Jump to content


Photo

Monsanto


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#11 SloopJohnB

SloopJohnB

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,205 posts
  • LocationPatumahoe

Posted 25 October 2017 - 09:09 PM

Thank god I gave up chemist at school. :roll:


  • 0

"With age comes wisdom .... and with wisdom comes the knowing when to avoid perfection!"


#12 AJ Oliver

AJ Oliver

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 634 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 04:05 AM

I retired from a small Uni in the US whose main research activity was water quality. 

 

Monsanto paid them to do a number of studies . . some good $ there. 

 

The problem is that Monsanto only paid for studies that would boost the company's bottom line. They assiduously attacked studies and scientists whose results were not what they wanted to hear. 

 

Bottom line - They are scum, and have zero respect for the values and practices of science. 

 

Don't trust a word they say or write. 


  • 1

#13 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,878 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 05:12 AM

That is why I look at independent studies by reputable agencies. Reputable may be the wrong word to use. What I mean by this is that the researcher needs to be someone that either has the ability to do a proper study, like a Uni, or they need to be an organisation that has the clout to employ someone like a Uni or scientific research business. Most certainly not just a Media source, unless they can provide a tie to a research agency that can be checked out. There is so much "conspiracy theory" rubbish on so many subjects out there these days. Many buy into the rubbish because it sounds right. But there is no credibility behind it. And in some instances, the stories are little more than rumours started by someone that has a gripe for some reason against the Company. It may be simply that company is some big Corporation that earns Billions.


  • 0

#14 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 06:50 AM

Another couple of minutes of listening from radio NZ that popped up as I drove to work this morning.

 

Pretty small sample size (100 people) in the guys study but guess you have to start somewhere.

 

'human exposure to glyphosate has increased about 500% in 23 years'

 

http://www.radionz.c...o_id=2018619247


  • 0

#15 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,878 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 07:29 AM

 

'human exposure to glyphosate has increased about 500% in 23 years'

Yes it likely has. But you have to put that into context. How much of the really nasty chemicals have been replaced by Glyphosate from 23yrs ago?. How much has Farming practice changed for the better for our environment in the last 23yrs because of Glyphosate. Production of Glyphosate increased dramatically world wide when Monsanto's patent expired. Round Up is still one of the most expensive brands, but it decrease when the Patent expired and many other producers have their versions at a fraction of the cost. So it is more available to people.
Anything can be made to sound bad in the wrong context.


  • 0

#16 AJ Oliver

AJ Oliver

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 634 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 09:34 AM

Wheels, I wish I could agree with you about the trustworthiness of Uni studies. 

 

Unfortunately, I cannot. Lots of Uni research is bought and paid for by corps interested solely in the bottom line. 

 

Big Pharma are some of the worst - that is in large part how we got the opioid crisis in the US. 

 

They corrupt science and murder people in order to make a buck - a very large buck. 


  • 0

#17 erice

erice

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 08:24 PM

22728823_1451914194863013_73352547397920


  • 0

it's not me

 

it's the shiraz saying sh!t


#18 lateral

lateral

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Locationauckland

Posted 27 October 2017 - 07:24 AM

Great T shirt!

Maximizing their bottom line and minimizing liability gives new weight to "any means to an end". Sadly, its not a new corporate normal.


  • 0

#19 DrWatson

DrWatson

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts
  • LocationLand locked

Posted 27 October 2017 - 07:56 PM

The Der Spiegel article is adequately written and translated. However, like a lot of investigative journalism, it does misconstrue some statements and also has been written to provoke a reaction. I'm not taking sides here, but:

 

The claims that they partook in "ghostwriting" are not substantiated. From the article, it states that they paid some guy +20k in "consultancy fees" to participate in an expert epidemiology panel. A couple of points here: Ghostwriters are never acknowledged and the practice is essentially illegal in health and medicine related literature. That Der Spiegel are aware of this guy's participation means he wasn't ghostwriting anything. Secondly, $20,700 is not an extremely large amount of money to pay for someone's expertise in an area. If this fella, John, spent time in, let's, say three panel meetings discussing the evidence that they had unearthed, each of perhaps 4 h, he's likely to get about $400 an hour for that. Add to that the time required to prepare a decent report and you rapidly top USD 20,700.

 

I recently prepared a partly systematic review on MRI in multiple myeloma diagnosis and staging - it took approximately 200 h to do it. We read over 200 published articles and manuscripts on the topic. Clearly that amount of work doesn't come for free.

 

Additionally, Der Spiegel are leveraging the classic correlation vs causation misunderstanding when the attempt to link the death of the dog Duke, and later his owner, both by similar diseases, and their exposure to Roundup. There are so many things that Duke and his owner likely shared - and only one of those is potential roundup exposure. Quick question: is the rate of lymphatic malignancies higher amongst farmers than it is amongst the general population? Farmers are undoubtedly at greater risk of exposure to higher levels of Roundup and glyphosphate that your average soccer mum or street bum. Here's the numbers straigh off Wikipedia (from the NIE 2014): 

 

In the US, data from 2007–2011 show that there were about 19.7 cases of NHL per 100,000 adults per year, 6.3 deaths per 100,000 adults per year. About 2.1 percent of men and women are diagnosed with NHL at some point during their lifetime.

 

 

However, what Monsanto have done, it appears, is run a campaign of confusion and obfuscation. They have, it seems, intentionally NOT done research that would enable them to categorically claim that Roundup is safe. Is what they have done illegal? Maybe not, but we'll see. Is it unethical? Most people would say yes. Any company would take the measures it can to protect its product. Additionally, not all scientists who work or worked in these big companies are actually great or even good scientists - I've seen it myself in large pharma companies, but thankfully, those really shite scientists are usually discovered and asked politely to leave. Some of those may bear a grudge or may have completely misinterpreted results, so their opinion may not actually reflect the reality of the science. Nonetheless, it's a bad look when a company won't make information public. This can be for many reasons and one is that often science is not completely clear cut, and need to be interpreted with the benefit of expert analysis, years of training in objective reasoning, and an excellent understanding of statistics and especially relative risk. We've seen from the Anti-vax nonsense that the general public - and a lot of media outlets - do not have the capability to this.

 

The paper written by Gilles-Éric Séralini and published in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology (which incidentally has a relatively low impact factor), likely made some pretty big claims. In science, if you make big claims you have to back it up with big evidence - high quality evidence. Der Spiegel themselves acknowledge that the study showed some considerable shortcomings, and one would think that if the evidence and research was solid, such an earth-shattering revelation would likely have been published in a slightly higher-ranking Journal, like Nature or Science or PNAS, or maybe a medical journal like NEMJ. 

 

Nonetheless, we've seen on many previous occasions, that large companies often "bend" the rules as far as they can, and quite simply shouldn't be trusted to be upfront and do the right thing. 

 

Monsanto should, in this instance, go into a damage control mode wherein they allow independent investigation and studies of high quality to be carried out, rather than attempting to confuse and muddy the waters, or attempting to intimidate and bribe officials, authorities and other parties which the article appears to suggest. While this is happening, they should work like fury to develop a replacement product with all associated safety evidence. 


  • 0

"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer"

 


#20 Willow

Willow

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,422 posts
  • LocationTauranga

Posted 28 October 2017 - 12:06 PM

I'll more activley avaoinding the stuff thanks very much

http://janeshealthyk...tos-glyphosate/

 

Glyphosate: The Elephant in the Room

Dr. Seneff began paying attention to glyphosate after she had been intensely researching autism for five or six years. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide (known to the world under its trade name Roundup®). Among its many nefarious health effects, glyphosate disrupts the way the body manages sulfur.

In the process of examining all the known toxic chemicals in the environment and assessing which one(s) would be most likely to be causal for autism—given the specific comorbidities associated with autism—Dr. Seneff found that glyphosate matched up almost perfectly.

Both glyphosate and autism are associated with low melatonin, impaired sulfur metabolism (and low serum sulfate), low vitamin D, sleep disorders, disrupted gut bacteria, and more. Glyphosate—already a very dangerous chemical on its own—causes aluminum to be much more toxic. Glyphosate and aluminum can be viewed as “partners in crime,” working synergistically with one another. This partnership plays out in several ways:

  1. First, glyphosate preferentially kills beneficial bacteria in the gut, which allows pathogens such as C. difficile to overgrow. Not only does this lead to leaky gut syndrome, but C. difficile produces something called p-Cresol, a phenolic compound that is toxic to other microbes via its ability to interfere with metabolism. (C. difficile is one of only a few bacteria able to ferment tyrosine into p-Cresol.) As it happens, p-Cresol also promotes aluminum uptake by cells. P-Cresol is a known biomarker for autism and is also an important factor in kidney failure,which leads to aluminum retention in tissues and eventually to dementia.
  2. Glyphosate also serves to increase aluminum toxicity by “caging” aluminum to promote its entry into the body. Glyphosate promotes calcium uptakeby voltage-activated channels, which allow aluminum to gain entry as a calcium mimetic. Aluminum then promotes calcium loss from bones, contributing to pineal gland calcification.
  3. Bringing melatonin back into the discussion, glyphosate interferes with what is known as the shikimate pathway. Although humans do not have the shikimate pathway, our gut flora do, and we depend on our gut flora to supply us with essential amino acids and many other things. Disruption of the shikimate pathway in our gut results in depletion of tryptophan, which is the sole precursor to melatonin. Besides needing melatonin to transport sulfate into the brain, we also need melatonin to reduce heavy metal toxicity. Where supplies of melatonin are adequate, melatonin will bind to aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, and lead, and reduce their toxicity. Where melatonin is low, a lot of damage can result.

Roundup® is the number one herbicide in use in the US and, increasingly, around the world. Unfortunately, its use has increased further in lockstep with “Roundup-Ready” genetically engineered crops, including genetically modified (GM) mainstay crops such as soy and corn.

Dr. Seneff believes that when children are overexposed to glyphosate, especially through consumption of the GM foods that are widely prevalent in the American diet, they are more likely to react badly to vaccination. To illustrate this point, Dr. Seneff and Nancy Swanson plotted a graph showing autism trends in the US (as measured by autism rates in the US school system), adverse vaccine reactions reported to the VAERS system, and glyphosate application to GM corn and soy crops in the US (Figure 3). As can be seen, the trends overlap almost entirely, presenting “tantalizing links” between these variables. Dr. Seneff infers from these findings that glyphosate is making vaccines far more toxic than they would otherwise be.

igure 3. Autism, glyphosate, and vaccine reactions in the US (Figure kindly provided by Nancy Swanson)

figure3.jpg


  • 0

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users