5 ms·

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ "Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ "Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance" Here, we propose that glyphosate is the most important causal factor in this [celiac disease and gluten intolerance] epidemic.

refurb 3y ago
Did you read the paper? My guess is no. Classic HN, references a paper as if the conclusions are fact and all references are equivalent. This is a paper where the authors did no experiments of their own, just put forth a hypotheses. The lead author is an “independent scientist”. Suffice to say I’d be very suspect of the conclusions drawn.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > The lead author is an “independent scientist”. The other one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff
  - refurb 3y ago
    Ooph… “In 2011, she began publishing controversial papers in low-impact, open access journals on biology and medical topics; the articles have received "heated objections from experts in almost every field she's delved into,"”
dahart 3y ago
Don’t forget this awesome quote: “However, a recent paper (Samsel & Seneff, 2013), argued that glyphosate may be a key contributor to the obesity epidemic and the autism epidemic in the United States, as well as to several other diseases and conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, infertility, depression, and cancer.” It’s causing all the bad things? That would be amazing if true, unfortunately it sounds unlikely (chiropractic comes to mind) and the rest of the science world doesn’t believe these authors. If the graphs in the paper seem compelling, make sure to spend some time here: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

refurb 3y ago

Did you read the paper? My guess is no. Classic HN, references a paper as if the conclusions are fact and all references are equivalent. This is a paper where the authors did no experiments of their own, just put forth a hypotheses. The lead author is an “independent scientist”. Suffice to say I’d be very suspect of the conclusions drawn.

bigbillheck 3y ago
> The lead author is an “independent scientist”. The other one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff
- refurb 3y ago
  Ooph… “In 2011, she began publishing controversial papers in low-impact, open access journals on biology and medical topics; the articles have received "heated objections from experts in almost every field she's delved into,"”

dahart 3y ago

Don’t forget this awesome quote: “However, a recent paper (Samsel & Seneff, 2013), argued that glyphosate may be a key contributor to the obesity epidemic and the autism epidemic in the United States, as well as to several other diseases and conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, infertility, depression, and cancer.” It’s causing all the bad things? That would be amazing if true, unfortunately it sounds unlikely (chiropractic comes to mind) and the rest of the science world doesn’t believe these authors. If the graphs in the paper seem compelling, make sure to spend some time here: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations