Ah, yes. When you don't have the facts, try attacking the writer and covering with bullshit.
What lie is that? Certainly not that you cannot provide a single peer-reviewed article that claims that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. None of the peer-reviewed articles you cite makes that claim. If Roundup is so easily shown to be dangerous when used as directed, you should have no problem providing
*one single peer-reviewed article* that claims to show it.
You cannot. And cutting-and-pasting a list of articles that do *not* show it doesn't do the trick.
Sorry, but religious fanaticism is unattractive -- even with ecofundamentalists.
Please, provide a single peer-reviewed article that claims that Roundup is toxic when used as directed. If Roundup is as dangerous as you claim, that should be *easy.*
Sigh. See my other replies to you. My challenge stands.
Please provide a single peer-reviewed published scientific journal article that purports to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
You cannot, and all the advocacy press you want to post doesn't change that.
Pretty pathetic, this. A *complete* loss of any attempt to provide a *single* peer reviewed scientific journal article demonstrating that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
Instead, you slide to a pure campaign of personal attack and cyberstalking. The ecofundamentalist inquisitors are certainly out tonight.
But, since you have decided to drag my employer into this, my views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the Armed Forces Instituted of Pathology, or any entity other than myself.
You do realize that after a sentence like that, the rest of your post is completely worthless.
Shampoo is also as safe as table salt, but I don't see you advocating that folks should using shampoo as table salt. There are thousands of items just as safe, or safer, than table salt that probably wouldn't work too well in place of salt.
I'm also pretty sure that "Billo" never advocating using ANYTHING in place of table salt.
Better go back & read your own posts. It was your FIRST shot out the gate repeating Monsanto's outdated table salt canard. It's what happens when you take your perspective solely from Monsanto -- you end up repeating their stupidist tacts.
I've tried not to regard you as a liar but only as confused and self-deluded, but as you descend into this sort of thing, I may have to rethink the respect I've tried to hold for you even while thinking you wildly silly in your devotion to Monsanto. But when you call others liars who are being truthful, I must rethink much of what you've been pulling. Now I'm thinking that when posted early in this thread that glyphosate was perfectly safe except at levels that would make even table salt a danger, your statement was not unintentionally stupid beyond belief, but intentional fabrication, & when it came off as silly as it was, you now claim I lied to even notice.
Anyone who wishes to do a groups.google.com search using the terms Glyphosate plus Salt will find the "no more dangerous than table salt" made scores of times by people getting the entirety of their perspective from Monsanto's PR efforts. And the most recent to repeat that hoary fable will come back Billo -- who I'm sorry to see has resorted to flaming over arguing. Billo riddling his commentaries with ad hominum can be creative, but less soin projecting his worst faults onto someone who doesn't actually share that Monsanto -- &now apparently Billo -- legacy of fabrication
Yes yes, you keep telling us how you trust first and formost the same researcher who "proved" tobacco was harmless and who Monsanto hired away from Philip Morris to work for yet another company that cooks the stats & lies outright to journal editors, as Monsanto was recently SO caught doing through JAMA for meaningful example. And my point still stands: Your trusting criminals to tell you the truth is as insane as trusting a known child molestor to babysit your children. Character does matter. It being shown time and again that stats paid for or concocted by Monsanto were intentionally fabricated does matter. To you honesty doesn't matter as long as the resulting science appears in even the most marginal way to be on Monsanto's side. But you know what, honesty does matter. And Monsanto researchers have very little of that required trait. If their mouths are moving, they're lying.
The science has been sufficiently argued & will be argued again by others I've no doubt. You held your own a bit, but were not finally convincing to anyone who has read about Monsanto. That you couldn't convince by citing cooked statistics is why you're now resorting to more & more ad hominum attack since your poorly selected choice of which science scores best was so unconvincing. Melchizedek posted useful information everyone can judge for themselves -- so you "argue" with the same non-argument you tried on me. It would be more honest, if no less ridiculous, if you'd just keep reposting the cooked statistics instead of repeating the ad hominums.
If you want to finally retract one of your stupid statements, do so, but don't call me the liar while you lie your ass off saying you didn't psot what you posted. Perhaps you did too many cut & pastes to even realize what gibberish you put your name to, but you did put your name under it. Your position STARTED very clearly that unless great huge gobs of glyphosate were injested, it was no more dangerous than table salt. That was YOUR statement on August 11. Not a very original statement I grant you -- nothing you've said has been that -- but you posted it with your name on it & the only liar here is you to keep denying it. Yes, it was stupid beyond belief, but so has been much else you posted. So live with it.
Thanks Tom. It was the one query he most kept avoiding, though I asked quite nicely a couple of times -- what his emotional investment was in loving Monsanto so wholeheartedly & not caring one whit about their proven track record of causing extravagant harm. I'm sorry the answer was only what was to be expected, but it's good to know nobody without ulterior motive could possibly be dumb enough to make those sorts of arguments about truth not mattering, admissions under oath that data was fabricated didn't matter, nothing matters but that glyphosate is no more dangerous than table salt -- which argument I'm liking so much better now that even Billo quite rightly wants everyone to forget he repeated THAT particular page out of Monsanto's falacio-for-glyphosate instructional manual.
Yep. Eventually glyphosate will be banned. But not until Monsanto has made BILLIONS selling increasingly toxic mixes of RoundUp to spray on genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops. And the permanent after-effect will be new generations of glyphosate-resistant weeds. But imagine glyphosate's told-you-so arguments when they cook up more dubiouis statistics: "Weeds were less trouble back when RoundUp was legal!" "But that's because your glyphosate-resistant crops bled resistant into the weed population." "You can't prove that! No you can't!" Hell, Monsanto would like to bring back Agent Orange, & Monsanto "scientists" are still producing "proof" that dioxins (one of the most toxic substances known) is
100% safe at much higher parts per million than allowed by the government today. And why after all these years would Monsanto STILL be making the same Agent Orange arguments? Because glyphosate is generally contaminated with dioxins! And so the same lies are needed by Monsanto for its currant products.
They never do give up -- because their profits from lying vastly outpace their PR and legal costs every time they're caught. And the clean-up costs are picked up by the taxpayers. Some people predict Monsanto will fall entirely. I'm afraid more likely they'll pay off Congress to get them completely off the hook for all costs of the vast harm they're doing right now, then introduce a BRAND NEW chemical brew that'll give them ANOTHER twenty to forty years of profits in the high billions before the cost in human welfare is too extravagant to keep covering up.
This is untrue. Please provide the quote. You cannot.
My challenge stande. Please provide a single publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that purports to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
My claim was, and is, that Roundup is not dangerous to humans when used as directed. I have challenged you to provide a single scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show otherwise. You cannot. Instead, you launch into this bullshit personal attack.
But, of course, all you have is personal attack. You certainly don't have science on your side.
Please post the quote. You cannot. You can search for that as you vainly look for an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
Indeed. Only among the ecofundamentalists does competence count against you.
Generally, USENET discussions are free from this personal ad hominem attack based where people work, what people do, etc. One of the the great things about these newsgroups is that the "right" to engage in discussions is not based on credentials. But, as I have found, there is nothing like being challenged on the facts to bring out the drive for personal destruction by ecofundamentalists and their ilk on the left.
You want to change the rules.
You want to play the credentials game?
OK.
As your pet cyberstalker found, I have a MS in Computer Science from the University of North Carolina. I am also a physician, board certified in Anatomic, Clinical, and Forensic Pathology. I am a member of the American Society for Clinical Pathology, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and the National Association of Medical Examiners, among others. I am published in medical journals in the fields of Psychiatry, General Pathology, and Forensic Pathology. I am a consultant to the FBI, State, and other federal agencies on matters of forensic interest, and have worked with numerous federal, state, and local agencies in the investigation of wrongful death. I have received national awards for my work. Most recently, I was an invited speaker for a special sesson at the ACM SIGGRAPH.
I am not associated in any way with Monsanto.
As a Pathologist, I am competent to read the environmental pathology and toxicology literature, and as as Forensic Pathologist, I have a pretty good handle on what poisoning entails.
What are your credentials, paghat? What makes me or anyone believe that you are minimally competent to understand the literature you so ineptly and incorrectly parrot?
My challenge stands. Please provide a single article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how. To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet; one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules, any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"
My jig is up? You mean asking that you provide a single scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed?
Yeah, how dare I ask such a thing. Who do I think I am. I must be stopped from asking such an unreasonable question, whatever the cost.
My challenge stands.
And you have nothing but personal attack. You certainly don't have a single scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. Nope. Not that.
In other words, you cannot provide a *single* article in the scientific peer-reviewed literature that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. Thank you very much.
And qualified to defend the very generous support Monsanto has given your employer. Oops no wait, you are in no way tainted by your self interests. My bad!
Curious how simply searching public information is called stalking when the self interest behind your overly defensive posture is revealed.
Your jig is up.
"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how. To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet; one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules, any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"
BANG! And there it is. What just about everyone else is advocating is that, Roundup is NOT safe if used as directed. MONSANTO lies. University tests funded by MONSANTO are LIES. Yes, LIES.
I can hardly wait for Al Franken's new book:
"Lies and the lying liars who tell them." On stands soon. Also, Molly Ivan's new book: "Bushwhacked." Her first book "Shrub" should be put into required reading in school. Elementary school. More to prepare the young of how many lies and liars there are.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.