51–60 of 131 posts
Michael Clayton anyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While glyphosate is only questionable, Round Up itself, which includes a variety of surfactants, seems to have a more pronounced effect - both cytotoxic and mutagenic. Many of the later documents in this dump center around formulated Round-Up's unexplained toxicity when compared to the survey of glyphosate studies in the literature, and a variety of understudied surfactants in the formulation. Ex (ignoring sensationa…
There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=25s It's irrelevant if glyphosate alone is cancerous or not, because 99.9999% of deployment is via sprays like Round Up. The combined product , in both animal and human models, need thorough mutagenic research. It…
But, you can actually watch a video of someone else drinking some! (at about 8:00) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=25s It's irrelevant if glyphosate alone is cancerous or not, because 99.9999% of deployment is via sprays like Round Up. The combined product , in both animal and human models, need thorough mutagenic research. It…
>There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. But, you can actually watch a video of someone else drinking some! (at about 8:00) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k
It is a real shame not to be able to trust "science" anymore. We'll have to come up with a new word for what we used to call science because I don't think corporations and media set on manipulating public opinion and laws will give it back.
It may take a shift in how we share information and perform science before we find a way to trust as much again. Beyond the existing standing question of why more science papers don't publish information like the computer code they used, I've wondered why there isn't a push for "science-as-code". For example, if there was a common DSL that describes science lab automation, then a futuristic science paper would come w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note how the press release on this study, from Kings College London, done in 2017, calls it "the first to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmental dose and a serious disease condition."
Sure, only around 15 years too late. http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While glyphosate is only questionable, Round Up itself, which includes a variety of surfactants, seems to have a more pronounced effect - both cytotoxic and mutagenic. Many of the later documents in this dump center around formulated Round-Up's unexplained toxicity when compared to the survey of glyphosate studies in the literature, and a variety of understudied surfactants in the formulation. Ex (ignoring sensationa…
Sure! And this is a really good point. But then, how many of those surfactants (and other additives) are unique to Monsanto, versus things that are present in lots of other herbicides? Again: fuck Monsanto, I guess? My interest here is mostly in the notion that glyphosate is toxic, since that, along with "glyphosate is genetic engineering" and "Monsanto sues farmers for growing seeds that blow onto their fields" fall…
Every single time there's someone "reluctantly" doing overtime in their defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure! And this is a really good point. But then, how many of those surfactants (and other additives) are unique to Monsanto, versus things that are present in lots of other herbicides? Again: fuck Monsanto, I guess? My interest here is mostly in the notion that glyphosate is toxic, since that, along with "glyphosate is genetic engineering" and "Monsanto sues farmers for growing seeds that blow onto their fields" fall…
I don't really understand why it's so hard for some "internet skeptics" to understand Monsanto is an awful corporation. Every single time there's someone "reluctantly" doing overtime in their defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>lot of the popular "anti-monsanto", "anti-gmo" groups (e.g. David Avocado Wolfe) are pretty nutjob It's worth noting that having such groups is a commonly used counter intelligence tactic: create a loud and incoherent pseudo-strawman opposition to distract from those who are actually asking legitimate questions. An effective astroturf campaign calls for both pro-x and anti-x shills.
Wow, i never considered this but it makes sense and i imagine is very effective. Do you know of any well documented cases of this (though by its nature, any case of this is probably not well documented)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this effect is real, can you link to animal studies conclusively demonstrating it? Because obviously we've been feeding a lot of rats a lot of glyphosate.
Well there's https://www.cornucopia.org/2017/01/glyphosate-harmful-rats-l... but I suppose fatty liver disease is not as serious as cancer...Wash your vegetables before eating. EDIT: I think it's prudent to wash vegetables to clean off any herbicides and other chemicals even if they are "known" to be harmless.
you're gonna have a real hard time getting all the chemicals off your veggies using dihydrogen monoxide, what with its high boiling point. i suggest using formaldehyde instead.
Isn't this right out of the Big Tobacco playbook when they "scientists" in lab coats producing studies that smoking was healthy? The Tobacco Industry: The Pioneer of Fake News https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402187/