Monsanto and Autism - Half of all kids by 2025?

[steveh_131]

Lots of the responses to this thread made sense, but you just did not want to acknowledge that.

No.

 

[cobber]

No.

So you are saying NONE of the responses before that one made sense. Got it.

 

[steveh_131]

So you are saying NONE of the responses before that one made sense. Got it.

Not that I recall. Pointing out that the graph showed a correlation was at least true, but it didn't make sense as an argument since the graph was only the first step of the process and everyone ignored the rest of the evidence.

Not to mention the fact that their "argument" was already plainly stated in the OP.

 

[Hoosier8]

Much of hers explained the theory. The study from UC Davis provided the more interesting correlation. The two come together to form some interesting evidence, that is why I posted them both.

If you disagree with her theory, let's discuss why.

If you disagree with he statistics showing increased autism incidences based on proximity to Roundup, then let's discuss the uncontrolled variables.

Your uninformed conjecture is getting us nowhere.



How very "skeptical" of you.

I will respond with part of the conclusion of the paper which is what I have been saying all along (bolding mine). No research has been done on this 'idea', not by her, not by anyone. There can be no uncontrolled variables in an experiment that does not exist.

it is imperative for more independent research to take place to validate
the ideas presented here

 

[steveh_131]

I will respond with part of the conclusion of the paper which is what I have been saying all along (bolding mine). No research has been done on this 'idea', not by her, not by anyone. There can be no uncontrolled variables in an experiment that does not exist.

I included an entire research paper that did exactly that.

Additionally, I said from the very first post that this was not conclusive and more research should be done.

 

[longbarrel]

**** Monsanto.

 

[Hammer]

Actually, the UC Davis study included a wide variety of pesticides. You won't find the words "Monsanto" or "Roundup" anywhere in it. Monsantos Roundup happens to be the lost well know and widely used Glyphosate, which is why they've been discussed in this thread. You'd have know this if you had actually read anything that you're currently commenting on.

I have seen you refer to brand names as others here, but I have no interest in reading through 13 pages of your numb minded dribble and trying to make since of it. You seem to know everything already, so just ask yourself in the mirror if you want to know something else.

 

[Hammer]

Actually, the UC Davis study included a wide variety of pesticides. You won't find the words "Monsanto" or "Roundup" anywhere in it.

Really? Then WTF is this then? This is from the link you posted in the original post.
Entropy | Free Full-Text | Glyphosate?s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[steveh_131]

Really? Then WTF is this then? This is from the link you posted in the original post.
Entropy | Free Full-Text | Glyphosate?s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

[/URL][/IMG]

I said the UC Davis study, not the one from Entropy. You argued that this was a witch hunt against Monsanto and that nobody was researching these other pesticides.

The other study that I posted focused on a wide variety of pesticides. I don't believe it mentioned Roundup or Monsanto at all. It certainly wasn't a witch hunt.

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

 

[Hoosier8]

I said the UC Davis study, not the one from Entropy. You argued that this was a witch hunt against Monsanto and that nobody was researching these other pesticides.

The other study that I posted focused on a wide variety of pesticides. I don't believe it mentioned Roundup or Monsanto at all. It certainly wasn't a witch hunt.

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

NPMA Responds to Study Linking Autism to Prenatal - PCT - Pest Control Technology

Experts have begun poking holes in the study, questioning the science as well as the conclusions, as referenced here in this HealthDay article published on WebMD:

"While the association between possible pesticide exposure and autism is interesting, an expert not involved in the research pointed out that it has a major flaw.

Because the study looked back in time, researchers weren't able to collect blood or urine samples to directly measure pesticide exposures. And they looked at risks associated with four different classes of chemicals.

'So this study cannot pinpoint specific substances as a culprit,' said Philippe Grandjean, an adjunct professor of environmental health at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. 'Also, they cannot relate to specific levels of exposure, and they have not taken into account the possible contribution by residues in food,' he said.

As a result, he said, the link reported in this study is weak."

NPMA has reviewed the recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives and believes that the methodology and assumptions of the study are flawed and therefore the conclusions are inaccurate and misleading; in fact, such poorly conducted research presented as fact may divert attention away from the real research that is needed to understand more about causes of autism and developmental delays. It's also important to note that this study evaluated a regional sample (parts of California) to determine whether residential proximity to agricultural pesticides during pregnancy is associated with neurodevelopmental disorders among participants in the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment (CHARGE) Study and that approximately two-thirds of respondents reported no residential proximity to agricultural pesticides during the time of their pregnancies. No other factors were evaluated.

 

[dusty88]

The best theory (and I emphasize theory, as in early working theory) I have seen yet on the rise of autism is that more "women good at math" are marrying "men good at math" in greater frequency as women have entered career fields starting in the 1950s. It may be causing the susceptible genetics to combine more often.

That doesn't mean I think it's at all a smart idea to continue to ingest so much of 1 pesticide in our bodies, and shrug off the fact we can't prove what harm it's causing.

 

[steveh_131]

NPMA Responds to Study Linking Autism to Prenatal - PCT - Pest Control Technology

Obviously they couldn't take urine samples covering this large geographical population.

What is their alternate explanation for this correlation that was found?

Interestingly: "The National Pest Management Association (NPMA), is a non-profit trade association founded in 1933 that represents the interests of the professional pest management industry in the United States.[SUP][3][/SUP]

 

[steveh_131]

I'd like to discuss this from a different angle. Let's try a story:

A traveling salesman shows up at your door. He has a great offer for you. He is willing to sell you all of your groceries for 2/3 the cost of the cheapest grocery store.

That's quite a deal! What's the catch? We're all skeptical of traveling salesmen, right? The catch is that nearly every grocery item is covered with his own formulated poison.

"Not to worry!", he explains. "This poison is safe for humans. Humans don't have the particular biological characteristics affected by it, so they can't be harmed by it."

"How much of it is in this food?", you ask? "I don't know," he says. "I have convinced the FDA and the USDA that it is expensive and unnecessary to monitor the levels of this poison in this food. Besides, since you live near farms, it is probably already in your groundwater and air."

-------------------------------------

Let's take a look at the standards of evidence that you have demanded from me:

• Peer-reviewed research from "unbiased" sources showing a direct, undeniable link to damaging health effects with each and every possible variable controlled (even those that wouldn't affect this correlation)
• Correlations are not even considered
• Scientists more advanced than a 40-year MIT researcher with 7 years experience in this exact field

Now I have to ask you a simple yes or no question:

Have you demanded these same standards from the traveling salesman, peddling poison to your children?

I don't believe that a single one of you can answer "Yes" to this question. I know this because Monsanto has not provided this evidence to prove the safety of their poison. Monsanto's primary evidence in support of their product is the claim that there is no biological mechanism for it to harm a human being.

This has been thoroughly debunked by multiple sources. Plenty of theories have been presented, including the simplest: Even if it doesn't impact the human body, it can impact the micro-organisms that are essential to the gut.

You don't believe something just because it is correlated? Monsanto doesn't even have the correlations in their favor.

You question sources? Monsanto has packed the regulatory bodies with ex-employees.

You question credentials? I would wager that you couldn't name a single scientist, or their credentials, who has supported the safety of Roundup.

When you're deciding the safety of something that you feed to your kids, where should you place the burden of proof? If it's a literal poison, should the burden of proof be on the scientists claiming it to be safe? Or do you have your children consume it until someone with your incredibly lofty credentials finally does prove that it's dangerous, with standards of proof that no scientific study could ever provide?

Some food for thought. Haha, get it?

 

[cobber]

Obviously they couldn't take urine samples covering this large geographical population.

What is the alternate explanation for this correlation that was found?

Interestingly: "The National Pest Management Association (NPMA), is a non-profit trade association founded in 1933 that represents the interests of the professional pest management industry in the United States.[SUP][3][/SUP]

Sure. Everybody's got a bias. This one is out in front. I don't suppose the 'researchers' in either study had any biases or preconceptions?

As to the urine/blood sample question, are you prepared to accept a scientific study based on a subject's proximity to a source, with no data on transmission from that source to the subject, or even confirmation that any particular subject was actually exposed in the first place? You're giving the 'researchers' a pretty big hole to drive that Mack truck through.


Did they actually study children who weren't autistic living in the same area? It seems that they drew their case studies from a pool of children (CHARGE) who were already determined to be autistic, or have some related condition.

 

[steveh_131]

Sure. Everybody's got a bias. This one is out in front. I don't suppose the 'researchers' in either study had any biases or preconceptions?

Any biases as dangerous as being an actual lobbyist organization for Monsanto? Certainly not. I would be open to the possibility, though. Present your evidence.

As to the urine/blood sample question, are you prepared to accept a scientific study based on a subject's proximity to a source, with no data on transmission from that source to the subject, or even confirmation that any particular subject was actually exposed in the first place?

I am prepared to accept it with its limitations. This is a limitation to be sure, but I don't have any difficulty accepting it considering the undeniable evidence that its use in agriculture contaminates the groundwater. These concentrations would be higher the closer you get to the source. Air pollution would follow the same principle.

A good question, though.

Did they actually study children who weren't autistic living in the same area? It seems that they drew their case studies from a pool of children (CHARGE) who were already determined to be autistic, or have some related condition.

You read the study, or at least maybe the abstract! Good!

But to answer your question: Yes, of course they did. If the entire testing pool was autistic, how could they possibly show only a 60% increase in incidence?

 

[dusty88]

I am aware of glyphosate in groundwater, but not air. Not saying you are wrong, just haven't seen it. Source?

 

[steveh_131]

I am aware of glyphosate in groundwater, but not air. Not saying you are wrong, just haven't seen it. Source?

Here you go:

USGS Release: Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin (8/29/2011 8:19:35 AM)

"In these studies, Glyphosate was frequently detected in surface waters, rain and air in areas where it is heavily used in the basin. The consistent occurrence of glyphosate in streams and air indicates its transport from its point of use into the broader environment. "

 

[level.eleven]

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.

You're embarrassing yourself again, Steve.

David Gorski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Leadeye]

I'd like to discuss this from a different angle. Let's try a story:

A traveling salesman shows up at your door. He has a great offer for you. He is willing to sell you all of your groceries for 2/3 the cost of the cheapest grocery store.

That's quite a deal! What's the catch? We're all skeptical of traveling salesmen, right? The catch is that nearly every grocery item is covered with his own formulated poison.

"Not to worry!", he explains. "This poison is safe for humans. Humans don't have the particular biological characteristics affected by it, so they can't be harmed by it."

"How much of it is in this food?", you ask? "I don't know," he says. "I have convinced the FDA and the USDA that it is expensive and unnecessary to monitor the levels of this poison in this food. Besides, since you live near farms, it is probably already in your groundwater and air."

-------------------------------------

Let's take a look at the standards of evidence that you have demanded from me:

• Peer-reviewed research from "unbiased" sources showing a direct, undeniable link to damaging health effects with each and every possible variable controlled (even those that wouldn't affect this correlation)
• Correlations are not even considered
• Scientists more advanced than a 40-year MIT researcher with 7 years experience in this exact field

Now I have to ask you a simple yes or no question:

Have you demanded these same standards from the traveling salesman, peddling poison to your children?

I don't believe that a single one of you can answer "Yes" to this question. I know this because Monsanto has not provided this evidence to prove the safety of their poison. Monsanto's primary evidence in support of their product is the claim that there is no biological mechanism for it to harm a human being.

This has been thoroughly debunked by multiple sources. Plenty of theories have been presented, including the simplest: Even if it doesn't impact the human body, it can impact the micro-organisms that are essential to the gut.

You don't believe something just because it is correlated? Monsanto doesn't even have the correlations in their favor.

You question sources? Monsanto has packed the regulatory bodies with ex-employees.

You question credentials? I would wager that you couldn't name a single scientist, or their credentials, who has supported the safety of Roundup.

When you're deciding the safety of something that you feed to your kids, where should you place the burden of proof? If it's a literal poison, should the burden of proof be on the scientists claiming it to be safe? Or do you have your children consume it until someone with your incredibly lofty credentials finally does prove that it's dangerous, with standards of proof that no scientific study could ever provide?

Some food for thought. Haha, get it?

Sounds like the banking industry.

 

[steveh_131]

You're embarrassing yourself again, Steve.

David Gorski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why should I be embarrassed? I think he's a massive prick with an even more massive ego. I also think he's a talentless hack with very little capability for logical thought. Not to mention downright dishonest, at times, in pursuing his agenda.

But, as I said, he's clearly a hero of the psuedo-skeptics such as yourself.