Monsanto and Autism - Half of all kids by 2025?

[dusty88]

I can't think of any uncontrolled variables that explain this phenomenon.

Thoughts?

the variables are completely uncontrolled

You have no control group of "people living in modern society in every way except glyphosate exposure"

That doesn't invalidate the hypothesis, but it means that it's very hard to prove what specific effects may or may not be related to glyphosate

 

[steveh_131]

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?

the variables are completely uncontrolled

You have no control group of "people living in modern society in every way except glyphosate exposure"

That doesn't invalidate the hypothesis, but it means that it's very hard to prove what specific effects may or may not be related to glyphosate

There are plenty of variables to be sure. But here is the big question:

Which of those variables would also be directly correlated to proximity to glyphosates?

This isn't as simple as pointing out that autism may be perceived to be rising for all sorts of reasons. This is obvious, even if there is plenty of debate about it. This study didn't analyze a rise in autism over time. It analyzed a rise in autism by proximity to a very wide variety of sources of environmental glyphosate.

So any uncontrolled variables that you point out would also have to account for this proximity.

 

[dusty88]

There are plenty of variables to be sure. But here is the big question:

Which of those variables would also be directly correlated to proximity to glyphosates?

This isn't as simple as pointing out that autism may be perceived to be rising for all sorts of reasons. This is obvious, even if there is plenty of debate about it. This study didn't analyze a rise in autism over time. It analyzed a rise in autism by proximity to a very wide variety of sources of environmental glyphosate.

So any uncontrolled variables that you point out would also have to account for this proximity.

Western society is in proximity to glyphosate. That's the problem with the potential proof.

Here is the paper I mentioned earlier, suggesting that glyphosate is the real culprit in gluten intolerance. Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance

I think this paper also is more hypothesis than proof. But it highlights an important reality. There are many occasions where "experts" have bandwagoned on an obvious correlation, thought they eliminated other causes, but were really missing another correlated factor. "If" what appears to be gluten sensitivity is really an immune-system malfunction triggered by glyphosate, then most of what is currently presumed about gluten sensitivity is wrong.

OTOH, your author may be wrongly blaming glyphosate for autism not because she isn't intelligent but because she may be missing something else.

 

[steveh_131]

Western society is in proximity to glyphosate. That's the problem with the potential proof.

No doubt, but some people are going to be more exposed than others. That was the point of this study. An unexposed control group would be nice but I don't know that it is crucial in this case.

Your point about gluten is interesting. I'll read that in the morning.

 

[Henry]

Stephanie Seneff, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT, has released some intriguing research about the potential negative effects of Glyphosate (Roundup Weed-Killer). You can view her slide-show presentation here.

And you can find a more in-depth research paper here.

Her quote that seems to really garner the headlines:

“At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic,” Seneff said Thursday.

The evidence is not yet conclusive, in my opinion. But it is certainly troubling. I first researched this subject in a prior thread with research that indicated that environmental exposure to pesticides such as roundup was correlated with a 60% increase in the incidence of autism and other developmental disorders.

This graph shows a very strong correlation between glyphosate and autism diagnoses:

Note: Roundup-ready crops were introduced in 1996, causing a massive increase in the use of Roundup.

In her slideshow there are more graphs showing similar correlations to dementia, anxiety disorders, thyroid cancer, and even vaccine reactions. In addition, she presents her theories that explain the mechanisms of this damage caused by the poison in the human body, poking numerous holes in Monsanto's claims that it is non-toxic to humans.

Additionally, glyphosate levels are steadily rising in every food source, especially those fed to infants. A study found that American breast-milk had glyphosate levels 760-1600 times higher than what the European Drinking Water Directives allow. The large quantities of GMO corn and soy found in infant formulas ensures that bottle-fed babies receive huge doses of the pesticide as well.

The correlations are hard to ignore, but a causal link has not yet been completely established. I hope that more research in the future will shed some light on this, but Monsanto's influence on our government and the FDA makes it unlikely.

Note that the FDA and USDA do not currently test glyphosate levels in our food.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not read the entire article nor did I check each footnote reference as most surely have.

To be honest, I have little interest in reading the rest of this thread.

It's an "old" story that folks don't care about. Much like how folks don't care about how when a contract is signed with seed "developer" that requires your farm to be cleansed of any other seed. Much like how your farm is subject to search under the contract. Be aware of what you sign...this is what you may get.

I am thankful my Grandfather never signed on to such bull****.

He never had much respect for state subsidies to set aside land either. He did well on the seven year rotation without that intrusion.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I'll just leave this here.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...creases-autism-risk-in-the-child-not-so-fast/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/

I must admit, when I clicked on the link to the “correlation,” I couldn’t stop laughing. It was one of the most hilarious examples of confusing correlation with causation that I’ve ever seen. Take a look:

 

[rambone]

This pseudoscientist should take off his mask, gloves, goggles, protective suit, and tinfoil hat. Chemicals are everywhere! You can die from drinking too much DiHydrogen Monoxide! So, don't be hysterical when it comes to Roundup.

Roundup is part of a balanced American diet. Everyone should ingest it with every meal, in uncontrolled levels, for life, until the makers tell us otherwise. We're skeptical like that.

Because, science!

 

[bingley]

I'll rectally hydrate you with Roundup if you don't get some Roundup every morning with your balanced breakfast diet!

 

[cobber]

I'll just leave this here.

Pesticide exposure during pregnancy increases autism risk in the child? Not so fast? ? Respectful Insolence
Oh, no! GMOs are going to make everyone autistic! ? Respectful Insolence

Good reading. Of course this won't stop the hystericals from doing what they do.

I would agree that pregnant women shouldn’t be handling industrial strength pesticides, but if there’s evidence that living within a mile or so of areas where pesticides are applied during pregnancy will cause a woman’s child to develop autism, certainly neither Shelton nor Hertz-Piccioto has provided it, either in this paper or elsewhere. Sadly, that didn’t stop the press from dutifully responding to the press release from the MIND Institute as though this study were slam-dunk evidence that pesticide exposure during pregnancy causes autism. It’s not, not by a long shot. It barely qualifies as maybe hypothesis-generating evidence. Wait. Strike that. I don’t think it qualifies even as that.

And for a laugh after reading the posts here:

Spurious Correlations

For the love of God, shut down NASA!!

 

[steveh_131]

I'll just leave this here.

Pesticide exposure during pregnancy increases autism risk in the child? Not so fast? ? Respectful Insolence
Oh, no! GMOs are going to make everyone autistic! ? Respectful Insolence

Orac? Posting from his blogs? Really?

Dr. Obvious,

Everyone here is aware that the chart shows a correlation. It is clearly stated in the OP. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

 

[steveh_131]

Check out this psuedoscientist hack:

Stephanie Seneff

Polish translation*created by Alice Slaba

Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. She has published over 170 refereed articles on these subjects, and has been invited to give keynote speeches at several international conferences. She has also supervised numerous Master's and PhD theses at MIT. In 2012, Dr. Seneff was elected Fellow of the International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA).*

In recent years, Dr. Seneff has focused her research interests back towards biology. She is concentrating mainly on the relationship between nutrition and health. Since 2011, she has written over a dozen papers (7 as first author) in various medical and health-related journals on topics such as modern day diseases (e.g., Alzheimer, autism, cardiovascular diseases), analysis and search of databases of drug side effects using NLP techniques, and the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.*

I do enjoy the irony of posting solid research and being met with hysterics and blog posts. Why do you guys hate science so much?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I do enjoy the irony of posting solid research and being met with hysterics and blog posts. Why do you guys hate science so much?

It beat me up in school every day at lunch

Your "solid research" is being questioned by other scientists and counterpointed. Does he need to publish a letter in a journal for his "blog" to carry weight with you?

this just sounds so much like the global warming debate. If you question the data, they call you out. I am tired of it.

 

[steveh_131]

Your "solid research" is being questioned by other scientists and counterpointed. Does he need to publish a letter in a journal for his "blog" to carry weight with you?

Orac is a hack. Light on research, heavy on psuedo-skepticism and name-calling. I'm not interesting in anything he has to say.

So what did he actually say? He pointed out that the graph is a correlation. Wow! Genius move, right? Wrong.

Then he bashed her credentials. Really? What does she need, a few more PHD's to qualify her to analyze these statistics? 40 years of research at MIT gets her nowhere?

Uninteresting.

 

[hoosierdoc]

He did more than that, but arguing with a true believer is never fruitful.

fair winds.

 

[steveh_131]

He did more than that, but arguing with a true believer is never fruitful.

I'm not a 'true believer'. I posted research that is far from conclusive, and I pointed out as much in the OP. It is something to consider, and warrants further research. Does that sound like a 'true believer'?

I do know of David Gorski, or 'Orac'. He is a nobody blogger, an assistant professor without the qualifications to perform research of his own. So he attacks others.

He is the truest of believers, a hero of the psuedo-skeptics. He will defend pharmaceuticals, vaccines, GMO's, man-made global warming, and the 'big bang' until his dying breath. He is not interesting in learning or allowing others to learn. He is no scientist and has nothing to offer anyone who is interested in science.

 

[spaniel]

the variables are completely uncontrolled

You have no control group of "people living in modern society in every way except glyphosate exposure"

That doesn't invalidate the hypothesis, but it means that it's very hard to prove what specific effects may or may not be related to glyphosate

+1. They try to look at correlation with a single environmental factor. Why not look at correlation with each and every potential chemical exposure and environmental factor? It's hundreds to thousands, sure. But I can guarantee what you would find is many, many other supposedly positive correlations...most of which are probably meaningless.

Hence my pirate example. Simply because you show correlation with one randomly chosen factor proves absolutely nothing...so much so as to be completely uninteresting. It's just statistics that if you measure enough uncontrolled and randomly selected variables, some of them will correlate.

Aside from that, the fact that only 1/3 of mothers were claimed to live within such proximity to glyphosate application raises red flags. Glyphosate is not just a farm chemical, it is applied practically everywhere. And typically, commercial and residental users apply at much higher rates than farmers, who are putting on as little as possible to get the job done because herbicide application is expensive.

 

[steveh_131]

+1. They try to look at correlation with a single environmental factor. Why not look at correlation with each and every potential chemical exposure and environmental factor? It's hundreds to thousands, sure. But I can guarantee what you would find is many, many other supposedly positive correlations...most of which are probably meaningless.

Incorrect. It wasn't a single factor.

Did you read the study?

"Pounds of active ingredient applied for organophophates, organochlorines,pyrethroids, and carbamates were aggregated within 1.25km, 1.5km, and 1.75km buffer
distances from the home."

Aside from that, the fact that only 1/3 of mothers were claimed to live within such proximity to glyphosate application raises red flags.

Incorrect.

" Approximately one-third of CHARGE Study mothers lived, during pregnancy, within1.5km (just under one mile) of an agricultural pesticide application. "

And typically, commercial and residental users apply at much higher rates than farmers, who are putting on as little as possible to get the job done because herbicide application is expensive.

Are you really suggesting that the average homeowner uses more Roundup than a farmer? Do you have a source to back this up?

Hence my pirate example. Simply because you show correlation with one randomly chosen factor proves absolutely nothing...so much so as to be completely uninteresting. It's just statistics that if you measure enough uncontrolled and randomly selected variables, some of them will correlate.

The variables were carefully controlled to the extent possible.

"Potential confounders were first identified as variables that 1) may influence ones exposure topesticides, and 2) variables which are known to influence the risk of ASD or DD, with no
requirement for statistical significance of the univariate association with either the exposure or
outcome, but rather an initial evaluation of the relationship between those variables. Formal
confounder identification and inclusion was assessed using the combined directed acyclic graph
(DAG) and change-in-estimate (in this case, a 10% change in the beta of the primary exposure
variable in the regression model) criteria (Weng et al. 2009). The DAG was used to establish
which variables could potentially confound the associations between ASD or DD and exposure
to agricultural pesticides, and the change in estimate criteria was then used to exclude inclusion
of those variables that induced minimal (less than 10%) change in the beta estimate. All other
variables which were identified as confounders and met the criteria of a 10% or greater change in
the beta were included in the final models. "

 

[indiucky]

He did more than that, but arguing with a true believer is never fruitful.

fair winds.

The irrational fear Neurotypicals exhibit towards autism and autistic folks is astounding...OMG!!!!! Everybody is getting Autism....It's scary!!!! What if my child accidentally talks to one!!!!!! Or worse yet....WHAT IF I HAVE AN AUTISTIC CHILD??????????

Explain it to the fear mongers and the Autisism-phobes Temple...Their panties seem to be awash in fear....

[video=youtube;vwJc6HkP8fc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwJc6HkP8fc[/video]

 

[steveh_131]

It seems that everyone here is hung up on correlations. Let me be clear on this.

1. Correlations do not prove a direct link.
2. The demonstration of correlations is still valuable to the scientific process.

Without looking at statistics to find correlations, you have no starting point for your research. How do you build your hypothesis? By finding a correlation.

The correlation is simply the first step. The starting point. It only proves that the data does not disprove the hypothesis.

Once you have a correlation, you need to study the mechanisms. Could glyphosate cause damage to the human body? Could it resemble autism? Monsanto claims that it can't, because it's mechanism affects specific pathways that don't exist in the human body.

This is true, but incomplete. The human body, especially the gut, is full of other organisms as well. Extensive research suggests that autism is closely linked to the gut, possibly even the organisms contained there. If Roundup kills those organisms, there is a very explainable mechanism by which it could cause autism. This was the point of the research from Dr. Seneff that I posted, which nobody read.

The next step is testing. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to test this hypothesis in a lab. We must resort to statistical analysis. We look at the most refined correlation, in this case the proximity to agricultural use, and try to control as many variables as possible. Of course it is impossible to control them all. This is why we use confidence intervals.

Statistical analysis is limited, but certainly useful. Every one of you relies on information obtained from it on a daily basis. It is a legitimate scientific method.

I am open to discussion on the uncontrolled variables. But they need to make sense. The uncontrolled variable would need to be one that would also result in higher rates of ASD diagnosis based on proximity to agricultural uses of roundup.

 

[steveh_131]

The irrational fear Neurotypicals exhibit towards autism and autistic folks is astounding...OMG!!!!! Everybody is getting Autism....It's scary!!!! What if my child accidentally talks to one!!!!!! Or worse yet....WHAT IF I HAVE AN AUTISTIC CHILD??????????

Explain it to the fear mongers and the Autisism-phobes Temple...Their panties seem to be awash in fear....

You don't know me or my experiences with Autism. Suffice it to say that this characterization is patently false. And personally offensive.