science behind glyphosate A federal court case that many on this forum might find interesting and care to follow. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/05/monsanto-pesticides-roundup-court https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160561#msg-160561 Thu, 14 May 2026 03:07:35 +0000 Phorum 5.2.23 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,161830#msg-161830 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,161830#msg-161830 Weedkiller found in granola and crackers, internal FDA emails show

The FDA has been testing food samples for traces of glyphosate for two years, but the agency has not yet released any official results

[www.theguardian.com]

Follow the hyperlinks in the report as well for related info.]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:45:19 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,161627#msg-161627 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,161627#msg-161627
Regardless of his ‘approach’ to spreading the word, I think it makes sense to keep an open mind about the known risks of glyphosate as well as the potential risks from long-term exposure… only some of which are now being recognized. Opinions are just that but the science is showing there is cause for concern even though Monsanto, Sargenta and others are doing all they can to obfuscate the risk factors.

There are many studies examining both the glyphosate and GMO impact on the environment and health including animals fed GMO food that are then used for human consumption. Many state it is too soon to know the full extent of the potential for damage in humans.

Dr Seneff’s work was mentioned previously in the Jeffrey Smith discussion on this important study findings
Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy. 2013; 15(4):1416-1463.

As one example, from a report on this topic, I’ve included the accompanying study references below… and this conclusion from the first reference,

de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE. Debate on GMOs health risks after statistical findings in regulatory tests. Int J Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 5;6(6):590-8.

Here’s the conclusion….

Conclusions and perspectives
Controversy on biological interpretations is a usual way of advancement in science. It would however have been beneficial for the acceptance of biotechnologies by the public at large, to close this scientific debate by longer, more detailed, and transparent toxicological tests on GMOs, and in particular twenty years ago when the most widely grown GMOs were still experimental.

We wish to reassert that our work does not claim to demonstrate the chronic toxicity of the GMOs in question, especially since it is based on the data originating from insufficient tests that were accepted by regulatory authorities and Monsanto et al., a fact for which we are not in any way responsible. For the regulatory authorities, as well as Monsanto et al, these tests prove chronic innocuousness for mammalian and human public health. And they claim it is not essential to demonstrate the GMOs innocuousness. This again raises the same issues and consequences. We have revealed the inefficiency both of these tests and of their statistical analysis and biological interpretations, for the various reasons detailed above. However, some of the in vivo 90-day tests are not performed any longer today to get worldwide commercial authorizations, especially for GMO with “stacked events” (i.e., producing one or several insecticides and tolerating one or two herbicides), and this is even more seriously inadequate since the so-called “cocktail effects” are not taken into consideration.

The same controversy took place (February 2010) in India, in relation to the authorization process for a transgenic eggplant that produces a new Bt insecticide. This authorization was based on three-month tests on three mammals and other animals for shorter times, which presented significant biological effects after this GM consumption 10, 25. The same arguments were used in the debate in India. But in this case, the government decided to take the time to study chronic health effects, following our expertise, and therefore to implement a moratorium 26.
In the present case, we wish to underline that the commercial GMOs in question contain pesticide residues, some of which have been demonstrated as human cellular endocrine disruptors at levels around 1000 times below their presence in some GM feed 27. Such Roundup residues are present in more than 80% of edible cultivated GMOs. This does not exclude other possible effects.

As a conclusion, we call for the promotion of transparent, independent and reproducible health studies for new commercial products, the dissemination of which implies consequences on a large scale. Lifetime studies for laboratory animals consuming GMOs must be performed, by contrast to what is done today, like the two-year long tests on rats for some pesticides or some drugs. Such tests could be associated to transgenerational, reproductive or endocrine research studies. And moreover, shortcomings in experimental designs may raise major questions on other chemical authorizations.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


A few of many references on this topic:

.Gilles-Eric Séralini, Dominique Cellier, Joël Spiroux de Vendomois . New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007 May;52(4):596-602. Epub 2007 Mar 13.

. de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.

. Carl-Alfred Alpert, Denis D G Mater, Marie-Claude Muller, Marie-France Ouriet, Yvonne Duval-Iflah, Gérard Corthier. Worst-case scenarios for horizontal gene transfer from Lactococcus lactis carrying heterologous genes to Enterococcus faecalis in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice.Environ Biosafety Res. 2003 Jul-Sep;2(3):173-80.

. M Gruzza, M Fons, M F Ouriet, Y Duval-Iflah, R Ducluzeau. Study of gene transfer in vitro and in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice from Lactococcus lactis strains to various strains belonging to human intestinal flora. Microb Releases. 1994 Jul;2(4):183-9.

. Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Feb 18.

. Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota invitro. Curr Microbiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):350-8. doi: 10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2. Epub 2012 Dec 9.

Krüger M, Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Rodloff A. Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum. Anaerobe. 2013 Feb 6. pii: S1075-9964(13)00018-8. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.01.005. [Epub ahead of print]

F Mañas, L Peralta, J Raviolo, H García Ovando, A Weyers, L Ugnia, M Gonzalez Cid, I Larripa, N Gorla. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2009 Mar ;72(3):834-7. Epub 2008 Nov 14.

Benachour N, Séralini GE. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105. doi: 10.1021/tx800218n.

Taetzsch T, Block ML. Pesticides, Microglial NOX2, and Parkinson's Disease. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2013 Feb;27(2):137-49. doi: 10.1002/jbt.21464. Epub 2013 Jan 24.

. Wang G, Fan XN, Tan YY, Cheng Q, Chen SD. Parkinsonism after chronic occupational exposure to glyphosate. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2011 Jul;17(6):486-7. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.02.003. Epub 2011 Mar 2.

. Barbosa ER, Leiros da Costa MD, Bacheschi LA, Scaff M, Leite CC. Parkinsonism after glycine-derivate exposure. Mov Disord. 2001 May;16(3):565-8.

. Gui YX, Fan XN, Wang HM, Wang G, Chen SD. Glyphosate induced cell death through apoptotic and autophagic mechanisms. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2012 May-Jun;34(3):344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 Apr 4.

Lennart Hardell, Mikael Eriksson, Marie Nordstrom. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies.Leuk Lymphoma. 2002 May;43(5):1043-9

Anneclaire J De Roos, Aaron Blair, Jennifer A Rusiecki, Jane A Hoppin, Megan Svec, Mustafa Dosemeci, Dale P Sandler, Michael C Alavanja. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jan ;113(1):49-54.

R M Romano, M A Romano, M M Bernardi, P V Furtado, C A Oliveira. Prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology. Arch Toxicol. 2010 Apr;84(4):309-17. Epub 2009 Dec 12.

. Clair E, Mesnage R, Travert C, Séralini GÉ. A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicol In Vitro. 2012 Mar;26(2):269-79. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.12.009. Epub 2011 Dec 19.

Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon MC, Séralini GE. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology. 2009 Aug 21;262(3):184-91. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006. Epub 2009 Jun 17.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Accessed 3-15-13 at: [www.ecfr.gov]

R Mesnage, E Clair, S Gress, C Then, A Székács, G-E Séralini. Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide. J Appl Toxicol. 2012 Feb 15. Epub 2012 Feb 15.

R Mesnage, B Bernay, G-E Séralini. Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology. 2012 Sep 21. Epub 2012 Sep 21.

. Green JM, Owen MD. Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J Agric Food Chem. 2011 Jun 8;59(11):5819-29. doi: 10.1021/jf101286h. Epub 2010 Jun 29.

. Heap I. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds; available at [www.weedscience.com], 2010, accessed April 15, 2010.

. María L Zapiola, Carol A Mallory-Smith. Crossing the divide: gene flow produces intergeneric hybrid in feral transgenic creeping bentgrass population. Mol Ecol. 2012 May 24. Epub 2012 May 24.

. Astrid T Groot, Marcel Dicke . Insect-resistant transgenic plants in a multi-trophic context. Plant J. 2002 Aug;31(4):387-406.

. Richard H Coupe, Stephen J Kalkhoff, Paul D Capel, Caroline Gregoire. Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basins. Pest Manag Sci. 2012 Jan ;68(1):16-30. Epub 2011 Jun 16.

. Dani Degenhardt, David Humphries, Allan J Cessna, Paul Messing, Pascal H Badiou, Renata Raina, Annemieke Farenhorst, Dan J Pennock. Dissipation of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water and sediment of two Canadian prairie wetlands. J Environ Sci Health B. 2012 ;47(7):631-9.]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:26:58 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,161625#msg-161625 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,161625#msg-161625
No matter how many times someone repeats something repittiion may make us believe it more but it does not make it any more factual.

[allianceforscience.cornell.edu]

Gordon]]> ggheld GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:07:40 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,161519#msg-161519 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,161519#msg-161519 civileats.com]]]> Larry GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:25:06 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160692#msg-160692 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160692#msg-160692 Joe GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:39:01 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160686#msg-160686 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160686#msg-160686 Important info.


Protective Effects of Lignite Extract Supplement on Intestinal Barrier Function in
Glyphosate-Mediated Tight Junction Injury

Introduction
Intestinal barrier permeability refers to a dysfunction in tight
junctions whereby foreign substances (e.g. potential antigens,
inorganic compounds, and pathogenic organisms) are allowed
unregulated passage from the apical side to the basolateral
side of these epithelial cells.

Tight junctions are found in all epithelial and endothelial systems
such as the nasosinuses, digestive tract, renal tubules, and
blood-brain barrier. These tight junctions serve as firewalls,
regulating the absorption of water and macronutrients, and
participate in immune system response.

Tight junctions are comprised of dozens of proteins that aid in this
function, including occludin proteins, the Junctional Adhesion
Molecules (JAM) family of proteins, and the claudin family of
proteins, all of which span the paracellular space. Occludin
proteins are responsible for intercellular signaling within the tight
junctions, while the JAM proteins aid in trafficking of immune
cells to injured or inflamed tissues.

Continue:
[clinical-nutrition.imedpub.com]]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:58:45 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160683#msg-160683 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160683#msg-160683 Also noted from other reading that Seralini is despised by the industry. I've listened to him being interviewed and he strikes me as a serious researcher.]]> Joe GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:14:57 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160674#msg-160674 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160674#msg-160674 The Health Dangers of Roundup Herbicide
and also do some research on the impact on mitochondrial function.

Page 1 “ There’s a huge flaw that indicates glyphosate doesn’t harm our cells. Because they do disrupt our beneficial gut bacteria which allows pathogens to overgrow. Then those produce toxins which cause inflammation which wrecks the gut lining.. you get leaky gut, and these toxins get into the blood stream. They can go to the brain, cause autoimmune disease and many other health issues as a result of that inflammation.”

Note this study....

Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles
BioMed Research International
Author(s) Robin Mesnage, Nicolas Defarge, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, and Gilles-Eric Séralini

Abstract
Pesticides are used throughout the world as mixtures called formulations. They contain adjuvants, which are often kept confidential and are called inerts by the manufacturing companies, plus a declared active principle, which is usually tested alone.

We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines (HepG2, HEK293, and JEG3). Glyphosate, isoproturon, fluroxypyr, pirimicarb, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, tebuconazole, epoxiconazole, and prochloraz constitute, respectively, the active principles of 3 major herbicides, 3 insecticides, and 3 fungicides. We measured mitochondrial activities, membrane degradations, and caspases 3/7 activities. Fungicides were the most toxic from concentrations 300–600 times lower than agricultural dilutions, followed by herbicides and then insecticides, with very similar profiles in all cell types. Despite its relatively benign reputation,

Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone.

Published - February 26, 2014

Here's an 8 page pdf of that study...
[www.drperlmutter.com]

Quote from pp 7 and 8

It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest
pesticides. This idea is spread by manufacturers, mostly in
the reviews they promote [40], which are often cited
in toxicological evaluations of glyphosate-based herbicides.
However, Roundup was found in this experiment to be
125 times more toxic than glyphosate.

Moreover, despite its reputation, Roundup was by far
the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested.

This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial
claim may be attributed to huge economic interests,
have been found to falsify health risk assessments and
delay health policy decisions [41].

BioMed Research International
7 and 8

(Read through the references in this study as well for confirmation)


Jackie]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:30:12 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160667#msg-160667 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160667#msg-160667 Desperately wish that they are correct. For the time being i'd like to avoid roundup in my system if that is possible :(
Quote

Targeting the shikimate metabolic pathway in weeds, glyphosate interferes with protein synthesis in plants, bacteria, fungi and other organisms, but not in animals. There is no evidence that glyphosate residues on food affect the shikimate pathways of bacteria in the human gut.
Not convincing. Apparently it does not affect our gut biome because of the amino acid soup present. Well, i hope so but it does not sound reasonable. Hopefully it (amino acids) help to protect to an extent? After all the chemical is designed to inhibit the shikimate pathway.

The rat study was for two weeks only???? Why??? Interfering with our gut biome or enzymes often takes quite some time to manifest in health problems/ chronic health problems.

They also make out that killing soil bacteria could be a good thing:S Are they trying to argue that a healthy bio active soil isn't essential for nutrient rich and healthy produce???]]> Joe GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Mon, 12 Mar 2018 01:47:05 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160650#msg-160650 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160650#msg-160650
And yes, I now realize that Agent Orange was composed of dioxin and 2,4-D and other chemicals, not glyphosate, but my point is, how can we ever trust companies like Dow Chemical and Monsanto and the EPA, FDA, and our government when they knew the devasting effects of Agent Orange and still used it? Here is just a sampling of what is has done: [theecologist.org]

"According to scientific surveys, quoted in the 19-page report from the 2009 Paris People's Tribunal on Agent Orange, land affected by Agent Orange could take 50 to 200 years to recover - and some regions may never recover. That is the foliage and the soil. Add to this the contamination of rivers and groundwater, and disappearance of all wildlife in some regions."

"So potent is Agent Orange that US airmen flying the planes that dropped the toxic herbicide - and others who came into contact with the dioxin - were DNA-damaged too. Their families have genetic deformations spanning three generations."

"Monsanto has never acknowledged its role in the devastation wreaked by Agent Orange. But the corporation has contributed funding to the Vietnam Red Cross, which keeps a tally on the number of victims with health problems related to Agent Orange: estimated at over three million. For the first generation, that would be those who came into direct contact with Agent Orange, ate food grown in contaminated areas, or ate fish or animals contaminated with the toxin."

" By this time [1968], Agent Orange had been in use for seven years and its severe effects were well-known to the US military." Yet, they kept using it until 1971. My husband served in Vietnam from Dec 1969 to Dec 1970.

These companies are out to make money, and obviously have no conscience about how many people may be killed or ill for life by using their products. Just like the cigarette industry, they will keep hiding the truth until it is too late for many who trust them.]]> Windstar GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:52:10 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160646#msg-160646 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160646#msg-160646
Following is a segment from an exposeˊ report in the Chicago Tribune – Dec 8, 2015 that gives important historical background for the chemical exposure dilemma we face today. This summary review is easier to understand rather than slog through the scientific documents.

Jackie


A Chicago Tribune investigation finds that the Environmental Protection Agency discounted safety data for a World War II-era chemical called 2,4-D that has been linked to cancer and other health problems. Dow Chemical wants to use it as a weedkiller on the company's new genetically modified crops. (Chicago Tribune)
By Patricia Callahan

How the EPA cleared the way for Dow to revive a worrisome old pesticide for new GMO crops.

When Monsanto genetically engineered corn and soybeans to make them immune to its best-selling weedkiller, the company pitched the technology as a way to reduce overall use of herbicides and usher in an environmentally friendly era of farming.

Instead of relying on older, more harmful chemicals, farmers could douse their fields with Roundup, a product that Monsanto once advertised as less toxic than table salt.

Two decades later, overuse of Roundup has spawned weeds that can survive spraying to grow 8 feet tall with stems as thick as baseball bats. To kill those so-called superweeds, chemical giants are giving the next wave of genetically modified crops immunity to the weedkillers of generations past.

The technology that was supposed to make those older herbicides obsolete soon could make it possible for farmers to use a lot more.

For use on its new genetically engineered corn and soybeans, Dow Chemical Co. is reviving 2,4-D, a World War II-era chemical linked to cancer and other health problems.

If these crops are widely adopted, the government’s maximum-exposure projections show that U.S. children ages 1 to 12 could consume levels of 2,4-D that the World Health Organization, Russia, Australia, South Korea, Canada, Brazil and China consider unsafe.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had considered that exposure dangerous for decades as well. But the Obama administration’s EPA now says it is safe to allow 41 times more 2,4-D into the American diet than before he took office.

To reach that conclusion, the Tribune found the agency’s scientists changed their analysis of a pivotal rat study by Dow, tossing aside signs of kidney trouble that Dow researchers said were caused by 2,4-D.

The EPA scientists who revised that crucial document were persuaded by a Canadian government toxicologist who decided that Dow — a company that has a $1 billion product at stake — had been overly cautious in flagging kidney abnormalities that she deemed insignificant.

When Dow later published this study, the company’s scientists likewise dismissed their earlier concerns and changed the most important measure of the chemical’s toxicity so it agreed with the EPA’s less stringent view.

These decisions paved the way for the EPA to approve Dow’s weedkiller Enlist Duo last year and reassure the public that a surge in 2,4-D use wouldn’t hurt anyone.

Girding that reassurance are two calculations: How much of the herbicide is safe for human health, and how much will Americans wind up consuming? There are ways to tweak each of those risk calculations. With 2,4-D, the Tribune found, the EPA’s math favored a dramatic increase in the weedkiller.

Federal law has required the EPA to protect children from pesticides — chemicals that kill weeds, insects or other harmful organisms — since a National Research Council panel warned lawmakers in the 1990s that exposing fetuses and young kids to these compounds can cause lifelong damage at doses that wouldn’t hurt their parents.

Dr. Philip Landrigan, the pediatrician who chaired that panel, is so alarmed by the potential spike in children’s exposure to 2,4-D that for the last year he has urged EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to reject the “notoriously toxic herbicide.” He is calling for the federal National Toxicology Program to assess the safety of the mix of weedkillers that would be used on new genetically modified crops.

When Landrigan learned from the Tribune that EPA and Dow scientists had changed their minds about kidney anomalies found in exposed rats, he was shocked.

“If the tables were turned, and a group of scientists published a paper showing some adverse effect from 2,4-D, I have no doubt that Dow would say a second and third study were needed,” said Landrigan, whose research on childhood lead exposure helped prompt the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. “And yet, Dow is saying we need to trust this one study where results were reinterpreted midstream. There’s reason to raise doubt here.”

Dow said 2,4-D is safe and is one of the most extensively studied pesticides in history. James Bus, a former Dow toxicologist who worked on the company’s recent rat study, said the EPA’s evaluation of 2,4-D relies on state-of-the-art science and “stands as an example of how it should be done.”

“We know from 70 years of exposure that 2,4-D has not presented health problems,” Bus said. Studies that suggest such a link are flawed, and increased use will not put anyone at risk, he added.

For its part, the EPA said its scientific vetting ensures that any pesticide residues left in food and water won’t cause harm. The Dow rat study reveals that 2,4-D is less toxic to people than once thought, agency officials say.
“It is EPA’s understanding that other governments do agree with our interpretation of the new study, but have not yet incorporated the results into their 2,4-D reviews,” EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn said in a written statement.

In a surprise move last week, the EPA asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the agency’s approval so its scientists could review new data. But EPA officials made it clear they don’t intend to bar the product permanently.
The holdup has nothing to do with human health. Enlist Duo combines 2,4-D and glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, and the agency said it wanted to iron out concerns that the two chemicals combined are more toxic to endangered plants than either of the chemicals separately.

As far as people’s health is concerned, though, the agency maintains that Enlist Duo is perfectly safe. Even if American farmers spray 2,4-D on every acre of corn and soybeans — crops that serve as the building blocks of processed foods and fatten farm animals — it still won’t harm consumers, the EPA said.

So confident is Dow that the agency’s concerns about endangered plants can be resolved quickly that the title of its news release last week read: “Dow Expects Enlist Duo to be Available for the 2016 U.S. Crop Season.”

Continue: [www.chicagotribune.com]

2,4-D toxicity profile [pmep.cce.cornell.edu]]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:36:50 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160633#msg-160633 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160633#msg-160633
Very sorry about your husband:

You posted:

We can argue scientific facts, but until one is personally affected by glyphosate, the reality of the problem will never hit home. I know because my first husband was the victim of Agent Orange (glyphosate). He served in the US Army during the Vietnam War. The US navy sent PT boats through the canals, spraying Agent Orange on the foliage along the shores to kill the foliage so the enemy couldn't hide there. The US soldiers were told the spray wouldn't hurt them, so they went swimming in the canals to cool off from the hot weather.

You are calling Agent Orange (glyphosate) which isn't true:


What also has been missing from the claims of activists who tried to confuse 2,4-D with Agent Orange and dioxins is the fact that the Agent was made of distinct chemicals, with distinct properties. And 2,4-D was not the problem.

Agent Orange was a combination of two herbicides: 2,4D and another called 2,4,5-T. The toxic dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was a contaminant only of 2,4,5-T. It was not a byproduct of 2,4-D, although some forms of 2,4-D that weren’t widely used did have some small dioxin contamination. Modern manufacturing methods have eliminated this contamination from today’s 2,4-D.

Info Wars is just a conspiracy site, Alex Jones believes that President Bush was responsible for 9-11.

[geneticliteracyproject.org]

Liz]]> Elizabeth GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Sat, 10 Mar 2018 01:38:46 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160629#msg-160629 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160629#msg-160629
Without being able to proof anything one way or another i tend to avoid anything i suspect was treated with roundup until i'm totally satisfied it's not harmful in the long run.

Quote

Glyphosate and the gut bacteria is a topic that holds a magnetic fascination for many. They simply cannot seem to let go of the idea that glyphosate could be causing problems for the microbiome, despite the perspective of the minuscule size of the residue concentrations, and despite lack of signs of a connection to health problems and glyphosate exposure in all the epidemiological studies from last four decades.

Some studies do exist which suggest a connection, but so far they are only sketching hypothetical models, may often be of very poor quality, and their flaws are easy for scientists, and even laymen, to detect if given a careful look. One good overview of that kind presented on Skeptoid.
Some emotional thought from someone pro Roundup in that? Chronic health problems can take how long before symptoms show?
Looking forward to reading about what i balded.
Didn't the EPA in the US increase their initial safe limit of roundup/glyphosate after it became clear and the the behest of industry?]]> Joe GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:16:44 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160628#msg-160628 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160628#msg-160628
Five years later, my husband was diagnosed with testicular cancer, which then spread to his spine, and eventually his brain. After a ten year battle with cancer, he passed away. He had been an athlete in college, and was extremely healthy before going to Vietnam. At first, the US government and Dow Chemical (who made Agent Orange) denied that Agent Orange was the cause of so many servicemen becoming ill, but over time there was solid evidence that there was an undisputable correlation between the areas sprayed by Agent Orange and cancer.

My point in telling this story is to confirm Jackie's documentation that glyphosate studies are being falsified and the public is not being told the truth. I lost a beloved husband to glyphosate, we were never able to have children, and I was left a widow with thousands of dollars of debt due to surgery and chemo bills.

To confirm my lack of confidence in the FDA, medical and pharmaceutical communities, and companies like Dow Chemical and Monsanto, here is a recent article revealing the truth from two of their own:

"Let’s go to the record. Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world. During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor, researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger. And this is what they have written:

ONE: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

Taken from: [www.infowars.com]]]> Windstar GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:09:49 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160627#msg-160627 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160627#msg-160627
[thoughtscapism.com]








← 2.-3. Glyphosate and Health Effects A-Z

5.-6. Glyphosate, Other Pesticides, and The Precautionary Principle →


4. Does Glyphosate Harm Gut Bacteria?

Posted on September 8, 2016 by Thoughtscapism


In my series 17 Questions about Glyphosate, question 4. looks at glyphosate and its potential to affect our gut bacteria. This is one of the favourite returning points for many who find the newness of the field of microbiome research a reason be extra cautious, and in the process, sometimes jump into some rather hasty conclusions. Updated with a new study in November 2017.


Glyphosate and the gut bacteria is a topic that holds a magnetic fascination for many. They simply cannot seem to let go of the idea that glyphosate could be causing problems for the microbiome, despite the perspective of the minuscule size of the residue concentrations, and despite lack of signs of a connection to health problems and glyphosate exposure in all the epidemiological studies from last four decades.

Some studies do exist which suggest a connection, but so far they are only sketching hypothetical models, may often be of very poor quality, and their flaws are easy for scientists, and even laymen, to detect if given a careful look. One good overview of that kind presented on Skeptoid.

This does not stop people like Seneff, et al (see more on that in sections 3. in the previous post, 2.-3. Glyphosate and Health Effects A-Z) from theorising that glyphosate could cause a host of effects through an unclear mechanisms indirectly via the gut microbiome. In her article in Forbes, Kevin Senapathy sums up the major stumbling point of these claims well: there is no evidence for glyphosate having a harmful effect in our gut bacteria (more on that also in the end of the post). She writes:


Targeting the shikimate metabolic pathway in weeds, glyphosate interferes with protein synthesis in plants, bacteria, fungi and other organisms, but not in animals. There is no evidence that glyphosate residues on food affect the shikimate pathways of bacteria in the human gut.
dirty-dozen
The pesticide residues on produce in general are really very low – Nurse Loves Farmer provides perspective on the dirty dozen.

But the lack of evidence of harm does not necessarily give a layman the reassurance it may relay to a researcher. Let’s make it more tangible. To help us with the effort, firstly, the very thorough and detail-oriented skeptical activist Credible Hulk has kindly dug out the exact figures on allowed levels of pesticide residue on a number of different plants in his post and gone to even more detail in his blog piece, where he lays out the math: a 70 kg person in the US would have to eat 28 kg or 62 lbs of produce at the highest level of allowed residue every day in order to reach the limit set by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the still safe level for the consumer – 2 mg glyphosate per kg body weight per day. This allowed level already has a hundred-fold built-in safety margin: it is set hundred times lower than the level for no observed adverse effects (NOAEL) in the most sensitive lab animal species tested. It is physically not possible to eat enough of normal produce to reach that level. And what about gut bacteria?

Liz]]> Elizabeth GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 19:44:07 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160626#msg-160626 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160626#msg-160626
[www.thecut.com]

I certainly wouldn't use him as a reference.

The World Health Org., gee, they work in family planning, (maybe they want to thin out the population), immunizations (thought you were against that), they also want a Universal health coverage (no), Jackie you are quoting this organization?

Liz]]> Elizabeth GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 19:27:02 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160625#msg-160625 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160625#msg-160625
Jackie.



Joe – Just a few resources for you to check out of many available on this topic.

Neurologist, David Perlmutter, MD, and author of several highly informative books on brain health… has
examined the gut/brain/GMO connection as well as the impact on overall health. In his book “Brain Maker” he focuses on “The Power of Gut Microbes to Heal and Protect Your Brain…for Life”…. and spends time talking about environmental chemicals as well as GMOs and the toxicity impact on gut bacteria aka microbiome. Most of his recent blogs and comments are about the importance of protecting the gut microbiome.

He also notes: (quoting Dr. Perlmutter)

“ Epidemiological evidence supports strong temporal correlations between glyphosate usage on crops and a multitude of cancers that are reaching epidemic proportions, including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, bladder cancer and myeloid leukaemia.”

… “So let’s take a step back. I’d like to explore why it is that we should indeed do everything possible to avoid GMO foods.

First, let’s take a look at the scope of the issue. At least 90% of the canola, cotton, corn, soy, and sugar beets sold in United States come from seeds that have been genetically engineered. The main reason that these crops are genetically engineered is to make them resistant to herbicides. That means farmers can spray these crops to kill weeds, and because of genetic engineering, the crops themselves are not affected by the poison. Nonetheless, residues of the poison remain in the food, which is then consumed across our country. My point is that most of the agricultural products consumed by Americans come from genetically engineered seeds and have residues of herbicides.”

See also his GMO online report here:
[www.drperlmutter.com]


The World Health Organization has now said that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen….
[www.google.com]

My comment:
A major focus on all this is the body’s inflammatory reaction and what resultant reactivity is caused in the body… highly individualized. Some, are much more reactive than others and will be treated more aggressively but often not treating the underlying cause which is the glyphosate exposure and all that leads to in the downhill health spiral when gut bacteria affected.

So Joe – also, a great source of researched information is Jeffrey Smith’s website Institute for Responsible Technology…since he has been involved in communicating to the world, the detrimental effects of GMOs for almost 20 years now. [responsibletechnology.org]

Be aware, you’ll see a lot of criticism for his exposure of this serious problem, but that’s typically either driven by lack of understanding the science or vested financial interests. If glyphosate and such are banned, a lot of money is lost so obfuscation and denial is rampant. We can’t live in a bubble but we can be aware and take precautions to avoid as much exposure as possible.

Jackie]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 16:49:31 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160622#msg-160622 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160622#msg-160622
[usrtk.org]]]> Larry GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:27:06 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160619#msg-160619 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160619#msg-160619 Your questions are en pointe.

Jackie]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:55:06 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160617#msg-160617 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160617#msg-160617
Quote

BTW, i'm talking about roundup ready (herbicide ready) food crops and not about all of the GMO's

Was hoping to get an answer on the points i brought up - anybody? I do wish roundup isn't detrimental to our gut microbiom.]]> Joe GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 06:19:33 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160614#msg-160614 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160614#msg-160614
I don't like pesticides per say, however, I am realistic and know that we do need them. We need adequate proof by scientists not by people that just go off and blast them by taking the words of people that are not really qualified. During my life I have seen claims come and go, I do not believe everything that someone posts, it is their beliefs, may not be mine.

In your post you have lumped GMO foods and roundup together, a little confusing. GMO foods have been blasted, do you know that Luther Burbank was one of the first to genetically change plants, it has been done over the years. GMO foods need less pesticide sprays, they were fed to animals in the 1990s, there hasn't been any adverse effects on them.

There doesn't seem to be much of a give and take in this discussion, the posters are adamant in their believes about GMO foods and Roundup, so I really don't care to comment further.

Liz]]> Elizabeth GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Fri, 09 Mar 2018 01:05:43 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160613#msg-160613 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160613#msg-160613
Quote
Elizabeth
This article explains the why of GMO foods.

[www.thenewatlantis.com]

Liz

Interesting that you come to that conclusion, Liz.
My conclusion is that it weighs in more on the why not of GMOs.

Quote

Its function in policymaking is to place the burden of proof for the safety of a new product or process on those who wish to produce or import it, requiring them to demonstrate the absence of danger, and forbidding its sale and production until then.

I can't fault that logic, can you?

BTW, i'm talking about roundup ready (herbicide ready) food crops and not about all of the GMO's.

*how will roundup contamination of organic production farmers be remedied?
*roundup interferes with the shikimate pathway from what i understand? Plants rely on that for energy production. Mammals don't rely on that
pathway for energy production.
However, much if not all of our gut microbiom does rely on a functioning shikimate pathway for survival?
It is no longer a secret these days that we massively rely on the well-being of our good intestinal biom.
*how does roundup affect soil organisms.....?

Joe]]> Joe GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Thu, 08 Mar 2018 22:31:46 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160608#msg-160608 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160608#msg-160608 Whitewash by Carey Gillam, you’d know about documented detail the author provides as evidence that exposes the obfuscations and outright cover-ups and manipulations by Monsanto and to keep from telling the truth to the public about the health risks that accompany glyphosate. It is, after all, a huge money maker.

She points out that bloggers are paid to write rebuttals and positive feedback on the internet about Roundup so that many seeking the truth are often misled by convincing arguments that the chemical sound harmless.
Here’s a sample:


Book review

WHITEWASH: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science

It’s the pesticide on our dinner plates, a chemical so pervasive it’s in the air we breathe, our water, our soil, and even found increasingly in our own bodies. Known as Monsanto’s Roundup by consumers, and as glyphosate by scientists, the world’s most popular weed killer is used everywhere from backyard gardens to golf courses to millions of acres of farmland. For decades it’s been touted as safe enough to drink, but a growing body of evidence indicates just the opposite, with research tying the chemical to cancers and a host of other health threats.

In Whitewash, veteran journalist Carey Gillam uncovers one of the most controversial stories in the history of food and agriculture, exposing new evidence of corporate influence. Gillam introduces readers to farm families devastated by cancers which they believe are caused by the chemical, and to scientists whose reputations have been smeared for publishing research that contradicted business interests. Readers learn about the arm-twisting of regulators who signed off on the chemical, echoing company assurances of safety even as they permitted higher residues of the pesticide in food and skipped compliance tests. And, in startling detail, Gillam reveals secret industry communications that pull back the curtain on corporate efforts to manipulate public perception.

Whitewash is more than an exposé about the hazards of one chemical or even the influence of one company. It’s a story of power, politics, and the deadly consequences of putting corporate interests ahead of public safety. The Society for Environmental Journalists says Gillam "comes at one of the world’s most powerful corporations hard and doesn’t hold back, something legions of other journalists have been reluctant to do."
[careygillam.com]]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:12:31 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160603#msg-160603 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160603#msg-160603
Intro:

The following article by Dr. Ramon Seidler, PhD. is on the dangers of Roundup that we should re-post, download, and share with anyone who still supports the use of this dangerous herbicide or the GMO plants that are engineered to be sprayed with it. It also exposes how the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has bent over backwards to ignore proven dangers that are now ravaging the health of our population. The author should know. He is Ramon Seidler, PhD., the former Team Leader of the EPA’s Genetically Engineered Organism biosafety program. He consistently warned the agency about very real risks of GMOs, but was ignored by decision makers.

By circulating this article, you will likely inspire someone to stop using Roundup on their lawns. In other words, just by re-posting this full piece, you may prevent someone from getting cancer, liver disease, or possibly numerous other disorders associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals. And hopefully this article will also inspire people to eat more organic food. As the article states, based on urine sampling, Americans probably consume 1000 times the amount of Roundup that causes fatty liver disease in rats. One fourth of all Americans have fatty liver disease.

Continue: [responsibletechnology.org]]]> Jackie GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:28:10 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160598#msg-160598 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160598#msg-160598
[www.thenewatlantis.com]

Liz]]> Elizabeth GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:12:59 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160597#msg-160597 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160597#msg-160597
[www.thenewatlantis.com]

Liz]]> Elizabeth GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:48:47 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160595#msg-160595 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160595#msg-160595
Liz]]> Elizabeth GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:59:05 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160594#msg-160594 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160594#msg-160594 [www.abc.net.au]]]> Joe GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:52:40 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160593#msg-160593 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160593#msg-160593
We all have to do what is right for our own health, and if you want to continue to eat GMO and nonorganic food sprayed with Roundup, that is your choice. However, my doctor has told me I must eat organic because of my multiple chemical toxicities. But eating organic, as I said earlier, is becoming very difficult, because of cross-contamination of food from Roundup being sprayed on non-organic crops. The studies that Jackie referenced above report that even organic crops are being contaminated with Roundup.

Roundup is in the air, in the ground water, and in the rain water, so what is the answer? If we continue to flood our land with more and more Roundup, contamination may not be able to be reversed.

Why do you think that the European Union has banned Roundup by 2022? Certainly they will have to figure out a better way to deal with weeds if they want to grow food. We are just as innovative as the EU, so we should be able to do the same.

Nancy]]> Windstar GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:22:57 +0000 https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160590#msg-160590 Re: science behind glyphosate https://www.afibbers.org/forum/read.php?10,160561,160590#msg-160590
So what we have here is a computer scientist interested in artificial intelligence who thinks she can switch her expertise to medicine, biology, and epidemiology. Let’s just put it this way. An undergraduate degree in biophysics in 1968 does not qualify one to do this sort of research, and, as I discussed in her foray into autism and vaccine epidemiology, it really does show. Badly. The paper was so embarrassingly incompetent that I’m surprised any journal was willing to publish it.



Now compare those 8 published papers of Dr. Seneff to the 118, 280, 296, 400, and 470 papers published respectively by some of the top vitamin D researchers that have been cited by the Natural Health Perspective.

Her 8 published papers are so laughable that they are hardly worth reviewing.

In her paper on the metabolic syndrome, for example, it would be tempting to claim that she basically copied Lustig's position on fructose, who she mentions in at least one of her videos, and then adds the bit about a relatively low fat, low cholesterol diet in order to make her position seem somewhat different.

Dr. Seneff has not bothered to publish a paper on vitamin D. The Natural Health Perspective would be tempted to say that if an interviewer were to ask her about that she would claim that she is working on getting one published, which would basically mean that she has been unable to con a research journal into publishing a paper on that topic.

Most of her thunder is coming from her numerous slide show presentations that are available on YouTube. Much like the contestants on America's Got Talent Dr. Seneff has learned a lot from watching other academically oriented speakers.

After watching a few of her videos, one cannot help but notice that most of them are nothing but a poor rip-off of some of the main speakers who have been featured in a video on the Natural Health Perspective. Admittedly, however, Seneff does a lot better job of animating her Microsoft PowerPoint Slide Presentations, which expertise is no doubt coming from her computer background.

Then the most damning evidence against her claim that it is actually cholesterol sulfate rather than vitamin D that prevents cancer is two published research studies that have documented that cholesterol sulfate is a known marker for two different types of cancer: prostate cancer for males and ovarian and uterine cervical cancer for females. If cholesterol sulfate is so good at preventing cancer, why then can it be used to diagnose cancer?



In conclusion, Dr. Seneff appears likable on video. But, there is something off about her that at first is hard to put a finger on. The tip-off is without any advanced degrees in Health, or years of research experience, Stephanie presents herself as an expert on just about every topic imaginable.

Stephanie Seneff provides enough fluff for those who do not understand anything at all about how science works in order to support the delusions of people that strongly believe they can get enough sunshine in the States in order to save themselves from both heart disease and cancer. Sure sunning yourself is possible, but in most cases that would require using some type of a sun lamp on a daily basis. Using a lamp to artificially stimulate vitamin D production is no more "natural" than supplementation. The most delusional of them all seems to be Stephanie herself who resides in Boston, Massachusetts.

Not satisfied with the attention Dr. Seneff has gotten on just the vitamin D issue she has branched off on many other topics such as vaccines, dementia, autism, and the evils of the Roundup herbicide.

Vitamin D Supplements Work!

We have one entire article devoted to the health benefits of vitamin D.

On the Natural Health Perspective at least, vitamin D supplementation has NEVER been marketed as a quick fix for heart disease. Nor, is it being advocated as a quick fix for cancer, since it takes at least 3 years of daily supplementation. The evidence that supplementation with vitamin D effectively prevents cancer is quite solid. After over 30 years of research, the physical proof of effectiveness goes way beyond mere association.
•At least ten different physical mechanisms of action explain why vitamin D and calcium supplementation would be effective against age-related cancer.
•Vitamin D prevents cancer by controlling gene expression
•Vitamin D supplementation prevents cancer by boosting your natural immunity.
◦380+ Studies on Vitamin D and Immunity
◦35+ Studies on Vitamin D, Immunity, and Cancer

Furthermore, it has NEVER been about just vitamin D supplementation, since other nutrient cofactors are involved, such as calcium, magnesium, and selenium. These vitamin D cofactors can be effectively obtained from a healthy diet and / or by supplementation.

Of course, the gold standard of proof on the effectiveness of vitamin supplementation are randomized control trials (RCT). The definitive RCT research study to date on the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in preventing cancer is the Lappe Trial. Of course, there have been other randomized control trials on the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation.
•50+ RCTs on Vitamin D
•7+ RCTs on Vitamin D and Cancer

Whether or not sunning brings other factors into play is besides the point since RCTs have shown vitamin D supplementation, alone, to be effective.

Furthermore, the Natural Health Perspective advocates at least six different ways to prevent age-related cancer.


This article was originally published on 09/26/2014.


Liz]]> Elizabeth GENERAL HEALTH FORUM Wed, 07 Mar 2018 19:16:05 +0000