8/interesting_new_article_on_bt_and_hematotoxicity/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">Reddit</a> and I wanted to make sure more people were able to see it:</p><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 10px 20px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">They used spore/crystals from modified Bt strains, rather than isolated protein. As per Schnepf, 2012a, such sporulating cultures are about ~20% Bt crystal proteins by dry weight. In other words, 80% of what the mice were fed is God knows what.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">The results seen are not due to use of too high a level of protein (270 mg/kg) , as there are reports of up to 5280 mg/kg of purified proteins fed to mice without any adverse effects (Schnepf, 2012b)</li></ul><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-size: 17.5px; line-height: 1.25;">So,</p><ol style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">The real negative control should have been wild type Bt strains, not water, as water lacks the other stuff floating around the culture medium</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">The amounts fed the mice do not reflect human dietary levels– they were some ~ 10<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em;">6</span> to 10<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em;">8</span> time higher than exposure from GM or organic crops ( as per Hammond, 2012)</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">The use of 3 mice/sex/group, as compared to OECD standards that call for 5 mice per sex per group.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">The historical incidence for these pathologies in the mice used was not reported. Thus, it is not clear if they are looking at treatment effects or natural biological variability for the mice</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">The results did not all show the expected dose-response, with the lower dose resulting in the highest symptoms, as opposed to the other way around (eg, the 136 Cry1Ab had reduced MCH, but not the 270 mg/kg group)</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">The reduction in MCV and RDW in all groups suggests a contaminant is involved rather than different Bt proteins</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">For dose response, they get U shaped or inverse U shaped curves, a la Seralini. These could be a result of small animal numbers, not of hormesis.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">In the lit review, they say that Thomas and Ellar (1983) previously showed that cry proteins were hemolytic. However, Thomas and Ellar (1983) tested cyt proteins, not cry proteins. Even then, the cyt results were in vitro– there were no results when mice were fed the cyt proteins, presumably because they are digested.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">They also cite Aris and LeBlanc (Bt in mother and fetal blood) to support their work. (a rubbish paper)</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Their results are at odds with all the other studies whereby Bt (the bacterium) and cry (the bt protein) have not had adverse results in feeding studies.</li></ol><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; font-size: 17.5px; line-height: 1.25;">Also — the journal is not a high quality journal.</p></blockquote><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Open Sans'; line-height: 23px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; font-size: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Revelation</h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I think we’ve established that this paper has some methodological issues. It’s not just us, though. The paper was originally published in <a title="Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association." href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146696#" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">Food Chem Toxicol</a>, a generally reliable journal that has been around since 1982, and then <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146696" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">withdrawn</span></a>. Surely there is another story about that – Why was it published in the first place? Why was it withdrawn? Who requested the withdrawal? But the point is that the study as currently published is not in a “high quality journal”, as David puts it.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases is brand new, without any impact factor or history of quality to support it. This study appeared in issue 1, volume 1. The National Library of Medicine reviews scientific journals based on their scientific merit, strength of their review process, etc for inclusion in PubMed. OMICS, the parent company for this journal, is pointedly not indexed in PubMed, and has been dubbed “<a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/17/the-fake-journal-trend/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 119, 0); text-decoration: none;">fake journals</a>” by many scientists.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Why does the journal matter? High quality journals have a high quality review process. They seek out reviewers with the relevant expertise to do a proper science-based review of the methods, results, and conclusions. Low quality journals, simply put, do not.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Finally, I will end with a note from Karl Haro von Mogel, who is currently looking a little deeper into this paper’s curious history: “There’s something going on here that matters to everyone who cares about the peer review process that we depend upon to sift reliable studies from specious claims. Paired with rapid amplification through political advocacy, the reputation of science is at risk of being hijacked to obscure the truth.”</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Open Sans"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">http://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/leukemia/</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Open Sans"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">
</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">nastasia is Policy Director of Biology Fortified, Inc. and the Co-Executive Editor of the Biofortified Blog. She has a PhD in genetics with a minor in sustainable agriculture from Iowa State University. Her favorite produce is artichokes! Disclaimer: Anastasia's words are her own and views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of her employer. She is not paid to blog or conduct any social media activities. Mention of a company or product does not indicate endorsement.</span></p></div><div>==</div>