Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmAsTrsUjBc

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.

Earthboy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,796 Posts
For those interested in how the sly Gly is all over the place, not only in our food but also even in Tampon
And has been for almost half a century. Even back in the "good ole" pre-varroa, pre-CCD days.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmAsTrsUjBc

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.

Earthboy
The woo is strong in this guy.

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:

  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 literature
  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

*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 :lpf:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
The woo is strong in this guy.

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:

  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 literature
  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

*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 :lpf:
Your point is well-taken. May I ask your peer-reviewed articles YOU have published please?

Thank you.

Earthboy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
Hold on you are saying round up is a good thing? You do understand it is man made not something nature intended right?
Yes, I would say Roundup is a good thing. In the old days (not so long ago) farmers planted clover in the fields to add nitrogen and keep other weeds limited. The problem is that all that clover takes nutrients from the crops and uses plenty of water. The nutrients could be boosted with fertilizer and the water could be replaced with irrigation. Which was fine until the water in the aquifers started disappearing. Now, there is not enough water for all the crops so either we had to plant fewer crops or get rid of the clover. Thus the clover had to go. With the clover gone, the weeds take over and take more water and nutrients than the clover did. Which is where Roundup comes in. Using Roundup, the fields have few weeds and use way less water and way less fertilizer. That is a pretty good deal. Unfortunately, there is a cost to using it too. There is potential for lost bees, water and soil pollution and apparently, cancer. We can stop using Roundup and reduce crop yields but increase water and fertilizer use, until the water completely runs out. We could also hire a bunch of people to manually weed the fields and get $4.00 an ear corn (an exaggeration I am sure). Neither of those options is a really good one. Thus, Roundup is a pretty good thing. Am I happy it is a good thing? No I am not. If I had my way, we would not need it at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Your point is well-taken. May I ask your peer-reviewed articles YOU have published please?

Thank you.

Earthboy
There is 38 of them...and three books. You'll need to be more specific about which one you want.

Yand apparently, cancer
Actually, this isn't scientifically supported. More than 50 gov agencies around the world have looked at the data and said it didn't support any link to cancer. The WHO report claiming it was cancerous has been heavily criticised by scientists & these agencies - essentially for ignoring the largest safety study on glyphosate (roundup) ever performed, and re-writing the findings of the studies they did cite to the opposite of what those studies claimed. Reuters did a good summary of the controversy:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,872 Posts
Your point is well-taken. May I ask your peer-reviewed articles YOU have published please?

Thank you.

Earthboy
What is the name of this debating style. Is this a strawman, red herring or attacking the person rather than the points made? I am not sure but it stinks!

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
literature
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
There is 38 of them...and three books. You'll need to be more specific about which one you want.


Actually, this isn't scientifically supported. More than 50 gov agencies around the world have looked at the data and said it didn't support any link to cancer. The WHO report claiming it was cancerous has been heavily criticised by scientists & these agencies - essentially for ignoring the largest safety study on glyphosate (roundup) ever performed, and re-writing the findings of the studies they did cite to the opposite of what those studies claimed. Reuters did a good summary of the controversy:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/
"There is [are???] 38 of them...and three books. You'll need to be more specific about which one you want."

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.

Respectfully,

Earthboy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,175 Posts
Thanks guys.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,175 Posts
Your point is well-taken. May I ask your peer-reviewed articles YOU have published please?

Thank you.

Earthboy
OK if we gonna play that game, can I ask how many peer reviewed articles YOU have published please?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,910 Posts
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.
Johno
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
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.
Johno
True.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
There are alternatives.
Thankfully we don´t 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:

https://www.youtube.com/user/FiBLFilm

Even Bayer takes part and wants to use less pesticides and preserves the earth :D

https://www.cropscience.bayer.de/de...smarter-anbauen-mit-praezisionslandwirtschaft

https://beecare.bayer.com/bilder/up...in_der_Landwirtschaft_RZlow_finalj9e659vl.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
To argue this chemical is safe is beyond common sense.
Common sence isn't so common - in most cases, its a red herring used to avoid inconvenient facts. The toxicity of glyhosate is well known - and its less toxic than table salt. Its measured environmental impact is likewise less than that of any previously used herbicide - and it is used (on a per acre basis) in far smaller amounts than other chemicals (yes, even those 'natural' ones used by organic farmers) - 1-2 cups of concentrate per acre.

Roundup is a short term solution with a long-lasting impact.
Note to self: 44 years is now "short-term"

LOL

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.
Its called evolution, and whether you use "natural" or synthetic compounds to manage weeds, it is an inevitable issue that will be faced. And the answer once again is science - evolution of resistant weeds can be limited by how, when and in what quantities glyphosate (or any other herbacide) is used. And we are remarkably good at it - 44 years in use, and resistance is remarkably rare and usually wiped out in a season or two.

Bees, on a different note, should not be able to merely survive in nature but thrive when left alone.
In N. America, honey bees are an invasive species which have extensively displaced many native species. Pretending they are "natural" or important to N. American ecosystems is outright fraudulent.

They have been doing just fine for eons.
And they will continue to do so - they have previously rapidly evolved to paracytes and other pressures, continue to do so, and nothing will stop that from happening in the future.

Please note that my postings lack ad hominem.
Yeah, you've swapped that out for a series of other logical fallacies including red herrings, appeal to emotion, affirming the consequent, naturalistic fallacy and false equivalence.

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 ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Common sence isn't so common - in most cases, its a red herring used to avoid inconvenient facts. The toxicity of glyhosate is well known - and its less toxic than table salt. Its measured environmental impact is likewise less than that of any previously used herbicide - and it is used (on a per acre basis) in far smaller amounts than other chemicals (yes, even those 'natural' ones used by organic farmers) - 1-2 cups of concentrate per acre.


Note to self: 44 years is now "short-term"

LOL


Its called evolution, and whether you use "natural" or synthetic compounds to manage weeds, it is an inevitable issue that will be faced. And the answer once again is science - evolution of resistant weeds can be limited by how, when and in what quantities glyphosate (or any other herbacide) is used. And we are remarkably good at it - 44 years in use, and resistance is remarkably rare and usually wiped out in a season or two.


In N. America, honey bees are an invasive species which have extensively displaced many native species. Pretending they are "natural" or important to N. American ecosystems is outright fraudulent.


And they will continue to do so - they have previously rapidly evolved to paracytes and other pressures, continue to do so, and nothing will stop that from happening in the future.


Yeah, you've swapped that out for a series of other logical fallacies including red herrings, appeal to emotion, affirming the consequent, naturalistic fallacy and false equivalence.

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 ;)
Thank you for teaching me what evolution means and what a short-term means in geological sense i have used the term. In the meantime, would you please help me with this?

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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
.......Waiting for your url
Me too interested.
I like reading a good book, now and then.
Sometimes I even buy a book.

Mind you some of us here are too unassuming to publicly (and repeatedly) display our credentials and credits (especially IF directly irrelevant to the subject discussed).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
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.
I've been very clear on where my area of expertise lies in the past, and what my experience with microbiota is. I know you are desperate for any reason to ignore what I have written, but the data is out there, and the data is all - the messenger is irrelevant.

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...

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.
...and on the topic of fallacy's, now you're shifting the goal posts.

Strange, that you cannot address the huge gaping flaw in your own claim.

LOL
 
41 - 60 of 63 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top