This mom and gardener doesn’t fear glyphosate—and says we shouldn’t either

| | December 3, 2018

One of the perpetual battles I’m fighting these days is countering the misinformation about pesticides that gardeners like me responsibly use in our yards.

The largest front in this battle, however, is online, in gardening groups and with news stories. The recent spate of headlines about the California jury ruling against Monsanto, and the agenda-driven report from the EWG on glyphosate (AKA Roundup) in cereals, are prominent examples of misinformation about science gaining popular cultural traction.  ….

[Editor’s note: Amber Boas is a Medium Contributor and home gardener in Florida.]

One key element I always look for is scientific consensus. This starts when many studies on a topic are published in peer-reviewed journals …. Virtually all scientific regulatory agencies around the world who have looked at the safety of glyphosate have said the same thing: glyphosate has very low toxicity and is not likely to cause negative health effects in humans.

Related article:  French regulators launch re-evaluation of glyphosate products

Over a dozen species of butterflies have regularly frequented my front yard garden this season  …. I’m doing my little part to encourage ecological diversity and protect important habitats for our fellow creatures that are all too rapidly disappearing.

Glyphosate Helps Me Help Pollinators

One tool that helped me achieve my goal of a pollinator paradise was glyphosate …. Glyphosate stopped [the weeds] from continually re-growing [which] reduces competition for resources and allows my flowering plants, and the pollinators that frequent them, to thrive.

Read full, original article: Why I Don’t Hate Glyphosate

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

138 thoughts on “This mom and gardener doesn’t fear glyphosate—and says we shouldn’t either”

  1. OMG – let’s ignore the fact that the first GMO in this country killed over 120 Americans with EMS – Eiosinophilic Myalgia Syndrome. Permanently injured the CNS of about 1,000 people and temporarily damaged the CNS of about 10,000 more.
    Let’s ignore the GMO creation of a soil bacteria was LOADED with industry idiocy and moronic choices. They wanted to make more bucks (the goal of all GMO products) by having Klebsiella Plantigo make alcohol they could then use to turn crop residue into alcohol. Sell the corn for an ecologically unsound net negative energy effect (but profitable when stolen taxpayer $$$ fund the corporations involved) and then do the same for the stalks. THEY thought it was brilliant. Why was it idiotic?

    Because Kleb lives in virtually all soils around the world in which plants grow. This means that WHEN the inevitable genetic drift occurs – all the wild kleb will then become contaminated and eventually all soils will produce alcohol. Another stupidity on their part: Klebsiella grows WITHIN THE ROOTS of many living plants. So it lives there and poisons and kills some plant cells. Oops. That gives the GMO Kleb more food, which makes more alcohol, which kills more roots. Eventually – EVERY PLANT ON EARTH WOULD BE KILLED when it came into contact with this GMO terror.

    The fools, the GMOrons, were literally about 3 weeks away from RELEASING IT TO SPREAD OVER THE ENTIRE PLANET when a scientist pointed out that EVERY plant that the GMO Kleb was in was killed off and none of the normal Klebsiella Plantigo control group was killed. Oops.

    Since the Scientist would no longer be a supporter of GMOs at her Oregon University, she was basically “let go” – and she is now happier, no doubt.

    GMOs have never fulfilled any of the industry promises. They are NOT more productive. They are absolutely, totally, undeniably NOT SUSTAINABLE AT ALL – with increased petro usage for the increased poison applications and fuel to apply them (pesticide/biocide usage has massively INCREASED since GMOs came on the market well over 12,000,000 pounds just for Roundup) They didn’t make saline tolerant crops – regular seed development practices did. They did not make drought resistant crops. Typical non-GMO seed development did make drought tolerant crops. (and some of the heirlooms now going extinct from GMO seed company behemoths like the former MOronsanto bought up all the seed companies they could to get rid of genetic diversity and force using their seed choices away from more robust heirloom seeds/plants) They are not safe. The original “safety” study contracted by MOnsanto by a Virginia lab was grossly inadequate and NOT a long term health study – which law MANDATES to be done before being allowed into our food system. The results of the GMO corns tested – NK 603, Mon 810, and Mon 863 showed liver and kidney cell damages – and Monsanto employee then put in charge of the issue at the FDA violated the food safety law (1958 FDCA food, drug, cosmetic act) and declared the proven toxic corn to be “safe” and the “substantial equivalent” (a made-up term meeting no legal requirements to allow it into our food chain…) So poisons are safe according to Moronsanto….

    GMOs are not more nutritious – you still hear GMOrons beating the Golden Rice drum, but approval for that crap was withdrawn. It provided no benefit and risked destroying the entire rice genome as it is doing to corn and soy and it’s other crops.

    As for this gardener – i would never eat anything from her garden. When you put poison on your garden YOU POISONED YOUR DAMN GARDEN you silly fool shill bought mouthpiece. Roundup does NOT just go away. i actually had an email train of 10 messages with the Monsanto Lead of New Commercial Product Development. He quit when he told me that he would much rather spray Roundup on his greenhouse and around his garage and garden and then have it be all the way “biodegraded” AFTER THE NEXT DAY!!!

    i pointed out that France sued for using that term about Roundup and proved it has a HALF-LIFE of about 6 months to 18 months – and he wasn’t in a tropical forest that was making hydrogen peroxide to break down the toxins with the loose valence bond of the second oxygen atom in H2O2. Furthermore, a so-called “inert” ingredient in Roundup is polyethoxylated tallowamine POE-15, and at levels far below what is allowed for Roundup contamination (technical EPA term for levels of allowable contamination) it kills human cells. Additionally, as Roundup breaks down, the metabolites (chemicals formed during the breaking down process) are more toxic than the original formula at times. He decided that we weren’t going to change either person’s minds and it would be more productive to just stop communicating.

    • Wow, someone really wants you to buy organic. GMOs have yet to kill anyone. The first GM product was insulin. There were some batches of L-tryptophan from Japan that had impurities and caused EMS, but that had nothing to do with it being GE. I can tell you first hand that GMOs do increase yields and reduce pesticides. Glyphosate, being a class 3 chemical has replaced more harsh herbicides and made widespread no till farming possible.

      • Raising the question whether it’s better to raise a ton of poison or one pound of grain that’s actually safe to eat. Heavy mulching plus hand weeding is what makes no-till farming possible *when food crops are involved*.

        Weeder robots could eliminate the need for heavy mulching even with wheat, but Bayer/Monsanto thinks farmers are too mean to pay for them. In an unrelated display of corporate suicidal insanity, Bayer is selling off Dr Scholls, which worked, and clinging to “Roundup.” One possible explanation: When glyphosate exposure disrupts the digestive process, anything can happen–immune dysfunctions, nutrient imbalances, death–and one of the most easily observed effects some people show is impaired judgment.

        • I grow wheat and have never seen glyphosate sprayed on it. Here in Idaho we harvest in August when it is hot and dry. Dessication is uncommon. In a cold and wet fall it may be done in parts of Canada or N. Dakota and is often mechanical not chemical. In the US chances of your wheat being sprayed with glyphosate is probably less than 1%. If you want to write a book on it I would suggest visiting with farmers and get first hand experience. Carrie Gillam is so out of touch with what really goes on with farming that most people don’t take her seriously.

          • Good! It’s not “my” wheat–celiacs don’t buy wheat, period, and I don’t live in wheat-growing country–but it’s good if wheat farmers are moving away from the chemical that initially was marketed to “protect” wheat and grass. I’d guess that manufacturers and processors are moving away from desiccating and “protecting” food with glyphosate, too…since last August!

            If you are successfully raising wheat without glyphosate, please share your knowledge with the (alleged) farmers in France, Germany, Australia and other places who claim they couldn’t raise a crop without it. Do you have a web site?

          • Are you a farmer, Damo? What do you raise, in what ways, and where? I know mostly small, mostly organic farmers in Virginia…can’t really claim to be farming now, but my home is in an orchard that was once a small farm.

        • “Weeder robots could eliminate the need for heavy mulching even with wheat, but Bayer/Monsanto thinks farmers are too mean to pay for them.”

          No, they are not available.

          Trust me, farmers are not loyal to Bayer more than any other brand. They want a good product at a cheap price–just like you.

      • Above, readers, is what happens when a troll can’t think of any fact-based refutations for an argument that shows haste, shows emotion, and goes beyond what I’ve researched too. It would be helpful for Bsroon to post some published sources for that long comment. It might be helpful for Jason to drink a litre of glyphosate and report on what happened to him, or direct his heirs to do so, depending on the genetically predetermined severity of his reaction >-D

          • At least their language use is different enough that it’s probably not yet another one of his alts.

            The level of scientific illiteracy is on par with Teddykins’ though.

          • Yeah and teddy can’t write such long comments without copying and pasting. Sometimes I make a comment like that. Just to let Jason or whomever know that someone read and appreciates their effort.

          • I’d have to look pretty far back, but I think both the razorjack, and Cletus accounts did make longer comments, but it has been well over 5 years…and probably closer to 10.

            The current behavior became codified only about 4-6 years ago, and I think it may have had to do with the shift to anonymous down votes. Once that was the case, having an army of alts was effective for him to silence those he disagreed with.

          • It appears your memory goes back longer than mine. I never noticed any results from down votes until intelligent comments started disappearing. I even informed the idiot moderators at “The Hill” and when I started reposting deleted comments received a suspension. Later when I called them out for incompetence/negligence for allowing the abuse got suspended again. I will continue to receive suspensions I suppose.

          • In one science-related article on The Hill that I followed closely, about 40 of the comments had been deleted; as far as I could tell they all happened to present actual evidence and arguments that contradicted the POV of the OP.

            I guess if you control the medium you get to control the message.

          • Yeah, It isn’t only ted. rob bright, etc. assist him. The pattern is actually funny sometimes. Stooopid comment, deleted comment, shill gambit, deleted comment and on and on.

          • Sorry dingus battus, you are still the evidence free ranting troll. Order of commenting is not relevant.

        • Actually, glyphosate itself is not an effective weed killer at all, it’s the falsely labeled “inert” ingredients that do all the work, like the polyethoxylated tallowamine POE-15, which kills human cells at one and at three parts per million in multiple studies. Those POE levels are actually higher in our foods according to EPA allowances.

          As for the amount of poison – get out of the dark phukn ages. You are referring to Paracelsus and he died in 1541. He made the dictum that everything is poison and that poisoning depends on dose. The conclusion for centuries has been that the more the toxin, the more toxic it becomes to that which is poisoned. This is not true.

          For many of the xenoestrogens, including most biocides, many fungicides, and a huge variety of other petrochemical products – less is more dangerous. The current scientific thought on the matter is that when one has a lot of the poison it tends to be bound in some stage of droplet form and that prevents it’s absorption as much as when the toxins are smaller and actually start to easily fit into hormone receptors. Whether they turn them on, turn them off, turn them on for the wrong length of time, or simply block the receptor from being utilized by an honest hormone becomes irrelevant – the endocrine becomes disrupted more at a part per billion level than a part per million level.

          Start with Leu’s “5 myths of safe pesticides”

          • Lol… you are SO FAR off base it’s hilarious. Do you make this stuff up yourself or are you regurgitating someone else’s nonsense?

            I’ll give you a little clue… POE is soap. Yah… it kills human cells in a Petri dish…. just like salt, lemonade, and plain old water.

            Bone head.

          • Nice of you to demonstrate what you meant when you said “Slinging kaka is the tactic of threatened primates.”

            Heck, you included the phrase in an example of it. Pretty brilliant on your part.

          • As an aside to Jason’s reply. The exposure levels used in the cell culture studies, we’re the realistic based on the pharmacology of POEA or any similar surfactant?

            No, the doses were orders of magnitude higher than what’s seen in vivo.

          • And yet magically, EVERY human and animal in the USA tested for glyphosate contamination has glyphosate contamination.
            Don’t expect me to believe industry published studies when they have bought scientists coming to conclusions which don’t seem reasonable. You put poisons on food, you get poisoned. Period.
            You expect me to believe an industry that consistently lies. Like the Corn study proving organ damage and being listed as safe in violation of our national laws. Why should i trust people who do that? This is obvious distortion of reality and truth – so they only did it ONE TIME? Wrong.

            This was done by Monsanto who has killed and damaged unknown tens of thousands of Americans in multiple states, in multiple decades, with multiple products – INTENTIONALLY!!

            Quote from a WaPo article i’d read in July 2011 and has scarred my mind – about the Anniston Alabama plant in the 60s, which is exactly what they again did with agent orange production in West Virginia, etc –

            “Managers at Monsanto found that fish dipped into a nearby creek died within ten seconds. They bled profusely, and their skin peeled as though they had been dipped into boiling water. Fish in a nearby creek were found to contain over 3,500 times the allowable level of contaminant. Internal memos reveal that Monsanto chose not to change their discharge practices, nor notify the local community, stating: “We need every dollar of business we can get.”

            So – a company run by literal murderous psychopaths – over generations with the same business model obviously – and i am going to take their word for ANYTHING??? When they buy the lies of Kevin Folta and then deny they did so? When they had a bought person in the EPA for well over a decade (time of employment there is irrelevant to degree) who kept the EPA from doing cancer studies – aggressively kept them from doing so? What did Monsanto know that they didn’t want anyone else to find out?

            i’m GLAD that Bayer bought that sinking ship and hope all those damn rats drown together.

          • Yes, and those who read the study of humans hospitalized with glyphosate reactions, at the EPA site, will see some effects on human skin too.

            The striking thing about all glyphosate studies is the range of individual reactions. A coffee farmer posted on his web site last year that he’d spilled glyphosate on his skin many times and just washed it off. He could be telling the truth–but others aren’t so lucky.

          • 1. The dose makes the poison, and this is the case for quite literally everything. Oxygen can be toxic (pp>1.6atm), water can be toxic (water intoxication, or asphyxiation), it all comes down to the dose. In light of this, please provide a citation to an OECD-451, 452, or 453 compliant study that shows adverse health effects at or below the NOAEL or the more conservative ADI/RfD.

            By comparison, these are OECD-453 compliant studies conducted on glyphosate:

            Cheminova (1993): (UK)
            Feinchemie Schwebda (1996) :(India)
            Arysta Life Sciences (1997): (Japan)
            Chruscielska et al. (2000): (Poland)
            Syngenta (2001): (UK)
            Nufarm (2009): (UK)

            All of these were fully in compliance with the standards of toxicology as well as general GLP. They included a chronic toxicity phase of up to 1 year, and a carconogenicoty phase of up to two, with a sample population of 50+ rats per treatment per gender, is addition to satellite groups for additional accuracy. All of these achieved a Klimish rating of 1.

            Number of comparable studies from the anti-biotech research groups that met the OECD and GLP guidelines?

            Zero

            In terms of testing on GMOs themselves, between 2016-2018, the EU and EFSA conducted not one but three OECD-compliant studies to examine the claims brought up by Seralini and his group.

            GRACE Project

            G-TwYST

            GMO90Plus

            Not a single one of his findings could be replicated, and unlike his study design, these groups made sure to actually have the power of analysis to differentiate treatment effects from background noise to at least the 95% CI.

            2. You really need to do some more research regarding the history of Agent Orange. Some common misconceptions:

            a) Monsanto did not invent it, and neither did any biotech company. It was developed in 1943 by the US Department of the Army.

            b) During the Vietnam War, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Hercules Inc., Diamond Shamrock, Uniroyal Inc., Thompson Chemical, and
            Thompson-Hayward Chemical, were all required to manufacture the 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T herbicides that made up Agent Orange. This was donw under the auspice of the Defense Production Act of 1950, and the companies had no option to refuse…or even modify the methods used.

            Everything from the precursor materials, to the methods were dictated by the military, and it was actually on of these companies (Dow) that first raised the alarm that due to the temperatures being used for part of the 2,4,5-T synthesis, an unacceptable level of dioxin was also being produced.
            ***

            Put bluntly, you are big on rhetoric, but sparse when it comes to empirical support. Take a look at the studies you’re touting, and specifically the power of analysis of each one. Do you see the issue? Do you see how those same groups keep on making the same experimental design errors over and over?

            Why is it that industry, academic, and regulatory bodies have no issues running studies that are compliant with all applicable standards for the field, yet the anti-GMO crowd keeps on failing to produce anything that meets the minimum requirements for showing a causal effect?

            It’s funny that you would call Kevin Folta a liar, yet I look at the people your side idolizes, and see far, far worse. Seralini, neglected to mention his involvement with Sevene Pharma who sold an, I kid you not, hopeopathic detox product for glyphosate. Carman, who didn’t bother to perform the required histological analysis of the gastric mucosa to show inflamation. Benbrook, who flat out stated he could run a study to give the results that George Kailis and his associated wanted, “For six figures”. Or Infascelli, who somehow managed to have the same image contain different samples between one paper and another.

            Yep, great crop of ethical bastions you have there.

          • 1. The dose makes the poison, and this is the case for quite literally everything. Oxygen can be toxic (pp>1.6atm), water can be toxic (water intoxication, or asphyxiation), it all comes down to the
            dose. In light of this, please provide a citation to an OECD-451, 452, or 453 compliant study that shows adverse health effects at or below the NOAEL or the more conservative ADI/RfD.

            By comparison, these are OECD-453 compliant studies conducted on glyphosate that have showed no adverse health effects at expected exposure levels:

            Cheminova 1993
            Feinchemie Schwebda 1996
            Arysta Life Sciences 1997
            Chruscielska et al. 2000
            Syngenta 2001
            Nufarm 2009

            All of these were fully in compliance with the standards of toxicology as well as general GLP. They included a chronic toxicity phase of up to 1 year, and a carcinogenicity phase of up to two, with a sample population of 50+ rats per treatment per gender, is addition to satellite groups for additional accuracy. All of these achieved a Klimish rating of 1.

            Number of comparable studies from the anti-biotech research groups that met the OECD and GLP guidelines?

            Zero

            In terms of testing on GMOs themselves, between 2016-2018, the EU and EFSA conducted not one but three OECD-compliant studies to examine the claims brought up by Seralini and his group (GRACE Project, G-TwYST, GMO90Plus).

            Not a single one of his findings could be replicated, and unlike his study design, these groups made sure to actually have the power of analysis to differentiate treatment effects from background noise to at least the 95% CI.

            2. You really need to do some more research regarding the history of Agent Orange. Some common misconceptions:

            a) Monsanto did not invent it, and neither did any biotech company. It was developed in 1943 by the US Department of the Army.

            b) During the Vietnam War, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Hercules Inc., Diamond Shamrock, Uniroyal Inc., Thompson Chemical, and Thompson-Hayward Chemical, were all required to manufacture the 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T herbicides that made up Agent Orange. This was done under the auspice of the Defense Production Act of 1950, and the companies had no option to refuse…or even modify the methods used.

            Everything from the precursor materials, to the methods were dictated by the military, and it was actually on of these companies (Dow) that first raised the alarm that due to the temperatures being used for part of the 2,4,5-T synthesis, an unacceptable level of dioxin was also being produced.

            Put bluntly, you are big on rhetoric, but sparse when it comes to empirical support. Take a look at the studies you’re touting, and specifically the power of analysis of each one. Do you see the issue? Do you see how those same groups keep on making the same experimental design errors over and over?

            Why is it that industry, academic, and regulatory bodies have no issues running studies that are compliant with all applicable standards for the field, yet the anti-GMO crowd keeps on failing to produce anything that meets the minimum requirements for showing a causal effect?

            It’s funny that you would call Kevin Folta a liar, yet I look at the people your side idolizes, and see far, far worse. Seralini, neglected to mention his involvement with Sevene Pharma who sold an, I kid you not, hopeopathic detox product for glyphosate. Carman, who didn’t bother to perform the required histological analysis of the gastric mucosa to show inflamation. Benbrook, who flat out stated he could run a study to give the results that George Kailis and his associated wanted, “For six figures”. Or Infascelli, who somehow managed to have the same image contain different samples between one paper and another.

            Yep, great crop of ethical bastions you have there.

          • I repeat – post links to coroner reports or autopsies that proved death by GMOs or you remain on record here as a malicious anti-science liar.

          • Seralini published a cell culture study where the toxicity of the surfactant kicked in at around the critical micellar concentration, and above. This is consistent with the action of surfactants on fragile mammalian cell membranes, especially cells grown in the absence of the serum that would normally bathe them.

            Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity
            https://keephopealive.org/GMO-seralini.org:wp-contenttox-2012.pdf

            also
            Cellular Toxicity of Surfactants Used as Herbicide Additives
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3247771/

            Why aren’t the activists complaining about the surfactants in toothpaste or laundry detergents?

            tl;dr
            If you want to kill mammalian cells in culture, add a surfactant. So what?

          • Peter, did you mean to reply to me?

            I’m well aware of the issues surrounding the experimental design of…well, pretty much all of Seralini’s work, and yes, the fact that a surfactant caused mammalian cells to lyse is very much a water is wet finding.

          • Perhaps I missed your point obfuscate99, but I was responding to your mention of “orders of magnitude”. In the most sensitive tests, POEA was toxic to cells in the low ppm range.

          • Ah, a misunderstanding I see, and I should have ben more clear. The orders of magnitude comment was referring to the concentration of POEA that cells would be exposed to in vivo. The doses used in the study were not comparable to what is seen in reality.

            It was along the same vein as the work of Nelson et al., (2017), where the reason for the differing results seen when comparing in situ and in vivo studies examining the effect of glyphosate on the gut microbiome.

            Basically, the media used for the in vitro work wasn’t representative of the chyme, and when the levels of free amino acids and polypeptides were factored in, the inhibitory effect didn’t occur until the dose was about 50X the ADI.

          • I’m reminded of all those “endocrine disrupting chemical” assays where cells in serum-free medium are assumed to be a model of exposure of real organs to traces of some xenobiotic that we are supposed to fear. Perhaps, but models are only useful if they are validated to be an accurate representation of the real world. [/end rant]
            Coming back to POEA, I don’t think people realize how resilient gut epithelial cells are: they have to cope with a wide range of physical and chemical onslaughts, including relatively huge quantities of surfactant bile acids. I’d love to see Seralini to toss bile acids or other surfactants into his cellular toxicity assays.

          • We could just ask him to put a drop of dish detergent into the media, and I think I’ve written before about the revelatory finding that soap can disrupt phopsholipid membranes.

            “…I don’t think people realize…”

            Unfortunately, you can generally stop right there, and have the comment be accurate regardless of the actual scientific field. The rise of pseudoscience is an ever present danger, but those who are the most effected are the same one who most resist any effort to provide them with accurate information.

            I still remember when the social media posts for “the alkali body” started showing up in my inbox, that wasn’t a big surprise. What was a surprise was just how hostile people were to anyone who would dare try and correct the misinformation.

            The more tragic aspect to this is that, while individuals like Seralini, Samsel, Seneff, and Benbrook, have lost any and all credibility with the majority of the scientific community, that doesn’t matter as much as it used to, and they’ve seen the benefit of just pandering to the general public, who will jump on board whatever crackpot hypothesis is the current flavor of the month.

          • Can you share one specific example for “less is more” toxicity (preferably in humans, but an exposure-relevant animal study would be OK)?

        • We don’t have to post a single refutation, this ENTIRE SITE is a scathing damning expose on your ignorance. Go ahead, select any page at random here. It will expose your lies. Many thousands of pages are archived here.

    • I wasn’t going to reply to this comment since you seem to have been following the subject longer than I have, but since Disqus notifies us only of replies directly to us, I’ll repeat my reply to the troll comment below. Links or published sources, please?

      • i’ve read the abstract and then almost all the original Monsanto contracted (horrible, inadequate, and very unscientific) first corn study of NK603, Mon810, and Mon 863 corn. It is toxic to liver and kidney cells in the test animals and scientific concensus is that NO 90 day study is a long term study. The 1958FDCA mandates multiple safety studies including long term studies (not done) multi-generational studies (not done) and scientific concensus after years of replicated research. Not done. And DON’T give me that old lie about the scientific concensus is here – it isn’t.

        There is a bet with Monsanto with Stephen Druker (sp) author of ALTERED GENES, TWISTED TRUTH. He has promised to pay them one million dollars if they can prove anything he wrote in his book is scientifically inaccurate or taken out of context.

        If Monsanto could prove that he lied, distorted facts, had the science wrong, they would have HUGE Public Relations points – and every argument he put forth in his book would become suspect. Millions of people would then give up thinking such bad things against Monsanto – so they have had EVERY REASON to prove him wrong and no reasons to not do so if at all possible.

        Monsanto has not been able to collect a single dollar from him because his research was impeccable, his grasp of the subject deep enough to grasp all the significance, and written well enough to transmit information. And it is all true.

        The Showa Denko L-Tryptophan story is one i’ve been niggling with since the early/mid 90s – before i had my 10,000 or so hard copy articles and 200 plus books on biochemistry, nutrition, and natural healing. Also had a couple hundred books on typical MD sorts of medical care to compare “standards of care” with real healing. Modern medicine is mostly dangerous and ineffective.

        The EMS deaths have been systematically reduced through the years – originally i THINK it was 126 or 127, but since i am not positive i always say over 120. By the time 97 rolled around that number had been dropped in the references i could find to being more like 80 deaths. By the time the early 2000s hit – the number was in the 50s. By the later 2000s they were talking about 37 deaths in that incident, and my first reacion is always the same. (and funny, lol)

        How many people do GMOs need to kill to be safe?

        Had to reply on your disqus profile because the site – like most industry sites, doesn’t allow anyone but cheerleaders access to comments – and usually doesn’t allow negative comments to show up. i’ve actually had friends look at the site and it never showed up there… So much for discussions…

        • You claim to have a science background (you know, all the textbooks ‘n papers you talked about). Please pick one topic and show the relevant information to support your point. Real papers, not a self-published book by a lawyer from the Maharishi cult.

          • If Druker has offered to pay for refutation of his facts, can you show the real paper that refuted his facts, rather than merely snubbing him because he chose a different degree program?

            I’ve not been following gene splicing as a separate issue, nor read “Altered Genes”; beyond Amazon showing that the book exists I’m taking yourall’s words about Druker and his book. However, bashing his profession (or religion?) sounds as if nobody’s been able to refute any of his facts.

          • I have communicated directly with Drucker. When pressed to justify his claims he broke off the communication. I got the impression that he merely re-hashed an opinion he had received from someone else, without necessarily being sufficiently familiar with the science behind the topic.

            I fear that you fit in the same category; but don’t forget that one cure for ignorance is to ask a question.

            Regarding the Maharishi cult, I have never figured out whether GMO science and technology represents a challenge to the Maharishi philosophy (and is therefore to be resisted), or whether this resistance is just a business opportunity and synergy shared by a number of ex-Maharishi University players (e.g. Ken Roseboro, Jeffrey Smith, Steve Drucker and John Fagan).

          • For those not clever enough to have looked at the conversation to this point – the book Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Stephen (? Steven?) Druker has all that information and more.
            He has a public wager/verbal contract with Monsanto that if anything he wrote was scientifically incorrect or taken out of context – he would personally pay Monsanto $1,000,000.
            If Monsanto COULD HAVE proven the information to be false in any way – they would have won unbeatable credit in their war against those opposing GMOs.
            They would’ve had the greatest publicity of the last half century. But they can’t. They couldn’t and didn’t find anything dishonest or misrepresented in his book.
            All this was stated before now.

            Interesting that i always have to provide peer reviewed (yeah, that worked out great for Copernicus and Velikovsky – snark) data, and it never gets accepted, but the GMOron crowd never has to. They just say – the industry all agrees – even though that is a lie. i also mentioned reading the original contracted study that MOnsanto had done (90 day “safety” study) with rats and GMO corn. 3 varieties – NK603, Mon 810, and Mon863. It concluded that there was damage to liver and kidney cells in the rats. It showed that the amount of cellular damage was variable, and seemed influenced by the amount of GMO – (yes, most of the time dosage is important in toxicity, sometimes less does more damage) corn eaten, the VARIETY of corn eaten, and the gender of the rat. Which implies an endocrine issue which was never looked at. That alone makes it against the law to include into our food chain according to 1958FDCA which demands years of testing, multi-generational studies, looking at a proposed FDCA candidate’s effects upon longevity, disease, fertility, and more. None done – but MOnsanto employee Michael Taylor magically appeared in the FDA, was magically given authority over approving the GMO crapola – and he in his bought wisdom decided that having liver and kidney cells become damaged from all of those corn varieties means that liver and kidney cell damage IS SAFE – and he approved it with a mythical standard which was NOT legal…

            Read the book – it’s fascinating, and scary.

          • You keep on posting the same erroneous information. There are multiple studies that went for longer than 90 days, a summary is colloected in Snell et al., (2011).

            Additionally, the EU and several of its member nations performed 3 chronic toxicity studies, with the results released starting in 2016 (GRACE Project, Zeljenková et al., 2016), and continuing to earlier this year (G-TwYST, and GMO90Plus).

            The study that you refer to want not conducted in anything approaching the standards for toxicology, particularly when looking for causal relationships. Across the board, they lacked the sample population to differentiate treatment from background variability (OECD Guidance Document 116).

            This is a common issue among the anti-Biotech groups, and it’s a good part of the reason why there’s been no move to increase scrutiny from any of the professional societies as well as the regulatory bodies.

            It’s quite simple really, you claim that GMOs cause harm at exposure levels at or below the current ADI.

            In accordance with the standard GLP in toxicology, this requires something like OECD-452 OR 453.

            …Which you do not have.

            It’s just so odd how individuals like yourself claim to understand topics like experimental design, but can’t figure out how to check the PoA for a given study.

            Good thing my peers and I do, and we continue to do so in order to produce data that’s actually useful, as opposed to a waste of resources.

          • A book written by a lawyer is not scientific data. Just give us a link to specific data about liver and kidney damage, and tell us your conclusion.

            (If I want to be scared, I turn on the TV.)

          • Jesus phukking Kripes – talk about confirmation fukn bias!!!! There are references all over the book. Just because and for your below bullshit comment – just think about how many shills the GMOrons have. They actually set up organizations to mislead people. They lied about Kevin Folta (as did he) while he was a GMO cheerleader to the mas down in Florida and everywhere else they could hook him up – and we KNOW from email trains that Monsanto paid him, suggested conversation directions, etc. That is NOT unbiased, nor is it goddamn science. We KNOW from emails again that Monsanto had people in the EPA pushing their agenda and fighting any cancer studies. We KNOW they had at least 37 employees in the “federal government” in positions of influence and authority. For their employee in the State Dept literally threatened Spain that the US would enter economic warfare with Spain if they did not immediately allow unrestricted GMO access.

            There are (http://naturalsociety.com/study-links-gmos-22-different-diseases/) extreme correlations btwn GMOs and accelerated gly-based poisons with over 22 diseases. Yes – you are going to give that lame old truism “correlation does not equal correlation” – and this is accepted. But this correlations makes it IMPOSSIBLE for GMOs and Roundup typed poisons to have increased our nation’s health. (Personally i also attribute a somewhat parallel disease producing correlation with vaccines adding to the health issue since they are neither safe, nor effective, and every single ingredient in vaccines is a threat to health for which you would be imprisoned if you fed them to your kids.)

            But let’s not get the book – hell, if you read it for yourself YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IT TRULY SAID!!!! And we can’t be having that. Instead you MUST invalidate it because you have an absolute and total ignorance of what it says and how it presents it’s facts. So in absolute rock-solid ignorance and total lack of knowledge – you don’t read something. At least i gave Monsanto a break and read their own report on the corn and rats. You on the other hand, do NOT have an open mind and are therefore what most would consider and anti-intellectual.

          • You claim to have 10,000 papers and 200 text-books, so why do you pick your key example from Natural News?
            The “paper” that you cite is by the Swanson group, who appear never to have published any research in biology or human health. Why do you hold them in such high regard? Swanson is a former DoD physicist: I just hope that none of our weapons systems rely on such crude mathematical ploys. When I was in school, you couldn’t study physics without a grasp of maths. [Sorry, but sometimes, ad hominem arguments just make sense, even if they aren’t strictly valid.]

            Perhaps you were fooled by the graph of the annual rate of glyphosate applied over a period of time where the y-axis was labeled from MINUS 40,000 to plus 80,000 tons applied to fields per year! The only way you could “apply” a negative amount of a substance is if this had been a mine, not a farmers’ field.

            Ironically, Swanson’s charts actually undermine her argument. It makes no sense for a cancer to be increasing in incidence BEFORE people are exposed to the supposed culprit, especially since most cancers take several years to develop. [In my universe, time only goes in one direction.]

            For kidney cancer, she conveniently leaves out 4 years of recent data where incidence rates were DECLINING. [I won’t waste my time shooting the fish in this stinky barrel.]

            Coming back to Drucker, I have seen one of his videos and communicated with him directly to challenge his claims. Check out this book review:
            https://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2015/03/altered-genes-drukers-new-book-is-filled-with-logical-fallacies/#comment-1927477551

            Like many on the extreme end of the pseudo-science spectrum, Drucker is a master of fooling people with a Gish Gallop. I can virtually guarantee that you didn’t check the references to see if they accurately represent all the relevant literature on a subject.

            The convenient thing about books, bsroon, is that you can write anything you want. The so-called “non-fiction” section of my local public library is a testament to this—ironically, the library already has a science-fiction section where most of this crap really belongs.

          • Thanks for the link to that review.

            The author of the review, a surgeon, seems to be well worth following http://terrysimpson.com/index.php?action=page&id=2837

            An excerpt:

            Dr Simpson also has a private practice in weight loss, where he sees patients and continues to operate but states, “I spend more of my time teaching patients to cook than I do operating on them.”

            Dr. Simpson not only talks about the medical side of losing weight, but also teaches his patients/viewers how to cook healthier meals with recipes that have proven success over the years. Dispelling food myth after food myth, he continues to captivate audiences with the reality of what our body does with the food we eat and how it can affect our day to day lives.

            His current project he is filming a new series about the Science and History of food with Simon Majumdar. The program called FORK U, features interactions across continents as they discuss how food affects us.

            Dr. Simpson frequently travels the country speaking about the importance of weight loss and learning to cook at home. One of the early members of Culinary Medicine, Dr Simpson is fearless against those who inject woo into food or medicine. In his entertaining talks, he shares many of the life changes that keep his patients healthy and have helped them lose hundreds of pounds. He is most passionate about food and it’s role it plays in a variety of medical and weight issues.

    • Wow, you should learn that before you introduce an acronym, you need to tell us what it stands for.

      Also, what was the first GMO and when did it kill over 120 Americans? This is news to me.

      • As i told others – look to Stephen Druker’s ALTERED GENES, TWISTED TRUTH. It contains all the references you need, and i know that when a coroner’s report is given it will state they were killed by EMS – eiosinophilic myalgia syndrome – which is a sometimes fatal cytokine storm which in this case was induced by GMOs instead of from vaccines: by far the most common cause.
        You don’t understand the way autopsies work. Very rarely do you have an autopsy report so clear as to state that Nathan (child forced to take chemotherapy instead of doing something sane instead) died “from the toxicity of the chemotherapy”. Usually the statements in autopsies provide ONLY the biochemical immediate response.

        You ignore all the other pertinent points. Try addressing how GMOs can possibly be sustainable. They can’t. Address how they promised to develop GMO drought resistant strains. They couldn’t. Tell us how they failed in their promise to develop saline tolerant strains of rice – they failed – but in the case of drought and saline tolerance, regular hybridization without genetic engineering (transgenetics or CRISPR tech) have succeeded where GMOs totally failed.

        Explain how most GMO crops are no more productive than real crops are, and most are less productive. Explain how the multi-functionality of crops has been destroyed. In India, most cotton farmers grew real cotton until Monsanto purchased companies lied to the farmers about the GMO seeds. They were told they were drought tolerant, lie: told they wouldn’t take any more pesticide than before, lie: told they would grow much more cotton than their old seed, lie. Then the farmers went bankrupt, and they committed suicide so that the corporation could not steal their land from their family, since in India, one’s personal debt is not transferable to the family.

        Address how the GMO promise was that less poisons would be used – but more are used. Over 12,000,000 pounds more roundup alone used today than before GMOs – and EVERY human and animal in the USA tested for glyphosate contamination IS contaminated. So tell us about how your friend roundup breaks down. If it did so we wouldn’t all be poisoned, would we. Tell us all about how the “scientists” at Monsanto promised Roundup could do nothing to our bodies because only plants have a Shikimate pathway – so humans, without any such – would be totally unaffected. Now explain how 99% of the genetics in your body is probiotic lifeforms of which most have Shikimate pathways, and how without those probiotics on your skin and in your entire digestive and respiratory tract you WILL DIE. How they affect your thoughts, etc. What the hell is going to happen when the gly poisons DO reach the point of damaging YOUR internal probiotic colonies?

        You pretend that there is always only one problem with GMOs. Well there are many, and if all are not addressed, then your product is a liability, not an asset or benefit. And totally unnecessary. But sustainability alone – that should shoot down GMOs and then monocropping, since those two combined cause the most ecological damage in the world – with the current exception of Fuck-you-shima Die Itchy, and the GMO soil bacteria that came about 3 weeks from killing the entire planet. Literally.

        • “As i told others – look to Stephen Druker’s ALTERED GENES, TWISTED TRUTH.”
          s
          Drucker is not a scientist, he is a lawyer; a lawyer that made the same kinds of accusations in court back in the 90’s and lost each and every time because his support was ephemeral, unsubstantiated, and rebutted by the overwhelming majority of the primary literature, produced by my peers and I who are scientists in academia, government, and industry labs. What is most damning is the little detail that the anti-GMO activists have had over 2 decades to produce even a single study that complied with the base GLP and standards required of and toxicology study.

          But please try to find a single OECD-451, 452, or 453 study that supports any of his babblings. I’ll even start you off with an OECD-452 compliant study from the GRACE project, an EU/EFSA study (one of three in fact). Zeljenková et al., (2016).

          “You don’t understand the way autopsies work.”

          And you don’t understand how pre-approval toxicity testing and carcinogenicity testing is handled, nor do you appear to have an idea about causation, either in terms of the calssic Bradford Hill Criteria, or the modern testing and analysis methods.

          This is actually quite simple. Propose a method of action, design a study that maintains an appropriate power of analysis to differentiate between treatment effects and background variation, run said study in keeping with the requirements of both the nation it’s performed in, as well as the international standards for GLP, and the OECD testing protocols. If deviation from said protocols is required, supply data to support your decision, preferably during the design portion of the study to fend off any accusations of cherry picking when the final results come in.

          Oh, once again, the anti-biotech groups have had two decades to do this.

          Total number of compliant studies showing any significant treatment effects? Zero

          “Address how they promised to develop GMO drought resistant strains”

          – MON87460: Showed an increase of 8 bushels per acre during drought conditions. Authorized for cultivation in the US, Canada, Japan, and Brazil. Is also used for stacking traits in various breeding programs (eg: MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603 Authorized for cultivation in Japan).

          Wow, already you’re proven wrong already.

          “Then the farmers went bankrupt, and they committed suicide so that the
          corporation could not steal their land from their family, since in
          India, one’s personal debt is not transferable to the family.”

          Farmer suicides peaked in 2004, only 2 years after the introduction of GMO cotton. After this point, the rates plummeted, while the percentage of GMO cotton grew at a rapid rate…one that corresponded to the DROP in farmer suicides.

          In fact, Gruere et al., (2008) and Sheridan (2009) looked at this very issue. Guess what? GMOs were not a major factor. They were probably a factor in individual cases, but not the major factor, which was overwhelmingly socio-economic.

          Rather than listening to Shiva, try looking into the census and population data collected by the regions…you know the ones that actually do track these issues, and not just use hyperbole to rile up 1st world idiots who will gladly fork over her 5 figure speaking fee.

          “Address how the GMO promise was that less poisons would be used…”

          Did you remember to factor in the acute and chronic toxicity, along with the environmental persistence of the modern IPM regimes, or are you just going by the numbers that Benbrook stated, relying on an scientifically illiterate public to not bother to look into relative toxicity.

          There’s a good reason why we don’t just look at amounts in toxicology…or biology as a whole. Let’s take glyphosate for example. What herbicides did it supplant as a broad spectrum herbicide?

          How about atrazine?

          Care to take a wild guess which one is more toxic?

          Again, you don’t look beyond the basics, and certainly don’t have any understanding of toxicology. Why are you writing from a position of such certainty? It’s a flat out deception.

          Rapid Fire Mode:

          “Explain how most GMO crops are no more productive than real crops are”

          Actualized yield vs theoretical yield. In the presence of a stressor (biotic or abiotic), GMO varieties maintain yields to a much greater extent (22% across all datasets). For review see Klümper and Qaim, (2014).

          “Tell us all about how the “scientists” at Monsanto promised Roundup
          could do nothing to our bodies because only plants have a Shikimate
          pathway – so humans, without any such – would be totally unaffected. Now
          explain how 99% of the genetics in your body is probiotic lifeforms of
          which most have Shikimate pathways, and how without those probiotics on
          your skin and in your entire digestive and respiratory tract you WILL
          DIE. How they affect your thoughts, etc.”

          Read Nelson et al., (2016). For quite a while there’s been a discrepancy between in vitro and in situ studies looking at the effects of many chemicals on the gut microbiome. In vitro studies invariably show a greater response when compared to the in vitro work.

          Care to guess why?

          It’s a reason that has come up a lot in relation to understanding microbial communities both inside of living species, and environmental populations.

          What is used as a growth media in in vitro studies?

          In the case of the gut microbiome and their natural environment, are those media types representative of the chyme?

          Nope! Not in the slightest. When you add in partially hydrolized polypeptides, free amino acids, and associated secretions from the gastric mucosa, suddenly, those in vitro results start to look a lot like the in vivo ones…like in the case of glyphosate, where no effect was observed until the dose was >50X the ADI.

          Again, your lack of knowledge here is showing.

          Now for the part I truly love about this.

          For all your ranting, and rambling, you don’t get a seat at the table regarding what is and is not valid science. You can bemoan the studies, but were you asked to contribute to the Society of Toxicology’s revised statement regarding GMOs?

          I was, as were several thousand of my peers as part of a years long analysis of the data to date.

          My colleagues in Europe, particularly those in the EFSA, they helped to update the OECD-451-453 protocols to take into account the results from the GRACE Project, G-TwYST, and GMO90Plus studies that wrapped up between 2016 and 2018.

          Did you contribute?

          No, you did not, and the ignorance that you’ve displayed is the exact reason why we don’t look outside of the data.

          An amusing evening for me. Thank you for that.

          Oh, and I expect any rebuttal to take the form of a study that complies with the OECD guidelines, along with the standard GLP for the relevant field.

          Good luck…you’ll need it. Unlike you, I do read as many of the studies from all sides of the issue as I can…or wrap it up as a exercise for my grad students to make the lab meeting more amusing.

          • Lol, needed a laugh, thanks. Yes, crackpots do write. But this man actually brought a lawsuit before federal courts and lost because the judiciary in this nation has nothing to do with justice, and the fix is in.
            The book he wrote has a challenge to Monsanto by him. Druker promises to pay Monsanto one million dollars if they could prove that the science he quoted was wrong or even taken out of context. There are STILL no claims.

            You and i both know that IF any biotech fan could disprove his book’s information that it would be the greatest public relations coup and advance for the industry – EVER – and by far. So you can logically expect that effort has been made. And yet, nothing in his book has been disproven.

            This proves that by your statement above – you have not read anything from his book, looked up his references (yes, there are a lot of them).

            The only conclusion one can reach regarding all the GMOrons who are attacking me and the Druker book are that since you have NOT read the book, checked the citations and references – you are literally arguing your platform from a total stance of complete ignorance in this regard. Good luck with that.

        • As far as we know, you ARE that Drucker loon posting with a fake name. That would explain a lot, like how you actually claim books written for personal income and to shill for the organic foods cartel are more reliable sources than peer reviewed studies.

          • Waaah, waaaah, waaaaah. Go crawl into your whiny baby safe space. If you had read a damn word of the book and had looked up the references like Monsanto has (and failed to disprove) then you have a right to question people.

            Your NOT doing so – not engaging in the points raised by the industry via that book and it’s references (did i mention it has scientific references?) sort of indicates that you are just making strawman arguments and ad-hominem attacks. Those occur when you have nothing substantial to argue with. Goodbye

          • Not a single book in all human history equals a peer reviewed study. It may equal a non-peer reviewed unverified study if actual research was done, nothing more. Mentioning “industry” is just conspiratard talk. Your pathetic comments studded with childish taunting, name calling and not knowing the difference between your and you’re is all the reason we need to ignore and downvote you.

          • Peer reviewed study. Tell me, how did that work out for Galileo and Copernicus before him? Velikovsky made observations and predictions which included a temperature estimate for Venus atmosphere and planet, for Venus’ atmospheric composition, for the planet’s volcanism, it’s tectonic plate formation, that the heat of the Venusian atmosphere was from heat held in from the planet instead of the commonly held view that it was the greenhouse effect.

            Well, the “peer reviewers” of concensus were absolutely wrong on each and every one of these points and more. In fact, NO point of Velikovsky’s has been disproven, and everything that is capable of being checked (like the Venus prediction which were made decades before their verification was possible) has proven to be correct. So peer review?

            Then think about how the most trusted medical journals both have editors who state that HALF of the peer reviewed medical studies now published are worthless. NEJM and Lancet. Hmmm.

            Let’s be honest here on a deeper level, instead of ANOTHER DEFLECTION – simply by being ecologically damaging and undeniably unsustainable, the GMO industry is NOT something that should be perpetuated, and monocropping of all sorts needs to stop for sane and intelligent healing modalities of growing food. Don’t bother with your “we need to feed the world” with GMO bullshit – 70% of the planet lives off of small, local farms, and that can be done in the US also.

            Final point. THE BOOK’S REFERENCES CONTAIN PHUKKEN PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES, DAMMUT – but you’re like those pro-vax jabber idiots who refuse to trust a link to a study because someone from a sane vax site linked it. Even when it is a CDC study.

  2. I’m a celiac–a very small minority, statistically insignificant. Every time I eat glyphosate-contaminated food I get a uniquely disgusting reaction I won’t describe, except that it includes a mood swing during which I’d really like to hold this writer’s head in a toilet full of what comes after the mood swing. Like clockwork. And after inhaling glyphosate I’ve had asthma. And after a long exposure to a small amount of vapors I’ve had narcolepsy.

    Funnily enough I’ve been noticing that when I get that reaction, my non-celiac cousin has a reaction that looks just like celiac sprue.

    At the same times his father used to have narcolepsy. He denied that this was a reaction either to his spraying his garden or to the nearby railroad being sprayed at night; wanted to believe he was “just getting old.” He dropped off right at the dinner table as usual, one evening last summer, & was dead an hour later.

    At the same times a friend’s child, who is normally bright & pretty & loves school, drags & resists getting up to go to school in the morning.

    That child’s mother, who is normally sane and intelligent, has gone into a sort of thyroid reaction that has to be classified as psychotic, though it’s more like a hypnogogic trance the person can’t snap out of than like the more common psychotic conditions. Usually she stays “competent,” but goes into a sort of borderline mood. She’s a gentle Christian woman and much less frightening to be around when you know why she’s acting the way she does. On the same days I have otherwise unexplained celiac sprue.

    At the same times another friend, who is not celiac and doesn’t get sprue, is apt to vomit and think Norwalk Flu is going around when it’s not.

    At the same times another neighbor, who normally walks like a young person although she’s a great-grandmother, gets vertigo and can hardly walk at all.

    Need I go on? Bottom line, I’ve stood in my town’s open-air market and watched half the town show immediate reactions to glyphosate poisoning, although all but one of them who talked to me blamed “age” or “allergies” or “something going around.”

    STOP SPRAYING NOW, FOOL. THE LIFE YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN.

    Search “glyphosate” at epa.gov if you want to see a full list of 8 classes of glyphosate reactions that can be drastic enough to send people to the hospital.

      • Short answer: a gut feeling. Literally.

        Long answer: see the dozens of links at the #GlyphosateAwareness hashtag on Twitter, and the dozens of firsthand reports on my Blogspot. Not only can I write a book, I’ve written one about me and am writing one about the science! Marion Nestle and Carey Gillam have also written books on this topic.

        I did not originally know why I was having celiac sprue when I’d avoided wheat. “Did the company put wheat flour in *orange juice*? Craaazy!” I did not originally know why, before age 30, I was having celiac sprue at all…before glyphosate, the tiny minority of people who had it started to notice it after age 50. I was writing about living well with the celiac genetic pattern (it didn’t have to be a disease, before glyphosate!) at the time when I started having lapses, and there were *aaall kiiinds* of theories and rumors on the Internet. I self-tested. Rigorously. For survival purposes. It’s glyphosate all right–added to food as if it really were as safe as salt (which is a lie), sprayed into the air, draining into the water.

        If I were to feel sick for no obvious reason, and stay home and call a lot of friends on the phone, since 2013 it’s *always* been true that they were all feeling ill in different ways for no obvious reason, *too*. Most of them are older than I am and more disabled by whatever ails them, so I’d be the one to walk out. And then I’d see which section of roadside or railroad had been freshly sprayed. And that’s the reason. Apart from *one* real flu virus, one winter, that’s *always* been the reason.

        • This is your evidence? This is pathetic, you get sick sometimes so you blame it on glyphosate residues that may or may not be there. Sounds like you are blaming your aging on glyphosate. People got old long before glyphosate was ever used.

          • No. Wrong. You don’t test that hypothesis when you’re 30, but you do when you’re 50, and it does not hold. I get sick after eating specific things, and then go online and see that other people have been sick after eating those things too, then that those things tested positive for glyphosate. Or I get sick and watch others become sick/ill after breathing glyphosate vapors. And some of these people are in their 80s, and some are in their teens. I see the effects on children.

            Some people’s glyphosate reactions can be mistaken for aging, especially if they include lethargy/narcolepsy, brainfog, or arthritis-like pain. Celiac reactions cannot be. They’re completely outside the normal aging process.

            And then, after 72 hours of non-exposure, we all feel better. My waistline goes from “pregnant?” to trim, and what I flush down the toilet looks healthy again. The “old” people become perky and alert again. The kids act like healthy kids again. Over time these reactions take a toll, but the way the body bounces back proves that they’re reactions to something outside the body, not “aging.”

          • “I get sick after eating specific things,”

            Maybe its something else in those things? perhaps you could provide a list of these things that are making you sick so we can look for a common ingredient that may be causing it, or you could continue to blame it on residues that may or may not be there and I could continue to not believe you.

            “Or I get sick and watch others become sick/ill after breathing glyphosate vapors.”

            Glyphosate has very low volatility so this seems unlikely, unless of course you are standing right next to the sprayer. Also, how do you know when glyphosate is being sprayed, you do realise that other chemicals apart from GBHs are registered for roadside use?

            “Celiac reactions cannot be”

            The more likely explanation for a celiac reaction is the accidental exposure to gluten, not minute herbicide residues that may or may not be there, but if they are then the levels would likely be in the range of parts per billion to parts per million .

            “And then, after 72 hours of non-exposure, we all feel better. ”

            This is not evidence, all you are doing is blaming glyphosate any time you don’t feel well when you have no evidence of exposure.

      • As long as glyphosate continues to be sprayed along roads and railroads in Virginia, it’ll be easy to find physical proof of what I’m saying. Not only in my town, but in any town that has a public place where you can observe and talk to people all day. They don’t realize the sprayer passed down the railroad track at 2 a.m. but they’re sick that day, and they think it’s going around. Or whatever their usual ailments are, they’re worse. And so on. Only because celiac reactions are unique and because I’m vigilant about avoiding wheat, I know what’s *really* going on.

        Quite a lot of people become defensive and angry when it’s first brought to their attention that they’re making themselves and their neighbors sick.

          • Evidently not this troll, clinging to corporate-funded studies done in the 1980s. Those interested in the science should go to epa.gov and search for “glyphosate.” While the studies there are old, incomplete, and corporate-funded, they show that glyphosate consistently causes a very wide range of unpleasant symptoms in the majority of all lifeforms studied. One study summarizes the reactions observed in rabbits as “diarrhea, nasal discharge, and death.” There are others. Ramazzini (I think that’s the name, without looking it up) is finding birth defects, not in the first generation but starting in the second generation of rats.

          • Yes, please… do go look at the data and read the conclusions. When don at the epa, check out the BfR review of glyphosate and reviews done by every other health & regulatory agency in the modern world.

            Then, when you’re done with that, go look up the volume of glyphosate commonly found in food residues. I’m quite certain you’ll find that they’re ridiculously small and simply not capable of causing the issues that priscilla is claiming. But the truth has never stopped nut-balls in the past. Why should it now?

            Sorry, Priscilla… your fear mongering is pretty transparent. It’s not gonna work here.

          • The amount of glyphosate found in food residues by recent tests has been so staggering that people don’t want to believe the tests that have been marketed. I’ve done no personal research beyond what people are tweeting. People are horrified by the amount in orange juice and Cheerios…that’s the tip of the iceberg; wait’ll they start testing things like beans, peanuts, and tomatoes. Farmers are actually spraying cheap glyphosate directly onto these foods to help them ripen more easily and to discourage insects, with horrific results for celiacs. Of course, since the Johnson case and the efforts of a few of us CeliActivists last summer, most farmers deny that they do this…now. Last summer’s crops are poisoned; we can hope next year’s crops won’t be.

            However, readers seeking facts can find them…and it won’t even be very expensive. Celiacs are mutant freaks whose immune reactions, which make wheat poisonous for us, start with a reaction that’s easy to watch in small blood samples under microscopes. Since our reaction to glyphosate is either identical to or more drastic than our reaction to wheat gluten, our blood should be easy to study. If anyone out there has access to a respectable lab and wants to study this, I’ll sell you a pint, any time, guaranteed celiac and other-disease-free.

          • 😂😂. Staggering?? You must think we’re all idiots.

            Let’s take a recent example that you brought up…. Cheerios. The highest level found in Cheerios would still require someone to eat their body weight in Cheerios every day just to approach he level at which no adverse effects were found.

            It is quite literally, insignificant.

            Let’s just say I’m not in the least bit surprised you haven’t researched anything beyond someone else’s tweets. Readers seeking facts can certainly find them, but not likely in their twitter feed.

          • Troll obviously is not familiar with adults’ use of Twitter. Yes, a lot of people use Twitter just for chitchat or pet photos, but the #GlyphosateAwareness page is for links to scientific studies. If you open and print all the serious scientific studies I’ve linked there, 8-point Times Roman, 2-sided, you’ll have more paper than will fit into a single slipcase.

            Researching the glyphosate test kits that were marketed last August-September would have involved buying them, which I didn’t do. Results available in these few weeks have consisted of individuals expressing astonishment. Scientific studies will probably be available, even linkable, some time this spring :-)

            The claim that there *is* a level of glyphosate contamination at which no adverse effects were found was (a) based on dog studies and (b) inherently fallacious, because we already know that, with glyphosate, effects vary wildly. Any measurable amount is probably too much, but for any group of 100 test animals, given identical exposure, some die before others show any reaction humans notice. You can see this in humans too.

            Or in trolls: when Jason drinks his litre of “Roundup” he *may* be only a little crankier than he is today, he may have the immune reaction known as a summer cold, he may spew blood, or he may drop dead. Will other readers please help encourage him to drink up so we can all find out which >-D

          • Y’know, it’s bad for everybody to feed trolls. I’ve posted facts for those who are interested, but I’ve not received comments from people interested in facts, so far. So I’m closing this tab. If anyone reading this page wants more facts, let me know.

          • I want more facts. But since you posted zero and backed up zero with no citations. looks like you are the wrong one to ask.

          • I’ve been warned about posting too many links in comment sections. The Internet is a game whose rules change constantly. A few years ago I too thought Twitter was for social chitchat. No more. It’s where the links go. Starting with EPA and featuring NIH studies, I’ve collected literally dozens of links at the #GlyphosateAwareness page on Twitter. That’s an informative chat I “host” in the sense of removing junk posts and commenting on debatable ones…I was noting the ones blaming glyphosate for birth defects as questionable before the Ramazzini study came out just recently.

          • Blah blah blah, too many? Try at least 2. Blah blah I don’t have any evidence to post. Blah blah blah heard of ramazzini once. blah Priscilla has got nothing.

          • (Links intentionally broken) You should be able to see https:// twitter . com /search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=GlyphosateAwareness&src=typd without having a Twitter account. You won’t be able to comment, but you should be able to open linked documents. Even Internet Explorer for Opera showed links, if not images, last time I checked.

            The two most essential links are to

            https:// www. regulations. gov / document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0070 (warning–gruesome photos)

            https:// www. ncbi.nlm.nih. gov /pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ (contains extrapolation, which has been criticized, from facts, which have not)

          • I tell yah what. Why don’t you just link one single study that says anything that backs up your claims. M’kay?

          • A bit late here, but the use of dogs, beagles usually, is permitted according to the OECD toxicity protocols. Generally, rats are preferred, but mice, dogs, rabbits, and guinea pigs can also be used. A couple of decades ago, using non human primates would have been another option, but their use has been greatly restricted…and given what we know about the intelligence of many of the great apes, it’s probably for the best.

            For species like chimpanzees, their use needs to be utterly essential and time sensitive (pandemic outbreak for instance).

          • Your verbal diarrhea may work on Twitter, but have a little respect for a website with “literacy” in the title.

            While we’re on the topic of Twitter, please stop your lies about glyphosate and celiac disease: there’s a risk that some unsuspecting reader might take you seriously.

          • If anyone seriously doubts that I know how glyphosate and Cheerios affect celiacs, they’re welcome to write for specimen samples. I happened to like Cheerios as a child, so when they were advertised as gluten-free and safe for me to eat, I ate some. They may be gluten-free but they made me sick. They were one of the most blatant examples of things that celiacs across the country thought we could eat–and were wrong.

          • “Cheerios induce celiac reactions”?

            You really need to sharpen up your arguments with ‘Hitchens’s Razor’, Priscilla.
            What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

          • “The amount of glyphosate found in food residues by recent tests has been so staggering that people don’t want to believe the tests that have been marketed. ”

            Oh, so how much has been found and by whom?

          • “…clinging to corporate-funded studies done in the 1980s.”

            You missed quite a few studies if you only looked at the ones done in the 80s. In fact, you would have missed all the OECD-453 compliant studies, which are the gold standard in toxicology when it comes to determining causation.

            These studies have been summarized in Griem et al., (2015).

            Regarding your allegations of harm from residual glyphosate, can you cite an OECD-compliant study showing adverse health effects at doses less than or equal to the NOAEL…to say nothing of the ADI or RfD?

            You can’t, as there has never been a study that showed harm below the NOAEL that has met even the minimum requirements of GLP.

          • Not yet, because most OECD-compliant studies have used the wrong model for studying glyphosate. A better designed study, like the one I’ve proposed using celiac blood tests, won’t take long to do; for some strange reason corporations haven’t been funding those.

            There’s also a very obvious need to reconsider the whole idea that toxicity to humans needs to be studied with the same statistical approach that might work for studying something like improvement in exam scores. When evaluating things like textbooks it’s reasonable to say that something that serves 30% of the group poorly is worth keeping. When evaluating things like chemicals that have caused human fatalities, it’s important to remember that ONE is too many.

          • That position is both naive and fails to take into account any metrics for causation. The only researchers calling for changes to the chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity testing are the ones who have been unable to conduct a compliant study to date, and instead decide to cry hormesis, or endocrine disruption to explain away their failure.

            Small problem with that, as my peers and I have looked at this for glyphosate as well as many other compounds. The endocrine disruption was ruled out after considerable evidence was examined as part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme, a joint collaboration of which both the EPA, and the EFSA are involved with. Glyphosate was examined through up to the Lv 2, criteria, and when no indication of endocrine disruption (EATS) was seen, the decision was made (2015 by the US, 2017 by the EFSA).

            Since that time, there has been no meaningful evidence or new evidence that glyphosate has any such effect in vitro, or in vivo.

            One fortunate aspect of this is that, the range of exposures used as part of this testing, and including the 2011 supplementary testing requirement from the EFSA have also shot down the hormesis argument, as every compliant test showed a monotonic dose response, not a bimodal one.

            “When evaluating things like chemicals that have caused human fatalities, it’s important to remember that ONE is too many.”

            Once again, this position is naive, as a fundamental aspect of toxicology is that everything can cause harm, it all comes down to the dose. Oxygen has killed people, so has water, copper sulfate, arsenic, cyanide, on and on the list goes.

            That’s what the OECD-451, 452, and 453 studies (oral exposure, different exposure types have their own protocols) are designed to do, determine where the NOAEL occurs, and then using a risk modifier to set the daily exposure limits at a level well below this value.

            As for the blood test comment, do you know why the current blood tests, as well as several antibody based screens that are under development are not sufficient to diagnose the condition?

            Take a look at the false positive and false negative results, and compare that to regional data. When performing a diagnostic procedure, seeing any kind of clustering of these errors usually means one thing, and one thing only, human error. The tests, and the interpretation of them are all over the place, and there’s a damn good reason why those blood tests are only viewed as a presumptive result. Without some kind of direct examination and histological analysis of the gastric mucosa, they are not accurate when it comes to accurate diagnoses, and instead have a documented history of causing increased anxiety in patients.

            Heck, this is one case where I have anecdotal evidence in addition to the clinical data. My own father reached out to me whe he got the results from a tTG IgA blood test. His family physician indicated that it showed clear signs of celiac disease, but that wasn’t my interpretation, and it wasn’t the interpretation of the gastroenterologist who I contacted to provide a second opinion.

            In fact, several studies have explicitly stated that, until the confirmation steps can be undertaken, patients should not be advised to change their diet (Rashid, 2016).

            There’s a good reason why the Society of Toxicology changed its statement regarding GE and related technologies last year, and I was part of the process. After examining the data, it was quite clear that the risks touted by the various anti-biotech groups was unsupported, and that there was a consistent and troubling trend of insufficient power of analysis, and alterations from established testing methodologies with no explanation as to why the changes were made.

            It works to instill fear in the general populace, but the research and medical communities have overwhelmingly stuck to the empirical evidence.

            Care to try again? How about finding an OECD-451, 452, or 453 study showing a causal relationship between glyphosate and adverse health effects at or below the established NOAEL, or the more conservative ADI or RfD?

            That’s the same bar that is required for all toxicity studies, regardless of their source. A better questions for you to ask is, why can’t the researchers crying wolf manage to perform a single study in keeping with standard GLP?

          • That position is both naive and fails to take into account any metrics for causation. The only researchers calling for changes to the chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity testing are the ones who have been unable to conduct a compliant study to date, and instead decide to cry hormesis, or endocrine disruption to explain away their failure.

            Small problem with that, as my peers and I have looked at this for glyphosate as well as many other compounds. The endocrine disruption was ruled out after considerable evidence was examined as part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme, a joint collaboration of which both the EPA, and the EFSA are involved with. Glyphosate was examined through up to the Lv 2, criteria, and when no indication of endocrine disruption (EATS) was seen, the decision was made (2015 by the US, 2017 by the
            EFSA).

            Since that time, there has been no meaningful evidence or new evidence that glyphosate has any such effect in vitro, or in vivo.

            One fortunate aspect of this is that, the range of exposures used as part of this testing, and including the 2011 supplementary testing requirement from the EFSA have also shot down the hormesis argument, as
            every compliant test showed a monotonic dose response, not a bimodal one.

            “When evaluating things like chemicals that have caused human fatalities, it’s important to remember that ONE is too many.”

            Once again, this position is naive, as a fundamental aspect of toxicology is that everything can cause harm, it all comes down to the dose. Oxygen has killed people, so has water, copper sulfate, arsenic, cyanide, on and on the list goes.

            That’s what the OECD-451, 452, and 453 studies (oral exposure, different exposure types have their own
            protocols) are designed to do, determine where the NOAEL occurs, and then using a risk modifier to set the daily exposure limits at a level well below this value.

            As for the blood test comment, do you know why the current blood tests, as well as several antibody based screens that are under development are not sufficient to diagnose the condition?

            Take a look at the false positive and false negative results, and compare that to regional data. When performing a diagnostic procedure, seeing any kind of clustering of these errors usually means one thing, and one thing only, human error. The tests, and the interpretation of them are all over the place, and there’s a damn good reason why those blood tests are only viewed as a presumptive result. Without some kind of direct examination and histological analysis of the gastric mucosa, they are not accurate when it comes to accurate diagnoses, and instead have a documented history of causing increased anxiety in patients.

            In fact, several studies have explicitly stated that, until the confirmation steps can be undertaken,
            patients should not be advised to change their diet (Rashid, 2016).

            There’s a good reason why the Society of Toxicology changed its statement regarding GE and related technologies last year, and I was part of the process. After examining the data, it was quite clear that the risks touted by the various anti-biotech groups was unsupported, and that there was a consistent and troubling trend of insufficient power of analysis, and alterations from established testing methodologies with no explanation as to why the changes were made.

            It works to instill fear in the general populace, but the research and medical communities
            have overwhelmingly stuck to the empirical evidence.

            Care to try again? Since the molecular and biochemical aspects of this are literally my day job, this is quite amusing overall. How about finding an OECD-451, 452, or 453 study showing a causal relationship between glyphosate and adverse health effects at or below the established NOAEL, or the more conservative ADI or RfD?

            That’s the same bar that is required for all toxicity studies, regardless of their source. A better questions for you to ask is, why can’t the researchers crying wolf manage to perform a single study in keeping with
            standard GLP?

          • “Ramazzini is finding birth defects”

            You should probably do the background reading before commenting on the results of a study, this is not what the ramazzini institute found. Actually they didn’t really find anything other than statistical noise from data produced from a statistically weak experiment. Actually the study’s did find that rats exposed to roundup suffered no adverse health effects.

          • You’re talking about the first study of the first generation. I’m talking about the recently released study finding birth defects in the second generation of rats born to apparently healthy mothers (the ones who showed no adverse effects).

            The flaw I see in the Ramazzini study is that they simply killed a lot of rats, presumably to save space, rather than watching them for longer-term effects.

          • I can see three papers from the Ramazzini institute, none of them show birth defects in second generation rats, perhaps you could provide a citation to the study you are talking about?

          • Small potatoes. You will have nothing further to say after I drop this bomb on you – THE MOTHER OF ALL GMO SAFETY CITATIONS – all 284 health and safety organization agree GMOs and glyphosate are safe and useful. Yes they are all here except the Russians and the discredited IARC. The world has discredited and dismissed your old outdated cherry picked studies: http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/ Each of the 284 agencies is hyperlinked for proof on this page.

        • They grow wheat on the railroad tracks?

          If they sprayed the wheat with glyphosate, it would die and then they couldn’t make it into flour.

          I don’t think you understand what you are talking about.

          • I think you’re trying to be funny. Farmers spray fields before planting, fields of crops thought to be glyphosate-resistant, and sometimes crops that have been or are about to be harvested. The railroad company sprays the railroad for *all* plant life.

          • What does any of that have to do with wheat? Wheat isn’t glyphosate resistant and you don’t eat the weeds growing along railroad tracks.

          • You know you’re doing something right when all the most notorious GMO peddlers troll your comment en-mass with their misdirects and personal attacks. Thanks for your contributions. You’re not the only one who is #NotRoundupReady

          • Some people after having their ignorance exposed, take the time to educate themselves and fill in their knowledge gaps so they can contribute to the discussion in a more meaningful way, others cry “personal attacks” ironically in the same sentence as they make their own personal attack.

            In no way is Priscilla doing something right, far from it. She is pushing her own uneducated opinions and false facts all the while being to damn lazy to even do the slightest amount of reading on the subject. This is the opposite of doing something right.

          • No GMO peddlers are trolling Priscilla. I am pointing out that she is wrong–not even coherent–when she makes statements about RoundUp in wheat causing celiac like symptoms. It doesn’t even make sense, since wheat would die if exposed to RoundUp. And the same with spraying for weeds on railroad tracks. She isn’t eating the weeds, how is that causing celiac like symptoms.

            No misdirects or personal attacks.

          • Not here. This is ground zero for respectful discussion and education on GMO science. YOU are the troll if you attack settled science at ground zero for genetic literacy. All humans are fully Roundup ready because we simply excrete it through our urine. It does not and can not bio-accumulate in humans. And when we see any commenter using the word “Roundup” we immediately know they are clueless. The patent on Roundup expired in 2000 and there are now at least 63 sellers of glyphosate herbicide in the US. Only 3 of those brands are the former Monsanto’s. The Chinese are the largest sellers of glyphosate, there are over 700 brands globally. http://www.simsfarm.com/images/E0162301/GlyphosateProductComparisons.pdf

          • Actually glyphosate is sometimes used to dry crops by killing them before harvest so they won’t rot in silos. This is done in northern climates or during unusually wet growing seasons. The residues after hulling are insignificant, way below the set limit of 1.3 parts per million which includes a 100X margin for error on the safe side. This has been done for at least 30 years. Glyphosate use precedes the dawn of GMO agriculture.

    • Thought I’d reply here because I’ve never seen your name in these comment sections in the last ten-plus years or so I’ve been commenting here. Thank you so much for your thoughtful, insightful, and accurate comments on glyphosate.

      I see you recognise when you are being trolled, but I thought I might just reaffirm those suspicions for you and give you an accurate list of those people in this thread who have been actively trolling social media articles on GMOs and glyphosate for at least the last ten years in order to promote and defend the agrochemical/ biotech industry (as if this was a full time job for them.)

      If you look at these individuals’ disqus accounts, you will find they spend an exorbitant amount of time defending the agrochemical/ biotech industry (as if their jobs depended on it:)

      EFFENNELL, Jason, Obfuscate99, Eric Bjerraard, Damo, and Peter Olins.

      This is just a small handful of the dozens of promoters, defenders and general all-around propagandists you will find in these comment sections. Most are likely paid to be here (otherwise, why would they spend such a huge proportion of their lives defending and promoting chemical manufacturers and producers of genetically engineered goods that rely on those chemicals?)

      Anyway, thank you for taking the time to add your voice to the plethora of concerned citisens who truly care about the health implications associated with the toxic pesticides used on genetically engineered crops and other foods where glyphosate is used as a desiccant to speed up harvesting.

      Feel free to look me up on facebook and contact me.

      • You have stated the same things over and over again, yet you have no evidence that any of the commenters here are employed, or compensated by any biotech company. It terms of personal logic, you simply resort to ad hominem attacks to provide yourself with a source of justification when you are continually unable to address the data presented.

        As always, I will state this clearly for the benefit of anyone reading aside from you, as we both know that you have no interest in learning about the underlying science behind any of these topics, and instead judge the quality and validity of any given study by seeing how closely it aligns to your worldview.

        I am a scientist, with a research focus in molecular biology, biochemistry, genomics, and even toxicology. For the past few years, my labs focus has revolved around comparative genomics, particularly as it relates to the process of domestication, and the genome changes that occur during the process.

        Since earning my doctorate, I have only held positions at public universities, and my grant sources contain only state and federal agencies, with some recent grant successes from the Canadian federal government, through a collaborative project with AAFC and CFIA.

        Why do I post on these threads? To counter the lies and misinformation that you and your scientifically illiterate ilk pollute these threads with. Public education is part and parcel of the job, both as a scientist and as an educator. Individuals like yourself, Teddykins (in all his various alts), Stoppy, Deb, patza, and WeGotta, try to position yourselves as the arbiters of truth, yet you universally lack the education to address even the most elementary aspects of experimental design.

        I don’t believe I’ve asked this of you directly, and neither Stoppy, Teddykins, or Deb have been able to provide an answer:

        In Seralini et al., (2012), he indicated that the protocol used was based on the OECD-453 method. As this is a combined protocol, parallel chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity phases. Paragraph 19 of the protocol indicates that the reduced number of animals in the chronic toxicity portion of the study is only possible as the results from the carcinogenicity phase will be combined with the findings of the toxicity portion to allow for a sufficient sample size (making use of Guidance Document 116 to determine the final population size required) to differentiate treatment effects from background noise.

        Given that Seralini neglected to perform the carcinogenicity phase at all, and given the 10 rats per treatment per gender that he had, what was his power of analysis?

        Once you calculate this, is that level of statistical power sufficient to determine significance at the 95% CI? If not, what level of power was possible in these studies?

        By comparison, the GRACE Project’s Zeljenková et al., (2014) and Zeljenková et al., (2016) represented experimental designs that were not only compliant with OECD-408 and 452, respectively, but also included additional testing as recommended by the EFSA (2011). What power of analysis was possible for each of these two studies?

        I await the usual deflection and ad hominems that are sure to follow.

      • “they spend an exorbitant amount of time”… “Most are likely paid to be here (otherwise, why would they spend such a huge proportion of their lives… ”

        I average less posts per day than you Rob, so if I am spending such an amount of time as to appear as if my job “depended on it” what does that say about you? Do they math next time Rob, might just stop you from saying something stupid.

        “Thank you so much for your thoughtful, insightful, and accurate comments on glyphosate”

        If that’s what you think you may want to re-read Priscillas comments through an objective lens. Her whole argument boils down to feeling sick sometimes so must be glyphosate, whats her evidence for thinking she has been exposed to glyphosate? well get this, sometimes she feels sick.

        Now is this a rational argument Rob?

        “Feel free to look me up on facebook and contact me.”

        LOL, trying to pick up on Disqus Rob? Are you that desperate?

        • You are addressing the Ted Miner virus infection. Until now it has been totally banned from spamming GLP threads but something happened. Please flag it. It is easy to identify the 15 fake sock puppet accounts that abuse Disqus with IP spoofing by their locked history and absurdly high upvote ratio. Note I have the Chrome add-on that gives a count total for downvotes, it downvoted you 14 times already in this one comment alone.

      • The majority of posts are not about GMOs. I post on a variety of topics from classic rock to star trek to movies to science.

        It is just I happen to know a little about farming, soil conservation, and genetics. So when I see obvious lies and myths being stated, I call them out.

        Unlike you (whose 5,000 posts are mostly calling others shills), my posts, and those of people like EFFNELL and Peter Ollins, are thoughtful and actually address the topic at hand.

        For the record, I do this as a hobby, and do not get paid by any company for any of my posts here. I, as I have stated many times, am a conservationist. I point out the the environmental benefits of using less land for more food because it is the ethical and moral thing to do.

        Why, exactly, do you post here?

        • You are addressing the Ted Miner virus infection. Until now it has been totally banned from spamming GLP threads but something happened. Please flag it. It is easy to identify the 15 fake sock puppet accounts that abuse Disqus with IP spoofing by their locked history and absurdly high upvote ratio. Note I have the Chrome add-on that gives a count total for downvotes, it downvoted you 14 times in this one comment alone.

          • SS, regardless of the level of idiocy he displays, Rob’s lexicon and syntax are markedly different from Teddykins. Last year, I ran a series of stylometric analyses on the collected works of as many of the usual anti-GMO posters as I could. Fortunately, their propensity to post over and over allows for a sizable sampling, which helps with the analysis.

            Programs Used:

            – JGAAP (Java Graphical Authorship Attribution Program)
            – Signature
            – Stylo-R
            – Python Natural Language Toolkit, and matplotlib
            – Proprietary Authorship Identification (my institution’s in house development, but it’s a black box, so I try to avoid using it)

            Based on these analyses, I have no issues stating that Cletus DeBunkerman, Duncan Debunkerman, razorjack, Peaceful Warrior, E.
            Sandwich, GOOSE, Wally, ROBIN, Goldfinger, Sparkle Plenty, SUNNY, ROBIN, and of course Ted Miner himself, are the product of a single individual, or a group using the same script as it were (alpha=0.05).

            At the time, the accounts Papa Ray were not in use, or had little to no text to work with.

            The accounts of S.G (AKA StopGMO), Rob Bright, patzagame, Debbie Owens, and TZ are not part of the same group, and show sufficient divergence from the core syntax used by Teddykins.

          • No. Rob Bright, patzagame, Debbie Owens, and TZ are all original heavily used Turd Miner puppets. I have many years of experience with those. If you actually followed these accounts you would know that over the years their vernacular and pet phrases have changed and evolved. Add them to your primary list and if you would, please re-post this comment at the top of the thread with the all caps ATTENTION GLP MODERATOR. Remember when Ted used to end each comment with “You FAIL again!” ??

          • ” Add them to your primary list and if you would…”

            My apologies, but I won’t do that. Regardless of the level of ignorance, and toxicity that they bring to these forums, I have to stand with the data, and that does not indicate that they are the same individual as the other accounts. By every measure that I could test, there is no significant link between them, and in the case of both S.G. and TZ, the indicators are that they aren’t even from the same geographic region…or even the same gender (although that metric is notoriously error prone).

            From word use, sentence structure, words per sentence, words per paragraph, consistent syntax (looking for the use of the Oxford comma, or semicolon use, among others), and even spelling errors (most recently Teddykins misspelled toxicology multiple time with different accounts to toxoco…), the accounts I listed originally, all had p-values less than 0.01, when the alpha value was only 0.05.

            I’ve had interactions with this group for years as well, with the original interactions occurring as earlier as 2011 under an account that was tied to my institution at the time, before transitioning to this one in 2014.

          • And there’s the reason why I asked a colleague to post that, and although you are not going to like or agree, it doesn’t change the fact that you are doing exactly the same thing that Ted, and the other anti-biotech posters are infamous for.

            I give you the software used for the analysis, as well as indicating the type of writing I used, and the conditions under which a significant result was considered valid (for accounts like Cletus, Duncan, and razorjack, the power of analysis was more than sufficient), 95%CI.

            Instead of taking that information and trying to support or debunk my points, you simply disregarded the information, in favor of your pre-existing beliefs. What other posters tend to follow a similar pattern, I wonder?

            Given the publication history for Stylo R in particular, it might have been a good idea to see what it’s being used for,

            Authorship attribution in online content. Starting with Elder et al., (2016), and more recently studies like Evert et al., (2017) or Piasecki et al., (2018), these tools have been used for more classic comparisons, some analyses for pure amusement (while still showing the effectiveness of the tools) (Glickman, 2018).

            What you choose to believe is your prerogative, but considering how the individuals you decry share a similar stance on the importance of empirical data, you might want to give your position some additional thought.

            If you can produce an analysis to support your assertions, that will cause me to rethink my conclusions, but not before.

          • Human scum does not fit into algorithms. You are some kind of software geek who has forsaken reality for digital programs. I remain unchallenged. But it is odd the Turd Miner limited his comment to just one and spend the remainder of his efforts casting several hundred downvotes here.

          • When ted refrains from commenting. He thinks that is the rough equivalent of a change up in baseball. Sometimes he even upvottes a few of my comments. That hae doesn’t consider damaging. My guess is that he is trying to play moderators. On the rare occasion that there are any. Also, he hates Obfuscate’s analysis because it exposes him further than usual. I think obfuscate is on to something. Specifically in the case of TZ especially. I used to run into a dimbulb named Tiffany Zena. Her comments seem similar to TZ’s

          • Nonsense. I’m defending science truth and our hard working farmers. Trolls here are doing the polar opposite. And you defy any typical stereotype, we can’t tell what you’d hope to accomplish by declaring that some idiot comment accounts are less bogus than others when all are doing the same thing, following the same pattern.

          • Do empty ad hominem attacks serve to correct any of the data surrounding GMOs, pesticides, or science in general?

            No.

            That’s the tactic that the anti-Biotech posters use. They attack the poster not the post itself.

            There’s an old legal adage that fits their tactics quite well.

            When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.

            When the law is on your side, pound the law.

            When neither is on you side, pound the table.

            They have no facts, globally, the law has acted against them more frequently than not, and as such, they only have the table to pound on.

            We don’t have this issue. Use the data to rebut them, then when they fail to address the data, and fall back on empty personal attacks, call them out on it, but always point back to the data.

            As for your assertions that you are “defending science truth”, thats another tactic that Teddykins makes use of. He’s a “truth teller” after all.

            Once again, I provided you with the means to generate a quantitative metric to determine authorhip, which you could make use of. With the exception on the black box program, all the tools are freely distributed.

            Instead, you decided to use the same tactics that they do.

          • Nobody suggested we “change the minds” of what is just one single abuser of Disqus with multiple fake accounts. Disqus need to get off its ass and ban this asshole after at least 6 years of daily continuous abuse of its system. TM even made a successful but limited hacking attack on my account – when I click a downvote button the three letters in all lower case ‘ted’ appears right above my downvote. Only I see it so Disqus doesn’t care.

          • Of course Disqus isn’t going to do anything. They state quite clearly that they do not moderate any user generated channels, and they only police the official Discuss announcements, Channel Dosqus, and Disqus Disqus.

            It’s up to the individual websites to staff (volunteer) their channels.

            Even the channel mods aren’t going to do anything, as they only have your word that it’s the case. At least with the stylomeyric analyses, there’s some empirical evodemce,but just calling out will do nothing.

            Another thing that Diswus makes clear is that mods do not get to see IP addresses.

            With regard to the attempted hacking, you should have contacted the authorities, as that’s the only option, but unless you can show harm from his actions, you’re probably SOL.

            …and just use print screen of there’s an event that can only be voeeed locally.

          • If that is true, highly commendable, but also a bit obsessive, don’t you think?

            Mind if I copy paste this next time Ted asks me for proof that he has all these sock puppets?

          • I think you want to ask obfuscate99 about that. He just asked me to post the message here (which he did write), as I think he wanted to see what the effect of differing names would have.

            I’ll send him an email to forward your request along. It probably won’t be a problem.

            As for the obsessive comment, he and I are scientists, examining the minutiae is part and parcel of the position.

            Personally, I wouldn’t bother with the analyses, but he’s shifted over to a lot of bioinformatics work, so the protocols and methods aren’t quite so unfamiliar as they would be for me.

  3. GLP moderator – for the first time I am aware of, the Ted Miner virus has infected your thread. Ban all locked accounts with absurdly high upvote ratios. I also flagged them as spam to help you. This idiot has 15 or more fake sock puppet accounts with IP spoofing to abuse the Disqus commenting service. It is insanely obsessed with upvoting and downvoting and will try to get factual comments removed by multiple flagging.YOU WERE WARNED. THIS ASSHOLE WILL NEVER STOP. You have to block it.

Leave a Comment

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

Send this to a friend