You might have more luck here

https://monsanto.com/company/contact-us/

Dang it Mom santo

Great post!!

I would imagine what's going on is the billion plus pounds of glyphosate that Satan's army of "farmers" have been spraying onto this planet for a long time now has built up in the air/soil/aquifers/lakes/rivers/etc so heavily that it has literally contaminated EVERYTHING. They are even finding it in the breast milk hardcore no GMO health addict yoga moms.

I'm not sure why your statement has been downvoted to oblivion, despite some colorful rhetoric there is plenty of evidence to show it has lasting residual effects in the environment. You asked a pertinent question.

Montanto shills and the reddit "scientists" who know it all :)

Yeah wow, you went from -11 to 0...Holy shit, shill brigades are real.

OR, organically, members of conspiracy came in over time and the main body of voters went from disagreeing to agreeing.

I'll admit that's a big swing, but i've swung from -8 to +10's before.

Yeah the -11 downvotes were within 2 hours of posting, the upswing came after. Hard to see that as organic imo.

Like i said, happened to me.

I frequently go from -3, -4 in the first 10 minutes to +6, +8 in 4 hours.

Ok fair enough. shills and brigaders are a reality though- check out the post history of the guy needlesintomatoes that asked me to cite sources in this comment thread.

Agreed.

It's just the new scapegoat for whenever a comment hits - downvotes. Everyone screams bloody murder about shills right away.

Can you cite that evidence. Scientific studies from reputable journals only please. No blogs.

Well I'm not a fan of teaching people how to think but here's an article from the NY times about how makers of Ben & Jerry's found trace amounts in 10 of the 11 samples they tested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/dining/ben-and-jerrys-ice-cream-herbicide-glyphosate.html

If you're unfamiliar with the residual persistence of roundup/glyphosate I suggest you do some further reading.

Well I'm not a fan of teaching people how to think

Ahh, I missed the totally undeserved smugness of /r/conspiracy users. Thanks for that.

but here's an article from the NY times about how makers of Ben & Jerry's found trace amounts in 10 of the 11 samples they tested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/dining/ben-and-jerrys-ice-cream-herbicide-glyphosate.html

From the caption below the image. Did you even read your own article.

Ten of 11 samples of Ben & Jerry’s ice creams contained traces of glyphosate — although at levels far below the ceiling set by the Environmental Protection Agency

I am also not sure what you thought you were achieving by linking this, this is not the evidence I asked for.

If you're unfamiliar with the residual persistence of roundup/glyphosate I suggest you do some further reading

I actually am familiar. That is why I asked for a scientific source from you that counters my knowledge on the subject. Please cite scientific evidence regarding the lasting residual effects of glyphosate on the environment. Once again, no blogs and no news articles. Actual scientific studies.

Look man, I've seen your post history. Do you wake up in the morning and go "I'm going to cheerlead for Monsanto because Im so passionate about herbicides!"?

So you have no scientific sources. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

Sigh- https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

"Glyphosate currently has the highest global production volume of all herbicides. The largest use
worldwide is in agriculture. The agricultural use of glyphosate has increased sharpl y since the
development of crops that have been genetically modified to make them resistant to glyphosate.
Glyphosate is also used in forestry, urban, and home applications. Glyphosate has been detected in the air during spraying, in water, and in food. The general population is exposed primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use, and diet"

Incidentally these findings also indicate it is "probably carcinogenic" to humans.

Group 2A means that the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (called chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out. This category is also used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and strong data on how the agent causes cancer.

We’re supposed to take your word that you have knowledge about it? C’mon man...

Found the shill. Knows CDC only allws private studies.

nows CDC only allws private studies.

Not a shill. If you have evidence that I am, please present it, otherwise all you are doing is demonstrating your disdain for sourcing your claims.

Knows CDC only allws private studies.

Source?

Look at your post history...

Either that or it's quite a good bot. What's seven multiplied by four?

Why is my post history relevant to this discussion?

Check his post history, blatant.

Haha how many threads about Monsanto are you posting in asking for evidence? You even posted in a thread about the anatomy of a shill asking for more information used to determine a shill!

You're adorable.

Yep. I like evidence.

You on the other hand seem to hate it.

Just making sure I totally disprove and out you before you run away (already posted this as a reply in a separate comment to you);

Sigh- https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

"Glyphosate currently has the highest global production volume of all herbicides. The largest use worldwide is in agriculture. The agricultural use of glyphosate has increased sharpl y since the development of crops that have been genetically modified to make them resistant to glyphosate. Glyphosate is also used in forestry, urban, and home applications. Glyphosate has been detected in the air during spraying, in water, and in food. The general population is exposed primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use, and diet"

Incidentally these findings also indicate it is "probably carcinogenic" to humans.

Oh look, he didn't even respond.

You left off an important bit there:

“The general population is exposed primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use, and diet, and the level that has been observed is generally low.”.

Oh, and the explanation of that classification. And the fact that the chemical has repeatedly bounced back and forth between being maybe carcinogenic and probably not being carcinogenic.

And the fact that this classification isn’t actually that big a deal.

Maybe the reason needlesintomatoes hasn’t acknowledged this “evidence” isn’t because he/she’s ignoring credible scientific sources, but because you’ve cherry picked and taken out of context a very specific section of a single source in a way that doesn’t even support your claims out of context.

Ok, so probably carcinogenic; "isn't actually that big a deal" in your world.

It is becoming patently obvious people are being over exposed to glyphosate despite Monsanto's best efforts to obfuscate this.

It's also kinda weird you mined this deep into older threads just to say this and to somewhat defend needlesintomatoes who acted somewhat blatantly like a shill (to the extent what he'd been accused of such here; https://www.reddit.com/r/SuspectedShills/comments/7hdld0/needlesintomatoes_a_new_account_thats_eager_to/), and who even 4 hours ago was still popping up in threads about GMO's and Monsanto...Are you the puppeteer of that sock? Haha.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

You know, it’s possible that regulators should take a fresh look at the toxicity of glyphosate with newer, better science, and with some newer findings (such as the higher persistence (than previously assumed) of the substance, and the fact that the substance may have other mechanisms that act via pathways found in vertebrates, and the fact that the chemical is being used in MUCH higher quantities and at higher frequencies than it was a decade ago). A healthy dose of skepticism is always healthy in the scientific community, and I’m sure you shouldn’t use glyphosate as the main ingredient in your potato salad.

But you’re ignoring the context of its reclassification, and blowing the consequences and implications of its usage way out of proportion.

Glyphosate was classified in group 2A based on substantial evidence in animals (rats, and to a lesser extent, pigs) , and limited evidence in humans. You know what else is classified as group 2A (probably carcinogenic) by IARC?

•Emissions from High-temperature frying

•emissions from household combustion of biomass fuel (primarily wood)

•occupational exposures in spraying and application of Non-arsenical insecticides

•Red meat

•Very hot beverages (more than 65• C)

•Being a barber/hairdresser

•Shift work that disrupts circadian rhythm.

•Glass manufacturing

You know what’s listed as group 1 (straight up carcinogenic)?

•Alcohol

•leather dust

•mineral oil

•salted fish

•processed meat

•soot

•shale oil

•sawdust

•silica dust

•many paints (containing benzene, which heavily used industrially)

Oh, and a host of viruses, radioactive materials, and random plants for both groups.

You’re (purposely) conflating “probably carcinogenic” (meaning, it may have certain properties, we don’t know, that if it is confirmed to have, would mean that it has the POTENTIAL to be at least a contributing factor of damage to certain aspects of a cell that would affect growth/regulation and lead to cancer) with “CAUSES CANCER” (in big flashing neon lights).

I didn’t mine a thread to say anything, I came across it while reading it- much in the same way you probably did when you left your first comment.

Since you seem to be fond of checking users post histories, you’ll have probably seen for yourself that I’ve been on this site for literal years, and I don’t look like a shill.

As for needlesintomatoes, think maybe the reason he’s always commenting about Monsanto is because he’s passionate about debunking the wide spread of uninformed conspiracy garbage? Or because he’s constantly under fire from an anti-GMO witch hunt? Maybe he doesn’t want to waste his time talking about GMO’s on the Internet, maybe he does, but I doubt he has much choice in the matter (outside of just abandoning his account).

Ok.

The thread you came across is a month old, I posted my comments in the first 24-48 hours of its creation. You must have been intentionally looking for threads that contained Monsanto/Glyphosate, otherwise you purposely returned to this thread to post a rebuttal to my comment.

needlesintomatoes (who may or may not be your sock) clearly enjoys, or feels compelled to "waste his time" talking about GMO's, glyphosate, Monsanto et al based on the almost exclusive post history he has about these topics.

The age of my account is irrelevant, there is nothing to indicate shill or agenda based behavior in my post history (I didn't use Reddit for a long time and forgot my login when I came back to it so made a new account).

Now addressing what filled up the bulk of your post.

Even classifying glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic" has attracted somewhat fierce accusations by (totally not bought and paid for by Monsanto) U.S politicians that they excluded key information. However this "key" information was from unpublished studies, or studies not publicly available as opposed to publicly available published studies that it drew its data from (you know, data that the world can actually see and verify for themselves). As such WHO representatives firmly stood by their findings.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/who-rebuts-house-committee-criticisms-about-glyphosate-cancer-warning

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the article, reading between the lines it quite blatant that Monsanto interests are the driving force behind the criticisms of WHO's findings (feel free to accuse me of being a conspiracy nut for saying that but take a look at the last paragraph of the article to understand there was enough suspicion of Monsantos malfeasance to warrant an investigation by the EPA's internal watchdog).

It is also indicated in the article that "identifying carcinogenic hazards is a crucially important and necessary first step in risk assessment and management; it should be a 'red flag' to those charged with protecting public health." Regulators can then take immediate action to ban or label carcinogenic substances, or use the observed data to determine how much risk the substances pose."

So its current classification being "not that much of a big deal" in your words is potentially the first step before changing its classification to group 1. Even so, group 2 is still made up of things that people should be informed about the risks of before being exposed to (did you include mention of being a hairdresser as something humorous or do you have sufficient insight to understand why that occupation is probably carcinogenic?).

I fully agree with your initial statement about reviewing glyphosate based on improved scientific processes and comprehension of its potential effects based on the data that has been accumulated over the years (by publicly available studies),

You accuse me of purposely conflating, not at all, I'm pointing out that glyphosate has been recognized as being (as a required first step) probably carcinogenic by a world renowned scientific body that stands by their ruling. So, rather than ignoring the context of its classification, I've just clarified it for you and I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. Needles (you?) asked me for evidence for my statement glyposate has residual persistence (this was, after all, what I had stated, I hadn't made any claims as to what this meant- aside from citing IARC's classification) and I provided this.

Don't think there's much else to say on this bud.

It doesn’t make any sense for needles to be a Monsanto shill. How on Earth would such a massive corporation even benefit from dedicating resources to something so trivial?

Anyway, I read the article. Basically, both sides are pointing the finger at the other.

Except that there’s actual evidence that the IARC coincidentally received funding from environmentalist groups (around the same time their report just happened to swing in the negative, after they removed research and evidence suggesting that the substance was non-carcinogenic), whereas there’s speculation that Monsanto was colliding with other researchers with positive reports. I personally don’t doubt the validity of either of those statements.

I’ll level with you: I haven’t read the various drafts of the IARC report. I don’t know where to find them, and if you do, I’d love to read the last minute changes. However, this comes from several sources widely regarded to be trustworthy and unbiased (Reuters, AP, Snopes, etc.), and none of them have any clue why IARC would make these changes (outside of speculation) because they simply haven’t provided any.

But you keep equating IARC with the WHO- it’s not. It’s an semi-autonomous offshoot of the agency.

Here’s an excerpt from an actual WHO meeting , a full year after IARC changed the classification of glyphosate:

1.2 Glyphosate (158) Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide. Several epidemiological studies on cancer outcomes following occupational exposure to glyphosate were available. The evaluation of these studies focused on the occurrence of NHL. Overall, there is some evidence of a positive association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL from the case–control studies and the overall meta- analysis. However, it is notable that the only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level. Glyphosate has been extensively tested for genotoxic effects using a variety of tests in a wide range of organisms. The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are available. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolites of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland. The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity.

Emphasis added.

What I’m trying to get across is that there isn’t all that much evidence to indicate that glyphosate is even all that harmful, much less in comparison to other herbicides: just to reiterate, you are blowing the implications of its reclassification WAY out of proportion. If anything, I’d venture to say that it’s a huge advancement in the field.

I’m not going to bother adding sources for that last sentence, as I doubt any of the MANY freely and easily available sources to back that up would convince you or anyone else here- like the credibility of the IARC report (as addressed above), that’s not even the argument.

And as for the hairdresser comment, yes, it was for humor, and yes, I fully understand why it’s considered a potential source of exposure at in Group 2A. I try to keep things light. But more importantly, I think it goes to show that the group sounds much scarier than it actually is. None of that stuff grows tumors, they exacerbate a process that occurs almost constantly already- of course, some things are much worse than others, both because of potency, exposure, and individual mechanisms.

I honestly don't know why you keep attempting to defend/represent needlesintomatoes...

The IARC also receive (perhaps the majority) of its funding from the U.S federal government ($48 million since 1985). If their findings showed no carcinogens and I attempted to say their findings were influenced by this funding I'd be labelled a conspiracy nut, and yet somehow you can can claim funding from environmentalist groups could sway their findings as a sober, researched claim? I can't actually find any info regarding alleged donors (aside from the list of donors on the IARC's website- none of them seem to match your statement though), can you point this out to me please?

You've cited Reuters as an unbiased source, yet according to the letter written by the IARC director, the reuters journalist was drawing their allegations from material ghost written by a Monsanto scientist (separately Forbes retracted an article and ended their relationship with another journalist exposed to be doing the same).

There's also an article that does an expose on the "hit piece" from reuters here.

The WHO meeting you cite is from May 2016, the article I cited in the last post was from Feb 2018 (you're right though, IARC are an independent arm of WHO and not specifically the same entity).

I'm not blowing anything out of proportion, I'm simply citing the IARC rulings as a legitimate scientific body.

I'm happy to rollback to the introductory paragraph from your last post saying that it it prudent to reevaluate glyphosate based on modern scientific methods and data.

I’m defending him because I don’t think he’s a shill, and the whole shill thing irritates me to no end. I just think he’s some dude who’s passionate about GMO’s, and within the first month of his account became subject to a witch hunt.

I never said IARC wasn’t a legitimate scientific body, I just don’t agree that their rulings are as significant as you’re holding them up to be.

And strangely enough, I distinctly remember reading while researching a reply last night that IARC removed details and research from their report that didn’t support their conclusion due to pressure from anti-gmo lobbyists- however I can’t seem to find that source again. So I guess until I can, you can just disregard that particular contention (that they did it due to external pressure), but the fact remains that they intentionally insured research for unknown purposes. It’s possible that (given I was replying right around the time I fell asleep) I kind of just slurred some articles together. Sorry about that.

And as for rolling back, I’m fine with that- but only because what we know about potential mechanisms of the substance and it’s persistence has changed a bit. I still don’t think it’s that dangerous, and the vast majority of both the scientific community and world regulatory agencies seem to agree- it’s politicians and their constituents that don’t.

And hundreds of litigations against Monsanto from people with cancer claiming it was glyphosate that caused it.

Sorry, he’s not my sock. I don’t have the energy or the dedication for that.

Though honestly, that’s not a bad idea. I may have to do that sometime.

At any rate, the litigations, while cause for concern, prove nothing- Whether or not that supports either of our arguments is contingent on whether or not they are right to begin with. We can’t make that assumption. IMO, the litigation is due to a huge wave of woo and paranoia. This is why I brought up that list of mundane stuff classified by the IARC- there are any number of potential sources of carcinogens with which people all over the world come into contact every day, many of which they put into their bodies and in their homes of their own free will. Glyphosate isn’t the culprit, it’s the scapegoat for everything people are afraid of in regards to Monsanto, GMO’s, and science in general. I’m not saying everyone suspicious of glyphosate is anti-science- I’m saying that the level of fear surrounding it is the result of widespread chemophobia in an uninformed public, and so even typically pro science people afford it Indie skepticism.

Aside from one of the worlds leading scientific bodies on cancer who have classed it as probably carcinogenic (as a place holder for potential graduation into being an outright carcinogen according to the statements of its director).

I agree there are waves of poorly informed people on witch hunts that flow back and forth across social media regarding any number of alleged imminent threats to our health. However, I also know that corporations like Monsanto will actively suppress and undermine any scientific data that threatens their cash cow. To believe the world of science is resolutely objective and unassailable from private interests and corruption is inherently naive. It remains to be seen to what extent glyphosate harms us (or our environment indirectly, those bees just keep dying).

And free will is the key statement there. If people want to drink alcohol every night, fully knowing the potential of harm, that is their right. Exposing people to toxins without their knowledge (or worse yet, with false claims of being benign) is an entirely different matter.

It's the worlds most widely used herbicide, I have no idea how much money it makes Monsanto but I'm sure its enough to fudge a few studies and character assassinate a some people here and there.

And ok, I'll drop the sock insinuations.

Thanks, and if there’s one thing here with with I agree, it’s the bit about the nature of the scientific community.

Well, two things- I’m super concerned about those bees, and other environmental factors. I’d honestly like to see it’s usage rolled back until they can do some more research on that stuff specifically.

However, I don’t believe it’s directly harmful to humans, at least not to a great extent, and it’s introduction to the industry has resulted in a widespread easily available herbicide that is objectively LOADS safer than most alternatives, including “organic” herbicides.

I find it somewhat contradictory that on the one hand you agree about the nature of the scientific community and on the other wholly dismiss the sentiment that glyphosate may be a lot more harmful than we know (which would be on the basis that disagreeable scientific findings are withheld or otherwise obfuscated- a possibility you've inadvertently acknowledged as valid).

On the other hand we've maintained a civil discourse throughout our discussion which is nice.

I’m not wholly dismissing that it may be more harmful- I’m dismissing the notion that it IS more harmful, because it hasn’t been shown to be more harmful. Should numerous good, peer-reviewed, publicly available studies show that it is more harmful than we know, than I’ll be all for it, but that’s not the case. I’m agreeing with you because obviously scientists make mistakes, research groups and think tanks feel pressure from political agendas, and have agendas of their own, etc., etc.: what’s important to note is that this is why we have a system to begin with. Scientists and researchers are fallible, so we have peer review to filter out the garbage, and to promote good science. Therefore, I stand by the scientific consensus, which is subject to change.

Also, I aim for civil discourse- I used to flame war, but That stopped having value for me long before it stopped being entertaining. This is more pleasant. I’ll admit though, I have to make a conscious effort to refrain from swearing left and right lol.

logical questions aren't usually welcome anywhere on this site anymore....SAD

Lets look at it another way, shall we? Which race gets its children vaccinated the most? Which one now is suffering from a decline in actual population? There's more at play here. In short, vaccines do not need chemical additives. The only plausible reason to add poision to them is to kill or alter a normal, healthy body. Same with flouride in the water. Same with most of the preservatives being added to every piece of food you eat. So the air is polluted, the water contaminated, the vaccines deadly, the food poisioned, hell..... Its a miracle anybody lives past puberty. Seems like they try to start killing you the day you are born.

They are indeed. Hep B vaccine before you leave the hospital. For an STD. That's some fucked up shit.

Honstly, if I were young and were getting a family started it would be an at home birth with a birthmother. Seriously, the more you hear about what happens at hospitals with newborns the worse it is....

White genoreeeeeeeeee

Lets look at it another way, shall we? Which race gets its children vaccinated the most? Which one now is suffering from a decline in actual population? There's more at play here.

What exactly do you mean to imply with this?

However you take it. You and I both know who regularily takes their kids to doctors, free or not, for regular checkups in their youth. Those are the kids currwnt with their shot schedule. And since 1995(?) Schools could reject at their discretion kids failing to have updated vaccines. Now if the kids dont go to school, then the prents lose custody and have a real threat of jail time. So you tell ME who gets their kids vaccinated as recommended..... Quit fishing, say what you mean or sit down and shut up.

It's clear what I mean. I want you to clarify whether you're using the fact that whites see the highest rates of vaccination of any race to implicate vaccines in the decline of the white birthrate. I'm not disputing the fact that whites are the most commonly vaccinated, or that white reproduction is down, but the connection you appear to be drawing between these two things is completely illogical. Also why even waste words telling me to shut up? What are you going to do, tough guy?

However you take it. You and I both know who regularily takes their kids to doctors, free or not, for regular checkups in their youth. Those are the kids currwnt with their shot schedule. And since 1995(?) Schools could reject at their discretion kids failing to have updated vaccines. Now if the kids dont go to school, then the prents lose custody and have a real threat of jail time. So you tell ME who gets their kids vaccinated as recommended..... Quit fishing, say what you mean or sit down and shut up.

This post is a Mess. Cobbled together with various sources that have little to do with each other. There is not one credible source in regards to your claim that there is Glyphosat in any Vaccine.

You are Spreading Harmful misinformation. But just fuck it right?

Moms Across America filed FOIA to get any information the FDA has compiled on glyphosate and vaccines and they got back a pile of paper with a bunch of reactions and blank pages.

First, we informed the FDA we found glyphosate in vaccines and asked the FDA and CDC to test for glyphosate in vaccines. They did not address that request in their response. Then I filed a FOI to request any and all information they had on glyphosate in vaccines. I wanted to know if they tested ( and just didn't tell us), or who decided not to test, and what information they had on glyphosate in vaccines.

Their response is infuriating, unjust and some might argue, potentially criminal.

Over 50% of the pages from the FDA were redacted. Many completely blank.

https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/fda_hides_information_on_glyphosate_in_vaccines

Transparency!

Monsanto tells us there's no glyphosate in vaccines and the FDA refuses to share what they know.

Let's not be naive.

Let's not be naive.

Right.. let's not.
Even the anti-GMO activist group themselves admit that their "research" is not meant to be a full scientific study. It was conducted by a private company lacking the necessary expertise, by a "research scientist/consultant" without a science degree. Also, their testing method (ELISA) was deemed unsuitable (ie. not at all accurate at measuring anything in low parts per billion).

So why are they demanding the FDA and CDC take them seriously?

Should the FDA and CDC test for the stuff that turns the frogs gay next? /s

You mean the pesticide Atrazine? There's no need, it's already been proven it can cause complete feminization.

Alex Jone's unhinged, meme inspiring rhetoric is one thing, facts are another.

Atrazine

Wait.. so now you say there's not just evidence of one but two different weedkillers in vaccines?
Are you going to try to convince me next Dr. Mengele himself is brewing these evil vaccines? /s

You made a throwaway reference to Alex Jone's "turn the freaking frogs gay" remark. If you knew the origin of this statement, he was lamenting chemicals going into the water supply that were doing this.

I was pointing out that studies in 2010 actually proved that residual elements of Atrazine did feminize the frogs.

You're conflating 2 topics based on your unfamiliarity of the meme you referenced.

You're conflating 2 topics based on your unfamiliarity of the meme you referenced.

No I'm not. I was merely illustrating that for extraordinary claims extraordinary evidence is required.

No, that's an inherently subjective and therefore unscientific premise.

Claims require evidence, true empirical science does not precondition the nature of evidence required, that would be utterly antithetical to science itself.

In other words that's a ridiculous premise (also the example you gave of something "extraordinary", was in fact proven to be true just by conventional, ordinary evidence).

No, that's an inherently subjective and therefore unscientific premise.

I disagree.

The phrase is central to the scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.
The presence of weedkiller in vaccines is objectively an extraordinary claim.

If you're saying the moon is made of cheese then yes, you would require a voluminous amount of evidence to demonstrate this to negate the existing evidence that indicates it's made of rock. Extraordinary by quantity.

As far as I understand no one has said that vaccines have been tested and contain no glyphosate, simply that the evidence provided is inadequate to justify testing for it (despite monsanto's own representative saying the type of testing done was specifically intended to indicate whether more involved and more expensive testing was required- which it has).

It's already been established glyphosate has residual persistence in the environment and organisms so it actually isn't outlandish at all to wonder whether if it can make it into vaccines via the organic material used in them. Or is it? I don't know, if an accredited party could carry out the necessary testing to establish this then we'd all know for sure.

(despite monsanto's own representative saying the type of testing done was specifically intended to indicate whether more involved and more expensive testing was required- which it has)

Actually what they said was that had the test been done in water - which it wasn't - it would be reason to conduct a more expensive test to confirm. /nitpicking

As I understand is the FDA has only put glyphosate testing on hold

“As testing for glyphosate will expand to several locations, we are currently working to ensure that the methods are validated for use in these labs. As soon as the validation is completed, testing for glyphosate will resume,”

So perhaps they'll include vaccine testing as well.

It sounds like it would be a worthwhile idea, it is proven to have residual persistence and has been classified as "probably carcinogenic" via WHO.

https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

Appreciate the civil debate.

Ditto.
Have a good one.

You are Spreading Harmful misinformation.

Welp, found the monsatan operative. Can you please go on camera and drink glyphosatan? Thanks

lulz

Not a Monsanto operative...figure it out :D

Well ok, as long you say so, I have no choice but to believe a random internet poster who invests glyphosate on the regular to prove to others that is safe

I said that there is ZERO Evidence of Glyphosat in Vaccines.

But if you like to believe the exact opposite, and claim now that i actually said that Glyphosat is good and can be drunken like Fanta...well..im sorry, but that narrative does not exist in this specific reality we are sharing.

In other words, dont make shit up...especially if the source you are misquoting is literally just a few pixels above your comment.

You obviously don't know about Patrick Moore, an environmentalist and advocate for GMO, who said Rouindup was so safe you could drink a quart of it. It was a joke and you didn't get it.

Business as usual for op

got anything of value to add to the conversation

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Yup.. post facts that question the narrative, get downvoted.
Business as usual in this bastion of "truth seekers" and conspiracy "researchers".

I agree with OP that your post is a Gish Gallop of misinformation.
In another post in this topic I pointed out why I find the 'glyphosate in vaccines' hypothesis highly doubtful. I also provided the reply from Monsanto (which you explicitly asked for in your topic title).
Instead of replying in substantive terms people evidently rather mash the downvote button since it apparently doesn't conform to the standard 'anti-vax' narrative in this sub. Lots of people are seemingly inclined to react emotionally on this (and similar) subject(s) and incapable of discussing evidence-based.
This is unfortunate as it stifles any meaningful discussion and turns this sub into a circlejerking echo chamber.

i suspect you have a short attention span, can't retain what you read, get frustrated trying to comprehend the significance of what you read, and have always considered every text book in school to be a form of Gish Gallop

Quite the contrary; In contrast to many gullible people here I apply critical thinking to spot misinformation/lies/pseudoscience, which sadly your OP is full of.

Quick, blame the messenger! Wait, the messenger is clean.

Quick, blame the format!

WTF? apparently (Monsanto's?) glyphosate has been found in vaccines?

Highly doubtful

(Monsanto has also responded; here)

Ok, so then at this point an independent scientific body should conduct tests with appropriate methodology and publish the results, rather than relying on hit pieces written by Monsanto employees attempting to discredit and dismiss the accusation.

Sure.. by all means.
I'd expect the accusers to come up with solid/reliable evidence of their claims first, though.

Therein lies the rub though eh? The methodology and credentials are undermined as an alternative to proving them wrong. Considering the traction it has already gained running an independent study would be the best way put the accusation to rest.

The methodology and credentials are undermined as an alternative to proving them wrong.

I'd argue they undermined themselves.
As long as they don't provide adequate evidence for their claims I honestly don't see why anyone should take them seriously.

They went through channels available to them to test it, based on their findings they asked FDA and CDC to conduct their own tests and also made a FOIA request for more information about the ingredients. Their request was ignored and the FOIA information was so heavily redacted it was effectively useless. Can you suggest a party they could approach who would provide adequate testing?

It wasn't ignored.
By their own admission: "The FDA also came back and said that they were discontinuing further testing for glyphosate in anything [..] because they questioned the reliability of the methodology."
So, the logical next step for them would be to provide reliable evidence. It's not that complicated.

Ok you're right it wasn't ignored they were just told they weren't going to do it.

Can you suggest a party they can approach to carry out testing that meets the criteria?

they were just told they weren't going to do it

.. because they questioned the reliability of their methodology.

Can you suggest a party they can approach to carry out testing that meets the criteria?

Sure.. a biochemical/toxicology lab with an NMR spectrometer, for instance.

I wonder how much the services of such a lab would cost?

Monsanto themselves said regarding the Microbe Inotech lab testing that; "The testing method used here for vaccines appears to be a method that was developed as a quick and inexpensive screening test for water samples to decide whether additional testing with a more expensive and precise method is needed" (my italics)

MAAM paid for initial testing to assess whether additional (more expensive) testing was required and evidently did so.

I'm not sure how much NMR spectrometry testing would cost by an appropriately accredited lab, I guess that responsibility rests with a non profit, scientifically unaccredited organization to investigate and pay for themselves, rather than the government agencies with the appropriate hardware and resources already tasked with the specific purpose of ensuring what the general populace is exposed to is as safe as possible.

the government agencies with the appropriate hardware and resources already tasked with the specific purpose of ensuring what the general populace is exposed to is as safe as possible.

You are of course aware that they already do this, right?

Yes, but apparently not in regards to glyphosate otherwise the data would be publicly available and this whole topic wouldn't be getting discussed.

And then we go back to inadequate evidence being presented to justify testing and the debate loop starts over.

vaccines cause autism and that vaccines cause tics

Scientific evidence, from studies done all over the world, disagrees;

BS Hooker and William Thompson try to talk about epidemiology

 

What Parents Need to Know about Autism Research

Yeah, I get it..CDC not credible, immunology experts not credible, I suppose anyone who doesn't subscribe to the anti-vaccination religion is not credible in your book. They have a term for that, it's called conformation bias.
Anyway.. regarding

Dorit's stance that babies who die after vaccines die of SIDS, but that vaccines do not cause SIDS.

I'm guessing you're refering to the tragic Catone case.
It was actually Ms. Catone who treated the death as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Reiss commented that a) the child was too old for SIDS, b) Ms. Catone seemed to have been willing to accept an ill supported article on SIDS as proof and c) vaccinations actually reduce the risk of SIDS.

Regarding

suggesting that a baby can safely receive 10,000 vaccines

Misdirection.
Exact quote : "each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time" Perhaps you would like to take Matt Carey - also a parent of an autistic child - up on his challenge?

the kid got a vaccine, and immediately regressed into the symptoms that would later be diagnosed as autism

I believe that you believe that, but scientific facts show the contrary; Here’s a list of 125 peer-reviewed articles, published in high impact factor journals, that document the lack of correlation (and therefore causation) between vaccines and autism.

anything that reflects poorly on vaccines

Read my previous post again.
There apparently was no reliable evidence reflecting poorly on vaccines and therefore nothing to discredit.
There is, on the other hand, a mountain of solid evidence that vaccines are safe, effective and save lives.

would you mind citing this supposed evidence?

13 Vaccines That Save Lives Around the World - Vaccines for deadly diseases save millions of lives each year

I've never claimed vaccines don't have risks of negative side effects. Adverse effects are however rare and the general consensus is that benefits vastly outweigh the risks.
Example:
Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review

the claim that vaccines eradicated small pox, when in fact there is no evidence to support that claim

Courtesy of UoC Berkeley;

Even today, despite the obvious success of the vaccine, some people argue that smallpox was eradicated not by the vaccine but as a result of better hygiene or medical treatment. While improved hygiene and sanitation have improved public health in some aspects, cleanliness alone cannot prevent the spread of an infectious disease like smallpox. This disease spreads through droplets in the air and in saliva, not through dirt on the floor or because of unsanitary conditions. This is why even in industrialized, wealthy nations, smallpox continued to be a serious threat until the vaccine. And likewise, if cleanliness were the reason smallpox was conquered, then it would not have disappeared from the developing world, where poor hygiene and medical treatment remain realities.

But the best evidence that the vaccine for smallpox led to the eradication of the disease is found in the numbers. Between 1900 and 1949, prior to routine use of the smallpox vaccine in the U.S., there were approximately 29,000 cases of smallpox annually in the U.S. After the mass vaccination program, there were zero cases of wild smallpox in the United States (and the entire planet, too). Isn't that simply astonishing? Once nearly 30,000 Americans suffered from smallpox every year and now, not a single person anywhere in the world gets the disease. What a remarkable testament to the power of vaccination.

 

your second source merely says that some vaccines cause some side effects, but that the side effects are "rare".

Which they are - serious adverse effects anyway.
see: Possible Side-effects from Vaccines

you can tell that its a pseudoscientific paper, because they use "ballpark measurements" to describe the frequency of side effects, instead of precise, accurate measurements

You're wrong; Systematic reviews - like the research I linked to - are actually considered the pinnacle in the hierarchy when it comes to 'strength of evidence' in biomedical research.

I got a nephew under 2, and his mom, my sister, is totally mainstream. I danced around the vax questions as best I could and he cleared the 6 month hurdle so hopefully this particular one is safe. I dunno what I'd do if he had an acute negative reaction.

I wonder if someday "Going Postal" will mutate to "Going Vax."

It wont.

Stephanie Seneff at MIT is one of the best researchers on this topic. Check one of her YouTube talks out.

I appreciate this post. One question, and I ask not to be harassed: What would be the advantage of making the future population autistic? Would it be to dumb down the population and lessen the probability that the govt. is overthrown?

This is the Global Population Reduction, imo.

I stopped reading at the peanut oil thing. Your information is completely wrong.

First off there is no peanut allergy epidemic. In the states there were 6 deaths from nut allergies in 2015. Pregnancy and child birth killed 1,140. Four hundred million people. 6 deaths.

Second the peanut paranoia is what causes peanut allergies. The simplest way to prevent peanut allergies is to feed infants peanuts. Basic research will found extensive evidence. This applies to many other allergies. If you keep your kid in too sterile an environment their system starts to treat normal everyday materials as foreign and thus triggers an allergic reaction.

Thank you. My brain hurts too much for this level of stupid.

I can think of a business reason...

Awesome post dude. Saved to fully read later :)

Is anywhere in that mess of random nonsensical stuff anything that suggest glyphosate was ever found in any vaccine?

You are sending me to a search engine for the post's main assertion?

Just on the peanut oil thing: it’s really commonly used as a carrier for injectables that aren’t soluble in water. It’s fairly cheap and we have lots of data on its use. Canola oil or some other fatty oils are sometimes used too.

People who get injections are watched for the development of anaphylaxis regularly and med staff will always have adrenaline to hand in case. I don’t believe there is any peanut allergy epidemic or anything like that.

It improves the financial biology of Monsanto executives to buy more scientists and doctors.

Vaccines cause Adults.

Dang it Mom santo

got anything of value to add to the conversation

However you take it. You and I both know who regularily takes their kids to doctors, free or not, for regular checkups in their youth. Those are the kids currwnt with their shot schedule. And since 1995(?) Schools could reject at their discretion kids failing to have updated vaccines. Now if the kids dont go to school, then the prents lose custody and have a real threat of jail time. So you tell ME who gets their kids vaccinated as recommended..... Quit fishing, say what you mean or sit down and shut up.

However you take it. You and I both know who regularily takes their kids to doctors, free or not, for regular checkups in their youth. Those are the kids currwnt with their shot schedule. And since 1995(?) Schools could reject at their discretion kids failing to have updated vaccines. Now if the kids dont go to school, then the prents lose custody and have a real threat of jail time. So you tell ME who gets their kids vaccinated as recommended..... Quit fishing, say what you mean or sit down and shut up.

the claim that vaccines eradicated small pox, when in fact there is no evidence to support that claim

Courtesy of UoC Berkeley;

Even today, despite the obvious success of the vaccine, some people argue that smallpox was eradicated not by the vaccine but as a result of better hygiene or medical treatment. While improved hygiene and sanitation have improved public health in some aspects, cleanliness alone cannot prevent the spread of an infectious disease like smallpox. This disease spreads through droplets in the air and in saliva, not through dirt on the floor or because of unsanitary conditions. This is why even in industrialized, wealthy nations, smallpox continued to be a serious threat until the vaccine. And likewise, if cleanliness were the reason smallpox was conquered, then it would not have disappeared from the developing world, where poor hygiene and medical treatment remain realities.

But the best evidence that the vaccine for smallpox led to the eradication of the disease is found in the numbers. Between 1900 and 1949, prior to routine use of the smallpox vaccine in the U.S., there were approximately 29,000 cases of smallpox annually in the U.S. After the mass vaccination program, there were zero cases of wild smallpox in the United States (and the entire planet, too). Isn't that simply astonishing? Once nearly 30,000 Americans suffered from smallpox every year and now, not a single person anywhere in the world gets the disease. What a remarkable testament to the power of vaccination.

 

your second source merely says that some vaccines cause some side effects, but that the side effects are "rare".

Which they are - serious adverse effects anyway.
see: Possible Side-effects from Vaccines

you can tell that its a pseudoscientific paper, because they use "ballpark measurements" to describe the frequency of side effects, instead of precise, accurate measurements

You're wrong; Systematic reviews - like the research I linked to - are actually considered the pinnacle in the hierarchy when it comes to 'strength of evidence' in biomedical research.

Ok, so probably carcinogenic; "isn't actually that big a deal" in your world.

It is becoming patently obvious people are being over exposed to glyphosate despite Monsanto's best efforts to obfuscate this.

It's also kinda weird you mined this deep into older threads just to say this and to somewhat defend needlesintomatoes who acted somewhat blatantly like a shill (to the extent what he'd been accused of such here; https://www.reddit.com/r/SuspectedShills/comments/7hdld0/needlesintomatoes_a_new_account_thats_eager_to/), and who even 4 hours ago was still popping up in threads about GMO's and Monsanto...Are you the puppeteer of that sock? Haha.