Punishing the whistleblower 1

This is not a typical whistleblower, but a Hungarian researcher on Lectins, who published results on genetically modified potates.  In 1998 Dr Arpad Pusztai criticised the lack of testing procedures prior to introducing GM foods onto the market.  He demonstrated that rats developed immune system defects and damage to stomach lining, stunting growth.  These defects emerged over a longer time period than standard research, thus opening humans to damaging effects because of short term testing.

How was Dr Pusztai rewarded for his warning to prevent damage to human health?

The Rowett Institute suspended Pusztai, circulated misinformation about him and his research in an attempt to discredit him.  The implication that he was a doddery old buffer, who had confused the science and botched his research.

How did Dr Pusztai respond?

He sent the research protocols to 24 independent scientists in various countries.  They refuted the conclusion of the review committee and found his research of good quality with justifiable conclusions.

What happened next?

The Royal Society dismissed the conclusions of the 24 indpendent scientists and backed the review committee's findings that Pusztai was mistaken and had deficient research.

Read the whole story here.

Dr Pusztai and his wife sacrificed their careers to bring important information to world attention.  They continue to spread information, despite constant public humiliation and derogatory remarks about them.  Here's one example, which speaks of Pusztai's 'flawed and inconclusive experiments'.

How much money/support do the Rowett Institute and the Royal Society (and senior people on their boards and review committees) receive from Monsanto and other companies involved in genetically engineered foods?

How many UK research posts and research projects are funded by Monsanto and other companies involved in genetically engineered foods?

I have written before about the way in which charities and consultants are silenced in the UK because so much of their work depends on funding from Big Pharma.

Where are the public disclaimers in the BBC, Lancet and other media/journals, so we can assess the independence of what we are reading and hearing?