There's that chart again. It's so full of nonsense I can hardly waste my time typing about it. It's a smokescreen and proves no worthwhile points. That's why I just let it go in the other posts. The point you try to make with it is about as irrelevant as the chart itself.Originally posted by HIWB:
Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:
So, it's suspected that glyphosate kills the beneficial gut bacteria in a bee, potentially causing starvation in the abundance of food. So does glyphosate affect the gut bacteria of a human? It might make sense. In fact, Dr. Seneff came out with this idea before Dr. Huber did with the bees.
Seneff also seems to think that glyphosate has it's hand in the autism problem. As I stated before in a previous thread she says 1/2 of all children will have autism by 2025 if we continue our current path. The good thing about this to me is we shouldn't have to wait 10 years to see if she's at least close to being right. If she's right, we should be able to see some real movement in incidence in a relatively short period of time if the increase rate is anywhere close to being linear. Well, as long as our tracking can give us some somewhat real-time data. We're at 1/68 now. 1/10 in 2 yrs, 1/4 in 5.
HIWB, we've already hashed out several times Seneff's background and we all know a good portion of it is in computer science. It is what it is. So my question is, does the wise man who cares about his and his family's health wait and take his chances to see what happens? Does he buy into the Monsanto tobacco science telling him they are safe, completely ignoring everything that says they probably aren't? Does he drag his feet waiting for numbers to come out before he starts removing him and his family from the potentials, or does he remove himself from the potentials first?
Seneff may be wrong. I hope for our and our children's sake she is, but there's a certain something in me in the survival department that takes information like this and tells me if I am able, I should probably try to stay away from it.
http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/26/mit-states-that-half-of-all-children-may-be-autistic-by-2025/
The wise man looks at evidence and determines if it is valid. The information you've referenced in this thread isn't based on experiments and validation - it's based on assumption. Huber decides to ignore all previous evidence and call for more study, and then you extrapolate that to "glyphosate may be responsible for CCD". Seneff used spurious logic and assumptions to write her book report that this graph does, and you extrapolate that to "glyphosate has it's hand in autism".This post was edited on 3/14 9:38 AM by naturalbornhawk
If we can agree that the above graph is absolutely ridiculous, then you'll agree that Seneff's conclusions are equally ridiculous. You can continue to keep referencing her book report, but I'm not going to entertain any more conversation about it. It's absolutely a waste of time.
No one is ignoring studies that say GMO/glyphosate isn't safe. The studies are peer reviewed and then determined to be valid - the same process applies to both sides. Does it not strike you as strange that these "studies" aren't published in reputable journals? Why hasn't Seneff landed a spot on ABC news to shout her findings from the mountaintop? When do we expect the EFSA, WHO, EPA, EU, AAAS, AMA, FDA, etc. to revise their positions on this subject due to her "findings"?
There is a problem. The problem is new. Organic = closer to the way things used to be = not the problem. GMO is new. It's backed by terrible government oversight, a terrible political system, and corporate administered tobacco science with it's well being riding on the results. The media for covering this stuff is just as bought as the politicians. Seneff found her mountaintop and though it's not the ABC news, her info is out there relatively easy to find for those willing to listen. Tobacco science, margarine science, whatever - all had good, sound, and settled science telling us they were good for us. We kick the can down the street to stretch out sales as much as possible at the cost of human health. Heck the entire "science" based food pyramid was wrong and probably still is wrong.
The alternatives being offered for autism (like people are having kids later in life) don't make sense because they don't cover the scope of the problem. If you're going to take away my most suspected culprits to the problem(s), then at least offer some believable alternatives.
As far as your problems with Seneff, have you even listened to her to try to figure out how she comes to her conclusions regarding autism? She does tell you why she connects those dots and does explain why she thinks glyphosate and autism are connected if you're willing to listen to her, it's relatively easy to find.
How can you say Huber is ignoring all previous evidence? Please post the studies that you feel he is ignoring that speak against his theory.
You tell me I shouldn't extrapolate this: "glyphosate may be responsible for CCD". Please let me know what the foul is by my saying that. Of course it's a possibility. Are you willing to tell me that it's not a possibility? If you're not, then why even respond with this nonsense because that's all I'm saying. The theory seems very logical and he explains very clearly why he thinks it could be an issue.
Then you said that I extrapolated "glyphosate has it's hand in autism" when I was actually indicating what Seneff was saying. Then you whipped out that terrible chart....again....because of my speculation on the possible.
It almost seems like you're purposefully kicking up dust at this point, something I don't really have a whole lot of time for.
This post was edited on 3/14 11:28 PM by naturalbornhawk