Can water protect you from glyphosate ‘poisoning’? Gilles-Eric Séralini’s homeopathy “detox” hoax

Did you know that there are homeopathic products that can detox you from the malicious effects of glyphosate, the herbicide paired with many GMO crops? How do we know this? Anti-GMO French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini says it’s so. For millions of science skeptics and deniers, that’s apparently a powerful endorsement.

Homeopathy is the bizarre idea that a concoction with ingredients diluted so much that they’re really not there anymore can cure illness. Because of quirks in the U.S. medical oversight system, quack homeopathic “remedies” to combat disease and toxins enjoy a unique status in the health marketplace: They are the only category of alternative medicine products legally marketable as drugs.

Complementing homeopathy, “detoxing” oneself is considered well outside the boundaries of modern science. It’s considered quackery by medical practitioners and scientists. But it is practiced by a sizable segment of the population, particularly those who embrace other fringe anti-science movements such as vaccine denialism and those who deny the safety of GM foods. And now homeopathy and detox supporters have a public champion in Séralini.

Gilles-Eric Seralini, consultant for Sevene Pharma
Gilles-Eric Seralini, consultant for Sevene Pharma

The French biologist, whose central work ‘documenting’ the dangers of glyphosate and GMO crops was retracted by the publishing journal (before being placed in a predatory pay-for-play open access journal without peer review) is back as a co-author of a study getting significant play in natural and alternative medicine websites.

Published earlier this year in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicinea fringe open source org-7335-digeodren-homeopathie-digestionjournal—the article claims to document the protective effects of a homeopathic product called Digeodren, which is manufactured by the French natural products company Sevene Pharma. The study, which was funded by Sevene, concludes that Digeodren could reverse the locomotor problems and biochemical issues that arise from what he called long-term exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient of the herbicide Roundup, which is paired with some herbicide-resistant GMO crops.

Sevene, based in Cevennes, France, has been a long-time funder of Séralini’s work. According to the Genetic Literacy Project’s Biotech Profile:

Séralini received significant funding from Sevene Pharma, a French company that promotes “cures” using homeopathy, which mainstream scientists consider pseudo-science. Sevene sells homeopathic remedies but is also paying Séralini to research atrazine and glyphosate risks.  Sevene markets “detoxification” homeopathy products to treat the alleged toxic effects of glyphosate and atrazine “contamination”, which is the focus of Séralini’s research, a clear conflict of interest the professor has apparently been forced by PLOS to now acknowledge.

Séralini is a consultant for the company, and conducts most of the company’s “research”, focusing on the alleged toxic effects or glyphosate and other pesticides. Two studies have been published in a low quality open-access journal. One focuses on how plant extracts presumably can protect the liver from toxic chemicals:

Worldwide used pesticides containing different adjuvants like Roundup formulations, which are glyphosate-based herbicides, can provoke some in vivo toxicity and in human cells. These pesticides are commonly found in the environment, surface waters and as food residues of Roundup tolerant genetically modified plants. In order to know their effects on cells from liver, a major detoxification organ, we have studied their mechanism of action and possible protection by precise medicinal plant extracts. The plants used were from Sevene pharma and the formula used is that of Digeodren.

The other study, almost promoted the company’s products:

We wanted to test the common pathways of intoxication and detoxification in human embryonic and liver cell lines. We used various pollutants such as Roundup residues, Bisphenol-A and Atrazine, and five precise medicinal plant extracts.

What about the new Séralini study?

The research team, which included two employees of Sevene, took 160 male rats and divided them into four groups of 40. One group was named the control (without precisely defining what that meant); a second group drank Roundup GT Plus at 0.5 percent dilution; a third received the Digeodren product at 2 percent dilution in water; and the last group received Digeodren at 2 percent for seven days and then a mixture of digeodren and Roundup for another eight days. The animals then were tested in actimeters to determine locomotor activity and their organs were analyzed for changes.

“Digeodren, without any side effect observable, presented strong preventive and therapeutic properties in vivo after a short-term intoxication by the widely used pesticide, Roundup,” the paper concluded.

Scientists have been sharply critical of the study’s methodology and conclusions. The first problem was the premise. Séralini and his colleagues stated that “we have previously demonstrated that very low levels of Roundup exert endocrine disrupting effects, such as sex hormone imbalance and hepatorenal toxicities.” However, that is based on Séralini’s retracted 2014 study.seraliniretracted

Related article:  Italy expected to vote against EU renewal of glyphosate herbicide

Other problems revolved around the dosages used. Steve Savage, a plant pathologist and genetics consultant, told the Genetic Literacy Project in an email:

The dose is absurd. They gave the animals the equivalent of what could be in the spray tank including the surfactants and the a.i. (active ingredients). If glyphosate or its AMPA metabolite ever end up in a food it is at extremely low concentrations and never with the surfactant. Unless you were a farmer or gardener who routinely drinks from the spray tank over 8 days, this study is meaningless.

Other scientists pointed to a lack of proper controls, stating that the study should have had controls for the other ingredients of Roundup (which are formulated along with glyphosate, and may affect its function and other effects, as discovered last year by the German Institute for Risk Assessment). There also was some confusion between when the researchers used glyphosate alone or Roundup as a mixture.

Another problem was the makeup of Digeodren. Its label includes Taraxacum officinalis/Dandelion D4, Berberis vulgaris/BarberryD5, and Lappa major/Burdock D4, but also shows it is diluted in 70 percent alcohol, which can have a number of effects on animal locomotion and other physiological processes.

It’s also not clear how the researchers selected the animals for study. It would be possible to select animals with superior (or, in the case of the Roundup animals, impaired) locomotion. The paper stated that the locomotor experiments were carried about according to a paper by J.J. Lynch and colleagues at Abbott Laboratories published in 2011, which addresses conducting locomotor analysis but does not address how experimental animals are selected.

Finally, the paper has no discussion on the natural variability in locomotion or physiological parameters, making it impossible to tell if anything was truly wrong with any of the animals.

Plant medicinal extracts and “detox” mythology

just-water-530x450Homeopathic treatments claim to use highly diluted chemicals—what amounts to almost pure water—to cure or prevent disease. “Detox” and homeopathic treatments that purport to cure a number of existing ailments and prevent other disorders by removing “toxins” from the body are becoming increasingly popular despite a complete lack of empirical evidence supporting such claims.

According to the Sevene website, Digeodren helps with “liver detoxification and digestion” and restores the health of those “feeling ‘sluggish & lethargic’ (by) stimulating the removal of environmental toxins from the liver.” These claims echo advertisements on fringe websites (like this one with detailed instructions and urging a detox once a year) and articles stating that the buildup of toxins from environmental exposures are sapping our strength and threatening our health.

According to Today Homeopathy, detox is supposed to work like this:

Detox, short for detoxification, is the removal of potentially toxic substances from the body.

The health of every single organ in the body depends on its ability to eliminate the waste products of the life process. Detoxification is a practice of resting, cleaning and nourishing the body from the inside out that is known for centuries by many cultures.

A detox program helps body`s own healing processes and everyone should do it at least once a year.

These faddish “detox” methods have been universally panned by the medical community as potentially dangerous for one’s health, or at least a drain on one’s wallet. The body already has a number of ways to rid itself of toxic substances, including the skin, respiratory system, immune system, intestines and the liver and kidneys. These “cures,” which are almost never available by prescription, can lead to dehydration, deplete necessary electrolytes and impair bowel function. They also can disrupt the microbiome balances in the intestine, and could even cause metabolic acidosis, which according to Harvard Medical School can be fatal.

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.

291 thoughts on “Can water protect you from glyphosate ‘poisoning’? Gilles-Eric Séralini’s homeopathy “detox” hoax”

      • LIke that is relevant. So does Mike Adams, so does Joe Mercola… Makes no difference, snake oil salesmen are snake oil salesmen. As far as politicians go, I think the shorter of two lists on both sides of the aisle are those who are not snake oil salesmen.

    • The USA major universities, whose safety data roundup and glyphosate was used by the EPA in the registration process, gets billions from Monsanto, DuPont, ICI, Syngenta and Dow and somehow they are “above suspicion?”
      What a laugh: we in the academic world know that the trials & “research” work we were forced to do, under pain of having
      GMO producing company “grants” rescinded, were designed to show the results necessary to get EPA approval. Not public safety. Stop being someone’s fool…or tool: you can tell us which.

      • Since people like Seralini and Benbrook have well-established conflicts of interest, who are we supposed to believe? The answer is, look at the research and the evidence itself and determine who is doing the best work. Denying that there are significant financial interests on both side would be hypocritical, but just because there are financial interests involved does not invalidate the evidence.

        Seralini’s work fails to stand up because it is of exceedingly poor quality with many fatal flaws, based on standards of scientific inquiry. So the question is, what would motivate someone to do such poor research, and what would motivate a scientist to ignore basic scientific standards of objectivity and honesty to become a blatant advocate whose interest is to perpetuate a particular narrative rather than follow the evidence? In other words, what would lead a scientist to do shitty work? In the case of Seralini, a plausible reason is that he is doing advocacy research that is supported by anti-GMO, anti-glyphosate activist patrons as well as having a significant financial interest in outcomes.

        Unlike Seralini, most academic scientists value their credibility. They are not dependent on billions from industry, and while industry does contribute, much of their funding comes from public funds. They are also not dependent on a particular outcome. If they discovered something inherently dangerous in GM plants and we would have to rethink the whole GM option, they would still have jobs; their success as scientists is not nearly as intimately tied to the success GM as a business as Seralini is to his activist patrons and snake oil business. Can you imagine if Seralini ever said a good thing about GM plants or glyphosate? He would be out of a job in a heartbeat.

        • “…exceedingly poor quality with many fatal flaws, based on standards of scientific inquiry…” hmmm, obviously you did not read WHY it was rejected. It was entirely one issue: not enough test subjects. Period.
          So, instead of reading the GMO industry’s story on his study, read the actual study and the actual rejection note.

          • Seralini’s GMO study has been roundly criticized by many credible scientists for its poor quality and flawed methods; inappropriate sample size that was not capable of distinguishing effect from error, unblinded evaluations of subjective criteria, animals that were fed as much as they wanted to eat without tracking amounts, male groups appeared to do better than female groups for no plausible reason other than lack of statistical power, in general, the data were all over the place and there was no statistical analysis performed.

            In a nutshell, the data show nothing, they were inconclusive and that was the reason given for retraction. Whether or not the paper was retracted does not change the fact that the study was poorly done and fatally flawed; research stands or falls on its own, and this project fell flat on it face.

          • still quoting from pro-GMO sites eh? I will again advise you to actually read his work. The sample size was adequate for what he was trying to accomplish; he was NOT trying to separate the impact from each ingredient and didn’t need to write that into the initial research. If both research groups are given the same treatment then it is all relevant. If for example they are both given free-feed then it is relevant data. Phase 1 trials are purposefully written to be broad and over-reaching. Phase 2 trials narrow down the limits and delineate the inputs. Male versus female response was not written into the original study…. so why would anyone make that an issue AFTER the study? That is what Phase 2 is about.
            No: this research was perfectly written for an initial research into a test subject. That it was attacked as vehemently shows “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

          • If for example they are both given free-feed then it is relevant data.

            If both are given free-feed, some will eat more than others and there was no accounting for that. Considering that diet (amount consumed) has such a large effect on the incidence of tumors in SD rats, the failure to control for diet is a fatal flaw all by itself.

            From the paper: Altogether, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes.

            Team Seralini and anti-GMO, anti-glyphosate advocates are not representing these results as if this were just a Phase 1 trial looking for trends or effects worthy of further study, they concluded that the study “confirms pathological effects” and it simply does not do that. The very small effect size is likely well within the limits of statistical noise, but how would you or anyone else even know that since a proper statistical analysis was not even performed by the authors.

          • I think you need to take my 211 cell biology course. Metabolism tells all. If ALL the GMO rats developed tumors…… um; hello? Anyone up there? And ALL the non-GMO rats didn’t…… you stupid or just stupid? It is obviously very important results.
            But what you OBVIOUSLY don’t know, not being in science, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do any GMO impact testing without the expressed consent of the patent holder….who NEVER does. Even the French government was turned down for the use of the GM traits in cancer studies.
            Wake up. Stop being a tool.

          • Is that is the way you talk to your 211 cell biology students? Count me out.

            1. In the case of animals with an exceedingly high natural rate of tumorigenesis, one will see 100% incidence in some control groups and not others. In the case of SD rats fed ad libitum, incidence is significantly affected by amount of food consumed, especially over extended intervals, and again, Seralini did not control for that variable. Unless one has a sufficient sample size, treatment effects cannot be resolved. Seralini didn’t even do a statistical analysis to demonstrate that adequate statistical power was achieved.

            2. If it is impossible to do GMO impact testing without express consent of the patent holder, how did Seralini get away with it? There is plenty of product in the marketplace to test without consent. You need to update this well-worn, anti-GMO trope to avoid embarrassing yourself… again. Furthermore, around 100 US academic institutions have Academic Research Licenses with Monsanto to do independent research with GE crop plants. Signing a contract to protect a patented product from pirating or reverse engineering seems fair; both independent researchers and Monsanto have found this to be a workable solution. Independent research is more than just possible, it is actually happening.

            My guess is that your “science” is done (if you really do any science at all, and I have my doubts) to prove a conclusion you have already made and feeds into an enterprise that sells nutritional supplements or something of that nature. Have you published any work?

          • “…In the case of animals with an exceedingly high natural rate of tumorigenesis, one will see 100% incidence in some control groups and not others…”
            can you please attach some citation for that?
            “…how did Seralini get away with it…” he didn’t do the GMO as a GMO trait: he did it as a feed from known GMO grains. But notice he didn’t do just the GM trait itself: he did the whole grain of a known GMO crop.
            “…around 100 US academic institutions have Academic Research Licenses with Monsanto to do independent research with GE crop plants…” bull shit. That’s not real at all. The contract they sign doesn’t allow them to do ANY independent research: only the rights to use the trait as Monsanto, or whoever, grants the use for. Now I know you’re either a tool or a fool….

          • can you please attach some citation for that?

            The answer is not very complicated, it is a simple probability calculation like what is the probability of flipping a coin and coming up with heads five times in a row. From this study, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11381627, lets assume that the total incidence of tumors in control SD rats is 80% when considering their total lifespan, which is about two years. (Maybe the incidence of tumors in control rats in the Seralini study was not 80%, but that is part of the problem, he didn’t have enough controls to determine what that variability really was to a reasonable degree of statistical significance.)

            If the probability of one rat developing a tumor in its lifetime is 80%, then the probability of ten out of ten rats in a group developing tumors is 0.8^10 or about 10%. Seralini used only two control groups of ten rats each (male and female) against eight groups of ten for treatments, which is a bit unusual and just not enough controls relative to the number of treated rats.

            25% of control rats got tumors and died, while 60% in only “some test groups” that ate GM maize did, however, some test groups were actually healthier than controls. In other words, the results were all over the place and of insufficient statistical power to justify any conclusions whatsoever.

            The fact that you asked for a citation regarding such a fundamental statistical concept suggests that maybe you don’t have the tools necessary to critically evaluate the quality of Seralini’s work, but then, I doubt you would even want to.

          • The fact that you include assumptions says you obviously have never done a phase 1 research trial.
            An observational Phase 1 only looks for the result to be “yes or no.”
            Seeing as Monsanto will not allow actual independent laboratory research on the carcinogenic impact from GMOs and Roundup that is all Seralini could do.
            Guessing you are now being fed responses, this last one is way more wordy then your first ones…
            So you ARE a tool…. don’t worry: those rats are designed to mimic human chemical responses to tumor genesis…how old are you, 30? Or 50? At 30 you have a decade, at 50 yours will be right around the corner. Enjoy.
            Don’t forget to curse God when you get yours… can’t tell you how many times I have heard the patient or their family say “Why did God do this to me.?” hahahaha. As if.

          • Seralini never claimed it was designed as a Phase 1 study and you cannot know his intent, so you are making a post hoc conclusion in assuming it was designed as a Phase 1 study because that is what it looks like to you. However, that is a wholly irrelevant point. “Phase 1”, “observational”, “exploratory”, “preclinical”, whatever you want to call it doesn’t change the fact that Seralini’s conclusions, and those made by anti-GE advocates since, are not supported by the data contained within that report, because, among other reasons, it suffered from statistical failings that you obviously do not understand.

          • Not only are you either woefully ignorant or just a big liar, you are also psychopathic from you r enjoyment in the patient’s misery.

            When you check out, I will be happy to eulogize you, for seldom do I say this, but we were all better for not knowing you.

          • The patent does not preclude testing of anything, merely using the described product in competition with the patent holder.

          • calling yourself “agscienceliterate” means you are, like trump; not so much literate as self-appointing.

          • I know a fair amount about GE science and agriculture.
            What about you, “sci guy”? Live up to your own name? Or is it really “sci-fi”?

            C’mon, science guy. Tell us all about how great Seralini is, and why he should not have been widely debunked by the greater science community. You can even make something up, and call it sci-fi if you wish. We’ll respond. Yes, you know we will.

          • “we”…… hmmmm. Yes, that is what I thought.
            How great Seralini is, or not, isn’t the issue: its how toxic GMOs, and the chemicals they are made to be used with, that IS the issue. And while the real science literate (ha) world has condemned these chemicals, except of course the stooges Monsanto, et al, buy, the rest of the world, including real scientists not on your dole, have identified these chemicals as both endocrine disruptors and carcinogenic.
            So tell your Masters that we have enough information on them to wrap this all up and soon enough they will be in prison.

          • Great. Do it. And quit bragging. And by the way, the “we” refers to the many people here who have tried to educate your frigid, rigid brain.

      • So you actually think that research from the likes of Seralini, Samsel and Seneff is of good quality and credible?

        What institution do you work at and what kind of research do you do?

        • All research is of value…even bad research is of value. While the proposed hypothesis may not be proven, you have to look at all of the aspects of the trial to determine what, and where, they achieved success or ended up with failure. Then do it yourself minus their mistakes.
          That’s how real science works.
          I own my own R&D company and currently focus on Phase1 cancer clinical trials centering on hormonal based cancers in remission.
          So a fully equipped lab with the ability to run biological outcomes? Yes Sir!

          • So I take that to mean you must be a tool of Big Pharma.

            I have worked as a research assistant for farm advisors and cooperative extension specialists and graduated from a premier land grant university. I have continued my relationship with scientists doing ag-related research during a 30-year career in production agriculture and I have never known a single one of those scientists to ever put a few measly scraps from industry ahead of their own credibility.

            People like Seralini, Benbrook, Samsel, and Seneff are doing advocacy research, if you can call it research at all. One look at Team Seralini’s website is all you need as proof that he is not interested in following the evidence, he is only interested in validating a narrative established by his patrons.

            I have no personal interest in this as my role in agriculture is neutral with regard to these issues and I work with both organic and conventional growers. My interest is scientific skepticism and calling out snake oil salesmen, misinformation about agricultural issues, and advocates masquerading as scientists. Particularly when it comes to GE tech as I see it as a powerful, effective and safe tool that will help address many challenges to our food supply in the future, including those related to climate change.

            Let’s hold everybody’s feet to the fire including the huge, billion-dollar companies with a vested interest in selling organic products at a premium price based on misinformation, unsubstantiated claims, and fear mongering.

          • No, I am a “tool” of nutritional inputs for controlling environmental impacted health issues. We sell nothing related, spend all our own funds and take no grants from anyone. Barking up the wrong tree here bud.
            GE tech, in the hands of the magnanimous, is indeed a wonderful tool. In the hands of corporate monsters its the horror show we are dealing with today. Those seeds aren’t bred to make agriculture better: they’re bred to sell toxic chemicals by the tens of millions of tons yearly. And they do…and those chemicals end up in you. And that is where your cancers, immune diseases, bent genders all come from. I am guessing you think we need more of this?

          • You seem to have a preferred narrative and an interest in finding environmental impacts so you can justify certain “nutritional inputs”. I wonder what those are. Your enterprise sounds very similar to what Seralini is trying to do.

            You simply have no evidence that the amounts of glyphosate people actually consume causes any of the effects you mention.

            As for GE tech in the hands of the magnanimous, I am glad you are not a doctrinaire anti-GMO advocate and see that there is a place for GE tech in agriculture. Unfortunately, that is not the position taken by the Organic industry, which condemns all forms of GE tech in agriculture as “unnatural.”

          • I see…the entire work of the UN and WHO aren’t relevant to you because they were not done by GMO mega-corporations? Missed where they said glyphosate is carcinogenic?

          • For a scientist, you are not very precise. UN and WHO did no work, it was the IARC, which is a committee associated with but not governed by the WHO, who did the work, and they did not say glyphosate is a carcinogen, they said it was a probable human carcinogen, along with red meat and very hot beverages. The IARC finding on glyphosate is at odds with the majority of regulatory agencies around the world as well as recently published review by the National Academy of Sciences.

            Before you waste your time responding, I know, the IARC is right and everyone else is wrong, everyone else is part of a grand conspiracy that protects Monsanto and poisons consumers in order to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

  1. “Homeopathy is the bizarre idea that a concoction with ingredients diluted so much that they’re really not there anymore and it can cure illness.” I think the “and it” should be cut out of that sentence.

    I don’t know about you but my favorite “pathway of intoxication” is Cabernet Sauvignon.

    It’s now official: Gilles-Eric Seralini is a “shill” for Sevene.

    • It is interesting to watch how much venom, rather than objectivity, there is when a respected scientist begins to question the safety of GMOs and the potential benefits of homeopathic medicine. I wish that the people here would have a similar amount of venom for EVERY scientist who is funded by a pharmaceutical company…but I guess this only happens when a cherished cow is threatened…and instead of maintaining a healthy scientific attitude, people here instead prefer showing a fundamentalists attitude that questions their religion. Sad but true.

        • So says a “professional skeptic of homeopathy” but what exactly have you ever gotten published in a peer-review journal in medicine? This article is so full of misinformation it is as though it was written by a Donald Trump supporter who doesn’t believe in good science.

          • Great…I’m glad to hear that you now will not purchase drugs from any Big Pharma company due to the financial conflicts of interests…and wait, you seem to believe that only homeopaths can have such conflicts. No bias here?

          • Conflicts of interests? You seem to a lot about me and you are way of base. I believe all drugs and drug companies should be held to the same standards no matter their size. A homeopathic remedy should be treated just like if was a drug.

          • “professional skeptic of homeopathy”…. That made my day. I applied for the job, but had no luck. How funny!

          • we call that “trumpisms” no truth just BS said loudly. And in CAPITAL LETTERS SO EVERYONE KNOWS ITS A FACT.

      • Gilles-Eric Seralini is a respected scientist??? He has had submitted articles retracted, now he can only get published in pay-to-play journals, he is the laughing stock of the scientific community.

        “Dana Ullman, M.P.H. (Masters in Public Health, U.C. Berkeley) (CCH = certified in classical homeopathy) is “homeopathic com” and is widely recognized as the foremost spokesperson for homeopathic medicine in the U.S.”

        Biased just a bit, are we? Seralini, move over, you have company.

        • In due respect, Seralini IS a highly respected scientist…and in fact, he is also a very brave one with the courage to critique GMOs and to conduct formal research on controversial systems of medicine as homeopathy (aka nanopharmacology).

          Here’s what Wikipedia says about Seralini. Anyone (!) who suggests that he isn’t a respected scientist has an axe to grind and has serious blinders…

          Seralini was granted the Chevalier de l’ordre national du Mérite, for 16 years of service in the public authorities.[42]
          In 2015 Séralini was awarded the “whistleblower” award by the Federation of German Scientists and the German branch of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms ILANA.[43] An opinion piece in the German weekly Die Zeit commented that Séralini has been become completely discredited in science. The title used the word Pfeife (both whistle and moron in German) instead of whistleblower. He was being deemed “an anti-GM activist” leading a campaign “by questionable means”.[44] The ETH genetics researcher Angelika Hilbeck, a strong supporter of Séralini[45] was among the jury of the prize and is as well[46] member of the scientific council of CRIIGEN.[47]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-%C3%89ric_S%C3%A9ralini

          • I especially like how Seralini’s work is used as an example of how NOT to design experiments and analyze data.

        • he is the laughing stock of the GMO-puppet community. The rest of us know why his work was refused. Tools/fools like you can’t read well enough to figure out the game.

        • And yet, here’s the awards that Wikipedia acknowledges granted to Seralini…and as such, it seems that people here have an axe to grind…and they are butchers, not real scientists…

          Chevalier de l’ordre national du Mérite, for 16 years of service in the public authorities.[42]
          In 2015 Séralini was awarded the “whistleblower” award by the Federation of German Scientists and the German branch of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms ILANA.[43] An opinion piece in the German weekly Die Zeit commented that Séralini has been become completely discredited in science. The title used the word Pfeife (both whistle and moron in German) instead of whistleblower. He was being deemed “an anti-GM activist” leading a campaign “by questionable means”.[44] The ETH genetics researcher Angelika Hilbeck, a strong supporter of Séralini[45] was among the jury of the prize and is as well[46] member of the scientific council of CRIIGEN.[47]

    • The USA major universities, whose safety data roundup and glyphosate
      was used by the EPA in the registration process, gets billions from
      Monsanto, DuPont, ICI, Syngenta and Dow and somehow they are “above
      suspicion?”
      What a laugh: we in the academic world know that the
      trials & “research” work we were forced to do, under pain of having
      GMO producing company “grants” rescinded, were designed to show the
      results necessary to get EPA approval. Not public safety. So you are which: a fool or a tool?

    • The USA major universities, whose safety data roundup and glyphosate
      was used by the EPA in the registration process, gets billions from
      Monsanto, DuPont, ICI, Syngenta and Dow and somehow they are “above
      suspicion?” What a laugh: we in the academic world know that the
      trials & “research” work we were forced to do, under pain of having
      GMO producing company “grants” rescinded, were designed to show the
      results necessary to get EPA approval. Not public safety. You are a tool or a fool: you let me know which.

        • Because you are soooo important I should immediately jump-to and provide you with every detail?
          hahahahhaha….. as if. Take a hike Mr. “guest” tell your bosses to hire attorneys.

          • If you are an academic, then you should be aware of the phrase “what is cited without evidence or proof can be dismissed without evidence or proof”.

          • I will help you. If you give me the information, I will put it out. We will say the work came from Hillbilly Labs LLC. The work has to be of high quality that is reproduceable. The big companies can’t get much if they go after me. I will protect you. I care for the sick babies and children as much as you do or mybe even more.

  2. So you don’t trust Seralini but prefer to trust Monsanto which poisons your food. You think Glyphosate is good for you, and you don’t want anyone criticizing it. Fascinating.

  3. So much polemic in every direction. Even the quote from Savage (a well-known “friend” of Monsanto, whom Monsanto flew to Hawaii to lobby the gov’t there) is polemic. I’ll explain how. The quote reads, “If glyphosate or its AMPA metabolite ever end up in a food it is at extremely low concentrations and never with the surfactant.”

    That “if” is specious. Glyphosate does end up in food. Any fool who studies it for real knows that. Only a spin doctor would use “if” here to make a verifiable fact seem dubious. It does end up in foods and it’s been tested and shown to be there. At low ppm levels… 1 to 2 ppm is not unheard of in some foods. And yes, with the breakdown product AMPA.

    Secondly, it’s also established by Brewster (1996) that glyphosate ends up in the bones an carcass of rats given a single oral dose, after one week. That’s an established fact. And the same study shows that it’s metabolized in the gut of the rats at some rate, which shows that it’s metabolized by the gut microbiota, of which species it affects some and not others. Science! So wonderful for answering questions truthfully!

    • Wow… you’re really nit-picking. Are you denying that sometimes glyphosate does not make it into food and sometimes it does? I’m pretty sure that’s what “if” means in this context.

      Get over your self.

    • He said “a” food, as in, if it winds up in a particular food. Glyphosate residues do not occur in “all” foods, they occur in some foods, unless of course, you don’t know what you’re doing and use ELISA to test for glyphosate under inappropriate circumstances, for instance, to “prove” there is glyphosate in breast milk or wine.

      Always tickles me when folks like you suggest someone defending science is a Monsanto shill just because the science in this particular case is on the side of Monsanto, while someone who truly is a shill like Charles Benbrook is claimed to be an independent researcher beyond reproach.

      • No, you are wrong. My organic garden that I never spray anything in (except water) now contains RoundUp. It is a law. The USDA came out and sprayed it themselves by helicopter. It is because Big Ag is owned by Monsanto. Everyone knows that Big Ag owns the gov’ment. Therefore, the USDA ( a division of Big Ag) has to, under law, spray all food with RoundUp. Check it out–it’s in the constitution, man.

          • You mean tin foil hats are de rigueur or that everyone already knows that you are just one of the village idiots? Or perhaps you were trying to be funny and sarcastic. A thousand apologies if I am not intimately familiar with your comic sensibilities.

          • He is an angry man who blames vaccines for his kid’s autism. He lashes out in rage, with no citations, at all things science. Very, very sad.

          • Why are you even posting, AD? You are against vaccines, and now you are also against genetic engineering. Did they both cause your kid’s autism?
            Do you gnash your teeth at “chemtrails” also?

            You could do something constructive with your time, AD, by going to your local autism society, taping your mouth shut and keeping your unscientific pseudoscience to yourself, and doing some volunteer work to help kids with autism. Anger and wrathful rage based on your misinformation makes you a very unhappy sad person. Do something useful. Call the Autism Society and volunteer. And keep your whackjob opinions to yourself if you want to do anything for them other than clean toilets on the night shift when no one’s around to hear you rant against everything scienc-y.

          • The incredibly old and stupid “tin foil hat” psyops comments are usually made by people too scared to look at the truth or by “the network” shills…low paid wage slaves of elite parasites. It’s old, it’s stupid. Give it up or look like the fool you are.

          • “Truth”? Evidence, please. Until that, I actually have a whole tinfoil bodysuit for you. “Chemtrails” (not a thing) aren’t enough? Now we have “chembombs”? Also not a thing.

          • You use that “elite parasites” phrase a lot in all of your woo posts. Including in the ones about your conspiracy theories about evil beings living under Australia and controlling the world.
            You should write kiddie books.

          • 4444444, you sure use your one and only dismissive phrase “elite parasites” a whole lot. Including in your posts about death and destruction caused by the little beings who live underneath Australia. (Readers, he does indeed say that in his comments on another site. He also says these little beings who live underneath Australia, along with “chembombs” from the sky – I am not making that up — are targeting us with mass sterilization. He also says that there are two types of vaccines; one for rich people, and one for the rest of us, intended to sterilize us and cause mass extinction. If he were even partially coherent, I would suggest he write a science fiction novel. Since he is not, he should go to work as a marketer for Seralini.)

            Do you have any meaningful comments about this article on Seralini or homeopathy? Or are you just a one trick pony?

          • It isn’t just trails. The most potent death chamber skies brought to us are chembombs that cover small states. You can see these aerosol bombs go up in columns and then spread out yourself on google earth.

          • Well, well, well. Not just “chemtrails,” but now “chembombs.”
            Face palm.
            Stay in your basement. The world is waaaay too scary for you.

          • “NOW”??? chembombs? They’ve been recorded on google earth for years now. agscienceliterate is a low paid wage slave of elite parasites who use these pathetic individuals with extremely little right brain functioning to discredit people telling the truth about their poisoning of us from every direction, including bringing the death chambers to us. Pathetic traitor of his fellow human beings.

          • Nice fantasy, 44444, but I’ve never been paid. Low wage or any wage. But thank you for thinking that my posts are brilliant and insightful enough to warrant payment.

            Actually, if you look up my posts, you will see that I say over and over and over and over and over again to eat organic and non-GMO certified, if you don’t trust GE foods. Do I expect the $60 Billion Big Organic industry to pay me for shilling for them? I keep begging Whole Foods and Chipotle to send me a check…. Nothin’. Pathetic, right? Why should I keep shilling if I’m not getting paid? Oh yeah, I kinda like science and I kinda like critical thinking, and I kinda think you don’t respect either.

            You want to give some reliable scientific citations for “chembombs”? How many times do I need to ask you to verify your tinfoil statements, anyway? Are you one of those snark trollers who posts garbage and won’t back it up?

      • Ah ha…… well, on the first point, the grammar, alright, i can see that. On the other point, however, it’s not simply “someone defending science” — but rather someone representing “science” as if it’s a total identity with the wishes of the biotech industry and the agrochemical industry, which is exactly what Steve Savage does and is… if it walks like a duck. We could continue the he said / she said but i’d rather not. But do not represent “science” as 100% in line with he industry agenda. That’s the propaganda line.

        • Ah, demonstrating the polemics for us again, eh Tinkler? This time you attack Steve Savage off topic and out of the blue. What is wrong with you?

          It’s only natural “someone representing science” is going to be in close agreement with most of science-based industry, ’cause facts, well facts are kinda immutable and the story doesn’t change much from one telling to the next…unlike anti-industry propagandists, like yourself Tinkler, for whom science and facts are but a minor nuisance.

          Tinkler, maybe you need to replace the batteries in the carbon monoxide detector in your little shitbox trailer ’cause you’re ranting out of your head again. What is wrong with you?

        • “But do not represent “science” as 100% in line with he industry agenda. That’s the propaganda line.”
          Which no one, ever, said. There is a consensus, meaning the vast majority of the scientific community sits on one side. A small, fringe sect (that you have attached yourself to) sits on the other.
          And you have the gall to use the words “industry agenda” when the point is made quite clearly that Seralini (and his masters) have an agenda, as do you.
          Irony.

          • To be fair consensus and fact are two different things, it is entirely possible that new evidence could come along and say something that we hadn’t thought. Unlikely, but possible.
            Until then I will stick to the mountains of evidence that says modern medicine is currently the best out there.

          • ” it is entirely possible that new evidence could come along and say something that we hadn’t thought”
            Of course. I think we can all agree that with each passing year, that possibility gets less and less.

    • Since we’re in the realm of science, you’ll want to note the correct bibliographic information for the Brewster (1996) [sic] that you cited:
      Brewster DW, Warren J, Hopkins WE (1991) Metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague–Dawley rats: tissue distribution, identification, and quantitation of glyphosate-derived materials following a single oral dose. Fundam Appl Toxicol 17: 43-51.

      Interestingly, Brewster and his team were (perhaps still) Monsanto scientists reporting results from studies typically conducted in association with registration requirements (but in 1991 it would have been re-registration studies being conducted because glyphosate was re-registered in 1993 in accordance with FIFRA that requires periodic review of all registrations). Brewster et al. were using radiolabelled glyphosate that would have enabled them to detect concentrations that would not have been possible at the time by established chromatographic procedures (such as GC-MS nor LC-MS).

      The Brewster citation was made in the article by Kruger et al. (2014) [Krüger M, Schledorn P, Schrödl W, Hoppe HW, Lutz W, et al. (2014) Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans. J Environ Anal Toxicol 4: 210. doi: 10.4172/2161-0525.1000210]. Kruger et al. did not exam bone tissue as did the Monsanto scientists associated with Brewster et al. (1991).

      The bottom line is Monsanto published the information about bone residues of glyphosate in a peer reviewed journal, belying any argument that the company only spins information that would be favorable to their products.

      • You’re right — 1991. Thanks.

        Brewster, David W., JoAnne Warren, and William E. Hopkins. “Metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats: tissue distribution, identification, and quantitation of glyphosate-derived materials following a single oral dose.” Fundamental and applied toxicology 17.1 (1991): 43-51.

        It does show glyphosate residue in bones and carcass after one week.

  4. If it is considered quackery as you claim then why is it practised by many MD’s around the world and in some major hospitals, taught in some medical schools and many universities and included by Governments in State medical systems, when surely, all of them have had their legal teams sign off?

    You may be unaware but prejudice and ignorance are not a good basis for opinions or for articles written about those opinions. How about doing some rigorous research with an open-mind? Novel perhaps but worth a try.

    • You referring to “detoxification” specifically? Of glyphosate? What else? What hospitals? What procedures? Since you have done the “rigorous research” on detoxing glyphosate, do share.

    • We can also look at the data. Data from over 3000 studies show: It doesn’t work. For nothing. For no condition, in no single case. Discussion over.

      A medical school teaching homeopathy needs to be reviewed and closed since it is dangerous.

      • Additionally, people who are taking homeopathic supplements are asked to stop taking them two weeks prior to major surgeries, as they can have detrimental effects during anesthesia and recovery.

          • Two friends, different hospitals. One in for knee replacement (mountain biking accident), one in for major back surgery. Both had been taking a number of different homeopathic supplements, and were told for blood-thinning and other medical reasons to stop taking all supplements prior to surgery. If you doubt that, call your own hospital or medical provider.
            Additional info: the knee-replacement guy was allowed to continue acupuncture prior to surgery. The back surgery person was told, obviously, to stop chiropractic before surgery.

          • Yes, that is what I have heard as well. So I think what you meant in your first sentence is that homeopathics obviously ARE an issue prior to surgery.

            I would like for rosross, poster above, to disclose the name of any certified hospital that permits them prior to surgery, or that uses them consistently as part of accepted medical protocol

          • So they were advised to generally stop taking supplements. I can’t imagine a sane doctor advising against taking sugar pills and water drops.

          • Yes, evidently some can work as blood thinners, which you do not want before surgery. Which is also the reason that one can’t take aspirin ( I know, aspirin is not a homeopathic supplement ) before surgery. Other impacts, I don’t know. Maybe untested ingredients in these various homeopathies that might interfere with anesthesia? I really don’t know. But yes, that is apparently quite common in the surgical world, to ask patients to stop homeopathic supplements a few weeks before surgery.

          • What would be interesting to find out is whether chemo patients or dialysis patients are also advised by their physicians to not use homeopathy and supplements during their treatments. I don’t know the answer to that. I do know that many of these unregulated supplements come from China and elsewhere, where the ingredients are unknown in terms of quantity, quality, and potential toxicity, particularly in combination with other ongoing medical treatments.

          • As someone else has pointed out, they are trying to stop people taking supplements that could be active and who will not know the difference between inactive homeopathics and active substances.

        • Unfortunately people will use and do things for centuries when it doesn’t work. It’s their perception that it works that keeps it going. Do you want of examples of things other than homeopathy? I can think of a few.

    • Homeopathy is never used in hospital to cure; just to alleviate people with long rehabilitation post-operation because it has been demonstrated that placebos are great at doing this: no side-effect and feel-good state of mind helping recovery, that’s the reason some quack/alternative medicine are also accepted like acupuncture. This is practical and scientifically-based use of the human mind.
      When included in state medical systems, the pro and cons have been weighted between i) allowing MD to prescribe placebos while screening and directing real pathological case to actual medical treatment or ii) letting the believer alone and vulnerable to quacks with zero experience in medicine that would sell homeopathy to cure their cancer. The balance is not easy to find and different states may weigh differently the pro and cons of giving people quackery that makes them feel good through official channels or not. But they all agree on one thing: we’re speaking of a placebo.
      For someone asking to do some rigorous research you obviously didn’t on this topic.

        • I’m not aware of state insurance covering untrained quacks. If you want your homeopathic prescription covered by your public health system you’ll need to have it delivered by an actual MD. That’s at least my experience in France and Switzerland.

          • Those countries are rarities. Though some other countries have MDs who hand out quackery, most homeopaths are untrained.

            But that wasn’t the point. There is no need for a discredited system when the improvements can be made without them.

          • Yes, every year, one in ten people in in France get a homeopathic prescription.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25921648

            Amazingly, 95% of French pharmacists recommend homeopathic remedies.
            pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2004; 13: 711–715

            This is in stark contrast to the U.S., where insurance companies prefer to reimburse patients for treatments with demonstrated efficacy—probably one of the few advantages of a profit-based healthcare system.

    • I agree: the use of homeopathy by MDs is scandalous, and undermines the credibility of the whole profession. I cannot understand why they are not publicly vilified by their peers and medical organizations.

      I would love to know whether these “doctors” truly believe that their snake-oils actually “work”, or just cynically prescribing placebos that have minimal side-effects?

      (In my naive youth, I interacted with many medical students, and was shocked how many of them had little interest in science—other than memorizing the “correct” answers necessary for passing their exams.)

    • @rossross — There’s a world of difference between being “open-minded” and empty-headed.

      Nevertheless, I’ll indulge you: can you give us an example of the “rigorous research” that you have done on this topic?

          • And that’s all you can muster, empty evidenceless accusations.

            If BigPharma wanted to act even more illegally they would just sell homeopathic. With a ready marketing force prepared to lie about their products, it would be easy.

            Even your smear campaigns make no sense.

          • Being paid by big pharma seems to be a common false belief. I have no financial interest in seeing homeopathy fail or thrive. I can’t say that there are no professional anti-homeopathy people out there, but just saying that there are some makes many people believe it as fact.

          • lol some big pharma companies also make money from homeopathic pills. They’re cheap to produce since they’re basically just sugar, and you can sell them for massive profit. Your argument makes zero sense.

    • The USA major universities, whose safety data roundup and glyphosate was used by the EPA in the registration process, gets billions from Monsanto, DuPont, ICI, Syngenta and Dow and somehow they are “above suspicion?”
      What a laugh: we in the academic world know that the
      trials & “research” work we were forced to do, under pain of having GMO producing company “grants” rescinded, were designed to show the results necessary to get EPA approval. Not public safety.

          • If someone has evidence of past fraud then it certainly is mine and everybody else’s business to know now.

            Playing the ‘I have sekret information’ only works with some.

          • So then you are assuming the legal costs when Monsanto sues me? Or can I do this in a way that I don’t get sued? That OK with you moron?

          • And who says that Monsanto is who I either worked with or found the evidence from? Me? No, not me. Hence why I am NOT exposing this until I have adequate protection.

          • So, in other words you will never show the information. They will get to you before the information is freed. Most likely you have nothing. You sound like the student who didn’t do his work and is asked to show his progress.

          • Not everyone can be bought. I have children & grandchildren. I fought the “power” for years from inside. Now it needs to be done from the outside. However, the GMO mega-corps combined have more money and influence than most 1st world order countries and even nations like France are fearful of stepping on their toes for fear of billion $$$ legal impact. So what do we do? Give up? No; “we” (meaning I) negotiate with those who are allies in this fight to work out how to introduce the evidence needed to bring the corporate monsters to prison. And it exists, a way exists I’m sure. I am willing to give my life to right this wrong. We run cancer clinical trials: we see first hand what these people do to the innocents in the name of greed, power and wealth. When cancer patients or their family sob in agony and say “Why did God do this to me?” I answer them: “God didn’t do this: man did.”
            Yeah I know: lovely bedside manner. I learned it from Doc Martin. (BBC)

          • So it still sounds like you don’t have the evidence to show. Lot’s of epic sounding words and short on work.

          • oh, I see. Well it seems to me that you don’t own a thing in the world or you’d agree with me. Good luck dude.

          • I agree with you about many things This isn’t the study for you to put much effort into. It was poorly designed from the start. Any study dealing with homeopathy has to be of the highest quality to be of any use. From what they learned here, they should be able to do a proper study.

          • The Seralini rat roundup study was interesting to my organization because the animal variant they used has similarities with human gene expression and susceptibility to tumors; that’s why that lineage was developed. We were curious why no one, not even Seralini, mentioned that in the research. And for an observational research trial it filled the billing as impacting. But the USA government protects their “cash-cows” with vigor and the trillion USD GMO industry does as well. If GMOs were to disappear from the USA the industrial economic picture the USA would be devastated economically. 97% of corn & soybeans are GMOs. 95% of canola is GMO. 99% of cotton is GMO. All those acres, hundreds of millions, all use massive amounts of herbicide chemicals to the tune of trillions of USD. More money than Boeing & General Motors combined. They sell a hundred million TONS, (yes tons) each year of these chemicals. Any wonder why we are plagued with cancer, diseases?
            Stopping these mega-corporations is next to impossible. Once Clinton exposed us and allowed it to run free for 7 years then Bush ignored its expansion, there was no going back: too many bribery dollars had exchanged hands.
            Homeopathy is a 19th century bizarre practice that has no place in today’s world. The concept has validity; a small bit of a toxin creates an immune system response. However: by the very practice of it, you go to a homeopathic doctor when you have become ill from the toxin, ipso facto you have already been exposed to a LARGE amount of the toxin….small amounts more would only ADD to the toxins impact on the body. Moronic at best. Criminal at worst.

          • It was set up to be an observational Phase 1.
            Did you not read a frigging single word I wrote, Mr Mark Never-did-a-research-trial Mattingly? Please: learn science first…then start blabbing.

          • That’s his best. He appeals to sick kids, criminal acts, add some name calling, and research pending and some more blabbing…

          • It’s just that Phase I studies used to apply to human tolerance clinical trials and observational was real use in say a clinic. I wondered if the terminology had changed.

          • Did you read that the study was homeopathic remedy being used to detox. It’s testing a neutral intervention to detox. Anything that results is noise and using too few rats helps insure it.

            .

          • “observational Phase 1” It seems more like preclinical or phase 0. I checked through the abstract and I could not find anything about it being a Phase 1. I thought animals studies were used to provide evidence for Phase 1.

          • Studies are designed for discovery, this was a procedure designed to produce a result. It is not on the pathway of any research and development.

          • That’s what I thought. When a seasoned researcher designs a study with all arms having insufficient numbers, it can’t be an oversight.

          • phase 0 = observational. phase 1 = animal observational reaction. Like rats in a maze. Differs from phase 1 human and phase 1 clinical.
            After you do a phase 0 you form a conclusion: yes or no. Did or did not. Pretty simple stuff; nothing complicated at all.
            Then you run the phase 1 to separate factors and start the task of proving a hypothesis.

          • So, this study was to separate factors and start to prove a hypothesis. Too bad the design was so poor. All that happened was that you couldn’t separate any factors and no evidence for the hypothesis.

          • Cheese-n-crackers….. can you be any more thick? As a brick?
            This project was to determine if there WAS a response…then you do the clinical trial…observation first; clinical second. God I HATE discussing science with idiot hillbillies.
            Here, maybe this will help;
            You go buy 2 different bottles of beer. Then you open one and drink it. You like it! Then you open the second; you either also like it or do not like it. You think “Man, I liked, or did not like, that beer.”
            Congratulations: you have done an observational research trial! You are a scientist! (Not!)

          • This work was done to get a response not to see if there was a response. In science we have found that the response is in the dose. You are unaware of this or the shoddy design of the work. Self appointing yourself as a scientist is about as near to science as you’ll get.

          • Your last reply just bit negative. In such a short reply you included three name callings and a lesson. I’m a hillbilly now and not a scientist. Which are you: fool, tool, drool or stool on a stool.

          • You still don’t get it. What happens when the animal numbers are low? You can’t know if they really like the beer or not, you can’t trust the answers. Some scientists might have used a homeopathic remedy as a test of their methods. A group could get a remedy as a neutral intervention. Any response lets you know that something is wrong. This happens to be the case.

          • Looked for more information about the animal variant, but couldn’t find anything beyond what you had stated. It sounds very interesting. Unfortunately they only used 160 and split them up into at least four groups. The 160 would have been much better for each, but 640 to feed.

          • What “organization”? The Seralini study was total bunk, and if you are with some credible “organization” you would know that.

          • The Seralini study was a brilliant project that exposed roundup for the toxin it is without exposing Seralini to mega-lawsuits.
            You, dear sir, are a fool or a tool…. which?

          • “brilliant project” You design a test without sufficient numbers. What information can you trust?

          • “brilliant project” Thought about that for a while and I have to agree with you after all. The science isn’t. This was a great personal win. His name is advanced and his people are happy. He will get further work on this.

            He gets automatic support from the homeopathy people. For example D. Ullman who will defend any positive homeopathy study no matter its worth. The same goes for any anti-GM.

            You use low numbers for the study so that you have unrepresentative samples for all groups. If you could run the study a few times you could make it show just about anything.

          • As soon as Monsanto, et al, send me their tax returns.
            Oh, and the 1st world order countries send me their fiscal lines.
            You a tool or a fool?

          • So in other words, you are full of feces, because the information is easily available on-line.

            Quit talking to the mirror.

          • “GMO megacorps…” Monsanto, for example, has about the same annual revenues as Whole Foods. Yawn.

          • This seems to imply that you care more than most. I care more than you. A hillbilly like myself had to work to go to school. I mixed and sprayed those chemicals.

          • whoa. So sorry to hear that. Good luck in the afterlife; if you are one of the hillbillie’s who believe in an afterlife. btw: I too worked in ag to get through college. However, I was smart enough to avoid toxic chemicals. Like atrazine, the gender-bending, cancer causing nightmare. My advice: go straight to having your prostate removed, don’t waste time with the preliminary treatments: they rarely work.

          • Wow….You can’t make a post without the junior high emotion.

            I would like to know the truth. I’m on your side, if you stop and think about it. If these chemicals are dangerous, I would like to know. This study fails from the start. It makes a basic mistake. What happens when the sample size is too small to be representative? It’s one of the reasons that high school science projects can’t use animals in their projects.

          • Something that might help. This is science fair season. You would make a good judge and they can always use good people. They will help you with how to judge a project on its merits rather than the result.

          • I’m serious about the science fair stuff. It would be good for you. It will help put things into perspective. They start with a testable hypothesis. They would use studies like this to form the hypothesis except this one wouldn’t be much support.

          • Your lack of concern for me shows much about your character. I’m fine, but I was a chem major. I treated all of the chemicals as being extremely harmful not like the old timers and the young. These people deserve the truth. You have an agenda.

          • I’ m still confused by your toxic words at me. We agree on most things. We both have worked with dangerous chemicals and agree its about rates of exposure. We have agreed that the animal numbers were too low get representative samples. They even compare the samples to each other. Its like bad squared. Where I don’t with you is “brilliant project”.

  5. Andrew, I’m not sure where you live, but in what world is homeopathy bizarre? Where do you get this ridiculous idea? It has been around hundreds of years, and has more scientific background and evidence than any polypharmacy ritual or DBRCT study. Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

  6. I am no fan of Seralini and his work but I do feel that we need to be cautious about how we characterize journals. The article states that Seralini’s paper was

    retracted by the publishing journal (before being placed in a predatory pay-for-play open access journal without peer review)

    The journal that published the retracted manuscript, Environmental Sciences Europe, is an open-access journal published by Springer Verlag, which is a very reputable scientific publisher. I must object to the idea that Springer or any of their publications are predatory, or that this journal is pay-to-play without peer review, as the above article indicates (although reprinting the Seralini paper was an exception to their review policy, and has done that journal no credibility favors). Nor do Springer or the journal appear on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals (https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/). I think we need to be cautious that our claims don’t stretch reality, like many of those from the anti-GE crowd, in order to make our point appear stronger.

    All of that being said, it is a very minor journal that Springer rescued from the dustbin back in 2010, and publishing there is nothing to brag about.

  7. I guess Seralini gave up on the notion that you you need a 2+ year study to truly asses side effects. Now 15 days is all you need to declare a “drug” side effect free. I guess that’s because it’s natural?

  8. The below meta-analysis found that when reviewing only the higher quality studies, the homeopathic treated animals excreted 19% more heavy metals in their urine and stools than those given a placebo.

    And for the record, this journal is a reasonably good quality scientific journal, whose editor was a highly respected toxicologist.

    Linde, K., Jonas, W.B., Melchart, D., et al. (1994) “Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology,” Human and Experimental Toxicology, 13:481-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917505

    I would have hoped that people here would maintain higher standards of analysis. Further, the amount of mis-information that people here have on homeopathic medicine is an embarrassment to those people who have a respect for good science.

    • Further, the amount of mis-information that people here have on homeopathic medicine is an embarrassment to those people who have a respect for good science.

      Homeopaths have no respect for good science, so they are derided good reason. I can think of nothing that can destroy ones credibility as a scientist more than identifying oneself as a homeopath. Alchemists are a close second.

      Exactly what homeopathic principle would you like to defend on scientific grounds?

  9. For the record, the journal in which this study was published has a respectable impact factor of 2.94. This author demeans this due to his extreme bias, and he even seems to condemn the fact that this journal is an open-access journal.

    • Impact factor: Data based on average citation counts from work published in a journal.

      Considering the nature of the Integrative Medicine business, IF is not exactly a reliable measure of credibility. Unfortunately, there are tons of snake oil salesmen looking for content.

  10. Clear and OBVIOUS bias from this author was provided when he asserted, “The first problem was the premise. Séralini and his colleagues stated that “we have previously demonstrated that very low levels of Roundup exert endocrine disrupting effects, such as sex hormone imbalance and hepatorenal toxicities.” However, that is based on Séralini’s retracted 2014 study.”

    However, the abstract of this study asserts otherwise. They say: “In 2011, we demonstrated that hepatic cell mortality induced by environmentally realistic levels of the widely used herbicide Roundup (R) in vitro can be almost entirely prevented by plant extracts called Dig1 (D, Digeodren).”

    How can a 2014 retracted study influence a 2011 study? Curious minds want to know!

  11. “These faddish detox methods have been universally panned by the medical community”? This is only ONE claim made here that needs to be substantiated beyond the author’s opinion, and there are many more. It’s actually glyphosate that disrupts the body’s micro biome and kills good gut flora, but let’s not cloud the issue with facts: this was intended to be a slam piece on Homeopathy and, as usual, it fails to convince.

  12. This study found that ONLY the homeopathic medicine used in this trial had a beneficial effect as compared with the THREE other groups. Although the researchers didn’t clarify what was in the Control group, this group didn’t seem to have an effect, while the homeopathic medicine DID have a beneficial effect. The dosage used of EACH ingredient maintains crude physiological doses of herbs known to have a beneficial effect on the liver (that is, unless you disbelieve in biochemistry).

    Clearly, the author of this article is antagonistic to people who question the safety of Roundup and who want to study scientifically the efficacy of a botanical homeopathic medicine. If people here wish to disbelieve any research funded by a pharmaceutical company, that’s great…and that means that most of you are highly critical of Big Pharma…but something tells me that there’s a double standard here. No surprise.

          • OR you could have just read the TITLE of the article…but THIS is how little research or investigation that skeptics of homeopathy do. ..and still, without apology, this prefer to put shade onto a subject rather than provide any light. Thanx Acleron for proving your daft-ness perfectly.

          • Yeah…for obvious reasons, several decades of clinical practice seems a lot more real…and it is obviously something that you seem to know nothing, even though you prefer to maintain a certain arrogance. How typical and how sad.

          • A homeopath and clinical practice is not real at all. Diagnosis over the telephone? Products for imaginary diseases? Products with nothing in them? That’s a pretence of clinical practice.

          • As someone who has never been in clinical practice, you (again) are speaking out of ignorance. I see (seemingly) miracles every day in my clinical practice of homeopathy…and I see many very grateful patients, even amongst thost who have no idea what homeopathy is and/or have no “belief” in it. Homeopathy is a modern-day nano-pharmacology. There are good reasons that EVERY survey ever conducted on homeopathy shows that more educated people use and seek out homeopathic treatment than those who don’t.

  13. What garbage, Andrew. Bias abounds, no facts anywhere. Homeopathy has more science behind it than you know, because it’s obvious you know nothing about homeopathy. It’s funny how people can tout being scientific and ignore the facts. History is full of stories of people like you (and some of the commenters here) that ridicule the scientists that come up with studies and research and facts, because their minds are too small to handle reality.

  14. So, Seralini gets funding from a pharmaceutical company with products to reverse toxicity from roundup BUT the USA major universities, whose safety data roundup and glyphosate was used by the EPA in the registration process, gets billions from Monsanto, DuPont, ICI, Syngenta and Dow and somehow they are “above suspicion?”

    What a laugh: we in the academic world know that the trials & “research” work we were forced to do, under pain of having GMO producing company “grants” rescinded, were designed to show the results necessary to get EPA approval. Not public safety.
    In fact, maybe time for me to take one for the team and send some of this to Seralini so he has more evidence to work with.

    • “Pharmaceutical company?” You mean a company that claims to be a pharmaceutical company, and which sells botanicals and homeopathic detox potions, don’t you? Nothing destroys one’s credibility faster than suggesting homeopathic detox potions are an effective pharmaceutical, unless, of course, it is believing that Seralini himself is a credible scientist.

    • I think you are right. He finds a problem that is imaginary and treats it with something that is real (,homeopathic remedy), but with imaginary effects sounds like fraud. The “conflict of interest” is a part of the fraud.

  15. I had a look at the ingredients of this Dig1 product, and noticed that the potencies (that’s the letter and number combination after the name of the plant used, in this case ‘D4’ and ‘D5’) mean that they are very low dilutions. So they still contain molecules of the original substance, in this case the herbs used, as they are in a dilutions that is still below Avogadro’s number.
    Hence the argument of “it’s just water” does not apply.

    Might be an idea to get your facts straight.

      • It can be considered both, herbalism as well as homeopathy.
        Homeopathy just means applying the principle of ‘like cures like’, which is the way the medicine is chosen to match that which is to be treated.

        The dilution factor, that everybody always goes on about, is not what makes it homeopathy.

        • As herbalism doesn’t apply the ‘like’ selection criteria it cannot be considered the same as homeopathy. Neither does herbalism include the potentiating belief.

          • Oh dear we could go back and forth forever now, discussing semantics.
            Looking at your profile and seeing all your differing comments, you seem to have a lot more time than I have.
            Best leave it there.

          • Leave it where you like, it is important that people know that homeopathy has no active ingredients and fails to treat anything and when they mistakenly include anything it can be acutely dangerous.

          • And….here it comes.
            Thought you would, looking at your general comments on this site.

            They all seem to be attacking and discrediting homeopathy and those who question the safety of certain vaccines, with a bit of devout atheism sprinkled around.

            Wow, the hours you must be spending on these!
            Hope it’s worth it for you…

          • Takes little time to dismantle lies and delusions. And yes, it is very worthwhile exposing those who rip off and injure society.

            However, how can you be devout in not having a delusion?

          • Nice try, but not taking the bait.

            Because Darling, your prejudices are showing.

            Anybody who goes on throwing dirt at Seralini’s study without mentioning that it was only retracted after continued lobbying by pro-GMO interests, or mentioning that it was re-published in the reputable
            journal ‘Environmental Sciences Europe’ is a wee bit too obvious about their agenda.

          • Seralini’s study was scientifically flawed. I notice that you cannot argue about the scientific facts but use argument from authority, argumentum ad populum and tu quoque, all failed and false logic. Perhaps you might think about why your argument is so awful but I doubt it.

          • tut-tut, look at that – an ad hominem attack.

            Please, I would have expected a bit better from you…

          • And another irrationalist who uses big words but doesn’t know their meaning. And still no scientific argument.

          • An ad hominem attack is usually used to deflect attention away from an argument by attacking him who brought up that argument personally.

            Now what was it again had been raised when you used the ad hominem…?

            Ah yes, that Seralini’s study was only retracted after
            continued lobbying by pro-GMO interests, and that it was
            re-published in the reputable
            journal ‘Environmental Sciences Europe’.

          • Oh by the way, I have just realised. I have been commenting on this as both ‘Picklet’ and ‘Eva Pick’. Just so you know. Always depends on which email account I just come from.

            Anyway, I don’t need to hide behind some pseudonym (here’s another nice big word for you sweetheart. You’re welcome).
            Like a lot of posters here seem to, so they can be abusive and do the dirty work for some vested interests.

            Nice meeting you. This is getting a bit too silly now.

  16. Anybody who goes on throwing dirt at Seralini’s study without mentioning
    that it was only retracted after continued lobbying by pro-GMO
    interests, or mentioning that it was re-published in the reputable journal ‘Environmental Sciences Europe’ is a wee bit too obvious about their agenda.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend