For those interested in how the sly Gly is all over the place, not only in our food but also even in Tampon, here is the url for a Youtube podcast:
About 2/3 into the podcast, the MIT researcher briefly talks about the synergistic interactions of Gly in honeybee gut.
I appreciate those of you outside USA commenting on this thread with a good measure of sanity.
If I began to list the multitudes of studies that show no ill-effect, it will just be answered with "Monsanto/Bayer paid for that study" whether true or not.
For some very religious people, they see the devil behind every bush. For the non-religious, they do not see him at all. Yet they are looking at the same bushes.
Let's just say openly what these debates are all about: People with pre-conceived dispositions about the uses of chemicals and pesticides making their arguments and cherry-picking their "studies." On both sides.
It makes it very difficult for the agnostics to get to any sense of truth and accuracy.
The OP was about a SINGLE study that was recently published. It will be much more productive to talk about this study and what it may or may not tell us about glyphosate and what could be done to either verify the findings or discredit them with future studies.
Your "source" is an MIT computer prof with no education, experience or expertise in any area relevant to toxicology, medicine, agriculture or any other field even tangential to glyphosate chemistry or pharmacology. In other words, you've used the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" to try and make your argument appear legitimate. Reality is that she (Stephanie Seneff) is a non-expert who, despite making a lot of money giving paid talks, is widely considered a quack and fraud by people actually in the medical sciences.
Her sole "contribution" (I use the term loosely) to the science of glyphosate was a single article in the journal Entropy - a journal that publishes work relating to data science, not on chemistry, pharmacology, biology or any related field. The journal has admitted, in response to the controversy that followed publication, that the "study" was edited and reviewed by data scientists and not by people with relevant experience. The paper itself is generally considered to be fraudulent, for a number of reasons - to the point where the journal has placed a warning at the top of the paper (see the link, above). Notably:
- She mis-represented the data and conclusions in the papers she based her analysis on
- She cherry-picked her data sources to those which could be skewed towards her desired conclusion, rather than comprehensively analysing the data available in the literature
- Her biochemical model was grossly incorrect
- She conflated rates of diagnosis with rates of disease incidence*
- All she found was a weak correlation; and as anyone who didn't sleep through the first lecture in stats class knows, correlation does not equal causation
*this is important, as most data indicates that the rate of autism have been relatively stable for at least 40 years, while the rates of diagnosis have improved greatly over that time
But yes, lets listen to the known non-expert, who is highly conflicted, and is a known fraud, for information. Clearly she is far more knowledgeable than the government and independent researchers who are actual experts in the area, and who understand simple concepts like the difference between diagnosis versus incidence
Address the merits of the points he made!
1. She mis-represented the data and conclusions in the papers she based her analysis on
2. She cherry-picked her data sources to those which could be skewed towards her desired conclusion, rather than comprehensively analysing the data available in the
3. Her biochemical model was grossly incorrect
4. She conflated rates of diagnosis with rates of disease incidence*
5. All she found was a weak correlation; and as anyone who didn't sleep through the first lecture in stats class knows, correlation does not equal causation
All right, I will be more specific, then. I would appreciate very much about your research done on the synergistic interactions between neonicontinoid and Gly in the gut of honeybees, in general, and in particular, how their synergy affects on the gut bacteria in the long run.
I thank you very much for the url on your book or article.
I've used roundup to control weeds around the hives for years, but since that guy sued cos he got cancer and won ( i think ) 250 million, I have been wondering if I need to find another way.
But a read of this thread has restored my confidence in roundup I will continue using it.
"Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker
Alistair you do not have to find another way, just come to America and find a lawyer and a jury full of Earthboys. Science does not enter into it.
Not all Americans support the rampant abuse of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides that harm the environment "because I too have to make a living." As a bloody American, I am glad there are some of us still around.
The average life span of queen bees, it appears, has now been reduced to a season when they used to live, on average, three years--a topic well examined on Bee-L. This is just one example of the overall degradation. Look at the green deserts on our lawns: there is absolutely nothing for the bees to forage. Worse, where will the residue of Roundup eventually end up? In the air we breathe, in the water we drink, in the soil we raise our crops, and in the veins of our blood: this man-made, unnatural chemical is everywhere.
To argue this chemical is safe is beyond common sense.
Roundup is a short term solution with a long-lasting impact. Roundup-resistant weeds are popping up already, forcing us to stay only one step away from disaster. We cannot keep up with this kind of arms race. Such arms race is not sustainable just as honeybees kept in a bubble of IPM cannot survive in nature.
Bees, on a different note, should not be able to merely survive in nature but thrive when left alone. Remember bees will make honey "in spite of the beekeeper!" They have been doing just fine for eons.
What kind of world have we created for the bees if they must be medicated around the clock? How sustainable or natural is that? Are we not choking our own throat with our cleverness and for our greed? Don't you realize what we are doing to ourselves in the long run?
Please note that my postings lack ad hominem.
SulGeneris - thank you for your posts. It’s nice to have someone so knowledgeable in how these types of studies are done and analyzed to explain this to an ignoramus like myself. There is just way too much jumping to conclusions out there in regards to so many topics, when studies (not knowing their limitations or flaws) are published, taken as gospel, and perpetuated by the uninformed or the ignorant to support their view.
There are alternatives.
Thankfully we donīt have to depend on chemicals alone contaminating the ground and water. But it needs some time and a new generation of young enthusiastic scientists who are interested in preserving nature as it was and still partly is.
Weeding Robots will be a part of it.
Many new inventions:
Even Bayer takes part and wants to use less pesticides and preserves the earth
Last edited by 1102009; 09-29-2018 at 06:55 AM.
extensively displaced many native species. Pretending they are "natural" or important to N. American ecosystems is outright fraudulent.
they have previously rapidly evolved to paracytes and other pressures, continue to do so, and nothing will stop that from happening in the future.
Your trip into existential crisis mode was entertaining though.
You've also failed to address the points I raised in response to the video you posted, a challenge nicely restated by @crofter. AKA, moving the goal posts - yet another form of logical fallacy.
As I said, the woo is strong in you
I would appreciate very much about your research done on the synergistic interactions or interplay between neonicontinoid and Gly combined in the gut of honeybees, in general, and in particular, how their synergy affects on the gut bacteria in the long run.
Most important, I am interested in how the interplay of the two affects the honeybee's flight orientation, such as German study has once illustrated.
Waiting for your url
Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.
In other words, you're seeking the cowards way out. I pointed out that the video you posted as "proof" of your claims was a known fraud, and linked to the relevant sources demonstrating that.
Rather than addressing that data, you're trying to shoot the messenger...yet another logical fallacy...
Strange, that you cannot address the huge gaping flaw in your own claim.
Last edited by SuiGeneris; 10-01-2018 at 09:44 AM.