Skip to comments.Glyphosate ("Roundup") Responsible for Modern Human Diseases
Posted on 04/26/2013 11:32:02 PM PDT by Renfield
click here to read article
Two enviro weinies from Chicken Little U. One even has the tag of quack on the web......
Ping... (not an endorsement of findings, just advising you all of the article).
I’m all for using cane sugar.
Left out earthquakes, bad breath, global warming, and liberalism.
This is demonology, not science.
And yet people, even conservatives like rush Limbaugh, much organic as if its something stupid. There are probably some pesticides even in organic foods, but a heck of a lot less!!
Anyone with a great lawn is also in danger. My dad used to walk around shooting roundup. Now he has severe alzheimers.
Take this seriously, people.
I meant to say “mock” organics.
Keep pesticides out of your body as much as possible.
“Left out earthquakes, bad breath, global warming, and liberalism. This is demonology, not science.”
Science has reached the point where we can find a single molecule of something if you look hard enough. What we don’t know is whether it would have been there in 1918 or 1227. Our bodies are so large compared with the usually insignificant amounts of man made materials that the materials would most likely never have an effect. Also, our bodies are marvelously self-repairing.
These guys would probably have us ban everything man made. When I pointed out to a liberal that banning DDT had led to the deaths of a billion people (through the spread of insect born disease) he said, “Good. It’s better for the planet that they died.” That was my final conversation with him. Life is too short to converse with people who want us all to live in the Stone Age for the good of the planet.
This is, of course, why humans continue to liver longer, one of the few purely objective standards of changes in health we have.
It's worse than that. My dad used to eat organic carrots, and he died of Alzheimer's. Take this seriously!
My dad sprayed Roundup by the tractor-load, ate carrots, and is still living and as sharp as a tack (not to mention his eyesight and flies die when they land on him)!
PS Take this seriously!
I read the whole thing. I did not intend to do that this early in the morning.
After looking at the credentials of the authors and looking up the definition/meaning of the term “biosemiotics”, heretofore not in my lexicon, I thought that this was going to be environmentalist wacko crap, pure BS.
I speak with authority as one who has joyfully sprayed gallons of Roundup over everything green that I wanted to be dead and gone. So an attack on my favorite herbicide was worth examining.
Still, there are unexplained things going on, such as the literal explosion in autism, c-diff infections, bee colony collapse, etc., so I plowed on. By page 15, they had my attention.
They had a tough case to make, over a tremendously broad spectrum of variables, but they did a good job. They tied numerous tendrils of unexplained smoke together to raise the legitimate issue of fire.
The authors are not demanding that glyphosate be banned, but they do make a compelling case that many of the biologically negative things going on may have this common link and it should be examined for causation.
I agree. I also may rethink my skepticism over organically grown food.
Nice recap - thanks Ron.
Sorry but I agree with this article. I do eat organic & all beef I consume is grass-fed, as well as only wild-caught seafood. And I avoid GMOs. If that put my ‘conservatism’ in question in your mind then that’s your problem & not mine.
I’ve been a nurse for 16 years. The amount of resistant infections as well as the increase in congenital syndromes as well as autism is remarkably on the rise. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
I think you meant “take this seriesly.”
And, BTW, it’s hugh.
It would never occur to the idiot researchers that the main Western DIET (the sugar, corn, soy, and wheat) is responsible for many human diseases.....
I skimmed over the article, and saw little of substance there.
Importantly, I did not see that the author’s backgrounds qualify them to write a supposedly scholarly article on a biological subject. I have no idea what an “independent scientist and consultant” is, and I can guarantee that no one trained in computer science and artificial intelligence has any in-depth understanding of life sciences or the complex interactions of an organism with its environment.
They made a lot of assertions, none of which are backed up by experimental evidence. Despite a bucket load of references (nearly 300), they omitted any reference that supported their underlying assumptions. Their most glaring (and false) underlying assumption is that toxicity at high doses can be extrapolated down to toxicity at low doses. That is utterly untrue. No one consumes glyphosate at the quantities tested in toxicology studies. Glyphosate also breaks down fairly rapidly in the environment—it does not accumulate anywhere. The main source of toxic exposures would be among people who apply it to crops—and they should be wearing protective equipment to prevent exposure.
Some of their other assertions also show their glaring lack of life sciences education. Trying to tie glyphosate to every bad thing under the sun, especially in situations where a causative factor is already well-known, is not good science. If you want to tie glyphosate exposure at any level to an adverse outcome, you need to actually conduct a study to establish a causative relationship. Their linking glyphosate usage to C. difficile infection, and then going from there to autism is just plain torturous. It would be a beautiful example of “correlation does not equal causation”, except that they don’t even establish a very good correlation. Yes, autism is linked to gastrointestinal problems—but the most likely explanation for that is that the genetic abnormalities in the metabolic pathways that cause autism also cause intestinal defects. Autism behaves very much like a genetic disease, most likely controlled through the synergy of several genes. It’s going to take real scientists a while to figure it all out—they’re making progress, but science never works as fast as pseudoscience.
Anyway, that article is way too long to go through and criticize point-by-point, and reading all of their references to see what the references actually say is way more work than I care to do for the purpose of making a forum post.
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.