Roundup probably causes cancer

[bilby]

It's already been established that this guy is a quack. Showing that he's the one behind a study is enough to rebut it, no science is needed.

The jury is out, but with a serious study underway, rather than Monsanto's pretend studies we will see.
The thing to do is to do the study again, and see if Seralini was right or whether Monsanto was right.
Monsanto wil never do a serious study and the American FDA will never make them do one. Too much money at stake.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-causes-cancer&p=143465&viewfull=1#post143465

By not doing proper tests Monsanto has put their profits at risk. But management would have already received their bonus's I imagine.
By not requiring more serious tests the FDA has added yet another risk to the American economy which relies on their corporations having at least some credibility

If you want to pay for new tests, go ahead and throw your money away. But don't call for public money to be wasted chasing your irrational fears.

If you keep testing long enough, you will throw up a false positive by pure chance; and given your history on the topic, you will then ignore the huge weight of data that shows you are wrong, in favour of mindlessly regurgitating the unrepresentitive sample of studies cherry-picked to show that you are right.

You are already able to do this; and you are already unable to fool anyone by doing it. So why do it?

 

[tupac chopra]

Firstly the thread is about Roundup, not glyphosate. As has already been mentioned Monsanto cheerleaders like to use them interchangeably. Interestingly you did that just then. I wonder why?

Because the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, so if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for.

You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

No shit, Sherlock. I mentioned that 21 posts ago - Really, if you are not going to read my posts, then you might want to stop commenting on what I have or have not said, it just makes you look foolish.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

So far, all of it

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

<snip>.

As usual, you are unable to point to any science to support your assertion.

 

[bilby]

Because the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, so if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for.

You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

No shit, Sherlock. I mentioned that 21 posts ago - Really, if you are not going to read my posts, then you might want to stop commenting on what I have or have not said, it just makes you look foolish.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

So far, all of it

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

<snip>.

As usual, you are unable to point to any science to support your assertion.

Which 'assertion' would you like me to support?

Do you disagree that the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate?

Or that if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for?

Or are you simply repeating the PRATTs that 'science doesn't say Roundup is safe' and 'science doesn't say glyphosate is safe'?

Surely you of all people cannot pretend that nothing has been presented, in this thread (and many others you have been involved in on this forum). Unless you have some kind of serious memory problem.

If you are looking for a bald scientific statement that 'Roundup is safe', then you are asking the impossible; Statements of the form 'X is safe' without qualification are NOT SCIENCE.

Both Glyphosate and Roundup are demonstrably not dangerous enough to be of medical concern when used as intended. Nobody has ever been recorded as getting sick or dying as a result of glyphosate or Roundup exposure other than in deliberate suicide attempts, where the concentrated formulation was ingested in large quantities.

Not only do you demonstrate that you don't know anything about this subject; you demonstrate with your questions that you don't even grasp the basic epistemology - you don't know how to know, or even what it means to 'know' something in this context.

Go back to school. Learn what science IS. Then learn some science. Then we can talk.

 

[tupac chopra]

Because the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, so if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for.

You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

No shit, Sherlock. I mentioned that 21 posts ago - Really, if you are not going to read my posts, then you might want to stop commenting on what I have or have not said, it just makes you look foolish.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

So far, all of it

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

<snip>.

As usual, you are unable to point to any science to support your assertion.

Which 'assertion' would you like me to support?

Your repeated assertions about it being safe. It was simple question about what science supported your belief.
If and when you do we will see how flimsy it actually all is despite all your drama and big talk.

Surely you of all people cannot pretend that nothing has been presented,

Go back and look at your own posts. You whine you complain you go to the edge of personal attacks being careful to word things so you can say you didn't actually make a attack, (your pathetic charade about me lying in this thread is an example) but you never or rarely post any science to directly support your position.

How many posts have you made in this thread without posting science already. Yet look at all the words you have wasted without any content.

 

[bilby]

Because the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, so if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for.

You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

No shit, Sherlock. I mentioned that 21 posts ago - Really, if you are not going to read my posts, then you might want to stop commenting on what I have or have not said, it just makes you look foolish.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

So far, all of it

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

<snip>.

As usual, you are unable to point to any science to support your assertion.

Which 'assertion' would you like me to support?

Your repeated assertions about it being safe. It was simple question about what science supported your belief.
If and when you do we will see how flimsy it actually all is despite all your drama and big talk.

Surely you of all people cannot pretend that nothing has been presented,

Go back and look at your own posts. You whine you complain you go to the edge of personal attacks being careful to word things so you can say you didn't actually make a attack, (your pathetic charade about me lying in this thread is an example) but you never or rarely post any science to directly support your position.

How many posts have you made in this thread without posting science already. Yet look at all the words you have wasted without any content.

Wow. The irony is staggering.

 

[tupac chopra]

Because the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, so if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for.

You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

No shit, Sherlock. I mentioned that 21 posts ago - Really, if you are not going to read my posts, then you might want to stop commenting on what I have or have not said, it just makes you look foolish.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

So far, all of it

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

<snip>

As usual, you are unable to point to any science to support your assertion.

Which 'assertion' would you like me to support?

Your repeated assertions about it being safe. It was simple question about what science supported your belief.
If and when you do we will see how flimsy it actually all is despite all your drama and big talk.

Surely you of all people cannot pretend that nothing has been presented,

Go back and look at your own posts. You whine you complain you go to the edge of personal attacks being careful to word things so you can say you didn't actually make a attack, (your pathetic charade about me lying in this thread is an example) but you never or rarely post any science to directly support your position.

How many posts have you made in this thread without posting science already. Yet look at all the words you have wasted without any content.

Wow. The irony is staggering.

Still no science. From page one of this thread you just post crap but no relevant science for the OP.

 

[bilby]

Because the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, so if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for.

You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

No shit, Sherlock. I mentioned that 21 posts ago - Really, if you are not going to read my posts, then you might want to stop commenting on what I have or have not said, it just makes you look foolish.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

So far, all of it

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

<snip>

As usual, you are unable to point to any science to support your assertion.

Which 'assertion' would you like me to support?

Your repeated assertions about it being safe. It was simple question about what science supported your belief.
If and when you do we will see how flimsy it actually all is despite all your drama and big talk.

Surely you of all people cannot pretend that nothing has been presented,

Go back and look at your own posts. You whine you complain you go to the edge of personal attacks being careful to word things so you can say you didn't actually make a attack, (your pathetic charade about me lying in this thread is an example) but you never or rarely post any science to directly support your position.

How many posts have you made in this thread without posting science already. Yet look at all the words you have wasted without any content.

Wow. The irony is staggering.

Still no science. From page one of this thread you just post crap but no relevant science for the OP.

On the contrary; you have posted no science at all in this thread.

And you seem to have forgotten already your retraction of this slur against me only a short time ago.

Really? Post #37 in this thread is calling you a liar.

Amazing..this time you actually linked to some science.

...

You should probably try to find out what 'science' actually is (Hint: Seralini and Seneff don't do it), if you want to make claims like this.

And you should certainly seek the advice of a neurologist about your memory issues. Amnesia may be symptomatic of a number of serious underlying conditions.

Of course it may be that you are simply trying to insult or bait me with this repeated slur, but as that would be a ToU violation, it would seem most unwise.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Because the largest ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, so if you are looking for Roundup traces, Glyphosate is the chemical you test for.

You started talking about Roundup then switched to glyphosate. Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup.

No shit, Sherlock. I mentioned that 21 posts ago - Really, if you are not going to read my posts, then you might want to stop commenting on what I have or have not said, it just makes you look foolish.

What science are you relying on to say Roundup is safe and what science are you relying on to say glyphosate is safe?

So far, all of it

What will happen now will be either
<snip>

<snip>

As usual, you are unable to point to any science to support your assertion.

I notice that you conveniently glossed over my post, where I linked to several studies involving glyphosate. HERE it is again, if your willing to be be open minded instead of hurling insults and running away into a dark closet screaming "BUT YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!" at the top of your lungs.

As to your claim of wheat being sprayed just prior to harvest...even a simple snopes search has you there.

I'll ask you what I ask all the flouride/GMO/organic/anti-corporate conspiracy theorists. Where are all the sick and dying people? Roundup isn't new. GMO isn't new. In fact, livestock have been eating it for decades, yet, no dying animals everywhere. You can be sure if GMO feed were killing profits they wouldn't be using it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Still no science. From page one of this thread you just post crap but no relevant science for the OP.

But the OP didn't raise any science. Just cites a link to a study of which the results are unknown.

 

[Perspicuo]

IDEA: From now on, people here are NOT going to post "Did not!"/"Did too!"

Instead, you are only going to post ONLY what you find on Google Scholar, the FDA and prestigious university websites.



(This word pingpong among yoursleves is getting on my nerves.)

 

[Perspicuo]

Let me start:

World Health Organization FAQ on GMO's:
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

Also, let's agree distinguishing hypothesis and well-established science. Hypotheses describe outcomes that "might happen" but are not well-established with sound, repeated and statistically significant research over a sufficient amount of time by many research hubs from around the developed world... yet (or ever --an open question for the future).

 

[Perspicuo]

Another... this time from the University of California at Riverside:

https://magazine.ucr.edu/155

 

[ZiprHead]

Another... this time from the University of California at Riverside:

https://magazine.ucr.edu/155

Did not...

 

[tupac chopra]

Let me start:

Thanks but the thread is about whether Roundup is carcinogenic. I appreciate your links but this thread has already gone into quite afew pages and there has been almost no discussion about the science that shows or does not show whether Roundup might cause cancer.

Roundup is virtually everywhere in the
world today , and I am saying that the "science" that shows it is safe is not "science" but Industry funded work designed to make money or exert control not to neutrally examine whether it is dangerous to humans.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me start:

Thanks but the thread is about whether Roundup is carcinogenic. I appreciate your links but this thread has already gone into quite afew pages and there has been almost no discussion about the science that shows or does not show whether Roundup might cause cancer.

Roundup is virtually everywhere in the
world today , and I am saying that the "science" that shows it is safe is not "science" but Industry funded work designed to make money or exert control not to neutrally examine whether it is dangerous to humans.

Are you agreeing with that or disputing it.

Can a Moderator please split of the discussion of GMO's?

I'm kind of agreeing to not believe the main active ingredient is toxic to humans unless humans are found in rivers contaminated with glyphosate.¹ The idea of using brown trout gets past most of the contaminates since brown trout, by definition, are not pure, or, mountain water fish. Still better evaluations of glyphosate would be more useful if more specific studies manipulating variables directly relating to humans as are done with use of estrogen in feed, and plastics². Still, there are fights about whether or not estrogen and other endocrine disruptors are actually changing and killing us. Lets get this fight won first. Until then we should put such as Roundup on a backbench and stop being shrill hair pulling discussants with little or nothing beyond unreasoned fear of stuff we use to create abundant crops.

<sub><sup>1 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/16/32?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

2 http://omicsgroup.org/journals/epig...nvironmental-estrogens-2168-9547.1000e115.pdf</sup></sub>

 

[arkirk]

Roundup is "so safe you could drink it"...but at the same time.."not really"
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM[/YOUTUBE]

"The interview is finished!" In other words, ask me to substantiate my claim and put myself on the line for my claim and...."the interview is...." So what is new is Lobby World? He makes a statement. The interviewer says, "We happen to have some of that here for you to drink." He says, "I'm not an idiot." (Just a LIAR)

 

[Perspicuo]

Let me start:

Thanks but the thread is about whether Roundup is carcinogenic. I appreciate your links but this thread has already gone into quite afew pages and there has been almost no discussion about the science that shows or does not show whether Roundup might cause cancer.

Roundup is virtually everywhere in the
world today , and I am saying that the "science" that shows it is safe is not "science" but Industry funded work designed to make money or exert control not to neutrally examine whether it is dangerous to humans.

Actually, I believe Roundup is fatal.

The public doesn't need to worry about Roundup unless it is delivered to them in their food. So these websites are relevant.

 

[Perspicuo]

Roundup is "so safe you could drink it"...but at the same time.."not really"
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM[/YOUTUBE]

"The interview is finished!" In other words, ask me to substantiate my claim and put myself on the line for my claim and...."the interview is...." So what is new is Lobby World? He makes a statement. The interviewer says, "We happen to have some of that here for you to drink." He says, "I'm not an idiot." (Just a LIAR)

You know what's fatal too? A glass of ascorbic acid. And a glass of salt. And a glass of potassium bicarnbonate.

In fact a glass of almost everything.

And iodine? Why is iodine (sodium iodide) used to disinfect wounds, isn't it poison?


Yeah, if you were born yesterday!

 

[thebeave]

Urine is pretty much safe to drink (there are nutters who actually do this for "health" reasons). It doesn't cause cancer. But fuck if I'm gonna drink a glass!

Patrick Moore kind of walked into that one. He should have been aware of today's "gotcha" journalism, social media and the public's inability to think critically.

 

[tupac chopra]

Thanks but the thread is about whether Roundup is carcinogenic. I appreciate your links but this thread has already gone into quite afew pages and there has been almost no discussion about the science that shows or does not show whether Roundup might cause cancer.

Roundup is virtually everywhere in the
world today , and I am saying that the "science" that shows it is safe is not "science" but Industry funded work designed to make money or exert control not to neutrally examine whether it is dangerous to humans.

Actually, I believe Roundup is fatal.

The public doesn't need to worry about Roundup unless it is delivered to them in their food. So these websites are relevant.

It is already very prevalent.
http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf