The Urgent Need to Reform the ABCD Seed Cartel Science Around Glyphosate
The Largest Single Health Damaging Event in American History
and where were our ‘skeptics’ for the last 24 years while this occurred? Chasing ghost and UFO hunters…
It is more than simply interesting that our 1995-genesis epidemics of gluten sensitivity and IBS just mysteriously happened to coincide with our introduction of glyphosate into 95+% of the wheat, corn, soy and canola food supply. But if that were the only two flash-skyrocketing maladies the American public has suffered since 1995 then my curiosity might not be piqued. And let’s be clear, Americans are the heaviest consumers of glyphosate, and are for the most part, the ones suffering most from these new top 10 prescribed-for maladies at epidemic rates. Parsimony under an ethical governance of science, would dictate plurality due to observation, relationship and risk, under the scientific method. However, it has taken the sickening of our entire nation to alert us to this horrendous act.
Why, because of corrupt oligarch influence and fake skepticism, plain and simple.
The act of blocking or not skeptically researching the impact of glyphosate on our collective intestinal health since 1995 – is unconscionable pseudoscience. This should be pursued by a class action lawsuit – god knows that my family has suffered enough from this malfeasance and incompetence. Your claims that we are anti-science be damned.
On the contrary, science is stepping back in and taking control back from this case study in corruption.
There are six compelling reasons why the science performed to date on Glyphosate is woefully insufficient, and re-disposition by the EPA, through complete science performed by neutral third parties regarding Glyphosate and its enabling GMO seed monopoly, should be once again evaluated. The scientific method does not dictate that preliminary conclusions, once published, can never again be examined just because SSkeptics declare otherwise. In fact, Ethical Skepticism demands that we re-examine the role of this harmful technology in American diets and in overall human and ecological health.
/ N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine / : Herbicide, assigned EPA Human Toxicity Category III and WHO Toxicity Group 2A ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’ Toxicity enabled to varying levels in different species, by acting as a water soluble analog of the protein glycine, which deleteriously interferes with the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan; effectively killing bacteria and plants which depend upon the EPSP Synthase pathway. A dependency based technology utilized by Monsanto to establish a strategically planned seed sourcing monopoly. This an outcome of Glyphosate’s complimentary relationship with patented GMO seed modifications, enforced for use throughout a compliant ABCD Seed Cartel,‡ regarding Glyphosate tolerance.
Glyphosate Used Based Upon Outdated Science:
Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statementEnvironmental Health201615:19 DOI: 10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0 © Myers et al. 2016 Received: 8 June 2015, Accepted: 6 February 2016
Published: 17 February 2016
Intestinal Dendritic Cell EPSP Synthase, effectively killing those critical immune system messenger cells as part of glyphosate’s well established EPSPS microbicide effectiveness. This renders the gut/immune system unable to communicate microbial tolerance to the innate and adaptive immune systems; effectively triggering celiac disease-like symptoms in humans, including nausea, diarrhea, skin disorders, macrocytic anemia, b-vitamin depletion, depression, IBS, IBD, rosacea and several other longer term chronic illnesses.
Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance. Interdisciplinary Toxicology. 2013;6(4):159-184. doi:10.2478/intox-2013-0026.
Phenylalanine – Elevates the mood, ensures good function of the autonomous and central nervous system (breathing, sleeping, calmness), essential for memory and learning and regulates the appetite by causing excess hunger until this minor protein is fulfilled. Otherwise one short of phenylalanine will overeat in order to attain minor proteins needed.
Tyrosine – It is a building block for several important neurotransmitters, including epinephrine, norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine. Neurotransmitters help nerve cells communicate and influence mood. Tyrosine also helps produce melanin (the pigment responsible for hair and skin color) and helps in the function of organs responsible for making and regulating hormones, including the adrenal, thyroid, and pituitary glands.
Tryptophan – The body uses tryptophan to help in the uptake of niacin (Vitamin B3 – lower cholesterol and triglycerides (types of fat) in the blood) and serotonin. Serotonin is thought to produce healthy sleep and a stable mood.
Glycine – Essential for a healthy, normally functioning digestive system. It helps regulate the synthesis of the bile acid used to digest fats. Helps establish the mucosa barrier which blocks toxins from crossing the intestinal boundary – reduces the amount of auto-immune triggers in the blood.
Disruption of Kidney and Liver mRNA splicing and small nucleolar RNA – were mostly upregulated, suggesting disruption of normal spliceosome activity. Electron microscopic analysis of hepatocytes confirmed nucleolar structural disruption.
Disruption of Genes Controlling Chromatin Structure – Genes (especially histone-lysine N-methyltransferases) were mostly upregulated in Kidney and Liver measures.
Disruption of Genes Related to Respiratory Chain Complex I and the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle – Pathway analysis suggests a modulation of the mTOR and phosphatidylinositol signalling pathways. Gene disturbances associated with the chronic administration of ultra-low dose Roundup reflect a liver and kidney lipotoxic condition and increased cellular growth that may be linked with regeneration in response to toxic effects causing damage to tissues.
The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro.
Shehata AA1, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M.; Curr Microbiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):350-8. doi: 10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2. Epub 2012 Dec 9.
The use of glyphosate modifies the environment which stresses the living microorganisms. The aim of the present study was to determine the real impact of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. The presented results evidence that the highly pathogenic bacteria as Salmonella Entritidis, Salmonella Gallinarum, Salmonella Typhimurium, Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium botulinum are highly resistant to glyphosate. However, most of beneficial bacteria as Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus badius, Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus spp. were found to be moderate to highly susceptible. Also Campylobacter spp. were found to be susceptible to glyphosate. A reduction of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract microbiota by ingestion of glyphosate could disturb the normal gut bacterial community. Also, the toxicity of glyphosate to the most prevalent Enterococcus spp. could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum-mediated diseases by suppressing the antagonistic effect of these bacteria on clostridia.
Collectively – the interference with these proteins, DNA functions and elimination of vital gut flora causes in humans:
- Loss of well being and up mood – creates anxiety
- Endocrine function loss (Hypo-thyroid, Hypo-pituitary, Adrenal-Thyroid-Pituitary Axis)
- Digestive screening loss and Auto-Immune flareups
- Loss of protein synthesis in muscles
- Loss of B vitamin uptake – especially in low-methylation genetic profile individuals
- Higher triglycerides and cholesterol, liver stress
- Chronic inflammatory diseases
- Chronic digestive tract diseases
- Liver pathology and morphology changes
- Kidney pathology and morphology changes
- Disruption of cell’s ability to break down and burn sugars (diabetes)
Where were the SSkeptics when this was all approved inside 3 years? Busy ranting about supplements, ghosts, UFO’s, the Loch Ness Monster, alternative medicine and ulcers being caused by coffee and stress.
1. The studies upon which EPA Approval was granted are based on preliminary and aged experimental observation.
EPA Initial Approval
1991 RED Facts: Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
2. The EPA Approval was granted on only one scant 1970 / 80’s study series, conducted on animals (rats, rabbits, beagles); wherein the objectivity is in question, of both the EPA and Monsanto in assessing the regulatory applicability of these early studies, as they were all completed only by Monsanto.
Approval Basis: All Monsanto Studies
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Glyphosate; EPA-738-F-93-011; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993. Referenced studies (Increase in autism study on right from Nevison, Environmental Health; 2014, 13:73 Page 4 of 16 : http://www.ehjournal.net/content/13/1/73).
1985 Reyna, M. Twelve month study of glyphosate administered by gelatin capsule to beagle dogs. Unpublished Report no. 830116, project no. ML-83-137, 1985, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company Environmental Health.
1983 Knezevich, A.; Hogan, G. A chronic feeding study of glyphosate (Roundup technical) in mice. Unpublished Report no. BDN-77420, project no. 77-2061, 1983, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by BioDynamics, Inc.
1970 Birch, M. Toxicological investigation of CP 67573-3. Unpublished Report no. 4-70-90, 1970, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Corporation, prepared by Younger Laboratories, Inc.
1988 Blaszcak, D., Primary dermal irritation study in rabbits for glyphosate technical (wetcake). Unpublished Report no. BD-88- 114, project number 4887, 1988, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Corporation, prepared by BioDynamics, Inc.
1980 Rodwell, D. E.; Tasker, E. J.; Blair, A. M.; et al. Teratology study in rats. Unpublished report no. 401-054, unpublished study no. 999- 021, 1980, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by International Research and Development Corporation.
1980 Rodwell, D. E.; Tasker, E. J.; Blair, A. M.; et al. Teratology study in rats. Unpublished report no. 401-056, 1980, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by International Research and Development Corporation.
1988 Monsanto Corporation. The metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague Dawley rats- Part I. Excretion and tissue distribution of glyphosate and its metabolites following intravenous and oral administration. Unpublished report no. MSL-7215, 1988, submitted to WHO by Monsanto Ltd, prepared by Monsanto Environmental Health Laboratory.
1988 Ridley, W.; Mirly, K. The metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Part I. Excretion and tissue distribution of glyphosate and its metabolites following intravenous and oral administration. Unpublished report no. 86139 (MSL 7215), RD no. 877, 1988, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company.
1988 Howe, R.; Chott, R.; McClanahan, R. Metabolism of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Part II: Identification, characterization, and quantitation of glyphosate and its metabolites after intravenous and oral administration. Unpublished report no. MSL-7206, RD No. 877, 1988, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company.
1978 Brightwell, B.; Malik, J. Solubility, volatility, absorption, and partition coefficients, leaching and aquatic metabolism of MON 0573 and MON 0101. Unpublished report no. MSL-0207, 1978, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company.
1990 McMullan, P.; Honeggar, J.; Logusch, E. Confined rotational crop study of glyphosate Part II. Quantitation, characterization and identification of glyphosate and its metabolites in rotational crops. Unpublished report no. MSL-981, 1990, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Agricultural Labs.
1978 Fink, R.; Beavers, J. One-generation reproduction study in bobwhite quail: glyphosate technical. Unbpublished report no. 139- 141. 1978, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by Wildlife International Ltd.
1982 McAllister, W.; McKee, M.; Schofield, M.; et al. Chronic toxicity of glyphosate (AB-82-036) to Daphnia magna under flow-through test conditions. Chronic toxicity final report ABC 28742. Unpublished report, 1982, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc.
1974 Bentley, R., Acute toxicity of roundup (technical) to grass shrimp (Palaemonetas vulgaris) and fiddler crab (Uca pagilator). Unpublished report no. SF1536, 1974, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by Bionomics, Inc.
1972 Frasier, W. D.; Jenkins, G. The acute contact and oral toxicities of CP67573 and MON2139 to worker honey bees. Unpublished report no. 4G1444, 1972, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Monsanto Company, prepared by Huntingdon Research.
In the instances of the third party labs which completed studies, subsequently routed through Monsanto to the EPA, a glance at LinkedIn and Moody’s shows that several of these companies were staffed by ex Monsanto and Syngenta employees, all in the St. Louis and Columbia, Missouri local area, or were small or one man or short lived businesses, operating around the period of the study. Nor did these firms continue their research after the EPA approval. A curious set of actions given that now human and higher order mammal and prodigious field data are available, which could improve their confidence interval risk profiles to an impeccable level of integrity. Yet they just ceased study altogether. This brings their third party objectivity, and their role as scientists, into essential question.
3. The sample sizes of observational data for all coincident maladies is much more easily accessible/collectible today. As well, Monsanto coordinated the release of studies, patents and EPA approvals as part of a liability risk mitigation strategy regarding these maladies, along with its connected seed sourcing monopoly business strategy
As you can see from the above graphic, the amount of human data available with which to truly assess the safety of Glyphosate, is on the order of 30,000 times as large as it was in the 1986 – 1991 timeframe in which the Approval studies were conducted. In addition, the littany of condemning, or alarm raising studies continues to proliferate AFTER the Approval in 1991 by the EPA. See the listing below.
What Monsanto has accomplished here is brilliant strategy. They planned the timed arrival of the Glyphosate Resistant Genome Abstracts onto the market commensurate with the expiration of their Glyphosate patents. This allowed their domain of Glyphosate to be liability umbrella covered by the former EPA guidance on the herbicide/toxicant/biocide, while the open domain market use of Glyphosate now will be administered under the newer understandings of toxicity which have been discovered since Approval by the EPA. In this way, Monsanto dodges the liability on the negative health effects of Glyphosate, endures the ramp up period for the growth of business from a gateway patent, and secures ultimate risk-free profitability through a complimentary and solely dependent technology: Glyphosate resistance through patented GM seed.
A brilliantly executed strategy.
Toxicology Studies Executed AFTER FDA Approval and Glyphosate Enabling GMO Maps were Abstracted by Monsanto
Please note that after the EPA approval in 1991, despite the prodigious amount of new contra indicative data since on HUMANS and higher order mammals, Monsanto ceased critical safety-oriented clinical studies of Glyphosate altogether. They left it to the rest of the world to perform lifecycle and safety-diligence science through a nascent sufficient level of observational and intelligence base of data. Knowing that these opponents would have a ‘King of the Hill’ battle against bureaucracy, collusion, corruption and false skeptics, Monsanto strategically planned to sit back and do nothing thereafter. Notice that not even one study since, has been completed by Monsanto or their shill third party labs which underpinned the 1991 EPA approval effort.
2015 Journal of Environmental Health, Environmental Health Aug 25 2015, 14:70 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1 – Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure.
2014 Journal of Seed Science, Print version ISSN 2317-1537; J. Seed Sci. vol.36 no.1 Londrina 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2317-15372014000100008 Yield and quality of wheat seeds as a function of desiccation stages and herbicides.
2006 Tomlin, C. D. S. The Pesticide Manual: A World Compendium, 14th ed.; British Crop Protection Council: Hampshire, UK, 2006; pp 545- 548.
1998 Roberts, T. R. Metabolic Pathways of Agrochemicals-Part 1: Herbicides and Plant Growth Regulators; The Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 1998; pp 396-399.
2002 Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed.; Vencill, W. K. Ed.; Weed Science Society of America: Lawrence, KS, 2002; p 231-234.
2000 Giesey, J. P.; Dobson, S.; Solomon, K. R. Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup herbicide. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2000, 167, 35-120.
2010 SRC PhysProp Database: Glyphosate; Syracuse Research Corporation. http://www.syrres.com/what-we-do/databaseforms.aspx?id=386 (accessed Dec 2007), updated Jan 2010.
2000 Shaner, D. L. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manag. Sci. 2000, 56, 320-326.
1991 Franz, J. E.; Mao, M. K.; Sikorski, J. A. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997; pp 521-527, 604-605, 615.
1996 WHO. Data Sheets on Pesticides: Glyphosate; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.
2006 Wu, J. Y.; Chang, S. S.; Tseng, C. P.; Deng, J. F.; Lee, C. C. Parenteral glyphosate-surfactant herbicide intoxication. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2006, 24 (4), 504-506.
2000 Williams, G. M.; Kroes, R.; Munro, I. C. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2000, 31, 117-165.
2004 Bradberry, S. M.; Proudfoot, A. T.; Vale, J. A. Glyphosate poisoning. Toxicol. Rev. 2004, 23 (3), 159-167.
2000 Bates, N.; Campbell, A. Handbook of Poisoning in Dogs and Cats – Glyphosate; Campbell, A.; Chapman, M., Eds.; Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, England, 2000; pp 135-138.
1998 Monsanto Department of Medical and Health Sciences. Roundup and other gyphosate/tallowamine surfactant-containing herbicides: The clinical effects and their managment. Unpublished report, 1994, cited in Burgat, V.; Keck, G.; Guerre, P.; Bigorre, V.; Pineau, X. Glyphosate toxicosis in domestic animals: A survey from the data of the Centre National d’Informations Toxicologiques Veterinaires (CNITV). Vet. Hum.Toxicol. 1998, 40 (6), 363-367.
2004 Rattray, N. J. Glyphosate acid: 4-hour acute inhalation toxicity study in rats. Unpublished Report no. CTL/P/4882, study no. HR2884, 1996, submitted to WHO by Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel, Switzerland, prepared by Zeneca Agrochemicals, Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Maccelsfield, Cheshire, England. Pesticide Residues in Food – 2004: Toxicological evaluations; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.
2004 Welch, S. Glyphosate. Clinical Veterinary Toxicology; Plumlee, K. H., Ed.; Mosby: St. Louis, 2004; pp 162-163.
1998 Burgat, V.; Keck, G.; Guerre, P.; Bigorre, V.; Pineau, X. Glyphosate toxicosis in domestic animals: A survey from the data of the Centre National d’Informations Toxicologiques Veterinaires (CNITV). Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 1998, 40 (6), 363-367.
1999 Acquavella, J. F.; Weber, J. A.; Cullen, M. R.; Cruz, O. A.; Martens, M. A.; Holden, L. R.; Riordan, S.; Thompson, M.; Farmer, D. Human ocular effects from self-reported exposures to Roundup herbicides. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1999, 18 (8), 479-486.
2009 Glyphosate. Human-Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 2009.
2004 Acquavella, J. F.; Alexander, B. H.; Mandel, J. S.; Gustin, C.; Baker, B.; Chapman, P.; Bleeke, M. Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmers and their families: results from the Farm Family Exposure Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2004, 112 (3), 321-326.
2007 Cavas, T.; Konen, S. Detection of cytogenic and DNA damage in peripheral erythrocytes of goldfish (Carassius auratus) exposed to a glyphosate formulation using the micronucleus test and the comet assay. Mutagenesis 2007, 22 (4), 263-268.
2004 FAO. Pesticide Residues in Food – Evaluations Part 2: Toxicological; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2004.
2005 De Roos, A. J.; Blair, A.; Rusiecki, J. A.; Hoppin, J. A.; Svec, M.; Dosemeci, M.; Sandler, D. P.; Alavanja, M. C. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2005, 113 (1), 49-54.
2004 Moxon, M. E. Glophosate acid: multigeneration reproduction toxicity in rats. Unpublished report no. CTL/P/6332, study no. RR0784, 2000, submitted to WHO by Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel, Switzerland, prepared by Zeneca Agrochemicals, Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire, England. Pesticide Residues in Food – Evaluations Part 2: Toxicological; International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2004.
2003 Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M.; Shimada, K.; Hirose, Y. Determination of the herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite in biological specimens by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. A case of poisoning by roundup herbicide. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2003, 27 (3), 162-166.
2002 Aprea, C.; Colosio, C.; Mammone, T.; Minoia, C.; Maroni, M. Biological monitoring of pesticide exposure: a review of analytical methods. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2002, 769 (2), 191-219.
2008 Motojyuku, M.; Saito, T.; Akieda, K.; Otsuka, H.; Yamamoto, I.; Inokuchi, S. Determination of glyphosate, glyphosate metabolites, and glufosinate in human serum by gas chromatography-mass spectometry. J. Chromatogr. B 2008, 875, 509-514.
2004 Biagini, R. E.; Smith, J. P.; Sammons, D. L.; MacKenzie, B. A.; Striley, C. A.; Robertson, S. K.; Snawder, J. E. Development of a sensitivity enhanced multiplexed fluorescence covalent microbead immunosorbent assay (FCMIA) for the measurement of glyphosate, atrazine and metolachlor mercapturate in water and urine. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2004, 379 (3), 368-374.
2007 Curwin, B. D.; Hein, M. J.; Sanderson, W. T.; Striley, C.; Heederik, D.; Kromhout, H.; Reynolds, S. J.; Alavanja, M. C. Urinary pesticide concentrations among children, mothers and fathers living in farm and non-farm households in iowa. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2007, 51 (1), 53-65.
2008 Tsui, M. T. 60. K.; Chu, L. M. Environmental fate and non-target impact of glyphosate-based herbicide (Roundup) in a subtropical wetland. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 439-446.
2005 Curwin, B. D.; Hein, M. J.; Sanderson, W. T.; Nishioka, M. G.; Reynolds, S. J.; Ward, E. M.; Alavanja, M. C. Pesticide contamination inside farm and nonfarm homes. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2005, 2 (7), 357-67.
2004 Howe, C. M.; Berrill, M.; Pauli, B. D.; Helbing, C. C.; Werry, K.; Veldhoen, N., Toxicity of glyphosate-based pesticides to four North American frog species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2004, 23 (8), 1928-1938.
4. There exists a pronounced rise in diseases associated with the original toxicity issues evaluated in the EPA Approval; specifically pancreatic, endocrine and skin inflammation disorders
OCKHAM’S RAZOR PLURALITY HAS BEEN DRAMATICALLY SURPASSED: There Exists a Problem with Our Food – And No, Exercising More Will Not Fix This
Compare the chart at the right with the Glyphosate employment curve shown above; and remember that by 2008, Glyphosate tolerant crops constitute 85 – 90% of the food bio-availability in their respective use classes. I am not sure that we can wait to finally find out what it is we must to do to convince the oppressive Social Skepticism movement to step aside and allow real actual science to proceed. To continue to actively ignore this set of maladies, endocrine, inflammation and auto-immune in nature, is the height of malicious incompetence. And remember, one principal goal of the Social Skepticism cabal is the Cultivation of Ignorance, the false premise that you must bring final and conclusive proof at the beginning of the scientific method; along with the commensurate manipulation of the conscience of science to support oligarch cronies. This constituting just one technique inside the variety of ways to cultivate ignorance through manipulation of the scientific method. The graphic to the right is posted, courtesy of Farm Wars (http://farmwars.info/?p=11543) and demonstrates the dramatic growth in diabetes incident upon the US population underway. No, this is not simply because the population is aging. Our children are inheriting these diseases on a regular basis now. To presume that you know the impetus behind this alarming statistic, as a means to squelch study, not stimulate it – is pseudoscience. The advocate producing this comparative on the right, indexing the coincidence between GM Food technologies and the rate of increase in diabetes, is petitioning for research – not providing excuse to block research – so he or she is actually conducting work in accordance with the scientific method.
But the bad news is that diabetes apparently is a 2 year lag sensitive malady induced from environmental factors, apparently factors which appeared in the American diet around 1995. But cancer on the other hand is more of a 15 to 40 year lag statistic as we have seen from smoking data and its impacts on stomach, bladder, esophageal and lung cancer data. Accordingly we should see a curve building now, stemming from the 1995 introduction of the first broad scale glyphosate resistant crops in 1995. Indeed, when we examine pancreatic cancer, we see exactly what might be expected; in fact, a terrifying picture.
Not only are we experiencing a pandemic rate of diabetes, but pancreatic cancer, once rare, has now skyrocketed to become the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States. The United States not only leads the world in rates of diabetes, but in rates and deaths of pancreatic cancer as well. We cannot continue to blame these observations on super sized meals, in absence of having really conducted any research. A counter claim cannot be tendered in a pluralistic argument, without evidence. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2014, over 46,400 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer – this is up 114% since the 2012 GLOBOCAN North American measured rate, which was already 18% higher than the rest of the planet on average. ¹ ³US Pancreatic Cancer Case Incidence 2012 21,713
US Pancreatic Cancer Case Incidence 2014 46,400 N American Avg Pancreatic Cancer Incidence 2.6% World Avg Pancreatic Cancer Incidence 2.2%
And no, arch cynic Steven Novella cannot blame these stats on ‘an increase in focus on and diagnosis of’ since 80+% of these victims die of this cancer and usually in about a little over a year on average. A study leader Dr. Peter Storz, a cancer biologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, FL, who – with colleagues – describes their findings in the journal Cancer Discovery, says: ²
Our study shows a “direct link between Kras mutations and the inflammatory environment that drive the initiation of pancreatic cancer.”
It is clear from the post 1991 evidence and studies cited in section 3 above, that pancreatic inflammatory impacts were a principal observed element inside the observed set of effects of glyphosate on higher order mammals. The criminal stupidity displayed on the part of our arch SSkeptics, seeks to BLOCK, yes BLOCK the science which could prove matters such as the impact of this food additive, glyphosate, on our public health.
5. Glyphosate is not optional. You can’t wash Glyphosate off, and it is contained in 90% of the bio-available foods of each major US Consumer Food category.
One cannot avoid Glyphosate except through an enormous amount of diligent research and through a highly restrictive diet. The products do not inform their victims of the incumbent potential dangers documented since 1991. Rosacea, Obesity from Endocrine Collapse and the requisite Auto-Immune Disruption, are all a concern among Americans today. I was able to alleviate these symptoms by elimination of Glyphosate related foods. Elimination of corn, wheat, soy, canola dairy and alfalfa is not an accomplishment which the vast majority of Americans can achieve. The foods are not labelled such that they can, even if they wanted. Resource sites provided by the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, for persons truly interested In or suffering from Endocrine, Rheumatoid or Autoimmune Diseases:
Arbuckle, T. E.; Lin, Z.; Mery, L. S. An exploratory analysis of the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of spontaneous abortion in an Ontario farm population. Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109 (8), 851-7.
Maibach, H. I. Irritation, sensitization, photoirritation and photosensitization assays with a glyphosate herbicide. Contact Derm. 1986, 15, 152-156.
Talbot, A. R.; Shiaw, M. H.; Huang, J. S.; Yang, S. F.; Goo, T. S.; Wang, S. H.; Chen, C. L.; Sanford, T. R. Acute poisoning with a glyphosatesurfactant herbicide (‘Roundup’): A review of 93 cases. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1991, 10 (1), 1-8.
McConnel, R. A chronic feeding study of glyphosate (Roundup technical) in mice: pathology report on additional kidney sections. Unpublished project no. 77-2061A, 1985.
Stout, L.; Ruecker, F. Chronic study of glyphosate administered in feed to albino rats. Unpublished Report no. MSL-10495 R.D. 1014, 1990.
Lavy, T. L. Conifer seedling nursery worker exposure to glyphosate. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1992, 22, 6-13.
Jauhiainen, A.; Rasanen, K.; Sarantila, R.; Nuutinen, J.; Kangas, J. Occupational exposure of forest workers to glyphosate during brush saw spraying work. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1991, 52 (2), 61-64.
Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance. Interdisciplinary Toxicology. 2013;6(4):159-184. doi:10.2478/intox-2013-0026.
6. The Public is asking that the science be completed/updated. They would like to be informed so they can make choices. This is their right.
Significant portions of the scientifically and medically minded, as well as the professional population of our country are standing up and raising concerns over what they are observing in their children. No, the rise in obesity, diabetes, thyroid disease and other maladies cannot be explained by calories and exercise. No, you cannot dissuade ethical questions by charades of ‘critical’ or ‘skeptical’ thinking.
“Nearly one quarter, 25 percent of all Americans ages 17-24 are too overweight to serve. Obesity is not only affecting those who can qualify for military service, it is also creating challenges for our active duty military,” Tomaszeski said.
– U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Steven Tomaszeski, CBS Baltimore, ‘Obesity Affects Number Of Those Eligible For Military Service;’ Nov 20, 2014.
Yes, there is a growing fire. The fire is the observed inflammation in our bodies, skyrocketing since 1995, along with the incumbent increase in Endocrine-Immune Disruption. Rome is burning. It is our national health, security and prosperity. All placed in danger while we fiddle with a
- 1.2% increase in the crop price (6 cents a bushel net on sale),
- 7.5% increase in yield and
- savings of 2 cents a bushel on cost of production.†
As many others have expressed, let me offer up a resounding ‘yawn’ to this level of productivity and yield gain. Post harvest perishment rates, especially in famine stricken areas of the globe are well in excess of 40%. I work supporting nine of these nations, and trust me, yield is not the issue they face. Post harvest perishment is where the danger of famine resides, not in theoretical hectare ‘yields.’
I attended a symphony with an oncologist and her husband recently and the subject of autoimmune disease and diet came up. She was a cancer survivor herself at age 29! This is what she related to me:
“I could never say this on the record in my profession, but the incident of previously rare cancers no longer being that rare, along with a rise in the ‘old age’ associated cancers occurring in those my age, is dramatic. Whatever it is has occurred in the last 12 years because the stats are skyrocketing. It is obviously something environmental, but further, I think it is diet related.”
~ 29 Year Old Breast Cancer Survivor and Oncologist
The Michael Shermer’s of the world think that your suffering, your food sensitivities, your intestinal dysfunction, facial sores, cancers, anxiety, IBS, and endocrine maladies – ARE ALL A FICTIONAL COMEDY – they mock you in your suffering.
We cannot continue to sacrifice our bodies for this fairy tale of how famine works – along with Social Skeptic cluelessness and arrogance concerning the suffering of everyday people. This yield and productivity result is solely intended to be employed in predatory market dynamics, masquerading as a dilettante understanding of famine mercy. Parallel to much of American economics, we are using predatory pricing, efficiencies and sourcing cartels (seed sourcing in this case, emulating China) in order to put small and medium sized competitors out of business, to the benefit of social oligopolies. These tactics are NOT mechanisms of capital economies, rather socialist economies. The measurable rise of royalty and elite elicits indication as to what is occurring in our agri-foods industry. Socialism always bears a royalty class, hidden or visible.
Now it is up to activists like me, who were able to improve their health and reverse these diseases by eliminating specific foods (wheat, dairy, corn, canola oil, soy, cottonseed oil, alfalfa), who must petition scientists we work with and know, to start considering the idea that we must begin to conduct science on the safety and health impacts of the food we are consuming. Believe it or not, science that has been obstructed by the very organization who’s job it should have been to protect us in the first place.
Plurality has been established on this issue: Our food is in question – Glyphosate is in question – We must begin the actual third party, skeptical science.
¹ GLOBOCAN Worldwide Estimated Cancer Incidence 2012, sorted by cancer site; North America/United States/Pancreatic Cancer; http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx
² Researchers identify first molecular steps that lead to pancreatic cancer; Last updated: 10 November 2014 at 3am PST; Medical News Today, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/285173.php?linkId=10916036
³ National Cancer Institute, Pancreatic Cancer Summary; http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/pancreatic
† Hybrid Wheat, Cisar/Cooper, FAO Document Repository, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4011E/y4011e0c.htm
‡ ABCD Seed Cartel: Archer Daniels Midland Company, Bunge, Cargill , Louis Dreyfus Group.
November 19, 2014 - Posted by The Ethical Skeptic | Institutional Mandates, Social Disdain | auto-immune disease, children, Endocrine-Immune Disruption, food, glyphosate, GM Food, Monsanto, problem, problem with food, Pseudoscience, skeptic denial, skyrocket
4 Comments »
This blogsite rigorously complies with the Fair Use Act (17 U.S.C. § 107)
“Refreshing to the heart of new and weary seekers of truth alike. Some of the most compelling new philosophy of our time. If you claim to be a skeptic and have not read The Ethical Skeptic, you risk sophomoric bandwagon irrelevancy.” -TRB
“TES, I hope you realize the high quality of material you have produced here. Hopefully you will choose a world stage someday and take personal credit for it. The material is that good.” -AOD
There is a pro-science, educated, rational and resolute movement afoot. A movement of conscience on the part of people just like me. Science and Engineering professionals who apply skepticism daily in their STEMM disciplines, but who nonetheless are raising a warning flag of concern. Welcome to my blog. Within its pages, I hope to portray and teach genuine skepticism, or what is called Ethical Skepticism. Indeed, its mission is to promote the wonder of science through a contrast of authentic skeptical discipline, versus its distorted, pseudo-intellectual and socio-politically motivated counterfeit. I am a graduate level science and engineering professional who faithfully participates in man’s quest for knowledge. I lament however its imprisonment by control driven special interests and vigilante bullying from dogmatic social epistemologists such as science communicating journalists, stage magicians, agenda celebrities, psychologists and oligarch, religious and cartel activists. As you survey my blog, hopefully you will encounter things you’ve personally never considered before. Indeed, its mission is to act as a resource guide for their victims and to foster foremost a discerning perspective for us all on the Cabal of pretenders who abuse and control falsely in the name of science.
A series in parts, which defines the philosophy and outlines the tenets and structure of Ethical Skepticism
A compendium of fallacy and corrupted thought commonly employed inside Social Skepticism
The formal and informal fallacy of deceptively promoting one’s self and ideals through pretense of skepticism
It is plurality, and not the simplest explanation, which bears merit in professional research and the actual scientific method
The compulsory set of core religious beliefs misrepresented as skepticism, atheism, free thinking and science
ABOUT SOCIAL SKEPTICISM AND SSKEPTICS
Social Skepticism is a sponsored activist movement which functions as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms attempting to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This control serving as means to an end, towards subjection of all mankind’s value to mandated totalitarian institutions. Institutions which avert legal exposure by abusing skepticism to serve their goals. Ends formulated by a social elite; however, which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background.
An ideologue driven enforcement therefore of a social epistemology crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of such innate elements. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons and evidence before they can ever see the light of scientific day. Seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism and provisional knowledge which underpins an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could ostensibly serve as a pathway to falsify their power enabling illusory religion of Nihilism.
These pretenders typically have never conducted any science themselves, nor do they represent science or scientific thinking.
Social Skeptics falsely identify themselves as ‘skeptics.’ Indeed rather, SSkeptics are self or institutionally appointed Bernaysian engineering activists, posing as rational and logical subject matter authorities enforcing one specific answer in a broad array of pluralistic topics of contention, while at the same time “doubting“ all other potentialities. Far from actually practicing skepticism and abandoning the scientific method when it does not suit their embargo, SSkeptics seek to intimidate scientists and the media, enforce doctrines lacking scientific basis and imperiously pass them to the public as unassailable truth.
We Are Anonymous http://anonhq.com/
Skeptopathy Magazine http://skeptopathy.com/wp/
Hoofnagle the Science Cat https://www.facebook.com/HoofnagleScienceCat/
Debunking Skeptics http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Skeptical about Skeptics http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/
Michael Prescott http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/
Brian Martin http://www.bmartin.cc/index.html
My Socrates Note http://my-socrates-note.blogspot.com/?m=1
Facebook Groups https://www.facebook.com/groups/925334447494947/
The Difference Between Ethical and Social Skepticism
Ethical Skepticism is a blend of Empirical and Philosophical Skepticism, the tenets of both of which are vetted as to their efficacy in delivering value and clarity inside man’s knowledge development process. It rejects the abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori simplistic predictive based knowledge, self delusion and Methodical Cynicism. Instead, Ethical Skepticism dictates a mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied or the Ethical Skeptic himself has not studied. Ethical Skepticism petitions for Ockham’s Razor plurality in research when sponsorship has shown adequate necessity, and opposes all efforts to squelch such research.
Ethical Skeptics apply skepticism as one of a set of tools employed inside a life characterized by open curiosity, discipline, observation. They continually investigate in order to ask the right question in accordance with the complete scientific method; not defend the right answer. They bear paramount, the personal and professional ethic of defending the integrity of the knowledge development process. Skepticism is a way of preparing the mind and data sets, in order to accomplish science.
Social Skepticism is false a priori deduction combined with stacked provisional induction used as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as constituting science. It is an abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori, simplistic, provisional, risk-ignorant knowledge, self delusion and methodical cynicism. It seeks an embargo of certain aspects of man’s knowledge development process. It rejects Philosophical Skepticism and employs Empirical Skepticism only when its tenets support specific knowledge embargo agendas. Instead of tendering mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied, Social Skepticism corrupts science into methodical cynicism employed to to squelch such research and enforces false interpretations of scientific conclusions to support its embargo goals.
Social Skeptics wear SSkepticism as an identity, apply intimidation and doubt only to subjects they disdain, and enforce an embargo regarding any and all observations or science which might serve to undermine their Cabal authorized ontology. They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions. Social Skeptics abuse skepticism to act in lieu of science, not as subset thereof.
- Follow The Ethical Skeptic on WordPress.com
Top Posts & Pages
- No Difference Between Fundamentalism and Pseudoscience
- Ethical Skepticism - Part 8 - The Watchers Must Also Be Watched
- No You are Not an Atheist, You are a Nihilist
- Image: The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- A New Ethic
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- Formal vs Informal Fallacy and Their Abuse
- What is Social Skepticism?
- The Five Types of Null Hypothesis Error
- And I Have Touched the Sky: The Appeal to Plenitude Error
- Formal vs Informal Fallacy and Their Abuse
- Poser Science: Proof Gaming
- Discerning Sound from Questionable Science Publication
- The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying
- Dear Journalism Schools We Deserve Better Quality Graduates as Aspiring Science Communicators
- The Ten Indicators of Methodical Genocide
- A Word About Polls
- And I Have Touched the Sky: The Appeal to Plenitude Error
- Contrasting Deontological Intelligence with Cultivated Ignorance
- Nurturing the New Mind: The Disruptive Nature of Ethics
- The Warning Indicators of Stacked Provisional Knowledge
- The Seven Features of Great Philosophy
- Spotting the Humpty Numpty
- The Joy of Sleight-of-Hand Manipulation
- Differentiating Scientific Literacy from Social Propaganda
- How Glyphosate Practices Serve to Increase Our Diet Risk Exposure
- Lies of Which I Disabused Myself Along the Way
- Islam, Corruption and Socialism All Relate in Direct Proportion to Human Suffering
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 8 – The Watchers Must Also Be Watched
- What Corporations Do When Bankrupt of Ideas/Ethics
- The Inverse Problem and False Claims to ‘Settled Science’
- Abuse of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
- The War Against Supplements Continues to Revel in Harmful Pseudoscience
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 7 – The Unexpected Virtue of Allow-For Thinking
- Never Never Land: The Folly of Pretense Concerning Our Cerebral Injury Children
- The Skeptic’s Guide to Dismissing Public Claims of Illnesses
- Foundation Works on Ethical Skepticism
- Deception Through Abuse of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
- Major Flaws Within the Neurodiversity Movement
- When Observation Gives Way to Data-Centric Only Science We All Lose
- When a Social Skeptic Claims to be Evidence Based
- Garbage Skepticism: The Definition
- The Correlation-Causality One-Liner Can Highlight One’s Scientific Illiteracy
- Irish Pennants: The Nature of Flawed versus Sound Definitions
- The Nature of Argument
- The Ethical Skeptic’s Argument Assessment Checklist
- No Promenade in the Savage Dance
- The Kuhn-loss Interplay of Scientific Revolution and Resilience
- The Warning Signs that a Social Epistemology is at Play
- Islam Judaism and Christianity: Time to Remove and Renounce Your Holy Verses Celebrating Violence
- The Celeber Cavilla Fallacy
- Are You a Cynic? You Might be Surprised
- The Best Snake Oil is One You Don’t Even Realize is Being Peddled
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 6 – Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say
- Ten Reasons People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible
- The Seven Steps of How I Recovered my Gut Flora and My Health
- No, I Won’t Back Down
- The Dark Side of SSkepticism: The Richeliean Appeal
- On Being a Young Person Contemplating Joining a Faith
- SSkeptic Weapon Word Top 25
- The Malicious Social Lie called Privilege
- The (Ethical Skeptic) Definition of God
- Deconstructing the Rhetoric around What Constitutes Pseudoscience
- Gaming the Lexicology of Ideas through Neologism
- Popper Demarcation Practice and Malpractice
- The Art of Rhetoric
- How You Persuade Makes All the Difference
- How You Say It Makes All the Difference
- Corber’s Burden of Skepticism and The Omega Hypothesis
- The Burden of Proof (in Gumballs)
- Oh, Those Darned Narcissists
- The Five Types of Null Hypothesis Error
- Wittgenstein Error and Its Faithful Participants
- Rationality is Not What False Skeptics Portray
- The Rising Age of the Cartel: Your Freedoms Were Simply an Experiment
- A Mediocracy in 4.0: Discounting College Acceptance Aptitude Testing is a Grave Error
- Aristotle: Discerning the True Skeptic
- iSkeptic – The Three Laws (and a Fourth)
- Why Sagan is Wrong – The Fake Skeptic Detection Kit
- If the New Religiously Unaffiliated are Not Choosing Atheism, Then Just What are They?
- Diagnostic Habituation Error and Spotting Those Who Fall Its Prey
- Nihilism’s Twisting & Turing Denial of Free Will
- The Deontologically Accurate Basis of the Term: Social Skepticism
- Have You Grown Weary of This? There is a Better Path
- A New Ethic
- Why I Don’t Golf
- The Lifecycle of Fake Skepticism – What’s the Harm?
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- An Internet Pre-filtered by Authorized Knowledge is a Mistake
- The Misrepresented and So Called ‘War on Science’
- The Ten EnDamnedments – Where the Moral Arc is Headed
- Yes Skeptics Have a PR Problem – Social Skeptics
- When Consensus is Nothing But Pluralistic Ignorance
- The Sorwert Scale of Fake Skepticism
- The Critical Role of Sponsors in the Scientific Method
- An Official ‘Thank You’ to Science Based Medicine
- No You are Not an Atheist, You are a Nihilist
- Methodical Cynicism: The Lyin’tific Method
- Methodical Cynicism: The Presentation
- Your Self is a Mere Illusion of Neurofunction
- Bad Science Being Bad
- The MiHoDeAL Claim to Knowledge
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 4 – The Panoply of Belief
- Latent Demand for Critical Thinking about Skepticism
- The Urgent Need to Reform the ABCD Seed Cartel Science Around Glyphosate
- Hell Hath No Punishment Like Watching Your Children Suffer
- The Magician’s Rush of Fake Skepticism
Site infoThe Ethical Skeptic
Blog at WordPress.com.