MIT Scientist Exposes Monsanto

Post Reply New Topic

You're projecting in bad faith, and I'd appreciate it if you'd not tell me what I do and don't like doing.

I have a special interest in educating people about science and dangerous pseudoscience. Vaccine conspiracy theories are dangerous pseudoscience. That isn't hyperbole, people actually die because of this claptrap that you're quite happy to promote because the person saying it also shares your unfounded fear of non-organic food.

It's similar with GMOs. Now don't get me wrong, there are lots of reasons to hate on Monsanto, but Roundup supposedly having huge, sweeping effects on human health isn't one of them. Generally speaking, Roundup is superior to the alternatives, which contributes to its widespread popularity. As posted above, we do not currently have any reason to suspect that it might be harming human health. If the likes of NaturalNews had their way and there was a huge public uprising against it, we'd end up with other pesticides, which are either worse for the environment, worse for consumers health, or, perhaps least pressingly, worse at actually doing their job.

I point out when people are wrong, which some people manage to be with alarming regularity, but I also admire the work of many scientists, and, where appropriate, I praise it. I'm particularly fond of the work of Dunning and Kruger, as well as Tversky and Kahnemann, which I recommend anyone checks out. I like the Cochrane Collaboration and Ben Goldacre. I like Christian Both and Marcel Visser, but when you start spouting unsubstantiated pseudoscience then it isn't particularly relevant to bring that up.

Generally, second year undergraduates do not get funding to perform publishable pieces of work. My work on the amount of exposure preferred by waterfront molluscs in Wales was never going to be of interest to anyone but myself, and my study of how grass length affects arthopod diversity was always too limited by time (though the results were consistent with the literature, which doesn't conclude what you'd instinctively suspect). I'm currently working on a literature review on how climate change is affecting and will affect animals' ranges and migrations, which may explain my love for some of the aforementioned scientists, but I don't intend on publishing that either.

But regardless, you are in no position to be lecturing anyone on how they are in no position to make valid criticisms of bad science.

Now, if you'd be willing to respond directly to any of the criticisms made, or if there's anything you'd like explained to you, I'd be happy to help and I'm sure others would too. Alternatively, you can keep throwing your toys out of the pram every time someone points out that something you said didn't stack up.

I like Ben Goldacre and Dunning and Kruger. I am looking forward to getting to know these others--Thanks for sharing this list!

Incidentally, one of the shocking realizations in discovery my autism late in life was that I was an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in the area of social communication. I was too bad at it to realize how bad at it I was. Even more shocking was the realization that I had talked about someone about the Dunning-Kruger effect and never realized that they were making this implication.

Thanks for so clearly articulating an approach of rational inquiry.

I love scientific discovery. I find woo in pseudoscientific disguise offensive. I don't mind if people choose to believe in wacky, unproveable things, but I don't like it when they claim that they are proving those things to be true in ways that are designed to mislead the unwary.

There has been a credible study showing a correlation between prenatal exposure glyphosates and autism. It's by no means conclusive. I think more research should be done since in science you can't ignore something just because you don't like the results.

That said, AutismOne is a quack conference that brought enemas of a bleach-like substance. They have no credibility.

There isn't any published evidence whatsoever for a correlation between GMOs and autism. That half having autism by 2025 is laughable.

To note that correlation is not causation is not to ignore anything. To proclaim that correlation is causation without evidence is not science. I suspect it wasn't intentional, but the way you have phrased this almost makes it sound like there is an established causal relationship. It also seems to suggest that there is a desire for there not to be a connection between glycophosphates and autism. I don't see any evidence for that view.

Except nothing you have posted has proven that these Doctors/Scientists claims don't stack up nor disproved what they've said. You've posted that they MAY not be fact because there are other possibilities, like that the kid naturally outgrew symptoms with time, but that being a possibility does not conclusively discredit the claims of the Doctor.

I'm completely open to criticism. Especially constructive criticism. But all you've posted is skepticism, which you're trying to claim disproves what I've shared or others have published. Meanwhile in reality all you've posted are skpetical opinions and alternative possibilities.

The other correlation between GMO's and Autism is that I've read 70% of Autistics are sensitive to salicylate acids. (I am, well, was much more so and now it's minimal) Salicylate acids are plants' natural pesticide and preservative. They're boosted sky high in GMO's & other crops are selectively bred to increase them. Ingesting much higher amounts of salicylate acids in fruits/veggies etc will certainly have neurological effects on most Autistics. For me, salicylate acid build up was a major contributing factor to depression, anxiety, audio sensitivity, executive functioning problems and more. I know this because the first thing I did was detox salicylate acids (stop consuming/touching them, used epsom salt lotion on my skin for the minerals required to enable your body to urinate out excess acids) and all of these symptoms (and more) improved dramatically. There was a major improvement in the first 5 days as the worst depression of my life that had lasted for 5 months was almost completely lifted. Then other symptoms got better over the next few months or so.

I haven't heard about that bit from an AutismOne conference - but using high volume herbal enemas to detox the large intestine has been a part of my own treatment protocol & maintenance. I've had life changing success with it & probiotics. It helps keep the digestive system balanced and in turn the enteric nervous system functioning properly (I believe.) which in turn has controlled ASD symptoms.

Yeah, I doubt the half of all people stuff by 2025, too.

So how does that explain me and my family??

You know what Daddy and I did with weeds?? Watched 'em bloom!! The only reason you couldn't call us organic gardeners was that we did, on occasion, resort to Miracle-Gro.

I'm pretty sure my grandfather predated RoundUp. ASD as all hell.

I am neither crediting nor discrediting it. I will, for other reasons, garden organically and kill my weeds with salt and vinegar all the same.

As a side-note, I'm really tempted to get that kid-- you know, the one in the tragic-child-trapped-behind-glass-wall pic that I keep seeing on ASD articles-- some room-darkening privacy curtains. I'll bet he'd really like to curl up and stim for a couple hours.

Barring debates on breaches of scientific methodology, shouldn't we be in unanimous agreement that any and all companies which own private armies are up to no good? Honest people don't need mercenaries defending their interests.

Honest people need mercenary armies to defend their interests from ignorant, fear-driven mobs lead by dishonest people (such as the aforementioned False Authority).

Simple. Glyphosate is not the only cause or contributing factor to Autism. I bet there are multiple causes & contributing factors.

You're right. I wasn't suggesting there is evidence of a causal link between glyphosates and autism, only a correlation in one study. I was just trying to say that while I really don't want to believe there is any relation, I think evidence is sufficient to do additional research.

I came across this today, it's regarding a different herbicide. I don't have time to read through it all and figure out how much trust the source is worthy of etc. but figured I'd leave it here anyway if anyone else is so inclined: Pre- and Postnatal Exposure to Low Dose Glufosinate Ammonium Induces Autism-Like Phenotypes in Mice

^^^^^^^^this

I read the intro & then kinda scanned the rest. Looks like it basically says pesticides are bad for us.. surprise surprise. It wouldn't surprise me if various pesticides are partially responsible for causing ASD. There's just no way that exposure to these sorts of chemicals can be harmless to us.

Winner. I wish more people thought this way instead of wanting to wait to see if any scientific studies emerge proving that the chemicals cause some specific harm.

What is your definition of chemical?