http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
"
Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins."
Awesome the western world is f*****.
The EPA wants to raise permitted glyphosate levels found on food and in drinking water. You have until July 1st to sign a petition being sent to the EPA. Their position is that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The study above contradicts that however.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob384.html
Ahh skeptics, always funny.
(06-21-2013, 01:11 PM)Not Sure Wrote: [ -> ]Ahh skeptics, always funny.
Yet critical thinking is sorely lacking in many articles such as these today, go figure.
Looking at the original article. I agree entirely, critical thinking has not been at the forefront of these scientists.
That being said, the skeptics article is a hoot to read, but probably not for the reasons intended. It reads like stuff from Westboro Babtist Church stuff with all that tongue in cheek ad hominems.
An exaggeration to be sure, but skepticism does tend to confuse the new age folks who do not care so much about critical thought but rather that their vague notion is propagted by any means necessary, even at the expense of honest methodology.
(06-21-2013, 04:28 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]An exaggeration to be sure, but skepticism does tend to confuse the new age folks who do not care so much about critical thought but rather that their vague notion is propagted by any means necessary, even at the expense of honest methodology.
Wait wait wait....
Are you serious?
Hmm... Seems like there are a lot of unexpressed emotions and anger floating around here. Huh...
(06-21-2013, 06:04 PM)Not Sure Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm... Seems like there are a lot of unexpressed emotions and anger floating around here. Huh...
well then feel free to express your emotions and anger? Do you feel inhibited in some way?
Well that's nice. I was of the impression it was peer-reviewed.
(06-21-2013, 09:34 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]Well that's nice. I was of the impression it was peer-reviewed.
No, it was not peer-reviewed. Peer review means working scientists in the field vet the paper, not merely the journal editors. One of the contributing authors is not even in the field. These days, anyone can create a journal and make up any publishing standards desired. Crap like this is like a roadblock or disservice to the search for legitimate knowledge. Meanwhile the fanatics will eat it up because it serves to reinforce their uncritical prejudices.
Yes I know what peer-reviewed means. The way the website presents itself, I assumed everything was legitimate. Thanks for the heads up.
I appreciate the spirit of the study. Wanton exposure to chemicals is BAD!!!
Just like I feel that aliens are real and have a bias towards ufo's and other phenomena being related to that, so too I have a bias towards many food related things occurring in our world as well being good or bad.
I'm very comfortable in this space.
(06-21-2013, 11:27 PM)GentleReckoning Wrote: [ -> ]I appreciate the spirit of the study.
That's what consequentialism is all about.
Hi all.
I did a little bit of mouse CLICKing, and:
http://www.mdpi.com
Quote:Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute,
is a platform for peer-reviewed, scientific open-access journals operated by MDPI AG,
based in Basel, Switzerland. MDPI publishes over 70 diverse open access electronic journals,
including. . .
MDPI - Open Access Publishing
MDPI is a publisher of peer-reviewed, open access journals since its establishment in 1996.
OAI-certified
Open Archive Initiative data provider
http://www.openarchives.org/Register/Bro...i/oai2.php
Also interresting:
http://www.mdpi.com/about/team
Blue skies.
C-JEAN, you're not going to find legitimate science articles by keyword searching the internet for 'peer-review', as all journals would want to provide that impression. There are other ways to look into the matter. Without training yourself, you can still learn a great deal about science just by reading actual science papers (well many) and get a feel for the general presentation style and methodology. A red flag is if the researchers are not part of the field being investigated. Another is if there are no studies conducted. Another is what prior research they are citing. Fails on all counts - so it's bullshit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-hasp...62694.html