HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HuckleB » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 35,773

Journal Archives

S#!T Ignorant People Say To Autistics


This is just plain awesome!

S#!T Ignorant People Say To Autistics


Simply awesome!



Glyphosate toxicity study in ‘pay for play journal’ based on flawed experimental design


"A recently published study by a group of French scientists reported that commonly used pesticides like Roundup were up to 1,000 times more toxic than the isolated active ingredient that was tested and evaluated for safety. The team, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, notorious for a retracted publication that linked GMOs to cancer, claimed that the flawed safety evaluations for pesticides put public health at risk. Their findings were published in BioMed Research International, a pay-for-play journal that does no serious peer review, in February.

In a dramatic turn of events, one of the journal’s editors, Ralf Reski, a plant scientist at the University of Freiburg in Germany, resigned and asked for his name to be removed from the journal’s website after reading Séralini’s article.

“I do not want to be connected to a journal that provides [Séralini] a forum for such kind of agitation,” he wrote in his resignation e-mail to the publisher, Hindawi Publishing Corporation.

Val Giddings, a geneticist and senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, summed up the criticisms of Séralini’s study. He explained that the researchers applied pesticides in high concentrations directly to human cell lines, which was considered poor experimental design that did not represent real-world uses of the pesticides:


This ludicrously bad study was touted at DU recently. Come on, DUers. Don't buy into the drama until you've thoroughly looked into the claims.

Thank you.

Link to longer piece: http://www.innovationfiles.org/points-to-consider-claims-about-pesticide-toxicity-are-based-on-discredited-methods/

This piece covers the issue very well: The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science.


No, it really doesn't.

If you're really going to push the anti-vaccine routine comparing populations in a study that would be unethical, I have nothing more to say, because you're pushing the usual propaganda then. Further, pretending that enormity of the research available is "not rigorous" is simply playing a game that shows that you don't understand the varieties of evidence, and how it's acquired. BTW, it's 107 studies, with links to two other very well regarded institutions and their assessments, also a part of the picture. And I'm only getting started, if I really had to, as you well know.

This is 2014. The evidence against these made up claims grows monthly. Do I really need to point out how much formaldehyde is in a pear compared to a vaccine?

Still, PS: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/01/22/a-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study-and-guess-what-vaccinated-kids-do-better-on-tests/

PSS: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/11/for-the-anti-vaccinationists-out-there-t/

Unfortunately, even at DU, there are people who follow in McCarthy's footsteps.

And those footsteps are awfully out of sync. Vaccines do not cause autism.

Autism and Vaccines

Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence

75 studies that show no link between vaccines and autism UPDATED to 107

FFS! This is the science group.

Cut off the conspiracy nonsense. Sheesh.

We've covered all of your parroting of anti-vaccine nonsense for years. You OP was crushed, as usual, and you then try claim some knowledge about something that you clearly don't understand in any way, shape or form.


Autism and Vaccines

Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence

75 studies that show no link between vaccines and autism UPDATED to 107

'I Never Told Anyone Not to Vaccinate' by James Hamblin

In a veiled apology this week, Jenny McCarthy again illustrated that health science and culture are inextricable. Vaccination is among the few definitive tenets of disease prevention, but because of rampant misinformation, fear, and scientific illiteracy, rare infections have come back to life. What's to be done about that.


Hazards of Hindsight — Monitoring the Safety of Nutritional Supplements


"pidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently confirmed what an astute liver-transplant surgeon in Honolulu already suspected: OxyElite Pro, a popular over-the-counter supplement, was responsible for a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis and liver failure.1 Although patients began to develop severe hepatitis in May 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), whose job it is to remove dangerous supplements from store shelves, did not learn of the cases until mid-September, 4 months later. By February 2014, the CDC had linked 97 cases, resulting in 47 hospitalizations, three liver transplantations, and one death, to OxyElite Pro. This dietary supplement was recalled, but nothing has been done to prevent another supplement from causing organ failure or death. Nor have any changes been made to improve the FDA's ability to detect dangerous supplements.

The FDA's delayed response — with its life-threatening consequences — is attributable to our woefully inadequate system for monitoring supplement safety. Americans spend more than $32 billion a year on more than 85,000 different combinations of vitamins, minerals, botanicals, amino acids, probiotics, and other supplement ingredients. Unlike prescription medications, supplements do not require premarketing approval before they reach store shelves. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, anything labeled as a dietary supplement is assumed to be safe until proven otherwise. The FDA is charged with the unenviable task of identifying and removing dangerous supplements only after they have caused harm.


Sweeping changes would be needed to create an effective surveillance system capable of rapidly detecting supplement-related adverse events in the United States. I believe that accurate information on every supplement sold in this country should be incorporated into databases maintained by both the FDA and poison centers. Appropriate public health responses would be expedited if all key organizations, including the poison centers, the Defense Department, local departments of public health, and manufacturers, shared reports of serious supplement-related adverse events with the FDA in real time. A supplement response team could be created, made up of expert clinicians, toxicologists, pharmacologists, and chemists. The team could be based at the CDC, the FDA, the poison centers, or an academic institution. When consumers or physicians report a serious adverse event, the supplement response team could be alerted immediately. The multidisciplinary team could then offer clinical advice to physicians as they cared for patients, provide detailed reports to the FDA, and analyze patients' unused supplements for labeled and unlabeled ingredients. Supplement manufacturers could be required to provide complete manufacturing details and additional samples as requested. These changes would ensure not only that the FDA received accurate and timely reports, but also that clinicians received expert clinical advice as they cared for affected patients.


But even these ambitious changes would not prevent dangerous supplements from reaching consumers. If consumers and physicians are to have confidence that all supplements are safe, the law regulating supplements must be reformed. Every supplement ingredient should undergo rigorous safety testing before marketing. Until that happens, consumers and physicians cannot be assured that the pills, powders, and potions labeled as dietary supplements are safe for human consumption."


Yes, regulation is needed badly.
Go to Page: 1