Well, I can see this is ideological for you, so I’ll see myself out.
It’s not ideological at all.
I just don’t understand why every link I was told to read centered Geoffrey Kabat, an ethically compromised scientist who produced pro-tobacco studies for Philip Morris, and who was on the board of the companies Monsanto paid to support Monsanto.
I’m especially flummoxed that this guy’s being held up as an untainted source by skeptics, who should know better.
4 Likes
There is a clear statistical link. The suggestion is that the interaction with intestinal flora may impair immune systems with substantial and prolonged exposure. This would not be entirely surprising given another suggested use for glyphosate was as an antiseptic/antibacterial.
To paraphrase Verbal Kint (and Charles Baudelaire) one of the greatest tricks that capitalism pulled was convincing the world that licking corporate asshole is the same thing as promoting scientific literacy.
I remember when they said similar stuff about fracking and earthquakes, about sugar and heart disease, about the superior healthiness of trans fat filled margarine vs butter, cigarettes and cancer was a bit before my time but trying to dismiss people as cranks for warning about the dangers of secondhand smoke wasn’t.
1 Like
A low cancer risk combined with them instructing farmers to treat it like water, with little to no safety precautions recommended, can turn into quite a number of cases of non hodgkins lymphoma that wouldn’t have happened if, for instance, crop dusters weren’t spraying the stuff while people worked in the fields underneath with no respirators on.
I’m not worried about the long term effects of glyphosate residue in my foods, I’m worried about the fact that there are people stuck working low wage agriculture jobs who are breathing it in all the time.
Fuck Monsanto.
2 Likes
If that’s the case, you need to explain why the large cohort NIH study found no correlation. Otherwise it starts to look like anti-vax cherry picking.
1 Like
Not going into that whole back and forth with you, but I am amused at how an official arm of the World Health Organization, composed of actual scientists who do actual science, is handwaved off as nothing more than a den of quackery.
According to the ToS, I’m supposed to always assume good faith, and that’s a real bummer, because with the way you’ve been regurgitating Monsanto/Bayer talking points here, you really deserve a paycheck from them.
That’s the one with the increased rate of acute myeloid leukemia, right? Your “No correlation” has the same amount of half-truthiness as “No collusion!”
The point is that many independent scientific studies (including multiple NIH studies, including the one you cite) report toxic effects from glyphosate below current regulatory levels.
None of these studies “clear” glyphosate, they point to concerning results that they then directly advise specific avenues for further study. That’s science.
I also don’t know why people are happy to dismiss a meta-analysis as a “just a survey of garbage studies”, and then hold up a single one of those “garbage studies” as general proof of general non-toxicity.
1 Like
The NIH study was about as far from a “garbage” study as you can get. It was a comprehensive large cohort study and found no correlation between glyphosate and NHL. The case studies that found a link were far smaller and include outliers. That’s not “proof” that there is no link between gly and NHL, and nobody said it was. It is however good evidence that glyphosate does not cause NHL.
I never said it was a garbage study. I was criticising the people who dismissed studies that found that glyphosate had toxic effects below current regulatory levels.
That’s from the NIH.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
