Jump to content


Photo

Monsanto


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#31 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,877 posts

Posted 29 October 2017 - 05:26 PM

 

 

Personally I think we are headed down a bad path and believe all these chemicals are responsible for the increase in cancer rates and mental health problems we are having in our societies.

Cancer rates are and have been decreasing for some time now.
Plus a greater understanding of Cancer today has shown that they are more to do with Genetics than the "stuff" around us. Sure there are some environmental factors that cause Cancer, such as Carbon Particulates in the Air we breath causing Lung diseases for instance. And Smoking and Alcohol etc. And as you say Willow, some seem to suffer health effects with everyday Cleaning Chemicals around the Home, and others have no affect from anything.

 

Slipped into crazy there, I don't think an Elderly woman who works at MIT would be an ISIS operative despite how many papers she writes about the harm Glyphosphate does.

No!!!!! that I did not say.

Read my comment again. I don't think it is that badly worded.
For instance, the story of Russia having influence in US Elections by flooding Social media with propaganda. (Not saying it happened or not, just using the story as an example). 


 


  • 0

#32 DrWatson

DrWatson

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 30 October 2017 - 08:12 PM

 

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

figure3.jpg

 

 

 

This plot is about as bollox as it gets. Firstly, any epidemiology plot should show number of cases per 100,000 population. i.e. the proportion of cases.

 

Secondly, there are about a million other things that can be correlated on this plot. I could add cellphone use, or number of times a Beasty Boy song was played.

 

It has about the same validity as this plot below, or the cumulative number of miles sailed in Ross930s:

 

autism_organic_graph.png


  • 0

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

 


#33 Willow

Willow

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 30 October 2017 - 09:47 PM

Agreed that is bollox.

A much better article here complete laboratory test and analysis.

 

https://ehjournal.bi...2940-015-0056-1

 

Conclusions

It was previously known that glyphosate consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke kidney failure and reproductive difficulties [43]. The results of the study presented here indicate that consumption of far lower levels of a GBH formulation, at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations, are associated with wide-scale alterations of the liver and kidney transcriptome that correlate with the observed signs of hepatic and kidney anatomorphological and biochemical pathological changes in these organs [17]. In addition, as the dose of Roundup we investigated is environmentally relevant in terms of human [4], domesticated animals [12] and wildlife [3444] levels of exposure, our results potentially have significant health implications for animal and human populations. Furthermore, data also suggests that new studies incorporating testing principles from endocrinology and developmental epigenetics, in particular to evaluate the endocrine disruptive capability of GBH/glyphosate, should be performed to investigate potential consequences of low dose exposure during early life as well as in adults.


  • 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

 


#34 DrWatson

DrWatson

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 30 October 2017 - 11:52 PM

Yes, that is a more interesting paper and the work is better done.

 

However we must look at the findings in the context of other environmental factors. 

 

A number of things, upon quick skim reading of the paper: 

 

1. This has nothing to do with autism or vaccines - so let's not go there.  

 

2. The limit of detection for glyphosphate in the food was 5ppm, which is 10000x less sensitive than the level in the water, meaning that anything below that level in the food may also have contributed, although the randomised controlled nature of the study should have accounted for that - sample size (n?10) is pretty small, though.

 

3. "Also of note is that the Roundup-treatment associated alterations in gene expression patterns we observe do not correspond to transcriptome signatures of liver necrosis provoked by acute hepatotoxicants" - which basically means that although they found statistically significant changes in liver and kidney tissue gene expression, the clinical implications of these changes are not on a scale comparable to acute hepatotoxicity. 

 

4. The morphological changes induced by low level roundup ingestion should not be overlooked. However, what would be interesting, and what would complete the study, would be to assess the rapidity of onset of these changes, and whether or not the changes were reversible. Additionally, the effect of straight glyphosphate should also have been examined to deconvolute the "other additives" effect.. 

 

5. What is also missing (unless I read to quickly) is comparing these gene expression and morphological changes with those induced by other low level chronic toxins that can also be found in the environment. Things like rum, or ibuprofen, or paracetamol... (seriously).

 

When you give ANY compound to an animal the liver up or down regulates genes to allow that compound to be processed. It's no surprise that altered gene expression is seen when you dose with a l low level of roundup. You'd get altered gene expression in rats if you fed one of them with a low level of karaka berries, also, or nutmeg...


  • 0

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

 


#35 Willow

Willow

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 31 October 2017 - 05:54 AM

Another good study, the problem is the sheer volume of articles makes it difficult to sift out the legitimate ones.This one tests the complete cocktail contained in the herbicide which and quoting from  the paper. 

"Ethoxylated adjuvants found in glyphosate-based herbicides were up to 10.000 times more toxic than the so-called active AP glyphosate [1]"

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3955666/

 

 Monsanto shouldn't have propagated the rumor that it was completely safe. Their stance that they don't know it isn't safe is a cop out and a very convenient one. We too freely allow all these toxins into our food chain without actually knowing the full consequences.

 

"

4. Discussion

This is the first time that all these formulated pesticides have been tested on human cells well below agricultural dilutions. The three different cell types reacted very similarly and the toxicities were observed on several biomarkers; this confirmed our results. Moreover, these are very consistent with several studies on cell lines [125], where placental JEG3 cells were found to be the most sensitive. In this study [1], adjuvants were also more cytotoxic through the disruption of membrane and mitochondrial respiration than from an activation of apoptotic pathways. Primary cells are in some case up to 100 times more sensitive, for instance, neonate umbilical cord vein cells [25]. We also study here short exposures (24 h), but we have previously demonstrated a time-amplifying effect: the differential toxicity between the AP glyphosate and Roundup is increased by 5 times in 72 h [29]. It appears that, with cell lines and short exposures, we underestimate by far the direct toxicity of the products in the long term. In this case in vivo, the metabolism may reduce the toxic effect, but this can be compensated or amplified by bioaccumulation and/or the combined effect of the AP with adjuvants. For instance, in this experiment, after 24 h, 63 ppm of Roundup was found to be toxic to cells, but in our previous experiment, after two years in rats, only 0.1 ppb of Roundup was found to be sufficient to provoke pathologies [2]."


  • 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

 


#36 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 21 November 2017 - 08:18 PM

But wait, there's more...

 

https://www.newsroom...otic-resistance

 

New research links the active ingredients in common weedkillers – and inert ingredients called surfactants, which are also used in processed foods – to an increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The study, published in the journal Microbiology, goes beyond 2015 research which tested commercial formulations of well-known herbicides, such as Roundup and Kamba.

One of the Microbiology paper’s authors, University of Canterbury’s Jack Heinemann, agrees antibiotic use causes resistance. But his laboratory research shows there might be other factors, which are combining to cause a crisis in antibiotic resistance.

“Unless we identify all of the different ways in which our activities are causing resistance, then we can’t hope to preserve the use of antibiotics,” he tells Newsroom.

 

Love the comment from Monsanto.  

 

In evaluations spanning four decades, the overwhelming conclusion of experts we paid worldwide has been that glyphosate can be used safely."

 

(I may have inserted a couple of extra words in that statement) ;-)


  • 0

#37 wheels

wheels

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,877 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 04:02 AM

In that later article, there is still a lot of use of the words "may" and "might" and "needs further study".
The thing is, we are talking about Chemicals designed to Kill something. Whenever we have a chemical that kills something, then it needs to be used in the way it was intended to be used. When the rules are broken, anything and I mean anything, becomes toxic to us. Even Water for that matter.
We have dangerous Toxins around us every day. We are exposed to many dangerous toxins every time will fill the Car with Fuel. Every time we drive the Car. There are Paint thinners in the air from drying paint, exhaust fumes, even deoderants  can be harmful. You name it and in some form of concentration, it will eventually be harmful. However, in small amounts, most all chemicals are taken care of by our bodies. Even cyanide. There are only a few that our Bodies cannot process and/or are accumulative.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users