Touchy touchy. When you make a decision to be as wrong as you enjoy being,
you should just keep repeating the same three or four basic lies you're so
enamored of, & keep citing & re-citing Monsanto's man Ian Munro as the
only "good" science. But when you reduce yourself to calling your betters
"stupid" over statements you yourself cooked up from scratch, well,
you'll barely even convince your personal choir if you keep that up.
You list in your alleged "conspiracy" FOR Monsanto some of the same
organizations you've previously deplored for releasing non-peer-reviewed
warnings against Monsanto products, but now suddenly you dream up new
positions for all of them! Although Monsanto still distributes a 1994
W.H.O. statement that glyphosate is not a proven carcinogenic, WHO has
published warnings against RoundUp for other reasons, & are not even any
longer repeating that it is not a carcinogen, leaving that open due to the
most recent evidence. You (like Monsanto) may LOVE what WHO said ten years
ago, but have to overlook what they've said since. And what WHO presently
says is that acrylamide & polyacrylamide neurotoxic pollution of the food
chain is already a very real health hazard (Weis, Science 27, 2002). These
pollutants are reaching the environment almost exclusively from additives
in RoundUp that are supposed to reduce the also-serious problem of "drift"
(such as has killed century-old hedges along the English countryside).
These pollutants are finding their way into tubrous vegatables & in
fruits, further assisted by the RoundUp surficant in penetrating plant
cells [Smith, Ecotoxicol. Env.35, 1996; 37, 1997; Leonard, J.
Chromatographic Sci 37, 1999]. Now it is true that WHO in their first
published article felt it political expedient to not mention Monsanto by
name when warning against the Monsanto chemicals in RoundUp, & this
"oversight" was spun out into a scandal by people annoyed that they
skipped that chance to point the finger in the only direction feasible. It
remains, WHO is now spreading warnings against the use of chemicals
dispersed into the environment in the Monsanto product, & they are calling
it a dangerous neurotoxin.
RoundUp additives as deadly neurotoxins in the foodchain pretty much
outweighs WHO's studies that showed nothing more than this: if people &
animals eat a lot of glyphosate-tolerant GM crops, they won't drop dead --
that's what Monsanto likes to hear, but it's not much of an endorsement.
What WHO is saying more clearly about RoundUp Ready crops is that they do
indeed result in super-weeds, & almost every month WHO's profound
scepticism about RoundUp Ready crops increases over the bases of
neurotoxic additives reaching the foodchain & weeds becoming superweeds.
WHO have furthermore blasted Monsanto very confrontationally about the
milk-modifying products -- both for Monsanto lying about the amount of
hormone still in the milk, & the beef & milk being in general unsafe. WHO
has even implicated Monsanto's rBGH in Mad Cow Disease because of hormone
injections increasing cattle susceptibility. In the very near future the
USA may be the ONLY country left that does not warn consumers about rBGH
contaminating beef & milk -- & WHO is really pissing off Monsanto for
having come down on the right side of this issue. So while WHO has done a
few things that got them a bit of backlash & embarrassment for walking
"too carefully" around Monsanto's justly hurt feelings, overall, no, WHO
is NOT your personal Monsanto-lovin' buddy.
And EPA's in on your alleged conspiracy to assist Monsanto? Their
recurring investigations & chastisements of Monsanto for inventing
statistics & fabricating studies doesn't make EPA Monsanto's best buddy
either, though hiring people out of EPA into giant-salery jobs, & buying
off Congress to restrict EPA from action, doesn't make EPA quite the
watchdog they should be until we get out from under the current Republican
big-corporation preferences. So again, you may selectively find EPA
letting Monsanto get away with murder (literally) here & there, but in
total, many at the EPA deplore the harm Monsanto persists in doing, & do
not trust Monsanto to provide research findings that isn't phony.
But oh yes, the National Cancer Institute -- I notice you don't say
National Cancer Society which is independent of Monsanto. I still think
your allegation of "Conspiracy" doesn't apply when Monsanto is so proud &
publicity-happy about their take-over of the NCI. They built NCI's City
of Hope institute then placed it under the control their own Monsanto
employee, Michael Friedman (senior Vice President of Clinical Affairs for
Monsanto, as well as National Cancer Institute chief of clinical
investigation), assisted by another Monsanto vice-president, Philip
Needleman -- all to make sure NCI research remains "Monsanto-appropriate"
So yes, you can find NCI claiming the decaying byproduct of RoundUp,
formeldehyde, does not cause cancer no matter how great the evidence that
it is, & other Monsanto-serving nonsense generated in a Monsanto-built lab
run by Monsanto-appointed researchers & officers. Oh yes, Friedman is a
piece of work, & you're quite right to charge him with serving exclusively
Monsanto/Searl/Merkh/Dupont interests, but it's not a Conspiracy because
that implies secrecity, & NCI is very up-front about serving Monsanto &
Merkh foremost. But what happened back when it was NCI that first
publicized the fact that Monsanto is directly responsible for the increase
of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in America? Oh right, that was before Monsanto
built the new lab & put their own man in charge -- back when NCI told
Congress that non-Hodgson lymphoma was six times higher in Anniston than
nationally, thanks entirely to Monsanto, which has done nothng to this day
to correct the Anniston problem except tell the people not to go outside
in their own yards.
Even now though, we can look to the National Cancer SOCIETY for a bit more
independence. NCS has been warning against glyphosate-contaminated
chicken, cattle, hog, & goat meats, plus eggs & soybean products, since
1996. They have warned since 1992 that Monsanto pesticide & herbicide
(including trimethylsulfonium salt of glyphosate) has been implicated in
You can call the facts a "conspiracy theory" until the cows come home, but
the truth is the truth. Glyphosate & other Monsanto products get a clean
bill of health when Monsanto pays for or personally orchestrates the study
-- that's self-interest, not conspiracy. Studies independent of Monsanto,
devoid of self-interest, provide a much more mixed picture, one that
generally warns of sundry dangers ranging from probable to definite. And
what they have to say about Monsanto's milk-contaminating hormones really
So keep on bleeting "Ecofundies!" and "Conspiracy theories!" -- that may
indeed, in the end, be your only possible tactic, having by now run your
favorite Ian Munro bullshit "science" further than it ever reached.
-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.
email@example.com (Bill Oliver) wrote in
You can just as well stop it Bill. You stories you tell and even the way
you deliver them remind ppl of the way they were deceived in the past.
Even when you were right, you'd never convince anybody. The reason is
you're unable/unwilling to acknowledge that serious ppl are seriously
concerned. Unless you show at least some understanding about your
opponents, not just the hardliners but the average ppl that they come
from, ppl will in the end see you as a puppet for the industry. In fact
they do already. You overdid it; I think it is a character flaw; many
scientists have it. You're just to sure of yourself; nobody can be _that_
sure. Have you never wondered?
As opposed to believing the anti-science hysterics, who deserve
unquestioning allegiance, eh?
I acknowledge they are concerned. I just wish they would stop
lying about what the scientific literature says. Somehow, though,
that's just too much to ask.
See, Ursa, I expect that "average people" will be able to see through
the ecofundamentalist hysteria when shown the tactics of the
cult. I think that "average people" are pretty smart. I think
they realize that it's not inappropriate to ask for scientific data
to back up scientific claims. I think they realize that it's
not a good idea to lie about what scientific articles say. I think
they realize that it's not a good idea to try to demonize and
personally attack anybody who doesn't unthinkingly agree to
the party line as a "Monsanto shill." I think "average people"
realize that when cultists stoop to the kind of attacks the
people here have attempted, these people have nothing but
their fundamentalist religious fervor behind them.
The funny thing, Ursa, is that it's considered bad to dare question
the dogma put out by the ecofundamentalists -- anybody who doesn't
unthinkingly accept whatever bullshit the ecofundamentalists
ply is "a puppet for the industry."
I am not "that" sure of myself. I simply know that when
people lie about what scientific articles say, when they
pretend to science that doesn't exist, and when they rely
primarily on personal attack to make their points, they
probably don't have a very good position.
Why am I sure that you can't come up with a single scientific
article that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans
when used as directed? Because I have read the literature and
because if there was such an article, people who push the
anti-Roundup hysteria wouldn't have to lie about what the
I am quite willing to be proven wrong. You can prove me
wrong by providing a scientific article in a peer reviewed
journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to
humans when used as directed.
Until then, don't criticize me for daring to ask for it
when cultists lie and state such data exists.
I know it's heresy, but it's about time somebody noted the
ecofundamentalist emperor has no clothes, at least on
Billo said: "> Why am I sure that you can't come up with a single scientific
H. Kuska reply: Billo, ????????? You were shown such article(s), for
"I posted an abstract which was titled "Title: An Exploratory Analysis of
the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an
Ontario Farm Population" (published in 2001).A key section was: "For late
abortions, preconception exposure to glyphosate (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9),
thiocarbamates (OR = 1.8; 95% CI,
1.1-3.0), and the miscellaneous class of pesticides (OR = 1.5; 95% CI,
1.0-2.4) was associated with elevated risks."You "commented" (I did not
consider a rebuttal) on this abstract on
August 31. On September 1 I posted an abstract titled "Title: Birth
defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide
applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA." )published in
2002). A key sentence in this abstract is: "Use of the herbicide glyphosate
yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category."
Now please show me your logic diagram that excludes effects during pregnancy
from the universe that you include in the logic circle of "not dangerous to
humans when used as directed."
Concerning the "as directed" I have included the label information for one
you may want to start by using the PDF search function for the base word
preg to see if it tells pregnant workers not to use the material. I did not
look at all the labels, if you are interested go to:
You can also look at the MSDS: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp23P011.pdf "
Henry Kuska, retired
billo said: "> Dude, read the paper. What is the referent group for this
H. Kuska reply: Billo, please go back to table 6, that is where the referent
herbicide group (that you refer to) was utilized (8 out of 118). The
authors do not have to state what referent group they are using for each
Odds Ratio calculated, it is defined by definition. If you are unwilling to
accept this by trusting the authors, do the calculation yourself for the
similar phosphine case (see below).
Readers of this thread can check the calculation themselves by using the
The raw information on page 445 is:
"Altogether 3.8% of children whose parent used phosphine versus 1.5% of
those who did not use the fumigant had adverse central nervous system or
neurobehavioral sequelae (OR = 2.5; CI, 1.22-5.05). Similarly, use of the
phosphonamino herbicides (glyphosate, Roundup) was overrepresented in the
adverse birth and development effect group. Forty-three percent of the
children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported ADD/ADHD used phosphonamino
herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.35 - 9.65)."
The above is the odds ratio data that appears in the abstract for
glyphosate. Unfortunately for this discussion, they do not give sufficient
raw data in the body of the paper to check this number; but they do for the
parallel phosphine case which they treat in detail (for the readers of this
thread, it is common in articles, to save space, to only treat in detail one
case if the others are similar).
For phosphine the calculated OR was reported as 2.48 with a CI of 1.2-5.1.
Unfortunately, the raw data is given on page 445 as percent. To use the
above program per cent has to be changed to whole numbers. This will have a
significant effect on the CI and also possibly lead to small round off
errors in the OR but will give you a ballpark figure to show that they used
the correct referent group.
a = 3.8% which when converted to whole numbers is 38.
b = 100% - a = 96.2% which converted is 962.
c = 1.5 % which when converted to whole numbers is 15
d = 100% - c = 98.5% which converted is 985
The calculated OR is 2.59 and the 95% CI is 1.42-4.75.
Please let me know if there are any points that you need clarified.
Henry Kuska, retired
I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles
without reading them, but let's see, just for chuckles what
the authors said.
In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group, and not just
in the table to which you refer. If you read the text of the paper,
the paragraph where they discuss the glyphosate OR *starts* by
noting the referent group is the herbicide group.
Here, Henry, let's see what the text says:
"Examination of the frequency of applicator families with birth defects
by pesticide use class category (Table 6) shows that 15.4% of
applicators who applied fumigants, insecticides, and herbicides had at
least one child with a birth defect compared with 6.8% in the referent
exposure group who applied only herbicides... Altogether, 3.8% of
children whose parent used phosphine versus 1.5% of those who did not
use the fumigant had adverse central nervous system or neurobehavioral
sequelae (OR = 2.5; CI, 1.22?5.05). Similarly, use of the phosphonamino
herbicides (glyphosate, Roundup) was overrepresented in the adverse
birth and developmental effect group. Forty-three percent of the
children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported ADD/ADHD used phosphonamino
herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.35-9.65). No other commonly used pesticide
compared by major organ and/or functional system was uniquely
associated with specific adverse birth or developmental effects. Use of
different classes of pesticides over the 4?6 months of agricultural
pesticide use compared with the use of herbicides and no other
pesticide class (herbicide use period, -15 April to 1 July) suggests
that interaction among pesticide classes used may be a factor in the
birth defects observed (Table 6)."
So, Henry, the paragraph begins by noting the the referent group
was the herbicide-only group, the paragraph ends by noting that
the referent group was the herbicide group, the OR is
in the middle, and the conclusion is the one I note -- that
the interaction between pesticides is the probable cause.
But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying, and
that they are using a different referent group while claiming
they are using the herbicide group, go ahead. If you want
to claim the authors are lying when they say that it's the
interaction of pesticides and not Roundup alone, then
run with it.
But the bottom line is that the authors wrote what the
authors wrote, and the authors used the referent group
they claimed, and the conclusion is the one they concluded.
And if you bothered to read the damned articles, you would
But not to those belonging to the Psychic Science Network. Who cares
what the authors actually wrote. I'll tell you what, Henry. If you
want to pretend that the authors did not mean what they wrote, please
feel free to contact them and ask them.
But before you do, I suggest you take time to read the article. And
if you want to maintain any credibility to them, don't pull out your
"I don't need to read the steenkin' paper" screed.
H. Kuska reply to billo: I have tried to the best of my ability to explain
to you the basis of "your" difficulty comprehending the basics of an odds
ratio calculation. I even provided you with a third party computer program
so that you (and others) can test "your" interpretation against my
interpretation. The calculation based on my interpretation is consistent
with the published results; the calculation based on "your" interpretation
is not consistent with the reported results. That is sufficient
information for me to conclude that I have interpreted the paper correctly.
I am sorry that you are not able to understand what I have presented.
Henry Kuska, retired
Here Henry, since you don't like the way the authors wrote their
article, I'll suggest you follow your own advice:
"The editor and the reviewers accepted this paragraph. They are considered
experts in the field. If someone feels that there is something critically
incorrect about what they have accepted, he/she can submit their viewpoint
to be considered for publication. The stated criteria was a reviewed paper,
this is a reviewed paper."
Go for it.
H. Kuska reply to billo: please note that I said that the not having the
paragraph marker could of occurred after the editing process and that "Yes,
it could cause some confusion to some readers." (I was trying to bend over
backwards to accommodate your problem). Note the use of the word "some".
When I was composing that reply, I considered adding the word "initial"
before the word "confusion". In retrospect I probably should have as I
assume any scientist who would have had any initial confusion would have
done the logical thing - which is to repeat the calculation him/her self..
Henry Kuska, retired
No, Henry. I simply accept what authors state. The association, in
the words of the authors, is "tentative." You may think they're lying,
but I believe them. And, since it compares glyphosate+pesticide to
glyphosate, to draw the conclusion that this means that glyphosate
alone is dangerous is drawing a conclusion that was simply not
If you want to test the toxicity of using glyphosate, then
test it against *not* using glyphosate.
If you test eating red beans + arsenic against eating
red beans alone, and the people who eat red beans and arsenic get
sick, that's not an indictment of the beans. Yet you
claim it is.
I am quite willing to accept what these paper say. I just
don't like people pretending the papers say things they
*don't* say or pretending they make claims they *don't*
You keep acting like I am criticizing the papers. I am
not. They are great papers in the sense that they
are careful in their claims. Unfortunately, the people
who tout them are not as careful; they are whom I
criticize. My problem is with you, not with the
authors or the journal.
You really should stop misstating my position in order
to argue straw men. That doesn't say much for the
rest of your argument.
In this particular article, in which other pesticides
+ glyphosate had a higher risk than glyphosate alone,
the finding is not surprising. There are many pesticides
for which the acceptable exposure rate depends on
incomplete absorption. Roundup contains substances that
enhance absorption. Many other studies have shown that
toxic effects are either greatly enhanced or due primarily
Thus, the author's findings that Roundup+pesticide is
more dangerous than Roundup alone is in line with
previous findings. Your claim that this is an
indictment against Roundup alone, however, is
simply not supported by the paper. It was not
*tested* by the authors. This is not a criticism
of the paper; it is a criticism of your claims about it.
billo said: "> The paradigm for glyphosate is the Non-Hodgkins lymphoma
VERY RECENT (September 2003) NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF
NEBRASKA, KANSAS UNIVERSITY, AND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA JOINT PAPER.
Title: Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men.
Authors: De Roos A J; Zahm S H; Cantor K P; Weisenburger D D; Holmes F F;
Burmeister L F; Blair
Authors affiliation: A Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics,
National Cancer Institute, USA. University of Nebraska Medical Center,
Omaha, NE, USA. Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA,
Published in: USA OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE (2003 Sep),
volumn 60(9), E11. (it is not yet up on their website, their most recent
issue is the August issue).
Abstract: "BACKGROUND: An increased rate of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) has
been repeatedly observed among farmers, but identification of specific
exposures that explain this observation has proven difficult. METHODS:
During the 1980s, the National Cancer Institute conducted three case-control
studies of NHL in the midwestern United States. These pooled data were used
to examine pesticide exposures in farming as risk factors for NHL in men.
The large sample size (n = 3417) allowed analysis of 47 pesticides
simultaneously, controlling for potential confounding by other pesticides in
the model, and adjusting the estimates based on a prespecified variance to
make them more stable. RESULTS: Reported use of several individual
pesticides was associated with increased NHL incidence, including
organophosphate insecticides coumaphos, diazinon, and fonofos, insecticides
chlordane, dieldrin, and copper acetoarsenite, and herbicides atrazine,
glyphosate, and sodium chlorate. A subanalysis of these "potentially
carcinogenic" pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure to
increasing numbers. CONCLUSION: Consideration of multiple exposures is
important in accurately estimating specific effects and in evaluating
realistic exposure scenarios."
Henry Kuska, retired
I guess that in addition to providing "fishes", I should show the reader how
to fish. It is my understanding that this site is one of the ways that
medical doctors keep up with late-breaking information in their specialty.
The National Library of Medicine, provides free access to over 12 million
MEDLINE citations back to the mid-1960's and additional life science
journals. It now also provides links to some sites which provide full text
It can be reached at:
My 9-7-2003 search using just the term Glyphosate can be viewed at:
Henry Kuska, retired
No, I simply don't belong to the Psychic Science Network like
Oh, and that reminds me Tom, since you have taken it upon yourself
to follow me around engaging in nothing but personal attacks, you
make a big deal of where I work and where I trained. Yet you run
away when I ask those same questions of you.
Who do you work for, Tom? Why are you so ashamed of it?
How much money to you make pushing your anti-science agenda,
Tom? Why do you refuse to tell us?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.