4 ms·

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of lo

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Last time I reviewed the glyphosate literature it wasn’t that impressive of a link between Roundup and cancer. Has anything changed? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/ I agree Monsanto is a horrible company, but for other reasons.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Glyphosate must be bad, because Monsanto is bad. It's inference by moral contagion, which as everyone knows is an excellent way to do science.
- titzer 5y ago
  Did you actually read the article you linked? It is actually arguing that logic doesn't work. > Overall, a scrutiny of the method used in these commentaries by Samsel and Seneff reveals a major flaw. These authors employ a deductive reasoning approach based on syllogism, which is formed by two or more propositions used to generate a conclusion. The first proposition is generally related to glyphosate’s properties (e.g., glyphosate is a chelator of Mn) and the second proposition is related to human physiology (e.g., sperm motility depends on Mn). From each of these pairs of propositions, Samsel and Seneff conclude a causative link of glyphosate with the etiology of different diseases. For instance, since glyphosate is a metal chelator (proposition 1), and since sperm motility depends on Mn (proposition 2), they conclude that glyphosate may partially explain increased rates of infertility and birth defects (13). They extend this reasoning to multiple body functions to propose that the dysregulation of Mn utilization in the body due to glyphosate’s metal chelating properties explains autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, anxiety disorder, osteoporosis, inflammatory bowel disease, renal lithiasis, osteomalacia, cholestasis, thyroid dysfunction, and infertility. More recently, Beecham and Seneff have used the same reasoning to conclude on a causative link between glyphosate chelation of Mn and the large rise in the incidence of autism spectrum disorders in children within the US (35). However, there are no scientific studies establishing a causative link between glyphosate and the described chronic diseases. They are literally saying that syllogism cannot possibly work because there aren't "scientific studies". What is syllogism? It's literally logic. If you then read the actual article they are criticizing, there is literally graph after graph establishing a strong correlation between disease and glysophate use. Not only do they find correlations, they reason through several causative mechanisms, in extremely detail, based on chemistry, and then somehow that doesn't count? That paper is absolutely choc full of evidence. What more are they holding out for? It's like their brain doesn't work.
  - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't see what you see in that article and I don't think you understand it either. Graphs showing increased cancer risk since glyphosate was introduced is almost zero evidence that it does anything. Lot of other things have happened in that same time period such as increases in obesity, etc. The real way to study it is to give an animal glyphosate and see if it does anything to cancer rates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819582/ Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies "There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect related to glyphosate treatment."
    - titzer 5y ago
      You seem motivated to push a particular narrative and are cherry picking papers to support it, so I really don't want to go back and forth anymore about this, but here's a even larger meta-study that has a completely different conclusion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ > The strongest evidence shows that glyphosate causes hemangiosarcomas, kidney tumors and malignant lymphomas in male CD-1 mice, hemangiomas and malignant lymphomas in female CD-1 mice, hemangiomas in female Swiss albino mice, kidney adenomas, liver adenomas, skin keratoacanthomas and skin basal cell tumors in male Sprague-Dawley rats, adrenal cortical carcinomas in female Sprague-Dawley rats and hepatocellular adenomas and skin keratocanthomas in male Wistar rats. In fact, this paper links to some of the same studies that the paper you linked to also does, with different conclusions. In particular, it seems your paper was extremely selective about which cancers could be caused by glysophate, e.g. ignoring several types. > Graphs showing increased cancer risk since glyphosate was introduced is almost zero evidence that it does anything. That's just an absurd statement, so I'll disengage now.
- slumdev 5y ago
  Are you from the Agvocate "Tough Conversations" team?
speedgoose 5y ago
I thought it was no evidence of glyphosate causing cancer. A bit like we don't have evidence than 3/4/5G causes cancer.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ch4s3 5y ago
Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant not an antibiotic.
slumdev 5y ago
The evidence of Roundup/glyphosate's carcinogenicity is playing out in courtrooms around the world. And it ain't looking good for Bayer.
axguscbklp 5y ago
>Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago) You say that like selling heroin over the counter is a bad thing.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Last time I reviewed the glyphosate literature it wasn’t that impressive of a link between Roundup and cancer. Has anything changed? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/ I agree Monsanto is a horrible company, but for other reasons.

pfdietz 5y ago
Glyphosate must be bad, because Monsanto is bad. It's inference by moral contagion, which as everyone knows is an excellent way to do science.
titzer 5y ago
Did you actually read the article you linked? It is actually arguing that logic doesn't work. > Overall, a scrutiny of the method used in these commentaries by Samsel and Seneff reveals a major flaw. These authors employ a deductive reasoning approach based on syllogism, which is formed by two or more propositions used to generate a conclusion. The first proposition is generally related to glyphosate’s properties (e.g., glyphosate is a chelator of Mn) and the second proposition is related to human physiology (e.g., sperm motility depends on Mn). From each of these pairs of propositions, Samsel and Seneff conclude a causative link of glyphosate with the etiology of different diseases. For instance, since glyphosate is a metal chelator (proposition 1), and since sperm motility depends on Mn (proposition 2), they conclude that glyphosate may partially explain increased rates of infertility and birth defects (13). They extend this reasoning to multiple body functions to propose that the dysregulation of Mn utilization in the body due to glyphosate’s metal chelating properties explains autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, anxiety disorder, osteoporosis, inflammatory bowel disease, renal lithiasis, osteomalacia, cholestasis, thyroid dysfunction, and infertility. More recently, Beecham and Seneff have used the same reasoning to conclude on a causative link between glyphosate chelation of Mn and the large rise in the incidence of autism spectrum disorders in children within the US (35). However, there are no scientific studies establishing a causative link between glyphosate and the described chronic diseases. They are literally saying that syllogism cannot possibly work because there aren't "scientific studies". What is syllogism? It's literally logic. If you then read the actual article they are criticizing, there is literally graph after graph establishing a strong correlation between disease and glysophate use. Not only do they find correlations, they reason through several causative mechanisms, in extremely detail, based on chemistry, and then somehow that doesn't count? That paper is absolutely choc full of evidence. What more are they holding out for? It's like their brain doesn't work.
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't see what you see in that article and I don't think you understand it either. Graphs showing increased cancer risk since glyphosate was introduced is almost zero evidence that it does anything. Lot of other things have happened in that same time period such as increases in obesity, etc. The real way to study it is to give an animal glyphosate and see if it does anything to cancer rates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819582/ Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies "There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect related to glyphosate treatment."
  - titzer 5y ago
    You seem motivated to push a particular narrative and are cherry picking papers to support it, so I really don't want to go back and forth anymore about this, but here's a even larger meta-study that has a completely different conclusion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ > The strongest evidence shows that glyphosate causes hemangiosarcomas, kidney tumors and malignant lymphomas in male CD-1 mice, hemangiomas and malignant lymphomas in female CD-1 mice, hemangiomas in female Swiss albino mice, kidney adenomas, liver adenomas, skin keratoacanthomas and skin basal cell tumors in male Sprague-Dawley rats, adrenal cortical carcinomas in female Sprague-Dawley rats and hepatocellular adenomas and skin keratocanthomas in male Wistar rats. In fact, this paper links to some of the same studies that the paper you linked to also does, with different conclusions. In particular, it seems your paper was extremely selective about which cancers could be caused by glysophate, e.g. ignoring several types. > Graphs showing increased cancer risk since glyphosate was introduced is almost zero evidence that it does anything. That's just an absurd statement, so I'll disengage now.
slumdev 5y ago
Are you from the Agvocate "Tough Conversations" team?

speedgoose 5y ago

I thought it was no evidence of glyphosate causing cancer. A bit like we don't have evidence than 3/4/5G causes cancer.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ch4s3 5y ago

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant not an antibiotic.

slumdev 5y ago

The evidence of Roundup/glyphosate's carcinogenicity is playing out in courtrooms around the world. And it ain't looking good for Bayer.

axguscbklp 5y ago

>Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago) You say that like selling heroin over the counter is a bad thing.