The "review" piece is a BS smear tactic. The data that is there, and there isn't much, doesn't support the hyperbolic claims.

Yet you continue to defend it. There's no excuse for that.

More on the blatant nonsense that is the "review" in the OP:

Does Roundup cause celiac disease or gluten intolerance?
http://www.examiner.com/article/does-roundup-cause-celiac-disease-or-gluten-intolerance

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/03/effective_messages_in_vaccine_promotion_when_it_comes_to_anti_vaxxers_there.html

"While some false beliefs, such as astrology, are fairly harmless, parents who believe falsely that vaccination is dangerous or unnecessary for children present a real public health hazard. That's why researchers, publishing in Pediatrics, decided to test four different pro-vaccination messages on a group of parents with children under 18 and with a variety of attitudes about vaccination to see which one was most persuasive in persuading them to vaccinate. As Chris Mooney reports for Mother Jones, the results are utterly demoralizing: Nothing made anti-vaccination parents more amendable to vaccinating their kids. At best, the messages didn't move the needle one way or another, but it seems the harder you try to persuade a vaccination denialist to see the light, the more stubborn they get about not vaccinating their kids.

...

In other words, learning that they were wrong to believe that vaccines were dangerous to their kids made vaccine-hostile parents more, not less likely to reject vaccination. Mooney calls this the "backfire effect," but feel free to regard it as stubborn, childish defensiveness, if you'd rather. If you produce evidence that vaccination fears about autism are misplaced, anti-vaccination parents don't apologize and slink off to get their kids vaccinated. No, according to this study, they tend to double down.

This reaction, where people become more assured of their stupid opinions when confronted with factual or scientific evidence proving them wrong, has been demonstrated in similar studies time and time again. (This is why arguing with your Facebook friends who watch Fox News will only bring you migraines.) Mooney suggests that state governments should respond by making it harder to opt out of vaccinations. That would be helpful, but there's also some preliminary research from the James Randi Educational Foundation and Women Thinking Inc. that shows that reframing the argument in positive terms can help. When parents were prompted to think of vaccination as one of the steps you take to protect a child, like buckling a seat belt, they were more invested in doing it than if they were reminded that vaccine denialists are spouting misinformation. Hopefully, future research into pro-vaccination messaging, as opposed to just anti-anti-vaccination messaging, will provide further insight."



Ummm. Yeah, that's about all I can offer.

Goodness. Please don't post such blatant BS.

Does Glyphosate Cause Celiac Disease? Actually, No!
http://ultimateglutenfree.com/2014/02/does-glyphosate-cause-celiac-disease-actually-no/

http://www.examiner.com/article/bogus-paper-on-roundup-saturates-the-internet

This is junk.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-reinagel-ms-ldn-cns/azodicarbonamide-subway_b_4770189.html

"...

Let's try to put the image of that blogger tearing a bite off of her yoga mat out of our minds, set aside our irrational chemophobia, and take more level-headed look at this chemical. Why is it in our food and how much harm is it doing?

...

Besides, as I said earlier, you don't actually ingest any azodicarbonamide when you eat bread made with it. During the mixing process, it breaks down into a compound called biurea, a comopund that is readily excreted from the body. Other byproducts include semicarbazide and ethyl carbamate.

...

If you're really concerned about your health, I suggest skipping the fast food joints altogether and making make more of your food at home, using whole foods. How about we try to eat less white bread and more fruits and vegetables? Let's make our peace with the fact that eating real food sometimes costs more and/or takes more time but is well worth the investment.

But above all, let's not waste our consumer power tilting at windmills and yoga mats. I think our energy and passion would be better spent pushing for meaningful reform of the Farm Bill, for example, or improving school lunch programs and nutrition curricula in our schools."

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/lie-detector-social-media-sheffield-twitter-facebook-1.354715

"• New system set to be created to automatically verify online rumours

• The lie detector will be the first of its kind to automatically analyse, in real time, whether a piece of information is true or false

• This will allow journalists, governments, emergency services, health agencies and the private sector to respond more effectively to claims on social media

..."


Mildly interesting. Or so I think.

The Return of the Revenge of High Dose Vitamin C for Cancer
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-return-of-the-revenge-of-high-dose-vitamin-c-for-cancer/

The whole piece needs to be read. There's no way to copy and paste anything to just give a gist of it, but it does appear that this is another sad episode in the world of bad science journalism.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/13/1277286/-About-Those-Industry-Funded-GMO-Studies

"Let’s talk about those GMO funded studies. You know the ones. The ones you always hear about from Anti-GMO folks when you read the comment section for any story about GMOs. According to those folks, the whole scientific consensus on GMOs is based on those studies. According to peanut gallery, the only studies that show that GMOs pose no different risks than conventionally bred crops were all bought and paid for by Monsanto. That would make the consensus suspicious right? It would if there weren’t also a ton of independently funded studies that show the same thing.

Instead, what the complaints about industry funded studies show is an ignorance of the literature and a lazy desire to dismiss inconvenient evidence in order to preserve predetermined ideological commitments. It’s just plain old confirmation bias and motivated reasoning run amok.

...

When you start hollering "€˜Conflict of Interest"€™ before evaluating the evidence and analysis, it becomes a "€˜Get of Jail Free Card"€™. It becomes an excuse for discounting inconvenient evidence. Asking about conflicts of interest should be safeguard against getting snookered. Instead, it becomes a way to justify motivated reasoning. Awareness of conflict of interest should be a tool for explaining weak evidence and poor analysis. Instead it becomes an excuse for dismissing strong evidence and sound analysis. It leaves you lost in a hall of mirrors, surrounded by industry funded research, revolving door regulators, and defending bad research that confirms your biases. It leaves you lost in a fever swamp of paranoia without firm footing.

Examining the soundness of the evidence and the strength of the analysis must come first. Then you can decide whether questions of funding and loyalties are relevant. This is how you maintain a firm footing and hew to solid ground. This is how you can use awareness of conflicts of interest to avoid motivated reasoning. Otherwise you are only fueling the fire of your own biases."



A good read...

http://www.thecollapsedwavefunction.com/2014/02/the-real-damage-of-chemophobia.html

"...

Chemophobia is an irrational fear of chemicals. It can (and has been) debated that the word itself creates more of the same irrational fear; that it drives the fear deeper by making it a point to ridicule. Whether that is true I'm not completely convinced. What I am convinced of is that an irrational fear of chemicals runs deeper every day. This fear is seemingly unchecked by the chemistry community at large. I don't mean we don't talk about it. We do. We talk plenty about it. But what are we doing about it?

...

The reason this is such a big deal has nothing to do with those individual products. The real damage of chemophobia comes when little by little the word "chemical" becomes a bad thing. The harm comes when people believe that if you can't pronounce an ingredient you should never put it in your body. Ingredients like thiomersal, monosodium glutamate (MSG), and formaldehyde. You'll find these ingredients in vaccines. Vaccines that save lives. Vaccines that - if avoided - will cost lives. So yes, chemophobia kills. I'm not just a pedantic chemist. An irrational fear leads to irrational decisions and every corporate concession legitimizes that fear. When General Mills goes against their own policy to appease the GMO free crowd they misinform the public. This misinformation leads to third-world countries banning GMO crops; the very crops that can help produce a thriving farming industry.

This is all very disheartening but I'm a perpetual optimist. I think chemophobia is something that can be overcome. If the Food Babe can bring about change in as little as 24 hours with one petition then so can we. I challenge organizations like the American Chemical Society to be more vocal about chemophobia. Do it in a way that educates. Do it in an open way, not behind a pay wall or trapped behind the safety of the chemistry blogosphere. Do it in a way that the American public won't be able to ignore. Do it in a way the American people will love you for. Chemistry doesn't need to be scary, but it doesn't need to be boring either. It won't be easy and it won't be cheap. But it is necessary and I think we can do it.

..."


A rather good, quick read. Just say no to chemophobia!!!!

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/01/06/michael-pollan-et-al-play-agent-orange-scare-card-after-usda-backs-24-d-herbicide-resistant-gmo-traits/#.UtbsGvRDtqW