Probably just gone unnoticed, ignored or suppressed by mainstream media.
Edit: am I being downvoted by the same people who think voter suppression isn't a thing or pointing out China's mass incarceration of Uyghurs is propaganda? What in the fuck, Hacker News. I expected more from you people.
Its been cited 155 times. Which directly contradicts the pointless, obviously false claim that its been 'suppressed'. Combined with the paranoia about downvote reasons, and I suspect a troll.
The suppression is real, but not in a comic book conspiracy theory sense. Monsanto has been doing disinformation around glyphosate for a very long time, and stirring up controversy and character assassinations around these (admittedly speculative and unconventional) scientists and others. That's all that's needed for more orthodox members of the scientific community to start using words like "quack" and "pseudoscience".
this paper has so many "maybe" in its conclusion, trying to tie every possible human disease with glyphosate, it is hard to take it seriously. Almost surprised they did not try to link climate change with Glyphosate usage.
On a related note, having a ton of links to other studies proves nothing at all so if this is what you rely on to make a point this is very weak.
This does not explain why celiac would run in families or why it would only affect some family members. My grandfather, both my brothers and I, and my son have it. But many many other family members are perfectly fine. Presumably being exposed to similar amounts of glyphosate.
Probably some degree of genetic predisposition. Just because glyphosate may trigger gluten intolerance in some people doesn't mean it'll have that exact same effect in everybody else, even within the same family.
Tolerance may vary between individuals. Similar to high-carb diets. Some people can tolerate it well, while others will develop diabetes. Some of the difference can be explained by genetics, but it's still early days.
Interesting news. This is another reason the 'you are only gluten intolerant if a doctor has diagnosed you with Celiac...!' argument is not sound. If cutting out something from someone's diet is beneficial to them, the causation might not be all in their head--it just might not be settled science yet. Especially since the gut is turning out to be very important in autoimmune issues.
> I like hacker news because it always provides different opinion and new aspect of any problem.
Learning to google and doing a cursory check of news using snopes would do the same.
Something I have noticed is that people do not seem to do either of those things. I have personally observed that people (with degrees, no less) would rather make an assumption about a topic in the presumed absence of information, rather than actually check that such informatio is available. In one case I was able to show that with a very, very simple google search consisting of two words the information was clearly available within 10 seconds. I do not think this is due to laziness or apathy, as they fail to do this even in cases where they are expending energy on arguing something.
It has been proven that gluten intolerance/sensitivity does not exist (while celiac disease is very real), so this article seems suspicious from the very first line.
There are various studies about that, and even researchers that found some evidence about it, show that there is no such thing in more recent studies (10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.051).
So many feel better by cutting wheat. What’s not known is why. It’s likely not related to gluten but more likely something associated like yeast or simply keeping a better diet overall when avoiding gluten. I never heard the pesticide link before, and it seems it should be pretty easy to rule out since the increase should be smaller whereever glyphosate is banned?
These are the people who make people distrust science! "In 2011, Seneff began publishing articles on topics related to biology and medicine, an area in which she has no relevant qualifications or expertise, in low-impact, open access journals, such as Interdisciplinary Toxicology and eight papers in the journal Entropy between 2011 and 2015.[2][8]"
She's a COMPUTER SCIENCE researcher for Pete's sake!
I am skeptical of these findings. It matches the "gluten-free" fad and demonization of glyphosate too well.
First, websites with "holistic" in their name are usually not the most trustworthy. The conclusion "...We need to go glyphosate-free, not gluten-free. And that means going organic..." seems overly broad.
The paper, coming from a peer-reviewed journal, is a bit more trustworthy but it is also a small journal, with a rather low impact score.
The study picks either incidence or death rates, presumably whichever fits the overlaid glyphosate usage line better.
Indeed the lines often fit well, but wouldn't you expect the death rate to lag behind the usage? Will glyphosate give you instant cancer that immediately kills you? Yeah, probably not.
Curiously, glyphosate usage rate significantly trails the death rate from Parkinson's, a slowly progressing disease. We must therefore conclude that Parkinson's causes glyphosate usage, not the other way around.
32 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 80.9 ms ] threadhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=61493914670281996... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=61...
Probably just gone unnoticed, ignored or suppressed by mainstream media.
Edit: am I being downvoted by the same people who think voter suppression isn't a thing or pointing out China's mass incarceration of Uyghurs is propaganda? What in the fuck, Hacker News. I expected more from you people.
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/02/monsan...
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-28/modern...
On a related note, having a ton of links to other studies proves nothing at all so if this is what you rely on to make a point this is very weak.
We are identical twins.
>”The symptoms of so-called “gluten intolerance” and celiac disease are shockingly similar to the symptoms in lab animals exposed to glyphosate...”
Not a study on humans confirming their hypothesis. So it’s definitely interesting but hardly conclusive.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wheat-toxic/
As if the getholistichealth.com domain wasn’t enough of a BS smell...
Thank you.
Learning to google and doing a cursory check of news using snopes would do the same.
Something I have noticed is that people do not seem to do either of those things. I have personally observed that people (with degrees, no less) would rather make an assumption about a topic in the presumed absence of information, rather than actually check that such informatio is available. In one case I was able to show that with a very, very simple google search consisting of two words the information was clearly available within 10 seconds. I do not think this is due to laziness or apathy, as they fail to do this even in cases where they are expending energy on arguing something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff
All their work have been heavily criticized by academics and therefore shouldn't find their way to mainstream media.
She's a COMPUTER SCIENCE researcher for Pete's sake!
First, websites with "holistic" in their name are usually not the most trustworthy. The conclusion "...We need to go glyphosate-free, not gluten-free. And that means going organic..." seems overly broad.
The paper, coming from a peer-reviewed journal, is a bit more trustworthy but it is also a small journal, with a rather low impact score.
Do anyone know better?
Indeed the lines often fit well, but wouldn't you expect the death rate to lag behind the usage? Will glyphosate give you instant cancer that immediately kills you? Yeah, probably not.
Curiously, glyphosate usage rate significantly trails the death rate from Parkinson's, a slowly progressing disease. We must therefore conclude that Parkinson's causes glyphosate usage, not the other way around.
Listed in https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/