Posted on 04/26/2013 11:32:02 PM PDT by Renfield
Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins...
(Excerpt) Read more at mdpi.com ...
Did you die?
ding ding ding! Winnah!
I am dubious about this article for several reasons. The first of which is that it mentioned that it was “peer reviewed” several times. While that may have helped establish credibility in the past, the process of “peer review” has been tainted in recent years by scientific frauds. Multiple mentions of peer review are now ‘red flags’, and require scrutiny.
The use of techniques like “round robin” and “incestuous” peer reviews to insure that nobody outside a very small groups sees the raw data or is able to criticize it, have severely compromised it as a technique.
Another problem is that SCImago, a major, scientific journal rating organization, lists Switzerland based ‘Entropy’ journal as being oriented to “physics and astronomy”, but also publishing “miscellaneous” articles on other subjects. It is a subsidiary publisher to MDPI, the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, also based in Switzerland.
This raises a question: if this research is so telling, why is it not being published in any of the dozen major scientific journals that specialize in its subject?
Thanks for a thoughtful comment, but please let me point out that virtually all food is “organic.” Including the worms.
Much of the “organic” movement is money-grabbing crap.
Actually, crap is organic, too.
If you are truly concerned, just grow your own food. On a small scale, it’s entirely possible to produce fine vegetables (and animals) by mollycoddling, spraying with oil and water, picking off the bugs one-by-one.
On a large scale, don’t believe everything you read, but do shop with deep pockets.
Thanks for a thoughtful comment, but please let me point out that virtually all food is “organic.” Including the worms.
Much of the “organic” movement is money-grabbing crap.
Actually, crap is organic, too.
If you are truly concerned, just grow your own food. On a small scale, it’s entirely possible to produce fine vegetables (and animals) by mollycoddling, spraying with oil and water, picking off the bugs one-by-one.
On a large scale, don’t believe everything you read, but do shop with deep pockets.
Not yet.
Agent Orange didn't get me yet, either.
If you have a feed mill (or whatever) in your area (where farmers get their materials), try "Credit" brand glyphosate.
Much less expensive. (You aren't paying for the big "Roundup" brand name.)
Is it from China?
ping
Thank you for pointing that out. That - the author’s credentials and backgrounds and their lack thereof in that particular scientific field, jumped out to me as well, although you stated it, and the reasons for your and my skepticism, much more succinctly than I ever could.
I think that a lot of people, including those in the MSM and many here do not understand is how the scientific process actually works. There are thousands upon thousands of research papers and studies published every year, some on “open” sites like this, ones that seem to accept nearly every research papers, and a lot of hypothesis and conclusions are reached. But what isn’t always looked at or reported in the MSM or understood by anyone without an understanding of how the scientific process works, is the subsequent scientific peer reviews often tear many of these papers apart. Just because a person or a team submits a research paper to a scientific or quasi scientific website, that doesn’t mean that any of the conclusions posited in that research is subsequently proven to be correct.
Unlike you, I am not a scientist, but even I understand that any legitimate scientific paper or study is submitted and then is subject to scientific peer review. Other scientists attempt to replicate the results and either prove the hypothesis to be valid and subject to further study or they find the basis seriously flawed and or invalid and or are not able to replicate any of the same results and the said research paper goes into the scientific dust bin – a dead end in terms of serious research. Some so called research papers submitted are so seriously flawed, that no legitimate scientist would even waste their time with them.
But that is not what get’s reported. When some “researcher” or a team of researchers, even if they publish a paper far afield from their area of expertise, publishes a paper, the MSM and many with no understanding of the scientific process, accepts it as being “factual”, when in reality, it is just an unproven hypothesis and more often than not, one that ultimately is proven flawed or false.
Where the product is actually manufactured, I don't know.
Thanks for the ping!
THe dose makes the poison, not the substance itself.
I knew the peer review process was broken, and has been so for some time now, but I can't believe that this would see the light of day had it been subjected to legitimate peer review.
Has the process really sunk this low?
Thanks for the ping!
I wouldn’t be quite that worried about the scientific peer-review process. Yes, I do realize that the term has been somewhat co-opted by quacks, but in the scientific community, it still has meaning.
There are other ways of judging an article’s quality. Is it listed in PubMed? Do the authors’ credentials or affiliations match the expertise needed to write an article on that subject? What is the impact factor of the journal that published the article (meaning, how often are articles published in that journal referenced by other authors)?
This particular article is NOT listed in PubMed. The journal has a fairly low impact factor. The authors do not have the expertise to write authoritatively on that subject. Nor are they affiliated with organizations that work in that area.
Thanks for adding the comments.
All I meant is these two’s credentials are more than suspect....spend your research on non-agenda driven research.
Given that Roundup kills plants, not bugs, you need to look into this. Do you let his grandchildren hug him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.