12-08-2003, 05:22 AM
|
|
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article ,
paghat wrote:
N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found
that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To
Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it
really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that
result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by
L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in
Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce
mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly
poison. ... . Smashing
in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity.
[billo's cut-&-paste job deleted for space]
Nice that you're steeped in the Monsanto party line, which you tidily
paraphrase from Monsanto's official response to peer-reviewed independent
studies that showed a connection between glyphosate & lymphoma. Going the
Monsanto party line just won't do. Because first of all, some of the
studies that indict glyphosate in fact regard MINIMAL exposures, so that
Monsanto's tiresome "even table salt is a poison" argument ends up being
as big a red herring as it was when the New York Attorney General sued
them over the table salt argument, & won.
It appears that you believed Monsanto rather than checking the studies,
because the Hardell & Ericksson study BY NO MEANS subjected anyone to
lethal doses of anything. So you repeated the lie that cancer or cell
death was caused by near-lethal doses, and anything less is safe as salt.
Simple logic would indicate nobody induced lymphic cancer in humans by
feeding them lethal doses of glyphosate, yet that's what you're claiming
yourself to believe. In reality, the 404 lymphoma victims in the Swedish
study were individuals who presented at a cancer center because they had
cancer, they were not volunteers given lethal doses of glyphosate. The
study they became part of sought to find lifestyle associations for
ordinary lymphoma patients, and included assessments of diet, smoking,
drinking, weight, workplace, hobbies, and environment, in a large enough
group to find statistical significance. They were not looking to prove
Monsanto gave these people cancer, it just surfaced as statistically
significant. It was found that the actual incidents of lymphoma
encountered in the normal course of medical practice in a cancer clinic
could be corrolated to exposure to glyphosate products, and the
significance increased dramatically when use of these products was
continued for ten or more years. The control group was twice the size the
lymphoma sufferers, and there was no similar connection found for healthy
people. THAT is the finding of the Hardell & Ericksson study, and they
smashed nobody over the head with lethal doses of glyphosate, salt, or
ballpeen hammers.
I having trouble believing you intentionally lied, but also having trouble
believing you're dumb enough to believe what you paraphrased about the
lymphoma connection being true only with lethal doses, as that was simply
irrational. What is certain is Monsanto intentionally lied, and what you
paragraphased from Monsanto literature is not founded in fact. The
lymphoma connection has yet to be refuted by any peer-reviewed research.
It is just only one of many reasons responsible gardeners never use
RoundUp, but it's an interesting one to focus on if only because Monsanto
has put so much extra lobbying efforts in the government to keep anything
from being done about it, and propoganda effort to muddy simple findings
hoping the public will believe their lies foremost.
This is, of course, circular. Anybody who writes an article
that shows the safety of Roundup is dismissed as a "Monsanto
propagandist."
Rather, when a pattern well established of "positive" findings coming from
Monsanto labs or studies that are funded by Monsanto, but indictments
coming from independent research not sponsored by Monsanto; when the
"positive" findings are published in non-peer-reviewed journals funded by
the chemical and petroleum industries, then paraphrased on
industry-financed ExToxNet run by a guy who claims Dioxons are safe and
the EPA should stop condemning them; yet negative findings surface in
peer-reviewed journals ...... well, it's clear where the propoganda is to
be found. It's not circular logic, it's factually propoganda, & worse yet,
it's not even true, just as when you suggested those 404 lymphoma victims
would have had to have been experimentally given lethal doses of
glyphosate in order to get the cancerous results -- that was one of the
major Monsanto whoppers, but as propoganda it seems to have worked swell
on you.
The peer-reviewed science from Sweden ended with recommendations for
further studies (which sure as hell will not be funded by Monsanto)
because "glyphosate deserves further epidemiologic studies." Monsanto
countered exclusively by attempts to condemn the study and several times
to undermine the researchers themselves, though that at least failed.
Unless Monsanto funded it, or conducted it, and agree with the outcomes,
Monsanto just never agrees.
Of course propoganda CAN be based on facts. When environmentalists with
their clear agenda cite Hardell & Ericksson, they may have a
propogandistic purpose, but they don't have to lie because the facts
really are against Monsanto. Monsanto clearly believes they have to lie,
and so do so. There's also a moral distinction: fact-telling
environmentalists are for the environment; lie-telling Monsanto is for the
profits. Only Monsanto has something to lose by being truthful.
So tell me you were being disengenuous for sophist reasons, & you're
actually an organic gardener & get the willies from Monsanto's overt
creepiness.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/
|