Glyphosate, Neurological Diseases – And The Scientific Method: How Not To Do Science.

[HuckleB]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4538578/

"...

In their lengthy treatise, “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases III: Manganese (Mn), neurological diseases, and associated pathologies” recently published in Surgical Neurology International, Drs. Samsel and Seneff blame the widely used herbicide glyphosate for a number of ecological as well as medical disorders via Mn metabolism and a myriad of other pathophysiological mechanisms.[9] The linking of this effective herbicide to the alphabet soup list of conditions enumerated by the authors seems to be “shotgun science” — namely, multiple associations based on population-based statistics, disconnected correlations, and manipulation of numbers and conditions that create an epidemiological recipe for errors and nonvalid associations. The authors link every kind of disorder imaginable to a widely used chemical that has not been specifically linked clinically to any of those disorders.[9]

The massive weight of unconnected data presented by Drs. Samsel and Seneff in this paper fails to establish a definite association with glyphosate usage or Mn metabolism to autism or any of the other conditions implicated.[9] At best the link to autism is weak but not completely excluded as a co-factor with as yet unidentified other causes. Before we condemn glyphosate and its alleged mechanism of biological disruption in humans, in both alleged accumulation and depletion (both mechanisms are described by the authors), more data needs to be collected by actual fieldwork, testing, and experimentation. This hypothesis needs to be tested by other investigators under more direct and rigorous conditions for the variety of disorders listed by Drs. Samsel and Seneff.

Investigators must be wary of the various traps that befall epidemiological, population-based studies. First, for example, is the post-hoc, ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of it”) fallacy. In other words, does a high level of a toxic substance cause a disease, or does it merely accumulate as the result of the disease or some other process? Was the high use of glyphosate noted to precede the increase in the number of cases of autism, Parkinson's disease (PD), cholestasis, and Alzheimer's disease (AD), etc., really responsible for those conditions? I think not, by the evidence provided by the authors. True, the authors have done a phenomenal amount of work and collected an impressive bibliography, but this of itself does not prove a cause and effect relationship.

The assertion, “(glyphosate) usage has increased steadily. In step with the rise in autism rates,”[9] proves nothing, but suggests the intrusion of a second related epidemiological error — e.g., the correlation-causation fallacy, a common error in logic stating that correlation does not establish causation. We can make statements for a variety of other substances and conditions, but in the end correlation does not establish causation. Similarly, along with the markedly increased use of glyphosate, there has been increases in the use of a number of chemicals, including other pesticides and herbicides (many of them already blamed for some of the same illnesses cited by the authors); there has been a protracted increase in medical uses of prescription drugs as well as the recreational consumption of illegal drugs; administration of large number of vaccines given to children possibly overtaxing the immune system and implicated in the rise of autism (particularly measles, mumps, and rubella [MMR], and vaccines that used the preservative thimerosal), etc. By similarly shaped graphs, we could cursorily implicate not only vaccines, but also the escalation of single parenthood and poverty, increased federal spending in welfare programs, even the growth of the organic food industry, not to mention the tremendous world population growth and overcrowding — as culprits for the increase in the variety of degenerative conditions and cancers cited by the authors during a similar period of time [Figures ​[Figures11–5]. And yet, the authors have singled out glyphosate as the causative agent, not just for autism, but also for an alphabet soup list of conditions. And as we will see later, one of the authors (Seneff) asserts that we need to “act drastically,” implying, I suppose, imposing a ban on glyphosate. But even if the authors were on the right track, extreme caution should be exercised for reasons that will become obvious as we proceed further with this critique.

..."

--------------------------------------------

Yes, this is long. However, if you are ethical, and yet you intrinsically believe that Samsel and Seneff found that glyphosate causes all number of diseases, in their "paper," published in an unknown open-access journal a few years ago (Yeah, lots of bad publications keep reposting stories about it, claiming that it's brand new, but... ), then you will read it all the way through so you know the ins and outs of the problems with the claims they made.

Thank you.

[HuckleB]

1. Did Samsel and Seneff Show That "Glyphosate Is Poisoning Everyone?" (No.)

Last edited Thu Jul 21, 2016, 08:41 AM - Edit history (1)

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/04/30/is_glyphosate_poisoning_everyone

[Ohio Dem]

2. K and R

nt

[HuckleB]

3. Thank you!

[MohRokTah]

4. I hate anti-science drivel, whether from the right or the left.

Samsel and Seneff are the moral equivalents of creaion "scientists" on the right.

[HuckleB]

22. Absolutely. It's astounding that so many here get taken in by such fictions.

[progressoid]

5. Oh pish posh.

That just seems like a whole bunch of smarty pants mumbo jumbo. I have some righteous indignation and I don't want these sciency types ruining that.

.


.


.


K/R

[HuckleB]

6. Samsel and Seneff paper shows ignorance at an astounding level.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/11/glyphosate-use-in-wheat/

How can two people so incredibly ignorant of even the most basic aspects of the topic think they know enough to publish nonsense, even in a ludicrous and discredited journal?

How can so many people fall for their baseless fear mongering?

Oh, that's right. It's easy to spread misinformation and fear.

That doesn't mean it's right, however.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. I took the liberty of checking out Dr. Samsel's publication record.

Eleven publications. Just over a hundred citations.

To call that unimpressive would be an understatement.

[HuckleB]

9. LOL! Publishing nonsense in crap journals on topics of which she knows nothing...

https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/08/anti-roundup-glyphosate-researchers-use-easy-oa-journals-to-spread-their-views/

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/04/30/is_glyphosate_poisoning_everyone.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/04/26/when-media-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/#.V5DNXhSMA6U

But CT lovers, well, never mind.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. By That Logic. . .

. . .the number of posts here on DU should be a valid lever to the weight one puts on the opinions by a given poster.

Yet, i doubt you believe that to be true.

Many citations, especially in the field under discussion, are a matter of different preachers quoting one another. Hardly the type of cites that would apply to genuinely accredited researchers and scientists.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. No, not really.

First: Nowhere did I say Samsel's publication record was the only measure of his capability as a scientist. But it is a pretty big and pretty red flag.

Second: Posting on an internet forum isn't a profession. We don't sink or swim based on our participation here. My ability to get ahead and provide for my employees is in no way affected by the frequency or quality of my DU posts.

[HuckleB]

19. I'm not even sure what angle that post is attempting to take.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. The Reply Made It Obvious

Word salad response because they got trapped in their own web.

[HuckleB]

24. I figured that, but I don't know if it's typical of that poster.

Hmm.

[alarimer]

8. This is unfortunately going to fall on deaf ears (eyes?)

By the people who most need to read it.

I honestly used to think progressive people were, in fact, smarter than conservatives because they were willing to listen to reason. Boy, was I naive. In terms of logic and reason, the left, while it may be nowhere near as bad as the right, does have significant blind spots.

But you will just be called a Monsanto shill for pointing it out. I really think all schools need to teach about logical fallacies and critical thinking. But then, our political system would collapse, because people believing in bullshit is what keeps it going.

[HuckleB]

18. And even when it doesn't, the response is Straw Man silliness.

I yi yi.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I find gaps in his data and his declaration that organic gardens are 'impossible' is just silly.

Interesting paragraph:
"I’m in no way completely exonerating glyphosate and supporting its astronomical use as a harmless substance. It is not, and further studies need to be done, as mentioned. I also deplore two of Monsanto's alleged business practices. One of them, as I have been told, is that of “their technological efforts with plants as to make them GM Roundup® -Ready, meaning the GM crops would require increasing concentrations of Roundup.” This has resulted in the increased amounts of glyphosate having to be used to obtain the same agricultural yield at increasing costs to farmers. Another is the terrible practice of “sterile seed technology,” or “terminator seeds,” whereby seeds are sterilized, genetically engineered, not to produce crops. This practice, I have been told, has destroyed the livelihood of many farmers, especially in Latin America and India, where crop yield is essential to subsistence farming and human life. Monsanto must have recognized the problem and has ceased producing these “terminator seeds,” stating on its website: “Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment, with no plans or research that would violate this commitment.”[8] The publication of these articles and communications, perhaps, will also help eliminate and keep these deplorable practices in check."

He does not provide any data about increased yields and uses this language: 'I venture to say'. That means this: 'I am bullshitting'. His text is full of words like 'probably' and that's acceptable because his conclusion is in no way absolute:

"More studies employing scientific methodologies with long-term follow-ups are needed and caution utilized in the use of glyphosate, and all the other herbicides and pesticides, that we continue to spill into the environment."

Urging more study and caution in use is far from saying 'Yummy goodness, have no fear'. The OP suggests the author endorses these substances fully, which the author does not. I venture go say he has reason for not doing so, probably.

[HuckleB]

12. And the classic straw man strikes.

I figured someone would go with said straw man, if they bothered to read the piece, or parts of it. At least you read something, so there is that. Of course, you and I both know that, in addition to the silly straw man, your comments are well out of context, as you decided to also cherry pick from a nuanced piece that uses the language of science.

-----------------------------------------------------

(For those who need it clarified, the OP does not say anything like this response pretends when it offers up the silliness about "saying 'Yummy goodness, have no fear'. The OP suggests the author endorses these substances fully, ..."

Why would anyone think it's ok to play such an obvious, unethical game?)

[Bluenorthwest]

13. I cited the piece you cited, just that I cited the bits you did not want to cite.

What are your specific criticisms of what I posted? The characterization thing is not 'science' it's just characterization.

The bulk of what I posted is material from the article you asked us to read, which I read and offered my thoughts. My thoughts are that you are not presenting the author's intentions and I agree with the author but not with you. If you can't manage to have your own source quoted to you that is clearly problematic.

The author of the piece you cite does not endorse the product, has distinct criticisms of Monsanto policy urges more study, waiting for the science (very good idea) and calls for caution in the use of this substance. Your framing of his work suggests that he offers a full endorsement of product and manufacturer but that is simply not the case. I'm taking issue with your editorializing not with the piece you linked to, although his writing is sloppy in places. That's about writing. I don't really expect him to excel at the use of language.

[HuckleB]

14. And you offer up the same straw man, again, and yet another to boot.

When you've been called out for it once, why would you do it again? If you can't simply respond to the actual content without making up your own assumptions and applying them to others, then you have no ethical justification for responding.

Your posts are not responding to the actual content of the OP, but to a poster derived from your own imagination.

...

Also, how about clarifying your thoughts about the Samsel and Seneff claims?

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Lots of sound and fury signifiying nothing.

You are calling the article you cited a strawman. Most of what I posted is from the article you posted. I agree with it. I do not agree with your framing of the article.

If you can't discuss the content of the article you posted, I have no idea what to tell you. I agree with the author of that piece when he says "We should wait for the science." Your verbiage seeks to suggest that the science is here, finished and done. That is not what the author says at all. The study he discusses, not good science. That's why he says 'wait for the science' rather than 'here, let me lay out the science for you'. It's why he urges caution and study rather than urging casual use and trust of the product.

[HuckleB]

17. No, I did not call the article a straw man.

Last edited Thu Jul 21, 2016, 11:27 AM - Edit history (2)

That accusation is some bizarro world stuff.

Apparently, you don't know what Straw Men are even though you utilized them in your other posts, and you did so again here.

Since I am nice, I will help you with that: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man

If you offer responses to the actual content of the OP without Straw Men and other less than honest attempts to convolute things, then I'll bother to give you a reply. Since, so far, you have chosen to respond to your own imagination, I have no reason to waste my time. Quoting the article does not change the content of your straw men, and the fact that you don't seem to understand that is rather strange.

Still, thanks for the kicks.

Oh, and way to ignore the question about Samsel and Seneff.

[GaYellowDawg]

20. Kick for all the ignorant anti-science woo freaks on DU.

Read and learn, idiots.

[HuckleB]

21. Thank you.

[ananda]

25. This is a great article!

To quote: " Quote: "I strongly suspect that the degree to which a person is susceptible to COVID-19 is proportional to the degree to which they have been exposed to glyphosate. Eating a certified organic diet and staying away from major highways may be among the best tools for protection from an acute reaction to COVID-19."

Also, she postulates that glyphosate substitutes for glycine in immune response; and this substitution is a major problem which causes the secondary immune response that attacks the organs.