Monsanto and Autism - Half of all kids by 2025?

[spaniel]

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."



Incorrect.

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



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




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. "

It is not a good use of my time to argue with someone who is in far over their intellectual horsepower. I have multiple degrees in cell and molecular biology and more graduate-level training in statistics than I care to remember. You're just looking at the number of letters behind her name, regardless of what they actually give her reasonable experience to study. That, and you have shown a clear lack of understanding in how legitimate scientific method is applied and analyzed.

The fact that the author would even make the quote you attribute to her in her first post -- that at the current rate one in every two children will be autistic by 2025 or whatever year -- clearly calls her out as a drama queen whose mind was made up before she ran the experiment. No reasonable scientist would make such an assinine comment.

And no, I didn't read the original study, pseudo-science is not a good use of my time either.

 

[dusty88]

I read the abstract and so far only skimmed the study. The problem with reading it critically is that it takes a LOT of background work to do it right. I understand medicine, physiology, chemistry, and statistical analysis but no one of those things in enough depth to fully analyze a study like that without hours of related research. So I'm commenting from an educated but not fully capable of debating every detail.


I think you are in a catch-22 trying to debate this on a forum. If you had just posted a discussion paragraph, you get no one's attention. By leading with the graph, you get everyone focused on the fact that correlation is not that meaningful. And we don't seem to be getting past that. That's unfortunate because I think it's important for people to at least be aware of what effects such a common chemical may have.


I'm always interested in topics like this but also have to ask myself what part of my "time budget" it's worth to form a thorough opinion on it.


I have already seen enough evidence to cause me to have serious concerns about the amount of pesticides we use, including Roundup. The general idea that Roundup degrades completely is false. It is also clearly obvious that it has biological effects on fish and probably intestinal effects on us at minimum. It (and other pesticides) also allows us to distort our food production in such a way that causes multiple nutritional effects.


But the proof of the effects being so difficult, it will be decades before we will get any serious recognition and regulation of glyphosate. And even then it will be replaced with other pesticides with unknown effects.


I think this is one of those areas where I find my efforts more usefully applied at home than via the government. We bought what land we could and grow more of our own food all the time. We can't stop the pesticide effect on honeybees, because the bees cover wide areas of land. However, if we add bees to our own land, maybe we'll dilute the pesticide effect just a bit.

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

I think he meant that they apply at a higher rate (such as per acre). I don't know if that's true, but I wouldn't be surprised. Lawn maintenance in total supposedly uses more chemicals than agriculture. As far as handling, though, I would say it's likely that those working in agriculture come in contact with far more glyphosate per person. The farmers I know all have a pesticide license to allow them to pick up chemicals in higher concentration, as well as different chemicals, than you can pick up at the hardware store. The other study I linked had, I believe, some focus on some farm workers who were known to have handled glyphosate personally several times.

When it comes to "living nearby", it's still hard to prove who had exposure but I agree it's a good starting point. Grain was so profitable for a couple of years that our neighbors were eeking out every inch of space they could and their pesticides showed clear drift on the edge of our property. If they had a significant number of women who are actually applying the pesticide, they might have a group really worth examining, but that's not common.


I do thank you for bringing this up. I think it's a topic worthy of attention and hopefully influences at least a few of us to take note, regardless of the ultimate conclusion we come to.

I may try to read it with more focus today, particularly in light of our family situation. My 82 yr old father is finally admitting he has to stop doing the farm work himself. He's had many lucrative bids for renting his farm, but I'm suggesting he put the farm in set-aside instead. While I would never support government programs like that if given the choice, we have no choice about paying for them. I'd rather see the land fertility restored. Farmers typically though have gotten far more money for land that is cleared and cultivated. I'm an outlier in thinking that may be different 10 years from now, and the land will be worth more for not being farmed.

 

[dusty88]

It is not a good use of my time to argue with someone who is in far over their intellectual horsepower. I have multiple degrees in cell and molecular biology and more graduate-level training in statistics than I care to remember. You're just looking at the number of letters behind her name, regardless of what they actually give her reasonable experience to study. That, and you have shown a clear lack of understanding in how legitimate scientific method is applied and analyzed.

The fact that the author would even make the quote you attribute to her in her first post -- that at the current rate one in every two children will be autistic by 2025 or whatever year -- clearly calls her out as a drama queen whose mind was made up before she ran the experiment. No reasonable scientist would make such an assinine comment.

And no, I didn't read the original study, pseudo-science is not a good use of my time either.

I agree with you regarding the idea that the rate of autism would continue to climb, but did she actually say she expected that or just use it as an "if" introduction to get attention for a presentation? Big difference there.

I do agree with you that people like yourself (molecular biologists) as well as medical experts would need to collaborate on this research. I don't know if they have though, without reading the full paper and the citings.

I haven't seen anything in the OPs comments that show him to lack understanding of scientific method. Rather, he's had to spend multiple posts defending his choice of showing the graph.

 

[cobber]

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

Yeah. It's all fun and games until someone gets offended...

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?

She's a computer scientist with a 1968 BS in Biology. And that makes her an expert on epidemiology and contamination of the food supply? And she writes on Alzheimer's, autism and cardiovascular disease with authority? Assuming she is that brilliant, why didn't Obama peg her for surgeon general?

 

[JettaKnight]

It is not a good use of my time to argue with someone who is in far over their intellectual horsepower.

...

The post hoc fallacy is a powerful force...one that can't often be reasoned with.

 

[steveh_131]

It is not a good use of my time to argue with someone who is in far over their intellectual horsepower. I have multiple degrees in cell and molecular biology and more graduate-level training in statistics than I care to remember. You're just looking at the number of letters behind her name, regardless of what they actually give her reasonable experience to study. That, and you have shown a clear lack of understanding in how legitimate scientific method is applied and analyzed.

The fact that the author would even make the quote you attribute to her in her first post -- that at the current rate one in every two children will be autistic by 2025 or whatever year -- clearly calls her out as a drama queen whose mind was made up before she ran the experiment. No reasonable scientist would make such an assinine comment.

And no, I didn't read the original study, pseudo-science is not a good use of my time either.

All of your intellectual horsepower and you apparently misread or didn't read the study? What good is that? You made several incorrect statements. I corrected them.

Yeah. It's all fun and games until someone gets offended...

Rage spiral, anyone?

No rage, just pointing it out. He and I worked it out in PMs. Good guy.

 

[level.eleven]

The fact that the author would even make the quote you attribute to her in her first post -- that at the current rate one in every two children will be autistic by 2025 or whatever year -- clearly calls her out as a drama queen whose mind was made up before she ran the experiment. No reasonable scientist would make such an assinine comment.

Oh, you should take five minutes to read up on the lead author. She is your typical anti-vaxx, corporate America is poisoning you for profit windbag. And of course she is in the Computer Science/AI department with a degree in EE.

We won't even get into the subject that Entropy is a pay-to-play journal. Unfortunately, the OP is susceptible to anything he reads on a power crystal healing website. This certainly isn't the first time.

 

[level.eleven]

The post hoc fallacy is a powerful force...one that can't often be reasoned with.

Oh, I don't know. In this case I'm not too sure it is ad hoc poster hoc as much as it is a willingness to believe conspiracy theory because one identifies as an anarchist.

 

[level.eleven]

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

We call it dumpster diving. You take a data set and pull out of it what you want. The anti-vaxx, ant-gmo conspiracy theorists are know for doing this. This isn't the first instance of Seneff putting on her gloves.

Unfortunately, there is a market for such dishonesty as displayed, on many occasions, by the OP.

 

[steveh_131]

Why so angry, level.eleven? Does it bother you when people discuss scientific research? Instead of insults, why not contribute something?

I posted research from a respected MIT researcher. I didn't even say it was conclusive, yet here you are soiling your shorts. If I've been dishonest, point out where. I am not an anarchist, I know nothing about "power crystals", and I am one of maybe two people in this thread posting actual scientific research.

It's almost as if I just challenged the tenets of your religion.

 

[spaniel]

I posted research from a respected MIT researcher.

You keep saying this. What evidence do you have to support that she is truly a respected researcher? The letters behind her name? That she is at MIT? I've been at the big academic institutions and know better than to believe that simply being employed there makes one respected or trustworthy. There are plenty of crackpots who have made tenure at such institutions, including one who went on to convince the South African government that HIV treatments CAUSED AIDS and led to the deaths of thousands of people and orphaning of many more through the government subsequently withholding available treatments.

As someone pointed out, this was not published in Nature or Science. This was a crap journal. Any academic worth their salt throws the paper at the highest journal they think they can get it accepted into, and works down from there as it is rejected. The fact that it ended up in a crap journal tells you what sort of research it is.

 

[spaniel]

She's a computer scientist with a 1968 BS in Biology. And that makes her an expert on epidemiology and contamination of the food supply? And she writes on Alzheimer's, autism and cardiovascular disease with authority? Assuming she is that brilliant, why didn't Obama peg her for surgeon general?

Exactly.

 

[steveh_131]

You keep saying this. What evidence do you have to support that she is truly a respected researcher? The letters behind her name? That she is at MIT? I've been at the big academic institutions and know better than to believe that simply being employed there makes one respected or trustworthy. There are plenty of crackpots who have made tenure at such institutions, including one who went on to convince the South African government that HIV treatments CAUSED AIDS and led to the deaths of thousands of people and orphaning of many more through the government subsequently withholding available treatments.

As someone pointed out, this was not published in Nature or Science. This was a crap journal. Any academic worth their salt throws the paper at the highest journal they think they can get it accepted into, and works down from there as it is rejected. The fact that it ended up in a crap journal tells you what sort of research it is.

Her education, her funding sources, and of course her work itself (which nobody read) all suggest to me that she is a very bright lady. Is she the best in the field? No. Does that mean we should disregard her ideas? Of course not.

She isn't infallible. If you disagree with her work then let's have a discussion. Not a collection of insults, an actual discussion about the evidence she has put forth. Maybe she's incorrect somewhere. Let's discuss it.

I feel like I'm arguing with religious fanatics. Do you own stock in Monsanto? Why is it so difficult to believe that ingesting these quantities of literal poison might cause damage? Does it take a quack to even question the possibility?

 

[spaniel]

Her education, her funding sources, and of course her work itself (which nobody read) all suggest to me that she is a very bright lady. Is she the best in the field? No. Does that mean we should disregard her ideas? Of course not.

Her education, as it has been pointed out, is completely misaligned with the field she claims to be studying. Her work was published in a crap journal, which you don't seem to understand. I don't read anything published in a crap journal, there is a reason it is there. You seem easily convinced by poor qualifications and crap data.

I don't drink Roundup or handle concentrated solutions without appropriate protection, but neither do I fear-monger with crap data and outrageous claims like half of kids are going to be autistic a decade from now.

 

[steveh_131]

Her education, as it has been pointed out, is completely misaligned with the field she claims to be studying. Her work was published in a crap journal, which you don't seem to understand. I don't read anything published in a crap journal, there is a reason it is there. You seem easily convinced by poor qualifications and crap data.

I don't drink Roundup or handle concentrated solutions without appropriate protection, but neither do I fear-monger with crap data and outrageous claims like half of kids are going to be autistic a decade from now.

Background in biology and many, many years of study and research. She clearly has the intellect and the ability to learn the material.

Crap journal? She's relatively new to the field, publishing a scientifically unpopular opinion. I'd expect it not to make it far.

And did I say I was convinced? I find it intriguing. Not conclusive. I've said that many, many times now.

As to her "outrageous" claims, it seemed like a simple extrapolation using the recent rate of increase of autism.

Again, do you have any comment on her research paper? Did read it? If not, how can you intelligently comment on it?

 

[spaniel]

Background in biology and many, many years of study and research. She clearly has the intellect and the ability to learn the material.

Crap journal? She's relatively new to the field, publishing a scientifically unpopular opinion. I'd expect it not to make it far.

And did I say I was convinced? I find it intriguing. Not conclusive. I've said that many, many times now.

As to her "outrageous" claims, it seemed like a simple extrapolation using the recent rate of increase of autism.

Again, do you have any comment on her research paper? Did read it? If not, how can you intelligently comment on it?

"Background" in biology? From 1968? My BS from 2000 is out-dated had it not been backed up by two subsequent degrees and continuous work experience. Her main experience is in engineering and related disciplines. Your lack of understanding on this point is another indication of either your lack of intelligence on the topic at hand, or wiling disregard.

Your apologies for her publication in a crap journal are not an excuse for it. I have first-hand experience with unpopular data having issues making it into first-tier journals. So it made it into second-tier journals. Not crap journals. And your point that she is "new to the field" is in direct confilct with your point that she is educated and qualified to be studying this subject matter. C'mon man. This is painful.

If you are so not-convinced, why do you argue so painfully in her corner? OK, it points out something for further research. So come back with further, actual meaningful resarch, and debate that. But that's not where you are. You are staking your claim on this.

A "simple extrapolation" is the tool of idiots or intellectually desperate people. Real scientists understand that trends are most often not linear and linear extrapolations are the tools of idiots. Yet you defend such a comment. ???

I do not need to read trash, to know what trash is and not waste my time. Which is why I have you on ignore, apparently I made some mistake to make me see your posts again to begin with.

 

[mbills2223]

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!

This "counter argument" is a logical fallacy and I think you know that.

 

[steveh_131]

"Background" in biology? From 1968? My BS from 2000 is out-dated had it not been backed up by two subsequent degrees and continuous work experience. Her main experience is in engineering and related disciplines. Your lack of understanding on this point is another indication of either your lack of intelligence on the topic at hand, or wiling disregard.

Had you read the research, you would notice that much of her work in this field has been purely computational. The exact field that she has been working in, quite successfully, for quite a while. Additionally, one can earn a degree and then continue their education to maintain their edge. Which is what she said she has done.

And your point that she is "new to the field" is in direct confilct with your point that she is educated and qualified to be studying this subject matter. C'mon man. This is painful.

Why? Can someone be both relatively new to the particular field of studying toxin impacts (7 years?) , but still educated and qualified enough to make some good points? Again, if you had read her research, you might have noticed that she did just that.

If you are so not-convinced, why do you argue so painfully in her corner? OK, it points out something for further research. So come back with further, actual meaningful resarch, and debate that. But that's not where you are. You are staking your claim on this.

I'm not staking any claim. I'm just pointing out the religious, though uninformed, fervor with which the psuedo-skeptics dismiss it. No information, no logic and no explanations. Purely based on ad-hominems.

A "simple extrapolation" is the tool of idiots or intellectually desperate people. Real scientists understand that trends are most often not linear and linear extrapolations are the tools of idiots. Yet you defend such a comment. ???

Are you suggesting that 'real scientists' don't use extrapolations? I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you, there.

I do not need to read trash, to know what trash is and not waste my time. Which is why I have you on ignore, apparently I made some mistake to make me see your posts again to begin with.

See what I mean about the religious fervor? I have been very polite to you, in spite of your animosity towards me. I'm just trying to have a discussion. This lands me on the ignore list?

This thread is a fantastic illustration to show us who the real 'True Believers' are. (Hint: It's the folks posting angry, hateful comments in lieu of reason or research.)

 

[rambone]

This "counter argument" is a logical fallacy and I think you know that.

Is mocking a logical fallacy?

I would love someone to make the logical case for eating herbicide.

 

[cobber]

Anyone posting to this thread is routinely exposed to higher levels of at least one known neurotoxin with developmental consequences for young children.

Heck, maybe it causes autism as well. I will bet someone could find a correlation.

How many of you shower and wash your clothes after a trip to the range?