Re: What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?

[Bill Oliver]

No. I have never received any money from Monsanto. In fact, I know of no grants from Monsanto to the AFIP, though as one of the leading Pathology institutes with a 150-year history of being a world-leading reference center, I cannot keep track of all of the grants to all of the physicians here over the past century and a half. Those interested in the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the National Museum of Health and Medicine really should take a look at the AFIP/NMHM web pages --

and nmhm.washingtondc.museum. This is the kind of place the ecofundamentalists are so afraid of?

And, of course, my opinions have nothing to do with my employer. They do not represent the opinions of the AFIP, the US government, the Department of Defense, or anyone else other than myself.

And my challenge stands. You cannot provide a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.

Not one.

And so you make up this bullshit personal attack.

You really want to make me look bad? Provide that article.

You cannot.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

In other words, your claim that I advocate using glyphosate as table salt is untrue. You cannot find a post where I say that any more than you can find an article in a peer-reviewed scientific article that makes the claim that Roundup is unsafe if used as directed.

Not one post.

Not one article.

billo

[animaux]

Billo is like my neighbor who went out and bought as many bags of diazinon he could so he would never run out when it is pulled off the market.

I don't understand how people could possibly be so ignorant. It boggles my mind.

[Phrederik]

repeating

Again... you are shooting yourself in the foot...

"Safe as table salt" is NOT the same as "using glyphosate as table salt".

At this point, you are the only one stating that people should be using this stuff instead of salt.

[Major Ursa]

[e-mail] (Bill Oliver) wrote in news:bhqind$ae5$ [e-mail]:

Bill,

I admire your persistence in pressing this point and I agree that if one is not able to do this (show literature) there is hardly any reason to put Roundup in a bad light.

Still, I find it hard to believe that you are not worried a bit about the proven (!) dishonesty by MS in dealing with lawmakers, watchdogs and the congress. Surely you would find it as uncomfortable as most ppl that a moneyloaded company like MS is able to get away with a reputation like that? Especclaily since we are at a major turning point in human history (re: GM-tech) in which they have such large interests.

I may be a bit filosophical and it may even be OT to discuss the morality issue here, but I'm sincerely interested in your views on that; it might help me to put your other statements in context. Thanks for the lively debate anyway,

Ursa..

[Bill Oliver]

Well, since we are in such a sharing mood, and since the bunch here is such a fan of open disclosure, why don't you tell us who *you* work for and what *your* qualifications are?

Who do *you* work for?

What are *your* qualifications?

And, of course, my challenge stands. One article. One.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

Well, since we are so open nowadays, let's hear from you.

Who is your employer?

What are your qualifications?

I am a licensed physician with training in microbiology, molecular biology, cellular pathology, anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, and forensic pathology.

What about you?

I have published in the peer reviewed scientific literature that you are so fond of. Have you? I'll tell you what, why don't we match publication by publication.

You first.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

You don't understand. I am quite proud of where I work, and I have no problems with you knowing that I am a board-certified physician and have a MS in Computer Science. I only object to this bullshit diversion of you trying to attack me personally because you have no science to back you up.

But, Tom, since we are all so open and eager to put our cards on the table, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Who is your employer?

What are your credentials?

Please, let's see your qualifications.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

Feel free.

But in the meantime, since we are all so concerned with being open and above board with our affiliations and qualifications, why don't you tell us who you work for and what your qualifications are?

Who do you work for, paghat?

What are your credentials?

After all, *you* thought it was *so* important to bring it up when personally attacking me, since you have no science to back up your position.

And, of course, my challenge stands. One single articles in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. One. You can't do it, can you?

And, of course, my challenge to your other claim also stands. Please post where I wrote that one should use Roundup like table salt or that it was as safe as table salt. Please.

You can do neither. All you have are personal attacks.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

In fact, none of the peer-reviewed articles you posted made the claim that Roundup was dangerous to humans when used as directed.

But, please, if I am wrong, feel free to point out the article that does that.

Of course, you cannot do that. All you have are personal attacks.

One, just one, article in a peer-reviewed scientific article that states that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.

Nobody has argued that one cannot overdose or get acute toxicity from overexposure. And the articles you posted do a good job of showing that high doses are toxic -- as is true with aspirin, salt, sugar, water, etc.

*None* of the peer-reviewed scientific articles you posted, however, claim to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as direct. However, if you have such an article, trot it out.

Please. Feel free.

Here, I'll help you. Just fill in the blanks:

Authors: Title: Journal: Year: Vol: Pages:

Otherwise, it's not *me* who has a problem with truth.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

I never made that claim, and I continue to challenge you to provide a reference to it. You have abandoned any attempt to use science, and now you are merely lying about what I wrote in a vain attempt at a personal attack.

I did not, of course, write it. You could easily prove me wrong by providing the quote, but you cannot.

Why do you persist in this lie?

billo

[Bill Oliver]

Sorry, paghat, none of the articles presented answered the challenge.

Perhaps you misunderstood it. Here we go again.

Please provide one scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.

Here, let me help you:

Authors: Title: Journal: Year: Volume: Pages:

Oh, and paghat, don't forget my other challenge. That "table salt" quote. Please feel free to post that too.

Oh, and that reminds me, since we are all hot on disclosure and stuff. And since you value provenance and credentials so much, I have asked you for the name of your employer and your credentials.

Perhaps you have missed that, because you seem to have been avoiding answering that.

After all, it's important that all this be on the table, right?

So, paghat, who is your employer?

So, paghat, what are your credentials?

billo

[Thalocean2]

Ditto Laura B.

[gekko]

So it isn't a triple-dark-fudge brownie with a scoop of vanilla bean icecream on top, but Phrederik did write something interesting in :

The quote wasn't even "safe as table salt". And, Dr. Oliver could have used "purified water" for the purposes of the argument he used and still have been accurate.

Here is the quote paghat is referencing:

Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly poison. -- Bill Oliver Message-ID:

See also:

Saying that table salt is deadly is nowhere near the same as saying "safe as table salt", nor even "using glyphosate as table salt."

Paghat's argument is not helped when she alters what was said in order to support her statements.

[animaux]

I work for me, my husband, our pet parrot, the Tibetan People in exile in India, Tibetan Nuns and volunteer work.

Qualifications for what? For everything? Narrowing it down, my qualifications are as follows: I will not, nor do I ever intend to cause any harm to, or death of anything with the use of a pesticide. I am a qualified organic gardener and qualified to be a home maker and retired from the horticulture industry where I worked as a grower for both types of operations. My first job was grower of bedding plants for one of the largest greenhouse operations in the nation (a million square feet under glass with six head houses and sixty tractor trailer loads going out daily from March till June, daily), on Long Island. Second job in the industry was for a smaller grower, 70,000 square feet under glass where I learned to grow organically. I'm not a qualified scientist, but I know when someone is full of shit and Monsanto is full of shit. Period.

Your challenge is denied. How about you provide an article which says glysophate is safe. Not relatively safe, but safe.

[animaux]

She didn't make the quote. It was Monsanto's ad campaign that did. "Roundup, Safe as Table Salt..." It was mandated by the court to be removed immediately from their ad. New York State vs Monsanto.

[David J Bockman]

Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up with nothing.

Ditto New York State v Monsanto

New York vs Monsanto

New York v Monsanto

NY vs Monsanto

NY v Monsanto

[paghat]

Perhaps you need to take lessons. Send me your Visa info & I'll charge you a hundred smackeroos if you need some very elementary instruction. For when I tried it, I got HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of hits. Here's just the first couple items from the first page alone: Monsanto fined, agrees to change their labeling & stop lying in their ads:

of coruse two years later they were sued again by NY Attorney General. Here's an eye-popping criminal record for Monsanto: but by no means restricted to the successful NY Attorney General first successful action, but it needs updating, Monsanto's most recent criminal record has doubled since this page was prepared -- they're getting worse as time goes by! Presently there's a similar yet another suit (filed by NY this past April) against Dow which exactly like Monsanto reneged on their earlier settlement in which they agreed not to lie so agregiously to the public about pesticides. You might have to use news.google to find some of those stories, but I don't want to give away too much of the lesson for free.

-paghat the ratgirl

[paghat]

Apparently his sole paying gig is doing autopsies. Even a lowly medical examiner can tell when they're already dead. Keeps him from personally killing anyone at least.

-paghat the ratgirl

[Lar]

In article , [e-mail] says... :) Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up with :) nothing. :) :) Ditto New York State v Monsanto :) New York vs Monsanto :) New York v Monsanto :) NY vs Monsanto :) NY v Monsanto :) In the late 80's early 90's most states adopted in their governing bodies of Pest control services/products that the wording in advertising or solicitation, even if true, can not contain wording that gives the suggestion of pesticides being benign products. Part of Texas' is

(5) a statement directly or indirectly implying that a pesticide or device is recommended or endorsed by any agency of the state or federal government, such as "EPA Registered" or "EPA Approved"; (6) a true statement used in such a way as to give a false or misleading impression to the consumer; (7) disclaimers or claims which negate or detract from labeling statements on the product label; (8) claims as to the safety of a pesticide or its ingredients, including statements such as "free from risk or harm", "safe", "non-injurious", "harmless", or "non-toxic to humans and pets", with or without such a qualifying phrase as "when used as directed"; (9) claims that the pesticides and other substances the licensee applies, the application of such pesticides, or any other use of them are comparatively safe or free from risk or harm; (10) claims that the pesticides and other substances the licensee applies, the applications of such pesticides, or any other use of them, are "environmentally friendly", "environmentally sound", environmentally aware", environmentally responsible", pollution approved", "contain all natural ingredients", "organic", or are "among the least toxic chemicals known"; and (11) claims regarding its goods and services for which the licensee does not have substantiation at the time such claim is made.

I have never seen the New York suit but I believe it was not directed at Monsanto alone, but Monsanto was part of the group the listed in the suit. I have heard the "gotcha" part of the suit was the equivalent to #11. No long term environmental study of table salt has been done in the environment, so how could they know if long term it was safer?