Monsanto and Autism - Half of all kids by 2025?

[steveh_131]

Autism was added to IDEA in 1990. It just took time for people to realize it. The graph of an expanding social program is not a useful tool to compare disease prevalence with something.

Do you have a source for the bolded?

Any public school child diagnosed with Autism is going to be educated under that program. It was illegal to not be allowed those accommodations. It is automatically part of their IEP. It might have taken a couple years to get going, but not 26.

What is your opinion regarding the 60% higher incidence of autism based on proximity to Roundup?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If it is really true that we need chemicals to produce an adequate amount of food to feed the world, then that simply means that we've produced enough food to allow the world's population to increase past the earth's natural carrying capacity.

What happens when the population increases past our new "artificially tweaked" carrying capacity?

I remember a simple biology lab we did years ago where we put a few yeast cells in a bottle with a food solution. The yeast cells multiplied, slowly at first, then faster and faster, logrithmically, until the food was used up and the population crashed. The earth's population growth curve looks a lot like the growth curve we derived from our yeast experiment.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Do you have a source for the bolded?

Any public school child diagnosed with Autism is going to be educated under that program. It was illegal to not be allowed those accommodations. It is automatically part of their IEP. It might have taken a couple years to get going, but not 26.

What is your opinion regarding the 60% higher incidence of autism based on proximity to Roundup?

do I have a source for when people realized that IDEA would offer assistance with autism? No. That's not possible. It's an inference. I do have a source that it was added in 1990. I am not disputing that there could be a link, I'm trashing the graph.

I did some more research. It appears that IDEA covering autism is causing an explosion in website development! Take a look at the graph with the addition of the number of websites. The correlation is striking. When the autism numbers went down, so did the number of websites! There's clearly a bit of a lag but the trend is worsening as the slope is increasing thanks to adoption of more WYSIWYG software.



here is a graph with the addition of autism prevalence according to autism speaks. Theirs starts in 1975, 20 years before glyphosate. The trend was increasing long before Monsanto got involved. If there is an affect, the slope of the autism prevalence line bumps TEN YEARS after the introduction of glyphosate, which is in contrast to what is implied in this first graph, that there's an immediate effect. Any toxin is going to take time to build up and manifest a disease.

For this grpah, I made the 1995-current be the same width, the pre 1995 is not to linear scale.

 

[dusty88]

It is very difficult if not scientifically impossible to determine the long-term effects of glyphosate. It is in such wide use that it is present in nearly everyone's body, thus there is no control group for comparison. I think it is very likely, just by the realities of biology, that introducing one particular foreign substance at ongoing levels, is causing some harm.

Proving it is quite a different story. Anything that has "risen" in numbers over the recent decades is going to carry somewhat of a correlation with glyphosate use. It's similar to the correlation between the decline of pirates and global warming. Correlation does not equal causation.

There was a paper recently suggesting that glyphosate aggravates the immune system in such a way to increase gluten intolerance.

What concerns me is that most of the public has been convinced that glyphosate breaks down before it causes environmental damage. Yet we find increasing glyphosate residues in the human body. The EPA raised "acceptable levels" in food this year. Are EPA approved levels of glyphosate residue in our foods too high? | Communities Digital News

 

[dusty88]

If it is really true that we need chemicals to produce an adequate amount of food to feed the world

I think that's a misnomer. We destroy resources, including soil microbes, carbon-sequestering plants, pollinators, etc to concentrating monocultures in specific areas. We have a lot of land available for food that is being put to ornamental purpose (in this country). I don't disagree btw that the population growth is abnormal and may experience a correction. I think there are other things that will happen before we drain the resources.

By focusing our production on fewer species, draining soil nutrients, damaging water supplies both through irrigation and contamination, and using a lot of energy resources to do so, I think we could be leading ourselves into something similar to the dust bowl. I don't know exactly how that would look, but with many crops dependent on ever-increasing inputs and subsidies, it will reach the point where those inputs aren't feasible. Then we may try to return to more balanced agriculture, but we've wiped out many plant varieties. We've also destroyed many of the North American pollinators and are now dependent on European honeybees. Finally, we are either destroying more honeybees or at least replacing many of the plants they feed on with corn (wind-pollinated). I think food will continue to get more expensive and less nutritious, even if there is no reality of a cataclysmic event.

Monocultures also require more effort to fight disease. Feedlot animals concentrate parasites whereas in a diverse system (for example) the birds clean up the stool from other livestock and the cattle don't become parasite ridden.

In other words, if we used the land more appropriately and stopped subsidizing monocultures we would be able to produce better food with less chemical input. There are some estimates that suggest that our current junk food would be as expensive as quality food (ie pastured animals in a sustainable system) if we would only stop subsidizing and incentivizing the market.

It's also possible that an epidemic will wipe out a big segment of the population and solve the food/water resource problem for a while.

I just don't see it getting to the simple drain of resources because the cost of the chemicals will shift us back to sustainable practices before we get to the point of maxing out the land resources.

 

[steveh_131]

blah

Are you telling me that the graph shows nothing more than correlation? Wow! You're right! In fact, I agree with you so much that I said the same thing multiple times in my original post yesterday.

If you read the links, there is some very interesting research available explaining the mechanisms. The graph simply illustrates that the trends are behaving as one would expect if the hypothesis of the research is true.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Are you telling me that the graph shows nothing more than correlation? Wow! You're right! In fact, I agree with you so much that I said the same thing multiple times in my original post yesterday.

If you read the links, there is some very interesting research available explaining the mechanisms. The graph simply illustrates that the trends are behaving as one would expect if the hypothesis of the research is true.

why post a graph if it means nothing? I posted graphs that mean nothing too.

Sure... no causation, but looking at my graph, it sure seems like there is ZERO increased rate of cases since glyphosate came around.

 

[steveh_131]

why post a graph if it means nothing? I posted graphs that mean nothing too.

Sure... no causation, but looking at my graph, it sure seems like there is ZERO increased rate of cases since glyphosate came around.

I didn't say it means nothing. I said it shows a correlation. The correlation that one would expect if the rest of the research I posted is accurate. By itself it is certainly not conclusive, I do (and did) agree with you there.

Read the study about proximity to Roundup and comment on that, it's a bit more interesting in my opinion.

 

[spaniel]

And pirates cause global warming. Some serious lack of scientific method in this thread.

 

[spaniel]

Folks, read a food label. If you can't pronounce or even know what something is, chances are it's probably not good for you. We aren't eating food now, we're eating "food-like" substances. Preservatives and artificial food coloring based on Petroleum and HFCS are KILLING our kids slowly.

Yeah someone posted on facebook about some freaky-sounding chemical they read on their husband's drink and how they had to stop him from drinking it. I looked it up...it was Vitamin K, just the official chemical name.

Nature is full of chemicals. "Chemicals" are not synonymous with bad. Ignorance breeds fear.

 

[steveh_131]

Thank God, another scientist is here to reiterate, once again, that correlation does not prove a causal link.

Does anyone actually read the research that I linked? If you're looking for a picture to tell you all of the answers then don't even bother with my threads.

 

[mbills2223]

This chart is showing how many kids are treated by IDEA, not the prevalence and NOT the incidence of autism, and NOT the number of kids with autism.

Autism was added to IDEA in 1990. It just took time for people to realize it. The graph of an expanding social program is not a useful tool to compare disease prevalence with something.

cute correlation graph though

This is such a crucial point.

Graphs have turned into one of the most effective propaganda tools in the world of pseudoscience.

Folks, read a food label. If you can't pronounce or even know what something is, chances are it's probably not good for you. .

I'm also going to urge anyone following this thread to totally disregard this as legitimate dietary or medical advice. Just a very few prime examples of things that the average person can't pronounce or doesn't know what they are: tocopheryl acetate, pyridoxine, ascorbic acid, cholecalciferol.

Good luck with your diet that excludes these things that you can't pronounce/don't know what they are. Those aren't even close to the worst "offenders."

 

[steveh_131]

Fascinating. The people who don't look past the pretty pictures to actually read anything are accusing others of "pseudoscience".

The author of the study that nobody read is a highly intelligent, educated and respected researcher at MIT. Her work is well worth a read.

The author of a study showing a correlation between proximity to Roundup and autism is from the University of California. I would be open to discussions of uncontrolled variables in that study if anyone is interested. I found it to be quite compelling.

 

[mbills2223]

Fascinating. The people who don't look past the pretty pictures to actually read anything are accusing others of "pseudoscience".

The author of the study that nobody read is a highly intelligent, educated and respected researcher at MIT. Her work is well worth a read.

The author of a study showing a correlation between proximity to Roundup and autism is from the University of California. I would be open to discussions of uncontrolled variables in that study if anyone is interested. I found it to be quite compelling.

I wasn't referencing any particular study as pseudoscience, only warning others of the use of graphs as propaganda for pseudoscience.

However, I see that your MO has not changed in regards to defending the articles you post.



For the record, CYP enzymes are right up my alley, and would be happy to discuss it.

 

[steveh_131]

I wasn't referencing any particular study as pseudoscience, only warning others of the use of graphs as propaganda for pseudoscience.

However, I see that your MO has not changed in regards to defending the articles you post.



For the record, CYP enzymes are right up my alley, and would be happy to discuss it.

If you weren't calling me out specifically, then my apologies. I retract my previous statement.

My MO is the usual. I provide research, I receive insults and conjecture. But a few people might give it some thought. I'm satisfied with that.
Let's discuss this study if you're game:

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2014/6/ehp.1307044.pdf

Results: Approximately one-third of CHARGE Study mothers lived, during pregnancy, within 1.5km (just under one mile) of an agricultural pesticide application. Proximity to*
organophosphates at some point during gestation was associated with a 60% increased risk for*
ASD, higher for 3rd trimester exposures [OR = 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.1, 3.6)],*
and 2nd trimester chlorpyrifos applications: OR = 3.3 [95% CI = (1.5, 7.4)].


I can't think of any uncontrolled variables that explain this phenomenon. The study provided by Dr. Seneff does a pretty good job of explaining the mechanism that could cause it.

Thoughts?

 

[Double T]

This chart is showing how many kids are treated by IDEA, not the prevalence and NOT the incidence of autism, and NOT the number of kids with autism.

Autism was added to IDEA in 1990. It just took time for people to realize it. The graph of an expanding social program is not a useful tool to compare disease prevalence with something.

cute correlation graph though

Don't skew the data with facts man.

 

[Double T]

This is such a crucial point.

Graphs have turned into one of the most effective propaganda tools in the world of pseudoscience.



I'm also going to urge anyone following this thread to totally disregard this as legitimate dietary or medical advice. Just a very few prime examples of things that the average person can't pronounce or doesn't know what they are: tocopheryl acetate, pyridoxine, ascorbic acid, cholecalciferol.

Too much of that stuff, and you'll start excreting excessive amounts in your urine...The HORROR!!!

 

[mbills2223]

If you weren't calling me out specifically, then my apologies. I retract my previous statement.

My MO is the usual. I provide research, I receive insults and conjecture. But a few people might give it some thought. I'm satisfied with that.
Let's discuss this study if you're game:

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2014/6/ehp.1307044.pdf

Results: Approximately one-third of CHARGE Study mothers lived, during pregnancy, within 1.5km (just under one mile) of an agricultural pesticide application. Proximity to*
organophosphates at some point during gestation was associated with a 60% increased risk for*
ASD, higher for 3rd trimester exposures [OR = 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.1, 3.6)],*
and 2nd trimester chlorpyrifos applications: OR = 3.3 [95% CI = (1.5, 7.4)].


I can't think of any uncontrolled variables that explain this phenomenon. The study provided by Dr. Seneff does a pretty good job of explaining the mechanism that could cause it.

Thoughts?

Without having looked through the study at all (I will), did they control for these women's diets, health, prenatal care, etc.? Was genetic screening done on both the mother and father of all of these children? Family history?

 

[Double T]

Without having looked through the study at all (I will), did they control for these women's diets, health, prenatal care, etc.? Was genetic screening done on both the mother and father of all of these children? Family history?

I doubt it was a double blind study. Things to consider: Age of mother. Race of mother. Age of father. Diet habits. Prenatal care. Environmental factors (living next to a place that emits some sort of toxin). Length of gestation.

Honestly, I think that a major causation and increase in prevalence is that doctor's do not want mom's to have a child any earlier than 40 weeks. 10 months. No one thinks about that though huh

 

[dusty88]

I'm also going to urge anyone following this thread to totally disregard this as legitimate dietary or medical advice. Just a very few prime examples of things that the average person can't pronounce or doesn't know what they are: tocopheryl acetate, pyridoxine, ascorbic acid, cholecalciferol.


Good luck with your diet that excludes these things that you can't pronounce/don't know what they are. Those aren't even close to the worst "offenders."

I agree with your point wholeheartedly. The world is made up of chemicals.


However, I will suggest that if you are eating many foods that have vitamins labeled in a chemical format, you probably need to completely rethink your diet. People are supplementing some of these (particularly B and D vitamins) because of poor dietary habits and lifestyle. If you are eating whole foods, you don't need to read a label to figure out what is in there. And there are some indications that supplementing doesn't have the same effect as eating the natural substance (I'm thinking B12 in particular).